Oh no, he's baaaack, hide the women and chil'ren. 
   Ok so after some time off, dealing with some professional situations and getting settled into a new job, I'm back with an opinion on....Don Imus.
   Here's what I don't get.  First, Imus has been doing this kind of stuff for many years.  Some of it's funny, some of it is not, but he continues on nonetheless.  Many "important" people have used his show as a forum for their opinons and for their campaigns.  More so, then say Fox News.  Presidential candidate Edwards has refused to sit on a second debate because it's sponspored by FNC.  I"m guessing he'd be more than willing to be on Imus' show, but I digress.
    There's no question that in this era of political correctness, and especially in NYC that what Imus said was completely out of line.  Certainly the outcry is due in part to the fact that Rutgers was apparently the "Cinderella" team in the women's NCAA tournament and we all know you can't say anything bad about Cinderella.  Gwen Ifill's column in the New York Times today made mention of the fact that one of Rutgers' players was from Utah - ah yes, no doubt the token non urban type on the team. So first it was, I think, who Imus was commenting about that has brought such furor.
   Of course the rent-a-riot crowd has been out in force, with the Reverend Jackson calling for marches and of course boycotts. The Reverend Jackson said, "NBC must choose between Imus and the rest of us," ..."The rest of us are going to organize a boycott until they make a choice." Jackson said protests are being planned across the country in Atlanta, San Francisco and Los Angeles. "This was not a slip of the lip," Jackson said outside the Tower. "This was a conversation ... (and) corporate sponsors have a role to play in not sponsoring these acts of racial bigotry." (retrieved online at http://www.nbc5.com/news/11586837/detail.html).  He also noted that this was at least in part the result of not having enough blacks as radio show hosts.  Hmmm, one wonders why this is the case.  No doubt it's because of the "racial bigoty" of those in management, and not because to few blacks choose this as a career. No, it must be because of  "racial bigoty" and clearly were there more black radio hosts, Imus would be much more careful in what he says in his attempts at comedy. Yeah, that's the ticket!
   But here's what I don't get.  Why isn't the good reverend protesting hip-hop? Why isn't the good reverend protesting BET or MTV and some of the most raunchy and (some would say) racist music videos I've ever seen. Why isn't the good reverend protesting BuckCherry's latest "song?" The title itself, Crazy B**** should provoke the good reverend's ire, but if it doesn't the lyrics should - and yet we here nothing about this, and it probably reaches more listeners across the country than Imus.
   Why isn't the good reverend supporting O'Reilly's attempt at fighting the culture war in this country which is clearly hurting all people, especially children.  A good argument can be made that the culture war is  hurting blacks the most.  Why isn't the good reverend protesting and boycotting over the illegal alien invasion in this country?  Crimes against citizens by illegals are exploding and yet the good reverend seems more concerned about Imus' idiotic comments.  Why  isn't the good reverend protesting and boycotting over the persecution of Christians and Christian beliefs in this country - isn't he a man of God? Shouldn't his first duty be to God?
   This is what I don't get in all this.
    Imus is what Imus is.  If you don't like him, or if you're afraid you might be offended by something he or a member of his show might say, then don't listen -ever! If you're a politician and you're concerned about the image it might portray for you if you're on the show - then don't go on the show.  This all seems simple enough.
    Imus is not the problem here, he simply reflected what the culture allows.  It was wrong, idiotic and simply not funny.  What is equally wrong, idiotic and simply not funny is what is allowed to occur throughout our culture - the demeaning of women, the abuse of children, the feminization of men and of the church, multiculturalism, the list goes on and on.
   These are the things we should be protesting and maybe even boycotting, not the stupid comments of a jock! That's my opinon, what's yours?

This past Saturday (26 August 2006) at our annual fun family outing at Six Flags Over Georgia I saw some things that gave me great pause for concern.  Perhaps they'll do the same for you.

Not being much of a rider, my primary job this year was keeping the grandson while the others did what they love so much, riding the rides. Keeping him was a great joy for me and required a certain amount of walking the park.  It was in these walks that I saw things that disturbed me.

First was the large number of apparently Hispanics - no doubt the majority being illegal that were walking around.  Large families, with many children.  Naturally they were speaking Spanish rather than English, but then why speak English when all they have to do is press 2 for Spanish?

As disconcerting as that was, it was the other observation that caused me serious concern.  As my grandson and I walked around, there were large groups of Middle Easterners walking around the park.  By large, I'm referring to groups of five to seven or larger.  Many of them, especially the women were dressed in their native clothing (i.e.,  burkhas). With dictionary.com defining burkha as "a loose garment covering the entire body and having a veiled opening for the eyes, worn by Muslim women" its fair to say that these Middle Easterners were probably Muslim.  They too were speaking their native tongue and not English and the bulk of them had cameras, and the picture taking was voluminous.

Let's see, Muslims.  Perpetrators of every major terrorist attack against the U.S., its citizens and its interests since the assasination of Rabbi Meir David Kahane. In fact, as Patrick Briley recently notes (http://newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick30.htm) they've probably been involved in every major terrorist incident.  His article also notes the fact that there are terror cells in the great state of OOOOOOklahoma that exist apparently with the government's blessing.  Wasn't there, probably, a suicide bombing attempt at the Oooooklahoma v. Kansas college football game last year in Norman?

If these large numbers of Muslims walking around Six Flags was not worrisome enough, what we saw later in the day was even more so.  As it got later in the day, we began to see many members of these large groups of Muslims with "tribal colors" on their face.  A significant number of them had what could only be described as "colors" painted on their face.  It didn't appear to be permanent, but it did remind this old educator, trainer and copper of the tats that appear on so many street gangsters and right wing terrorists.  Was this a sense of unity among the group members?  Was this a signal to other group members?  Was this some kind of unique identifier?  All good questions I think, and something to wonder about.  Hmmmm, large numbers of similar individuals talking in a unique language and wearing colors - remind you of anything?

So, let's review.  At Six Flags Over Georgia, an amusment park, there were large numbers of no doubt illegals and more importantly a large number of Muslims walking around showing their colors and taking lots of pictures.  We know that Muslims engage in recon before an attack (including the taking of pictures).  We know that there are large numbers of terrorist cells throughout the country (cf. Kushner, Holy War).  We know that an amusement park, like a school or a mall or a hospital is considered a soft target and many of us believe the next attack will be on a soft target(s).

Should we be concerned?  I am, and in the words of O'Reilly, "What Say You?"

  Today in The American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11742) also available on World Net Daily, Sarah Posner posts an article entitled, "Holy War."  In the article, Ms. Posner (and it has to be MS) suggests that Pr John Hagee, especially through his book Jerusalem Countdown is influencing if not dictating American and Israel foreign policy. 
  As evidence, Ms. Posner cites comments from Newt, John McCain and Bill Kristol.  Newt leads things off with his WW III comment, and McCain's comment about Iran, "I think that it's very clear that Iran is becoming more and more belligerent and needs to be reigned in."  She also quotes Kristol who said, "...we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.  Why wait?"  I would concur with both McCain (who I rarely agree with) and Kristol (with whom I frequently agree with). Additional support offered by Ms. Posner is a previous article by her on Hagee specifically (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11541) the title of which is "Pastor Strangelove."
  While I have not read Jerusalem Countdown, I have heard Hagee speak about it, Israel and the Middle East.  He certainly is no "wingnut" and similarly I rather doubt he's dictating the foreign policy of either America or Israel.  What Ms. Posner seems to forget is that Hizbollah started this war with Israel and that Hizbollah and Hamas for that matter are supported by the states of Syria and Iran. She also seems to forget that Iran (like Iraq) is ignoring the U.N. and continues to seek to build their nuclear arsenal.  If they did just that, it's possible, I suppose that the world could overlook it. In point of fact, however, Ahmadinejad has consistently called for the destruction of Israel as a country as well as the Jews.  Additionally, an Hezbollah spokesperson said two days ago that they have suicide bombers ready "...to dispath them to every corner of the world to jeopardize Israel and America's interests...If America wants to ignite World War III...we welcome it."  No doubt the spokesman has been reading Ms. Posner.
  Let me say again, with all due respect to Mr. Gingrich (who I almost always agree with), this is not WW III, it's WW IV and Iran is driving the train.  To ignore that and them puts U.S. in significant peril.  Iran and the terrorist organizations they support must be destroyed.  In war there is a victor and a loser.  No matter how Ms. Posner and others of her ilk want to spin it, someone must win which means someone will lose.  The question for right thinking Americans is whether we want to be winners or losers.  I choose winning, in the words of O'Reilly, "what say you?"

 This past Sunday in a column for the NY Daily News, columnist John Goodwin penned an article entitled, "It's WWIII and U.S. is out of ideas."  While I don't disagree with Mr. Goodwin with respect to whether the U.S. is out of ideas (we might very well be), I vehemently disagree with him about U.S. entering into WW III.  Unfortunately I can't take credit for that idea, as former CIA Director Adm. James Woolsey in 2002, and Norman Podhoretz in a Commentary article in 2004 have already suggested that it's WW IV were in, not WW III. 
   This is an important distinction, I think for several reasons.  First, it suggests that many of our more enlightened thinkers possibly missed the significance of the cold war.  Indeed it would seem the U.S. has itself perhaps forgotten those lessons.  Just look at how were dealing (or failing to deal) with North Korea and Iran.  Second, it would seem to suggest that a war is a war only if there's shooting or armed conflict. 
   This idea seems akin to the what many in the MSM are saying about W's "cowboy diplomacy."  Many in the MSM are celebrating as the Munchkins dead of the death of the wicked witch that W's policy of preemption is gone away. W press dude, Tony Snow says that diplomacy is one form of preemption, I would agree.  The difference in W's use of diplomacy v. those on the left is that W recognizes that diplomacy doesn't always work and has a back up for when it doesn't and he's willing to use force if and when necessary.  Also, W recognizes that it's his job, it's the job of government to protect the citizens of the U.S.  Those on the left fail to see that.
   Third and perhaps more importantly is the fact that those who subscribe to the WW III theory seem to have forgotten all the lessons learned during the cold war.  Appeasement and negotiation does not work, never has, never will.  Another lesson is that the U.S. must take care of itself and it's citizens for no one else will.  Mr. Goodwin in his article, quoting Harvard professor Joseph Nye suggests that the ideas of "reducing Washington's reliance on permanent alliances and international institutions, and expanding the traditional right of preemption into a new doctrine of preventive war, "have been repealed."  Mr. Goodwin further suggests that W's idea of democracy (an idea first posited by Sharanksy) brought Hamas into power and "has so far failed to take root in Iraq or anywhere else." I would submit that nothing further could be the case.  W's policy of preemption and preventive war has not been found lacking or even repealed for that matter.  We are alone in the world, and we need to recognize that fact and act accordingly - protecting ourselves and our interests first and foremost.  As for democracy, there are many and various forms of democracy, many of which are in play in the Middle East, and indeed is being played out in Iraq.
   Mr. Goodwin is right when he says that the war against radical Islamisists is a global war, it is a world war, as the most recent bombings in Mumbai, India prove.  World War IV is upon us and we will prevail as we did in world wars I, II and III.  What is more disturbing in my view is the upcoming second American Civil War, but that's another discussion for another time.