Duly Noted: Hamas Does Not Respond to Criticism
From the desk of George Handlery on Sun, 2009-01-04 12:03
George Handlery about the week that was. The choice of facts determines the case. Can the Palestinians deliver on their contract? The uses of “distributory foreign policy”. Piracy is a low-risk enterprise. Bank robbers are around: liquidate the banks.
1. This is how CNN International commented (Dec. 27) the IDF’s action in Gaza: Israel attacked “just a week after the cease-fire ended”. This rendition is constructed upon two connected occurrences. Event A is the expiration of the cease-fire. Event B is the action against Hamas. If we only concentrate on these two components, we get the impression of a rather rash action taken in response to a development in which both sides might share responsibility. (Without pockets, there would be no pickpockets.) Thereby the case is made for the “overreaction” as some commenting governments label the sorties. Only the chain of events has a third component. It is the rocketing of Israeli settlements (call them indiscriminate attacks) by Hamas in control of Gaza, the area from which the action originates. In this case the chain of events ranges from an expired cease fire, then it proceeds through rocket attacks on civilians that are guilty of being Jews and finally the process is completed by the IDF’s attempt to bomb Hamas targets. Through the insertion of the additional component, the two cases become highly dissimilar. Therefore, so must be their evaluation. Anyone who, while aware of the second scenario sticks knowingly to the first one becomes guilty of distortion by suppressing a salient fact. It is not right that this happens but it is, at the same time, hardly surprising.
2. The crux of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement is not primarily the drawing of a border or, becoming more fundamental, the agreement that a Palestinian and an Israeli entity are to share the region. The primary difficulty is that, even if those who represent the Palestinians (and who they are is far from clear) want peace and not only a cease-fire, the question arises whether they are able to control their own radicals even if they wish to do so.
3. Food for thought. As early as December 10, a UN Rapporteur condemned rocket attacks on Israel as a violation of international law. At the same time, Israel’s response to rocket attacks was judged to be “collective punishment” judged to endanger the well-being of Gaza’s inhabitants. Unjustly, Israel punishes the “entire population” for the “political development” within the strip in that it lets only a limited amount of essential goods pass into the zone. An NGO added its own weight to the critique. It turned with a (pro forma) complaint to the ICJ. Olmert, Barak and other Israeli leaders are to be tried for crimes against humanity. Accordingly, the NGO asked for the issuance of an international arrest warrant against Israel’s leadership.
4. Seeking the viewers’ response, a newscast raised this rhetorical question: why does the international community not do more to stop the violence in Gaza. The realistic answer could be two-fold. First, the Israelis might be listening but they are, nevertheless, disinclined to get used to being shelled and, furthermore, they are stubbornly unwilling to go down without resistance. At the same time Hamas is not responding to criticism – this explains why so few bother to address them. Hamas perseveres knowing that the “concerned” will complain where that works and that the measured outrage will augment its chances to prevail.
5. During the cold war, the American umbrella provided relative security. This cover made it possible to get on the cheap brownie points from the potential foe by criticizing the US. It also made affordable the luxury of politely discovering some virtues of the communist system whose aggression has been immanent to its order. As an afterthought, and by repressing all the evidence, “talking” to Moscow allowed the hedging of bets. This inclination to deny the worst has its explanation in that the West would not have wanted to use power for purposes the East was contemplating. Then the end of the cold war broke out. Peace and security seemed to be guaranteed without an effort and therefore attainable without a protector. Turning against the US lost the element of risk it entailed, while the cheers of the third world and the approval of the blabbering classes at home were assured. In the era following the disappearance of the old east-west confrontation of armies, foreign policy seemed to be transmutable into an exercise of distributing foreign aid. This era is now about to end although, due to inertia, “distributory foreign policy” is likely to continue for some time. The gap between the change of objective conditions and policies is normally wide in times of change. Nevertheless, new dangers and foes are emerging. With the hoped for retreat of the US from “unilateralism”, the positive side of the account that lists the benefits of American retreat is also shrinking.
6. Undeservedly, this got little attention. Her PM promised that, Pakistan would not be the party to use atomic weapons first. The military brass is dissatisfied because, compared to India, Pakistan is “too small” to make such a promise. The good news about this is that the soldiers apparently think that a promise made to the enemy raises the bar and that the pledge entails a moral obligation.
7. On December 12 a pirate vessel attacking a merchant ship was chased away by an armed chopper. Even so, a crewmember of the assailed craft was killed. The pirates were not fired upon. The upshot is that to the reasonably pirate, the risks of their activity must appear as pegged low. They might say, “If I win I gain all. If I fail, I only lose what I might otherwise have gained”. By not destroying pirate vessels, the activity is given the status of petty crime sanctioned by the application of correspondingly limited force. The “risk-gain” calculation tilts further. As a spokesman put it, the pirates attack because warships to scare them off “cannot be everywhere”.
8. A new, desperation-inspired saying that also admits failure, is haunting east central Europe. “It is better to have two million Chinese immigrants than five hundred thousand Gypsies”. (The region attracts a large number of Chinese settlers.)
9. The economic crisis has damaged the reputation of the market economy, which its perennial detractors are not slow in exploiting. What actually happened was that crooks have discovered naively unguarded vaults and cleaned them out. Questioning the principle behind the free market because of the abuse of its freedom is like closing down banks for the reason that they attract bank robbers.
10. There was a time when both parts of Europe (the Catholic/Protestant and the Orthodox) were organized as “traditional societies”. This being the case, as a conglomerate Europe did not represent anything that could be rated above any other contemporary society. In fact, between roughly 400 and 1200-1500, a number of civilizations outranked Europe. The successful but unintended dynamic break with what seemed to be the unavoidable pattern governing mankind (stagnation of a relatively high level) has enough causes to fill a book. One of these had been the gradual separation of Church and State in the west of the Continent. Ultimately both institutions who had desired the mixture if it would augment their power, have benefited from the separation. Whatever the advantages to the contesting parties, western civilization has been a major beneficiary. Modern science and a corresponding legal order – the roots of material welfare reach back to it – could not have developed without separating the political and the religious realms. Today we are in some respect about to backtrack on this development. The idea of the special jurisdiction for religious entities involving parallel legality or the immunity from national law is gaining in acceptability. The initiative comes from (Christian) church-related circles that advocate Sharia courts to serve Moslems. Another source of advocacy is when lawbreakers – such as illegal immigrants – are given refuge in churches. This revives the long abandoned idea of class, profession and confession-based laws as well as immunity and law-free zones. The implications and ramifications regarding sovereignty, impartial and de-personalized justice, equality and other such trifles are staggering.
11. One more thing. The economic crisis makes us fear the nightmare of widening unemployment. A haunting personal nightmare of this writer is that “they are coming” and he is out of ammunition. Nearly as good is to be running with a pistol in hand and with a T34 in pursuit. In case, you are wondering: in real life, he survived the first one and won his race in the second instance. However, the worse dream he has is one that keeps him from falling asleep afterwards. It is that he is looking for a job. He cannot get one because he has the wrong background and, in addition, his convictions and political commitments are visibly “wrong”.
the circle # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2009-01-09 18:51.
@ KO
You ought to be taken to the woodshed - but gently - for making fun of either a typo or a linguistic error, instead of addressing the substantive point of PVDH.
Pvdh is relatively young and, given his location and 'station' in life, is most likely functioning in at least three different languages (Dutch, French, and English), with perhaps a 'spattering' of German as well.
It would be nice to know the basic 'truth' about the so-called embargo. One important fact is that the Gaza has a common border with Egypt. But, clearly, the Hamas terror regime is not a friend of the Egyptian authoritarian regime. Another important relevant fact is that the Gaza population 'voted' the Hamas to power in 2006, which means they voted for its terror program. That puts the idea of presumed 'innocents' in some perspective.
Pvdh might wish to ponder that only a few days before the latest conflagration, Hamas had formally introduced in Gaza some kind of 'islamic' (sharia) criminal code which included the punishment of 'crucifixion' (believe it or not).
Given what happened in Lebanon in the last round between Israel and the world's islamists (and the lesson learned by Hezbolla, but not by the naive-left Western media), the best hope for the Gaza population is the humiliation of Hamas (and by proxy its Iranian overlord) and the destruction of its operational capabilities. If the so-called 'innocents' then get another chance, perhaps they will come to their senses?
the circle 4
Submitted by KO on Fri, 2009-01-09 20:38.
Sorry--I couldn't resist because of the vivid image. No hard feelings!
The Palestinians brought this suffering on their heads when they voted in Hamas, just as the Germans who voted in Hitler brought bombs down on their heads. Not that the Palestinians have to be at all culpable for the Israelis to have the right to defend themselves. Even if the Gazans were innocent victims, the Israelis would have the right to pursue Hamas forces at the risk of harm to civilians. We are obligated to value our compatriots over others.
The Israelis, however, were fools to give back Gaza when it was obvious what it would be used for. We Americans were fools to pressure the Israelis to trade land for "peace." There's plenty of blame to go around. Caroline Glick and Lawrence Auster have a cogent view of the Israeli operations, which is that the operations are not intended to actually succeed in neutralizing the Hamas threat, but to bring about a brokered agreement that will not protect Israel from attack. Israel demonstrates every day the suicidal nature of delusional liberalism. Thus there is no end in sight to the ongoing turmoil.
Auster makes another good point, which is that the more liberal and unaggressive the Israelis are--putting up with thousands of rocket attacks--the more they are called Nazis. There is an economy in this. The liberal Israeli government benefits from the illusion it is serious about protecting the country, while the enemies of Israel are able to use such accusations to stir up support. It is similar to what Auster speculated about Bush: the left benefited by calling him a right wing extremist, and Bush himself benefited, because such accusations quieted conservative accusations that he was not conservative at all. The result is a sort of conspiracy of lies between enemies, whereby each side shores up its internal support.
the circle
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2009-01-08 17:43.
Handlery is right about his third component of course, but conveniently he on his terms seems to forget a fourth component: The economic and physical blockade of Gaza. And a fifth component: More the half of the Gazian population lives in refugee-camps and keeps Israel responsible for it. I know, the blockade is done to prevent arms smuggling, and but it are those components that make the viscous circle of hate: When will somebody have the courage to break it up by doing concessions?
the circle 2
Submitted by KO on Thu, 2009-01-08 20:19.
The "viscous circle" must be in the Inferno, where the damned trudge through pitch. (But please keep writing in English. It is a treat for us Anglophones to be given some insight into the thoughts of our continental friends!)
@Ronduck
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2009-01-08 15:21.
1. You are obviously party loyalist. Neocon establishment fully continue Clinton's policy in Balkans. McCain is a declared friend of Albanian mafia.
2. Reagan legacy have nothing to do with neocon left which control Republican party these days.
3. I don't expect much from people who name their party "Democratic". This is lost case from the start. However Republican establishment turning to be even worse. They moved to "Democratic" positions and gather votes of the most fanatical democrats who think that this is OK to invade foreign states and establish democratic regimes by force.
4. Here is something about McCain stand on abortion. http://artlaction.com/release/20081012/john-mccains-tragic-pro-abortion-...
Neocons cannot be trusted, they simply don't really care about conservative cause. This is everything about statistical calculation.
5. Ted Kennedy is a democratic politician, such people are nearly always certified liars. You should figure this out yourself. People who search for religious politicians in power don't understand the nature of democratic politics.
6. "White Catholics", you are coming up with artificial category of people to justify your choice. Why to exclude non-white Catholics and Protestants from statistics? They spoil the results? Beside of that I'm curious how they are making such statistics? They ask small selected group and claim to know what people in big America really think.
7. Anyway, please elaborate. I'm not so familiar with American racist politics. Does artificial category of "white Catholics" include also Hispanics? I'm not a democrat and I oppose any BS about supposed 'right to vote'. However, no wonder why Hispanics don't vote for Republicans. This party is well known from being anti-Hispanic mouthpiece. If they vote for Democrats, this is because they are ignorant like masses everywhere. This is not myself who advocate democracy.
@Monarchist
Submitted by Ronduck on Thu, 2009-01-08 20:16.
1. I voted for the Republican party in order to prevent Obama from gaining office. I understand your support for monarchy, but I must live within the political system as it is, not as I wish it was, and that means I at least have to vote for the party that is farther to the right.
7. The Republican party has tried to get the Hispanic vote and has failed to secure our southern border because of these efforts. *ALL* non-whites vote for the Democrats - always. Even the advanced East Asians here in the US vote for the Left. Only a part of the White Protestants vote for the right in sizable numbers. I wrote a blogpost showing how most of America's religious groups voted in the election. You can see it here:
http://ronduck.blogspot.com/2008/11/demographics-of-2008-election.html
The White Catholics I reffered to are the descendants of the Polish, Irish, Italian and other European Catholics that immigrated 100 years ago. They don't form a Catholic party, they don't agitate for a monarchy and many, if not the majority of them, support abortion. I chose Ted Kennedy as an example becuse after years of being the chief public defender of abortion in the US government he has *never* been denied communion. A person who is that prominent a supporter of abortion should be expelled from his church. Since he has never been expelled, but instead rewarded with communion millions of White Catholics follow Ted as a moral example. I was using the voting record of the church's flock to point out that the US Catholic church is morally bankrupt.
If you look at my blogpost you will see that the only right wing group are the Evangelical Protestants, *all* other groups voted for Obama. Incidentally, Obama has an abortion voting record that is more radical than many abortion supporting groups.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
McCain may have supported abortion, but there was a good chance he would die in office, letting Palin become president. Palin is pro-life and would have been the best choice for the Republicans.
@Ronduck
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2009-01-10 19:47.
1. Constitution Party seems to be much more right wing. Don't you think that you vote rather on less leftist mainstream party? This perspective seems to be more accurate.
2. To secure a border is one thing and populist anti-Hispanic rhetoric another. This is pretty obvious that Republicans cannot have both, give opportunity to chauvinist crowd to speak in their name and gather votes of Hispanic voters.
3. I checked out Ted Kennedy. He is a remarried person divorced from a living. So according to the Catechism of the CC, he is automatically denied communion. You are simply wrong.
4. I find it amazing, your suggestion that some politician is supposed to be a moral example for Catholic Americans. If they are Catholics then they must listen to the Vatican and the Pope in particular. As I mentioned earlier I'm not a democrat. However even myself don't suspect that people consider politicians to be moral examples! This is simply not the case.
@Monarchist
Submitted by Ronduck on Sun, 2009-01-11 01:13.
3. I checked out Ted Kennedy. He is a remarried person divorced from a living. So according to the Catechism of the CC, he is automatically denied communion. You are simply wrong.
Ted Kennedy almost certainly had his first marriage annulled, but we can't know until the church confirms or denies it:
And although Senator Edward Kennedy won't say whether his first marriage was annulled, he did take Communion at his mother's funeral and maintains that his "second marriage had been blessed by the church."
Ted Kennedy was also given communion at the Papal Mass given in the US. Here is a statement from Daniel J Skehan:
"Two of my sons and I attended the Papal Mass yesterday. We were seated in section 216, directly above the section in which Ted Kennedy was seated. Several minutes prior to the general distribution of communion a priest walked down to Ted Kennedy and gave him communion. There was some discussion amongst we in our section about the inappropriateness of his reception of the Host. Be certain, he remained seated not out of some self-enforced respect for the sacrament, but rather out of respect for his girth and mobility."
Ted has received communion in the past, and the American bishops have not taken any steps to stop him. The bishops cannot claim that Ted is automatically excommunicated, they must do it themselves because of his prominent support of abortion. Heck, they do not even claim he is automatically excommunicated, they just sit around and let their priest give communion to babykiller.
4. If the Catholic hierarchy will not excommunicate a man who is almost singlehandedly responsible for keeping abortion legal in the US then they are admitting that the church approves of abortion. Ted is the product of the American church, a church that needs to have many of its' bishops fired. Either the entire American hierarchy is in a state of sin, or Ted is allowed to screw around because he helps keep the floodgates open for more Mexicans. Or both.
@Ronduck
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2009-01-11 14:54.
1. Well, it appears that this is more complicated case. Indeed his marriage was annulled but then his wife complained to Vatican and they reversed this decision. (24 years of marriage and two kids, this is practically impossible to annul such marriage!) So in the end, Ted Kennedy is officially denied communion. If he ignore this fact, this is behaviour about I never have heard before. The man is an ass. We cannot expect that some ordinary priest will know family situation of every politician. This is matter of self-responsibility. http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9693
2. The problem with progressive clergy exist not only among Catholic hierarchy. Influential politicians are well aware who is who and they head to proper people when they need their help. So I would not suggest that this is massive attitude among Catholic clergy.
3. Perhaps this would be good to excommunicate 90% of politicians, because this is practically what they deserve. Pope Benedict appears to dislike progressives, hopefully he will manage to handle them with time.
@Monarchist
Submitted by Ronduck on Mon, 2009-01-12 18:58.
1. The reaon I chose Ted is because Ted is the main supporter of abortion in the US. Ted has supported a procedure that has killed 50 million children, and he has supported it almost from the day it was legalized! In 35 years of active support of abortion, the Catholic clergy has never threatened to excommunicate Ted. If the Catholic clergy in the US were serious about stopping abortion then it would expel Ted In Central America the Catholic church called for massive demonstrations in the various countries capitols in order to put pressure on the national parliaments to criminalize the procedure. Here in the US the clergy give sermons about "working to stop abortion", and they even say such things on TV, but they never get rid of the leading reprobate that works to keep the killing legal. They need to denounce him publicly make sure his local priest denies him entrance to the parish.
Why would the American hierarchy not expel a man who has the blood of 50 million unborn children on his hands? Because Ted is also the leading supporter of illegal and legal immigration into the United States. He definitely supports the loss of the southwest to Mexico, or the Mexicanization of the entire country. There are now Mexicans as far north as Alaska, and local Catholic clergy often work to prevent cities from cooperating with the immigration authorities, or generally support the Mexicans. Here is an example from my local diocese:
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/acc/2008candidatesurvey.html
Look at questions 5, 9 and 13, they clearly show that the church wants more immigrants. Question 8 is part of the American hierarchy's longstanding opposition to capital punishment under any circumstances. Question 4 indicates that the church wants women who are on welfare (Hispanics) to receive even more money if they pop out another kid while on the dole.
If Pope Benedict was serious about cleaning out the cesspool that is the American Catholic church he would fire a large number of the American bishops, or he would appoint a single godfearing man to head the American church. Right now the entire American Catholic church is a supporter of the Left, with the possible exception of the members of the Pius X society.
2. I know that other denominations have liberals, but the Catholic church is the largest denomination in America, the others are regional or are small and fragmented. But liberalism is a massive attitude among US Catholic clergy. If the Conservative Protestants could unite they could fight off the liberals/Catholics and ban abortion. But the liberal Protestants and the Catholics work together to keep it legal.
Hamas and the silence of Western Media
Submitted by Steiner on Tue, 2009-01-06 22:28.
Having read of the many cold blooded murders that Hamas is responsible for against its own people…Palestinian Gazans(stemming from fears that these do not agree with its ideology)..
….makes me wonder …really wonder and shudder at the indifference from Western media on this very subject.
Why on earth do they not report this!
Hangings,cold blooded torture in slaughterhouses! dragging of corpses in the streets..etc.
How can western media reporters live with themselves!
Both the Nazis and the Stalinists are known for the cruelty that they perpetrated on their own civilians…and yet our Western media remains silent on Hamass methods against its own population!
How ghastly and truly horrible for westerners to live in such ignorance, perpetrated by their own media.
What are they hoping to gain from this silence?!
Is this not utter blasphemy to our own Western values?…
RE: "Hamas Does Not Respond to Criticism"
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-01-06 10:12.
RE:
1. On the contrary, the chain of events predates the establishment of either Hamas or the State of Israel.
2. Both the Israelis and Palestinians have difficulties with "radicals" desirous of total victory and the unconditional surrender of the opposing side.
3. Any Israeli victory achieved via airstrikes, the ground incursion and the blockade will be short lived. Collective punishment is a course of action not unique to the IDF. Nor are its drawbacks. Historically, targeted regimes remain in office, civilian populations suffer and popular resentment only works to consolidate the regimes' power.
8. What does that say about the Roma?
The solution
Submitted by Ronduck on Tue, 2009-01-06 17:18.
The solution the Palestinian problem is expulsion of the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. John Derbyshire wrote a good article over at National Review that showed why the other otions for Palestine won't work.
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire050902.asp
Needless to say, I consider it the obligation of all Chritian men to support Israel.
I stand with Israel.
The solution 2
Submitted by KO on Tue, 2009-01-06 21:37.
Ronduck: See this article by Robert Locke, also proposing population transfer. http://www.vdare.com/locke/palestinian_problem.htm
American Christian
Submitted by Monarchist on Tue, 2009-01-06 21:14.
Needless to say, I consider it the obligation of all Chritian men to support Israel.I stand with Israel.
Typical American mantra. If those supposed American "Christians" would sacrifice at least half of this time for other Christians! Once Christian Lebanon turning into Muslim colony, do you even care? Why do you people never raise this question? This is country next to Israel! Perhaps a Christian should support other Christians in first place? Guess what, your Israel give a rat about fate of Christians in Lebanon.
What you have to say about your former government, although anti-Christian but of course 100% pro-Israel. How funny is to watch on Christian Serbia being humiliated? What do you have to say about fellow Christian expelled from Kosovo? How funny is to watch so many Christian Serbs and Croats being stuck in Muslim Bosnia? Your government is responsible to wide extend for this outcome!
I don't even mention Christian minorities in many other countries, their fate is not your interest. Beside of Israel nothing is worth support of American Christian (or rather I should write Protestant?)!
@Monarchist
Submitted by Ronduck on Thu, 2009-01-08 01:47.
The main problem is that American politics is far enough to the left to neuter the Republican party, and allow the Democrats wide reign. Bill Clinton was the one who bombed Serbia, and no I do not consider it justified.
Christians in other countries *are* my interest, and have in the past been my country's interest. The US fought for many years to keep Catholic Vietnam out of communist hands. We kept soldiers in Germany in order to prevent the rest of *christian* Europe from being overrun and we had Ronald Reagan initiate the 80's defense buildup in order to prepare for war with the atheistic Soviet Union. Our record isn't perfect, and the parts of our history written by Democrats are bad, but we have tried.
Let me make one other point, here in the US White Catholics are almost all supporters of either the Democratic party, abortion or both. Catholic senator Ted Kennedy has been the most visible supporter of abortion for almost 40 years now and the American Catholic hierarchy has *never* acted to expel him and has even given that baby killer communion. During the recent election White Catholics voted for proabortion Obama 49-41 whereas the Evangelicals who support Israel voted 68-25 for McCain.
@Ronduck
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2009-01-08 17:17.
“We kept soldiers in Germany in order to prevent the rest of *Christian* Europe from being overrun and we had Ronald Reagan initiate the 80's defense buildup in order to prepare for war with the atheistic Soviet Union.”
I have long suspected that this hate against the Soviet Union was more a religious thing then anything else, but seeing it written black on white still makes me shiver. It seems not only Muslims and Jews are stupid enough to risk the life of their children for the content of a book written thousand or more years ago. I’m not prepared to risk mine or the life of my children for atheism. Still got a cross somewhere in a drawer to deceive fanatics as Ronduck. I think I’m even capable to say a prayer or two. I’ll start by hiding my Dawkins and Dennett books. One can’t be precautious enough.
Shivering in a fox hole
Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2009-01-08 18:02.
Peter,
Would that be 'shivering' like the monks, priests, and religious who found themselves in the gulag in the good old atheistic Soviet Union?
Defending onself against a rampaging atheistic behemoth, which the USSR was, from the outset, does not constitute some kind of warped, misguided "hate."
Don't hide your Dawkins and Dennett, we need them for kindling when we burn you at the stake.;-)
@Ronduck
Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2009-01-08 05:43.
Quack, Quack, Quack!
Hey duckface what's wrong? Didn't you get to kick a priest today?
You said:
"Let me make one other point, here in the US White Catholics are almost all supporters of either the Democratic party, abortion or both. Catholic senator Ted Kennedy has been the most visible supporter of abortion for almost 40 years now and the American Catholic hierarchy has *never* acted to expel him and has even given that baby killer communion. During the recent election White Catholics voted for proabortion Obama 49-41 whereas the Evangelicals who support Israel voted 68-25 for McCain."
I usually don't waste my time with a guy who can't even make the point he claims he is making, but how lame is 49% being equal to almost all white Catholics? And what happens when you add those other non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians into your holier than thou stats? And what part of McCain 's immigration and stem cell funding policies did you not vote when you voted for him? Christian Zionist? My papist kiester. You're simply a Catholic bigot hiding under a yarmulke.
White Hetrosexual Males Need not Apply . . .
Submitted by B. English on Mon, 2009-01-05 12:31.
"Duly Noted" offers much to ponder. The final entry (11) expresses my fears. The fear of be shunned in society and rejected employment because one does not wear any trendy label. Any of the following are deemed beneficial by today's rules: female, non white, non Christian, homosexual, non Anglo Saxon, handicapped. It helps in social circles if one has left to far left beliefs. So what's the problem? Anyone else is unwelcomed.
Somehow, this new brave world has rendered anyone of contrary values, gender, etc. to become invisible (at best), or scorned (at worst).
Looking back, this worrisome trend may have its roots in the late 60's. When Canada was under Trudeau's thumb. When schools began experimenting with children's thinking. With the intent of making our world "better".