Revisting Radical Islam

        The United States needs to recognize that our support for Radical Islam is not possible, and we certainly ought not seek to ally ourselves with Radical Islamists in order to continue the 1950s Cold War confrontation with Russia.  Our most recent misadventure with the Boston Marathon bombers is proof positive of this.

    I use the term Radical Islam to distinguish terrorists from the whole of Islam.  Of course, not everyone who is a Muslim supports terror bombing.  The vast majority of Muslims, especially in the US, are not this way at all. Then too, it might not be as simple as connecting the Chechen bombers to Chechen groups in Russia.  But whether inspired by Chechen elements or some other, the point remains that Radical Islam confronts the United States as well as Russia. Why then, does the US often seek to ally itself with Radical Islam?

    To be sure, the US policy is not one-sided, and the situation is highly complex.  But there are an ample number of instances in which the US has attempted to ally itself with Radicals, going back at least to the Afghanistan Wars with the USSR, in which the US funneled money and arms to the mujahedin. Over 40 million Muslims inhabited regions of the USSR, many of whom became part of separate countries upon dissolution of the USSR. The US has offered various levels of support choosing to ally itself with factions in the new countries as well as within Russia .  The US has made it its business to champion human rights and to develop democracies in Muslim nations, which often causes it to oppose Russia at least indirectly.  Some of these conflicts have included:   

Russia/Afghanistan war
Iraq I and Iraq II
US/Afghanistan conflict
Former Yugoslavia conflicts
Uprisings in Muslim regions of the former USSR (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Tajikistan, Turkenistan, Gruzhiya, Afkhazia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan).

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_M4GOckQ0iCewaB590azqdebWl2H6OpAyzkNnHGUw6MCaanNPYmfkyrsiZ1ewY1aW0nK_ogO8dN46OSodJSy62dtgZZ59f4T2kGeSaYIkRugGeYTgFtvx9iX0lPZiX1Z_1vuY6SQp0g/s1600/clintonwar.jpg

Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski aided the Mujahedin against the USSR starting in 1980.  

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_M4GOckQ0iCewaB590azqdebWl2H6OpAyzkNnHGUw6MCaanNPYmfkyrsiZ1ewY1aW0nK_ogO8dN46OSodJSy62dtgZZ59f4T2kGeSaYIkRugGeYTgFtvx9iX0lPZiX1Z_1vuY6SQp0g/s1600/clintonwar.jpg

Dropping bombs on the Serbians (ethnic Slavs, like the Russians), seemed like a good idea at the time. 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/04/21/opinion/21conversation/21conversation-custom1.jpg

Every time America has a President named Bush, we get a nasty recession and a war with Iraq.  That must be what we wanted, because we kept doing it.  

    In the Middle East, countries such as Aghanistan, Libya, Syria and to a lesser extent Egypt have been allied with Russia, and partly for that reason, the US has allied itself with rebels.  This includes groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Mujahideen, Islamists, Jihadists and possibly even Al Qaida.  

   The Village Elliot thinks that both Democrats and Republicans have gone mad once they are in office.  No earthly good occurs by allying our country with Radical Islam, and in particular whatever quarrel your grandparents may have had with the USSR does not justify supporting Radical Islam.  Nevertheless, the consensus between Republicans and Democrats alike is that it is in the US national interest to ally itself with Radical Islam as a matter of convenience to achieve larger policy objectives.    

    Once politicians are voted into office, I suggest that we send them to the chalkboard, and have them write 100 times, "I will not support Radical Islam."  All too often however, as soon as they get into office they persuade themselves that it is a great idea to involve America in the conflicts between Muslim factions. 

  Senator McCain wants the US to intervene in Syria now.  Yes, Assad is a nincompoop, but who exactly are we supporting there, Senator?

    The recent case of the Boston Marathon bombings underscores this great problem.  The bombers (whose names I don't care to even mention) may well have connections to Radical Islamic groups in Russia.  My question is very simple:  are we going to continue to seek to ally America with such groups in order to oppose Russian interests?  Or perhaps we ought to work with Russia a little more closely and perhaps listen to them when they say that there may be a threat there.  

Recruiting Terrorists and Suicide Bombers

How crazy is it to allow yourself to be recruited as a terrorist or suicide bomber?

Well, it's pretty crazy, but perhaps not quite as crazy as you might think.  One of the ways that you can help your parents is to become a suicide bomber.   Jimmy Gurule explains in Unfunding Terror: The Legal Response to the Financing of Global Terrorism (Gurule, 2008).    

"Terrorist recruits are often promised that if they join the Jihad and sacrifice their life in a terrorist attack, their families will receive a monthly stipend to compensate them for their loss.  Those payments may involve a one-time grant...and monthly payments thereafter...payments may represent more than a year's pay for some Muslim families and therefore serve as an important incentive for Palestinian and Islamist terrorists."  

I remember watching an episode of 60 Minutes some time ago, in which the reporters found the family members of suicide bombers.  The other kids in the family seemed happy that their departed sibling was in heaven and richly blessed.  At the same time, the family was provided for, as the father and mother were receiving monthly payments from anonymous sources.  The community looks up to these families.   It is considered an honor to be the parent of a martyr.  

A religious underpinning is probably necessary as well.  In order to cross the line and take another human life, no doubt it is helpful to view the others as subhuman or enemies of God.  This then is the job of a religious sect.  Radical Islam has been very successful at this, although it goes without saying that the vast majority of Muslims are not radicalized, especially in the US.  And in addition other religions have been warped to support acts of terror as well.  

The main need is to convince the prospective bomber that the targets are unholy and that God wants them to be destroyed, and that a rich reward will be given in the afterlife to the bomber, and in the here and now to the bomber's family.    

The easy part is that by sacrificing one's life it will be possible to take care of their families for the rest of their lives.  In the case of the family of the Boston Marathon bombers, perhaps it is not strange to see the parents playing up to their role, crying and screaming that their sweet little angels were set up by the terrible Americans.  Now it is reported that they want to come over to America to complain, and perhaps to be on talk television and radio.   

Well, if it sounds scripted, it probably is. In my view, it's time to quite being amazed or shocked that such people exist.  Our task is simply to minimize our vulnerability to the extent we can, and when terrorists do their thing, we need to recognize it for what it is and defend ourselves.   

The Latest Conspiracy Theory--Boston is Obama's Fault

     The Investor's Business Daily has unveiled a uniquely stupid conspiracy theory, in which President Obama supposedly helped the Saudi government to carry out the Boston Marathon bombing.  Now he is covering it up.

    This theory has gone viral, or should I say vile, being picked up by a number of news organizations including WTAM 1100 AM, where I first heard it.  

    The theory is that the Saudi Foreign Minister is secretly meeting with John Kerry and President Obama to arrange for safe transport of the True Bomber back to his Saudi Arabian homeland.   

     The geniuses at the Investor's Business Daily is not blaming  Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, but instead blame a terrorist cell from Saudi Arabia, aided and abetted by John Kerry and Barack Obama.

    Good grief, IBD is a (formerly) respected financial news organization.  Now they are publishing nonsense like this.  This is about as wacky as it gets. 

Reference:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041813-652517-boston-bombing-timeline-suggests-obama-saudi-coverup.htm

Haslam Returning to Flying J. Will the Browns Stay in Cleveland?

   Jimmy Haslam has had enough of  Cleveland winters, and is returning to Knoxville to resume his career as CEO of the Flying J  Corporation (see the article by Robert L. Smith of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, published online earlier today, http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/02/browns_owner_jimmy_haslam_to_r.html ).  

Mr. Haslam, who once described himself as a "1000% Steelers fan," has promised to keep the team in Cleveland.  

     An interesting question is whether the current ownership group will be susceptible for overtures from Los Angeles, which has been promised a team.  Los Angeles will be presenting its sales pitch for just about every team in the NFL.  "You have a stadium deal?  We have a better one.  We have more fans, and more rich fans.  We have a better TV market, better radio market, better internet, better everything.  We have more fans who will buy more team jerseys, more souvenirs, more everything.  Mr. Owner, we will increase the value of your investment by a billion dollars." 

     Now, one of the defenses against that is local ownership.  Not everyone wants to be like Art Modell and have an entire city hate his guts for moving the team.  So for that reason, it was comforting to know that the Haslam family had bought a mansion in Bratentahl. His family is rightfully known for tremendous community service, and the community looked forward to embracing them.  But now, a few months after the sale of the team was approved,  it is clear that Haslam will be a non-resident owner.   
 

      There is every assurance that Mr. Haslam intends to keep the team in Cleveland, recall that as minority owner of the Steelers, he had access to the NFL Stadium Committee through Dan Rooney, which among other things was concerned about bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles.  Oddly, this scenario played out in the 1940's when the Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles, and resulted in the Browns being formed in 1946. 

     It may also be worth noting the Browns hired Alec Scheiner to be the team President.  Scheiner was instrumental in building the incredible new Cowboys' stadium in Arlington for Jerry Jones.  Scheiner would be great to oversee stadium construction in Los Angeles if that should ever be necessary. That's just a coincidence, right?  But the point is that the Browns would be one of the best organizations to manage a move to Los Angeles, because they have the elite stadium building expertise, and in addition their front office (Mike Lombardi) has experience with the previous Browns move to Baltimore, and on top of that worked for Al Davis of the Oakland (formerly Los Angeles) Raiders. 

Cleveland fans are numbingly secure that ia move to Los Angeles could only happen in some other city.   

Why, we have legal assurances that the Browns won't move!  Well, that may be, but if the owner has enough money for good lawyers the lease issue can certainly be overcome.  

Our fans would get mad, so the NFL would be afraid to deal with us.  Actually I would say the opposite.  Because Cleveland went through this process before, it will be easier the second time.  The NFL will promise to relocate some other team to Cleveland by 2020 if the city agrees to have a domed stadium, and that will be about it.  The fans will be unhappy, but frankly the NFL will get over it.  The net result will be a multi-billion dollar franchise in Los Angeles, the world's largest TV market.   
 
The other NFL owners are our friends and woudn't let that happen.  Sure they are. But the league has put in place the mechanism to move a team to Los Angeles, so it is going to happen to some team, sometime, and probably in 2014.  The only argument is which team will be the one to go.  It will not necessarily be the team with the lowest revenue as Cleveland fans seem to think.   It will be the team with the owner that is quickest to the trough.  
     
 Again, I emphasize that there is no evidence that this is Mr. Haslam's intent.  But I bet the Los Angeles people are licking their chops waiting to meet with him. 

 

Surely Mr. Haslam is great warm hearted guy who only has the best interests of Cleveland fans at heart.  Surely in the few months he has owned the team we have won him over.  He will not be tempted by the billions of dollars offered by Los Angeles.  No, not him!

Well, that's why they call me the Village Elliot, I guess.  I can't help but feel that the owner of the Browns leaving town is just bad, very bad.  Again, there is no evidence, none at all that Haslam is considering overtures from Los Angeles, but the situation is very favorable if in fact the ownership were to attempt to move the team to Los Angeles.    

  

   

The Best and Worst Christmas Present

Legos were one of my favorite toys.  You can use it to build anything you want.  My friends and I used to make planes, rocket ships, tanks, houses, robots and just about anything else that our little brains could imagine.  What a great toy!

    Legos are possibly the greatest toys ever invented.  With the basic set, every kid can be a virtual millionaire, able to make just about anything they can imagine. 

     Legos existed in the 1960's.  My friend Robbie Raymond and I used to make little tanks and run them into each other to see which one would survive better.  Robbie usually won, but his tanks were build solid to the core.  I used to keep an empty volume in the middle, because that is where the imaginary soldiers would have to sit.  How can you have a tank with no place for army guys to sit?  No matter, Robbie's tanks usually survived better than mine, but in any case it was a challenge to figure out how to make more robust tanks. 

      These days however, times have changed. Now Lego comes in special kits, like this Star Wars Spaceship. 

      This stuff costs more money than the basic set, and it has 3000 parts, and there is only one way for them to go together right, and only one toy for your kid to make, and if you lose any one piece, you're dead.  It takes not hours but weeks to build something this complicated, and then once you have it there is nothing to do with it except buy other kits to go along with it.  This will drive both you and your children completely insane.  This is not Lego, it's actually the Antichrist.  

Part of the problem is that kids have way more toys than they ever did before.  I'll bet if your kids took all the toys and spread them out on the floor, your entire house would be knee deep in toys.  Hence toys with small parts are certain to get dispersed amid this sea of toys, and it is impossible to keep everything sorted out.  I bought  my son some Lego airplanes and trains and regretted it.   They took hours to put together, and despite our best efforts, some pieces got separated from the rest, and are now lost in the Great Void of Small Parts.   In general, anything with small parts is to be avoided, and these Lego kits are the worst of the worst.  

    Hence, my advice is to go with a big bucket of Legos, without any particular theme.  It's about one third of the cost and it will be way more fun in the long run.  
 

Daniel Inouye

     Daniel Inouye was an authentic American hero.  Of Japanese descent, he was one of many who volunteered for the  All-Nisei 442nd Regimental Combat Team in World War II.  In those days, the Army was segregated, so the 442nd was made of persons of Japanese descent and sent to the European Theater, where it was thought there would be less risk of them changing sides.  Inouye and others in the 442nd were determined to prove that they were loyal Americans, and that unit become the most decorated for bravery of all units in the United States Army.  

      You want to read about a tough guy?  Here is his Medal of Honor Citation:

      Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper’s bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.
    
      They say that his arm was injured while he was holding a live grenade, and he pried out his fingers with his left hand and threw the grenade, taking out a Nazi machine gun.

     Jiminy Christmas, I can't imagine somebody continuing to charge enemy positions with his arm blown off, but he did that.  Eventually he passed out from loss of blood after securing the objective, and he woke up to find his troops huddled around him.  So he yelled at them to get back to work. "Nobody called off the war!"

    Now that is one tough dude, and why foreign countries should not want to mess with Americans in wars.  

    Guys like him inspired me to join the military and in a very small way follow in his footsteps.  Maybe that's why the older generations of Democrats and Republicans, like Kennedy and Nixon, were able to get along relatively well.  After you've fought alongside someone, you learn to respect them even if they are from a different political party.

     Nowadays, however, America seems determined to elect politicians who thought they were too important to serve our country in the military.  They tend to be great talkers, but spoiled and used to getting everything they want,  and for that reason they can't get along with each other. 
    
     I remember seeing Inouye in the Watergate panel during the Nixon Administration.  He was asking tough questions, but generally very fair ones, without mugging for TV time like the other contestants, I mean members of the panel.  

    All his life, Senator Inouye fought for the equality of all Americans.  I continued to be inspired by his vision.   

Climate Change or the End Time?

     I have decided to hurry up and write this blog now, given that the infallible Mayans predicted ages ago that the world would end this December 21.  

    An amazing article appeared in Reuters reporting the result of an opinion poll.  Apparently 40% of you out there believe that recent weather has worsened, and that this is the sign of the "End Times."  In other words, you think that God is going to destroy the world, and one of the things he has incorporated in his formula is bad weather.  And you are also sure that those who do not agree with you are in league with the devil. 

   Equally amazing, another 60% of you think that we are having exceptionally bad weather (such as the superstorm that hit the East Coast last month) and that it is due to man-made climate change.   This should not be confused with global warming (i.e., the well documented rise in global average temperature by 1 C since about 1900), but refers to disastrous weather like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes etc.   
     In other words, you basically agree with the religious right that the world is coming to an end, and that it is due to evil actions by humanity,  but you believe that there is a scientific explanation for the whole thing.  Pollution and especially carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the culprit.   

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-weather-religion-idUSBRE8BC1CX20121213

     Jeez, if you add it up that seems to come up to 100% who apparently believe that the weather is worsening to such an extent that global destruction is at hand.  It might not actually be 100% if some of you are being double counted (you believe God is getting ready to destroy the world, and fossil fuels are helping him to do it).  But it is clear that a very high percentage of normal average Americans believe that the world is coming to an end due to bad weather.  22% believe that it is within the next 50 years or so, and a significant fraction are genuinely worried that the world will end next week, in the supposed Mayan prophecy (there is no such prophecy, but far be it for the Village Elliot to spoil your fun). 

    The right believes that the Apocalypse is coming, and the left believes that fossil fuel consumption is destroying the world for reasons that do not involve God, but almost everyone agrees that the world is coming to an end, at least according to the opinion polls. The right believes that the left is wacky, and the left believes that the right is wacky, despite the fact that both sides are in basic agreement that the world is coming to an end due to weather related phenomena. 

    Apparently, most people believe that the world is coming to an end soon, but we may the opportunity to live a normal lifespan.  But according to Reuters, 22% of Americans (and 15% of people worldwide) think that the world will end in their lifetime. 

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-mayancalendar-poll-idUSBRE8400XH20120501

     The Village Elliot thinks you are all wacky, frankly.  I believe in God, and I also believe in the infrared absorption cross section of carbon dioxide, but I don't believe that the world is being destroyed by either one. 

    It may be that I am now in a tiny minority that does not believe in the imminent destruction of the earth due to weather (a more reasonable case can be made that humans will destroy the earth with nuclear weapons, but let's leave this possibility for a future blog).  

     It seems that there is simply a deep seated human need to believe in the end of the world. It used to be that Gaddaffi was the AntiChrist, or Saddam, or John Kennedy (not a Protestant, you see), or Hitler, or Kaiser Wilhelm or Napoleon.  My personal favorite was Ronald (6 letters) Wilson (6 letters) Reagan (6 letters).  Imagine the Antichrist posing as a Republican.  What a trickster he is!

    The Village Elliot thinks that before assuming that the world is being destroyed, we ought to let meteorologists  characterize current weather patterns and compare them to data from the past.  What a bland thought! I think they might say that the weather has in fact been worse in recent years, but overall the meteorlogical forecast is a little more optimistic than the death of the universe.

    Bad weather played a role in the last presidential election, as Mayor Bloomberg expressed his belief that President Obama would be more effective in changing the climate for the better than Mitt Romney.  Bloomberg believed that Hurricane Sandy was a consequence of bad environmental practices in the United States, although I'm not sure how he reached this conclusion.  I thought King Canute of England had already done this experiment when he commanded the sea to stop rising, and found that the sea would not listen.  But it is now a valid political perception, if not a scientific reality, that politicians are the key to saving the world from natural calamaties. 

 Reasonable people now believe that King Canute was actually right, and political action will improve the weather.  But the world will probably come to an end anyway, or so people say.