Archive | Random Thoughts

The Arab/Israeli Conflict

Posted on 16 June 2009 by Zorro

The Arab/Israeli Conflict

The root causes of the Israel-Arab conflict are a U.N. resolution, Jew hatred
and that Arab leaders created, but refused to absorb Palestinian refugees.

The U.N. Resolution

  • The historical fact is that, wrongly or rightly, the U.N. created the
    Jewish state in November 1947.

Jew hatred

  • Most Arab and Muslim nations, as well as non-government groups, have
    officially refused to recognize, and continue to deny, Israel’s right to
    exist. Some have even declared their intention to destroy Israel.
  • Egyptian President Mubarak said on June 14, 2009, "Netanyahu’s
    demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is ruining the
    chance for peace … Not Egypt nor any other Arab country would support
    Netanyahu’s approach."
  • Would a sane person hope for peace with someone threatening to kill them
    and their children?

The Creation of Unassimilated Arab Refugees:

  • Wrongly or rightly, Arab leaders refused to accept the U.N. resolution,
    threatened (and carried out) war and demanded that Arabs leave Palestine.
  • Wrongly or rightly, in the meantime, Jewish leaders urged Arabs to remain
    in Palestine. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of Arabs voluntarily left
    to become refugees in Arab-controlled areas.
  • Unlike many other nations that humanitarianly assimilate refugee families
    and children into their citizenry, economy and culture, encouraging them to
    thrive and prosper, the surrounding Arab nations instead forced their
    brother Arabs into internment camps and fed them on "Jew" hatred.

What Might Have Been

Had the Arab states instead assimilated the Palestinian refugees, today’s
turmoil would not exist. Better yet, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 U.N.
resolution, there would have been no Palestinian Arab refugees and an
independent Arab state would now exist alongside Israel.

What Might Still Happen

America accepts refugees of all races and religions and doesn’t express plans
to annihilate our enemies. Do you think that if the Arabs recanted their wish to
destroy Israel, the climate of the peace discussions would improve?

Comments (0)

Ain’t It The Truth?

Ain’t It The Truth?

Posted on 02 July 2008 by Zorro

“You know what?   
A: “What?”

Q: “The
world is getting nuts.” 
“Yeah … And you know what else?’

Q: “What?” 
“ We be the nuts they getting!”

“B.C.” by Johnny Hart, May 26, 2001


Years Later—The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head!

V. and Aids Diagnoses Rise in Men Who Have Sex With Men

Diagnoses of
H.I.V. and AIDS in men who have sex with men rose significantly from 2001 to
2006, while declining in other demographic groups, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention reported. The
increase in infection rates was especially high among males 13 to 24 with an
annual increase of 12.4 percent, compared with 1.5 percent for men overall.

The annual increase was higher still among young African-American men who have
sex with men, nearly 15 percent. “It’s a grim report,” said Dr. Ronald
Stall, an epidemiologist and professor of health at the

. “it means roughly speaking that about half of the American AIDS epidemic is
occurring among a few percent of the adult population. And the terrible trends
we’re seeing among white gay men are even amplified further among minority

By David Fuller, buried on
page 14 of the New York Times, June 27, 2008


So? What do the “Nuts” of modern American media, politics and
education say about the AIDS  epidemic?

A: “… in
a taped interview Sunday morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called a ballot measure set to go
before the state’s voters in November to again ban gay marriage “a waste of

The Wall Street Journal, June
30, 2008; page A3

Gay Pride And Its


… The drag queen … introduced [
New York City

] Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn … she
bellowed, “Let’s hear it for the governor of

New York

, David Patterson!

governors have made advancing gay rights as central to their policy making as
Mr. Patterson … “


New York

, June 30, 2008; page B3..

In other
words, they say, let’s mainstream homosexual sex by promoting it in our
government, in schools, in the military, at the work place, at the church, and
by encouraging homosexual marriage so that  teenagers
and pre-teens  will grow up thinking
that society agrees that  anal sex 
is just another normal happy (gay) lifestyle they should experiment
with… . until they get infected …. for the rest of their shortened 
lives.   Meanwhile, the
super elite brains say, let’s spend $billions on making anal sex safe …
that’s more important than curing  cancer
or TB or MS or … Autism … or …heart disease … or …

Q: Does the
intelligentsia find it tragic that the worst hit are the teenagers and young
adults (13 to 24) who have most recently gone through our educational
institutions? Are they being taught – How do you know that you don’t like it
until you try it? So they tried it?

Yeah … But we’ll keep the grim facts off  of 
the newspapesr  front pages. 
We need to recruit fresh boys … We’ll give a whole new meaning to
“Don’t ask, Don’t tell.” We’ll demonize the anti-anal-sex folks by
calling them homophobes …. The press will love us! 
As if opposition to disease is wrong.

Q: By the
way … Do you think David Fuller will get to keep his job if his NYT boss finds
out that he printed the truth?


Comments (0)

Euphemisms and the Polls

Posted on 04 June 2007 by Zorro

It’s been said, by me, that all polls measure is how effective the media has
been at propagandizing the public to its point of view.

For example, the media frequently reports that the public favors
"gay" rights and a woman’s "right-to-choose" and disfavors
the war in Iraq.

Do you ever wonder what the polls would say if the questions were put to the
public without resorting to euphemisms?

Such as:

Are you in favor of anal sex? Should schools teach your children to be
tolerant of anal sex? Do you think there is a relationship between anal sex and

Do you support a woman’s right to kill her baby for any reason, or no reason,
at all? Should taxpayers pay for killing babies?

Do you have a vision of what a terrorist victory will mean for your country?
Do you expect that they will then become "nice guys" and tolerate you?

Comments (0)

Twenty-four Reasons I’m Not a Republican

Posted on 18 February 2007 by Zorro

Here’s the latest

DE-Rep. Michael N. Castle

FL-Rep. Ric Keller

IL-Reps. Timothy V. Johnson & Mark Kirk

MD-Rep. Wayne Gilchrest

ME-Sens. Susan M. Collins & Olympia J. Snow

MI-Sen. Norm Coleman & Rep. Fred Upton

MN-Rep. Jim Ramstad

NE-Sen. Chuck Hagel

NY-Rep. Jim Walsh

NC-Reps. Howard Coble & Walter B. Jones

OH-Rep. Steven C. LaTourette

OR-Sen. Gordon H. Smith

PA-Sen. Arlen Specter & Rep. Phil English

SC-Rep. Bob Inglis

TN-Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr.

TX-Rep. Ron Paul

VA-Sen. John Warner & Rep. Tom Davis

WI-Rep. Thomas Petri

Comments (0)

Homosexual Recruitment II

Posted on 09 January 2007 by Zorro

"For more than two decades, Marjorie Hill has been touched by AIDS. As
director of former Mayor David N. Dinkins Office for the Lesbian and Gay
Community, Hill attended so may funerals – at least one a week at one point —
that she stopped going to them ‘for my own mental health.’ "

"Now, Hill, at 50 is settling into a new job as chief executive of Gay
Men’s Health Crisis as it prepares to mark its 25th anniversary next month…"
—from Dateline Brooklyn, This Week from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle,
Thursday, December 21, 2006.

What more can be added? Another 25 years of weekly funerals after getting rid
of the stigma?

Perhaps you’ll glance again at my "Homosexual
" post of October 8, 2006.

Comments (0)

Terrorists at the Times

Posted on 02 January 2007 by Ed Z

"3,000 Deaths in Iraq, Countless Tears at Home … Another Grim
Milestone for U.S."
– Headlines, The New York Times, January 1,

Can there be any doubt that the reason we-will-rule-the-world terrorists
publicize their ghastly deeds is to demoralize their resisters? — To terrify
them into submission? This is nothing new: Public flailing, stake-burnings,
disembowelments, mass-killings and the like have often served as lessons to
discourage resistance to the dictates of the powerful or the would-be powerful.

"We must get our message across to the masses of the nation and break
the media siege imposed on the jihad movement. This is an independent battle
that we must launch side by side with the military battle."

"Zawahiri advised Zarqawi to moderate his attacks on Iraqi Shiites
and to stop beheading hostages. "We are in a battle," Zawahiri
reminded him. "And more than half of this battle is taking place in the
battlefield of the media."
-Annals of Terrorism: The Master Plan, by
Lawrence Wright, The New Yorker Magazine, September 11, 2006.

"Al Qaeda Increasingly Reliant on Media ", Headline, The
New York Times
, September 30, 2006.

What is new is the astonishing eagerness of the media to ally themselves with
the terrorists’ strategy. Is it really possible that our highly-educated media
elites at The New York Times (et al) don’t know that their insatiable appetite
for death reports creates an increasing supply of deaths for them to report? Or,
can the editors explain how their reveling to a dirge of dispiriting front page
stories helps dissuade publicity hungry killers from sending more bodies home?

Surely, there is nothing wrong with reporting a battleground death – once. To
repeat the reports serves no purpose beyond giving their killer allies a
double-bang-for-their-buck. Yet, the Times chose to greet the New Year by
devoting half of its front page and six A-section pages to promoting terrorist

How fitting!


Comments (2)

What One Dollar Will Buy

Posted on 22 December 2006 by Ed Z

"All the News That’s Fit to Print-Vol CLVI…, No. 53,798"

What one dollar will buy-They say you can learn a lot from sports–

page 1, lead article, Tuesday, December 18, 2006-

"Hey, don’t go the basket right now. It wouldn’t be a good idea.
I’m just letting you know." NY Knicks coach Isiah Thomas to Denver Nuggets
star Carmelo Anthony-New York Times, page D2, Tuesday, December 18, 2006-( The
Nuggets were way ahead.)

"We had surrendered" Thomas says of the incident later,
still smiling afterward, laughing one time-Brian Mahoney, Associated Press
Basketball Writer, December 17, 2006-

Hasn’t the U.S. sent many messages of surrender to Al Qeada? What did Isiah
Thomas expect? The winners not to savor their victory? Not to want a big
victory? As in, the biggest they can garner?

What do we expect Al Qeada to believe? Like, they’re losing? Really?

Where did Americans get the idea that our surrender causes them who want
Americans dead will spare you? And, your children?


Comments (0)

It’s the Apocalypse, Stupid

Posted on 10 December 2006 by Ed Z

OFF"; Cover Story, Popular
Mechanics Magazine
-December 2006

According to Popular Mechanics (PM): "Asteroids and comets
collided with the Earth many times in the past, changing the world’s climate and
causing species to go extinct. Are we due for another big hit?"

Now, PM says that in 2029 the asteroid "99942 Apophis" (the
Destroyer) might come very close and then return to really, really hit Earth in
2036. And, some think that NASA can do something to avert that disaster.

Meanwhile, back on today’s Planet Earth, in 2006 (but nearly 2007)-another
"A" named AHMADINEJAD-Iran’s president, seems to want the APOCALYPSE
before 2029. Some say he’s Allah-driven, working hard to make it happen.

Are there five plans to head him off?


Comments (0)

Abortion Ruminations

Posted on 25 November 2006 by Ed Z

Without repeating all of the valid/invalid arguments, I’ll say that I think
you can get a reasonable majority of Americans to agree that sometimes an
abortion is justifiable. Sad, but justifiable. In fact, it was the
"justifications" arguments that persuaded many state legislatures to
enact today’s permissive abortion laws. You know them by heart: rape, health of
the mother, incest, deformity-stuff like that.

Where folks part company is when it is stipulated that no justification
should be required at all; that personal convenience is all that matters. And,
that all taxpayers should pay the price. Really? Now that Convenience has become
our Society’s life or death standard, where are the limits to what can be done
under its banner?

Anyway, the fervent "abortion-for-convenience" crowd can’t abide
the "abortion-with-justification" crowd. The "no-abortion-ever’
crowd was beaten a long time ago.

What’s up here?




Saw this headline on Drudge: More
women have abortions as it loses stigma

Also Karol at Alarming News talks
about this today: Abortion
is bad

-Ed Z

Comments (3)

Campaign Spending–Monopolists Own America’s Election Money

Posted on 16 November 2006 by Ed Z

"Media Companies to Come Out Winners As 2006 Political Spending Heads
for Record Books"
Release by PQ Media
, November 2, 2006.

It is estimated that $3.14 billion was spent on political advertising and
marketing communications in 2006. Isn’t it interesting that with all of the
hullabaloo attached to Campaign Finance Reform and limiting political
fund-raising, so little attention is paid to who gets all those $ billions?

Extrapolating from 2004 breakdowns, more than 65% went to broadcast media
companies (primarily television and radio). In any given American locality a few
of these companies possess the exclusive and virtually perpetual right to
broadcast over (and charge for) a tightly restricted number of assigned airwave
frequencies. In other words, there is no "ease of entry" for new
competitors to spring up. In contrast, anyone with the resources can start a
newspaper or magazine anywhere in America-but, you can’t start broadcasting over
the airwaves!

Do you see a certain irony that, in a country of 300 million that cherishes
freedom of speech, a few thousand government-protected broadcasters control the
airwaves and the revenues created by elections? Is there a valid reason why, in
exchange for being granted monopoly power, these guys shouldn’t be required to
broadcast campaign materials as a public service? If 65% of campaign costs were
eliminated, would there be any need for McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on


Comments (0)