Miseducation of Faarooq
..........Teach the Children Well
.....The Pissed Off Muslim
..........Open letter to any pissed-off Muslim: Piss Off (Muhammad cartoon row)
.....Hero from across the pond
..........Defining Heroes and terrorists
..........From Seventy Great Years to Sudden Death
.....on Micheal Vick
..........Bulldog or bitch
..........a collection of political jokes on France and the US
..........a satirical rebuff to the poorly done terrorism = drugs commercials
.....2000 Presidential Election
..........a critical review of the 2000 US presidential election and aftermath
.....The Downloading Debate
..........The Scoop on Free Downloading - Should I or Shouldn't I
The Miseducation of Faarooq
....Supposing there are in fact a few that with clear conscience and no alternative agenda could actually oppose the removal of a brutal dictator and terrorist, let them counter this argument.
....It is only from a place of sublime and serene comfort that one could so callously dismiss the suffering and oppression of so many, for so long, and favor instead their oppressor. We, as Americans, can and should cherish our seventh-graders peacefully protesting for the safety of their pen pals from Iraq. The ignorance and bliss of our secure, safe, well fed, and educated children is a source of pride, a shining example of our next generation - our future. But after we tuck them in for the night it is even more right, more just, that we lambaste those that organize and exploit them to further their own agendas and beliefs. Those lost souls have forgotten their role, their place, and their duty. Fortunately there are others both in this land and across the pond that have not. The protectors of the civilized world are doing the impossible as they put aside their individual aspirations, and challenge the evil forces in the world. When the bullies of the world rise up, it is a duty and an honor for good men to knock them back down, for "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke).
....This is not our crusade. This is not our fight. We didn't start it, didn't want it, and didn't ask for it. This fight was brought to us. It is not we who have for generations taught our children in schools and churches to hate all things 'them' at all costs, and to blame all things wrong on a separate, sparse, and oppressed people. And it is not our fault these seedlings are now coming of age and wasting their precious lives in senseless acts of pointless and doomed evil. Thanks to this gross and shameful system of teachings this fight has been thrust upon us, a gift of ignorance and hatred. There must be a new understanding if our children are to have a future. Truth must triumph over treachery. Long lost and once noble aspirations of a now abused belief system must be restored, or the cancerous mutation it has become must be removed from the shoulders of posterity.
....This noble and necessary task will not be easy. There are millions of the indoctrinated ignorant masses that need to be at least marginalized, at most reeducated. The future cannot function as it is now posed. One cannot interact with one-fifth of the world that greets one as friend at the front door, while simultaneously teaching hatred to children in the back room, and funneling money out the back door to murderers. Such duplicity can no longer be ignored for political or other reasons.
....The key to overcoming our enemies is not a complicated one. While others were being taught to hate and fear we in the civilized community were being taught things of a more practical value. Things like reason, tolerance, and diversity are a better mix for prosperity. But war is also taught, only from a different prospective. The goal is not to maim, murder, and inflict gross and inhumane treatment, but simply to win. To this end war becomes simple - for the educated. We will start by eliminating those who pose the most immediate threat, then probably progress to the one thing we want least - policing those who refuse to police themselves. They know who they are, and they are concerned. They should be. There is a reason we are referred to as a super power.
....There are things of this world that are inherently good, right, and just. There are just as many that are equally and inversely wrong, bad, and evil. It is bad to teach any child to hate. It is wrong to see and know of such things yet do and say nothing. And it is evil to spur our children to murder other children to press forth a cause or belief that we ourselves have not the courage or conviction to attempt ourselves. It is right and just to fight against those who come from such an evil seed. And to do so at one's own peril - political, personal, or otherwise - is even heroic. At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of brave souls thousands of miles from their homes willing to fight and die to protect the most basic of human rights and liberties. They come from a host of civilized nation-states from around the globe. All manner of peoples are represented by this coalition, all breeds and creeds, and all religions - except one. What does that glaring fact say to those who are willing to hear the truth?
....Recently there has been the presumption that the Iraqis are fighting so "ferociously" because they have some sense of nationalism in "protecting their homeland." Such sentiment is at best uneducated, at worst ignorant, and needs clarification. First, to suggest that 50,000+ KIA deaths coupled with 9,500 POWS tallied against fewer than 200 from the other side suggests ferocity is naive. Stupidity in tactics like driving buses into armored vehicles and attacking tanks with AK-47s may be brave, but that is hardly consideration for ferocity. And bravery cannot be adorned here, as hiding behind the skirts of women when waging a fight cannot be labeled brave. Secondly, the notion of nation-state is a poor translation in that part of the world. Nationalism is better understood there as part of a religious hegemony. There is a unified call for the "liberation" of Palestinians not because they don't govern themselves, but because they are governed by those of any other faith. There is no similar cry for the Kurds because they are governed (controlled) by the only faith deemed acceptable. This is the home of the only religious crusaders the world has known for several centuries. It is a colonization of religion origins and ambitions, not national or ethnic ones. And it is a policy as doomed to failure as the last crusades, not because of the belligerents themselves but because the cause is just as unjust. But then only the educated can hope to avoid the repetition of historical errors.
....And so the battle has begun. Us versus Them. We would choose to divide the two camps based on things we understand and hold true and valuable - honor, integrity, compassion, tolerance, diversity, understanding, equality, and the hope for a prosperous posterity - a better tomorrow. But that is how we the civilized have been taught to rationalize. But our adversary has been taught a very different message, a very old message, a message of exclusion, intolerance, and superiority. A superiority of religious beliefs instead of race. A message that has to change - or be changed.
back to top
Hero from across the pond
...What makes one a freedom fighter (guerilla) and another a terrorist? What is the definition of a hero? And who are the real heroes of our time? These questions are not rhetorical as they have rather simple answers.
Might is not always right. In fact if 'might' was a diplomat, s/he would not even wish to discuss this point. But Right always seems to have 'might'- even in defeat. And who decides what is 'Right'? Often the victors are the ones who write the history books. Were the Romans or the Greeks always right when they conquered other peoples? Or was the fact they were so often victorious AND wrote the history books more the reason they were eventually depicted as bringing "enlightenment" and "civilization" to the "barbarians?" And although that may have indeed been the case in many circumstances, there can be little doubt the Persians, English, Jews, Africans, Europeans, and others who fought against such enlightenment likely did not feel 'wrong, barbaric," or inferior when defending their homelands. Were these peoples terrorists or freedom fighters when the resisted invaders? The truth is there were usually plenty of both.
...The difference between legitimate resistance and terrorism is actually a very simple distinction. It matters not how one fights; rather, it matters who one fights. Intentionally targeting innocent civilians, particularly women and children, is of course a very wrong way to initiate political, social, or national change. It is also terrorism, regardless of motive or reason. No cause, not even perceived liberation, can justify terrorism as defined here. Even in the case of occupation one resisting same must target sanctioning governments (soldiers, infrastructure, government representatives and officials, etc.) to claim legitimacy. Thus, Palestinians (and the "Arab street") are not 'wrong' because they burn American flags or kill their "occupiers" - they are wrong because they support, entice, participate in, and condone international terrorism - intentionally targeting civilians. Occasionally terrorist groups target legitimate targets, but this is the exception and not the rule. In contrast Israel intentionally targets individual terrorists, and while innocents are often killed in the process, this is the exception and not the rule. Why? Because one is right and one is wrong. When one fights and/or dies for a cause, even if just, s/he is judged by the civilized world a terrorist or hero dependent upon whom, not how they fought. Thus, there are very few modern muslim heroes.
...So a hero is one who not only supports, but fights for a just cause and against the right targets. But there is more to it than that. Fighting, even to the death, may be heroic but there needs to be extra circumstances to be a real hero. One such element is fighting for a just cause, against the right enemy, and in the right way (targeting) EVEN THOUGH such action is particularly unpopular to the masses. Enter Tony Blair.
...When Blair went before his government to ask it to endorse and assist the "Coalition of the Willing" fewer than one-third of the British public supported the war against Saddam Hussein. And even though he is known to rule with the latest public polls tucked in his jacket pocket he drug his government and his people into "harm's way" because fighting Hussein is the right thing to do. And he has done so at great peril to his political future. He has been steadfast in his resolve, uncompromising in his convictions, and faithful to his country, even though its support for him has not been concrete. He has been heroic in his actions above and beyond any normal call, against a truly evil adversary, and despite internal dissension. He is a true modern day hero.
back to top
From 70 Great Years to Sudden Death
Joe Hutchison 01-02-04
Among them is the concept that once concluded nothing can change the outcome of a game. There are no appeals, no redos, no shared or added medals, no championships or thrones taken away by committee, no votes, no polls, no maybes. Simply take the best teams, face them off in a single-elimination playoff, and one team emerges as the only team to win its last game - one champion. It had a certain finality, a pureness to it all.
...There were built-in rules that separated the professional football game from other sports as well. Concepts really, that set the game apart. Ideologies that had stood, and passed the test of time. Like the idea that two field goals were never, make that NEVER, as good as a touchdown. There was no field position penalty for attempting a field goal; settling for a field goal was penalty enough. And the referees decision was final. It wasn't always right mind you, and the refs seldom overruled each other, but once a call was made it was final. Deal with it was the mentality. That's what a champion had to do, deal with adversity - and overcome it. And parity was not the aim, dynasty was. If an amateur was good enough he was drafted by a team. That player could sign and join the elite league, or not. Those were the options. Players could complete their contract and if they were good enough could eventually demand and earn more money, a trade, or free agency. The rules were hard to change, and seldom needed to be. And of course the consummate rule of the game was the overtime period. For it wasn't really a period at all; it was sudden death. The first team to score won. Could that tiebreaker be any more simple? If a team did not get the ball first, then it had to play good special teams, then defense. It was, after all, a team effort. All these traits are what set the game apart, no above, all others. For seventy years this formula elevated the NFL to the pentacle of pro sports. More importantly if set the league apart as a truly American sport. The game had a finality to it. And television networks clamored to broadcast the games because of its popularity. Any NFL game was special. My how times have changed.
...The college game is mired in imperfection, controversy, parity, compliance, and frankly averagenesss. The rules make it easier to succeed (one foot in bounds equals success) and constantly change to make it ever easier. The overtime is a spin-off of the high school game (your turn, my turn, your turn). There are two-point conversions so that ties are easier to achieve. Time outs are not critical to the trailing team since every first down results in a clock stoppage, and if you fall down the play is over (don't want the boys to get hurt now, do we). And in Division 1A, the championship is not determined on the field of play. It is voted for all season long by multiple polls. What a mess.
...Ever watch a soccer game grind on for three hours to a scoreless tie, then end in a 9-8 score with their little kicking exhibitions? Or go to a fight and watch a hockey game break out? Ever watch an untimed sport like baseball crawl along with the urgency of reading a book? Or a boxing match end because one's eye gets puffy or one's lip gets busted? Ever been to a free throw shooting exhibition regulated by refs who blow their little whistles so often they can't catch their breaths? Yes, pro football stood alone as the sport of men - real men watched the NFL.
...But since the rule of its latest commissioner, things have begun to change in the NFL. And they continue to change. But is it change for the better? I think not. The very concepts that helped create and perpetuate the pro football game are being chipped away in a misguided effort to improve perfection. Salary caps and guaranteed salaries based on years played make it near impossible for players to play their entire career in one locale. The on again, off again, on again instant replay rule has proven a miserable travesty in its goal to make sure a bad call doesn't affect the outcome of a game. How could it since everything is not reviewable in the first place. Of course if the NFL had first rate, full time officials (like other pro leagues) there wouldn't be as many bad calls to begin with. Nowadays, two field goals can equal a touchdown if one tacks on a two-point conversion. Therefor field goals are more important than they once were so attempting one draws a penalty of seven yards lost if missed. And trailing teams don't need time-outs since the replay booth stops the clock (and flow of the game) for every sideline play, or pass that comes anywhere near the turf - even if it only means the difference between second and nine at midfield instead of second and ten. But as bad as that all sounds, it may get even worse if the current commissioner isn't held in check.
...There is now talk of further rule changes that may well cross the line and deteriorate the pro game even further. With parity the new goal, picking an interesting matchup for Monday Night Football months in advance has become a guessing game that networks often fail at quite badly. When asked if the networks might eventually have the option of naming the games it wants, the commissioner countered with the idea of having two Monday night games so networks could switch broadcasts if need be. But with parity running rampant this proposed solution offers no guarantee of a good matchup, and more importantly would nullify the ONLY nationwide solo weekly game. The commissioner has also stated he would like to see sudden death altered to guarantee each team gets at least one offensive possession - demeaning special teams and defense. Why not just devolve to your turn, my turn with each team guaranteed equal shots from the 25 yard line? Oh wait, that's the high school, er college method. He even proposed no overtime. Just let the team with the ball as time ends in the 4th quarter keep it where it is and continue. Wouldn't it be fairer to just eliminate the four quarters and game clock altogether and make it say ten alternating possessions for each team? With such an untimed format, every single play could be reviewed and field refs eliminated altogether.
...Let's face facts. The NFL game already is not what it used to be. If things continue to change for the worse, it may never recover. After seventy great years the first and only pure American sport has, in the past decade, become victim to mass media capitalism. But all is not lost. There is a way back to greatness, but it will take a true leader to right the ship. We need a commissioner with the guts to make some quite simple yet hard changes. Train and use full time skilled referees to make calls on the field, markedly decreasing the number of officiating errors. Allow coaches two failed challenges per game at any time with no penalty to make sure a bad call does not decide the outcome, and eliminate the so-called booth reviews that stop the flow of the game. Eliminate the two-point point-after-touchdown conversion so that two field goals ARE NEVER as good as a touchdown. Let the broadcast networks pick the non-nationally televised game they wish one week in advance for the Monday Night game. Trust me, no team or player will mind having a Sunday game delayed one day and play before a national audience under the lights. And last but not least, leave sudden death alone. Else the NFL epitaph will read - "From Seventy Great Years to Sudden Death."
back to top
Vick was always a diva, wanna be big dawg. he was fast and had skills but was never all he thought he was. even when ratted out by his so-called bros he denied any real wrong doing. "Oh, I didn't do this, or do that, that was them, they..." blah blah blah. now it's over. vick's going to the big kennel - doesn't matter if it's one year or 5. doesn't matter if he did everything they claim or just some of it. what matters is he had a chance to come clean and he passed it up thinking he was above the law. well, he is - kindda. me or you would be facing 7-20 years. he might get out in 1, 3, or 5. don't matter - the falcons are thru with him. the nfl is thru with him. and mainstream america is thru with him. his only supporters are the typical anti-socialites that always support even the most guilty, the naacp, afl-cio, al sharpton, liz taylor (lol), and the like. now he goes to the big kennel - doesn't matter for how long - he's a goin' and there he will meet nasty nate, bubba, and lots of other REAL pit bulls who will all tell him the same thing... "boy, you sure got a pretty mouth on you, can you pray real nice for me?" the only bets that will soon be revolving around vick is:
1-is he a spitter or a swallower?
2-is diva meat really pinker and softer than real dog meat?
3-how much can he deepthroat without gagging?
4-can he still talk with his mouth full?
and what about when he gets out? hey, i've been to ATL many times. in fact i'm working there now. there will always be places in ATL where vick will be popular: northside, southside, fulton blvd, etc. places where a sweet diva bitch will always be popular. and with the new skills he's gonna develop in prison, he should be fairly popular once out. all the real bulldogs in georgia will soon lay claim, "Vick?, yeah I did him, a little overated, but still a sweet snack."
personally i think it's a joke for a human to go to jail for a significant period of time over an animal - any animal, for any reason. the dog betting, fighting, and even killing were not his undoing, nor was it his gambling on same; it was his repeated and ongoing refusal to fess up - thinking he is above it all and can walk away from it or anything else. THAT's what the average man in the street is - and will continue - to hold against him....
back to top
The War on Terrorism IS NOT a political toy.
It is a real and present danger for the civilized world and should not be used to perpetuate others ideals upon the masses. To this end let's separate myth from fact. . .
Drug money supports terrorism
You've all seen the ads. This is the little girl who got shot by the dealer, who got paid by the user, who blah, blah, blah, or the commercial that suggests "it's simple, no drug users - no drug dealers, no drug dealers - no drug problem. It's not that complicated." Jeez, people really buy that naive dreamworld rhetoric? I live in the real world -the one that saw cocaine, gin, marijuana, and now crack epidemics. In this real world people use drugs and alcohol. But the vast majority are light, social users who use 'lesser' drugs to lesser degrees, drugs that are legal in some countries who - by the way - have significantly lower crime rates. The other man in the ad is right after all; the drug problem "is a complex issue" and should be sorted out in the family, spiritual, social, and medical theaters and not in legal arenas. Removing the legal aspects in drug use (decriminalization) would render irrelevant the underground support and control of the drug trade. Some teenager smoking a joint, or old lady hitting the bottle, or some lost soul firing the glass, does not support terrorism. Terrorism is taught and cultured by Muslims in schools and Mosques to preteen boys (If that truth stings, complain to them not me. I am just a master of the obvious).
SUVs (gas guzzlers) support terrorism
The theory behind this myth is that moneys generated and sent to Arab countries (oil producers) wind up in the hands of terrorists. While the premise may be true, the difference between 17 MPG vehicles and 25 MPG vehicles is not sufficient to warrant the overall claim. That would be like saying 25 MPG vehicles support terrorism LESS than 17 MPG vehicles. Also, if that argument were true, what about Cadillacs, and hummers? That would also mean the rich and elite (including actors with their limos) are supporting terrorism. And while they may be collectively obstructionary to the war on terrorism, I am personally not ready to imply they support terrorism. Plus, terrorists do not run OPEC. If Arab countries do in fact support terrorism, this is a choice they make and has nothing to do with what type of vehicle non-terrorists drive. Red herring. Did Toyota start this myth?
Paying U.S. income tax supports terrorism
The US government derives 100% of its moneys from federal income tax. Last year the US government gave billions upon billions of dollars to rogue governments and illigetimate regimes in one form of aid or another - governments like China, North Korea, and the PLO -and other proven sponsors and supporters of international terrorism. Our government also allows the growing of poppy in Afghanistan, and does business and grants loans in Northern South America and Mexico despite unrestricted cocaine and marijuana cultivation and export to U.S. cities. It appears the so-called "war on drugs" is only a priority where globally wealthy citizens (Americans) can be persecuted (er, prosecuted) and tariff extracted.
If you really want to curtail drug proliferation and fight terrorism,
don't pay income tax.
back to top