Advertisement

Entries from blogs tagged with “Kansas politics”

Sam Brownback Preferable to Paul Davis

I'm not a fan of Governor Sam Brownback, but four more years of Brownback is preferable to four years of someone who is as out of touch with reality as Paul Davis is.

Davis talks about Brownback's cuts in education spending, but seems totally unaware of the fact those cuts have been restored. He pledges to restore the cuts that have already been restored.

He and his supporters don't understand economics. They talk about Kansas job creation rate as if that was the most important measure of the state's economy.

Kansas unemployment is only 4.8% which many economists consider within the range of full employment (4-6%). There are always some workers who are between jobs such as those whose employers have downsized or closed. Some have just entered the labor force after graduation. Some have trouble holding a job because of things like poor work attitudes or drug or alcohol abuse. Some cannot relocate to find another job because a spouse would be unable to find comparable work in another location.

Job creation can be problematic when unemployment is less than 5% because creating too many jobs in an industry can cause a labor shortage which could force some companies to move to another state. A higher job creation rate could require an increase in population that would put a strain on the state's water resources.

These potential problems don't mean the state should adopt a no growth philosophy. The potential negatives merely mean that becoming obsessed with the job creation rate, as Davis and his supporters are, could make a good economy go bad.

Paul Davis car ad is wrong. Davis is the one who wants to go backwards.

Reply

Democrats Are Ultraconservative Elitists - Not Liberals

Why do Republicans like Rush Limbaugh continue to help out Democrats be calling them "liberals" even though most Democrats are ultraconservative elitists?

Rush's listeners might consider the word "liberal" a bad name, but many others, including most political journalists don't. Many journalists seem to think that American politics involves a contest between good guys and bad guys like a 50's tv western. They ignore the possibility that many national level politicians are like the characters Clint Eastwood played in western movies. It's not always clear whether they are good guys or bad guys. Many believe that "liberals" are the good guys and "conservatives" are the bad guys even though most don't understand the concepts involved.

Most journalists have no idea what a "liberal" is but assume that the people Rush Limbaugh calls "liberals" are the ones they should support. Limbaugh doesn't understand that "liberal" doesn't refer to specific government programs or policies. The term certainly doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with Limbaugh.

Limbaugh doesn't understand that liberals don't always remain liberals. Friedrich Nietzsche once noted that "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."

Once liberals establish what they want, human nature takes over and they become more protective of their "baby" than a mother bear protecting her cubs. True liberals would recognize that no system is perfect and continue to look for ways to improve or replace systems as necessary.

With the possible exception of personal moral values, Democrats have become the antithesis of liberals. Most haven't had a new idea in 40 years. Democrats tend to handle everything the way they did the Vietnam War. When their strategy didn't produce immediate results they just sent in more and more troops instead of evaluating the situation and looking for a better strategy. If spending programs don't produce the desired results ultraconservative Democrats just spend more money instead of examining the program to see if it can work. If Democrats were liberals they would try to find better programs.

Political liberals should be open minded, but ultraconservative Democrats tend to True Believers who believe they are Right about everything and anybody who disagrees is Wrong. Democrats seem unable to comprehend the possibility of any other proposals than theirs. A real liberal believes your ideas are just as likely to be valid as his.

When the Reagan administration loosened some federal regulations, the process was called "liberalization". Democrats favor increased regulations with large bureaucracies to enforce them. Such an approach is inherently ultraconservative because in the long run it discourages change. If current regulations don't work, Democrats take the ultraconservative approach that the answer is more regulations and more regulators even though the problem may be the current regulations are unworkable or aren't being enforced as happened in a recent recession.

No real liberal would favor a health care measure that uses police state methods to force people to buy health insurance whether they think they can afford it or not. Real liberals would not have favored the big insurance corporation subsidy bill commonly called "Obamacare."

Liberals believe the state exists to serve the people. Democrats believe people should be forced to serve the interests of the state and the various special interests who control Democratic office holders.

Real liberals ignore differences in skin color instead of categorizing people by skin color. Democrats take an Archie Bunker approach to ethnic issues. When the prejudiced Archie describes a balanced ticket to his son-in-law Michael he describes a balanced ticket as one consisting of a black guy, a Jew, an Italian...and a "regular American" (i.e., a white person like Archie). Democrats may not use Archie's terms but they treat whites as "regular Americans" and insist on using special terms for non-whites. Even though the first Africans arrived in North America long before the British, Democrats insist that dark skinned Americans be called "African Americans" as if they were recent arrivals.

Democrats assume all individuals within an interest group have the same political interests which are different from the interests of other groups.

Fifty years ago liberal Democrats fought to close inferior Jim Crow health care facilities in the south. Today's Democrats authorize federal funds to operate "Jane Crow" health facilities that provide lower quality health care to minority women than facilities that serve white men are required to provide. Last year a black woman named Tonya Reaves bled to death after being treated in an unlicensed [and therefore illegal] health clinic in President Obama's hometown. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece Dr. Alveda King calls the death murder.

Obama acted quickly when a black man was killed after attacking a police officer in Ferguson, Mo.. However, he did nothing after a black woman died due the negligence of workers in the Chicago health clinic run by an organization that supports Democratic politicians.

A real liberal would treat a graduate of Eureka College as potentially being the equal of a graduate of Harvard. or Yale. Democrats tend to believe that Ivy League graduates are the best and the brightest in spite of the fact that Ivy League grads put half a million of us in Vietnam for no apparent reason other than they didn't want to lose the Vietnam War before the next election.

Leaders of the Democrats tend to suffer from the delusion that they are better than other people. They may think they are better because of their economic status, the status of their ancestors or the schools they attended.

Elitists often believe they are privileged characters who can do whatever they want like the Wall Street Bums who insisted on being paid bonuses for wrecking their companies and the economy. Members of the elite sometimes get away with things the rest of us would be punished for, such as Sen Ted Kennedy driving off a bridge and leaving his passenger to die.

Many of the old rich believe they are better because of the actions of their ancestors even though those "Robber Baron" ancestors got their position by wrecking the environment or mistreating their employees. The ultimate elite are the royal families of Europe whose founding members were cut throats who took power through violence and killed or imprisoned anyone who was in their way including members of their own families.

I'm too cynical to be a liberal because liberals tend to be optimists. We could use some liberals today because unlike most Democrats and Republicans liberals tend to be pragmatic rather than ideological. Liberals would recognize that dealing with problems requires an approach between the rigid government regulations favored by Democrats and the no government attitude of Republicans.

Reply

Time for V.P. Joe Biden to Relieve Barack Obama of Presidential Duties

Increasingly even many Democrats are recognizing that the American ship of state is foundering. It's Captain seems out of touch with reality. The Captain may be stressed out or the problem may be more serious.

The American people are losing confidence in President Barack Obama's leadership. Movie Director Michael Moore says Obama has only one accomplishment. "100 years from now: 'He was the first black American that got elected president.' And that's it."

Republican voters are increasingly vocal in their calls for impeachment. There is a less divisive way of dealing with a situation in which a president is out of touch with reality because of stress or other reasons.

The 25th Amendment assigns the Vice President the responsibility of monitoring a president's condition and reliving a president who has become unable to handle the duties of the office.

I've been concerned about Obama's mental state since the budget crisis a few years ago when he became irrationally obsessed with keeping World War II veterans from visiting their memorial. If he had been worried about protecting the memorial, I'm sure there are hundreds of military retirees in the vicinity of the District of Columbia who would have been willing to volunteer to protect the memorial.

I initially dismissed Obama's childish sounding comment about the navy during the Denver presidential debate as possibly being due to the affect of alcohol at high altitude. Now I think the comment could indicate he is out of touch with the real world.

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," President Obama said. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. "We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines," he said.

Both aircraft carriers and submarines were used in World War I. The inability to protect ships from German submarines forced the United States to enter World War I. In 1916, the British navy was the free world's protector. Now the United States navy needs to play that role. This role requires a bigger navy than the United States had a century ago.

Politico has reported that "The West Wing has a preferred, authorized distillation of the president’s foreign-policy doctrine: 'Don’t do stupid [stuff]'. The phrase has appeared in The New York Times three times in the last four days. [prior to 06/01/14] So, if the White House’s aim was to get the phrase in circulation, mission accomplished!" "Don't do stupid [stuff]" sounds more like something Wally would say to his younger brother Beaver on the old "Leave it to Beaver" television show than the basis of a serious foreign policy. No wonder Obama had trouble finding a strategy to deal with ISIS.

Obama's highly publicized coffee cup salute demonstrated an apparent lack of awareness of where he was or what was happening around him. He was getting off a Marine helicopter when he returned a salute by Marines with a hand that held a coffee cup. . Military protocol says that a salute should not be returned while holding something in the hand. Obama has gotten off the helicopter possibly hundreds of times. He should be aware of the procedure by now and be aware that the media often watches him get off. He should have known Marines would be standing guard at the bottom of the steps and transferred the cup to the other hand or simply nodded his head to acknowledge the salute.

The incident might seem minor, but such socially inappropriate actions can be an early sign of dementia. Although Obama might seem a little young to be affected by dementia, many of us believe he might have risk factors for dementia. His Lincoln like build could indicate he has Marfan's syndrome which can cause fatal heart attacks. Many of us believe he is an alcoholic which is another risk factor for dementia. Alcoholism can be inherited. Obama's father was an alcoholic and Obama admits to heavy drinking in the past.

Dementia can be difficult to diagnose because "in the beginning, AD and other forms of dementia can resemble normal aging." Obama wouldn't be the first president to have some form of dementia. Ron Reagan reports that Alzheimer's was already affecting his father, President Ronald Reagan, during the second administration.

Psychology expert Dr. Gina Loudon goes so far as to say she has become “very, very concerned” that President Obama has become “irrational, erratic and perhaps not exactly what we might want to deem sane.”

On the other hand, Obama might just be stressed out. The pressures of the office may have become so great, he is no longer able to cope effectively with his situation.

Critics complain that he is taking too many vacations or spending too much time playing golf. These critics fail to consider that vacations and golf may be the only way Obama can cope with the extreme pressures he is under. Obama is having to deal with more pressure than any president who didn't have to deal with a major war. He continues to struggle to learn how to get sufficient support for his measures in Congress.

Numerous members of his administration have let him down, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with her foolish decision to not bring the Ambassador to Libya to Washington to keep him from becoming a target for a 9/11 anniversary terror attack.

Republicans are calling for impeachment, but impeachment would be very divisive and wouldn't be appropriate if Obama's deficiencies are due to a mental condition. Impeachment is a political decision with partisan concerns often overriding the issue of improper actions.

The 25th Amendment procedure is designed to deal with a situation where a president's condition may prevent limit his ability to handle the nation's problems. The procedure protects a president from a situation that could have potentially fatal consequences.

Historians believe that the stress of dealing with various scandals killed President Warren G. Harding. The stress of dealing with Watergate nearly killed President Richard Nixon. Fatigue from pushing the concept of the League of Nations temporarily incapacitated President Woodrow Wilson. Many historians believe his condition was so bad that his wife became the nation's virtual president.

If the stress of the presidency is adversely affecting Barack Obama's health, it would be irresponsible to not relieve him. The procedure for relieving a president under the 25th Amendment can be temporary. If Obama is merely stressed out, a temporary leave of absence could allow him to eventually return to office.

In observing President Obama the last few years I feel similar to Mr Scoff on the original Startrek series when he could sense the engines weren't functioning properly, but he couldn't tell why. Mr. Obama doesn't seem to functioning properly, but I'm not sure why. I don't know whether it's just too much stress or something more serious.

He hasn't looked well for the last month or so. Some of the video I saw of him a month ago resembled the appearance of someone who's recently been treated for cancer, although I'm sure it that were the case we would have been told. We men have a tendency to cover up health problems. We not only don't we tell our doctor, we may lie to ourselves and say nothing is wrong.

Reply

If No Democrat Senate Candidate, I’ll Vote for Roberts

I had been looking forward to the opportunity to vote for an Independent candidate for U.S. Senate. I often vote for "third party" candidates because the two 19th Century major parties are out of touch with reality. For example, I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000.

Chad Taylor's withdrawal as the Democrat's Senate candidate provides strong evidence that Sen. Pat Roberts is probably correct when he says Greg Orman is really just a Democrat masquerading as an Independent.

Chad Taylor apparently filed for the Senate nomination to keep serious Democrats from running for the office. I strongly suspect that he had no intention of actually seeking the Senate seat. He merely wanted to insure that Orman would have a clear shot to win the seat for the Democratic Party.

I hope that Orman is sincere, but I cannot ignore the fact that the Democrats who know him better than I do believe he is one of them. Taylor in effect has made Orman the Democrat's Senate candidate.

If Orman wants us to take him seriously, he should condemn Taylor's withdrawal and demand that Democrats name a new candidate. He could site the incident as an example of what is wrong with the major parties. Democrat leaders don't care what chicanery they use to win. Democrats only care about winning. Democrats don't care about people or their rights.

Orman needs to emphasize how he disagrees with the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama. He needs to run against Congress and President Obama. We have a president who seems incapable of providing leadership and a Congress full of people more interested in playing silly political games than dealing seriously with the nation's problems. The two parties are equally at fault. Our President and Congress are more interested in serving special interests than in serving the people.

For example, Orman should promise to work to eliminate the Obamacare provision that requires young people who want to purchase homes or start businesses to use their money instead to subsidize the profits of huge health insurance companies by purchasing health insurance they believe they can do without until they get established financially. Starting out on life's road requires taking risks and young people should have the right to decide what risks they want to take.

A special prosecutor or grand jury should investigate to determine if Taylor deliberately committed fraud by running for a nomination even though he planned to withdraw from the race to help Greg Orman win the election. The investigation should also seek to determine if Orman was in on the plot.

Perhaps an imaginative attorney can come up with a class action civil lawsuit on behave of the voters Taylor disenfranchised. Perhaps this attorney could take advantage of the fact that a large percentage of black voters support Democrats means that Taylor's resignation amounts to depriving them of their right to vote on the basis of race.

Political primaries were established to give party members an opportunity to select candidates instead of having to accept candidates chosen by special interests in the old "smoke filled rooms". Chad Taylor and the leaders of the Kansas Democrat party have demonstrated their contempt for the electoral process by circumventing the voters and depriving them of their right to choose their party's Senate candidate. The Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court have demonstrated their contempt for elective government by supporting this fraud.

Reply

Are Redskins Ashamed of Their Complexion?

I'm attempting to understand why some of the descendants of the people Christopher Columbus called "Indians" say they are ashamed to be called "redskins".

The only explanation I can think of is they are ashamed that they are not white or perhaps they are simply ashamed of their heritage.

In the 1950's many black Americans were ashamed of their color. They tried to bleach their skin and straighten their hair to look more like white people. In the early sixties someone discovered a statement abolitionist John Sweat Rock had made a century earlier. Rock said, "black is beautiful". Many black Americans recognized that Rock was correct.

Black is just as beautiful as white and so is red. Many white Americans think the complexion of the Navajo, Cherokee etc. is so much better than theirs that they are willing to bake themselves in the sun for hours to get their complexion the same color the Navajo and Cherokee are born with. So why would those who are born with such a desirable complexion be ashamed?

Over 200 years ago leaders of the Piankeshaw, Osage, Santee Sioux and Meskwaki nations referred to themselves as "redskins". The great Shawnee nation leader Tecumseh in his speech to the Osage nation in 1811 used the terms "red men" and "red children [of the Great Spirit]". If the original redskins found the term acceptable, why don't today's redskins? Do today's redskins think they are unworthy of the name used by their ancestors?

If people have a negative view of an ethnic group any word used to describe members of the group will be negative. In 1850, one of the worst things you could call someone was "Irish". In northern states they ranked below blacks. On southern docks they were given jobs too dangerous to risk the lives of slaves on

There were numerous slurs for the Irish. For example, blacks often called the Irish "white [n-word]s". Urban whites used the term "green [ n-word]" However, people didn't need to use a slur for the Irish because of the negative attitudes people had about the Irish. This attitude was most commonly shown in "Help Wanted" signs that included the phrase "no Irish need apply".

Incidentally, centuries before Andrew Jackson moved the Cherokee to Oklahoma, the English moved much of the Irish population from Ireland to North America and the West Indies.

The words "redskin" and "Irish" don't have any inherently negative implications as is the case with the n-word and the word "native". Using the word "redskins" provides a unique one word name for the peoples of the various North American nations .

Using color to distinguish one group of Americans from another implies the differences between them are only cosmetic and members of one group are not inherently better than members of the other group.

Using the word "Indian" for redskins requires adding the adjective "American" to distinguish them from the residents of India.

Using the word "native" requires adding the word "American" to distinguish them from all the different groups of peoples around the world called "native". In old movies and television shows the term "native" was used for unnamed primitive original residents of the areas white people were visiting or had taken over. The castaways on the "Gilligan's Island" television show were occasionally visited by "natives" from other islands.

The Irish didn't let slurs and mistreatment keep them down. They persevered and made "Irish" a respected name.

In 1968, James Brown released his most important song "Say it Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud". It became the theme song for the black power movement.

Redskins need to take similar pride in their complexions. They need to tell everyone they are proud their skin is "red".

The old leaders who called themselves "redskins" stood up to the white man. Native Americans take orders from whites.

Redskins were free and independent people. Native Americans often live on reservations overseen by the government.

The leaders who called themselves "redskins" were self reliant and self confident. Native Americans often appear to lack self confidence.

Reply

Keep in Mind that Russia Is a Democracy

The Ukrainian government and other western nations need to keep in mind that Russia is a democracy. President Vladimir Putin will have to act if his people believe the Ukrainian government is mistreating Russians living in Ukraine.

The Russians revolted after a Russian ethnic president was overthrown by ultranationalists who idolize WWII era Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. The Russians fear possible mistreatment by Bandera supporters.

I know the idea of Russia as a democracy will come as a surprise to those who believe this is 1980 and Russia is still the evil empire. Russia might not be a perfect democracy, but then neither is the United States where President Barack Obama is attempting to rule by royal decree. Russia isn't like Ukraine where fifth column like mobs overthrow governments.

The situation in eastern Ukraine isn't like the situation in the Balkans. The Ukrainian government cannot treat the Russians in Ukraine the way Serbs treated minorities in the Balkans.

If the Ukrainians attempt to mistreat the Russian separatists such as by besieging cities and killing residents with artillery fire, the Russian friends and relatives of the separatists will pressure President Vladimir Putin to do something to prevent what they may call "genocide".

The Ukrainian Separatists aren't the defenseless Kosovars. The Ukrainian Separatists have an 8,000 pound bear (who can go anywhere he wants) for a friend.

Reply

Did Ukraine Air Force Cause MH17 Crash?

Did a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 in effect guide a missile from a Buk missile launcher to Malaysian flight MH17? Did Russian separatists fire at an Su-25 which had dropped down toward the ground after flying as an "escort" and then began climbing back up toward MH17 with the missile on its tail?

Russian authorities report that there was an Su-25 approaching MH17 prior to the disaster. “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km [about 3 miles],” the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov told a press conference. Air Force Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev said the Ukrainian jet was "scrambling in the direction of the Malaysian Boeing."

The Russian descriptions of the Su-25's flight is consistent with a plane coming up to the MH17 as would have been the case if it had dropped down to investigate or attack a ground target. If the Su-25 had merely been escorting MH17 it would have been flying at a constant height and been matching the speed of the slower moving airliner. The Su-25 has a top speed of about 600 mph which means it could travel from near ground level to an elevation 3-5 km below the MH17 in about 30 seconds.

Gen. Makushev's use of the word "scramble" is significant because the term is used to describe the behavior of a pilot getting in position to deal with a threat. A pilot attempting to get away from a missile would fly in a similar hurried way.

WashingtonsBlog reports that "a Youtube video made a month before Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down alleges that Ukranian fighter jets were hiding behind passenger planes, pulling away temporarily, dropping bombs on Ukrainian separatists, and then hiding again behind the plane. "

The Aviationist reports that Su-25 Flanker jets had been escorting civilian jets over Ukraine. Different sources assign different names to the Su-25. The Aviationist calls them "Flankers" but the apparent NATO term is "Frogfoot"

If Russian separatists were operating the Buk missile system that shot down MH17, they likely were inexperienced. They may not have understood the transponder codes in the radar readout or been too preoccupied with shooting down the Su-25 to notice MH17. Inexperienced operators might have relied on visual identification of potential targets and merely used the radar to guide the missile to its target. They might have visually identified the Su-25 and quickly fired without bothering to check to see if other aircraft were in the area. Aviation Week reports that the Buk system can have a problem distinguishing among different potential targets if it doesn't have the appropriate support equipment..

If the Su-25 was headed toward MH17, the MH17 might have been mistakenly been targeted or a slight change in course by the Su-25 could have resulted in MH17 becoming the target. I'm not familiar with the handling characteristics of the Buk missile, but a missile traveling at 2,000 mph [0.5 miles per second] requires a significant distance to change directions.

Separatists could have thought the presence of the Su-25's meant the larger plane was a high value target.

I recognize the possibility that Ukrainian troops might have shot down MH17 so they could blame the action on Russian separatists, but it seems unlikely Ukrainian troops would deliberately have taken a chance on firing at MH17 with their own jets so close. The site "abovetopsecret" claims that the U.S has satellite imagery indicating Ukrainian troops, who may have been fooling around while drinking, might have launched the missile either by accident or as a badly timed prank. Blacklisted.com also supports this scenario. We see this scenario occasionally in military themed comedy movies or television episodes but don't expect such things to happen in real life. This plausible scenario could explain why American authorities started calling the incident an "accident". In the movies such accidents result in victims in tattered clothes and apparent soot on exposed skin. Victims of real . life "accidents" are seldom so fortunate.

Ukrainian and American authorities have accused the Russian government of providing the Buk launcher to the separatists, but it isn't unusual for rebel forces to steal weapons and munitions from the government. Individuals in government sympathetic to the rebels sometimes aid this process. Ukrainian separatists likely have agents in the Ukrainian military like the Viet Cong did in the South Vietnamese army. Commanders who have had large items stolen might be reluctant to tell their superiors about their losses. They may lie and say the stolen items were destroyed. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong sometimes used stolen weapons against us.

If Russian weapons are being provided, individual commanders,rather than senior military officials might be responsible. Individual commanders might occasionally "loan" weapons to separatists who might be friends or relatives, Military units sometimes rely on "unofficial actions" in such situations. In the movies a crusty old 1st sergeant will take some action he knows his commanding officer wants done, but has been ordered not to do.

Both Russia and the United States have assisted rebel groups in many countries in recent decades. The Russian government is under pressure from friends and relatives of ethnic Russians in Ukraine to assist the separatists. In the 19th Century the United States went to war with Mexico to support "separatists" in Texas and California who wanted independence from Mexico.

Reply 5 comments from Reasonmclucus Ken Lassman Mark Rainey Scottburkhart

“Native Americans” a Much Worse Term than “Redskins”

The white hypocrites who complain about the term "redskins" use the term "native American" which when used in the way they are using it isn't much better than the other n-word. The word "redskins" is a physically descriptive term that doesn't have inherently negative characteristics. The word is one of the English translations of the Ottawa term "Oklahoma". If we consider the characteristics of the people the term "redskins" was first applied to, it's a positive term.

The word "native" has two different uses. In general use the term "native " followed by a geographic region is used to indicate people who live in the area in which they are born. For example, a native New Yorker is someone who was born in New York and still lives there. In this context what counts is where the individual was born, not when his or her ancestors arrived from somewhere else. Those of us who were born in the United States are all native Americans even if we didn't have ancestors who called themselves Cherokee, Cheyenne or Lakota. Except for the eleven months I spent in Vietnam I've lived all my life in the United States so I would be a native American even if I hadn't had an ancestor who moved to the frontier shortly after the American Revolution and married a woman who was probably Shawnee or Kickapoo. Residents of Mexico and the other countries on the land mass called "America" are also natives of America.

The context in which whites have used the term "native" when referring to non-whites is highly negative. In movies made during the period European nations had colonies in Asia and Africa, when whites used the word "native" to refer to non-whites the implication was that the "natives" were inferior and possibly primitive, uncivilized or even "savages". The best example of this practice is the old jungle movie cliche "the natives are restless tonight" which was used when the natives were beating on drums and making other sounds. The white characters never considered the possibility that the "natives" just wanted to listen to drum music. If the natives were making noises they must have been "restless " about something. "Native" is used as a generic term for local residents whose identity isn't considered important.

Whites have often used the word "savage" to describe non-whites who use violence even though whites at times have used the same type of violence. The most recent example of white savagery is the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Those who criticize the term "redskin" ignore the characteristics of the people it referred to when it was used centuries ago. The original "redskins" lived on their own lands and provided for their own needs. They often lived alongside whites and sold land to them. They had their own medical knowledge, but much of it was lost because whites were too stupid to recognize its value. They had their own culture including music and the visual arts although they lacked an inexpensive permanent medium to record their literature. The Hopi even had an extended creation account which included mass extinction events involving fire and cold as well as a flood like Noah's. In recent years scholars who study earth's history have supported theories about mass extinctions caused by cold and fire.

The redskins sometimes lived at peace with each other and the white skins and at other times fought them. The white nations sometimes lived at peace with each other and sometimes fought each other. The white skins sometimes paid redskins to kill other white skins or paid for the scalps of redskins. Redskins were warriors who fought to protect their way of life. Captain French to Major Reno: "Too many blasted redskins with new Winchesters" defeated Custer at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

The redskins were not defeated. They were inundated by a flood of Europeans.

Referring to the original inhabitants as "redskins" is consistent with calling Europeans "whites". There is nothing inherently wrong with the color red. It is the color used in both the British and American flags. The British army during and after the colonial period wore red. Roman Catholic Cardinals wear red. In the Bible the words of Jesus Christ are sometimes printed in red. Various sports teams include the color red in their names: such as Boston Red Sox, Cincinnati Reds, University of Alabama Crimson Tide and Texas Tech University Red Raiders.

The redskins term doesn't have any inherently negative characteristics. Any negatives are based on the stereotyped view of the people it refers to.

"Redskins" is a much stronger name than "native American". Try sounding tough while saying "I'm a native American" Now try it saying "I'm a redskin". Redskins resisted being imprisoned on reservations. Native Americans live on them.

I don't know if my limited North American ancestry is enough for anyone to claim me, but I would rather be called a "redskin" than a "native American"[except in the context in which everyone born in the U.S. is a native American.]

Many Republicans are trying to have President Ronald Reagan's face placed on the $50 bill to replace President Ulysses S. Grant. A better choice would be to have Reagan replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Jackson's mistreatment of the Cherokee should disqualify him from having his face on money.

Reply

Is the NBA Above the Law?

The NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling controversy has a definite odor to it and it's not from sweaty socks. In April, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver decided that the NBA was above the law and thus didn't have to obey laws that interfered in the NBA's decisions. In its haste to get rid of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling the NBA violated a California law that prohibits use of statements made in secret private recordings as a basis of punishment for an individual.

On April 25, TMZ released a secretly made illegal recordimng of an argument between Sterling and his girl friend V. Stiviano about her male companions. A controversy developed when some claimed Sterling's comments were racist. Four days later after what was likely only a cursory investigation, Silver imposed a fine, banned Sterling from NBA events and ordered the sale of the team.

California law explicitly bans recording a person's voice without his knowledge. The law further states that such secret recordings cannot be used against a person in a court of law. If government cannot use such evidence to take a person's property, how can a private business do so? Is the NBA more powerful than the State of California? Is the NBA above the law?

Our system of justice is based on the philosophy that it is more important for government to obey the law than to punish lawbreakers. If a police officer fails to advise someone he arrests of the suspect's constitutional rights and the individual confesses to murder, the confession must be thrown out because the law requires that those who are arrested be advised of their rights.

It Sterling had confessed to murder in a secret recording, the state would not have been able to use the recording to convict him. So where does the NBA get the authority to punish him for saying something unpopular during a lovers' quarrel? When people quarrel with people they are emotionally involved with they often say things they don't mean and wouldn't normally say. For example, a little girl arguing with her mother might say "I hate you" under the effect of the emotions involved in an argument.

The fine and lifetime ban imposed on Sterling by NBA commissioner Adam Silver are illegal and should be rescinded. The order to sell the team is also illegal, but the incident created such a negative public attitude to the Sterlings association with the team that Shelley Sterling had no real choice but to sell.

The negative attitude means the new owner should seriously consider moving the team and changing its name. When people develop a negative attitude to an individual or organization the negative attitude may remain long after they have forgotten why they developed the negative attitude. Many people will remember the controversial statements as coming from the "owner of the Clippers" rather than someone named Donald Sterling. These individuals may ignore the change in ownership and think the new owner made the statements.

Some have suggested that Sterling has a "plantation owner's attitude" to the team. I suspect many sports franchise owners have some degree of this attitude and it has nothing to do with the color of the athletes on the team. For example the decision by National Football League owners to ignore a concussion problem among NFL players might indicate a "plantation owner's attitude".

Adam Silver's seems to have a "Godfather's" attitude toward those in his organization. He feels he can ignore the law when dealing with those in his organization. Our system of laws is of little value if private organizations can ignore the laws of evidence and impose whatever punishments they want to impose. The word "vigilante" is used to describe those who convict individuals and impose penalties outside the law,

Reply

NBA Action More Racist than Sterling’s Statements

The NBA has criticized L.A. Clipper owner Donald Sterling for his statements that many regard as racist. However, shortly after the recording of his conversation became public the NBA took an action that was a racist insult to the black players of the L.A. Clippers. The NBA offered to make a "grief counselor" available to the Clippers.

Grief counselors are often provided to children to help them cope with the death of a classmate. The NBA commissioner's office essentially was indicating that it believed the Clippers were such immature children that a minor questionable statement was the emotional equivalent of a death. I can understand the black players being upset by Sterling's statement, but not grieving about the statement.

Discussion of Sterling's comment to V. Stiviano about attending games with black athletes has focused on what was said and ignored the situation itself. His decision to order her not to attend games with black athletes is consistent with the behavior of a man who is having trouble getting a daughter or granddaughter to follow his advice.

He doesn't explain his reasoning very well, a common occurrence when a man tries to offer dating advice to someone young enough to be his granddaughter. He appears have been attempting to warn her of the sexist stereotype image of NBA players, especially black players, that comics have encouraged with jokes about NBA players leaving children all over the country. I don't know the attitudes of L.A. residents, but, putting it bluntly, Sterling is suggesting that people will think she's just some kind of a sex toy if she attends a game with black athletes, especially admitted lothario Magic Johnson. He seems to have been attempting to warn her of the attitudes of others rather than talking about his own attitudes.

Johnson along with the late Wilt Chamberlain are largely responsible for creating the [probably exaggerated] image that NBA players are frogs rather than princes. A frog jumps from bed to bed. A prince is devoted to his princess. Chamberlain claimed to have sex with over 20,000 women. Johnson claimed he once had 300- 500 sex partners per year.

A passage from a book by Jerry West says: “That November, as a new season was set to open, Magic Johnson announced to the world that he was HIV positive, a stunning event that brought revelations about the climate of sexual frivolity around the Lakers. Johnson admitted he had been sleeping with 300-500 people a year. The team’s locker room, and its sauna, had been a place where the star and other players had entertained women, even right after games. Johnson would retire to the sauna after a game, have sex, then put on a robe and return to the locker room for his post-game media interviews. How far had the team gone in condoning such questionable behavior? ‘I cared,’ West said in his interviews for this book. ‘I did things for those guys. It was ridiculous, some of the things I did for those guys. If the public knew they’d be outraged. It was a pretty crazy period for us.’"

If NBA teams, including the Clippers, still allow this behavior it would have provided part of the motivation for Sterling's warning to Stiviano.

a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bry...">Kobe Bryant was arrested for rape in 2003 when he misinterpreted a visit by a female hotel employee and thought she was there for sex like the other women he normally attracted.

After my first post on this s subject I received an email about Rev. Russ Weaver's sermon titled "Easily Offended" that he delivered that week on Cowboy Church. Weaver's most important point is that a person can choose to be a "Victim" who lets himself be offended or a "Victor" who doesn't allow someone to control him with mere words. I'll remind readers that I'm a Vietnam Vet so I know what it's like to be called names.

Reply

NBA Action More Racist than Sterling’s Statements

The NBA has criticized L.A. Clipper owner Donald Sterling for his statements that many regard as racist. However, shortly after the recording of his conversation became public the NBA took an action that was a racist insult to the black players of the L.A. Clippers. The NBA offered to make a "grief counselor" available to the Clippers.

Grief counselors are often provided to children to help them cope with the death of a classmate. The NBA commissioner's office essentially was indicating that it believed the Clippers were such immature children that a minor questionable statement was the emotional equivalent of a death. I can understand the black players being upset by Sterling's statement, but not grieving about the statement.

Discussion of Sterling's comment to V. Stiviano about attending games with black athletes has focused on what was said and ignored the situation itself. His decision to order her not to attend games with black athletes is consistent with the behavior of a man who is having trouble getting a daughter or granddaughter to follow his advice.

He doesn't explain his reasoning very well, a common occurrence when a man tries to offer dating advice to someone young enough to be his granddaughter. He appears have been attempting to warn her of the sexist stereotype image of NBA players, especially black players, that comics have encouraged with jokes about NBA players leaving children all over the country. I don't know the attitudes of L.A. residents, but, putting it bluntly, Sterling is suggesting that people will think she's just some kind of a sex toy if she attends a game with black athletes, especially admitted lothario Magic Johnson. He seems to have been attempting to warn her of the attitudes of others rather than talking about his own attitudes.

Johnson along with the late Wilt Chamberlain are largely responsible for creating the [probably exaggerated] image that NBA players are frogs rather than princes. A frog jumps from bed to bed. A prince is devoted to his princess. Chamberlain claimed to have sex with over 20,000 women. Johnson claimed he once had 300- 500 sex partners per year.

A passage from a book by Jerry West says: “That November, as a new season was set to open, Magic Johnson announced to the world that he was HIV positive, a stunning event that brought revelations about the climate of sexual frivolity around the Lakers. Johnson admitted he had been sleeping with 300-500 people a year. The team’s locker room, and its sauna, had been a place where the star and other players had entertained women, even right after games. Johnson would retire to the sauna after a game, have sex, then put on a robe and return to the locker room for his post-game media interviews. How far had the team gone in condoning such questionable behavior? ‘I cared,’ West said in his interviews for this book. ‘I did things for those guys. It was ridiculous, some of the things I did for those guys. If the public knew they’d be outraged. It was a pretty crazy period for us.’"

If NBA teams, including the Clippers, still allow this behavior it would have provided part of the motivation for Sterling's warning to Stiviano.

a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bry...">Kobe Bryant was arrested for rape in 2003 when he misinterpreted a visit by a female hotel employee and thought she was there for sex like the other women he normally attracted.

After my first post on this s subject I received an email about Rev. Russ Weaver's sermon titled "Easily Offended" that he delivered that week on Cowboy Church. Weaver's most important point is that a person can choose to be a "Victim" who lets himself be offended or a "Victor" who doesn't allow someone to control him with mere words. I'll remind readers that I'm a Vietnam Vet so I know what it's like to be called names.

Reply

NBA Action More Racist than Sterling’s Statements

The NBA has criticized L.A. Clipper owner Donald Sterling for his statements that many regard as racist. However, shortly after the recording of his conversation became public the NBA took an action that was a racist insult to the black players of the L.A. Clippers. The NBA offered to make a "grief counselor" available to the Clippers.

Grief counselors are often provided to children to help them cope with the death of a classmate. The NBA commissioner's office essentially was indicating that it believed the Clippers were such immature children that a minor questionable statement was the emotional equivalent of a death. I can understand the black players being upset by Sterling's statement, but not grieving about the statement.

Discussion of Sterling's comment to V. Stiviano about attending games with black athletes has focused on what was said and ignored the situation itself. His decision to order her not to attend games with black athletes is consistent with the behavior of a man who is having trouble getting a daughter or granddaughter to follow his advice.

He doesn't explain his reasoning very well, a common occurrence when a man tries to offer dating advice to someone young enough to be his granddaughter. He appears have been attempting to warn her of the sexist stereotype image of NBA players, especially black players, that comics have encouraged with jokes about NBA players leaving children all over the country. I don't know the attitudes of L.A. residents, but, putting it bluntly, Sterling is suggesting that people will think she's just some kind of a sex toy if she attends a game with black athletes, especially admitted lothario Magic Johnson. He seems to have been attempting to warn her of the attitudes of others rather than talking about his own attitudes.

Johnson along with the late Wilt Chamberlain are largely responsible for creating the [probably exaggerated] image that NBA players are frogs rather than princes. A frog jumps from bed to bed. A prince is devoted to his princess. Chamberlain claimed to have sex with over 20,000 women. Johnson claimed he once had 300- 500 sex partners per year.

A passage from a book by Jerry West says: “That November, as a new season was set to open, Magic Johnson announced to the world that he was HIV positive, a stunning event that brought revelations about the climate of sexual frivolity around the Lakers. Johnson admitted he had been sleeping with 300-500 people a year. The team’s locker room, and its sauna, had been a place where the star and other players had entertained women, even right after games. Johnson would retire to the sauna after a game, have sex, then put on a robe and return to the locker room for his post-game media interviews. How far had the team gone in condoning such questionable behavior? ‘I cared,’ West said in his interviews for this book. ‘I did things for those guys. It was ridiculous, some of the things I did for those guys. If the public knew they’d be outraged. It was a pretty crazy period for us.’"

a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bry...">Kobe Bryant was arrested for rape in 2003 when he misinterpreted a visit by a female hotel employee and thought she was there for sex like the other women he normally attracted.

After my first post on this s subject I received an email about Rev. Russ Weaver's sermon titled "Easily Offended" that he delivered that week on Cowboy Church. Weaver's most important point is that a person can choose to be a "Victim" who lets himself be offended or a "Victor" who doesn't allow someone to control him with mere words. I'll remind readers that I'm a Vietnam Vet so I know what it's like to be called names.

Reply

NBA Action More Racist than Sterling’s Statements

The NBA has criticized L.A. Clipper owner Donald Sterling for his statements that many regard as racist. However, shortly after the recording of his conversation became public the NBA took an action that was a racist insult to the black players of the L.A. Clippers. The NBA offered to make a "grief counselor" available to the Clippers.

Grief counselors are often provided to children to help them cope with the death of a classmate. The NBA commissioner's office essentially was indicating that it believed the Clippers were such immature children that a minor questionable statement was the emotional equivalent of a death. I can understand the black players being upset by Sterling's statement, but not grieving about the statement.

Discussion of Sterling's comment to V. Stiviano about attending games with black athletes has focused on what was said and ignored the situation itself. His decision to order her not to attend games with black athletes is consistent with the behavior of a man who is having trouble getting a daughter or granddaughter to follow his advice.

He doesn't explain his reasoning very well, a common occurrence when a man tries to offer dating advice to someone young enough to be his granddaughter. He appears have been attempting to warn her of the sexist stereotype image of NBA players, especially black players, that comics have encouraged with jokes about NBA players leaving children all over the country. I don't know the attitudes of L.A. residents, but, putting it bluntly, Sterling is suggesting that people will think she's just some kind of a sex toy if she attends a game with black athletes, especially admitted lothario Magic Johnson. He seems to have been attempting to warn her of the attitudes of others rather than talking about his own attitudes.

Johnson along with the late Wilt Chamberlain are largely responsible for creating the [probably exaggerated] image that NBA players are frogs rather than princes. A frog jumps from bed to bed. A prince is devoted to his princess. Chamberlain claimed to have sex with over 20,000 women. Johnson claimed he once had 300- 500 sex partners per year.

A passage from a book by Jerry West says: “That November, as a new season was set to open, Magic Johnson announced to the world that he was HIV positive, a stunning event that brought revelations about the climate of sexual frivolity around the Lakers. Johnson admitted he had been sleeping with 300-500 people a year. The team’s locker room, and its sauna, had been a place where the star and other players had entertained women, even right after games. Johnson would retire to the sauna after a game, have sex, then put on a robe and return to the locker room for his post-game media interviews. How far had the team gone in condoning such questionable behavior? ‘I cared,’ West said in his interviews for this book. ‘I did things for those guys. It was ridiculous, some of the things I did for those guys. If the public knew they’d be outraged. It was a pretty crazy period for us.’"

a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bry...">Kobe Bryant was arrested for rape in 2003 when he misinterpreted a visit by a female hotel employee and thought she was there for sex like the other women he normally attracted.

After my first post on this s subject I received an email about Rev. Russ Weaver's sermon titled "Easily Offended" that he delivered that week on Cowboy Church. Weaver's most important is that people can choose to be a "Victim" who lets himself be offended or a "Victor" who doesn't allow someone to control him with mere words. I'll remind readers that I'm a Vietnam Vet so I know what it's like to be called names.

Reply

Did NBA Violate California Law in Action Against Donald Sterling?

Stories about the recording of controversial statements by L.A. Clippers Donald Sterling indicate the recording was made secretly which implies the recording was made without his knowledge or consent. It would seem unlikely that he would have agreed to recording such a conversation unless he wasn't fully aware of what was going on. Most of us would become suspicious if someone other than a reporter or police officer asked to record a conversation. How often do people decide to record conversations with each other?

California is one of the states that prohibits private citizens from making audio recordings of people engaged in private conversations without the awareness and consent of all parties to the conversation.

Section 630-638 of the California Penal Code authorizes punishment of those who make such unauthorized recordings

"by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,"

Furthermore.

Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.

If illegally recorded conversations cannot be used in a court of law, then they shouldn't be usable as evidence by private organizations such as the NBA.

Did the NBA ask Sterling if he was aware his conversation with V, Stiviano was being recorded? Did the NBA request a medical/mental evaluation of Sterling to determine if his medical condition including age and cancer treatment could have affected his participation in the conversation?

It could be argued that some of Sterling's comments are irrational. For example, he said he didn't mind Stiviano having sex with some individuals whom he didn't think she should be seen in public with. Some medical conditions might be detectable from his speech by an experienced doctor,

The most common interpretation of Sterling's statement about Stiviano coming to games with black players is that he is racist. However, he might have been attempting to warn her about the racism of others in an ineffective manner. Some comedians like to joke about NBA players fathering children all over the country based in part on the bragging of former NBA players such as Magic Johnson and the late Wilt Chamberlain. I suspect that the whole situation is exaggerated, but many people believe it. Sterling may have been worried that those who believe this stereotype might think Stiviano is sleeping around.

The whole incident involving Donald Sterlings smells. It sounds like a bad soap opera story line. Why would V. Stiviano make such a recording unless she was conspiring with someone to discredit Sterling? If the purpose of the recording was to get the NBA to take the franchise away from Sterling, the NBA needs to investigate because someone who would use such a tactic to gain control of an NBA franchise is morally unfit to own a professional sports franchise. For example, a person who engages in morally questionable actions might be potentially subject to blackmail by gamblers who might seek inside information about players' medical conditions.

Reply

NBA and Media Beat Up Man Fighting Cancer

Did the NBA in effect punish L.A. Clippers 80 year old owner Donald Sterling because he is fighting prostate cancer?

The NBA has voted to force L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling to sell his team because of a secret recording in which he told his black girl friend he didn't want her to be seen in public, such as at Clippers games, with black men such as former basketball star Magic Johnson. He said he didn't mind her going to bed with such men. He just didn't want her to be in public with them.

I don't know the specifics of the current status of Sterling's prostate cancer, but it is possible his condition or treatment caused his comments to his girl friend V. Stiviano. I don't know if Sterling was undergoing chemotherapy at the time of his comments or whether the condition known as "chemo brain" might have affected his statement.

Prostate cancer can adversely affect a man's sexual abilities which could be particularly frustrating for a man who associates with an attractive young woman. NBA players have a reputation, at least among some comics, of being very sexually active. This reputation is due in part to former players such as Magic Johnson bragging about their sexual activities. I suspect that the reputation is exaggerated and based in part on racist beliefs about black men, but Sterling could have been especially frustrated seeing Stiviano with men whom he believed could easily do what he might be unable to do because of his cancer.

We aren't always consciously aware of why we feel a certain way or say certain things. The reasons may be locked in our subconscious. People sometimes hire professionals like tv's Dr. Phil to learn why they feel the way they do. Sterling may not have been consciously aware of why he said what he did to Stiviano and may have a mental block that prevents him from understanding why some people are upset by the statement.

Sterling's statement to Stiviano sounds more like frustration and jealousy than racism. He said he didn't mind her being with black men so long as he didn't see her with them. He was saying he didn't want her reminding him that someone else might be able to satisfy her in ways he would like to but cannot because of his cancer. He was probably too embarrassed to talk about his frustration to Stiviano directly. He was asking her in an intimate conversation to not do something that hurt him without explaining why that action hurt him.

The NBA's action against Sterling might be justifiable if he had made a public statement. However, the NBA had no business punishing Sterling for an intimate statement made to a close personal friend that may have been misrepresented by sensation seeking journalists who think everybody is as motivated by so-called "racial" differences as they are. It is the media that continues to push the myth that differences in skin color constitute racial differences by referring to Americans of different complexions as being of different races.

Stress can cause all of us to say things we don't really mean. We may even say things that hurt those we would not think of hurting in normal circumstances. Fighting cancer can be an extremely stressful situation.

Many of us were raised to believe that you shouldn't kick a man when he is down. America's media sharks seem to believe that is the best time to attack because the victim is less able to defend himself.

It would serve the NBA right if cancer survivors and those currently fighting cancer would boycott the NBA for mistreating a cancer patient.

Reply

Russia Should Follow U.S. Example in Eastern Ukraine

Russia should respond to the situation in the Ukraine by following the precedent set by the United States in a comparable situation. Russia should offer to purchase the Russian populated areas whose residents want to leave Ukraine much like the United States purchased California from Mexico.

In the 1840's people from the United States had settled in parts of Mexico, but were not happy with the Mexican government. U.S. citizens in the Texas region had openly revolted and gained independence from Mexico. People in California were also interested in leaving Mexico. The United States annexed Texas and a border dispute led to war between the United States and Mexico. The United States won the war but instead of simply taking other territory from Mexico forced Mexico to sell California and additional areas to the United States. The United States also assumed some debts that Mexico owed to U.S citizens.

The Russians in the eastern Ukraine don't want to be part of Ukraine any more than the U.S. citizens in California and Texas wanted to be part of Mexico. Russia should help them leave by offering to purchase the region from Ukraine once the people of Ukraine vote for a new government. Government officials chosen in an election have authority from the people to act. Officials who came to power as a result of mob action have no authority from the people to act.

Russia should also consider compensating Ukraine for the its loss of Crimea. The separation of Crimea from Ukraine was comparable to a divorce. Often one party to a divorce will compensate the other by paying alimony to the other/ Russia could undermine claims that it "stole" Crimea by paying alimony to Ukraine. Paying for something isn't stealing.

The mob overthrow of a president from eastern Ukraine and talk of eliminating Russian as an official language indicates that many Ukrainians don't want Russians in their country. The presences of racist elements in the anti-government mob indicates the overthrow may have been in part motivated by ethnic prejudice. Russians in Ukraine fear that failure to allow the Russian region to leave Ukraine could result in use of violence against them.

Failure to allow the Russian region to leave could lead to prolonged efforts against the Ukraine government. European ethnic conflicts [such as the Basque conflict in Spain and the conflict between Irish Catholics and English Protestants in Northern Ireland] can last for generations.

Americans tend to think of ethnic conflicts in terms of differences in skin color, but differences in culture can produce the same results as was the case in Adolf Hitler's efforts to exterminate the Jewish people.

During the collapse of the Soviet empire, the residents of Czechoslovakia recognized that they would have a better chance of success if they split into two countries. Ukrainians made a mistake by keeping the arbitrary political boundaries set by the old Soviet Union. The Soviet Union to a large extent was a Russian empire. Keeping Russian regions in Ukraine means Ukrainians are still subject to control by politicians chosen in part by Russians. Eliminating the Russian regions from Ukraine would make Ukrainians truly independent of Russia.

Reply

Tired of Whining Homosexuals

I feel sorry for homosexuals because they are afflicted with a birth defect they seem unable to understand. However, I'm tired of them and their supporters harassing those who don't accept their peculiar social views.

A growing body of scientific research indicates that homosexuals are born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other. A homosexual male's brain is similar to a heterosexual female's brain. A homosexual female's brain is similar to a heterosexual male's brain. In other words the people who think they are homosexuals are really transsexuals. Thus, homosexuality might be treatable with a sex change operation.

New York City and Boston homosexuals recently got upset because the organizers of the St. Patrick Day parades in those cities wouldn't let homosexuals convert the parades into events celebrating homosexuality. If homosexuals want to celebrate their condition, they should conduct their own parades instead on trying to hijack other people's parades. I sometimes wonder if the emphasis on "gay pride" is designed to convince us they are happy with their condition, or to convince themselves.

A few months ago the poor little things got all upset because one of the "Duck Dynasty" stars said homosexual behavior was morally wrong. They wanted him to be fired. If people could claim that those of us who were serving our country in Vietnam were doing something morally wrong, then people should be able to say homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Many religions call homosexual behavior a sin.

I wonder if the reason some homosexuals get upset when people say they are doing something wrong is because they feel guilty about being homosexual. People who believe what they are doing is right don't worry about "misguided" people who say what they are doing is wrong. I didn't listen to those who claimed my participation in the Vietnam War was wrong.

Christianity defines many behaviors, in addition to homosexuality, as sinful/ America's favorite sin is gluttony -- eating too much. Many people don't realize that neglecting the poor is a sin. According to Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Cry babies at Mozilla recently pressured newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich into resigning because he didn't support the childish idea of same sex marriage. The term "marriage" refers to the human mating practice in which one member of each sex unites to form a unit that contains a complete set of human sexual traits. Traditionally the goal was to produce children, but not as many people are interested in being parents today.

Marriage allows heterosexuals to gain a feeling of completeness by joining with someone who possesses the characteristics of the opposite sex. A husband may refer to his wife as his "better half". A wife may call her husband her "other half". No state prevents homosexuals from participating in a marriage to a member of the other sex. But, homosexuals don't want to attempt the difficult task of having a relationship with someone who is different from them. Homosexuals want to treat a simple relationship with someone who is the same as them as if it were the same as a relationship with someone who is physiologically and psychologically different..

Homosexuals who want to pretend their relationships are "marriages" remind me of little girls playing house. If they cannot find a boy willing to play the daddy one of the girls will play daddy.

Homosexuals who want to play like their relationships are marriages are implying they don't want to be homosexual. They want to copy a heterosexual relationship because they would prefer to be normal heterosexuals. They don't understand that they can become heterosexual by having an operation to put their bodies on the same sexual page as their brains.

Newsweek in a May, 2012, cover article dubbed Barack Obama the "First Gay President". WND says in an article based on confidential interviews of members of Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama is a member that Obama is "Down Low" as many black male homosexuals refer to themselves. Those who are Down Low keep a low profile and marry women, some times without telling them about their homosexuality. I mention this claim because WND isn't the only source of claims that Obama is homosexual and because online sources have often revealed activities or statements by politicians well ahead of the mainstream media. Amazon even carries a book dealing with an alleged homosexual affair Obama had. The American people deserve to know if Obama is supporting homosexual causes because he is one.

On the other hand, considering Obama's support for homosexuals on various political issues, wouldn't he admit he is homosexual? The WND article states that Obama's pastor arranged marriages between homosexual men and women who were having trouble finding husbands, but Michelle.doesn't look like a woman who would have trouble finding a husband. Obviously Obama doesn't consider homosexual behavior to be wrong. Knowing that the President of the United States is homosexual would provide a major boost to homosexuals and would encourage those who are "Down Low" to publicly acknowledge their condition. Maybe he needs some encouragement from homosexuals to come out of the closet. Maybe the mainstream media could help resolve the issue by investigating it.

Reply

Protesting Obamacare 60’s Style

No, I'm not suggesting anyone should burn a draft card (or the student union) or stage a sit-in in the office of Secretary Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius. Those who feel Obamacare will adversely affect them should conduct a "sue-in". They should file individual lawsuits challenging the law on grounds it will harm them as individuals.

The class action lawsuits various states filed against the law didn't force the courts to deal with the hardships the law would create for some individuals. Individual cases can present the courts with actual evidence of individuals who would be adversely affected being forced to purchase insurance. General government guidelines may not allow for the financial situations of everyone. Some individuals will lose their ability to obtain the health care they need if they have to purchase insurance that won't cover their treatment.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court stated that health care decisions involve the right to privacy. Requiring people to pay for health treatment by purchasing insurance could be portrayed as being inconsistent with the right of the individual to control personal health care decisions.

Some young adults have huge education debts that would be difficult to pay off it they have to pay for health insurance. In some families the oldest child may want to help younger siblings pay for college. Some are willing to take the risk of not having insurance so they can save money for the down payment on a house or realize the dream of starting a business. What right has the government to tell them they must forget their dreams? Don't "the Blessings of Liberty" the Constitution is supposed to guarantee include a right to take personal risks to obtain those blessings?

Those who claim a financial hardship could offer the judge a choice of eliminating the requirement they purchase insurance or changing the guidelines that determine who receives government assistance to purchase insurance.

Insurance companies don't cover all potential treatments for medical problems. Often they rationalize not paying for the treatment by calling it "experimental". A law that requires individuals to purchase health care through insurance companies in effect may make it illegal for people to seek some types of potentially life saving medical treatment. Such a law would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade.

Recent scientific research confirms the claims of some transsexuals that they feel they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex. Brain studies indicate some people do have a brain of one sex and the body of the other. Thus surgery to make the body of the same sex as the brain is corrective surgery rather than elective surgery. Transsexuals shouldn't be prevented from seeking such surgery because they have to use their health care money to purchase insurance that won't correct the birth defect that causes their Gender Identity Disorder.

In cases such as those involving experimental treatment or sexual correction surgery, plaintiffs should ask the courts to either exempt them from having to purchase insurance that won't help them or require insurance companies to cover the treatment these people need. Attorneys might want to point out to Supreme Court Justices that if government or insurance companies can decide insurance doesn't have to cover some procedures then coverage for abortions could be eliminated.

Perhaps non-profit organizations opposed to Obamacare could help finance these lawsuits. Another possibility would be for the states that filed class action lawsuits to represent individuals filing their own lawsuits, Assistance by non-profit groups and governments could encourage a sufficient number of individuals to file lawsuits to convince the courts there is a problem with the law.

Reply

Crimea Separation from Ukraine Best for Everyone

Contrary to the opinion of President Barack Obama there is nothing illegal about the recent vote for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to leave the chaotic situation in The Ukraine. In 1991 the Ukraine separated itself from the deteriorating government of the then Soviet Union by a declaration of independence and created a precedent for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to separate itself from The Ukraine. The obvious instability associated with the fall of the Ukrainian government justified The Republic of Crimea's exit from The Ukraine.

If there was a recent violation of international law in The Ukraine it is more likely associated with the mob that overthrew the elected government. That mob closely resembled a fifth column like Nazi Germany used against nations it wanted to conquer. If the European Union accepts The Ukraine for membership now the EU will be implying it helped overthrow of The Ukraine government. If the EU accepts The Ukraine without waiting for at least two elections, not counting the upcoming one, the EU will imply it eliminated a government that opposed EU membership so the EU could conquer The Ukraine.

Requiring The Ukraine to first demonstrate it is a stable democracy that changes government only through elections will indicate that the EU recognizes The Ukraine's political instability makes it an undesirable member. The recent use of mob rule to change the government indicates the presence of a cancer that must first be isolated and cured before The Ukraine is considered healthy enough to be allowed into the EU. Allegations that some of the groups responsible have previously supported extremist views should be of particular concern to EU members,

The EU needs to conduct a thorough investigation of the recent change in The Ukraine's government so member nations know what they need to do to prevent similar events in their countries. The EU needs to identify any business individuals or non-Ukrainians involved so EU members will know who to watch out for.

Political instability such as that associated with the fall of the Ukrainian government can lead to ethic violence in countries with strong ethnic divisions. Without a stable central government, the Crimean Republic had to take over the responsibility of protecting its citizens. Separating from the ineffectual Ukrainian government made that job easier. Crimea's "divorce" from The Ukraine will reduce the potential for an ethnic centered civil war between the Russians of Crimea and the Ukrainians. Reducing ethnic tensions will reduce the demands on the Ukrainian government and simplify the task of restoring a stable government.

Reply

Russia Should Buy Crimea

The best way to resolve the situation in Crimea in the event the residents want to separate from the Ukraine would be for Russia to purchase the territory. Russia could then allow the Crimeans to decide what status they wanted such as becoming an independent state or joining the other ethnic Russians in the Russian Federation.

I was going to include this suggestion in a post dealing with the situation in general but decided the proposal would be more likely to be noticed if suggested in a separate post. I believe the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war between the United States and Mexico in 1848 suggests a resolution of the conflict over control of Crimea.

A dispute over whether an area (occupied by persons who identified with the United States) which is now the State of Texas was independent sparked a short war between the United States and Mexico. The United States easily won the war but then agreed to purchase another part of Mexico that was attracting settlers who identified with the United States. The purchase eliminated the potential for a future conflict between residents of that area and the Mexican government

Crimea is something of value so it would be fair for The Ukraine to receive compensation for its loss. The payment for Crimea could be thought of as compensation for money the national government of The Ukraine has spent on the region for such expenditures as government buildings or infrastructure items like roads. The payment would replace tax money that would no longer be collected from Crimea.

Payment wouldn't need to take the form of money. Russia has ample energy resources and The Ukraine already obtains energy from Russia. Thus, natural gas or some other fuel might be used as compensation. The Ukrainian government has had a policy of trying to keep energy costs down for its citizens. Russia might significantly reduce what it charges for natural gas for the next 10 - 20 years with an implication that the discount would be passed along to individuals. Russia might also offer to compensate anyone wishing to move from Crimea to the Ukraine or The Ukraine to Crimea.

Ukrainian officials need to recognize the potential costs of trying to force Russian Crimeans to stay in a country where they don't feel they belong can lead to civil conflict including terrorist bombings. The conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and the actions of the Basque separatists in Spain demonstrate what can happen. If some Ukrainians decided to start a Balkans style ethnic cleansing campaign, Russia would feel compelled to invade.

Reply

Prev 1 2 ...38