Left, Right, Left (politics)

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order. The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a called a moderate.

In the dictionary the word "liberal" is defined as "open minded, not adhering to established doctrine or orthodoxy, while "conservative" means "one who conforms to traditional positions or views".

This would make anyone, whether a Democrat or a Republican, who voted the straight party ticket, a conservative, someone conforming to established doctrine. 

The only people who can, legitimately, be called "liberals" would be the independents and swing voters, since they are the only ones making open minded individual choices.

This is not about who's better, Democrats, which are often mislabeled as LEFT or Republicans, which are often mislabeled as RIGHT, or to suggest that anyone is wrong to vote their beliefs, which, as an American, I'd hope you'd do just that. 

My question is about the choice of terms.
The extremes in both parties are most likely to label the other party as either Left or Right, while they,  really think of themselves as Liberal or Conservative.

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left has been labeled as anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.

Researchers have also said that the Right has been labelled as fascists, racists, Nazis, capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.

Interestingly, both categories have contradictions, in my mind, for the same terms.
Both parties have demonstrated that they are NOT open minded as a party, while any person of either party would certainly say that "they" ARE open minded and anyone of the other party is not.

I've seen more racist attitudes and demonstrations started by so called Anti-racists as categorized by the term Left. I've also seen more so called Anti-racists throwing the race card, with the express intent to initiate a confrontation that will lead to open violence.

Keep in mind that the first person or group to throw the race card, is the real racist.

I think no party designation, either Democrat or Republican, is really defined, by either party, as being racist. It is an individual ideology. Most people have forgotten that the Democratic party was originally founded on racism and the Republican party was against it, resulting in the Civil War,

It is also very interesting that while the, admittedly Democrat leaning activist group, "Black Lives Matter", so called Anti-racist activists, openly demonstrates against a black person being killed by a white police officer, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime, BUT there is no outcry by them when a black police officer kills or even shoots another black person, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime.

There has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer shoots or kills a person who is white, hispanic, asian or any other race, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime. Clearly ALL lives do not matter.

And there has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer is killed by another black person committing a crime.

Point of View  Wikipedia Yahoo 

And don't get me started on using insanity as a defense for a not guilty plea.


DON'T BE BLUE

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports

Former Yankees star reliever and current spring training instructor Goose Gossage has shaken Western democracy by denouncing players — home-run bat-flippers, pitching-mound chest-pounders, and the like. 

So the Yankees brought Gossage in for a chat?

Gossage, as per my understanding, said, “Let’s keep some sport in our sport. Bad losers can reasonably be explained and indulged. Bad winners? No way.”

Among the most commonly asked questions by fans who were raised to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad and winning baseball from everything less, has become, “How do managers allow that stuff?”

Baseball players are not the only fools who parade their incivility in this unsportsmanlike manner. Football players ,both American and European, but mostly American Football players, are the most egregious. Basketball is not quite as bad as Baseball or Football, but there is lots of disrespect shown between players in most team sports. Hockey may be the worst in teaching unsportsmanlike behavior to our children, as far as encouraging unsportsmanlike conduct on the ice by allowing fights between players, but Football and Baseball and Basketball are more watched by our impressionable youth.
It appears that most team sports are a parade of fools. 
http://nypost.com/2016/03/14/goose-gossage-absolutely-right-to-call-out-mlb-showboaters/

Civility has been lost, in Politics and Sports.
And it all starts with how they are brought up.
Being respectful and civil in your social interactions and accomplishments was encouraged as a young participant in school as well as play. It's not being taught by parents or teachers anymore. Generation X and Millennial children are seriously lacking in Civility.

The disruptive conduct of protesters at presidential candidate Donald Trump’s rallies is the latest evidence that protesting in a civil manner is not the hallmark of the current electoral campaign. The protesters were bent on causing as much disruption as possible, mostly physical. In Ohio a protester was apprehended when he approached Trump on stage, perhaps intent on inflicting physical harm to the candidate. 

This protester was an anarchist with blogs and Facebook pages showing his hate for America in his words and actions by stomping on the American Flag. It was later learned that his mother is an extreme left wing protester advocating socialism, his father is a preacher.

Other candidates have faced less physical confrontation, but their opponents’ vocal catcalls have disrupted their efforts to speak to their supporters. “Black Lives Matter” advocates have been particularly disruptive, most notably at a Bernie Sanders event. 

It's interesting that the Democratic supporters that demonstrate at Republican events have the most violent outcomes, while the Republican supporters at the Democratic events have not shown any violence. 

If protesters want to attend the rallies of candidates they don’t like, they can do so in a peaceful, non-disruptive manner while still making their point. Years ago a group of protesters quietly took seats in the front row at a speech by someone they opposed, holding opposition signs clearly visible to the speaker and television news cameras. There was no disruption, but the speaker was aware of their protest throughout his presentation.

Why can’t the citizens of a nation whose First Amendment is a protection of free speech honor the right of their opponents to practice that right without harassment? 

It appears to me that the Left wing can't get their voice heard without resorting to violence, even when they demonstrate against other Democrats, at Democratic events.

George Washington Carver ~ "How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in your life you will have been all of these."

Have we learned nothing about the damned Human Race?

excerpts from a Mark Twain essay - 1905

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning.
In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scottish Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping.

Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh–not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.


Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.
He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France for a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light.................. he is at it today, in Crete, occasioned by the battles between Christians and Muslims.

He will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.


Who is the Higher Life Form?
The difference between an man and an animal is that the man is cruel and the animal isn’t; and that the man wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the animal doesn’t. This seemed to suggest that the animal was not descended from the man. It also seemed to suggest that the man was descended from the animal and had lost a great deal in the translation.
There is this difference between man and the higher animals: he is avaricious and miserly, they are not.
Among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals.


Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concubines; therefore no harm is done. Men keep harems, but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex were allowed no hand in making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster.


Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity–these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed.  Man is the only animal that blushes.

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals.
The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses, except to obtain food. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. Animals are territorial and will gather in mass to expell an intruder, but the animals will abandon the task once the intruder has left. Man will continue beyound his territory to hunt them down for no good reason.


Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country–takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him.
Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another, for wages, service, nobility or ancestry.


Man is the only animal with the "Moral Sense". The ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it. And man will try to explain it away as an animal instinct or an insaine act like an animal who doesn't know right from wrong.


So....It obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.


The Damned Human Race – Mark Twain Essay, published in 1905
http://www.zengardner.com/the-damned-human-race-mark-twain-essay/
DON'T BE BLUE

to the United States Congress

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil ------- is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke, among others.

Has HE seen the Elephant?

Michael Moore calls our soldiers cowards!

"Has Michael Moore seen the Elephant", or anyone else who wants to criticize our soldiers?

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_062304,00.html

One phrase familiar in enlisted men's writings is, "I've seen the elephant," or, "I'm off to see the elephant." Used to describe the experiences of war and soldiering, the term has many possible origins. Old soldiers in the Civil War coined a phrase for green troops who survived their first taste of battle: "He has seen the elephant."

This Army lieutenant sums up the combat experience better than many a grizzled veteran:

"Well, I'm here in Iraq, and I've seen it, and done it. I've seen everything you've ever seen in a war movie. I've seen cowardice; I've seen heroism; I've seen fear; and I've seen relief. I've seen blood and brains all over the back of a vehicle, and I've seen men bleed to death surrounded by their comrades. I've seen people throw up when it's all over, and I've seen the same shell-shocked look in 35-year-old experienced sergeants as in 19-year-old privates.

"I've seen that, sadly, that men who try to kill other men aren't monsters, and most of them aren't even brave - they aren't defiant to the last - they're ordinary people. Men are men, and that's it. I've prayed for a man to make a move toward the wire, so I could flip my weapon off safe and put two rounds in his chest - if I could beat my platoon sergeant's shotgun to the punch. I've been wanted dead, and I've wanted to kill.

 "I've heard the screams - 'Medic! Medic!' I've hauled dead civilians out of cars, and I've looked down at my hands and seen them covered in blood after putting some poor Iraqi civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time into a helicopter. I've seen kids with gunshot wounds, and I've seen kids who've tried to kill me.

"I've sworn at the radio when I heard one of my classmate's platoon sergeants call over the radio: 'Contact! Contact! IED, small arms, mortars! One KIA, three WIA!' Then a burst of staccato gunfire and a frantic cry: 'Red 1, where are you? Where are you?' as we raced to the scene...knowing full well we were too late for at least one of our comrades.

"I've heard men worry about civilians, and I've heard men shrug and sum up their viewpoint in two words - 'F--- 'em.' I've seen people shoot when they shouldn't have, and I've seen my soldiers take an extra second or two, think about it, and spare somebody's life.

"They say they're scared, and say they won't do this or that, but when it comes time to do it they can't let their buddies down, can't let their friends go outside the wire without them, because they know it isn't right for the team to go into the ballgame at any less than 100 percent.

"That's combat, I guess, and there's no way you can be ready for it. It just is what it is, and everybody's experience is different. Just thought you might want to know what it's really like."
YES, I've seen the elephant.






 DON'T BE BLUE 

Do we really need gun control? GET SERIOUS!

Do we really need gun control? 
YES, to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

No, Really, REGULATE THE BULLETS! 

We can and should regulate the sale of ammunition and the tools to make ammunition. 

One box per month per household! 

Seriously, if you need more than a half dozen rounds to bag that deer, moose, duck, pheasant or any other BIG game you are shooting at, you are a very poor shot. 
If you need to practice, go to a shooting range, which should be the only place you can buy more ammunition. Use it there, because you can't take it home.  You should have to turn in all of your spent shells in order to buy any more, that way you can't horde them.
Why do you need 5000 rounds of ammunition to protect your home? 
If you can't protect it with just a few rounds, MOVE!

And it should be against the law to send guns and/or ammunition through the mail, 

NO ONLINE ORDERS ALLOWED.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/no-really-regulate-the-bullets/266332/
It's already illegal to send explosives through the mail and bullets are explosives, we should be enforcing that law.

Every citizen has near instant access to firearms and ammunition trough the Internet!
The United States is so saturated with guns that seeking to control them is futile. People own and use guns made in the early 1800s; guns made last month are on sale in stores now. We have a centuries-old accumulation of armaments that shows no sign of evaporating.

But there are two things that are needed for a gun to work: 

the gun and the ammunition.

Well, ok, actually three, but let's take the uncontrollable human out of the equation. Limiting guns may be hopeless. So why don't we focus on the bullets? A gun can be made from any number of common household objects, they can even be made by 3D printers.
But making bullets is much, much trickier.

 Bullets are so easy to come by that that huge stockpiles exist throughout the country. But unlike guns, bullets are single use. While attempts to remove guns from the streets would either be incalculably slow or require heavy-handed, dangerous government action, curbing the ability to buy ammunition would mean a natural diminishment of the arsenal that remains. Every time a bullet is fired, that bullet is rendered useless forever.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of limiting ammunition, though, is this. The mantra of firearms advocates is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a single thing about 
THE RIGHT TO OWN BULLETS!

Bear all the arms you want. Make your own at home. Without a bullet to fire from it -- or, at the very least, far, far fewer bullets -- we can achieve what the Founding Fathers really sought: a stable & secure nation.

This bears repeating:
Do we really need gun control? 
Yes to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

"THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH......

IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO.....

NOTHING!"

Which is exactly what the United States Congress is doing----------NOTHING!

 DON'T BE BLUE 

About Heroes, Terrors and Terrorism

A couple of notes on Heroes, terrors and terrorism.

March 29, 2012
US Soldier Killed Trying to Save Afghan Girl
Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, of the Rhode Island National Guard died saving the life of a little girl in northeast Afghanistan.

According to the report, Weichel was in a convoy in Laghman Province last week when he noticed some children were in the path of the moving vehicles. Weichel and other soldiers got out to move them out of the way. while most of the children scattered away, one girl went back to the road, as a Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicle continued moving toward her. Weichel saw the massive truck moving toward the girl and grabbed her out of the way. The girl survived, but Weichel died after the armored vehicle ran over him.

These types of stories go unreported every day. Our soldier's heroic actions are unnoticed by most, if not all, of our major news stations. Certainly lost to the journalists of MSNBC and CBS, who most likely just throw the stories in the trash, deemed not worthy of the liberal rhetoric.

I found this story below and also decided to add it to the mix.

After reading the headlines today about the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn’t help noticing an irony.  There is all this clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury.
His actions were that of a disturbed mind and should be delt with by the harshest of penalties.

Yet (another soldier) Major Hasan, who shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah akbar, still hasn’t stood trial, and they are still debating whether he was insane, even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: slay as many infidels as possible.

So we have a guy in a war zone who cracks, and he must be executed immediately.

But this Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside in a nice safe office all day, murders 13, wounds 29 of our own guys,and they try to argue the poor lad suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome, from listening to real soldiers, and heroes, who had actual battle experience.

Two and a half years later, they still haven’t tried the murderous bastard.

Poor lad my ass, he murdered our own soldiers!
All fanatical terrorists, regardless of their religion are actually Satan's Little Helpers, and worship Satan.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph 

is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers.

Any terrorist who wages war for their God has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.

DON'T BE BLUE

Osama Bin Laden is DEAD~DEAD~DEAD!!! HOOAH

 On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Often referred to as 9/11, the attacks resulted in extensive death and destruction, triggering major U.S. initiatives to combat terrorism and defining the presidency of George W. Bush. Over 3,000 people were killed during the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., including more than 400 police officers and firefighters.

 Operation Enduring Freedom, the American-led international effort to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and destroy Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network based there, began on October 7. Within two months, U.S. forces had effectively removed the Taliban from operational power, but the war continued, as U.S. and coalition forces attempted to defeat a Taliban insurgency campaign based in neighboring Pakistan.

Shortly after eleven o'clock on the night of May 1st 2011, two MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters lifted off from Jalalabad Airfield, in eastern Afghanistan, and embarked on a covert mission into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. Inside the aircraft were twenty-three Navy SEALs from Team Six, which is officially known as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU. A Pakistani-American translator, whom I will call Ahmed, and a dog named Cairo—a Belgian Malinois—were also aboard. It was a moonless evening, and the helicopters’ pilots, wearing night-vision goggles, flew without lights over mountains that straddle the border with Pakistan. Radio communications were kept to a minimum, and an eerie calm settled inside the aircraft.

DON'T BE BLUE

All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers. Any terrorist who wages war for their God has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.

Osama bin Laden worshiped Satan, as does al-Qaeda.

Shame on our own national news media! CBS NBC ABC

2010

With all the news that's not fit to print or broadcast, why is the significance of Cordoba not getting out to the people?

"I was watching the news the other day and noticed a familiar occurrence."

A reporter was talking about new parking meters in Los Angeles and that there would be tens of thousands of them going up in the next few months. His emphasis was on the technology; card readers in the machines, you don't even need cash or coins anymore and there is a sensor that will send a signal out to a central processor when the time expires that will get a parking enforcement officer over to write up a ticket.

What he failed to mention at any time was that right on the meter there was a big label, "$3 for each 15 minutes"! Nowhere in the story was there any mention about the cost to park. Luckily I don't need to go to Los Angeles and fight for parking. I don't really know how much it costs today or if the $3 per each 15 minutes is a new increase. It wasn't reported.

It's what isn't mentioned in the news that is getting my attention more and more, especially when part of the story is right there in the background or foreground or hanging around in the ether. Not that some stories are not getting aired, but the stories are incomplete. 

I don't know if it's a carryover from the Dan Rather debacle where the news was being manipulated, as well as outright fabricated, by the news organization or that there is still too much political correctness going on and they are just afraid to bring out the whole story. Most of the news on TV and in the newspapers is so skewed to the left, mostly, or at least leaning that way or over the top to the right, occasionally, that there are hardly any newscasts or newspapers worth watching or reading. The news should be balanced and fair, or maybe justified, but certainly not steered. That's mainly why I don't watch the national news broadcast on CBS, NBC, or ABC. They are not interested in both sides of the story. It's also why I don't read the Los Angeles Times or New York Times or any of the big newspapers. All of the current national newscasts and newspapers are blatantly biased. Those big stories will get out somehow, on the internet, where you can decide how much to read, but most of the real story on any national news broadcasts will be lost in the bias.

It's kind of ironic that when an event happens that will impact not only the local region but broad reaching enough to tug at the heartstrings of America and possibly the world, the national news stations will broadcast those stories all day, every day for a week or more, until the next "big headline news event" comes up. Even news stories like the oil spill in the gulf, airplane disasters, the kidnapping of a child or finding the kidnapped child, trapped coal miners, devastating storms and the downing of the World Trade Center in New York City, are "sold" to the audience in how they are told, or not told. Questions go unanswered by both the news media and the government. It's so very interesting that with all the competition for the audience of viewers and readers that the news media is trying to attract, they don't even understand how to make shock media work for them. They certainly know how to make it work against them. How many times do you see the nauseating effort the media takes to make you see someone cry on national TV or invading someone's privacy with an army of reporters and news vehicles camped at a victim's or suspected criminal's house, yet alone someone convicted of a crime.

Just think how more time could be given to real news stories if all that was said was "there was a drive-by shooting in Los Angels or New York or Detroit today, but no one died", read about it on our web site", or some other quick 3 second blurb, and then get to real important news. 

No one cares about the celebrities and superstars on again off again escapades or lack of social grace. It belongs in its own news show or program. Olbermann, Stewart, Beck, Limbagh, and O'Reilly aren't news people, they're news entertainment pundits disguised as political news activists, but that’s where people are forced to go if they want the rest of the story that started on national news and was left unfinished on local news. We shouldn't be relegated to getting our national news from CNN or Fox News and no one watches MSNBC anyway. Although Olbermann, Levine and Savage may be in the basement of the political pundit tower, the elevator isn't going anywhere worth stopping. if you are looking for the real story behind those "breaking headline news" stories. There isn't one local or national newscast about bad things that happen to good people that should be longer than 30 seconds, or better yet if each event was cut to one sentence. Then you could get to the news that actually impacts the city, state, nation or world, from the national news programs (ABC, NBC, ABC) that both the left and the right should be watching.

Where's the GOOD NEWS being reported by the news media?

If the National news really wanted viewers to flock to their broadcast, they would let the news happen, give a short summary and then ask the question everyone wants to know, and then go looking for the answers. There are far too many news stories about drive-by shootings and minor crimes that are allowed way too much airtime. We glorify gangsters and criminals, even overpaid unappreciative super stars, by making them the headline in the news, so much so, that 80% of the news is either negative or driven by entertainment gossip. In fact, victims should, BY LAW, be given 3 times more airtime than criminals, and the story should never be more than 6 seconds long. If there needs to be more time, they should be directed to a 'special' news program.

News stations and newspapers will see a resurgence of listeners and readers, if they took a more proactive, but unbiased, approach to the real news. News stories should be politically unbiased, as well as editorially unbiased. Most news organizations are politically bent, they all need to straighten up, or at least announce they are the voice of the left, or right, and see how their audience responds. That way we could have some fantastic news media battles that may actually get the whole story out and let the audience decide, or at least let them be informed enough to decide if they care enough to watch or read tomorrow's news.

Ask a politician a question, and the last thing that will come out will be the answer, which won't be understood by anyone anyway. Politicians always ignore the question. Their main objective is to get THEIR message out first, because air time is so short and costly to them. Usually the question never gets answered and the news reporter on the scene or the interviewer in the studio, also short on time, lets them off the hook. The first sound a politician should make when asked a question, must be about the answer. Give them 3 seconds to start the answer or cut them off. You could then have a standard disclaimer, "another long-winded politician that can't get to the answer". The politicians will be screaming, but it should be, answer first - stump second. Everyone knows the news anchor is just really an overpriced news reader anyway; give them something they can sink their teeth into. Congress is currently trying to silence the news that everyone wants, under the guise of "equal air time", anyway, let the battle begin. Politicians would then get more air time than they would probably want, if they had to answer the question first, then stump, because there would always be questions that need answering.

The news media could easily put the challenge on politicians, government officials, superstars or the Corporate CEO, and drive up interest in viewing or reading their news. All they have to do is say, "We invited so and so to come on and answer these perplexing questions, but they have declined our offer", and keep repeating it every day. When they do come on, then it's, one question - one answer, stump later, if there is time. There would always be some important news going on in-between the hard hitting world and national catastrophes that occur. The news stories wouldn't have to be dragging on ad nauseam until the next "breaking news" happens.

So with all the news that's apparently not fit to print in our fine national newspapers or broadcast on our upstanding national news broadcasts, why is the significance of Cordoba not getting out to the people?                                         

Watch and Learn!

And it took a non-American to point it out!
Shame on our own national news media! 
Shame on CBS, NBC, and ABC.

APR. 30, 2014

Developer Sharif El-Gamal says he has downsized his plans for the $100 million, 15-story Muslim Community Center near the World Trade Center site that became a lightning rod amid the national controversy; he says he will now build a smaller, three-story museum dedicated to Islam, and has commissioned French architect Jean Nouvel to design the building and make the plan more attractive to neighbors. NOW CALLED PARK 51

Sharif El-Gamal is an American real estate developer. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of Soho Properties, a Manhattan-based real estate company.

More on the Games people play and the reasons they play them.

OK, it's super bowl time and another great excuse to have a party. Well, Friday is a good excuse also, but not as sociologically or psychologically of the same importance.
I've heard this before, but never paid than much attention to it. The world we live in is populated by a natural and inbred mentality to survive, expand hunting and living areas and to protect them. This has usually resulted in fights, skirmishes, and other acts of war. We are and always will be a warring species.

For the most part, constant acts of protecting your territory have been subdued in most countries populated by any type if civility. There are some countries that cannot escape that mentality, and don't want to. As much as we would like to believe that people will refrain from their basic instincts and live in peace, that will never happen, as long is there is one person out the billions that inhabit this planet that feels the need to protect what they have or want more.

We, in the civilized parts of the world, have replaced those acts of aggression with sports. Most sporting endeavors have grown from exhibitions that demonstrated the abilities needed for being a warrior and most civilized people are no longer warriors, so we play sports.

We play sports and root for our favorite sports teams. Sports teams have people who are fanatics about how their team prospers. Some are more than fanatics; their whole world revolves around their adopted team, or mentally; their country, their warriors, and their king. There are still areas of the country so mezmorized by their national or city team that they are so violent after a loss that they destroy parts of their city or cause harm and injury to the sports officials, not to mention the person who caused them to lose. And of course there's hockey.

The games are their battles that lead to their own version of a World War, every year or every 2 years or every 4 years, in the form of Championships and worldly contests like the Olympics.

And we need these replacements of acts of war, to allow us to escape, when we can, from the realities of the real acts of war going on every day and the fact that there are bad people who want to do bad things. Out of the billions of people on this planet, there will always be at least one bad person and they will always let you think there is a chance they will become passive. They never will, but will use that hope to accomplish their goals.

Everyone needs something to channel mankind’s natural instincts into. Play sports, root for your team, compete in something that develops your mind, or play poker. All of these activities require some form of aggression, and mankind is nothing if not aggressive, even in it's yearn for pacifism.

DON'T BE BLUE



The Games People Play and GAMES NO ONE SHOULD PLAY

War Games and Fantasy Role Playing Games vs Grand Theft Auto and violence for the sake of violence games.

New computer games are being designed that are more complicated and realistic than ever before. Games that require more dexterity and quick thinking. The most popular of these are Role Playing Games.
You are what you play and some of these games are actually quite good in preparing game players for possible employment. Some other games place the harsh realities of life in such a nonchalant attitude that the mind can no longer tell good from bad, or at least what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
When someone lives a life of constant anger in their real everyday environment and then escapes to a fantasy world that has the same atmosphere, anger will be the norm.

Aside from the more and more realistic sports computer games, the most popular games are games of violence like games of war , fantasy role playing, and criminal gang activity.

Kids, teens, and preppies are most likely not going to use their gaming experience from War Games, like Call to Duty II or HALO and most adventure role playing games like World of Warcraft, to commit the same violence in the real world.

Games like Grand Theft Auto however, have no real practical application in the real world, except to disrespect authority, learn criminal tactics, and commit random act of violence on women and innocent people. Games like Grand Theft Auto plant the seed that you can profit from robbing and doing drugs and advance your position in your gang AND are a school for learning terrorism.

The Fantasy Role Playing Games may have too much graphic violence, but for the most part you can mentally leave the game behind you when you quit the game, unlike games like Grand Theft Auto where those thoughts are more represented in the daily news.
Fantasy Role Playing Games require more creativity to advance and allow for strategic thought. War Games also require more intelligent and strategic thought like those based on games like chess.

War Games also have a real practical application in that it trains the young for the future of real military. There are more unmanned aircraft like drones being used and more robotics being used that incorporate the same principles as the war games. Even the aircraft simulators for the computer can help teach you how to fly a plane.

Nothing good comes from games like Grand Theft Auto and shows POOR PARENTING when children are given the game to play.

I'll continue to play games like POKER, both live and in poker simulation programs, not so much online anymore since POKER'S BLACK FRIDAY!

Have an Awesome Day!

DON'T BE BLUE