Sunday, September 02, 2007


I currently hold no special brief at all in public affairs. But, from a pedestrian level, I question whether or not those of us who are concerned are being drawn into arguments in vacuums. So, rather that run a full 'screed', I am putting out, not arguments against liberals measures, but more means that might be used to alter their tone to a more realistic harmony and realize themselves as liberal in heart and mind as opposed to being leftist martinets. Remember - In attacking an incumbent you don't win over the opposition's former supporters by assaulting them. So consider the following more a tactical note than a.....manifesto...Leftists don't argue anyway. They spout mantras, employ moral equivalency and propagandize. Liberals freely and conveniently grant them unearned loyalty, failing to recall that blind loyalty gave us Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Inquisitions and many human against human crimes in the name of humanity and revolutions that imperiled civilization.

Needless to say, I regard highly those who have demonstrated initiatives to establish their views, create blogs and have articulated their concerns so well that they have garnered responses not only from those of us with appreciated points of view, but those of opposing trends as well. (What can we learn if don't we hear another's point of view {no matter how poorly developed, obviously programmed and cadenced, or vacant but for social approval... {oops: so much for my diplomacy}?)

A quote from a gay blogger, USMALE, is only so clear that I can understand how many liberals miss it through the leftist fog (“Only in the Western world can a gay man live a free life as himself. Hence, the health and strength of the West is fundamental to my survival”). Unfortunately, I see the situation (vis a vis gays as being in the premier position of liberal politics) as being a form of myopia. Many gays fail to see that out of the whole gay population, it's been the few out of time, not the numbers (the community), that have gained them acceptance (or in cases like Foley, Studds, McGreavey, Craig, Arafat, etc.; notoriety). I'll even gainsay the popular view and say that acceptance begins in the familial, or parochial, before it becomes provincial, national or global. And yet, for consideration, look at the imposing dhimmitude in Europe. She’s falling under the leaden clouds of sharia influence. Gays didn't achieve their franchise in the world through an add-water'n-stir concoction, but a tidal wave of alienating interpretations could wipe it out. And, let’s be frank, there are many others whose lives have been enfranchised, no less dramatically, by way of the Western Tradition (with its history of faults).

So....before I alienate you....further...

I have focused on the current terrorism not only for what it is, and only seen as interruptions of historical complacency by some, but the more targeted goal of those who would have a world without forums. It is war - with or without the bumper sticker. And it is immediate. The opposition isn't waiting for it to be scheduled for a dialogue with sociologists. It is being waged in places as remote as distant villages, fields and deserts, and governing councils in Foreignistan, Alliestan and as local as Dearborn, Edina and Columbus, Brooklyn, Oakland , Roxbury.., and next door to me on Saint Botolph Street, Boston. This, of course, raises the question of whether we can raise the war on two fronts; the political (US vs. external) and the criminal (enterprises that erode domestic security such as illegal immigration, drug and other contraband violations). The legal community will scream like Hell if we take more than one bite of the apple. But, let's remind ourselves. It's our apple. We can have it whatever number of ways we want.

Now, you're probably thinking (and I too wonder), "This cat's going paranoid."

How we approach this might be in the form of how Tom Sawyer got the fence white-washed. Was it subversion, disinformation, neighborhood enhancement or buddies helping a friend get on with things so they could all (together) go on to other ventures? So from the inert pallet (complacency) can vital messages be created? Hopefully, expressions can be developed that won't lead to "Well, the 'Christians did this', 'The Church did that', 'The Jews did.' and so on. The response to these objections from the bogs of indifference is, of course, 'Yes!’, ‘Yes, we did.’ (This is the history express. Nobody steps off until the ride is over.) But civilization didn't pedal backward to correct itself. Such arguments stem from the stale of spirit in the first place. On the other hand is the risk of coming tangent to the droning mantra of leftist ghoul politics and getting lost in discourse with them. They're only snipers, move on. (They love to indulge in the immediacy of present blood-shed rather than look at how step-by-step and side slipping they brought it on. They might read Bruce Brawer “While Europe Slept”). To take their theme of the 'Sixties', the cadence of their "different drummer" hasn't changed a beat. They would apply feelings as Band-Aids where surgery is the cure; rest where exercise would be the panacea; aroma therapy when the need for oxygen was critical.

Here and now is the issue, not who didn’t act or who muffed the “slam dunk”. And I don't see it being tabled to after Friday Prayers at the 'Mayberry Mosque'.

So....before I alienate you....even further...

Since September 11th 2001, there has sprouted an abundance of closet cavaliers and snake-eaters that only twelve years earlier were hollering 'Killa Commie for Christ'.
On the other hand there are some very well worked out resources. An example of encountering my own shortsightedness, I found I was taking a deeper look at Robert Spencer. From my rather inflated arrogance (having served on more than a few terrorism panels over thirty years), I just filed him in a memory recess. I am currently relying on his 'blogging the Qur'an". He didn't start out trying to neutralize Islam at all, and differing points of view are respected. (I have to admit has more to offer than I would be open to maybe ten or fifteen years ago.)

So, as we view sources, we should vet them. However, in doing so, we should recognize what is fairly said, and not marginalize one or another because of some idiosyncratic interpretation that riles the pangs of PC (or loosens the binds of philosophical constipation). A fair sample of open source material which I use is (oddly):,,, and; not to mention the Drudge collectives.

Do some of these sites suggest (to too many lacking even sophomoric qualifications) the unsophisticated, old fashion (to some) and strident US patriotism? Yes!
Do some exaggerate the adherence to the laws of the United States? Yes!
And to all the options of extremes that some will take….? Yes!

As I have cautioned there are so many options one must be a bit discerning. That means personally discerning, not just following the lemmings. Let's see what churns up.

No comments: