Archive for May, 2007

Memorial Day–An appropriate day for silence

Friday, May 25th, 2007

Many people in this world have had the misfortune of knowing somebody that they intensely disliked. For some it is the relative that overstays their welcome. For others, it is a rival in school or at work. For others sadly enough, it is those closest to them. Yet when tragedy befalls someone we dislike, the most noble of us resist the urge to feel glee at the permanent suffering of another. Even if we are delighted that a perceived obstacle to our happiness has been removed, we keep silent, and conduct ourselves with dignity. One thing we do not do is go to their funeral, and badmouth them. We leave them be.

As we approach Memorial Day weekend, many individuals and families will be focusing on barbecues, sales at the malls, blockbuster summer movies, driving to see friends and family, and of course, sleeping in. These activities do not do anything to help society, but they do no harm as well. What is harmful is taking a solemn day and disrespecting it by dishonoring the people this holiday is for. If one wants to rant about war and soldiers, there is always Veteran’s Day (which is also tactless, but ever so slightly less so). Not Memorial Day. Memorial Day is a funeral. When people died at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11, we mourned respectfully. We must show the same respect for fallen military personnel as we do to fallen private citizens, because soldiers are citizens as well.

There is talk of leading an anti-war protest march on Memorial Day. One can be against the War in Iraq and still be a patriotic dissenter (although horribly misguided and utterly wrong). Protesting against the war on Memorial Day simply makes one a disgusting human being. Period. There is a time and a place for everything, and people can either be narcissistic, self-absorbed garbage, or they can be civilized human beings.

It does matter that some people may have disliked your mother. Other people loved her, and they do not want to hear about those who hated her at her funeral. People who loathe the military, hate war, and despise soldiers in general, should understand that many people love these people, and they don’t want to hear the hatred at the anniversary of their collective funerals.

Respectful people can agree to disagree about the War in Iraq, and yes, even about all war. Disrespectful people spit on people’s graves, whether literally or figuratively. Even many of those who disagree with the Iraq War would concede that The Revolutionary War of 1776, the Civil War in 1861, and World War II in 1941 were noble endeavors. In fact, World War II is often referred to as “the good war.” Protesting on Memorial Day dishonors all of those soldiers. There is no distinction. Memorial Day is for all the soldiers who died, or for none of them.

Those who want to protest the week before or the week after, or any of the 360 days a year that do not fall on Memorial Day weekend, have plenty of time and ability to do so. It would be a strategic mistake politically, as well as a horrible act of wretchedness, to spend the one day reserved for heroes, and tarnishing it. For every soldier who may have disagreed with the mission that cost them their life, there are many more…let me say again…many more…soldiers that believed in what they were doing, and were accepting of the fact that their death came at the cost of a greater good.

We toss around words like “freedom” and “liberty” as if those are automatic in any society. They are not. American soldiers fought for them. They bled and died for them. It is reasonable to expect…nay, to demand…that we honor them by either providing beautiful tributes, or if unable to say anything positive, following our mothers’ advice and staying silent.

It is not patriotic to disrupt a funeral, or an anniversary of one. It is egomaniacal. If those who are against the Iraq War truly support the troops (which is odd since they despise their mission), they will leave well enough alone this weekend, and allow the deceased soldiers to rest in peace. After all, without them, there would be no peace at all. Soldiers fight wars so Americans can live in peace. It is time we return the favor for them.

May God bless the USA, and may every American soldier in every cemetery everywhere know that the world is a better place because of you. You are heroes, and America is the greatest nation on Earth because of you.

For those who want to go above and beyond, do not wait until Veteran’s Day to honor those who survived. Many fallen soldiers want their surviving brothers and sisters to be given the love and support they need and deserve. So to those who fought and survived…”May God Bless you as well. Thank you, and welcome home.”


The many reasons why I like President Bush—A LOT!

Thursday, May 24th, 2007

A gentleman from Britain asked me the other day how anyone could possibly like President Bush, and that he did not know anyone who did. I pointed out to him that liberal Manhattan columnist Pauline Kael did not know one person in 1972 who voted for Richard Nixon, even though he won 49 states. This British fellow watches BBC, and while normally I would not bother to engage him, he was so incredibly polite and sincere in his effort to hear a dissenting viewpoint that I felt compelled to respond. My blog is about promoting healthy dialogue and debate, and this fellow, while being to the left, was quite reasonable. Here is my response to him. It is longer than Tolstoy’s War and Peace, because my reasons for liking the President a lot are  numerous. Now, my ode to “The Dub.”


Although you said a mouthful, I will do my best to respond only because you come across as very thoughtful. I will not be giving you an unbiased perspective, because I am quite biased. I am a conservative, and my heroes include Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. My opinion is mine alone, and you could ask other Americans, and they would disagree with me. Now to do my best to answer your questions. You come across as very likable, and I am happy to disagree with you while not being disagreeable.

The BBC is left wing. So are the New York Times and MSNBC. CNN is to the left, although less so. Fox News is considered center right, but the left likes to call it right wing. Fox News bothers the left, but the truth is Fox News does not stifle debate. Without Fox News, there is no debate. The left has ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, etc…The left in America is angry that the right has any voice at all. You should watch Fox News, not because they are always right, but because it is a perspective that you will never get on BBC or the others. Other fabulous sources are the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, The New York Post (NOT the NY Times) and which links to sites on the left and right.

One funny thing about Americans is that we reserve the right to fiercely criticize our leaders, but get enraged and rally around them when others do so…especially the French. In fact, the election of 2004 came down to Ohio. Some citizens in one town in England decided to adopt one town in Ohio as their “sister city.” They wrote letters to these Ohio citizens asking them to support Kerry. It backfired. This town, normally pretty centrist, voted overwhelmingly for President Bush even as their surrounding cities split evenly. They resented the foreign interference.

Here are several reasons why I like the President.

1) His economic policies are FABULOUS. The US economy was good during the Clinton years, but it is even better now.One respected economist Larry Kudlow calls the US economy “The Greatest story never told.” The war in Iraq overshadows everything, and I understand that. However, the economy right now is doing well. One main reason for this is the President’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I support supply side economics, which is the heart of Reaganomics. Respectable people can disagree on whether supply side theory works. I believe it does. The US stock market (no longer for the rich, now many small investors own stock) has never been higher, inflation is low, unemployment is low, etc. The media will not talk about this good news because good news does not sell, and republicans are hated by the media in this country outside of Fox News.

2) I am Jewish. My father is a Holocaust survivor. The President is the best friend Israel has ever had. Now the BBC is almost as anti-Israel as Al Jazeera, but for anyone who cares about Israel and Jews, President Bush is fantastic. When other nations are attacked, they fight back. When Israel is attacked on a daily basis, they are told to exercise restraint. This is nonsense. George W. Bush let Ariel Sharon run wild, and I will forever be grateful for that. Diplomacy does not work with genocidal lunatics. Force is the only solution. 70-80% of Jews are democrats, but that is because they tend to care more about social issues such as abortion then Israel. They are liberal first, and Jewish second. Also, most Jews are secular. Secular Jews and Christians vote democrat, religious Jews and Christians vote republican. I am not saying democrats are Godless, but by and large the more one goes to church/synagogue/mosque, the more one votes republican.

3) I am an unabashed, unashamed supporter of the War on Terror, and believe the Iraq war was the right thing to do. One day I will have to answer before God, and I pray I am right. As of now, I will go to my grave believing it was and is right. To avoid spending hours on this topic alone, please read the article on my blog entitled “The Iraq War–Legally and Morally right then and now.” I do not expect you to agree with me, but I break down why I feel this way point by point.

4) I like his trade policies. I believe in Free Trade, such as NAFTA and CAFTA. Isolationism and protectionism are wrong, tariffs and quotas are a mistake. I believe in an international global world with very few trade barriers.

5) I support the NRA. I know Europe does not like America’s gun culture, but in America, the areas with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates, and the areas with the loosest gun laws have the lowest crime rates. Gun control does not work because criminals do not obey laws. When you disarm law abiding citizens, crime goes up. President Bush understands this.

6) His choices for the US Supreme Court have been superb. To me whether a justice is liberal or conservative is less important than that they are the finest legal minds. Past presidents republicans and democrats have picked choices that were not the very best. President Bush picked Sam Alito, a very bright man. His choice for Chief Justice, John Roberts, is one of the finest legal minds in American history. Intellectually, the guy is a heavyweight, the top of the legal food chain. He did pick someone else that was seen as a lightweight, but she was not confirmed, so no harm done. He truly has helped make the Supreme Court a deliberative body of  legal excellence.

When I say I could care less that the rest of the world hates us, what I mean is that a leader of America has to lead America. We cannot let the fact that other nations disagree with us force us to alter our policies. I will even take it a step further. Even if 51% of the people disagree with the President, he should not automatically abandon his position. Bush’s critics call him stubborn, but I see him as resolute. Stubborn is when one is wrong and refuses to change. Resolute is when someone is right and refuses to change. Bill Clinton was popular because he followed popular opinion. That is not leadership.

Lastly, and this is not to make excuses, Bill Clinton was President during an inconsequential time. The Cold War had ended, and 9/11 was far away. Anybody could have led America in the 1990s. President Bush is a war president, and he has made unpopular decisions. Reevaluation is acceptable, but not to the point of vacillating. I understand a lot of the world is against the Iraq War, but President Bush cannot use that as his guide. Also, France and Germany have elected conservative leaders to go along with John Howard as a staunch US supporter. Aznar in Spain and Berlusconi in Italy backed Bush when they were in power. I have traveled to Thailand and Singapore, and they were very Pro-American. Again, the BBC is not a good source in terms of unbiased news.

Anyway, I will visit your nation one day, if for no other reason than I find British women to be the hottest, classiest women in the world. If I found one who is a Tory, and Jewish, I would marry her tomorrow.

Oh, and I loved Whitesnake and Def Leppard, and Dangermouse was my favorite cartoon growing up. American Football is my biggest passion, and the very first game in England will be played October 28th. I hope you enjoy it.

Be well good sir,


Goodbye Rosie Queen of Morona Part II

Thursday, May 24th, 2007

Apparently Fatah and Hamas killing each other is just not sexy enough for the media, which never seems interested in winning the war against nonsense. It is in that spirit that the latest smackdown between Rosie “Queen of Morona” O’Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck comes into play. Rosie repeatedly lashed out at Elizabeth for having the nerve to not defend her for lashing out repeatedly. Then Rosie, after repeatedly fighting with Elizabeth, said she was not going to fight with her. She said:

“I am not going to fight her because tomorrow the media will blame Ugly, Fat, Lesbian, Loud Rosie for picking on Pure, Innocent, Christian Elizabeth.”

I have to give Rosie this…she managed to offend virtually every group in society in one sentence. She played the victim card, and to the hilt. Critics of Rosie (yes, hopefully they are many) should not take the bait.

Do not attack her for being fat. Rush Limbaugh is fat. So are other people that are not Rosie. She is blameless for her weight, at least in terms of it being a reason to attack her.

Do not attack her for being ugly. Nobody on the show or in the media called her ugly. She said that about herself. Yes, she was claiming the media would say it about her, but that was an attempt at self inoculation. Rosie is ugly, but it is her insides that are truly hideous. That is fair game. She is blameless for her outsides. She is 100% to blame for her insides. Her being a lesbian is irrelevant. Plenty of homosexual people contribute positive elements to society. Rosie is not one of them.

Rosie is trying to pretend that an attack on her is an attack on all lesbians or overweight people. Attack Rosie, and become a sexist homophobe. She is not the first person to abuse this strategy.

Hillary Clinton decks her political opponents, and then plays the girlie girl routine the minute anyone criticizes her about anything. This is how her husband can abuse women, and blame it on a right wing conspiracy. Like Newt Gingrich forced Bill into a room with Monica by waving a steak and saying “Go get her boy.”

Jim McGreevey is the  corrupt former governor of New Jersey (I know, they all seem corrupt, even by Jersey standards McGreevey was special) who also happens to be gay. Upon resigning in disgrace, McGreevey said that the world was not ready for a gay governor. No Mr. McGreevey. New Jersey was tired of your corruption. Being too corrupt to run New Jersey means you are really far gone.

Rosie O’Donnell not only tried to inoculate herself, but she also lashed out at Elizabeth for having the nerve to being a member of a beautiful religious faith, that being Christianity.

After telling Elizabeth that no one wants to hear her “republican crap,” Rosie began spewing left wing venom herself. Christians are often accused of bigotry, but the only person throwing around ahte speech was Rosie.

Rosie, I will put it in language that even you the Queen of Morona can understand. I could care less if you are fat, ugly and a daughter of Sappho. I care that you are an ideological bigot. You despise republicans, conservatives and Christians.

Elizabeth is a sweet, kind woman who conducts herself with dignity. Rosie is a vicious bully with no regard for human decency. Elizabeth raises the level of public discourse, and Rosie lowers it. Rosie cannot leave the View soon enough. She is hate speech, and hate speech is her.  There is no place for her in civilized society any more.  Oh no, wait…she can sit next to Jimmy Carter in his luxury box at the democratic convention, like Michael Moore did. Then again, I did say civilized, so there is still no place for her hate filled invective anywhere in that society.

Good job Elizabeth. Deck this bully verbally between the eyes. America will still see you as the sweet, pure Christian that you are. As for Rosie, she knows what she is. She told us herself on television, for all to see.


U.S. Liberals and Palestinian Terrorists–Different means, same end

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007

As the politics of personal destruction is guided in America by warrior liberals (the only time liberals ever support war is against republicans), real destruction is taking place in the Middle East. While normally this would not be news, in this case it is significant because it is Fatah vs Hamas, in a battle to see which lunatic genocidal faction can represent their darling people best. What liberals fail to acknowledge is that what they are doing towards their political enemies (or what civilized people refer to as opponents) is not much better.

First of all, I want to make it crystal clear that I am not referring to liberals as murderers. Even Ted Kennedy, who did kill somebody, did not commit murder, only negligent homicide. However, before some liberals speak up and criticize me for painting a broad brush, they should speak up and condemn their more radical elements to have any credibility. Silence is acquiescence, hence the broad brush. While the means of U.S. liberals and Palestinians are far different (words vs bullets), the ends are equally destructive to the bombthrowers and the targets.

Palestinians, it was said, would be ready for peace when they decided that they loved their own children more than they hated the Jewish children. So far this has yet to happen. The proof of this is Hamas fighting Fatah, with the winner of this “Superbowl of nutcases” leading the charge against Israel. When two sides are fighting to represent a cause they completely agree on, you know they are far gone. Not since a telelvision show in the 1980s satirized peace groups (One group was named WIMP, for “War Insane Make Peace…it led to a fight betwene the peace groups)has such ridiculous dinner theatre been part of the news. Apparently Palestinians did not get the liberal memo about singing kumbaya and starting  alove train.

Which brings us to our liberal friends (boy am I being generous). In 1992, they had all the levers of power, and they fought amongst themselves, bringing Newt Gingrich and the next leg in the Reagan Revolution to power. Liberals were great at being revolutionaries themselves, but they found governing was tougher, and so they simply did what liberals normally do when confronted with actually having to do things…they failed.

For the last several years the left has wasted time. For three years the Bush White House was harassed over covert “Vanity Fair” agent Valerie Plame and her husband Joe “sipping tea with despots” Wilson. Scooter Libby might be going to jail. Why? Liberal vengeance. Paul Wolfowitz is resigning from the World Bank. Why? Liberal vengeance. This has nothing to do with anything he did. He is a Neocon, he pushed the Iraq War, and now the left needs to punish him. Alberto Gonzales is admittedly not a spectacular public relations person, but he is an honorable public servant. He is being dragged through the mud for badly articulating why people the President had every right to fire were fired. This is liberal vengeance.

Liberals along time ago forgot how to debate on issue sof actual policy. Maybe they have no policies, or maybe they know most Aamericans disagree with them, so they hide their policies. A good example of this is their vow to never back down from the President regarding the troop withdrawal. The only withdrawal was the meek liberals scurrying like rats to explain why the President kick their hides this round. Simple. He was right, they were wrong. Liberals will probably learn from this fiasco the wrong lesson, which is to simply not announce policy initiatives anymore.

Perhaps an immigration deal (which I have not taken a position on…I am on the fence, no joke intended) will get done. More likely, the next couple years will be spent with liberals trying to claim more scalps in the hope of getting President Bush removed from office. At this point, I shall announce to liberals my brilliant plan to remove him from office. It is called term limits. On January 20th, 2009, he will be gone. He cannot prevent this. So rather than spending the last few months of his presidency ripping him to shreds, why not be for things…anything…rather than merely against him?

Liberals want vengeance because they believe Bill Clinton should not have been impeached (the whole rationale for before it became another irrational group), and that George W. Bush stole the election. Apparently moveon never did move on. Bill Clinton’s impeach was legal. All proper procedural channels were followed. In the same way Rodney King asked if we could all get along, Bill Clinton, if he really wanted to improve the world, could tell his fellow democrats to stop the attacks and focus on positive change. The reason that George W. Bush has not been found guilty of corruption si because he simply is not corrupt. He is a good decent man who enacts policies that some agree with and some do not.

If liberals keep going down the Bush Derangement Syndrome road, they might find it an ugly place once the tables are turned. From Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas to George W. Bush, conservatives have had it. Me telling them not to retaliate will fall on deaf ears, and I would not be able to blame them. 

Liberals cannot burn down the village and expect it to be in one piece when they want to run it. Just ask your friends in Hamas and Fatah. Payback can be brutal…and unproductive.

It is time to work on actual policies. It is called governing. When liberals drop their Jihad against the President, and republicans and conservatives in general, they might wish to try this phenomenon of actually doing things. In the meantime, liberals will continue griping. Conservatives do not have time. We have a nation to lead, and lead we will.


Ariel Sharon–Even Now, More Relevant Than Ever

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007

I love sports.  Whether it is basketball, hockey or Hamas and Fatah enjoying a healthy competition of target shooting at each other, there is nothing like enjoying a peaceful night at a home with a soda, a sandwich, a bag of chips, and the game of the week. I only wish Ariel Sharon, felled by a stroke and lying in a coma in an Israeli hospital bed, was healthy and able to see the beauty that was the sheer brilliance of his Gaza pullout plan.

I have always been an admirer of Ariel Sharon. His career is further evidence that only those engaging in willful blindness choose to ignore the effectiveness in warfare of overwhelming brute force. Diplomacy is for rational peoples, such as the Russians during the cold war. Palestinians as a whole put on their war paint when Israelis offer peace overtures, and they come to the peace table when the Israeli Defense Force pummels them into their deserved submission.

Ariel Sharon’s nickname is “The Bulldozer.” Had he been allowed to go straight into Damascus, Syria would now be the prettiest most lush 50,000 hole golf course it was meant to be. The problem was (and somebody should explain this to Nancy Pelosi), there can only be one chief. Ariel Sharon was not the decision maker. Ariel Sharon had to watch his military heroics go to waste as other Prime Ministers, some of which who were not fit to shine his shoes, tried to make peace with those warm and fuzzy genocidal lunatics known as Palestinians. Ariel Sharon alone understood that the only solution to the Palestinian problem was a military solution. Then came the Gaza pullout proposal.

Ariel Sharon shocked the world and announced that he was going to voluntarily withdraw all Israeli citizens from the Gaza Strip, which Israel rightfully won in a 1967 war against the redundant concept of murderous Arab nations.

Ariel Sharon’s lifelong critics became his supporters, and those who loved him burned him in effigy. I maintain a lonely position that everybody was wrong to switch their views, and that the original perceptions that defined his career were accurate, and unchanged. I am absolutely 100% against trading land for peace. You win a war, you keep the land. Period. However, I supported the Gaza pullout for one and only one reason. I trusted Ariel Sharon. Bulldozers do not become liberals overnight. He did not go dovish at all.

7500 Jews were living among 1.5 million Palestinians. They were 7500 death sentences waiting to happen. Ariel Sharon had an obligation to protect them. He was now the Prime Minister, and the decision was his. His bold career was about to get bolder. He ordered the 7500 settlers to withdraw, to reduce friction with the Palestinians.

The right wing called him a turncoat. How could the military hero give up land? He had sold Israel out, like all the rest before him that talked tough and caved under pressure. Or had he? What if the brilliant military tactician had one last brilliant strategy up his sleeve? Think about it for a moment. Get the Jewish targets out of the way to safety, and then let the Palestinians kill each other. In addition, he could not eliminate the Palestinian problem by himself, but if Palestine became a separate nation and then attacked Israel Proper, Sharon could engage in all out war and obliterate them.

Some may say my scenario is farfetched, and gives Sharon too much credit. I maintain that his whole career benefited Israel, and he was owed the benefit of the doubt. Get the Jews to safety, let the Palestinians descend into civil war, and then take the land back. Israel might not have even needed to take it back. The Palestinians might mess things up so badly (after all that is what they do) that they would beg for Israeli control. After all, even lunatics can be pragmatic from time to time. Every Arab nation had murdered or evicted them (I wonder why, they are so delightful, and instability can make for excitement), and Israel allowed them to live.

Ariel Sharon was loathed by the left for using force rather than singing kumbaya with the Palestinians. He became reviled by the right for selling them out. He ended up embraced by the center, and was well on his way to reelection as the head of the new Kadima (forward) party before his stroke felled him. While his rival Yassir “That’s my baby terrorist” Arafat died in humiliation and disgrace (most likely from Aids, given his propensity to have sex with his male bodyguards, as well as the occasional mountain goat), Ariel Sharon is destined for historical greatness.

If only he could see his brilliance today. Hamas and Fatah are killing each other. Every day this happens is a day they are distracted from killing Jews. I would prefer they be suicidal to homicidal. Heck, I would give them the dynamite myself if they would stay away from Israelis and other Jews. They believe violent death is glorious. I say let them achieve that glory. Everybody wins. They get to die, and normal humans everywhere get to be rid of this cancer that has never contributed anything positive to this world.

What if enough Palestinians opt for peace, and become normal? Well then Jews still win, because that is one less hostile neighbor. I prefer they live peacefully than die violently, but if they refuse to live peacefully, I prefer they die violently amongst themselves than near Jews. In the same way sober people are not obligated to save every alcoholic or drug addict, I as a peace loving person do not have an obligation to save every murderous zealot in the hopes I can change them.

Ariel Sharon was a battle hardened warrior. He will be with God’s angels one day. In the meantime, his plan is working perfectly. Hamas and Fatah will do to each other what Palestinians do. How could Ariel Sharon predict this? Maybe because Palestinians killing something is like saying water is wet, or the sun rises in the East. It’s a given. If it is not that painfully obvious, then credit Ariel Sharon for his brilliant strategy. He saved another 7500 Jews, and the least Jews everywhere can do is thank him while he is still alive. Pray for him, and honor him as the hero that he is.

Ok, back to watching sports. The basketball game is slow, the hockey game is riveting, and Fatah and Hamas are fighting to the death…their deaths. I feel not an ounce of sympathy for them. They feel nothing for me, and this is a problem of their own making. This is not a tragedy. It is dinner theatre. They are two pipsqueaks fighting their last battle before they drift into irrelevance. As for Ariel Sharon, he is more relevant…and right…than ever.


Eva Longoria and other reasons I am not a social conservative

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007

I am so tired of being told that I should be an optimistic happy conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. I am not a happy conservative. On some days, I am an angry ticked off conservative. So what is the cause for this? Not abortion. Not illegal immigration. Not the War on Terror.  No, the one issue that still sticks in my craw…Eva Longoria.

That’s right, you read correctly. This whole Eva Longoria thing is getting to me. It just does not add up. Why would a woman, who can have any man in the world…as if God descended from the Heavens and created a perfect flawless woman…why would this woman choose to be with somebody French? It’s not right. If basketball player Tony Parker was Italian or Spanish, I could live with that, but French? It is just plain wrong. I mean last year the Spurs lost in the playoffs to the Dallas Mavericks. I predicted that one. Let’s face it, the star player on the Mavericks is Dirk Nowitzki, who is German. The Mavericks did not beat the Spurs. The Spurs just surrendered.

I tried being a social conservative, but then Eva Longoria started prancing around in her undies on Desperate Housewives. I almost engaged in self-love, but then republicans don’t do that, especially not social conservatives. Besides, given all the diseases running around, I don’t like to touch myself because I don’t know where I’ve been. Also, like the expression in business goes, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. If being a republican means giving people a cold dose of painful reality, my friend summed it up worst when we were watching the NBA All Star Game a few weeks ago. As I booed Tony Parker every time his froggy hands touched the ball, my friend reminded me about Eva Longoria and said “Let me explain this to you. You…have…no…shot.”

I blame her because I would make a good social conservative, if not for the fact that my lifestyle can be immoral and I seem to have lost the ability to even pay lip service to changing. It is not that I want the big G (God, not Greenspan, for those of you in finance) to shove a flamethrower up my hide, it’s just that I want all the benefits of Heaven without doing any of the good behavioral deeds to earn it.

There was a brief period of time when I leaned towards the social conservatives. I was listening to some feminists say that they had full power to make decisions over their own bodies. They were liberated, and were going to have sex whenever they pleased. As a social conservative, this could be troublesome for society, but as a young single man, and forgive me reverends, priests, rabbis, imams and miscellaneous religious dudes, this was an overwhelmingly positive development. Do you know how hard it is to even get a kiss goodnight sometimes? If a woman wants to engage in licentiousness, I will be supportive.

Then the feminists wanted the right to an abortion. So let me get this straight. Not only do these modern women want to have the right to screw whoever they please, but they want the right to let the guy off the hook guilt free by having an abortion, freeing him of any responsibilities for his actions? Where do I sign up? This feminism stuff rocks.

Then the feminists went too far. They totally had my support, and I was embracing their newfound freedoms. They had to ruin it and cross the line. Since it was their bodies, and they could choose to have sex, they could also choose to not have sex. Ok, this was not part of the plan. These women had to be stopped. It was time to call the Christian Coalition and and get some good old fashioned male paternalistic body regulating.

I ended up calling Phyllis Schlafly, partly because I like saying “Schlafly.” I told her that I was outraged at the way young society was behaving today, and I was ready to join the Christian right. She was delighted.

The conversation started out fine. She told me that part of being part of her organization and other Christian organizations was helping spread the word of loving one’s neighbor. I thought that was a very noble sentiment indeed. She told me how important it was to get kids off of drugs. I totally concurred. She explained how important it was to feed the homeless, and help those less fortunate than me. I was ready to declare this woman a Saint (Although she did not wear big shoulder pads, so she might not have been a good New Orleans Saint). I was totally ready to be a social conservative, and then Ms. Schlafly crossed the line. She stated that one way of improving the schools was to teach the girls about the importance of abstinence.

Abstinence? From what? Apparently sex. At that point I screamed at Ms. Schlafly and called her the zealot that she is for having the nerve to tell young women to not live up to their God given sexual potential. These social conservatives need to keep their laws out of my bedroom now.

I make no apologies for rational (ok, sometimes irrational) self interest. Old people know that social security is a pyramid scheme, but it benefits them, so they support it. Schoolteachers know the educational system is a disaster, but given that it is not about the kids, they refuse to adopt standards. I am a young single male, so I vote based on what matters to me. I look at every political issue and think “Will this increase or decrease my chances of getting laid?”

This brings me to the issue of gay rights. Folks, homosexuality should not be a choice. Men should not have the option of being homosexual. It should be mandatory. Criticize gay men? Heck, straight men should send them thank you notes for reducing the competition for women. Any man that is taller than me, drives a nicer car than me, and makes more money than me…heck, be gay. I will march in your parades, I will show solidarity, anything you need. The only condition is no switching back. You must remain gay, and convert all your male friends.

This does not apply for lesbians. Jesus hates them. If the women are not gorgeous (being gentle) it is acceptable. Rosie O’Donnell can be as gay as she wants. Tammy Bruce needs to be straight immediately. My people (young single men trying to sleep with hot women) have suffered enough. You are stunning Ms. Bruce. Why torture the entire male gender? The movie “Bound,” is an example of why lesbianism should be illegal.

I have come to accept that I have libertarian leanings, which means I am a conservative republican who believes in liberal doses of physical contact with gorgeous women. It is no coincidence that the word gorgeous starts out with the word gorge, which is proof that beauty was meant to be ravished and ravaged.

I refuse to apologize to social conservatives for my Chasidic (Ultra-Orthodox Jewish) adult videos. Every time I rent “Oy Vay Three Way,” “Debbie Does Menachem Mendel,” or my favorite Chasidic bestiality video “Rabbis, Rabbits and Radishes (You do not want to know what the radishes are for),” I realize that I would rather blame social conservatives rather than examine my own shortcomings. So what if I have an adult video with Bea Arthur called “Golden Showers with the Golden Girls, (My political career just went down the toilet with that one)?” The Christian Coalition should stay out of my private life.

I want my government to cut taxes and kill terrorists. Lower taxes means more money in my pocket to spend on women like Mistress Evil, who for only $200 per hour, will turn your hide the color of the devil herself. Killing terrorists is important because most of them are young single men, reducing my rivals even further.

Before social conservatives start complaining about diseases resulting from sexual misconduct, it is a known fact that embryonic stem cell research has found the cure for Aids. Ok, so it hasn’t, but maybe if the researchers would work harder they could figure it out already. Then again, between Viagra and Rogaine, men have it pretty good these days.

The bottom line is I am tired of social conservatives telling me to take responsibility for my own actions. They should stop judging me. Perhaps if they would just lower standards and be as immoral as everybody else, they would not be so high and mighty. Would it kill the local pastors to publicly get jiggy with it once in awhile (I still have no idea what that means.)? As long as I am not coveting my neighbor’s wife’s @ss, or coveting the @ss of my wife’s neighbor, does it really matter if the local clergy think my brain is up my @ss?

Social conservatives have to stop being so incredibly intolerant of everybody around them. If they believe we should love our neighbors, who am I to say that love should not begin with a Marvin Gaye or Barry White cd and end up with a jacuzzi romp?

I tried being a social conservative. It doesn’t work. If God wanted me to be chaste, he would not have brought Eva Longoria into this world. It is not my fault she prances around in her undies. Oh, and spare me the morality lecture about me being punished for my sins. I have already been punished enough. It is bad enough Eva Longoria is not sleeping with me…but her lover is French. If social conservatives truly care, they should shame her into being chaste. Then maybe after I won the lottery financially, I can win the female lottery of her as well.

As I pray to God before bed, I say to him what I say to social conservatives, the phrase that sounds meaningful when women say it to men, but idiotic when men say it to women…what about my needs?

Ok, so I only have one need. As for the true social conservatives…perhaps I have been too hard on you. After all, I should like you. Given that you are the true believers, that means you practice chastity, which eliminates some of my competition.

I have changed my mind. All men should become social conservatives and become chaste. Ok ladies, I am the only deviant left. As for you women, do not even think of becoming devoutly religious. Religion is evil. Let the men practice it. It is good for them.

May God Bless us all, and may hot barely legal Catholic school girls continue to rebel. If God truly supported chastity, people would not call out his name when having sex. Amen.


Liberals want to lose Part II

Monday, May 21st, 2007

Yesterday I pointed out that if liberals wanted to commit electoral Hara Kiri, conservatives should allow it, even if deeply held principles need to be temporarily sacrificed on the altar of pragmatism.

In addition to the examples yesterday, gay marriage is also another example where conservatives would do well to let liberals run wild. In 1996, Conan O’Brien did a hilarious skit where a cardboard cutout of Bill Clinton stated that he would seek punitive action against the states that voted for Bob Dole. “Alabama voted for Bob Dole. Last time they tried to secede, this time we’re kicking their @sses out.” Then things got hysterical.

Clinton Character: Forget gays in the military. I’m sending gays to those states.

Conan: Sir?

Clinton Character: Let’s see how they like being called “Oklahomo” for awhile.

Conan: Sir, that’s highly inappropriate.

Clinton Character: Conservative my @ss.

While this was obviously a comedy sketch, what if conservatives put aside their objections to gay marriage in blue states? Gays would flock en masse to these states. Yes, I know, there are gay republicans, but most gays are democrats. This “flight to blue” would absolutely benefit the republican party. Why? Because gay people cannot breed children. Republicans can continue adding more people to the world. Between supporting gay marriage and abortion, this would be the closest thing to sterilizing liberals that would pass constitutional muster.

Republicans should stop letting principles get in their way of trying to regulate blue states. Let these states (at which point I am embarrassed to say I live in one, but only for the weather) destroy themselves with liberal prescriptions. Liberals think their solutions work, despite the fact that modern evidence usually contradicts this. I say conservatives and liberals should reach a truce. Liberals will be allowed to run their cities as they see fit. The only rule is that once things go to pieces, they are not allowed to migrate to red areas.

New Yorkers shall be banned from relocating to South Florida. They can go to California, except for San Diego and Orange County. Relocating to Arizona and Nevada will be forbidden.

One thing liberals do not understand is that the reason they go to these red states is for a better quality of life. The reason why the quality of life is better is because liberal prescriptions are not implemented. For starters, red states such as Florida and Nevada have no state income tax. I think liberals who flee to lower tax states are complete hypocrites. They claim to want higher taxes, and then they leave once they realize the wreckage they created.

If I am wrong, why are people not moving en masse to Massachussetts? The only blue state where people are moving to is California, and those people are coming from Mexico. Yes, comapred to Mexico, even blue states are an improvement. That does not say much.

If liberals truely believe in their solutions, why do they not stay there? Republicans from Idaho and Montana are not packing up and moving to Seattle. This is perhaps because the ideas of the republican party…lower taxes, limited government, and more individual freedom…actually work.

Liberalism is a beautiful idea in the abstract. In real life it just spreads misery. Blue states destroy themselves, and then the people flee to red states. The red states should simply refuse them.

In the meanwhile, liberals will never see how badly their ideas fail until conservatives stop trying to let them fail. Let liberal cities have more abortions, softer crime policies, more gay marriages, higher taxes, and more utopia. Conservatives can live in their law and order towns that are less sexy, but function properly.

When liberals try to escape, they will be turned away at the red state borders with a simple message. “You had your chance. You failed. You ruined your land, and you will not ruin mine.”

One could suggest that they sign a piece of paper renouncing their beliefs and admitting they were wrong in order to gain a safe red state haven, but that would be abused. Democrats from Bill Clinton on down have been pretending to be republicans to win elections for years.

Liberals lose elections when people see what a disaster liberalism is. The only way for this to happen is for republicans and conservatives to allow it. 2006 is proving this. Democrats make speeches, but asking them to govern is the gift that keeps on giving for republicans.

If we can encourage blue states to keep promoting their policies, and encourage as many of their demographic groups to move there, then we can save the remaining parts of America. We cannot save everybody, nor should we. Like removing a cancerous mole to save the rest of the body, lesions such as San Francisco should not be allowed to drag down large swaths of middle…and normal…America.


Liberals want to lose…Conservatives need to shut up and let them.

Sunday, May 20th, 2007

An unwritten rule of politics is that when your opponent (memo to liberals…we call them opponents, not enemies) is in the process of self-destructing, shut up and get out of the way…and let them. Yet for some reason, republicans seem to put principles ahead of winning, and yet if they would partially sacrifice some deeply held principles, they would win, and win big.

One example of this is the concept of “majority-minority districts.” Liberals wanted these districts because it would elect more black congressmen. It was a shameless pander to the black community. Conservatives initially opposed this on principle. Taking black people and lumping them into districts borders on Apartheid.  Separate but Equal was not shot down by the Supreme Court so that races could live separately. By definition, the word integration implies just what it sounds like. These race based districts were simply wrong from a moral standpoint.

Somewhere along the line the republican party sacrificed principle for pragmatism. By sticking all the black people in the same districts, which black Americans supported, it would make formerly democratic districts more conservative. In 1994, the state of Georgia alone went from 10 democrats and one republican in Congress to 8 republicans and 3 democrats. The Black Caucus got their 3 congressmen, and the republican party got Congress itself. The democrats were wrong on principle and lost electorally.

Imagine if the republicans could keep getting out of their own way. This strategy would fail only if liberals ever learned. Thankfully, they don’t. Therefore, here are some ways the republican party can dominate for generations, by sacrificing principles in the short run.

First of all, republican should immediately drop its opposition to abortion. In fact, the republican party should be quiet and let the democratic party be the only one speaking about abortion. The rhetoric should get so tilted that the democrats stop claiming to be pro-choice, and start claiming to be pro-abortion. No more saying that abortion is unfortunate. It should be a first resort, and should be encouraged as often as possible. We should start setting up abortion of the month clubs, with a special million dollar prize going to the woman that has the one millionth abortion.

Now before social conservatives start having conniptions, think about this. Liberals are in favor of abortion, many conservatives are against it. Therefore, who will be having virtually all the abortions? Liberals! They are killing off their own voters! This prevents future liberals from being born! C’mon Ann Coulter, sacrifice your principles for a greater good…less liberals. Given how close the election of 2000 was, every vote counts. I know what some of you are saying, democrats will find ways of getting aborted fetuses to vote, especially in Chicago. However, 50 years from now, republicans will have a lock on the electoral college as long as they keep respecting human life. This strategy has worked brilliantly for the Palestinians against the Israelis. We need to keep breeding as conservatives, and let liberals perform a self inflicted version of eugenics. Then after we have total electoral control, then we can tell the left how to live. A temporary sacrifice of beliefs would be a long term boon.

The next issue is gun control. Conservatives are against it, and liberals favor it. We can split the difference without needing the wisdom of Solomon. Conservatives need to drop their principled opposition to gun control in all cases. If liberals want to ban guns in blue states, we need to let them. Conservatives should protect the second amendment in red states only. This way if there ever truly becomes a confrontation, the republican red states will win because we will have all the guns. We can go to Malibu, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and San Francisco, and just take all the wealthy liberals’ possessions. Then we can distribute them to poor families in Mississippi and other red states. Liberals favor wealth redistribution, so by robbing rich liberals and giving their belongings to poor republicans, we would be doing a social good. Besides, after we have taken everything they own, even they might be bright enough to then oppose gun control. If not, we can rob them again.

The next issue where damage can really be inflicted is taxes. Liberals want higher taxes, and conservatives want lower taxes. We can make everybody happy by simply giving conservatives a tax cut financed solely by raising taxes on liberals. Sure, that might turn welfare on its head, but liberals love welfare anyway. Conservatives may not like welfare, but again, once one abandons principles, it is easy to benefit. Besides, how are liberals going to object to this? The conservatives will have all the guns. All we need to do is check every single voter registration card, and the rest is history. If someone is an independent, we can flip a coin.

The last thing that needs to be done is build border fences near Florida and Arizona. No, not along the Mexican border. Think the other direction. The problem with Florida is not coming from the south. It is coming from the north. When my dad in south Florida is complaining about immigration into Florida, he is not talking about Cubans. They vote republican. He is talking about New Yorkers. They bring New York values to Florida and screw up the state. If we build a fence at the South Carolina border, they will not be able to even reach Tallahassee, much less Boca Raton (My father did retire to Florida from New York, but as a republican, he did nothing to make the state worse). Arizona will be tougher, since it requires border fences around several sides, but the Californians have to be stopped. One of the reasons Idaho, North Dakota and Montana are pro-NRA states is because they will be d@mned if they are going to let San Francisco or Los Angeles interlopers squat on their red state land. People in Seattle and Portland will not be going East if they value their lives.

Conservatives need to get off their values kick. Let people in liberal cities drink and drive. Legalize hard drugs in these states, and let the citizens take them. Again, they are only hurting their own voters. We can still crack down on such behaviors in red states. As for crime, we have to stop insisting that we be so tough on criminals everywhere. We need to empty the jails in San Francisco and Boston. Again, red states will have border fences, and besides, blue states have the wealthiest Americans, which make better targets for criminals anyway. Red states have a lot of poor people, which are pointless in terms of robbery from a cost-benefit standpoint.

Conservatives need to stop telling liberals how to run their lives. They want to immolate themselves. We need to let them. Once they have committed electoral suicide, we can then rule over the survivors.

All it takes is a temporary sacrificing of principles for a greater long term good. Besides, for years we have had people in America who gave up all their principles in order to win elections and govern. Come to think of it…that is what liberals are.

Never mind. Ignore everything I just said. If liberals thought of it first, it is a bad idea.


Ron Paul, Sean Paul, John Paul and RuPaul–Which one is the least coherent?

Saturday, May 19th, 2007

In listening to Ron Paul, which I can only do for a few moments before bursting out laughing, it occurred to me that I do not have the special Marvin the Martian version rabbit ears required to understand his strange dialect. Like other Pauls in history, his message is incomprehensible to those who do not speak gibberish. I compared him with a couple of other incomprehensible historical Pauls to see which one made the least sense.

I started with the late (rest his soul) Pope John Paul. Now first of all, I personally liked Pope John Paul II. He was a religious @sskicker. Unlike in Judaism, where there is anarchy to the point of “Lord of the Flies,” Catholicism has structure. Like them or not, the rules are crystal clear. When asking the Pope to change standards, so people can feel better about being sinners, the Pope reminded people that the church IS the standard, and it is people that must change. Stop being a screwup, or stop being a Catholic. I love this guy. I have guidelines on how to behave.

One of the reasons I never grasped the Pope’s message is because he spoke in Latin. For those of you in public school, Latin is not the language where the first letter becomes the last letter followed by “ay.” It is a romance language. This makes the Pope speaking Latin ironic, because he was forbidden from having romances. My inability to understand his sermons in Latin were no more difficult than understanding them in Croation. The titles of his sermons had cool names like “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” and “Centecimus Annus.” Not since rock group “The Police” put out albums such as “Zenyatta Mondatta,” and “Outlandos D’amour,” has popular culture been so cool while requiring so much translation.

To show solidarity with the Jews, the Pope wore a Yamulkah, and he was a good sport by going on the comedy “Night Court” with Harry Anderson in the 1980s. I have to say that once his words were put into English, he was understandable, and a pretty cool dude as far as Popes go.

This brings me to Sean Paul. Unlike the late John Paul, Rastafarian singer Sean Paul insists that he already is singing in English. His song “Temperature” is a great dance song, and despite what I originally posed, does not overtly mention Barack Obama. Here are some of the lyrics.

“The gal dem Schillaci…Sean da Paul
So me give it to…so me give to…so me give it to…to all girls
Five million and forty naughty shorty…
Baby girl…all my girls..all my girls…Sean da Paul sey…

Well woman the way the time cold I wanna be keepin’ you warm
I got the right temperature for shelter you from the storm
Oh lord, gal I got the right tactics to turn you on, and girl I…
Wanna be the Papa…You can be the Mom….oh oh!

[Verse 1:]
Make I see the gal them bruk out pon the floor from you don’t want no worthless performer
From you don’t want no man wey can’t turn you on gal make I see your hand them up on ya..
Can’t tan pon it long…..naw eat no yam…no steam fish….nor no green banana
But down in Jamaica we give it to you hot like a sauna..”

Contrary to those who follow the Pope, “The Gal Dem Shellaci” is not one of his liturgical musings. I think it is a pasta dish that goes either goes well with red wine or diet coke, or translation for “The girlie dems get shellacked.” As someone that does not smoke marijuana, it is not 100% English to me. Then again, a message about having fun without harming others should not be discouraged, even if subtitles are required. So Sean Paul for now gets a pass.

This brings us to the political gadfly Ron Paul, who on the surface appears to be tire executive Morrie Taylor without logical reasoning. Below is a transcription of his fiery exchange with Rudy Giuliani, with Paul’s comments translated from the original democrat/liberal gibberish.

“REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

RUDY GIULIANI, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That’s an extraordinary statement of someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

Blaming the USA for 9/11. There are three contributions for this…1) Ron Paul is a liberal democrat…2) Ron Paul works for Al Jazeera…3) Ron Paul is a crackpot. I suspect all of the above is the answer.

So based on his uselessness to anything resembling intelligent discourse, I therefore declare Ron Paul to be the least comprehensible of the Paul brothers.

As for black drag queen RuPaul, whatever he/she/it actually is, RuPaul’s problem is one that is disturbing to the visual senses, not the auditory. Apparently RuPaul has crossover appeal to blacks, women, and the transgendered. My lack of understanding of this Paul renders me unqualified to analyze what went wrong and where. Ron Paul therefore still disturbs me most.


My red, white and liberal friend

Friday, May 18th, 2007

I have had the privilege of getting to know a guy approximately my age that could not be more different than me ideologically. To call this guy “granola” would be an understatement. Having said that, while he and I have completely different lifestyles and views, I walk away from my conversations with him with a positive outlook. All I have ever asked of people is that they be intellectually honest, and treat people decently.

This fellow is more than a vegetarian. He is a vegan. He also lives the green lifestyle that others merely talk about. He drives a car that runs on vegetable oil. He even owns shirts that are made out of hemp (My lack of knowledge on the subject made me ask him if he could be arrested for that, but apparently teenagers have yet to figure out how to get high from smelling their own shirts. They will have to stick to sniffing detergent).

He once asked me to try avocado chips made from some derivative of something Earthy. They were terrible, and my mouth needed an hour to recover. However, I do not regret trying them because a little openmindedness goes a long way.

I think of this fellow from time to time because I have seen him be subjected to ruthless “teasing” about his diet and other habits. One day it got so bad that he told me in private “I am just a guy trying to live his life.” Folks, the guy is a human being. He is not a lunatic, and he has never once criticized me for eating red meat. In fact, because of his tolerant nature, I have asked him questions and found his answers about his dietary habits insightful. Although being a vegan is not a “religion,” per se, I have found commonalities between veganism and Jewish (kosher) dietary laws. For example, both the vegan and the kosher Jew would say that if a piece of meat somehow comes in contact with the cheese (or in the case of the vegan prehaps just the bread), then the whole meal is tainted, and should not be eaten. Different vegans would have different answers, but there are many levels, as with religion.

I say this because I have been the victim of ideological bigotry on many occasions. I have often written about liberal intolerance towards conservatives. On many occasions I have screamed “I am a human being for crying out loud.” It is very easy to see it when it is directed at us, but if society is improved, we have to stick up for everybody. So here are some things that decent people already understand, but zealots again need to be reminded about.

1) Being Pro-choice does not make you a baby killer. Being Pro-life does not make you anti-woman. This is a complex issue with many shades of gray.

2) Being against the Iraq War does not make you unpatriotic. Being for the war does not make you a jingoistic, bloodthirsty imperialist. My friend had boots on the ground, and he is against it. I am from a military family, and I am in favor of it. Both of us have sound principles, and that is to be respected.

3) Being for affirmative action does not make one anti-white, and being against it does not make one anti-black.

4) Being for gay marriage does not make one gay, or anti-God. Being against it does not make one anti-gay.

5) Having a crush on Rupaul does not make one abnormal. Actually, yes it does. I threw that in to see who was paying attention.

6) Eating animals does not make one a murderer, and refusing to eat them does not make one a freak.

The list could go on and on, but the point is made. What many Americans on the fringes do not grasp is that most Americans do not hate people. They want to just live their lives. In the 1960s, democratic President LBJ and republican majority leader Everett Dirksen liked each other. They would bash each other on television, and then privately share scotch while joking about who got in the best line of the day, and who would get the best line in the next day. Hannity and Colmes disagree fiercely, but they like each other as human beings. They have publicly said so. Rush Limbaugh and Bill Clinton yesterday were in the same restaurant by coincidence. They were pleasant to each other. They may not like each other, but they did not need to be torn apart like they were NBA basketball players. They shook hands.

The mock outrage of politicians on televsion is acting. It is theatre (although the Korean legislature and their fistfights are real, and much more entertaining). I do not expect this individual and I to have much in common on politics, but we can still get along fine.

I fought against Bill Clinton in the political arena for eight years. I prayed for him when he had his heart surgery, since my father has had that as well. I will do everything I can to defeat Hillary Clinton, but if I meet her, of course I will be respectful and polite. The political does not have to be the personal.

Liberals today can be against everything President Bush stands for, but stop calling him a liar. He is a good, decent man who simply has a different view of the world. Tearing a man down, destroying him, and grinding him into dust to win the next election comes at a heavy price. It becomes an endless cycle of personal destruction.

Lastly, even if I disagree with someone 99%, that 1% we have in common could make for one great friendship. One of my liberal friends loves football. Of course he likes the team I hate most, but how can I not like a guy that believes sundays are for the NFL?

The ultimate goal is to make the world a better place. Those who are sincerely trying to do so in a kind, decent way, without hurting others should be applauded, not condemned. For those who wish to rant and rave about lies, illegal wars based on lies, illegally appointed presidents, and other such nonsense, just know that your hate speech contributes to the poisonous atmosphere that corrodes our society.

Nobody has had a worse life by making a friend. I will respect how you live your life, and you will do the same. This is not optional.