Stop Using the Founders

I have believed for the longest time that there is so much b.s. about what the Founders meant – there is an idiotic meme with a founder saying ” We were talking about Musketballs for crissakes” really – these from the same people that believed that the constitution says abortion and gay marriage are protected (which I agree it is). There is a lot about our society that the founders never dreamed of occurring. They had just fought a major rebellion against a country and government that outlawed guns – they were rebels – believed that citizens had the right and duty to rise against a tyrannous government – just as they did. They never saw a standing military or a modern police state – they believed Americans would not stand for these injustices. They never would have seen the internet – but I do believe that they would embrace it. GOPer’s complain about a biased liberal media – all papers in the Founding age were biased – which is why there were Federalist and Anti-federalist newspapers.
I could go on – but let us make this simple – stop using the Founders to further an argument that is not historically based. There was a strong and deep distrust of government and the abridgment of freedoms- – instead argue for changes to the document or use some other rationale – but relying on the founders will get your governmental freedom grab no where.

Knee Jerk Anyone?

Hey folks – let’s all jump on the knee-jerk bandwagon. Ever since the Orlando terrorist attack there has only been talk of sheer idiocy. Let’s ban guns – a common refrain – France banned guns – all of you that put the stupid France filter on your pictures – did that stop the attacks? No? but like the dumbass coexist bumper sticker, which by the way only the LEAST tolerant people have on their cars, it signifies NOTHING. Those of you that cater to give up freedom – what else should we lose?
I ask because I was in a conversation with a waitress yesterday that thought any offensive speech should not be covered by the first amendment – when I asked what offensive speech was her response was priceless – any speech that hurts the feelings of others or offends someone. Sheer idiocy. Ban Guns – because all the countries without guns have ZERO murders or gun deaths, hell in the UK they want to ban and or license chef knives – the new preferred weapon of the hoodlum , you know if there is a will there is a way.
All of you that show solidarity with the Gay community, why are you not upset when these attacks happen all over the globe? I never see you speak out against the inhumanity that ISIS shows throughout the Middle east – or the attacks on Jews or Christians in that same region.
I saw on tv some lady asking what we could do to not offend these people. I know – we ban women from being in public without men, we ban homosexuals, christian or Jewish symbols, women driving, or even showing themselves.
I tend to stay off Facebook – even when I post photos I do it from an uploader so I do not have to read the drivel that appears on my page – most of it “sponsered” ads by Facebook. I have been on Facebook more this week because school is out and I am bored. Yet, it seems I picked a horrid week – nothing makes me more angry then seeing people that I know and in some cases love want to limit speech or want to blame Christians for an attack done by a Muslim who announced he was doing it for ISIS – hell I am not a Christian and one of My closest friends is Muslim. I am a Jew – something that people on Facebook remind me of all the time – usually when I post political opinions. I have never judged anybody accept by their actions and beliefs – not religion, color or so forth – and those that are close know I judge and do not trust anyone that claims they do not. Stop knee-jerk reactions, they are not helpful

P.S. – those of you that plan to message me with stars of David as if that is an insult – I have one tattooed on my body – why do you do that? It is the symbol of our religion – it does not offend us – hell we like it I mean it is a cool looking star for Crissakes.

COEXIST? With Who?


This is the problem – people that display this are the enemy of reason and sound thought. Really tolerant people do not need the use of an advert to let us know that they are such. I find that these people are blowhards at best and hateful trolls at worse. Never trust these people not to talk behind your back and deny it later.

Tears in the Darkness: The Story of the Bataan Death March and Its Aftermath

I know that there are some out there that shy away from revisionist histories. The entire genre has gotten a bad reputation due to the power of the truly crank cases, whether it be Holocaust denial, Howard Zinn’s indictments on American History (or western civilization in general) or Pat Buchanan’s ode to Nazi Germany. Yet, there are plenty of other works that fall into the genre that are not meant to do anything more than to increase our understanding of the events of yesteryear. Tears in the Darkness is of this second order.
Written by Michael and Elizabeth Norman, Tears in the Darkness is a fine example of how new histories should written. The authors have achieved a wonderfully rich narrative that manages to give the reader insight into the minds of all three sides of the battle for Bataan and the well-known aftermath. This look at the largest defeat in American History is needed to further explain just why it happened, something that many times has been lost with the depictions of the minutiae of individual histories and stories.
The history is laid out into a dual track, as the chapters that are numbered tell the overall story and the named sections at the end of each chapter introduce and follow Ben Steele, the one survivor that had dealings with most aspects of Bataan, from being one of the garrison soldiers, battlers and prisoners. He was one of the defeated forced to march and then suffered the barbaric prison system that the Japanese put in place.
One of the great aspects of this book is the inclusion of the Japanese point of view. What does get glossed over in many histories of Bataan is the fact that it was a defeat for America that could have been prevented, but the egoism of MacArthur as well as the inherent racism on all sides of the conflict did much to ensure that it would not be easy for wither side in the war. There is much benefit for researchers to see exactly how closed the Japanese system was, the devaluation of their own lives for the idea of Emperor and chain of command needed to be stressed, as we know that not all of the officers agreed with the policies of their governments. The inside look at the letters of the common soldier also was a nice plus.
As we enter the 4th of July weekend, books like Tears in the Darkness should be added to reading lists for all interested in the continuing battle for freedom and history. I could not have asked for a more meaningful book at this point of year.