Friday, December 05, 2008
Here´s the video of "Little Drummer Boy" / "Peace On Earth" , by Bing "White Christmas" Crosby and David "Ziggy Stardust" Bowie.
Bing and Bowie: An Odd Story of Holiday Harmony - washingtonpost.com
One of the most successful duets in Christmas music history -- and surely the weirdest -- might never have happened if it weren't for some last-minute musical surgery. David Bowie thought "The Little Drummer Boy" was all wrong for him. So when the producers of Bing Crosby's Christmas TV special asked Bowie to sing it in 1977, he refused.
Just hours before he was supposed to go before the cameras, though, a team of composers and writers frantically retooled the song. They added another melody and new lyrics as a counterpoint to all those pah-rumpa-pum-pums and called it "Peace on Earth." Bowie liked it. More important, Bowie sang it.
Bowie Meets Crosby
Powered by ScribeFire.
Monday, November 17, 2008
I just received this message - on veterans day (which day is it? - remember that I am not from US..) - and let it pass in blank.
I am not having enough time to elaborate it properly, so I post the message I've received.
Here's the message. Enjoy and - as all you Americans use to say - "Support our troops"
Thanks Dani for the message.
I sent you an email on Veteran's Day asking if you would blog about Survivor Corps' program for U.S. veterans and service members, Operation Survivor. I never heard back and wasn't sure you had actually received it. Our troops still need our help. I put together this e-news release which explains everything. Please feel free to repost any or all of it:
If you could share this with your readers on Swimming against the red tide, or even post one of our donation banners, it would greatly help our American soldiers and returning troops. Please let me know if you are able to help and send me the link to your post. Let me know either way. Thanks so much.
All my best,
Dani Sevilla, Survivor Corps
Within the United States there are over one and a half million service members that have served in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over thirty thousand have been physically wounded, but many more have experienced less visible, psychological wounds. Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder have emerged as signature injuries of these conflicts, with recent reports suggesting an increase in rates of suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, homelessness, and domestic violence among returning service members and veterans.
These traumatic affects of conflict, left unaddressed, could have far-reaching negative consequences for the individuals affected, their families, and our country. Survivor Corps' work in some of the most conflict affected countries in the world has shown community reintegration to be the key factor in those that overcome their traumatic experiences, and those that are consumed by them.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
It was funny to see how Nelson Rockefeller (McCain of that time) was booed in that Convention. In those times there were real conventions too.
YouTube - Conservatives Re-Take the Republican Party at the 1964 Convention
Powered by ScribeFire.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The symbol of Obama's campaign has surfaced late. She's been calling “Peggy the Moocher”b y conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin. What's the hook?
Watch this you tube video.
This woman explains what Obama is all about: “It was the most memorable time in my life. It was a touching moment I never thought this day would ever happen. I don't have to worry about putting gas on my car, I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me”. (see here the article from Michelle Malkin)
What the Founding Fathers would think of it? It Is The End Of The World As We Know it!!!
No surprise: the vacuum rhetoric has gained the most important job in the world. And he's going to be helped by damn-u-crats leading the Senate and Congress.
I've never felt that Ronald Reagan's words on extinction of Liberty (“Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction”) be such as true as now.
If people wants to be cared by a nanny state, what's left for freewill?
That's the opposite of what the Founding Fathers dreamt for the big country in the north . They chose to rule not what the government must do, but what the government must NOT do. The limits of the government, in fact. The whole USA Constitution is just a big, well tailored ripoff from the Ten Commandments (Did you notice that the oldest religious law is all about? Negative rights).
What we had in the other side? On the bright side, we had a man called “Joe The Plumber”who dared to confront Obama's “spread the wealth” mantra (and was spied, scrutinized in detail and dumped by the worthless MSM) .
How could a character like “Peggy” appeared? Blame on the Fascination of Fascism. Fascism is a communist spin off created by Lenin .Yes. The man who really KNEW what people must do and what they deserve to get. Forget the story that Stalin deviated communism from the core of unpersonalized atheist “scientific”communism into the “Cult of Personality”. It is the base of communism: a religious-like belief with no sanctity at all. The fact is that, when a leader comes and say that the “workers of the world must unite”, and the workers really did not unite (only Hollywood air-minded actors got into the trap – since the thirties), someone must lead them to do what they must do.
If the American people (OK, I concede that This Is Not America, at all) chose to get a free ride, they must pay for it. Liberty is the first asset to be stolen.
It 's like those lifelong INTERNET access contracts that you must sign to obtain a “ free” new mobile phone, that you never get what was promised – it was in the little paragraphs on the reverse of the contract you just signed.
The question here is that is not another communication plan, it is your life in stake.
Do you want caviar? So you must accept the rules.
I've never thought that Americans can accept golden chains in trade for their liberties. But it could happen now.
Another question? What will happen to GOP?
I don't know, but as a Brazilian that passed most of the nineties (part of, in fact, when Clinton was elected I really thought It was OK – since Michael Jackson joined the celebration. How wrong was I, regarding to Michael Jackson) thinking how well the conservatives changed the game in US politics – trading rhetorics for fact checking – and thought that this change could not be diminished again to rhetorics, that people would not accept this anymore.
I realized that this primarily change was not really a change, but a pragmatic move from a bigger evil to a minor evil (Reagan won because of the hostage crisis, Bush won because of Reagan, Bush II won because of Clinton/Levinsky and after because of Michael Moore). The only election that put the ideas into scrutiny was 1964 campaign. When Barry Goldwater set the mood for the new conservative movement, his campaign was considered a total failure from the start. To get against “the red tide”, that was common place in US politics at that time (1964!!! For Christ's sake!) only being a total lunatic.
But it set the seeds that grew solidly. Goldwater mantra (“In your heart you know he's right”) paved the way to Reagan, decades later.
It was in Goldwater campaign that Reagan sent one of the most famous political speeches in history, known nowadays as “The Speech” (Sarah Palin delivered a very good one too in her acceptance speech this year).
So, the conservative movement was put in motion not by unpersonalized “feel” but by the will of a few men. It was really the Mount Sermon, because the real one was heard by few people that spread it around the globe, not what they mock today as “sermon” like U2 shows (I used to like this guy, really, from the times of “Sunday, Bloody Sunday” to “Achtung Baby”, until I saw a documentary filmed circa 1983 where he was critic about Reagan – OK , I concede I was a moron those days, when I was against any form of rightism ) or even Obama speeches.
I declare today, when the tenth Anniversary of My Father's Death approaches (November the eighth), that the “Dreams Of My Father” were only to raise their children, to work hard, and never, never, succumb behind a socialist craze leader again. My father knew it . He lost all his money believing in such “messianic leader” in my birth land (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil – the leader? Leonel de Moura Brizola, a socialist crazy man ,friend of Castro and other communist ) and he never got his promises fulfilled. I also inherited his taste for beer. What's best to get from your father??
h/t: John Ray
Monday, October 27, 2008
It deserves to be published and spread around.
Added: More links
Evidence indicates Democratic candidate was member of radical political group
Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'
Support for 'Fairness Doctrine' rises as impact on talk radio raised
James DeMeo is a natural scientist and writer living in Southern Oregon, USA, and author of the book
Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
This post was published on World Net Daily and Fox News.
New Zeal: Obama File 41 Obama Was a New Party Member-Documentary Evidence
Front page ultra close up-scanned from a photocopy
Note that the text refers to Barack Obama as a New Party member, while Willie Delgado is only "NP endorsed"
The New Party clearly drew a distinction. Obama was on on the wrong side of the dividing line.
Comments by Frank Lozano
(A FrankLozano.com Production) Little did I know when I was given the audio to this phone call that it would become SO HUGE. When I produced this video, I knew it was special to ME, but never would I have guessed when typing the text and editing the music that it would literally touch MILLIONS. I am proud to have put this video together for the world to see and hear. We have had a lot of requests to replay the phone call that Pastor Mike shared during our church service on Sunday, Nov. 11th, 2007.
Here you'll find the video clip that I created just for you. After our church service I placed the video on YouTube so that you can watch it and share with family and friends.
Logan is a 13 year-old boy who lives on a ranch in a very small town in Nebraska. Logan listens to Christian Radio station 89.3FM KSBJ which broadcasts from Houston, TX. Logan called the radio station distraught because he had to take down a calf . His words have wisdom beyond his years.
Since airing the audio of the phone call and now the making of the video clip, it has taken on a life of its own. People are forwarding it all over the world. We encourage you to share the love of Christ with anyone you can.
(**Sky Angel is a family safe broadcasting service that is offered on satellite. KSBJ is a local Houston Christian music radio station. Video clip produced with love by me, www.FrankLozano.com Hear the entire message at www.ValenciaHills.com)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Mainsttream Media is not putting it out.
H/T Convervatism Principles and Activism Group
YouTube - I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October Surprise)
I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October Surprise)
Monday, October 06, 2008
Here´s the article, called " Socialism and the Yamaha CS 80". That´s about a comparison between the infamous synthetizer that standard-lised rock/pop music in the late seventies, and socialism, that is the kind of standard policies ready to take place whenever some "action" from the government is required.
Here´s the link
Issue No.12 Article No.1 “Socialism and the Yamaha CS 80″ at C U B A N O L O G Y - B I W E E K L Y
C U B A N O L O G Y - B I W E E K L Y
Issue No.12 Article No.1 “Socialism and the Yamaha CS 80″
The Yamaha CS 80
Socialism and the Yamaha CS80
By Luís Afonso Assumpção
I’ve bought some re-issued CDs lately. One one of these was “Discovery” , the successful 1979 album from the Electric Light Orchestra. I used to liked a lot, specially because “Confusion”, “Last Train to London” and “Don’t Let Me Down”. But this album reminded me of all the buzz about rock groups that committed “disco albums” in those days. It was a kind of Capital Sin for all rock fans.
The music crowd was divided into two different visions: Rock and Discothèque. “Discovery” was a huge success, but despite of it - or better, because of it - it was labelled as ELO’s “surrender” to the system.In fact, it was not a surrender to the “system” but a surrender to the synthetizers, to name one, the Yamaha CS80. In the CD booklet, JeffLynne, the heart and mind behind Electric Light Orchestra, wrote thatthe sound of this album was driven by two things: a strings session andthe sound of the Yamaha CS80 polyphonic synth. According to Lynne, heplayed around many times with the Yamaha, creating strange or etherealsounds on it. “Confusion” was made up interely by this process.
But what rock fans did think about it? They thought the album wasIn 1980 other rock group surrendered to Yamanha CS80, after yearsassuring that their albums were recorded “with no synthetizers!!!” :Queen. The album: “The Game” (self-explained title?). They even soundjust like Chic’s Bernard Edwards/Nile Rodgers in “Another One Bites The Dust”. Again, some fans estranged. And even got mad..
just cheesy. And camp. These were prove right, specially because
“Discovery” prepared terrain for the next ELO mission: “Xanadu”
The music in the seventies could be described as a “cold war” between disco and rock. And you couldn’t be neutral. But it seems that this buzz is part of the past now. Nowadays rock / pop fans are not divided as disco / rock fans in the seventies, specially after years of crossovers. The music right now can be described as “convergent”: many groups / artists sound exactly the same. Can we put the blame on the Yamaha CS80?
Socialism is a kind of Yamaha CS80 of the politics of our time. When I hear and see many “conservative” people justifying their socialistic policies with the argument that it is the only hope, I doubted it. Just like the Yamaha synth used by ELO and Queen, these people admire socialism because they like it. And they want to control the
government and using it, to control society as a whole. This is what happens when you mix capitalism with socialism: you don’t achieve a balanced government, but “middle of the road” policies that leads to the Road to Serfdom.
The other name for serfdom is “convergence”. It was coined by Sakharov (former soviet dissident) to describe a world where socialism and capitalism were mixed together but socialism is, in fact, the portion that controls it all. That’s why new and former communistic regimes intend to form “convergent” coalitions with the west, specially in the US.That is the reason that you see many republican speaking as liberals. They believed that government intervention is not only necessary but is needed to make capitalism more fair. Socialistic policies not only make all politicians look the same, but they, in
fact, make government bigger. And they don’t recognize it as the gates of serfdom.To avoid it we must keep the Cold War on. We need black and white world views again. Not the same gray. The bands in the seventies were free to look - aparently - the same for their fans. But it is not the case in politicians. We need more clarity and less “convergence” or crossovers. We need to return to the basic.That’s why in the late seventies the music returned to the basic. That’s what is need in politics. We need The Ramones.
Luis’ Blog: Swimming Against The Red Tide
Powered by ScribeFire.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - “US Is The Best Nation in the World”
Here's the interview of Somalian refugee Ayaan Hirsi Ali – that escape from the “tolerant” Nederlands after the assassination by Muslims of the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, that filmed her story on how she escaped from an arranged marriage in Somalia – in a Canadian TV Channel, challeging the lefty allegations of the host that include comparisons between Islamic Sharia and the conservatives christian in power in US, for instance. Ali finishes her levelling with the statement “I still believe US is the best Nation in the World”
Thursday, September 04, 2008
None of the candidates express the real feelings of brazilians. They learned to be actors interested in attention of the media. The mainstream media in Brazil is lefty as is in USA.
But there are people who are not in the spotlight-follower crowd. Sarah Palin speech was one of the things that I hope someday someone could be spoke in portuguese.
It is incredible how Republicans can re-emerge themselves from ash (or do I have to say "flood"?)
Viva Palin. I don´t know what "hockey mom" means, but I am for it.
If I were an American voter, I will be proud to vote to the McCain-Palin ticket.
Let´s cut the crap. Here her speech.
Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) at the RNC
Monday, September 01, 2008
Here´s the interview...
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Barack Obama, the Presidential Democratic Party candidate, is for
banning all guns in America . He is considered by those who have dealt
with him as a bit more than just a little self-righteous.
At a recent rural elementary school assembly in EastTexas, he asked
the audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, he started to
slowly clap his hands once every few seconds, holding the audience in
Then he said into the microphone, "Children, every time I clap my
hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence."
Then, little Richard Earl, with a proud EastTexas drawl, pierced the
quiet and said: "'Well, dumb-ass, stop clapping!"
Saturday, June 07, 2008
This post comments the overture of a homosexual "congress" made by Lula, the Brazilian President, where he exposed his vows to the homo-movement. What Lula is saying is that all the votes that he gained from families in Brazil are not important. He is a man compromised to his comrade´s agenda. For him, anyone who opposes to homosexualism have a "perverse disease"..
Read the article below...
Last Days Watchman: Brazilian President Lula: opposition to homosexuality is a “perverse disease”
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The name of Barack Obama emerged too. If that was true, this is true either.
And the truth is that Obama will "appease" with Colombian Farc terrorist group while he will get hard on the democratic and most popular president of Americas, Álvaro Uribe.
Remember this? Is all true!!!
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama And FARC
In a Feb. 28 letter, FARC chieftain Raul Reyes cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met "two gringos" who assured him "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia' nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)."
Aside from some interesting possibilities about who these "gringos" are — a congressional delegation did visit Ecuador and an international leftist "congress" was held in Quito around this time — the real question is why anyone secretly consorting with FARC would be able to speak for presidential candidate Obama.
Obama hasn't said a whole lot about Colombia other than to criticize President Bush's good relations with President Uribe. With this correspondence suggesting that FARC knows what he thinks, maybe the American voters have a right to know what he thinks, too. Five questions come to mind:
1. Is it true Obama would cut off Plan Colombia military aid to our ally, which would serve the terrorist group FARC's interests?
2. Does Obama still oppose a free trade agreement for Colombia, even though that puts him on the same side as FARC in the debate?
3. Does Obama know or care that one of his staffers or supporters is claiming to disclose his positions in secret meetings with FARC terrorists outside government channels?
4. Can he tell us why his supporters would pass on such information to terrorists, and what he or she could gain from it?
5. Will Obama, as president, treat FARC as the serious terrorists they are, given that they still hold three Americans hostage?
These aren't idle "gotcha" questions, by the way. Based on his campaign so far, Obama favors meeting and negotiating with rogue leaders without preconditions, passing secret messages to foreign countries at odds with his public positions and tolerating Che-flag wielding leftists among his supporters who advance a radical agenda in his name.
Now that FARC seems to have an inside line to Obama's campaign, maybe he ought to come tell voters what he really stands for.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I´ve read two of her books: "How to talk with a liberal" and "Godless" and, contrary to what I guessed, there are real arguments behind her witty phrases... Her clever comments are just the spice of a fine meal.
That´s why you never get bored reading Ann. Her word-puzzles are great. Here´s an excerpt of this week post. Ann comments the over-criticized (by the left) speech of president Bush in Israel.
It is obvious that Bush referred to the appeasement politics that Obambi (ahaha) intends to implement. But Ann is wrong. Obama is not a new copy of Neville Chamberlain, just because Bush is not a copy of Churchill. Not even Ahmadinejad resemble Hitler.
Obama will talk with "Al-ma" and he will agree immediatly. With no concessions, no war. Just because Obama is a good person. And because he, definetly, can talk to the animals!! Look what Obama did "appeasing" people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Weather Underground people or Louis Farrakan, son Ahmadinejad will be a peace of cake...
Enjoy Ann´s article..
If We Could Talk to the Animals - HUMAN EVENTS
Calling the fight against terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" -- which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart -- Bush said:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The way liberals squealed, you'd think someone had mentioned Obama's ears. Summoning all their womanly anger, today's Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush, saying this was an unjustified attack on Obambi and, furthermore, that it's absurd to compare B. Hussein Obama's willingness to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler.
That´s why I am conservative.
Libertarianism with no moral values is just like to have a incredible sportscar and allow it to be driven by a drunk driver.
This article makes me wonder about it..
The explanation why PZ Myers, owner of a Science Blog, detests libertarianism is the same that all leftists have spread during many years throughout the media, as "a reactionay political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle".
Regarding to Ron Paul (the very subject of the article), I think his libertarianism is so naive that could be used as trojan horse even by Nazis (American National Socialist Workers Party , that apparently endorsed his candidacy), a thing that nobody that share a glimpse of conservatism could ever agree upon.
I have to confess that I was impressed by RP proposals, initially (taxes, his sctrictly constitutionalism) but after some scrutiny I´ve left his wagon.
I think is these kind of lies that all conservative-libertarian must fight against. Read the article to see why.
OK, 'fess up — some of you know that I thoroughly detest libertarianism, that reactionary political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle, and I suspect one of you got me a subscription to Reason magazine a few months ago, just to taunt me. If your goal was to persuade me to come over to the side of unbridled anti-social self-centeredness, you failed. The issue comes, I glance through it, find a few little bits and pieces I can agree with, but because they're all imbedded in this thick tarry fecal sludge of libertarianism, I end up throwing the whole thing away in disgust.
The issue I got today was no exception. The cover story: Ron Paul. Bleh.
I disliked Ron Paul before I learned he was a quack, before I heard him deny evolution, before I learned he was an enabler for neo-nazis. I rejected him when I first read about his proposed policies, the ones he isn't embarrassed to make public, and saw that he was promoting the same garbage my relatives in the John Birch Society were peddling when I was a young man: isolationism, anti-government, anti-immigrant, generalized hatred of the other and a blind refusal to recognize that culture matters.
The mostly laudatory article in Reason confirms my opinion.
…it's all classic Ron Paul: Get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing; find the money to support those dependent on Social Security and Medicare by shutting down the worldwide empire, while giving the young a path out of those programs; don't pass a draft; have a foreign policy of friendship and trade, not wars and subsidies. He attacks the drug war … one of his biggest applause lines, to my astonishment, involves getting rid of the Federal Reserve.
I actually approve of some of that, like ending the drive to empire and the drug war. The John Birchers of my youth pushed the same agenda, but then you dig a little deeper, and you find the rotting core of their reasoning.
He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants.
Ron Paul isn't just a small-government obsessive: he's a no-government radical. And at the same time he wants every positive function of government to vanish, he wants what amounts to a police state in place to keep the rest of the world out, all out of fear of those strangers with different customs and ideas.
So, please, whoever you are: don't renew my subscription to that awful magazine, and please, please don't make me live in a Ron Paul America.
Friday, May 16, 2008
and heavily lobbied for the partition of Palestine toward the creation
of the State of Israel; in 2007, a street in Tel Aviv was named in his honor at a ceremony attended by his relatives and Brazil's ambassador to Israel."
So, Brazil and Israel have historical bonds. Sometimes readers ask me why I have the banner "I a proud friend of Israel" on the rigth. Many of them use the same justifications against Israel. All of them spread around by the leftist media in Brazil, in the same fashion Green Little Footballs told us about MSM coverage. So the youth are basically pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. The main objection is the Nakba myth.
I found this interesting article o the subject.
Nakba and the Palestinian Lie « TMQ2
The nakba of the late 1940’s and 1950’s that befell large numbers of Jews living in Arab countries who were suddenly expelled, persecuted, and stripped of their property does not interest such people. Those Jewish refugees made new homes in Israel and actually outnumbered the Palestinians who fled.
Meanwhile, an urban legend has been fabricated about the origin of the term “nakba” — a fairy tale that claims the word was a banner waved by Palestinians starting in 1948, and that its very use shows how deep the roots of “Palestinian nationality” go.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
"What do Yucca Mountain and Guantanamo Bay have in common?
See, Yucca Mountain is where the government wants to keep incredibly dangerous substances -- nuclear waste -- until we figure out a better way to handle it.
And Guantanamo Bay is where the federal government keeps incredibly dangerous people -- jihadi enemy combatants -- until we figure out a better way to handle them."
Read the rest of the article here.
"Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities. Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are." To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.
If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings. "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."
The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer. The same rationalizing phenomena could apply to personal situations as well.
"There is no reason to think that the effects we have identified here are unique to economic forms of inequality," the researchers write. "Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor."
Monday, May 05, 2008
The Books that F** the World!
I just received this message from Human Events... This book seems to be great...
“ TV, video games, the Internet—many people blame technology for the violence, narcissism, and secularism in society today. But Professor Benjamin Wiker argues technology isn't to blame—philosophy is. In his controversial new book, 10 Books That Screwed Up the World (And 5 Others That Didn't Help) , Wiker proves that some of Western civilization's most "respected" books are really the root of many modern-day destructive ideas and cultural vices.
Taking aim at such books as Machiavelli's The Prince and Hitler's Mein Kampf , Wiker shows how these authors' perverse ideologies not only have led to past atrocities like war and genocide, but also how their philosophies are still popular and damaging today. Their ideas might influence your own thinking and you don't even realize it! In this intriguing and provocative exposé, you'll learn:
How Hobbes's Leviathan promotes the belief that we have a "right" to have and do whatever we want.
How Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil promotes atheism and paved the way for popular atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
How Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa promotes promiscuity and divorce.
Witty, shocking, and instructive, Wiker seizes each of these evil books by its malignant heart and exposes it to the light of day, offering a quick education on the worst ideas in human history—and how we can combat them in the future.”
In the Amazon page for the book I found more clues on the books that “screwed-up”..:
“ Why Machiavelli'sThe Prince was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand)
How Descartes'Discourse on Method "proved" God's existence only by making Him a creation of our own ego
How Hobbes'Leviathan led to the belief that we have a "right" to whatever we want
Why Marx and Engels'sCommunist Manifesto could win the award for the most malicious book ever written
How Darwin'sThe Descent of Man proves he intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society
How Nietzsche'sBeyond Good and Evil issued the call for a world ruled solely by the "will to power"
How Hitler'sMein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism
How the pansexual paradise described in Margaret Mead'sComing of Age in Samoa turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations
Why Alfred Kinsey'sSexual Behaviorin the Human Male was simply autobiography masquerading as science”
To add more interest to the book, it is recommended by Thomas E. Woods Jr, writer of “ How Church Built Western Civilization” .
Sunday, May 04, 2008
The Perestroika Deception (part I) by William F. Jasper
Golitsyn is probably the most important Soviet defector ever to have reached the West. The reason for this is that he revealed the details of a long-range deception strategy of which the West previously had no knowledge. When debriefed, he emphasized, as he has done ever since, that because of his background of working within the "inner KGB" — a super-secret strategic planning department of which not even ordinary KGB officers were aware — he was uniquely qualified to inform the West about Soviet strategy. One of the superficial criticisms frequently made about Golitsyn is that he has been "out of the loop" since defecting to Finland with his wife and daughter in 1961, so how could he possibly know what was going on? People who say this reveal a failure to understand Golitsyn's significance, and what he has to offer the West.
In summary, Golitsyn's importance is that, unlike all other defectors, Golitsyn discusses and elaborates upon Soviet strategy. By contrast, defectors like Oleg Gordievsky discuss mundane matters concerning the manner of their "escape" from the Soviet Union, perhaps revealing valuable operational information in order to gain the confidence of (in Gordievsky's case) Britain's MI6, before inserting strategic disinformation in their output. Golitsyn is different. He has spent his years in the West explaining patiently that the Soviets follow Leninist strategic principles, and are engaged in a deadly long-term war against the West. The Soviet revolutionaries have followed Lenin's advice to "work by other means."