About Me

Name:Douglas V. Gibbs
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Playing With The Enemy

 Guantanamo Detainees to Play American Baseball

President Bush believes baseball brings people together and helps explain Western values. Games will pit traveling American naval team against willing Muslim inmates.

El Dorado Hills, CA, March 29, 2007 -- A source inside the Pentagon confirmed today that some of the prisoners held at Guantanamo have been offered the opportunity to participate in America’s favorite pastime: baseball. Their opponents will be American servicemen. The decision is part of an extensive new outreach effort to create better relations between the United States and the Muslim world.

According to independent publishing house Savas Beatie, LLC, the idea originated with Pete Merrick, a guard at Guantanamo and former high school baseball standout. Merrick got the idea from Gary W. Moore’s recently released book Playing with the Enemy: A Baseball Prodigy, a World at War, and a Field of Broken Dreams (2006). “If the Americans can teach captured Nazis how to play baseball and break through the ice, then why can’t we teach some of these detainees the same thing?”

Merrick raised the sensitive issue with his superior, “who was initially very cool to the idea,” explained the former shortstop. “But he eventually came around and kicked the suggestion upstairs.”

According to the Pentagon source, who spoke off the record, the journey “upstairs” made it all the way to President George Bush’s desk. The President quickly warmed to the prospects of improving relations (and the world’s view of Guantanamo) through baseball. The former owner of the Texas Rangers and Commander-in-Chief is an avid baseball fan and sometimes referred to in the White House as “the nation’s First Baseball Fan.”

President Bush often does things to honor his father, President George H. W. Bush, a former Navy pilot who played first base for the Yale Baseball Team. In an ironic twist, author Gary Moore’s father Gene was a baseball-playing sailor with major league aspirations. Playing with the Enemy explains how Gene, who was recruited by the Brooklyn Dodgers at the age of 15, overcame the stiff opposition of his superiors to teach the game of baseball to captured Nazis he and his teammates were guarding in Louisiana. The Germans fell into American hands when their submarine U-505 (currently on display at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry) was captured in 1944. Moore’s saga was sold to an academy award-winning Hollywood producer. The movie is scheduled to shoot this summer.

According to the Pentagon source, officials in both the White House and inside the Pentagon “vigorously protested” the President’s decision, but have since thawed to the idea, especially since some of the detainees themselves have expressed interest in the idea. “The President feels strongly about both the game and the prospects for improving relations. Is there a better way to do that than with a game of baseball?”

Author Gary Moore was dumbfounded when he “got the call.” As Moore told a local reporter, he was “honored the President is following in my father’s footsteps and using the greatest game ever invented to craft a public relations solution to Guantanamo. I wish the President luck in this endeavor, and would love to throw out the first pitch in the first game ever played between American Naval ballplayers and Islamic extremists.”

Training is set to coincide with the April 1 opening of the 2007 Major League Baseball season.

For additional information on the Guantanamo baseball training, contact Sarah Keeney or visit http://playingwiththeenemy.com/index.htm

About Savas Beatie LLC:

Savas Beatie LLC is a leading military and general history publishing company.

About Playing with the Enemy author Gary Moore:

Gary W. Moore is the president and managing partner of Covenant Air & Water, LLC, a motivational speaker, and an accomplished musician. Gene Moore was his father. Gary lives in Bourbonnais, Illinois, south of Chicago.

Contact:

Sarah Keeney, Marketing Director
Savas Beatie LLC
Email: sarahs@savasbeatie.com
Phone: 408-892-1316
Fax: 916-941-6895
http://www.savasbeatie.com

###

And don't forget that Gary Moore is my guest on Political Pistachio Radio on April 7, 2007 (day before Easter). If you don't catch the show live, remember you can listen to the archive later. If you catch the show live, feel free to call in and ask him a few questions.

And coming up on this coming Saturday, March 31st @ 4pm Pacific/7pm Eastern, our special guest will be Bushwack from American and Proud, to tell us about his participation in The Gathering of Eagles March just recently in Washington D.C.

Tune in to Political Pistachio Radio to catch all the fun.

Blessings,

Doug
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The View is ugly, despite Elisabeth's presence


On March 26, couple days ago, I was forced to watch The View, abc's show that has two fat idiots, one old wimp, and a charming wife of an NFL player, sit around a table and gab gab gab. No, I was not shackled down with my eyelids forced open as the tormenters required me to watch the show as some unique form of torture. I've got no secrets to give away, anyway.

Actually, I was in the waiting room at one of the many doctor's offices I frequent (this particular visit was over a 9x14cm hole in the tissue above my belly button but under the skin that I just had repaired, but seems to be a continued pain in the gut), and the only form of entertainment in this 12x12 room with too many patients and not enough chairs was a wide screen television. I was just in time. The View, starring Rosie O'Donnell and Joy Behar was just starting. Bobwa Wawa was there as well, and Elisebeth Hasselbeck was wedged in between Rosie and Joy. Poor girl.

The subject of politics came up (how surprising) and Rosie and Joy made their anti-Bush/anti-war/anti-America stabs, and then the subject of the Iranian seizure of the British sailors and Marines made its way to the surface from the rubble. Immediately, Rosie sprang into action, spewing her idiocy on national television, implying that this may be a hoax so that Bush will have yet another excuse to go into war, this time with Iran.

Here's what she said, "But interesting with the British sailors, there were 15 British sailors and Marines who apparently went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say: Gulf of Tonkin, Google it, okay."

The Gulf of Tonkin incident comes from the Vietnam War. The incident alleges that North Vietnamese aggression on American warships led the U.S. into a long bloody conflict with North Vietnam. It was later revealed that President Johnson was unsure the event occurred, leading many to speculate that it was no more than a hoax and an excuse for America to enter further into the fight with North Vietnam.

This leads one to believe that Rosie was suggesting that the capture of the British sailors is nothing more than a hoax to provoke war with Iran. Why not? Rose has already proven she agrees with the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was orchestrated by the United States government.

Later in the conversation, after Bobwa WaWa indicated that military action against Iran is not something we are in a position to commit to at this time, Rosie said, "Yes, but it's very interesting too that, you know, these guys, they went into the water by mistake right at a time when British and American, you know, they're two, they're pretty much our biggest ally and we're considering whether or not we should go into war with Iran."

After Joy Behar (who later makes quips about Christianity, the validity of Noah's ark, and also spews a distasteful "masturbation" comment in relation to Christianity) inserts that the U.N. is about to sanction Iran, and also have an embargo against the nation, so the timing of this could distract the whole world, Rosie goes on to say, "Right, or it could be just the Gulf of Tonkin, which you should all Google."



Rosie may have missed a few facts. Not only does the United States and Britain insist that the British sailors were not in Iranian waters, but Iraqi waters, but France does as well. Fascinating how the seasoned, veteran journalist Barbara Walters did not catch this, nor correct Rosie.

Fascinating, indeed.

*************************************************

Also catch a fascinating post at Lex Luthor's blog about an environmentalist's house versus a conservatives house - you will be surprised (or perhaps you won't be)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

U.N. Sanctions Against Iran

 The United Nations Security Council unanimously voted today to impose additional sanctions against Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.  The United Nothing intends to isolate Iran for its defiance. 

Iran rejected the sanctions and claimed it was not going to stop its enrichment program.  The United States will probably follow with even tougher sanctions.

These new sanctions include banning Iranian arms exports, and freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

Last December the Security Council demanded all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs.  The Council also ordered a freeze on assets of ten key Iranian companies and twelve individuals related to those programs. Iran responded by expanding enrichment, a process that can be used to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.  Though it is obvious that Iran is pursuing atomic bombs, Ahmadinejad still insists that their nuclear program is only for energy production.

The European Union is pushing for negotiations, hoping for a way to get through this without resorting to military action.  European leaders also claimed that they believe there is a faction inside that government that wishes to accept this offer to negotiate.

The capture of fifteen British military members by Iran off the coast of the nation has raised more tension in the region.

Related Story at Political Pistachio: Iran Steps Over The Line Again

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NPR says that Global Warming is an accepted science, by everyone

 

Most of the time, when I am behind the wheel of my big rig in the early morning hours, or the evening hours, I usually listen to talk radio or Christian Rock. Sometimes, when driving down in San Diego during the morning, primarily because there isn't much to listen to down there during that time of the day, I will tune into their local NPR station to see what the left has to say for the day.

Yesterday Gore's visit to Congress came up, and the statement was made that "Global warming in an accepted science by everyone."

I spit out the water I was drinking, and had to place both hands firmly on the wheel.

It's bad enough that the leftists preach Retreat, Defeat, and Surrender when it comes to the war in Iraq, and that everyone in this world has enormous rights as preached by the ACLU, unless of course you are Israeli, Christian, or a member of the Boy Scouts. But first of all to call Global Warming a science was pushing it, then to say that it was accepted by everyone was the last straw.

Everyone who? If you didn't watch the video, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", scroll down a few posts and watch it. Then ask yourself, is Global Warming a science, or another political tool in the armament of the liberal/Marxist agenda?
 
An acquaintance of mine who grew up in Alaska said to me not too long ago, "Global Warming?  Where I lived the glaciers grew by six feet, and all of the polar bear populations in Alaska and Canada grew in numbers, except two of them, of which numbers remained stable."
 
But, Congressman Barton of Texas, a ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, saw Gore's BS for what it is and took him down for the count during Gore's visit to Congress.  Barton told Gore that his ideas are flawed, and if his assertion regarding CO2 emissions were correct, to save the planet we'd have to ban all cars and people!
 
Little ol' mankind in a short span of years was able to cause all this turmoil, huh?  Worse than the volcanoes that created this planet?  Damn those cavemen for discovering fire.  They doomed us all!
 
Fact is, Gore is totally wrong, and the left has bought the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker.
 
And they dare call Christianity a crazy religion.  The religion of Global Warming believes that the central principle of governments should be the environment, but the true hypocrisy of it all is that Gore is far from being an energy conservationist, much less accurate on anything he says regarding the global warming question.
 
Is there polluted gunk in the air and water?  Yep.  We ought to be clean about how we handle our environment, but to create this new science (which is in direct opposition to the liberal pushed planet cooling agenda in 1972) of global warming, and then proclaim that it is filled with facts when in fact it is filled with twisted scientific theory that has in most cases been proven wrong, is ridiculous.
 
Science develops a theory, and then goes about the scientific method to prove the theory to be a law, prove it to be false, or is unable to gather enough evidence to prove it one way or the other.  Global Warming is hardly a science.  The movement depends on hate mail, threats, and Hollywood to keep it breathing.
 
Global Warming is hardly a science, and hardly true.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Illegal Alien Invasion

 On March 17th in San Bernardino Armando Navarro organized a rally so that he may wage war against the war in Iraq, and against anyone who sees the illegal immigration issue as anything other than a civil rights issue.

He expected at least 2,000 to show up, and chant and scream with him.  Only 300 people appeared for his rally.

And he dared compare the civil rights movement that Black America endured with the current illegal immigration situation.  Now that is what I call offensive.  One group is populated by law abiding American citizens born here in the United States, and the other is a group of people guilty of breaking every immigration law on the books.

He accused the Right of wishing to divide the nation over this issue.

It is folks like him dividing this nation.  He is dividing us along racial lines so that criminals may cut in line and receive the benefits that they are not deserving of.

Don't like what I'm saying?  Too bad.  How about you, Mr. Navarro, go to Mexico and make it more economically beneficial for the citizens so that they quit coming here.  Fix Mexico, and quit rationalizing breaking the law simply because people want to cheat to come to this land of opportunity. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islamophobia

There are various books and websites out there dedicated to stop the spread of misconceptions and provide answers about Islam and American Muslims.

These folks wish to stop the prejudice against Muslims, and to also stop what they call the demonization of Muslims.

I am aware that there are many members of Islam that believe that they are moderate and peaceful, and fear being lashed out against by non-Muslims because of what their violent Islamic cousins are doing by way of terrorism and jihad.

My message to these moderate Muslims is: Quit worrying about prejudice by non-Muslims, and instead stand up and denounce the actions of the radical Islamofacists. It is their actions that are causing people to fear you, and it is your silence that is allowing the radicals to continue unopposed. If you truly are peaceful, prove it, and vocalize your displeasure regarding Islamic terrorism, and the jihad against the West!

I would be much more impressed by that, than your whining and crying that folks treat you poorly because they don’t understand the difference between you, and the violent members of your ideology.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great Global Warming Swindle

click here for video

Posted this vid on my Videos site yesterday - but had to share it here as well.  Set aside an hour plus for it.  You'll need it.  By the way, the radio show went great Saturday, free of technical difficulties.  Check out the archive and give it a listen.  Bushwack will be my guest on March 31st to talk about his visit to Washington DC to be a part of the Gathering of Eagles March, and Gary Moore, author of Playing with the Enemy, will be my guest on April 7th.  Give them a listen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Internet Radio

Last Saturday on Political Pistachio Radio, Mrs. Pistachio compared illegal aliens to dogs digging under a fence to get out of their yard.  What will happen this time?  Tune in to my radio show and find out.  Political Pistachio Radio on Blog Talk Radio airs live on Saturdays at 4pm Pacific/7pm Eastern.  Listen live, or catch the archive later. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Support the President of the United States

Liberals have waged a "Bush Lied" and "Hate Bush" campaign ever since the war didn't go as smoothly as they had hoped.  Almost all of them voted to go into Iraq, mind you, but when they noticed that the war may get a little sticky, they decided to distance themselves from it in case we lost.

We can't win if we don't have a "winning" attitude.  Regardless, this war against the president is wrong.  Libtards don't seem to understand that when in a war you don't wage war against the troops and the president.  It emboldens the enemy.

I don't agree with everything Bush has done.  I disagree, for one, with his weak stance on immigration.  But that doesn't mean that I am going to disagree with him on everything else, too.  I support the troops, and I believe that we must finish the job in Iraq.

Liberals will tell you that the war is a losing cause.

With our presence, bombing deaths have dropped 30 percent and execution-style slayings are also down by 50 percent.  Those Illegal terrorist "checkpoints," where the enemy would kidnap innocent civilians and subject them to torture and execution, are all but gone. We've captured weapons, and destroyed weapons factories.  American military causalities have dropped significantly.  Order is being restored in Baghdad, and the best sign of this is that people are out shopping!
 
Now, with the troop surge, local residents are optimistic because they sense more decreases in violence on the horizon.

But, hey, if you want to believe the Democrats that all is lost, go ahead and ignore the facts.  That's what they normally do anyway.  Who needs facts when as a liberal you can make them up as you go along?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Maturation, or Compromise?

Cal Thomas, today, graces the main page of Townhall.  His article is titled: "The maturing of the right."  He opens with what he believes to be a compliment to the Conservative Evangelical Christian voters.  In reality, it is a sign that compromise is on the rise.

His prime example of Christian Conservatives' maturation is that many are considering Rudy Giuliani as their candidate.  However, Rudy does not share with Christians the same view on abortion, gay marriage, or gun control.  His is a liberal that just so happens to have some conservative qualities, so he calls himself a Republican, and a vote for him by a Christian Conservative is not maturation.  I consider it more of a compromise.

Thomas drags Newt Gingrich's extramarital affair through the mud, claims McCain's been twice married (and I am assuming he is inferring that the second marriage should be enough to tick off the Christian Right), and is quick to point out that Romney being Mormon can't be excepted (his sarcasm is noted) because he is of the wrong religion stating that evangelicals "can't get over the Mormon belief that Jesus once visited America."

Thomas is obviously not a man of faith.  That is not a judgment, only an observation.

I understand that with the elections we are not electing a church deacon, nor would I want to.  Thomas is correct when he states that government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct, but that does not mean that government should aid in its decay.

I will never claim to be righteous.  I am a Christian, and that fuels my value system.  Do people make errors of judgment, or mistakes in life?  Absolutely.  Such an error does not make that person less of a Christian, only more of a human.  Difference is, the Christian recognizes their mistake and take steps to repent, rather than find excuses to make it okay to be doing the wrong thing as Thomas does in this article.  The divorce rates are high, as he states, and is high among Christians as well (which is a poor witness by the Christian community, and people like Thomas are quick to point this out), but that is not an excuse for supporting same sex marriage, or murdering babies, and I will not vote for a candidate that supports such.

My voting is for the candidate.  If the best candidate is a Christian, that is preferable, but I don't rule out the possibility that the best candidate is a non-Christian.  But if the person representing the Republican Party is pro-choice, or pro-gay marriage, I will not vote for him - Christian or not.  I won't compromise in that way.  Call me narrow-minded if you like.  Unlike some, I believe that I should stand by my beliefs and not compromise.

Oh, by the way, Cal Thomas also makes the statement, "Too bad they (Christians) don't do a better job supporting opposite-marriage (reference to divorce rate) in which they claim to believe."  I can't speak for other Christians, and I don't know the reasons for their divorces, but as for myself, in August I will have been married for 23 years to my high school sweetheart.  If there are those calling themselves conservative Christians that have suffered divorce, and are willing to compromise in their voting, all I can say is that I am disappointed, but ultimately, that is between them and God.  Cal Thomas ought to keep his nose out of it.  Townhall even publishing this article, much less placing it at the top on the main page, is seriously making me reconsider my membership with them.  But I will stay, because though there are voices present that ring of liberalism, conservatism must continue to be heard, and I am willing to be one to voice it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Gun Totin' Good Ol' Boy

 

Democrat, Republican, or Good ol' Boy?



Okay, here's the scenario. You are walking down a deserted street with your wife and your two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a Glock 40-Cal. and you are an expert shot.

You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

*********************************************************************


Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor? Or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? ;

What does the law say about this situation?

What do the European courts say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few a days and try to come to a consensus.

Perhaps if I just have a chat with his laughing friends in the background I can convince him to stop charging at me.

******************************************************************

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

******************************************************************


Good ol' Boy's Answer:

First of all, you wouldn't have a glock, you'd be totin' a Colt.

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....

(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Oooh, got his friends as they pulled out their weapons too!

click

Daughter says: "Nice shooting, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"

Son: "Can I shoot the next one?"

Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"

*******************************************

And I've just added an eighth topic for my radio show - - - HAPPY FEET. You will be totally stunned at what I have to say about that!

Tune in Saturday at 4 pm Pacific, 7 pm Eastern at
Blog Talk Radio.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq is Unwinnable?

Liberals desire that the United States pull out of Iraq because they believe that our troops can't win the war in that region.  They will also tell you that Iraqi Security Forces are not ready to handle their own security without our continued help.  John Murtha has stated many times that he believes Iraq is unwinnable and that we should pull out.  In fact, the Democrats have just unveiled their own plan that the troops should be out by this coming autumn.  Why do they want us out so bad?  Murtha says, "So that we can prepare for the real enemies, Iran and China."  He also stated that the number of terrorists in Iraq is inflated and only numbers at 2,000.

Only 2,000?

It only took 19 terrorists to kill over 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

And if Iraq is such a problem, and our troops are not capable of fighting the war as the Left proclaims, then how in the heck are they going to be able to square off with the real enemy (Iran and China)?

Heck, if the Left is correct in their assessment of our military, it's a surprise we've won any of our wars.

Liberal defeatism at its best.  Or should I say at its worst.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Little Story

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican; a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth so she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened, and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked, and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

 

Author unknown

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do Emotions affect one's ability to reason?

 

Liberalism and Psychology


You know, I have a few liberal commenters other than Mudkitty on my Political Pistachio site (where this post is cross-posted) that spend a lot of time looking for things they perceive as contradictions on my part, or as "straw man" arguments, and the like. Gentlemen, I enjoy reading your commentary. It gives me a good laugh, and an insight into your ignorance.

One of them even accused me of being "uneducated" and not understanding what the scientific method is. If education means taking your viewpoint in life, then you can keep it.

However, I am educated, and contrary to your opinions, I don't only surround myself by Christian/Conservative news material. In fact, I often listen to NPR (gives me not only a good laugh sometimes, but insight), and I have a whole slew of liberal acquaintances and friends (hence, why I feel I can speak for the left in some cases).

Anyhow, some recent reading of mine (I am a voracious reader) in a Journal of Psychology (I don't subscribe to many of the opinions of psychology because more often than not it is in direct opposition to my Christian belief system) I was reading I found an article regarding a study that may explain Liberalism's tendency to make poor decisions.

I have been proclaiming for a while that the Left tends to make their decisions based on the emotional aspects of issues. "The poor children" "The poor women" etc. Now, before all of my lefty readers get all freaky, I am not saying that I don't care about the women and children, or people dying, or the horrors of war. I agree with you that I would rather have peace than war, but appeasing the enemy is nothing less than disasterous. Anyhow, back to my hypothesis, I believe that Liberals act upon emotion without thinking out all aspects of their decision. In other words, their emotions of how terrible war is, or what not, influences their ability to use logical reasoning to the point that rather than being deductive and logical, they make poor decisions, and even turn to hatefullness to proclaim their belief systems.

The Research Article I was reading in Psychological Science, 2004, Volume 15, Number 11, pages 745-752 (how's that for citing my sources?) is titled "Reasoning About Emotional and Neutral Materials - Is Logic Affected by Emotion?". To clarify, I don't normally read Journals of Psychology, Social Studies and History is more my cup of tea, but my wife is studying Psychology (just a couple classes away from her degree) and often I wind up reading her material, sometimes to help her with her homework, and sometimes because an article or subject catches my eye. Anyway, the experiments set out to investigate whether people reason differently when they reason with positive or negative emotionality as opposed to neutral emotionality.

Common sense has always prescribed that emotions have the ability to impair logical reasoning, and that a cool head is more rational than a hot head.

The investigators in this article desired to prove that wrong, believing that emotions promote sound thinking, rather than hinders it.

Of course there has to be some kind of degree of emotion, for that is what backs up one's belief system. Compassion, or anger, or whatever, is normally the root of a belief. But, being in an emotional state (positive or negative), according to this study, caused participants to make erroneous decisions.

Now, let's get back to Liberals. They tend to be the ones acting out on emotion before stopping and thinking about their decisions. Cindy Sheehan is a great example. The Anti-War Protests with the hate-filled speech and despicable acts is another example. Rosie O'Donnel's common comments that fill us with confused laughter, is yet another.

As for myself, emotion plays a limited role. I am not saying I am without compassion or emotion, only that when it comes to my politics I try to keep a level head when considering my positions. However, what does play a large role is a strong sense of right and wrong, and looking to tomorrow, which affects my decision making greatly. Ultimately, I have thousands of reasons for supporting our troops, supporting the war on terror, and having a willingness to support going into Iraq where I believe lived a powerful allie of terrorism. Thousands of reasons. Each of them died on 9-11-2001.

And for another reason for my view point, watch this video of Reagan on Gawfer's site.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ann Coulter, John Edwards, and that "Faggot" comment

Yesterday on my Political Pistachio Radio Show, a caller asked me about Ann Coulter's comment that I am sure you all know about by now.  If not, check it out here.  Immediately, without being fully aware of exactly what was said, and how the whole thing transpired, I agreed that Ann Coulter was in the wrong, and set back the Conservative agenda.
 
Now that I have a little better perspective on what transpired, I take back what I said, and offer the following commentary instead.
 
When I first heard about this "faggot" comment by Ann Coulter, I was upset because she has proven before that she is a controversy hound, loves to stick it to the left no matter how tasteless, and often finds it difficult to come to logical conclusions regarding the issues without tossing around a little name calling.  I am one that tries to take the high road, carefully explaining every point.  My wife, sometimes, tells me to just get to the point, rather than qualifying everything I say.
 
Ann Coulter gets to the point, and she uses the same offensive language we use in our everyday dealings with people in the real world.  One reason people are so upset about Ann Coulter's remark that basically called John Edwards a "faggot" is because we expect people in the public eye to have some kind of higher standard, and we seem to always be quick to call them on it when they fail to meet that standard.  Personally, I think tendencies such as that is just an off-shoot of political correctness, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for having such a knee-jerk reaction.  I, myself, as a conservative, am not going to lower myself to the same level of the liberals and bend over backward to appease the gay crowd, much less the liberal/Marxist movement in America.
 
Is what Ann said tasteless?  Perhaps.  You know, I work in the construction industry, and when a girly-boy shows up on a job site, we elbow each other, laugh hysterically, and say to each other, "Damn, what a faggot."  Do we mean that the person is a homosexual?  No, not necessarily.  Does the fact that such conversation occurs make in right?  Not really.  But, to get to the point, "faggot" has become a slang-word for "girly-boy". 
 
It is not really a verbal practice that I am proud of, using the word "faggot", or other words that I would not use in normal, mixed conversation.  Speaking in such a way with my friends is perhaps a weakness of us men who don't accept the existence of men who have strong feminine tendencies.  But why should I really care in the long run?  Who am I trying to appease?  Who is really offended here?  The gays?  Or a bunch of people looking for a reason to lynch a right-winger like Ann Coulter?
 
And since when does the conservative right really care what the gays are thinking?  Most of us on the right believe that gays practice a perverted behavior "by choice" and have no business parading their perversion in front of the rest of us.  Society has spent so many years cramming down our throats (no pun intended) that homosexuality should be accepted, condoned, and even promoted, that even those of us that have a problem with this sinful attitude are beginning to jump to defend them.
 
It comes down to this.  If a liberal says something offensive, it was a bad joke, or misunderstood (Kerry is a good case in point).  If a conservative utters something deemed offensive by someone on God's green earth, rather than receiving a free pass like a liberal would get, the offending conservative needs therapy, or needs to be dragged out into town square so that everyone can berate them for their unpardonable sin.  This is left-wing hypocrisy at its best. 
 
He who is without sin, throw the first stone.
 
Yes, it was irresponsible for Ann to give the left fuel for yet another attack against the Right.  She should have kept her tongue on a leash, not necessarily because it was so wrong to say what she said, but to protect the Right from the flaming arrows being launched by the left.
 
But here's the other thing that I found fascinating.  Left-wingers are always quick to point out how conservatives have made this thing called politics such a Right vs. Left battle.  They cry out for bi-partisanship.  "Can't we all just get along?"  But the moment a right-winger steps out of line, the battle lines are drawn, the lefty battalions group together, and they all participate in that Right vs.Left war they were criticizing before.  The left will do anything for votes.  Ann should have been careful what she said, but not because it was so wrong.  She should have been careful about what she said because the backlash from the left could be damaging, and enable the left to gain just a little more sympathy from those voters out there that are not sure which camp they belong to.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »