Sometimes Biting An Ear Off IS The Civilized Action

Simple-minded liberals seem to have problems understanding the importance of context. They live intellectual lives not unlike an endless series of "Three's Company" episodes, with some minor mistake of negligable importance cascading through a complex structure of contradictions, emotions, and wishes that makes up the intellectual landscape of the liberal mind, causing gigantic errors in the frontline theorems.

When Mike Tyson bit off Evander Holyfield's ear, we all understood that this was barbaric behavior. We were all shocked by it. But it was not the act of biting the ear that was so bad; it was the context in which the act took place.

If I were being attacked on a desolate street, and my attacker's ear were next to my mouth, then I should, as a civilized human being, bite that ear as hard as I can. If that is my best defense against the unwarranted aggression by my attacker, then that is my most civilized defense. In that context, biting the ear is the correct action.

But Mike Tyson was within the realm of the gentlemanly fight, with strict rules. It was a space in which to test certain specific skills with another. Biting was clearly outside of all of the rules, and came across as an out-of-control, barbaric act. Not quite as barbaric as if he had bitten Evander Holyfield's ear off while giving a joint press conference, but not too far off.

In war, we see the same sort of contextual confusion on the part of simple-minded, emotionally-driven liberals. They cannot seem to understand that, what we call "terrorism" is not only the context-free concept of killing civilians, but killing those civilians outside of the context of war - in which killing civilians is perfectly civilized and acceptable.

But then, when we actually have, what any normal person would call a war, liberals refuse to take the context into account and reevaluate their notion of "civilized act". They further refuse to acknowledge any of human history, except to say that they are superior to all who came before them (since they would never stoop to use, say, the same tactics that FDR used in WWII, or that JFK used in his threat to kill every man, woman, and child in the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Morality, if one cares to consider that idiotic, self-righteous notion of superiority, is not dictated by raw action, but by the contexts within which one is willing (or has demonstrated the willingness) to perform said actions.

No. There is no "rule of war" that stipulates that enemy civilians must be spared (beside the fact that the rule of "sovereignty" states that these civilians are of concern to no nation but the one they are citizens of!). There are no "rules of war", period.

However ...

Since liberals love the notion of universal values, there is one true and universal value with regard to war. Throughout all of human history, and concerning all of the great civilizations that have ever existed, the only true and universal war crime is LOSING.

George Bush Has Been Far Too Successful To Have A High Approval Rating

What people do not seem to understand is that George Bush has been far too successful a president to get high approval ratings. He has been presented with more tough decisions in the Oval Office than any president since FDR, and he has navigated them quite skillfully.

But he has also moved more legislation in more areas and changed more of the structure of America, and the World, than any president since Abraham Lincoln. George Bush has made so many moves, in so many areas, that it is assured that every single American must disagree with, at least, a few of his changes. I disagree with many of the decisions President Bush has made, each of which pushes my approval of him down, but I agree with him on the large issues (almost all) and appreciate that he has the guts to move the world. He is an impressive decision maker.

But he has been so wide-ranging in his application of "American Values" (truly - he has taken a stand on just about every issue that would concern an interested citizen) that he could never maintain anything like a 60% approval rating. George Bush will have to trust the history books of 2090 to honestly record his impact.

Take A Clue From The Word ISLAM

Many in the West seem to be unable to understand what will be required to get arabs/persians/muslims to behave like civilized people. It is all very simple, though, if one just looks at the word that defines the great bulk of their lives - ISLAM. What does this word ISLAM mean?

ISLAM means SUBMISSION and shows the way to dealing with people whose underlying culture is based on ISLAM. They understand and respect NOTHING but SUBMISSION. This is why they are such pains in the ass, since they are always trying to force everyone into SUBMISSION.

There is no bargaining with these cultures. There are no contracts to sign with these cultures. There are no rational discussions to be had with these cultures.

These cultures must be made to submit (as distasteful as that might appear to westerners, it is what people who follow ISLAM like). There is no other solution.

Either one bombs these savages into SUBMISSION, or one resigns oneself to a never ending war with them, fighting off the muslims' attempts to force everyone else to SUBMIT to them, and their primitive religion/culture.

ISLAM means SUBMISSION, and fighting islamic groups requires beating them into SUBMISSION in order to reduce, to a level tolerable to civilized society, the constant threat they pose.

What Is Really Meant By The NEED For A Strong Multi-National Interventionist Force In South Lebanon?

It is nice that people seem to be stressing the need for some sort of external force to come into South Lebanon, but they are skirting the basic issue that it raises:

There is a need for an external force in Lebanon because Lebanon is NOT a sovereign country and cannot be entrusted with the rights of sovereignty.

Unfortunately, no one is stating this exact point - that Lebanon is too primitive for self-rule - and trying to make it sound as if it is the normal state of affairs in any sovereign country that international forces would have to be brought in to carry out the fundamental duties of the government is just totally retarded.

If Lebanon is not a sovereign nation, then it needs to be put under the administration of some civilized organization, and the Lebanese cannot be allowed the freedoms given to civilized people.

All of the double-talk, hypocrisy, and outright denial of fact by much of the world is leading us down a very dangerous path, where we are scared to call a spade a spade. But, truth and reality cannot be denied just to let primitives feel happy about themselves. This does not lead to a better world, but to an inconsistent and illogical world in which fairness and reason are eventually buried so deep under the 'niceties' of purposely-distorted descriptions that we lose all ability to advance in any way.

Freedom Run Amok

What we are seeing around the world, today, are the emergent properties of a nasty combination of underlying currents that include:

• a basically primitive culture



• out of control population growth which has taken the population size far beyond the cultural scale



• fundamentally unstable parliamentary systems which do not separate and control governmental power appropriately (as is done only in the US Constitution - which no country has seen fit to adopt, even though it is the governmental structure of the most successful and freest nation to have ever existed)



• a zeal for the idea of individual freedom that was first nurtured in the United States, but manifested as mob rule via democracy, which is a super-structure that their culture, and their political structures just cannot support.

All of these nasty currents are combining in these last throes of post-World War II liberal nonsense, that, surprisingly, is coming from George Bush - who refuses to believe that there are cultures which are just too primitive to be able to govern themselves democratically, or more broadly, to take on the responsibilities of individual freedom. It is Bush's niceness and (misplaced) faith in humanity that is giving these 3rd world pseudo-nations and primitive cultures a full chance at modernity and total individual freedom. But their underlying cultures will not support such super-structures.

No one would think that cannibals should be immediately given all of the rights of individual freedom and allowed to freely roam the streets of a free nation, like the USA, without first changing their culture to bring it up to a more modern point that will be able to support the weight of individual freedom. Individual freedom demands a prior high level of civility in the society BEFORE it can work. Individual freedom provides many rights, but only works if almost all of the people already understand and fulfill the corresponding responsibilities that accompany it.

Individual freedom does not civilize societies. Civilized societies generate individual freedom.

Is Anyone Else Annoyed By That Moronic Mac Guy?

Has anyone noticed that that obnoxious Mac prick on the commercials is totally wrong in his condescending explanation of the use of the term "touche" to the nerdy PC dude? The Mac twerp mentions some Mac ability, that he thinks is so superior, and then the dweeby PC guy APPROPRIATELY says, "Touche!" - which indicates that the dweeby PC guy acknowledges that the Mac twerp's thrust did, indeed, score a TOUCH. But the moronic Mac twerp cannot accept the PC dude's acknowledgement of defeat in a gentlemanly manner, and INCORRECTLY launches in on a totally incorrect description of the use of the term "touche" in debate. The Mac moron incorrectly states that the term "touche" is only to be used after a counter-thrust has been made (WRONG!) and even worse, he goes against the whole gentlemanly aspect of the use of the term "touche" - to acknowledge a point scored, as a gentleman!!!

Just another typically misinformed and twisted liberal interpretation of the world. They never have any idea what they're talking about, but are always so superior in their own feelings about it. This would be okay, if they had any intelligence, to start with. If they could make out some reasonable arguments for their points ... if they were correct even some of the time. But they are almost never correct, and end up being humiliated by their own stupidity - which was forwarded with so much arrogance and condescension - which makes them even more hateful.

But ... as per the liberal way, libs are now using the term "touche" in the incorrect manner taught to them by the idiots behind the Mac commercials. But they will insist that they know how the word is to be used, and they will be incredibly obnoxious about it!


To put it plainly - for the slow of thinking liberals reading this - "touche" means, in conversation, "I do not have a response to your point.", and expressed in a very gentlemanly fashion, which is exactly what the PC dweeb said and the manner in which he meant it.

Why Do People Want To Point Out That The "World" Disagrees With The USA?

I can never seem to get this question. The US must be having some immense problems with the history that is being taught in our public schools, because the US thinking differently from the rest of the world is one of the fundamental characteristics of the US, itself!

That was certainly the case in the very founding of the United States, when an attempt was being made to create a nation of a type that had never existed on Earth, with reasoning that had never been used in the political context before. That is the history of the very birth of the United States.

Further than that, the US Constitution has proven to be the greatest architecture for a government, splitting governmental powers into various competing and partnering branches that worked both with and against each other, to keep the whole of governmental power in check. It involved a government that always exists, with only the individual tasks within that govenment changing hands, in a most individualistic way! This is opposed to the various parliamentary systems, which are all weak, unstable and unreliable.

But here is one more case where the US has disagreed with the rest of the world for over 200 years! And even with all of the new countries that have popped up around the world since WWII, say, not a single one of them has adopted the US Constituion as the architecture of their government. They have all adopted the faulty parliamentary systems. Does no one in the world understand that the US is the most successful, and freest, country that has ever existed, and that it might not be a bad idea to try to copy the US and hope for the same success? How dumb do people have to be not to see this?

So, if the world disagrees with the US, I would tend to side with the US, since history shows that I would have been correct in the great majority of cases!

Israel Provides Stability To The Middle East

One important point that most westerners have ignored for years, but that is becoming apparent in the current battles, is that the existence of Israel is the only thing that stops the SHiites and the Sunnis from really going at each other, destroying EVERYTHING AROUND THEM (as they most surely would, given past arab wars and persian history) which includes all of the gulf oil. The existence of Israel is the only thing that deflects their immense hatred for each other and keeps the gulf relatively stable.

The Real Problem With Past US Middle-East Policy

George Bush, who has been in the Oval Office during some of the tensest and most trying times that any Commander-in-Chief has ever faced, is moving correctly in his ideas for a Democratic Arab World. His reasoning, however, is not quite correct.

He said that past US policy towards the Arab World was incorrect because we supported stability over freedom. This is true, without reservation. However, that was not the true crux of the choice. (Incidentally, US interests certainly call for external stability over the internal characteristics of external states.) The true choice that we were making was when we allowed these Arab 'governments' to sit at tables with first-world states, treating the Arab World as if it were on a par with the Western World. In other words, we formally extended to arab countries all the rights of mature, modern societies, even though we understood that the Arab countries and governments were NOT mature, adult, reasonable such entities.

We treated the arab countries as adults when we all understood that they were more like children. This was the mistake in US middle-east policy over the past 50-odd years. We never held them accountable to the contracts they signed, as adults would be so held. We never held them to any of the standards that we hold adult, western societies to. We never expected them to really be able to do anything, and yet we let them claim that they could do everything. No one in the West wanted to be 'nasty' and call the Arabs what they are, an anachronism with deadly weapons and their butts on top of the world's most important region.

We tried to respect them, when they kept demonstrating their contempt for our respect. Somewhat like a voodoo practitioner looking down on a moral-relativist who claims that voodoo is as legitimate a belief system as the belief in the correctness and applicability of Quantum Theory. Clearly silly.

But George Bush, even with this minor fault in his reasoning, is heading in the correct direction: Bring an adult governmental system to them so that, not only are we formally treating them as adults, but they will become (internally) adults through the freedoms of the west granted to them. One more gift.

This is a noble gesture, giving the arabs one more chance to mature, but it must be tempered with reality, for the event of the maturation not occurring, but instead, the further empowerment of immature societies. There must be adult consequences delivered along with the gift of adult freedoms.

Bush has been doing very, very well. The breadth and depth of actions he has taken on all sorts of fronts has been quite astounding. History books will record George Bush as an amazingly impactful President. Quite beyond Reagan.

But, we must all understand what the future holds. Children should not be given guns, and immature nations must be disarmed.

The current conflict between Israel and Lebanon is a perfect example. Lebanon wants to claim sovereignty, but refuses to be held to the responsibilities of sovereignty. Israel is going to allow this, once again, by not TAKING land from Lebanon as the price of their aggression - and the West is going to support this. This is where the standards need to be evened out, and children, if they are going to be given adult titles, MUST BE DISARMED. Period.

How Can Any Intelligent Person Support Even The Idea Of The UN?

All the talk coming from, and about, the UN, seems quite inane these days, given the simple fact that the whole idea of the UN is a theoretical impossibility. The notion of a peerless, competitionless organization that can be given power and be allowed to grow inside of this highly unnatural environment is anathema to any thinking person, and certain blasphemy to any people who scream about the importance of teaching evolution in public school.

The utter lack of any organization that operates in the environment of the UN ensures that the UN will grow in grotesque and dangerous ways. Anyone who believes in markets understands that monopolies can never be trusted to themselves, and the super-hyper monopoly of the UN would follow an even more destructive and self-serving path (as has been demonstrated throughout the history of the UN).

Of course, most people confuse the powerless use of the UN during the Cold War, as a communications channel between the US and the USSR, as having proven the utility of the UN. But, in fact, that communication service is the limit of what an organziation such as the UN can be trusted with. There is no power to abuse in being the conduit for meetings.

But, once the UN was given actual power - when Bush Sr. ran to the UN for the stamp of approval for the first Gulf War, or when the UN ever had to do any actual heavy lifting - the organization proved itself worthless ... and worse.

The UN is naive and childish idea that would be nice to have in a utopian world, but we are forced, unfortunately, to live in reality. And reality imposes its own many restrictions on us. Breathing life into totally unrealistic dream objects and then giving them actual real-world power is not what the intelligent person does. Only childish fools support utopian ideas.

Even national governments do not exist in such an environment, as national governments have competition in that people are always able to move to another country with a competing government. We need not talk about those governments that demanded UN-style monopolistic status on their citizens, and how they developed and grew ...

No, the UN is a utopian dream put forward in the heat of the emotion and shock that the Allies felt after World War II. It is not a serious idea that could stand any real scrutiny.

The UN is, in the end (as with most utopian dreams) a

Utopian Nightmare.

Self-Rule By Primitive Cultures

This is the source of current instability in the world. It is not a new problem, as support for the idea of "self-determination" has been a rallying cry for primitive cultures all over the world. As little as these cultures understand about the modern world, they love the modern concept of "self-determination". But, just as no serious person would advocate adult rights for a 2 year old, the concept of extending full adult statehood to societies that have never exhibited any adult behavior of any kind is clearly nothing but folly. It is the wishes and hopes of dreamers forced onto their illsuions of reality, not unlike the aforementioned 2 year old forcing square blocks into round holes. The frustration of realizing that one's intuition may not be totally in synch with reality is a disappointment that logical adults take in stride, but that may become nothing more than a maddening, and confusing, disbelief in a 2 year old.

We see this same dream reality in the existence of, and support for, the United Nations. The idea that any serious person would even entertain the existence of a competitionless and peerless entity with any power at all is beyond comprehension. There has never been an example of such an entity being productive in any way, but history is littered with examples that proved extremely destructive. Americans, of all people, should understand that such a super-hyper-monopoly is destined to grow in grotesque and destructive ways.

In the end, George Bush extended the Arabs one last chance to see if they were able to rule themselves. It appears that they cannot, and the big question then presents itself: What can be done with these societies that cannot be trusted to rule themselves?

The answer is distasteful to most 'civilized' people, but they must realize that civilization, itself, cannot advance with these infantile and aggressive societies free to destabilize all around them. Totally disarming these societies is a first step. It is certainly a NECESSARY step, before which nothing truly constructive can happen.

The world has advanced so far in the past 50 years, and to allow the wishes of humanists and dreamy globalists (against all historical evidence) to destroy it by advocating weapons and sovereignty for all societies, no matter how emotionally or intellectually unable they are to remain peaceful and non-destructive, would be the greatest failure.

To die for an ideology is one thing, but to die for the refusal to accept reality is quite another.

Liberals Of Today

While the liberals of today, given their current emotional landscapes, would most certainly have been with the patriots of the US Revolution, it is just as assured that they would have turned against the United States the moment it was created, since the liberals of today are really a class of unsatisfied people whose political theology is best described as "Perpetual Revolution". These particular people fell in love with the revolutionary delusions of the 60's and yearn for that same feeling. Their political arguments have little, in the end, to do with politics or government, since their political views serve no purpose higher than their emotional satisfaction. They are just addicted to the feeling of being in a revolution.

They will, in the end, be correct every few hundred years, for a few years, but will sink back into a festering political boil for the grand majority of the time.