uganda: week 1

It’s best to come to a place like Uganda without any notions of what to expect.

For starters, I booked the wrong flight and showed up a day later than the Pepperdine group. I also forgot to secure a hotel room for the twelve hour layover in Dubai. (I was later informed by Henry, a court registrar, that I would be the last one to make it to Heaven. Well, given my flight and hotel blunders, I’m just about getting use to doing things the hard way.).

In the Dubai airport, I enjoyed five dollar Starbucks coffee (funny, it tasted the same as two dollar Starbucks coffee.). No refills sir. I also met Asif, a Persian fellow who lived in Johannesburg, studied law at the Ohio (a Buckeye, he happily informed) and now works as a CPA at the U.N. World Food Bank. He was on his way to Rome, where his office is based. We talked about law, his teenage sons, young people in America, American education, foreign affairs, and of the Persian perspective on American policy in the Middle East. Of Kampala, a place where Asif had once been stationed with the U.N., he only warned that I should avoid the dangerous boda-bodas (motorbikes.). Too late Asif. But he was delighted about Pepperdine’s internship program, and shared my excitement for engaging with a young and evolving legal system.

In Entebe, Uganda, there was no terminal connecting the plane to the airport, and so I was immediately struck by the moist air. Inside, I had to fill out a Swine flu information card, and quickly got the feeling that Ugandans aren’t big on waiting in orderly lines. Thankfully, Fred and Pricilla redeemed my first impression of Ugandans. Pricilla asked me if I needed a cab. I told her I needed to get a hold of my group. Pricilla offered her phone, dialed the phone numbers which I had frantically scribbled on an envelop and waited for me. Of course, Pricilla probably wanted my cab-business. But I have certainly never had an American cab driver offer his own cell phone. Pricilla was gracious.

She turned me over to Fred who drove me to Kampala. Fred pointed out the president’s mansion, Lake Victoria, a local brick factory and some other points of local interest. I listened and watched the sharp colors of landscape dance about behind the open markets and stores along the road. It was only two-lanes, but Fred and the other drivers didn’t let this get in their ways. Driving on the wrong side, carving out third lanes, dodging boda-bodas and pedestrians within a hair’s breadth, Ugandan drivers make L.A. streets seem like bumper cars. I white-knuckled the hand-grasp above and prayed for a safe ride – notwithstanding the small issue of now being last in line to Heaven, I prayed indeed.

Fred and I also managed a nice chat during our death-defying ride. I could tell he was proud of Uganda when he pointed out the president’s mansion and spoke of the local sites. Odd as it might seem to point out to a tourist, I caught on that the brick factory must have been a source of steady jobs for Ugandans. Justice Kiryabwire of the commercial court later stressed Uganda’s commitment to the spread of economic infrastructure and facilitating market activity. The loss of a single dollar, he said, meant all the difference to the average Ugandan’s daily life. And so it is important that the courts keep a firm and steady hand over the enforcement of contracts. It is important to quality of life of people like Fred and others that jobs remain stable, and that local commerce thrives.

Fred told me that Ugandans are free to move and go wherever they want, implying a great change from the Uganda of twenty years ago – the Uganda that most Westerns still have in mind. It’s best to come without any notions of what to expect.

“Uganda is free,” Fred proudly declared. To which I replied with excitement that I would be looking forward to working for his courts.

pope benedict and pius the great

Several weeks ago, an impassioned debate was sparked over the appropriateness of the Pope’s bearing a crucifix at the Western Wall. This week he finally made that appearance. Not surprisingly, the reviews were highly critical.

His speech was described as ‘restrained’ and ‘cold’ by an Israeli newspaper. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin was outraged that he delivered an historical speech, even though ‘he was a part of them.’

When John Paul II spoke at the Western Wall he called for God’s forgiveness for the suffering of the Jewish people. Benedict mentioned the pain and suffering of the Jewish people, and the horror of the Holocaust. He called for peace in the Middle East. But for some, this was not good enough. Apparently, there was some expectation among Jewish leaders that Benedict would be apologizing insofar as he is, both, a Christian and a German raised in the Hitler Youth.

The Hitler Youth was a compuslory paramilitary troop. German boys above ten were required to join by the end of the war. Pope Benedict was fourteen years old when he joined. During the Cold War, nearly every West German leader was a former member of the group - possibly there was some coorelation between the facts that the group was COMPULSORY and that EVERY male in Germany was a former a member. The Pope is a member of this aging generation. They don’t owe a special apology to anyone for having been forced, by a murderous tyrant, into a paramilitary troop as boys and teenagers.

Christians in general do not owe an apology for the Holocaust. So often we hear of the six million Jews killed in the concentraion camps. This is true. And it is true that the Jewish community of Europe felt the greatest proportional impact of the Holocaust. More than sixty, perhaps as much as eighty percent of European Jews were killed. But what groups do we suppose comprised the other six to ten million who were killed in the camps? Is it often mentioned that Catholic clergymen were primary targets of the Nazis? Such as one Maximillian Kolbe who voluntarily martyred himself for a Jew at Auschwitz. (The Jew lived to see another fifty years; and Maximillian was sainted.). Do we hear that millions of Christians were slaughtered in the death camps as well?

Of course there is no shortage of propaganda constantly disseminated about the role of Pius XII during the Nazi era. Of course, not more than ten years ago it was discovered that both the Kremlin and Hitler had aims for the pontiff’s assassination, and that both feared his allegiance to the other. Both used the Holy See in various functions of their propaganda. Today, many still believe this propaganda, despite the fact that the Nazis and the Communists shared no greater or more formative enemy than the Holy See.

There is talk of Hitler’s “Catholicism.” Hitler was a mysticist with a demonic world view, who believed in his own authority. He was not like a Christian monarch of old Europe deriving his authority from the Holy See. While he may have occasionally paid lipservice to Catholicism in public (as any good tyrannical propagandist would in a nation full of Catholics), no reasonable person thinks for a minute that Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic. The whole Nazi government was, quite obviously, inherently un-Christian. And yet, the allegations are pervasive - no matter how nonsensical they remain.

(Who knows. Perhaps when America falls people will be talking about Bill Clinton’s devout Christianity and the theocratic government he ran.)

Pope Pius XII issued thousands of fake Baptismal certificates and visas to European Jews. Oskar Schindler saved 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust. All tolled, Pius saved more than 800,000 Jews. While 60-75% of Europe’s Jewish population was annihilated by the Nazis, 80% of Italian Jews were spared by Pius’ efforts to shelter, deport, and lie about as many Jews as he could.

And yet while we have Academy Award winning movies about great men like Schindler, saintly men like Pius are called Nazis. And peaceful men like Benedict are called on to apologize.

Three millions Poles were slaughtered - mainly Catholics. Of course, the Polish Pope we just had for twenty five years dedicate great efforts in his pontiff to reconciliation. To building bridges with Jews and Muslims. To solidarity with the people of Europe’s Soviet bloc. Benedict no doubt shares the same mission as John Paul.

But a lot of arrogant Israelis have picked a fight with Benedict out of hatred and prejudice. They think he owes a constant duty to explain himself, and prove that he is not an anti-semite. There is no appeasing them. Benedict could have fallen to his knees at the Western Wall, and it just would not have been fast enough for people like Rivlin.

janet napolitano is a worthless hag. quit today, you awful, fascist piece of garbage.

fascist

The Department of Homeland Security has, for the second time three weeks, revealed its true purpose of thought control. They recently published a “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.”It is a list of “definitions” of various domestic “extremist” threats which DHS is keeping their watchful eye on. It is obscenely noticeable that the list describes everything from those terrifying Jewish extremists (oye!) which you see walking shiftily around your neighborhoods at night, to the Alternative Media, without a single mention of domestic Islamic extremist groups.

Of course, it would seem superfluous to be writing dictionaries which define “Islamic Extremist” as if police and local law enforcement need clarification as to what a “Muslim” who “hates non-Muslims” might have as his modus operandi. But while we are publishing crazy dictionaries black-listing possible thoughts and free associations, how about Islamic extremists? I mean, they’re not that hard to miss - they’ve got booths at every college campus in the country.

Better yet, let’s not tolerate federal agencies publishing categorically fascist, unAmerican lists identify targeted thought-crimes and phantom-hate-groups: the worst of which probably haven’t posed a serious threat to anyone in some time if ever (yes, I’m thinking of you, my Jewish Extremist friends. Hebrew power!).

Janet Napolitano, you worthless human being who can’t control your own worthless department, quit. Quit today, and get out my government. I’m tired of paying for your worthless position, soaking up air in a worthless government department. Please, there are plently of jobs out there requiring uneducated, ideological fools who waste space, time and money. Perhaps a posistion as a professor of Sociology at a junior college or something. It’d be a perfect fit.

The Document

The document states as its purpose:

“DHS/I&A intends this background information to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security and law enforcement officials in conducting analytic activities. This product provides definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses
the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the
United States.”

Alternative Media:

A term used to describe various information
sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and
issues that differ radically from those presented in mass
media products and outlets.

that differ “radically” from mass media.

Antiabortion Extremism:

A movement of groups or individuals who are
virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against
providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and
their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic
beliefs to justify their criminal activities.

When has an “extremist-anti-abortion” group cited anti-Semitic beliefs as justification for criminal activities? That wouldn’t seem to make any apparent sense even if I were a left wing ideologue. What insane world are these bat-shit crazy lunatics living in?

(Although I must say, the irony of being referred to as possibly ‘anti-Semitic’ by those who promote the latest of human genocides is rather much.)

Left Wing Extremism:

A movement of groups or individuals that
embraces anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines
and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution
rather than through established political processes. The term
also refers to leftwing, single-issue extremist movements that
are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition
to war, and the rights of animals.

Notice, “rather than through established political processes.” Its as if the group of hardcore Left-wingers who actaully wrote this report are sending the message “Hey, we’re not all shutting down speakers at college campuses and advocating crazy Socialist ideas. I mean, we believe in those ideas - but we wish to promote them through passive-resistance, and fascist government buracracies that publish ridiculous reports.”

Right Wing Extremism:

A movement of rightwing groups or individuals
who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily
hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and
reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements
that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to
abortion or immigration.

Now these folks would never even consider the political process. Right wingers obviously don’t have a non-violent counterpart like those peaceful left-wingers have in Nancy Pelosi or Janet Napolitano. They’re far too focused on there “single issues.”

Militia Movement:

A rightwing extremist movement composed of
groups or individuals who adhere to an antigovernment
ideology often incorporating various conspiracy theories.
Members oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and
authority (particularly firearms laws and regulations) and
often conduct paramilitary training designed to resist
perceived government interference in their activities or to
overthrow the U.S. Government through the use of violence.

Yea, so, this was called Lexington and Concord.

Single Issue Exremist Group:

Groups or individuals who focus on a single
issue or cause—such as animal rights, environmental or
anti-abortion extremism—and often employ criminal acts.
Group members may be associated with more than one issue.

“Group or individuals” focused on a “single issue,” oh, but, just to be clear, “group members may be assosciated with more than one issue.” Got it. Local law enforcement should have no trouble spotting out these single-multi issue people.

Its good that we have an effective federal government looking out for all these radicals, with their “issues” and such. Ah, sweet peace of mind.

Jewish Extremism:

A movement of groups or individuals of the
Jewish faith who are willing to use violence or commit other
criminal acts to protect themselves against perceived affronts
to their religious or ethnic identity.

That’s right Rabbi, we’ll be wacthin’ you buddy-boy….. Hmm. Speaking of all this supposed ‘pro-life, right wing’ antisemitism……

http://www.getliberty.org/content_images/Cartoon%20-%20Here%20in%20My%20Hands%20(600).jpg

the truth

"The Truth"

that is - so - yesterday.

“That is so yesterday,” quipped the Secretary of State. It was a playful response to the issue of whether America should be isolating Latin American leaders like Hugo Chavez.

The artist formerly known as Hillary Rodham Clinton has caused the World Community to gush with praise. Her whirlwind globetrot, informally dubbed the “Hey, My Bad,” 2009 tour has been defined for its conciliatory message: You were right, World Community, America does suck, and let me show you how much (it turns out, Monica taught her a thing or two.).

In China, the nation which leads Asia in greenhouse gas emissions, Clinton emitted some gas of her own, condemning America for being the world’s leading emitter. In Indonesia, Clinton bashed America’s ineffective sanctions against Myanmar. Myanmar is a place of limestone landscapes, peppered with bamboo, mangrove and coconut that flourish in the monsoon-environment. Best of all, it is a squalid Marxist hellhole, currently being raped and plundered by military thugs who have spent some forty years exploiting the resources and suppressing every citizen attempt at revolt. Truly, it is about time America take some responsibility for her big-mean sanctions.

As for Iran, Clinton made sure to point out that America’s condemnations have not caused the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Surely, America must change her ways.

But it was Latin America where Clinton shined. In Mexico, she blamed America’s appetite for illegal drugs on the narcotics trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border. Never mind – uh, what do they call that? – the… source of the drugs. We really needn’t concern ourselves with such petty issues (such as where all the drugs are originating, and which LATIN AMERICAN nations have spectacularly failed at regulating the drug cartels).

No, the real concern – what’s really at issue – is that many Americans do a lot of drugs: a fact put squarely on display throughout the Secretary of State’s world tour.

As for building bridges with Chavez, Clinton called for America to “put ideology aside,” because “that is so yesterday.”

Chavez, a socialist demagogue who once attempted a bid for a lifetime dictatorship in Venezuela, has been hostile to the U.S. throughout the last decade (once calling President George Bush the “devil” while speaking before the UN in New York City.).

In 2007, the state department (that’s the one that the Secretary of State is actually in charge of) issues a Human Rights report, reporting that more than 6,000 have been killed by Chavez’s security forces in the last five years. It also reported 11 complaints of torture; 692 complaints of ‘cruel and degrading treatment’ (down from the previous year); that a Venezuelan Mayor, and political opponent of Chavez’s, is seeking political asylum in Peru for fear of the dictator; while another Mayor was barred from his office by Chavez’s police force. His other “reforms” include a tightening grip on the nation’s media as well as blacklisting and investigating political opponents.

Last week, after a warm embrace, Chavez handed President Obama “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent.”

(The book documents the atrocities committed by Western nations, including the U.S., against Latin America. Indeed, it ought to fairly document the vile influence of Europe which cruelly put an end to the fun-and-fancy-free ancient barbarism of human sacrifice and cannibalism, practiced by the Aztecs and the Mayans.).

Well, as it happens, the President just died when he heard that Hillary was throwing this international soiree with the World Community without inviting him. He may have joined late – but Obama was the show stopper.

In Trinidad, President Obama silently sat through a fifty minutes of invective against America’s terrorism, delivered by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.

Obama, of course, came prepared with his usual arsenal of glib retorts. “I’m thankful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old,” he said. As for Venezuela, the President assured that this country poses no serious threat to the U.S. – surely a handshake wasn’t a breach of national security. Our defense budget it, of course, six hundred times that of Venezuela’s, Obama stressed.

I’m not sure when it became U.S. policy to only condemn those whom we fear militarily. But the current policy of executive-level groveling is pathetic. Even worse was the World Community’s response to these spectacles.

Leonel Fernandez, president of Dominican Republic, praised Secretary Clinton’s “courage” and cooed over President Obama. Obama, he said is “paving a new road,” with Cuba. Obama recognizes, “the fact that previous policies have failed. Fifty years of a policy that has not generated the originally sought purposes can be called a failure.”

What exactly do these people think we were “originally” seeking in Cuba? Cuba a piss-ant banana colony off our southern coast. It has been headed by the fascist pawn of Nikita Khrushchev for most of the last sixty years. Had the Bay of Pigs been a success, and Castro been ousted, who knows how much better the lives of the Cuban people may have been. (At the very least, they’d have had one less slobbering sloth putter his wide load down there for a propaganda film about Cuba’s marvelous healthcare.).

But, American containment of Cuba, during the Cold War, was a policy that worked fantastically – especially as America spent the nineteen-eighties stopping the Communist dominoes from falling in Latin America. Today, however, our president is pushing them back down, and falling to his knees at the same time.

Ortega, of course, had beat Obama and Clinton to the love fest for Fidel by about thirty years. In the eighties, he was a leader of the radical Sandinista National Liberation Front, which made several attempts at a Marxist coup d’état in Nicaragua. In 2006, they finally made it by winning 38% in the national elections.

When asked for comment after Ortega’s verbal assault, Clinton said, “I thought the cultural performance was fascinating.” She went on, “To have those first-class Caribbean entertainers all on one stage and to see how much was done in such a small amount of space. I was overwhelmed.”

Overwhelmed.

Government Targets Right Wing Terror Groups

The Department of Homeland Security (better known as the Ministry of Love) has issued a report on the rise of domestic terror groups with extreme right-wing motives.

Apparently, these groups are generally comprised of “single-issue” supporters who oppose abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, expanding federal authority, and taxation, among other issues. Allegedly, returning veterans are to be particularly suspect, given their violent capacities and affiliations with these issues. Did I mention the implication, peppered throughout this report, that these groups are often comprised of white supremacists who are angered that America has elected a black president? Then there is the atrocious allegation that many have this strange obsession with the U.S. Constitution.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano stands by the report. She declared that the topic of the report struck a nerve as someone personally involved with the Timothy McVeigh case. She went on:

“[DHS is] on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not - nor will we ever - monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.”

Internal and external …..? So, basically DHS is subject to the oversight of everyone, everywhere, all at once? Oh, ok. Well that’s good to know at least.

Or, perhaps some amplification is needed as to who, or what, might constitute a source that is, either or both, from within and from outside DHS.

Bureaucrats like Napolitano who explain themselves in impossibly-vague jargon, such as the “internal and external sources” DHS is subject to when publishing fascist reports about their political enemies, are of a typical sort: That is to say that, in their wildest dreams, these people truly cannot have the first goddamn clue as to what they are babbling about. They just say “things” – that’s all: Things that mean nothing yet sound credible, even well-crafted.

Indeed, government parasites like Napolitano have no particular interest in the civil rights of people they despise, politically. (Hence, the stereotyping of crazy, ring-wing, gun-toting, racist, pro-lifers who want to bomb peaceful liberals at an abortion clinic near you.).

There is no doubt that this is a politically inspired report by leftist bureaucrats. Where this report lacks statistical evidence, it inserts stereotypes, catch-words, assumptions, and totally un-provable assertions.

Now, I’m not interested in whether one disagrees with the alleged aims of these phantom extremist groups Napolitano is watching. The bottom line is that this is repulsive, frightening and totally un-American.

It is appalling that a citizen’s preference for state authority over federal authority should be something which the Federal government is suspicious of.

It is doubly appalling that the Federal government has declared its suspicion of returning veterans as potential risks - with ‘violent capacities.’

And let’s get clear about a few points: Timothy McVeigh was military veteran – it’s true. And, true, he bombed the Oklahoma building: over thirteen years ago.

There has been one violent episode at an abortion clinic, in about the last fourteen years.

The nation’s leading White Supremacist terrorist group, the KKK, has a likely membership below 1,000, nationwide. Needless to say, there are any number of crazy “right wing” NON-White Supremacists (and I’m guessing more than a few crazy independents) who are pro-life, pro-LEGAL immigration (thus opposed to illegal immigration – a position which one can only dream the United States government will adopt one of these days), pro-gun rights, own guns, and sort-of-enjoy or at least kind-of like the U.S. Constitution (a position which one can only dream…. Well, we get the picture).

Meanwhile, America sits home to more than one million gang members. More than twelve million people are illegally residing in the U.S., and the federal government has no way of knowing who they are or what business they have in the U.S. Granted, most illegal aliens pose no threat of harm to anyone (economically, maybe: but no physical danger.). Yet, eight years after nineteen foreigners, living in the U.S., hijacked four U.S. airplanes, and flew them into the World Trade Center, the department which was created in response to this attack seems to have taken little or no interest in the threats posed by our open borders. They’re far too busy chasing after unidentified, right-wing boogeymen who have a scary-love for the Constitution.

Most insulting about this report, is the implication that people who feel strongly about traditionally Conservative issues are being motivated by their racial hatred for America’s first black president. Of courem most pro-life, pro-legal immigration, pro-gun right, pro-Constitution Americans bear no such hatred.

However, some of us are just a little frustrated that 60 million Americans foolishly elected a socialist child, who went on to surround himself with bureaucrats and lunatics sharing radical-fascist leanings.

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/]

Easter Greeting

I am eighteen years old. The study of History is coming alive. Not a single story in human events fails to inspire my fascination. And yet, it is around this time when I also begin to see how utterly twisted and distorted Western academia has become.

In my History of World Civilizations course, I was coming across the terms “CE” and “BCE” where one would have expected to find “BC” and “AD” period indicators. CE, of course, is a reference to the “Current Era,” substituting the BC/AD indicators (“Before Christ,” from the Latin Ante Christum, and “Anno Domine,” meaning “Year of Lord,” respectively.).

At first, I wasn’t sure whether this new innovation was a positive or just a neutral change. So what if we “universalize” the dating system, right? By now, however, its perfectly clear to me why this change is at once irrational as well as arrogant. This innovation is really just another indication that the academy is in a state of moral and intellectual confusion, that is perhaps irreversible.

And just how do a couple of letters lead me to this inference?

Let me start from the beginning: The BC/AD system is attributable to a sixth century monk named Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor (modern day: Romania.). Doinysius thought it high time for Christian Europe to discontinue its use of the Diocletian dating system, named for the third/fourth century Caesar who immediately preceded Constantine the Great.

No doubt the monk’s chief motivation for the change was Diocletian’s bloody legacy of Christian persecution. Indeed, the first decade of the fourth century AD marked the last and most gruesome series of Christian persecutions under the Empire. Historians low-ball a figure of about 3,000 Christians who were burned, boiled, buried alive, crucified or tortured to death in that decade alone (For perspective, during the Spanish Inquisition, beginning in 1478 and ending in 1834, between 1,000 and 4,000 were executed for heresy.).

(As an aside, another highlight of Diocletian’s reign was the Edict on Maximum Prices which naïvely attempted to halt ramped inflation by installing penalties on merchants who set prices above the maximum. Supply and demand were lost on Diocletian. The policy ultimately resulted in an abrupt halt to market activity, while effectively giving rise to black market activity, more inflation and monetary instability. If that didn’t work, surely the Edict on Coinage provided some Imperial Hope. Devaluing the coinage in order to repay the Empire’s debts was definitely going to halt inflation and preserve the price of gold, yes? Nope.).

Planned economies: Screwing Free Markets since 301 AD.

We get the picture. Diocletian: model of justice, legacy of greatness? Not so much.

Of course, dating systems which reflected the reign of individual monarchs or dynastic periods had remained a standard method for most of human history. The practice remained common well into the Middle Ages.

But, Dionysius felt that man’s time ought to reflect the new reign of the King of kings. Dionysius’ reform of drawing the Christian world back to the birth of Christ spread to every Western Christian country during the Middle-Ages. These countries had formerly comprised Rome itself. In 1422, Portugal became the last to adopt the BC/AD system. This was the universal dating system, and remains so to this day.

Within a generation of Portugal’s adoption, Europe - unified under the banner Christendom - mounted the crest of the High Renaissance: the rebirth of Roman knowledge, culture and glory. Europe emerged from the dark ages, previously brought on by godless barbarism, thanks to the Church’s preservation of ancient knowledge. Thanks to the Christian monasteries, the writings of Greece and Rome were in tact and Western civilization was saved (in more ways than one.).

During this time, the Church itself served as patron to Da Vinci, Michaelango and Raphael. Philosophy was revived. Commerce was flourishing. Scientific knowledge was increasing. The Enlightenment of the post-renaissance was only a natural consequence of Christian Europes swift march down the path of cultural and scientific revolution.

Now, it would be wholly inaccurate to talk about Europe between the Middle-Ages and the mid-Twentieth Century as a place of constant peace and Christian brotherhood. However, even world regions comprised of warring nation-states, while united under a single religion (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism), never experienced a moment like the Renaissance. Christianity bound the nations of Europe, separated by language and ancient claims to land and superiority, under a common law and a common purpose. Christian Europe shared its knowledge, and Western civilization charged ahead in every field of human production.

Today, Europe squanders the fruits of Christianity’s impact, denying its Christian heritage and reshaping its institutions into “unoffensive” secular versions of their former selves. Western academia seeks to replace Christian dating with non-confrontational, non-sectarian, non-feeling-hurting nonsense-terms like “Current Era” and “Before Current Era.” The reason of course is to avoid offending non-Christians. The glaring problem with the new system - that is, the feature which makes it entirely irrational - is the fact that there is no push to alter the dates themselves. Indeed, the year is still 2009 - proponents of the new system would call it 2009 CE rather than 2009 AD.

Odd how the “Current” Era still happens to coincide with the “Year of Our Lord.” With eyes still fixed on the birth of Christ as our demarcating line, the dating itself still separates human history into before and after the coming of Christ. After all, what exactly is so “current” about events that occurred 2009 years ago? Moreover, what would be the need to separate human history into two periods: shouldn’t we just use a constant stream of years? We could be in the year 200,000, say (the approximate age of the human genome.). Nay, that would offend rocks. Heck, lets just call it the year 4,000,000,000 and be done with it.

Actually, the whole reason behind the change is that BC/AD may offend those who believe that, in these modern times, all cultural, governmental and social institutions ought to be re-organized to fit secular fashion. Thus, we shall simply call this 2009th Year of Our Lord the “Current” era. Then, we shall just try to forget about the legacy of this pesky religion that saved civilization. The same religion which preserved education and learning for a thousand years - without which there would be no “Current” university professors here to distort history.

As a matter of fact, being that I cry myself to sleep over the oppression modern calenders inflict on me, I submit that we rid ourselves of these hideous theocratic month-names: Janus (god gates and doorways), Februum (purification ritual) Mars (god of war), Aphrillis (godess of love), Maia (godess of fertility), Juno (wife of Jupiter). Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus and Octavian are secular month-name inspirations enough, I suppose. Nothing wrong with worshiping human beings as secular gods. Perhaps we could even rename one Obamuary or another Caesar Chavember.

Happy Easter.

yeah!? well, bush was just…. a stupid silly head!

Many have been challenging the president to own up to his Socialism for sometime now – since well before he locked up the nomination. Yet, despite countless musings and paraphrasing of Marxist ideas coming from the president (as well as the first lady), President Obama and his surrogates have consistently brushed these accusations aside as if they were beneath addressing.

Last fall, when then-senator Biden was asked, point blank, by a reporter in Florida whether Obama was a Marxist (after comparing a quote by Marx with Obama’s most recent paraphrasing of the quote), Biden became indignant: “you’re kidding, right?”

When the son Saul Alinsky, one of the most prominent Marxist intellectuals of the 20^th century, wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe the day after Obama’s convention speech, praising Obama as having learned well the skills of community organizing articulated by his father, no one dared ask what Obama felt about such praise.

(Never mind endorsements from Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.)

Since taking office, President Obama has suggested nationalized health care, to be funded in the ballpark of $700 billion, pushed a trillion dollar “stimulus” package through the Congress – More than the US House of Representative’s discretionary spending for the entire year 2008; costlier than any federal bill in U.S. history – he has promised raising taxes on Americans making more than $250,000 per year by a trillion dollars, and his Treasury Department has sent a half trillion to bailout defaulting mortgagees.

At the very least, this is all amounts to a textbook example of madness. Further still, how about socialism?

This week, the president again asserted his administration’s position that all such questions are silly and not worthy of an official answer. How grateful we should all be that he has condescended to answer.

Responding to a reporter for the New York Times, who dared to use the S-word, Obama said, “It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question.”

He went on: “I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement – the prescription drug plan – without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word ’socialist’ around can’t say the same.”

So, from what I’m hearing, he is a Socialist. Oh, but with one caveat: “Bush started it!”

As an aside, I’ve been observing this trend among Bush-hating-Obama-worshippers (which certainly does not comprise all Liberals, Democrats, or even Obama voters) to deflect from Obama’s Socialism by referring to Bush’s. The conversation goes something like:

Speaker 1: “You know, that Obama’s quite the Socialist with his nationalizing banks, intervening in private industry, promising to raise astronomically higher taxes, and suggestions about redistributing wealth.”

Bush-hating-Obama-worshippers: “Yeah!? Well, what about Bush? He started the bailouts and spent hundreds of billions in Iraq and Afghanistan!”

Of course, the response is a fallacy. Analogously, if I were to say:

“My, but, excessive consumption of chocolate cake is bad for one’s diet!”

A proper rebuttal would not be:

“Yeah!? Well, what about red meat?”

By adopting the same level of indignation and outrage against wasteful government spending and the nationalizing of private industry, the BHOW’s only underscore the point made by the Obama critic: Socialism is not sound economic policy, will not get us out of the recession, and is possibly quite dangerous with regard to our liberties.

Accepting as true that President Bush spent far too much (wrote checks the fed can’t cash, so to speak) on government bailouts, and a prescription drug bill (which many Conservatives opposed, along with countless other new spending projects), and that the wars started in the Middle East were immoral wastes of tax money, none of this amounts to a proper rebuttal to the argument that Barak Obama is in fact a Socialist.

At a minimum, it merely serves to suggest that, perhaps, George W Bush (or his economic advisers) was a (were) Socialist as well.

That’s a fair point; but it’s not the point being raised – at least not explicitly. For if one thought Bush’s socialism reflected poor judgment, one would have to think Obama’s socialism does the same. Moreover, Obama’s stimulus package, mortgage bailout, and universal health care proposal amounts to more money spent by the federal government than in all of the last eight years combined. A trillion dollars in new taxes will be the greatest transfer and redistribution of wealth in human history.

I’m not particularly surprised that intellectually insecure BHOWs would come up with such a childish fallacy. Although, I am a little concerned that our Harvard educated president has adopted it himself.

a nation of cowards

In case you forgot to shed tears of joy, the new U.S. Attorney General is a Black man. What’s that? Oh, perhaps you’re all out of tears. Fair enough, considering that we are in Black History Month, a month after the inauguration of the first Black president. Perhaps you’ve run out of tears since the position of Secretary of State was held by its first two Black Americans ever for the last eight years (of course, they were conservative, A.K.A. “house slaves”, according to most of their Black critics.).

Come to think of it, by now, we have had Black senators, congressmen, governors, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, university professors, and on and on. While anyone can recognize the significance of our first Black president, when can we say “enough with the glass ceiling rhetoric.”

The same was the case when Speaker Pelosi became Speaker of the House. As if we didn’t have dozens of women in every area of government. Still, with every new “hurdle,” we hear the obligatory catch phrase “We’ve come along way, but have a long way to go.”

No, we don’t. We’re there right now.

No doubt, this country has spent centuries fighting racial demons. Slavery ranks among mankind’s most morally depraved hours, and the Civil War that ensued as a result in this country was America’s bloodiest. For a hundred years thereafter this country continued to fend off these demons. Today, America’s legal system has been so reshaped, often for the better, by the march of equality as to render institutional racism against Black Americans virtually extinct.

Moreover, such racism is vastly considered socially unacceptable as well. The Klan member sporting a white cape is less a serious boogeyman than he is a clown to be mocked in popular culture.

And while we may never get to declare the death of racism completely, its more than fair to say that if a minority was refused a job or position in this country, it probably was not attributable to a racist employer - and if it was, that employer is going to have 16,000 lawyers and government agencies on top of him in no time.

Yet, last week, Attorney General Eric Holder, contemplating America’s aversion to discussing race, said “In things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” Indeed, making such a statement in the middle of Black History Month made it all the more poignant. It’s hard to tell that I’m being completely facetious right now, given that most people would think, indeed, Black History Month is a poignant time to talk about race. No, it’s an absurd time for a Black Attorney General who was appointed by a Black president who was elected by 53% of the voting public, to be scolding an entire nation for racial “cowardice.”

To be honest, I’m absolutely sick of “talking about race” if Mr. Holder means talking about race the way we’ve been talking about it for the last couple of decades. Because, “talking about race” almost invariably consists of talking about how minorities need to be allowed to move ahead and upward on the social ladder, and how we must break down racial barriers. Yet, again, many of these so-called “barriers” no longer exist.

This is not to say that minority groups, Black Americans in particular, don’t suffer from tragic social dilemmas with regard to crime and poverty. However, the point of contention that arises in our many “talks about race” seems to be the source of these dilemmas. While Mr. Holder never specified his opinion, those of his Liberal ilk never fail to cite institutional racism.

Thus, our little talks tend to break down. Moreover, incase Mr. Holder has forgotten, non-minorities (White males) generally aren’t allowed to talk about race, if they refuse to agree with the [Liberal] consensus view that racism is an everlastingly pervasive attitude that shall always, always, always remain entrenched, embedded and lingering the depths of every White mind. Those who disagree are deemed racist, or politically incorrect, at best.

It’s no wonder that some White Americans have become cowards. In this, I fully agree. In fact, I would further add there are at least four general types White Americans, when it comes to “talking about race”:

First, there are the spineless White Liberals who have accepted the regime of Political Correctness. They talk about race freely, yet always concede that Black America’s problems are the direct result of ever-lingering American racism. This group consists of cowards with regards to any number of issues, not the least of which is their cowardice on race.

Second, there are the Non-political, non-confrontational White Americans who may or may not believe the [Liberal] consensus view that all Whites are racist by nature, but still refuse to talk about race for fear of being called racist. This is probably the largest group of White Americans, and indeed, this group consists of cowards on the issue of race.

Third, there are the actual racists.

Fourth, there are the “racists” who have no problem honestly “talking about race,” but refuse to attribute staggering Black crime and poverty rates to anything but 50 or more years of Socialism, welfarism, racial demagoguery, political correctness, and the moral decline of popular culture. This group does not agree that racism remains institutional.

This group does not shed tears every time a Black person, or a woman for that matter, achieves a high office, because they do not consider America an institutionally racist country. Certainly, this group expects nothing less than greatness to come from every community and every corner of America, regardless of their skin color.

This group sees America’s Black communities in crisis, and hopes to God that a bright, well-educated, and respectable Black president, or a Black Attorney General will ask Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to move aside in order to serve these communities as shinning examples of what America has to offer every citizen if he’s willing to pursue his dreams.

This group is tired of “talking” the issue of race to death, and tired of ending up the politically incorrect racist in these racial discussions.

Happy Black History Month.

best president of all time?

In 2000, C-SPAN announced a ranking of U.S. presidents based on a ten point criteria, in which Abraham Lincoln came out on top. President Lincoln, again, topped that list which was recently reexamined. Sixty-five historians participated, ranking “each president on a scale of one, ‘not effective’ to 10, ‘very effective.’”

Surely, any self-respecting historian must know how arbitrary such a list is – to say nothing of the ranking process itself. Such lists are an excuse for a handful of historians, who know (or ought to know) the silliness of the list, to prop themselves up as authorities, while journalists and commentators spend a day or so propping themselves up as great analysts, construing the significance of each ranking. Shortly after the 2000 list, more than a half-dozen public opinion polls were conducted, asking participants to rank the presidents. There were three major differences that prevailed in these lists from the historian’s list.

One is obvious: the lists were shorter and included more twentieth century presidents. The “Guilded Era” presidents tend to get overlooked by a population starving to be taught American history. This may be a good thing. After all, what have Rutherford B Hayes and Chester A Arthur done for me lately? Nevertheless, I think the country could benefit from a working, rudimentary knowledge of a James K Polk or an Andrew Jackson (my personal favorite).

Instead, most of the lists include any number of twentieth century presidents who effectively destroyed American education with various social programs.

Second, while Lincoln holds steady at the top nearly across the board, the public opinion lists consistently placed Ronald Reagan in the top three, while the historians ranked him at or below tenth place. Now, “top ten” or “top three” notwithstanding, I’m really not sure what position Ronald Regan deserves, objectively speaking. In fairness, being that he is twenty years out office, I think it is appropriate to begin evaluate the legacy of the 40^th president. Still, since I don’t see the point in a ranking system, I’m just not ready to put a number next to most of these men.

Nevertheless, the public opinion polls have often been downplayed as being mere opinion, as opposed to the more historically “in depth” C-SPAN list. Actually, I think the fact that most of the public opinion lists included so few presidents is proof that the public opinion lists were just that: opinion.

However, as between the two, I would absolutely bet more on the objective accuracy of the public opinion lists than I would on the historians’ list. The reason being is that they are BOTH opinion polls. The third difference being that, while one list was the collective opinions of 65 historians, the other half dozen presented the collective opinions of 1,000 to 1,500 participants across the country.

This is all by way of saying that, while it is at best historically glib, the C-SPAN list evinces an odd combination of political and ideological biases which the news outlets reporting it will totally ignore (given that most of them share those biases.).

Some blatant examples of political caprice included:

Bill Clinton moving up from No. 21 to No. 15, between 2000 and 2009. This is partly because he moved from 5 to 3 on “Management of the Economy.” A couple of things. One, the president was never intended to “manage” the economy, which is likely why the first 20 or 30 were involved as little as needed. Maybe if Franklin Pierce knew that 100 years later Franklin Roosevelt would prop himself up as God Almighty of the American Economy, he would have got in on the action. Being pre-Rooseveltian ends up being sort of a disadvantage in this category.

Clinton also moved from 5 to 4 in the category “Pursued Equal Justice for All.” I have no idea what that category means or what its historical guidelines included. What I do know is that, below Abraham Lincoln, we are given 6 liberal Democrats. One of whom, Bubba, groped a woman in the Oval Office and exposed himself to another, asking her to “kiss it.” Another of whom, Carter, capitulated while 52 hostages where held captive for 444 days in Iran. There is FDR who expanded the arm of the federal government, giving it oversight over areas of private life, unimagined by the Founders. And Johnson who, to his credit, did sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was overwhelmingly passed by Congressional Republicans. I’m also somewhat perplexed as to why JFK ranks so high in this category - not that he was a known woman-molestor (a quality which, one would think, ought to ding you on “Equal Justice for All”).

No, as far we know JFK was a complete gentlemen with all his mistresses. But I’m pretty sure a couple of names could have come before this rather uneventful president …

Never mind that James Madison, ranked 20^th in this category and 20^th overall, wrote the US Constitution. Never mind that John Adams, the attorney representing the Sons of Liberty who courageously sailed to and from France in the midst of a War to plead our case to the French - literally risking his life - and to secure critical loans from the Dutch, was referred to as the “voice of revolution” by Thomas Jefferson. Well, Adams was 2 spots higher than the writer of the Declaration of Independence, who got 17^th in this category.

What did Jefferson do for Equal Justice again? Oh, right, I already said that…. Too bad he didn’t do something really inspiring like invade religious compounds in Texas or have the attorney general storm a Florida home in the middle of the night to take Elian Gonzales out at gun point.

And if only Dolly Madison had been a crazy hardcore Marxist shoving universal healthcare down out throats……. Oh, the possibilites.

Clinton also moved up in another critical category: from 40 to 37 on moral authority. I don’t know if I need to complain about such a deservedly low ranking. Though one should not forget that “the character issue” was coined because of and for this man.

I suppose Eisenhower ranked 10^th in Pursuit of Equal Justice because of his Supreme Court appointments – men who effectively mangled the US Constitution, whom Eisenhower later referred to as his biggest mistakes.

Another oddity, I thought, was “Relations With Congress.” Now I don’t know if one is ranked higher for fighting Congress tooth and nail, or for acquiescing to Congressional authority, or whether its for getting Congress to follow one’s agenda. The list is not clear. What is strange is that Bill Clinton is ranked 19^th. Clinton entered the presidency with both Houses of Congress in the same party as himself. Two years later, as an undisputedly direct cause of his first two years in office which were an unmitigated catastrophe by every measure, the Congress shifted to the Republicans in an unprecedented landslide. For the rest of his term, Clinton decided to take credit for Congressional initiatives like the Welfare Reform Act which never would have been thought of in a Democratic Congress. By contrast, George W Bush is 36^th in this category.

Now regardless of one’s opinion about Bush, this is truly absurd. Bush was the first Republican president since Eisenhower to have had both Houses of Congress controlled by Republicans. And Eisenhower only enjoyed that for the 83^rd Congress (1953 to 1955.). Bush had a tie senate for the 107^th, and a majority for the 108^th and the 109^th. The House was Republican from the 104^th through the 109^th.

Can anyone argue that Bill Clinton had better Congressional relations, on the whole, than George W Bush?

Such lists are opinion and nothing more. The most surprising feature about this list is that Obama has yet to make an appearance in the top 2. I give it a week.

Last, while I know I said I wouldn’t put a number next to “most” of these men, I know which 5 belong in anyone’s top 10, at least:

John Adams: the Voice of Revolution

George Washington: Father of our Country

Thomas Jefferson: Declarer of Independence

James Madison: Father of the Constitution

Andrew Jackson: straight up bad-ass