THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

There were two problems with the CNN Compassion Forum.

First of all, short of Campbell Brown frolicking on stage in her underclothing, there really is no reason to watch CNN. They have not had intelligent debate questions since the respected Bernard Shaw retired.

Second of all, even if Campbell Brown were to do her best Eva Longoria imitation, it would pale compared to the real thing. Desperate Housewives was back on television with new episodes. Even Sean Hannity and his Hannity’s America program had to be put on the back burner. Of course, had it been football season, none of the non-Eva stuff would have mattered anyway.

Nevertheless, thanks to tivo, I was able to watch the democrats fake compassion. I tivoed Desperate Housewives since nothing about the compassion forum was expected to be worth keeping.

Also, several commercials during the event were by an organization called “Divided we fail.” It spoke of unifying people to fix problems, and showed an animal that was half elephant, half donkey. It sounded nice, but make no mistake about it. Divided we fail is a project of the AARP, which is a liberal partisan organization that is responsible for screwing up the futures of their own members by being hostile towards a partial privatization of Social Security. Their method of compromise is to threaten republicans and non-liberal democrats, and these threat work. They divide people, and we fail as a result.

As for the event, In all fairness, some of the questions were well thought out, and the answers were sometimes appropriate. The format was also appropriate. Each candidate had about 45 minutes to answer questions, and Hillary and Obama were on the stage separately. There were no buzzers, and expansive answers made both discussions worthwhile. Yet the admission that some of the questions had nothing to do with policy did not make them any less useless.

Hillary was asked about the controversy over Obama’s remarks about those who turn to guns and religion because they are bitter.

Hillary stated that she would let Obama speak for himself, but implied that he was elitist and out of touch. Hillary very wisely pointed out that many Americans felt that about the democratic party as a whole. What she did not say was that this feeling was largely justified. Nevertheless, lip service may or may not be better than overt hostility . Others can decide.

When pressed further, Hillary simply stated that his remarks “raised concerns.” Hillary very wisely remarked that the democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004 were good men, but were perceived as hostile towards voters of faith.

Hillary was then asked a meaningless question about when she felt the trinity in her life. She answered the question in a sincere manner, and my criticism was not with the candidates, but the fact that any of these questions have to be asked. They don’t.

One comment Hillary made was that her faith allowed her to “make decisions when nobody else agreed with me.” That seems to be a quality that she would criticize President Bush for. When she spoke about the positive aspects of politics, and how faith connects to that, was quite eloquent.

Hillary ironically stated that “not every moment of grace is about me.” One perception of her is her narcissism. She repeatedly states that the election is not about her, and the more she says it, the more it rings hollow.

She was then asked about how faith affects ehr ability to make life and death decisions.

This time she was very solid in her answer. She spoke of relying on others. She sounds sincere except when she makes statements such as “I don’t even pretend to know the answers to a lot of questions.” Hillary is known as somebody that is certain of her point of view. On Iraq she said that “there is no easy decision.” This may seem simplistic, but it is truthful. SHe seemed less honest when she said she likes being challenged by people who disagree with her. It would be helpful if she did. Again, this is my perception, but that perception has been through observing her over time. She then stated that she would “hope that she would never become defensive or dismissive with those who disagree with her.” Again, she seemed to be addressing a direct criticism of her.

Her answer to the abortion question of whether life begins at conception was pure Clintonian at its worst. She stated that “the potential for life begins at conception.”

If ever there was a sentence that defined a major criticism of the Clintons, it was “the politics of parsing.” She then spoke that she did not want “an intrusion of government into our society” with regards to abortion. Apparently on health care and virtually every other domestic issue she does not hold such concerns.

She then cleverly shifted to her criticism of China forcing women into having abortions against their will, as if any American politician is in favor of it. Talk about abortion on demand!

The question about euthanasia started out promising when Hillary started talking about the complicated situation of Terry Schaivo. Yet Hillary simply would not take a stand. She meandered about how there were good people on both sides of the issue. She does not want government intruding, but wants us to “create a process” for families to make decisions. There is no need to create a process for families to make decisions. Simply leaving them alone is a better substitute for any government process. I wish Hillary grasped this.

Hillary was then lobbed a softball about how to ease the conern among some that religion has too powerful a role in America. The answer is for those that are bigoted towards religious people to simply stop being bigoted.

Hillary took a more tactful tone, calling for respect and tolerance on all sides.

Rabbi Steve Gutow of the Council for Public Affairs had a chance to aska question of relevance to Jews. Did he ask about Israel or Islamofacism? Of course not, that would make this an honest religious discussion. Instead he made me again be embarrassed by liberal Jews by babbling about Darfur and whether or not President Bush should boycott the opening Olympics ceremonies due to China’s treatment of Tibet.

This Rabbi does not represent me!

Hillary favors President Bush boycotting the opening ceremonies. She is wrong. Several Palestinian homicide bombers tried to kill Jews while this idiotic question was being answered.

Reverends, Priests and Imams stick up for their own interests. It boggles my mind why liberal Rabbis can’t grow a pair and ask questions that benefit us.

A question about how to get low cost drugs for the poor allowed Hillary to brag about voting against CAFTA. Of course, she is completely wrong on this issue. She then offered feint praise about how drug companies save lives, but quickly made sure to state that they must do more. This is based on her 35 years of experience of not working at a drug company.

She was then asked in relation to Darfur why a loving God allows people to suffer.

The stupidity of the question notwithstanding, Hillary handled it perfectly. She was genuinely funny whe she said, “I don’t know, I can’t wait to ask him.” At least she admits God is male!

If Hillary were to handle all questions the way she answered this one, she would be seen as likable, genuine…and human. She nailed this one spectacularly.

As fabulous as she was on that question, she was equally disingenuous on the next question. She was asked about her favorite bible story.

She mentioned the recent Jewish holiday of Purim, which she mispronounced “Pyurim.” She stated that she loved the story of Esther, and read it often as a child. I’m sorry, but growing up Methodist means she most likely went to churches, where they do not teach about Jewish stories such as Esther. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, but outside of Judaism, Esther is obscure. Her comment seemed like a sop to Jewish voters.

She was then asked if we could make changes on issues such as global climate change without hurting our lifestyles. The answer is no.

Nevertheless, she spoke about small changes such as using better light bulbs. It was a carefully calibrated answer. In fact, she mentioned that people should “not feel threatened” by changes. Of course they feel threatened, and justifiably so. She stated that the Vatican was carbon neutral. I have no idea if this is true, but praising the Vatican at a forum like this is smart.

A very intelligent question was asked on whether or not Hillary would commit troops to places like Darfur under a foreign command. The ansswer should have been “absolutely not.” I would include an expletive in my answer.

Hillary totally ducked the question, perhaps because the “global test” question hurt John Kerry in 2004. She did praise President Bush regarding the tsunami in Asia, especially since he tapped her husband. Hillary did correctly point out that America’s favorability went through the roof after the tsunami, but it was because of the generosity of ordinary Americans, not the government. She acknowledged that “the military can be helpful” in certain situations. How generous of her.

An absolutely idiotic question about whether God wanted her to be President was handled very brilliantly. She cited Abraham Lincoln, and spoke about what motivates her. On these types of questions, she appears very genuine.

Barack Obama then came out to a rousing ovation, and he shook Hillary’s hand as she exited the stage.

The first question to Obama dealt with his smugness, although it was phrased in a nicer way. He was asked why he referred to bitter people who turn to religion and guns.

He insisted that he did not mean to demean anybody. He also said people were misconstruing his words. By misconstruing I guess he means taking him literally.

When asked about Hillary referring to him as elitist, he said that this was an example of politics tearing people down.

On an unrelated note, liberal blowhard Bob Beckel had stated earlier in the evening that based on the way they were mistreated in society, black people could not be elitist.

When asked about God intervening in history, Obama properly made it clear that he did not understand God’s plan, but tried to live a good life.

An abortion softball was delivered to Obama, in the form of being asked if there was common ground. The loudspeakers then began to blare the Beatles singing, “Come Together, right now, over me.” Just kidding. Obama did handle the question well, but again, it was a softball. He did talk about adoption and other issues, but made it clear there was a chance the issue might not be resolved. In fact, when he said “adoption is an option,” Jesse Jackson must have been upset that he did not think of the adoption rhyme first.

He was then asked a tougher abortion question, that being whether or not life begins at conception.

He said that he had no idea. Given that this was a forum about beliefs, he could have stated his position.

When asked about euthanasia, he again ducked. However, his point that all Americans should have a living will was a valid and important point. I am amazed that I do not recall a candidate mentioning that before. He stated that terminally ill people should get medicine to “relieve their pain.” When Campell Brown tried to infer that relieving pain meant ending life, Obama would not acknowledge that.

A Southern Baptist Minister stated that an abstinence based and faith based program reduced AIDS in Africa, and wanted Obama’s views.

Obama did praise President Bush’s faith based initiatives with regards to trying to save lives. Obama offered various ideas in a comprehensive approach, but again would not address the abstinence program. At some point he would answer a question, but perhaps not on this night. One valid point he made that needs to be repeated by democrats is that there is a “human element to this problem.” He could have stopped at that point, but he specifically mentioned promiscuity. He could have spoken about drug users as well, and the fact that AIDS is rising again in the homosexual community, but based on the low standards democrats have set, his answer was courageous for criticizing anybody.

When asked about a comment he made about his daughter being “punished with a baby,” Obama deftly answered the question by pointing out his daughters were 9 and 6. He made it clear that if his daughter got pregnant at age 12 or 13, it would be a mistake, and that women at that age having babies is harmful for the mothers and children. It was an appropriate answer, and he plainly stated that “children screw up.”

A pointless question about God creating the world in 6 days was answered in a dignified manner.

Obama then did something bold, which is not his nature. He could have left the answer as it was, but instead decided to emphasize his belief in evolution, and that it was compatible with his Christian faith. The answer was fine, and again given surprising how cautious Obama normally is.

Obama was then asked how he reconciles both evolution and religious faith, as it relates to climate change and stem cell research.

He very smartly talked about how Genesis teaches us to be good stewards.

Obama was asked about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but the question was a complete softball. Rather than be asked about the controversies, Obama was asked how Pastor Wright brought him closer to God.

His answer was thoughtful, and poignant. He listed the positive things that his church was doing. Obama then tried to state that while Reverend Wright was his pastor, that was not the same as a spiritual adviser. While this is baloney, Obama stated that the controversial comments do not detract from the good works that the church does. This is wrong. If the KKK were to help cure AIDS, it would not change the fact that they are racists. Obama still has not figured this issue out.

Obama was asked how his exposure to Islam as a child shaped him. He responded by stating that when he lived in Indonesia as a child, he attended Catholic school. Additionally, Indonesia at the time was a secular and tolerant nation. Islam can be compatible with the modern world, and work with Judaism and Christianity to improve the world.

Obama was asked if he would commit to cutting poverty in America in half in 10 years. Obama stated that he would absolutely make that commitment. While I cannot imagine how he could do it, the fact that he believes he can is either naive or admirable. I will go with admirable since cynicism does not help anybody. He tied the issue into fixing America economically. One can disagree with Obama’s prescriptions, and I do, but he did articulate his goals well with regard to domestic initiatives ranging from health care to education. He also stated that he wanted to keep the office of faith based initiatives open. In an ironic moment, he emphasized the importance of humility, especially given his recent perceived pompousness.

Obama was then asked about how quickly we can surrender in the war on terror. The actual words of the questioner dealt with torture.

Not only did Obama state that he was against torture, but he also stated that he would not “farm out or subcontract torture.” That means we cannot hand a guy over to another country knowing they might deal with him in a harsher manner than we would.

The last question was the same softball asked earlier, about religion had too much power in American life today. Obama was very deft on this one.

He stated that many democrats were bad on religious issues. He then stated the republicans were guilty in the other direction. It was a way of being above politics, and he straddled the line successfully. He warned against self righteousness, and was lucky there were no mirrors around.

This was a tough one to call in terms of the winner. As I have said before, the debate premise itself was worthless.

Obama was bland. He offended nobody, but was less inspirational than he has been in the past.

Hillary had moments of brazen insincerity. She reminded me why she has so many people that dislike her with such a ferocity. Yet she had other moments of incredible sincerity, and during those moments was better than I had ever seen her.

Given that this was a forum for democrats, Hillary’s negative moments will be glossed over, while her positives will pleasantly surprise people, especially if she can keep it up. I suspect she cannot, and look for her to go on the attack in the Pennsylvania debate on the 16th.

Nevertheless, Obama was simply boring tonight. He has had many good nights, and this was not one of them. He did not do himself any harm, and will most likely be livelier on the 16th.

If anybody won this evening, it would be Hillary, albeit slightly. It was just a tad better for her than a draw.

eric

I am not sure if yesterday was some left wing ideological holiday, or if the inmates in the political asylum were all released onto the streets at once. Nevertheless, I was the victim of behavior that made San Francisco look like a city of functional people.

I have made it clear over and over that there are liberals in society that are normal human beings. Being liberal does not automatically make you hateful, or a wack job. If anything, my blog has been about fighting ideological bigotry. Yet in the last 24 hours, I have been on the receiving end of behavior that should make even liberals be embarrassed. I am a provocative person, but I know when lines of decency have been crossed.

The incident took place at work. For legal reasons, I have to speak in cryptic language. What I can say for certainty is that politics has no place in the workplace. Despite workplace rules set up by corrupt labor lawyers (redundant, I know) that want free speech for everybody except conservatives, individuals of all political stripes should restrain their beliefs when dealing with customers. I have no idea what the political views are of my auto mechanic, my doctor, or my dry cleaner. I only care that my car, my body, and my clothing are in better condition after visiting them than before.

What separates activists from normal people is that activists simply cannot understand that most people want to get through their day without being shouted at, preached to, or bombarded with leaflets. Maybe many of these people could afford clean shirts if they did not spend all their money on leaflets.

Anyway, anybody, even me, can generalize. Specific examples are now the public domain.

At work, I was having a telephone conversation with a woman whose job was to to mediate a dispute between a firm and a client. Mediation can be a vital tool in negotiations, whether it be business disagreements or divorce settlements. A mediator must be calm, cool, and levelheaded. They have to take parties that may be at each other’s throats, and keep the discussion rational.

This one mediator may or may not be a disgrace to her profession. I do not like to base an entire career on one incident, but the incident was pretty hairy.

I have spoken with her several times, and it is a mind numbing discussion. She spends the first 20 minutes reminding me of her credentials. I call this the “Harvard Syndrome.” There was an episode of “Frasier” where series lead Kelsey Grammar mentioned his Harvard background. His boss replied, “I find it obnoxious that you have to mention that you went to Harvard in every sentence.” It is like listening to Hillary Clinton brag about her “solutions,” and her 35 years of experience. General Colin Powell had 35 years of experience in the military, but he does not spend his life boring people about it. He does what dignified people do. He goes about his business. Professionals do not have to announce how professional they are. They are work horses, not show horses.

This woman kept mentioning her 16 1/2 years of experience, reminding me of a child that still celebrates their half birthday. She kept mentioning her success rate, which I had no way of corroborating at that moment. She is successful because she says so.

Nevertheless, without evidence to the contrary, I could just sleep through the 20 minutes where she tells me of her god like status. Maybe she does not realize how boring it is, but then again, my main criteria for judging somebody is whether or not they get the job done. As long as she was effective, the rest can be forgiven. This where all hades broke loose on the telephone.

She made recommendations to me. I disagreed with her proposed resolution. I was not attacking her personally. I am sure she put some effort into her work. Yet I was the customer, and I simply felt that she was asking for more than I was willing to give. I politely let her know that despite her efforts, the two parties were apart, and that negotiations most likely had broken down.

I was not aware how personal this mediator valued her success rate. She did her work, I did not like the results, and decided to reject the proposed offer. Mediation is not binding, and I thought I was engaging in my normal right to take an alternative approach.

The mediator then went ballistic on the telephone. She violated more than one rule of professionalism.

First of all, she began spewing profanity in a rapid clip. I was in shock. She threw out words that rhymed with spit, luck, and rap. This is not an acceptable way for a professional to behave, especially one that is a mediator! She made it clear we would regret not taking her advice, that if we ignored her we ran the risk of facing financial consequences worse than what she was proposing, and that I “needed to understand this, and make my boss understand this as well.”

I don’t “need” to understand such simple concepts as settling or rolling the dice. I understand the concept of risk vs reward. My analysis simply disagreed with hers in terms of the value of settling. Also, the idea that I need to “explain” the situation to my boss implies that he is an imbecile that has not thought of this. I guess he was too busy building a successful business to think about things such as the value of a dollar today versus two dollars tomorrow. I explained to her that my boss understood the situation, considered the advice, but decided to reject it. A professional can advise a client, but at the end of the day, the client is the boss.

After again trying to explain to the mediator that we understood the risks of refusing to settle, and that we were completely prepared to accept the consequences, the mediator went into a 7 to 10 minute profanity laced tirade. I held the phone away from my ear and contemplated various thoughts, ranging from whether or not this hysterical woman needed medication to why my parents did not set me up with a trust fund (Actually, for the sake of ethics, I was most likely contemplating my navel. My middle shirt button was open from a defect in the material. A necktie hides this.).

The mediator then completely went off the rails, stating, “You can’t take the ‘My way or the highway attitude.’ You can’t be like George W. Bush going into Iraq hell bent on war without considering the ramifications of cowboy diplomacy guns blazing. You have to work with people.”

I was stunned at this point. Not one aspect of this situation had anything to do with politics. This was a business dispute that was completely apolitical. Also, again, this was not the other side of the dispute. This was the mediator!

After literally waiting for her to stop speaking, I conducted myself in a professional manner. When I am not at work, I am perfectly comfortable taking verbal brickbats to the skulls of liberals. At work, I do not have that luxury. I waited for her to stop. Then I waited some more. Finally, I spoke.

“(name redacted), this is a very divided country. So before you start injecting your personal politics into this situation, in addition to your cursing at me, you should know that I am a rock ribbed supporter of President Bush. I see no reason to continue this conversation.”

She did try to apologize, but instead of leaving it at that, she then went back into her standard stump speech involving her credentials and why we should listen to her. I had to cut her off.

“I’ve heard what you had to say, quite clearly. I have made my decision. My firm will handle this as we see fit, and your left wing politics should not have been brought up. I am leaving for the day, there is nothing left to discuss, and I am off to drive home in my car containing my Bush-Cheney bumper sticker. Have a good day.”

Again, for the sake of ethics, I have no bumper stickers on my car. Women like this are the reason why. I have encountered enough violent “peace” activists to avoid considering taking such a risk.

Some people in this world will accuse me of cherry picking. They will say things like, “ok, I agree with you, this lady is nuts, but it is not fair to paint a broad brush.”

How many of these lunatics do I have to encounter before people on the far left realize that their rage is the norm, not an aberration?

How do I take these life forms and get them to become civilized human beings?

What do I have to do to get through a week without being exposed to the ugliness of those that let their ideological bigotry define them?

Those that want to say that both sides do it are flat out wrong. Those on the right behaving this way are an aberration, especially since labor laws ban conservatives from speaking to begin with.

At work, everybody should shut up. Receptionists should answer the switchboard. Salespeople should talk about the produce they are selling. The managers should focus on making sure things are running smoothly. Advisers should offer advice, but understand that the right to give advice does not imply or require consent.

In most organizations, whether they manufactures widgets or offer high tech widget consulting services, political activism ranges from not helpful to detrimental.

My next decision is to decide whether to let this matter go or file a formal professional complaint.

Either way, this woman might wish to rethink her approach. Even old dogs can learn new tricks. Perhaps some additional training would be appropriate. I will resist the urge to make a remark about a female dog, even though what she said to me was much worse.

eric

Jimmy Carter will soon be traveling to the Middle East to meet with a leader of Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Upon shaking hands with this particular genocidal Arab, Mr. Carter should be promptly arrested, brought back to the United States, and sent to jail until he can be given his right to a speedy trial.

I want to make it clear that Mr. Carter’s being a liberal is not my issue with him. His being an anti-semite, which yes folks, he absolutely is, is not the issue. He has freedom of speech, which involves the right to support group hatred in the great traditions of David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, and Robert Byrd in his younger years.

Jimmy Carter should be arrested solely based on one criteria, that being his willingness to violate the law.

This is worse than Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria to wear a burkha and sip tea with the world’s dumbest opthamologist, Bashar Assad. As awful as that trip was, it was authorized. It was politically unwise, but it was legal. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism, but they are a nation.

Hamas is not a nation. It is a band of guerrilla fighters that wants to kill every Jew everywhere in the world. Israel is “Little Satan.” Once they destroy Israel, they can then implement Hitler’s “final solution” by attacking the “Great Satan,” that being the United States.

If this scares the hell out of people, well it should.

It was bad enough when America’s worst President Jimmy Carter decided to coddle Yassir Arafat. However, Mr. Arafat, while a terrorist, was given diplomatic status by certain misguided individuals that believed he was in favor of making peace. There are no such delusions about Hamas. No civilized people see Hamas as anything other than bloodthirsty killers.

There is no justification for Mr. Carter’s trip. At least when Nancy Pelosi went to Syria, she was almost connected to something relevant. If a left wing nut case had carried out on their verbal threats and murdered President Bush and Vice President Cheney, she would be setting policy. Mr Carter is a private citizen who is violating the law by doing business with a terrorist entity.

What happens if Hamas plans a terrorist action while Mr. Carter is in the vicinity? Should he be collateral damage? Or should Israel show restraint solely because a man who used to be important to a plurality of Americans 30 years ago happens to stumble in the way with the grace of Inspector Clouseau?

The Bush Doctrine states that anyone that aids, abets, or harbors terrorists is a terrorist. If we are in the same room with a terrorist, we are supposed to either kill them, arrest them, or at the very least, tattle tale on them. We are not supposed to break bread with them.

Jimmy Carter has a right to free speech. He has the right to socialize with whoever he pleases provided that they are not a criminal on the most wanted list of democracies around the globe.

If Jimmy Carter wants to stand at the local Federal Building and hold up signs condemning everything that is right with America, he can do that. If he wants to travel to the Middle East and meet with actual rulers, such as the Palestinian legislators, he can do that. He can meet with Saeb Ekerat, and they can have a verbal competition on who hates Jews more.

Americans are banned from dealing with Hamas. This extends to all Americans. Any private citizen breaking this law should be punished. Jimmy Carter should not get an exemption simply because he has a familiar face.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not a phrase to be said lightly . Nevertheless, we are at war. Meeting with our enemies is illegal unless our government sanctions the trip.

Nancy Pelosi made an idiotic but legal decision. Jimmy Carter decided to place himself above the law.

If Mr. Carter retracts his decision and his mission, then he should be free to spout his hate speech with his fellow bigots. That should always remain repugnant, and legal.

If Mr. Carter insists on breaking the law, then the full weight of the law should crack down on him. He must be given a fair trial, and he absolutely should be given reasonable bail. As a misguided but nonviolent offender, remand might be too harsh. He is not a flight risk.

Yet he must be processed. The idea that he is too old, or too important, or that arresting him would result in a flood of support for him, is as irrelevant as he is.

The minute he steps off the plane and kisses the animal that will greet him, he should be detained.

One could make an argument that it would be better just to ban him from returning to the United States, but he would then do his imitation of Suha Arafat, living the high life like the despot lover he is.

It does not have to be this way. Mr. Carter could allow common sense to enter his life for the very first time, and simply decide not to cavort and frolic with terrorists. The choice is his and his alone, as are the consequences.

eric

Andy Rooney once said that he was often most embarrassed by people who agreed with him.

I am more dismayed by people who think they agree with me, although not as mortified as they would be when they find out I do not agree with them.

Yes, I am romantically involved with the Chicago Cannonball, and yes, she is politically liberal. She is a bright woman, and I am lucky. She is reasonable, clear thinking, and tolerant. I wish other liberals would learn from her.

It is not liberalism I object to most. It is stupidity. I respect intelligence, and have no patience for intellectual laziness.

I encountered an individual that is bizarre even by leftist standards. The guy linked to one of my columns, and when I looked at their site, I was stunned.

The column I wrote was entitled “General Petraeus, Please tell the entire truth.”

Somebody that was too lazy to read the column would assume I was against General David Petraeus and the War. They would be part of the lunatic fringe that refers to him in terms so disgusting only a Moveon cancer could love. A person who read the article would see it as a full throttled endorsement of the War in Iraq, and the General leading the counterinsurgency.

The fellow that linked to me has a blog called “The Lang Report.” While the blog is garbage, I do confess that at least the colors are pretty. I have decided not to provide the link because I am not in the habit of spreading hate speech, regardless of the forum. It also contains foul language, which I ban from my blog in an attempt to keep the discourse as civilized as possible.

The mission statement of the blog tells the entire story.

“The conscience of The Lang Report was born in the turbulent 60’s as that generation began to question everything desiring to build a better world. As our “pen is mightier than our sword”, we wield it to educate and stimulate our readers in an effort to spark solution-based dialogues. We believe that you are either part of the problem or part of the solution!”

As expected, a bunch of 1960s people…I will be generous and refer to these narcissistic spoiled brats as people…believe that cursing and using shrill rhetoric constitutes dialogue and education. These people are not part of the problem. They are virtually the entire problem.

It is not the liberalism by itself. It is the laziness.

This blogger (I am speculating it is one person based on their about page, although I have no desire to learn more about him/them) linked to my article thinking it supported his position, when it was completely opposed to his views.

Some would wonder why this bothers me. After all, it increases traffic on my blog. That argument would be valid if I valued ratings over integrity and quality. Also, it frightens me that blogs like his have any traffic at all. Then again, hate sells for some.

All this fellow had to do is read my article. He could have even condemned it. That would at least tell me that he values what he puts on his own site.

I would be mortified if I signed my name to something I disagreed with.

This is what irresponsible people do. They sign mortgages without reading the fine print. They buy something without knowing the true cost. They claim to not know what their pastor of 20 years is truly saying. While the last example is more likely to be dishonesty in the form of willful blindness, the campaign is claiming to be guilty of idiocy, so I will accept their explanation. Hillary’s billing records (actually almost everything about her) falls into one of those two categories.

I have said for years that the media is liberally biased. It is not because they are bad people. They are just intellectually lazy. Getting the story right does not matter.

This fellow who linked to me claims he wants to make people think. How can a thinker allow a post of mine to be given prominent mention on his blog, unless it is in an unflattering light. By the time many people go to his blog, he will have made the correction. Take my word for it. As this column was being written, it was there.

Related Post from Around the Web

Cenk Uygur: Why is General Petraeus Helping Iran?
General Petraeus, Please tell the entire truth
General Petraeus: “We Haven’t Turned Any Corners. We Haven’t Seen …
General Petraeus Iraq Hearings: Updates Here

My column is the second one. I am embarrassed to be linked to these crackpots. As I said earlier, the fellow from this blog is probably even more mortified. Nevertheless, when quality is job zero, interesting things can occur. Tomorrow I should publish an article on the positive aspects of Pol Pot and see who links to it. I mean he did have a cute name, and looked like a warm fuzzy fella, genocide notwithstanding.

It is not the leftism. It is not even the lunacy. Leftism and lunacy are often kindred drunken spirits. It is not even the linking by itself.

It is the laziness.

Like a sleazy record executive in a purple suit who shows up and puts his arms around the band and takes pictures with them, even though he has never heard of them or their music, I am not a fan of those that do not care enough about their own ideas to actually do minimal research.

I am a conservative republican blogger. If this Lang fellow truly puts in this amount of effort always, then he has a bright future ahead of him in the mainstream media, at least before that collapses due to the very problems that this blogger needs to fix.

Dude…take 5 seconds out and read something before you link to it.

You may not like me or my views, but you learned a valuable lesson. I expect you to ignore it and respond with venom. I get that view from your site itself.

I support President George W. Bush, General David Petraeus, Senator John McCain, and the War in Iraq.

People who spend seconds on this blog know this.

eric

As expected, some microscopic entities blathered in a language that can only be described as “pipsqueakian.” Across the table from them, standing tall in the saddle, was General David Petraeus.

The reason why this man is the very best is because he is in an industry where being the best and brightest actually matters. Dimbulbs can become Senators because the fate of human survival is not in their hands. Making speeches about things is not the same as actually doing them. If General David Petraeus gets his job wrong, the world could collapse. That is why that people had better listen when he speaks. They do not have to agree, but they had better listen closely.

There are three industries that are meritocracies. They are sports, sales, and the military. A person’s color, religion, or private beliefs do not matter. At the end of the day, these three industries ask one simple question. Did you get the job done?

Below are the entire remarks of General Petraeus’s testimony before the Senate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/gen_petraeus_testimony_to_the.html

For those that want to try and cherry pick the General’s comments, manipulate away at your own dishonest peril. I will take the man literally. Below are some of his comments.

“Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq.”

Anti-war surrender children will focus on the word “uneven.” The words to focus on are “significant progress.”

“Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, Al Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi security force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security.”

What part of this do those that want America to lose not understand?

Before a bunch of left wing crybabies claim that I am attacking their patriotism, they should be forced to answer whether they want to win in Iraq. When they try to argue that we are losing, direct the question back. It is not whether we are winning in this question, but if they had a choice, would they want victory? If they fail to answer, then their patriotism should not be questioned. They are simply repulsive, and yes, unpatriotic. People can disagree about the war, but wanting to lose is not acceptable.

“Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain.”

How the antiwar children can translate this into defeat is mind boggling. There are always problems in war.

No war is done perfect. Yet overall, significant progress is exactly that.

“Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago…”

That is what happens when the military is allowed to do its job.

“Al Qaeda’s senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction and foreign fighters to Iraq.”

The left carps that Al Queda was not there when Saddam ruled. So instead the right took down Saddam and is defeating Al Queda. Fabulous, ridding both evils in the same decade. Only leftists could object to this from their comfortable Seattle and Boston homes, no doubt with the air conditioning cranked up.

“These challenges and recent weeks’ violence notwithstanding, Iraq’s ethno-sectarian competitions in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence.”

Apparently Barack Obama’s meaningless platitude about “Yes, we can,” only applies to getting him elected. “Yes, we can” is supposed to be about improving the world. To give real meaning to another slogan, this is “change we can believe in.”

“No matter which data is used, civilian deaths due to violence have been reduced significantly, though more work clearly needs to be done.”

There was a time when democrats actually believed in rolling up sleeves and actually doing things for society that were positive and productive. They actually supported sending a man to the moon, the Peace Corps, and interventionism in the form of a muscular foreign policy. “More work needs to be done” does not mean that nothing has been done right. A lot has been done right.

One of the most dishonest acts of blogging is creating sensationalistic headlines offering provocative themes that are completely misleading. I am guilty as charged. Deal with it.

General David Petraeus is very diplomatic, but he will not tell the complete truth when he testifies. He will discuss the surge. He will give his assessment of how the War in Iraq is progressing. He will most likely state that he needs more time. We are making progress, we have a long way to go, but there is cause for cautious optimism. Yet there is one thing he will refuse to say, so I will say it for him.

The Senators with the most hostile questioning of him are not fit to lick his boots.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/07/unless-your-name-is-general-david-petraeus-your-opinion-on-the-war-is-irrelevant/

There. I said it.

I want to make it clear that what makes America work is that the military is under civilian control. That should never change. At the same time, it would be nice if the civilians questioning him actually knew something, anything, about what they were talking about.

It is one thing for Senators to rail against Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke. After all, the blowhards had no power to actually do anything about anything the Federal Reserve Chairman said that they found objectionable. With the military, there is a budget involved, and Congress controls it. It would be helpful if those determining whether General Petraeus gets the time he needs actually had life from the neck up.

Here is how I wish the testimony would go in my fantasy world.

“Senator Clinton, the fact that you are questioning me about how I do my job strains all credulity. It defies belief. At 3am, my men are asleep after a 20 hour day, and the 4 hours we sleep would be easier if you were no longer near that phone. Please take your stories about sniper fire in Bosnia and disappear. I know about sniper fire, and your trips around the globe are safe because of my men.”

I would pray that the general would pause long enough to allow me to get some soda and chips and enjoy the show.

“Senator Obama, you say you stand for change. Change comes through blood, sweat and tears, not platitudes. You have never been to Iraq, and as corrupt and dangerous as Chicago may be, it’s a civilized first world city compared to what Iraq was under Saddam Hussein. You may say I have no right to denigrate Chicago, and I will be happy to stop doing so when you stop denigrating Iraq. Either get on a plane and shake the hands of the men that keep you free enough to mouth vacuous campaign slogans, or sit there and smile so people do not figure out that you know nothing about the issue.”

In my fantasy conference, he would go through the liberals like the decorated trooper he is.

“Senator Boxer, if you are truly against torture, then be quiet, because your shrill voice is torture to me. Stop pretending you care about women’s rights. I am fighting for the right of women in the Middle East to avoid having to wear burkhas against their will. I am freeing women from the bonds of slavery and female circumcision. You know what female circumcision is about. It is why you never smile. Now take your ‘I am woman, hear me roar’ attitude and go fix my dinner. I’ve been in the field all day, that being the battle field. If my dinner isn’t ready by the time I am done speaking, I’ll remind the audience about all the women worldwide that are dying while you prattle on and on about nonsense.”

He would spare none of these miscreants.

“Senator Kennedy, I felt safer in Iraq then I would as a passenger in your car. Senator Byrd, you are the reason many American’s support euthanasia. I would say more but you can’t hear me, and if you could, you wouldn’t understand me. Senator Mikulski, just because you are tough enough to play defense for the Baltimore Ravens doesn’t mean you are qualified to take on Al Sadr.”

He would then knock over the table like an angry coach at halftime.

“Senator Boxer, get a mop and clean this mess up. I clean up messes around the globe for you, it’s time for you to start pulling your weight. Senator Kennedy, you can pull half your weight and make a difference.”

An angry, flustered Boxer would then start babbling about the search for truth. At that point General Petraeus would do his best Colonel Nathan R. Jessup impersonation, yelling “You can’t handle the truth!”

Once the Senators were done crying and insisting that they were not the least relevant people on Earth, General Petraeus would agree with them.

“Of course you’re not the most worthless. The House of Representatives makes you clowns look knowledgeable. I plan to kick their @ss tomorrow with more ferocity than we are kicking Al Queda’s @ss.”

The republicans in the Senate would give him a standing ovation, and ask if he had any closing remarks.

“Senator Boxer, you are not fit to lick my boots, but try and prove me wrong. Here they are. Now take your tongue and get to work. I want them spit shined by 6 hundred hours. Don’t worry if your mouth gets tired. It’s not like you use it for anything valuable anyway. You might learn more if you are too tired to talk.”

I eagerly await the real press conference, although it will contain less fireworks. In terms of the war, General Petraeus will be the most honest man in the room. In terms of what he should say to the liberals sitting in judgment of him, he will be too polite to be completely truthful.

eric

I had the pleasure yesterday of seeing Dr. Daniel Pipes. He is the head of the Middle East Forum, and is one of the preeminent global scholars on the issue of Islamofacism. He is truly one of the brightest thinkers in America today.

http://www.danielpipes.org/

At the Republican Jewish Coalition gathering in San Francisco this weekend, there were many speakers on several panels. Sunday was dedicated to Israel, with the theme being “Israel at 60.” The day started with the Consul General and Deputy Consul General of Israel. After that was a media presentation by Blue Star PR.

http://www.bluestarpr.org/

That organization is vital in helping fight the propaganda of Israel’s enemies. Israel is brilliant on the battlefield, and are now aggressively fighting the media war as well.

After that, Dr. Aryeh Green of Media Central spoke about Israel and the media.

http://m-central.org/site/

David Meir Levi spoke about his book “History upside down: The roots of Palestinian Facism and the myth of Israeli aggression.”

As valuable as the entire day was, the highlight was Dr. Daniel Pipes. I have heard him lecture several times, and his message needs to be repeated over and over. He speaks calmly, never raising his voice at all. Nevertheless, his message is deadly serious, and he delivers his message masterfully.

I once asked him what it would take for liberal Jews to wake up and realize how severe the Arab-Israeli conflict was, and his sobering answer was “more deaths.”

Today I asked him a question that could have been perceived as an attempt at humor, but I prefaced it by stating that I was very serious. I wanted to know if the Geneva Convention allows Israel to take captured Palestinians and sterilize them. He said that would not be permissible. It is ok to execute people in battle, but not what I proposed. I ask this because many Palestinians have given up on a two state solution. They want a one state solution, which would end Israel as a Jewish state since Palestinians breed much faster. He did acknowledge that the Geneva Convention does not apply to Palestinians, but that my suggestion was untenable.

Before getting to his remarks, I want to say that because I have so much respect for Dr. Pipes, I conduct myself with dignity around him. I tend to clown around, and he does not seem to be a man that has use for tomfoolery. He is a serious intellect, so I restrain myself. Yet for those who read my blog, I have to admit that every time I see his name on a place card I think of that song involving his name.

“Oh Danny Boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling…”

I think it would be best if I never sang that to him.

Anyway, for those that truly want to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, Dr. Pipes provides a brilliant education. With that, I bring the wisdom of Dr. Daniel Pipes.

“Israel lives under a curse, that being the threat of extinction.”

“There is the crude form of threats and the polite form. The crude form comes from those such as Iranian President Armageddonijad (sic) saying that he wants to wipe Israel off of the map. The polite form comes in several ways. It involves the Palestinian ‘right of return.’ It comes from those that want to ‘liberate Jerusalem.’ It involves those supporting the ‘one state solution.’ It consists of world maps that do not show Israel. Other maps show an Arab state within Israel.”

Dr. Pipes divides Israel into two phases. The first phase was from its inception in 1948 to 1993. The second phase is from 1993 to the present. The second phase has been a disaster.

“So what went wrong in 1993? The rise of radical Islam, the rise of Iran, and the growing anti-Israeli left.”

“External Palestinians ranging from the Palestinian Authority Hamas is what determines Israel’s world standing.”

“From 1948 to 1993, Israel was concerned with victory. Victory was achieved through deterrence. Deterrence is demanding, slow, boring, and passive. Like the Cold War, deterrence ends when one side gives up. In 1993, the policy of deterrence was replaced with a peace process, which was a policy of appeasement. Israel grew weary of deterrence. They wanted immediate results, and felt a peace process would force peace. The United States allowed deterrence to eventually defeat the Soviet Union.”

“Yitzchak Rabin once said ‘You don’t make peace with your friends. You make peace with your enemies.’ He is wrong. You don’t make peace with your friends, but you make peace with your former enemies. You defeat the enemy, and then you make peace. One side must win. The Jewish state must be accepted or eliminated, but not both. Occasionally both sides in a war quit, such as when England and France ceased 70 years of war to unite against the looming threat from Germany. This is rare. Wars end when one side loses.”

“Deterrence is not about one side winning. It is about the other side giving up. The United States did not win the Cold War. The Soviets gave up. Israel must go back to deterrence until their enemies give up.”

“Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state. Maps must show Israel, and Hebron must be safe from rocket fire.”

“Homicide bombers are not acting out of despair. They are acting out of exhilaration. They are exhilarated, not upset. They find strength in killing.”

“The Palestinian will must be crushed. America did not lose the Vietnam War on the battlefield. We lost Vietnam because we lost the will to continue.”

“Palestinians must taste the bitter crucible of defeat. They should get nothing until they lose. There should be no more pieces of paper. The answer is victory, not resolution. Oslo is fine after the Palestinians lose. Israel should win, which means triumph, not just defend.”

“The Iran threat would diminish if the Palestinians accepted Israel.”

“Palestinians can still send stiff diplomatic notes to newspaper editors. They just have to stop the violence.”

“This problem will end through victory, not diplomacy.”

“Palestinians are no longer pawns of the other Arab states. The states are tired of the conflict. They want no part of it. It is the people living in some of the states that want the conflict. Defeating the Palestinians is enough. It will not be necessary to go after all Arabs.”

“Relocating the Palestinians to Jordan is not possible. They do not want a homeland. They want to destroy Israel. If they were relocated to Jordan, they would simply invade Israel again.”

“A complete military victory is not necessary in terms of getting help from the outside world. The outside world except for the United States would not help in any situation. Israel has latitude. The strike on September 6th against Syria was met without a ‘boo’ from the world. Israel does not need to engage in mass killing. Israel must be clever, such as the targeted strike against Syria. It sent a message.”

“The U.S. or Israel must do something about Iran.”

“The Arab League gets upset when Israel breaks a Gaza window pane.”

“Islamists and the left are united. They are both anti-Bush and anti-west. This is a super thin short term alignment. The left is anti-religion and anti-family, preventing a long term association.”

“As for why Israel does not just cut off all water and electricity to the Palestinians permanently, I cannot explain the policies of Ehud Ohlmert’s government.”

A short video offered some frightening images. Also, if the Palestinians truly wanted a state, they would have accepted the chance to have one in 1948, and again in 2000.

Despite his calm demeanor, Dr. Pipes explains what many Jews are feeling…enough is enough.

There is no dialogue with genocidal lunatics. When their spirits are crushed, and they look in the mirror and say, “we can’t win,” only then will they come to the negotiating table.

If they fail to reach this point, then Israel must take any and all self defense measures. Any collateral damage will be the fault of the Palestinians.

The right of Israel to exist is not, and will never be, negotiable.

I thank God that Dr. Daniel Pipes is able to spread this message as effectively as he does.

eric