One of the things that I like about the Yankees is that they have an appearance code.  A Yankee has to be clean shaven and have his hair neatly cut.  The reason for this is that the management of the Yankees feel that the Yankees represent the best that there is in baseball.  That they are roll models for many young people.

I bring this up due to an interestint conversation I had in Bermuda with a Left wing professor and his wife.

His wife stated that due to the appearance code of the Yankees she felt that they looked like Nazis.  I was stuned to say the least.  To her the fact that the management of demands that the players look decent seemed to her to be Nazi like.
That is like saying that any business that makes these demands on their employees must be fascist.  This is the usual Left wing drivel.

It was not enough to say that she was a Red Sox fan.  She had to demonize the Yankees with the worst possible epithat that she could think of.

This brings us to the recent reporting of the very successful gathering of Glenn Beck in Washington, DC.  The main fact is that Mr Beck managed to gather over 300,000 pople to his rally.  The fact that these people were well behaved is well known.  The fact that there was a demonstration led by Al Sharpton a block or two away that could have been held in a telephone booh and it was ignored by the Beck people. 

(Sharpton screamed about the “racism” of Beck but, as is usually the case, did not give any real proof.)

The Mainstream Media denounced Beck as a racist and pointed out that most of the people there were white.  I’ve got news for the MSM.  Most of the American people are whie.  The fact is that there were many African Americans at the Beck rally.  There were no reports of racial incidents.

But Beck is pictured as a fascist or worse.  Sharpton, whose history is full of lies, he was convicted of libel, is praised.  Why?  Let’s just say that the MSM is against anyone who does not think like theydo.

To the MSM we have to think alike but we are not entitled to have different opinions.

This explains why the only reason that the MSM thinks that people oppose President Obama’s program are guided by racism.  It could not be because people have logical reasons.  Or that the only reason that anyone is opposed to the GZM is that they are Islamaphobic.

Again, we learn that the real haters are on the Left.

Share on Facebook

What about the goals of the scientific inquiry?  If the goal is to save as many lives as possible then can we do whatever we want to that end?

As you can see these are not very easy issues.  Anyone who thinks so has a real problem.

When President Obama decided to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research he gave the impression that he had not really thought of these issues but based his conclusions on science only.  Here is the problem with such shallow thinking.  Scientific experimentation without moral guidelines usually leads to the most horrendous experiments. 

Note that neither the Nazis or the Communists were bothered by moral considerations.  They only wanted to “advance” science.  And that is the problem when we do not allow our moral or religious commitments to interfere with our quest for knowledge.

With that introduction we can begin to look at the current debate concerning embryonic stem cell research.

I hope that you noticed the adjective that I put into the title of this post.  The reason for this is that there is no debate about adult stem cell research.  I do not know of any religious or moral authority that opposes it.  And we know that the research into adult stem cells is the most promising.  The reason that most researchers say is that adult stem cells are not as volatile as embryonic stem cells.

The real problem is embryonic stem cells.  These are taken from an aborted fetus.  What that means is that there was a form of death in getting these stem cells.

Now let’s look at the situation.  One of the things that the “pro choice” people would like to avoid is the issue that an abortion means that a potential human is killed (or destroyed).

The real danger of this is that there are some unscrupulous people who would be willing to offer a woman money for the fetus.  And there are some women who would not only accept such an offer but would actually go out of their way to get pregnant in order to be paid.

This is the real issue involved, the sanctity of human life, and the sanctity of potential human life.  This is the reason that those who are pushing hard for embryonic stem cell research do not use the word “embryonic”.  They wish to confuse the issue.  They do not want us to think about the damage that they wish to do.

This is not to say that abortion should be banned in all cases.  Abortion is one of the worst possible decisions that someone can make, and is only recommended when all the other choices are worse.  It is not a “right”.  There is no such thing as “an abortion right any more than there is a right to amputate a limb, or even to have plastic surgery.   Like most opponents to “abortion on demand” I could see choosing to have one under certain conditions. 

Anyway, back to the issue at hand.  If people paid attention to the “ban” that President Bush put on stem cell research it was not a ban at all.  The government did not step in to stop all embryonic stem cell research.  The “ban” was on the government financing of such research.  That is to say that if a private concern wished to pay for it then the research could proceed.  Again it is interesting that the proponents of this research said that he banned it.  Another misstatement by the “enlightened”.

I know that there are many people who would benefit from the research.  This goes without saying.  I feel for such people.  One of whom is Charles Krauthammer.  In a Time essay he wrote:

“When I was 22 and a first-year medical student, I suffered a spinal-cord injury. I have not walked in 32 years. I would be delighted to do so again. But not at any price. I think it is more important to bequeath to my son a world that retains a moral compass, a world that when unleashing the most powerful human discovery since Alamogordo — something as protean, elemental, powerful and potentially dangerous as the manipulation and re-formation of the human embryo — recognizes that lines must be drawn and fences erected. ”

One last thing.  The real issue is not between ignorance and science, as President Obama would have us believe, but between true compassion and mere ideology.

Share on Facebook

Take, for example, the idea that if Israel was to withdraw from the territories and give the land up to the PA or to some other Arab authority that there would be peace.  That it is the Israeli “hardliners” who are delaying the “peace process.”  After about 17 years of the “peace process” I think that we can see that it was a failure from the very beginning.

Israel did give up land.  That land became a launching pad for attacks against Israel. 

The question is how to handle this situation.

I will now offer a very radical solution.  We can start by treating the Arabs as adults.  That is that they are responsible for the mess that they have created in the region.  Up until now we have given them all sorts of excuses as to why they commit some of the worst crimes, not only against Israel and the West but also against other Arabs.

Treating the Arabs like children is a form of racism.  Excusing their excesses is a form of racism.  It says that they cannot be held to the same standard that we would hold Israel, the US, Britain, etc. to.  That they are exempt from acting in a rational way.

When this happens they realize that they can get away with murder. Literally. 

That is why we should start by informing the Arab nations and the Arab street that if they cannot behave in a civilized way then there will be a price to pay.  They can either join the civilized world or suffer.  One idea would be to announce they they will lose their rights in such organizations such as the UN.

We should point out that there is no reason for the massive poverty in the Muslim world.  The only successful Muslim states are those that have become “westernized”.  But that by and large Muslim society has been a failure.

That the real problem is that they are taught by the Western intellectuals that they are victims and therefore are exempt from punishment for any crime that they commit, no matter how heinous.

Once these questions will be addressed then we can proceed to other issues.

One last thing.  A good start on this process would be for people to stop referring to “the West Bank”  That is a relatively new term.  The proper and historical name of the area is Judea and Samaria.  I will personally give $100 to the charity of your choice if you can find an official document written before 1948 that refers to this area as “the West Bank”.

Share on Facebook

With this in mind you can understand that I oppose the building of a Muslim “cultural center” a few hundred feet away from our ground zero here in New York. 

First, let’s be frank on one major point.  The Muslims have a legal right to build a mosque there.  That is not the issue, just as the US government would have the legal right to build a cultural center in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

The question is not one of legality.  It is one of insensitivity.

Also, let me clear about those who support the building of a mosque there.  I believe that people like Mayor Bloomberg are good people who are making a bad mistake.  They are extremely naive about the real motives behind the building. 

If one were to take the trouble of checking into the facts of the matter one would soon realize that the building of the mosque has nothing with the religious needs of all the Muslims who live in the area, that being almost none.  It has nothing to do with it being a “diversity center”.

It is a statement on the superiority of Islam near the site of a great “victory” for Islam,  namely Ground Zero.  We have to remember that to the radical Muslims 911 was a great victory.

I should also point out that there are well over a hundred mosques in New York City.  The imam who is behind the building of this mosque is the imam at another mosque less than a mile away. 

I know that there are those, like Congressman Nadler, who mistakenly say that there is a mosque in the Pentagon.  There is no mosque there but a prayer room for the religious needs of all people of faith, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.  Again, I wish that the good Congressman had checked the facts out before he spoke.

Perhaps the most egregious thing that has been said during this debate is that the groups that are opposing the building of the mosque should be investigated.  That the government should look into who is funding these groups.  Note that when Nancy Pelosi made this outrageous statement she did not think to investigate who is funding the building of the mosque.  That would be a more pressing issue.

Also, just as there is a right to build a mosque there, there is a right to oppose it.  Both are First Amendment issues.

Another fact, not being reported on in the Main Stream Media, is that there was a Greek Orthodox church nearby that was destroyed on 911.  It seems that the city that is willing to allow the building of the mosque to take place is against the rebuilding of this church.  We should ask why a mosque and not the rebuilding of the church.

One last thing on this issue.  President Obama made the comment that Thomas Jefferson was the first American president to have an Eid ul-Fitr dinner.  This is a false statement. 

The story is that the Bey of Tunis sent an emissary to the US to negotiate the release of some US seamen who where being held captive in Tunis.  Their ship have been boarded by the Barbary Pirates and the seamen were taken captive.

When the emmisary arrived he demanded that he be given the best room at the best hotel in Washington.  He also demanded to have concubines supplied to him.  He was given the room.  President Jefferson referred the concubine issue to the Secretary of State, James Madison.  There is no record of this demand being fulfilled.

Since it was Ramadan, President Jefferson waited until sunset to have a meal with the emissary.  There was no mention of the issue of it being in celebration of any Muslim religious observance. 

During the meal the emissary stated that the pirates would let the captive Americans go in lieu of a payment to the Bey of Tunis.  In other words he was asking for a ransom.

President Jefferson did not send the ransom.  He sent the US Navy and the Marines.  This began a 15 year conflict with the Barbary pirates.

I wish that President Obama would at least check out the facts before he speaks.  Maybe he was confused because of President Bush.

In any case I wish that those few people who support the building of the mosque there would at least be correct in their facts.  And that they would stop demonizing those who oppose the building of the mosque.

Share on Facebook

The problem is that there are a lot of people who feel that it was unnecessary.  They do not think about what the alternatives were at the time.

The United States was preparing to invade the home islands of Japan.  The estimated Japanese deaths in the invasion would number in the millions.  This does not include the numbers that would have been killed in the bombings of the Japanese cities.

(Curtis LeMay, who was in charge of the bombing raids on Tokyo once commented about Hiroshima “I burned more people in one night than were killed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”)

The US casualties would have also numbered in the hundreds of thousands.  It is estimated that the US would have lost more soldiers in invasion operations than had been killed in the previous four years in both theaters of operations.

Add to it there was a real problem in that the Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan.  They already had taken Manchuria and were working on the norther islands.  The end result would have been a divided Japan, much like Korea.

I know that there are people who compare the dropping of the bomb on Japan to the treatment of Jews by the Nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact is that the Jews did nothing to incur the anger of the Nazis except to be breathing.  The Japanese had attacked the US at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese and the United States were at war.  The US wanted to end it as soon as possible.

The American servicemen assumed that it would be a long haul against the Japanese.  One of the quips of the American service men was “The Golden Gate in 48″.

Yes, there were a lot of people who were killed in the bombing.  But the truth is that the bombings did bring a rapid end to the war and that many more lives were saved because of them.

Share on Facebook

I bring this up because it shows the difference between a real leader and the current president of the United States.

A day does not go by that President Obama does not find a way to blame his woes on President Bush.  The fact that his policies have been failures and that the only successes that he has had has been in following the course that President Bush had laid out.

With his popularity plummeting here in the US and around the free world it is interesting that he refuses to accept the fact that the office of the presidency is more that speaking with a teleprompter and taking vacations.  (Obama has taken more vacations in the two years of assuming office than President Bush did in his two terms of eight years.)

This is very reminiscent of President Carter.  Jimmy Carter was elected in the wake of Watergate.  There was no way that a Republican could win in 1976.  And President Ford was an unelected president appointed by Nixon to replaced the disgraced VP Agnew.  During his presidency he blamed a lot of people for his failures but in the end the American people decided that enough was enough.  After that it seemed impossible for a Democrat to become president.

The truth is that President Obama is a media creation.  That without the Main Stream Media covering for him he probably would not have become president.  And that throughout his entire life there always have been those that have helped him and no one really criticized his actions.  This is the first time that he has been criticized for his failures and he does not like it.  So what does he do?  Blames others, especially President Bush.

I guess that it is easier to blame some one for his failures than it is to do something.

Share on Facebook

At the time I was amazed at the absurdity of the comment.  I remember that the PLO had committed some of the most horrific acts since its founding in 1964.  That it had singled out women and children as targets.  That it chose to avoid a confrontation with the Israel Defense Forces.

And its actions were not only against Israeli Jews.  The PLO was responsible for the murder of the Jordanian Foreign Minister in Cairo.  You remember the tender scene when the murderers drank the blood of their victim.

I think about this every time I hear people give the usual lame excuses for the actions of terrorists.

Lenin coined the phrase “useful idiots” in 1917 to describe the Western intellectuals who would defend the actions of his government.  Note the derogatory nature of the phrase.  This is the way these people look at their Western defenders.  As useful idiots.  As long as their defenders remain blind to their atrocities they are useful but they are considered to be idiots.

The latest attempts by these people has come in the defense of one of the most horrific acts of the Taliban in Afghanistan.  That was the murder of the Christian aid workers.  The Taliban has said that the reason that they were murdered was that these doctors were violating Muslim law by interfering with Allah’s will.  That is that it was Allah’s will that a child with an eye infection should be helped to see again.  Please note that these were not missionaries, and in fact had signed a statement that they would refrain from missionary work while in Afghanistan.

But the Main Stream Media prefers to ignore such events or the reason for the events, that there are people who only wish to do evil and would prefer to make excuses for them.  This is perhaps the reason that most people are not aware of the good that the US and Israel has done.

Just a quick story, that was not reported in the US.

Recently an Israeli TV reported was in Gaza doing a story when he found out that there was an Arab baby who needed emergency care.  He had the baby, named Muhammad, and the baby’s mother, taken to Tel HaShomer Hospital in Israel.  He announced on his TV broadcast that the baby needed a bone marrow treatment.  That the cost of such an operation would be over $55,000.   The father of a soldier killed by terrorists promptly put up the money for the operation.

After little Muhammad was successfully operated on and returned to Gaza with his mother an amazing thing happened.  His mother was attacked by her neighbors for allowing her son to be helped by the Zionists doctors.  She then came out with a statement that she hoped her son would grow up to be a suicide bomber.

Now when did you read or hear about this in the MSM?  I guess Israel and “demonized” the Gazans again.

Share on Facebook

There are whole industries based on the violation of this commandment.  Look at any news stand and you will find a magazine or a tabloid dedicated to the lives of the rich and famous.  The truth is that I do not care who is married to who, who is cheating on who, how much was this person paid making that movie. 

Most celebrities are celebrities because they know how to get their pictures on Page Six.  And no other reason.

But back to my main thought.

Recently it has been reported that there is a movement for the very rich to donate 50% or more of their income to charity.  To make the world a better place.

What the proponents of this idea forget is that they have made the world a better place by investing in companies that hire people.  And when you hire people you are creating wealth.  You are really impoving their lives.  When you buy someone food for a day all you have done is to feed them for one day.

It’s the old teach a man to fist maxim.

If we use the Bible as a guide in this matter we find a very interesting concept.  The Bible warns us not to give too much money to charity.  The most that one may give is 20%.   Why the upper limit?  The answer is that we are not allowed to make ourselves become poor.  Society does not benefit from creating poverty. 

This is the basic flaw of Socialism  The basis of Socialism is that there is only so much money in society and the more that A acquires the less that B has.  And that it purpose of government is to level out the economy.

The basic truth is that the more money that A acquires the more that B has a chance of getting since A will invest in a company that employs B and B will then shop at the grocery store that C owns.  And so on.  And all this without any central planning.  It happens all because A wants to acquire more.

Then all three will be able to give more to charity since they are making more money.  That means that D, who is unable to work due to reasons beyond his/her control, will be taken care of but only because A, B & C were allowed to make money.

I know that this is a radical idea but it seems that every time it is tried it works.

But we do not get there by being jealous of our neighbors.  We get there by taking our own God given talents and doing the best that we can in whatever field of endeavor that we try.

This does not mean that we will be successful in what ever we try.  Just that we should at least try and not blame others.  People who believe that they will fail if they try something will.  People who feel that they will succeed if they try have a chance of succeeding.  After all, if A-Rod had not stepped into the batter’s box he would never have hit 600 home runs.

Share on Facebook

What surprised me was how wealthy Bermuda is.  The reason is quite simple.  Bermuda makes most of its money by not having income or sales taxes.  They do have a heavy import duty, and since everything has to be imported to the island then everything is taxed. 

But what has happened is that the insurance industry has found out that the laws there are very good for them.  All major insurance companies have a major representation there, something called the reinsurance industry.

What this means for the Bermudians is simple.  The insurance companies bring in highly paid executives to work there.  They in turn need the services of the local population.  You know, things like food, carpentry, gardening, etc.  All this drives the Bermudian economy.

Also, tourism is a major industry and again, the Bermudians benefit from all the tourists who need services.

What all this means is that there is a high standard of living on the island. And since the Bermudian people are an industrious people they take full advantage of the situation.

Also, another thing that strikes one is the cleanliness of the island. 

All this is done without the Bermudians seeking self esteem.  They just get up and do the work that has to be done.

What does this mean? 

When I was talking to some other passengers on the ship about this one of them said that I was talking about trickle down economics.  I looked at her and pointed out that it was working.  Even if she did not care for it.

Once again the free market proves itself.

Share on Facebook

So here are some thoughts to mull over until I return.  (Hopefully, I will be able to blog a little this week.)

There is a movement to change the Electoral College system here in the US.  The groups that want to do this do not realize that the real reason for the Electoral College is to make sure that the person who is elected president does represent the mainstream of American thought.

To understand this all you have to do is to realize that the Electoral College was created so that states with a small population will have a say as well as the states with large populations.  This forces the candidates for the presidency to think about the smaller states’ issues as well as those of the larger states.

As a side benefit it makes it very difficult for someone who is out side of the mainstream to get elected.

A case in point would be the example of Chile in 1970.  In that election Allende received 37% of the vote and therefore won the election because he had a plurality of the vote.  The fact that he represented a minority opinion of the Chilean people made no difference.  During his three years as president he basically destroyed the Chilean economy and a civil war was beginning.  That was the real reason that there was the Generals’ coup on September 11, 1973.

When Chile returned to democracy one of the new laws that was passed was that to be president you have to recieve a majority of the vote, over 50%.  If no candidate recieves over 50% then there is a run off election between the two leading candidates.  This has worked out quite well for the Chilean people.

We should learn from the disaster of the Chilean experience and not be so quick to “democratize” the American system.  No matter what one thinks of the current or former administrations they do end up representing the people. 

So to all my friends who are for this all I can say to be careful what you wish for.

More, whenever.

Share on Facebook