Why Bernie Edged Out Hillary In Michigan

What do I know that the pundits don't regarding why Bernie Sanders beat out Hillary Clinton in Michigan by one point? Quite a bit, as it turns out, because unlike them, I'm actually paying attention to the local newspapers in Flint and Detroit.

First, let me recap what a huge upset this was. Polls going into this gave Hillary a more than 20 point lead going into the primary as recently as the day before. That should have translated to a huge win for Hillary, and a coast to the nomination afterward. But that didn't happen. What sort of shenanigans could have happened to cause such a huge swing in less than 24 hours?

I don't think much happened in the way of shenanigans. I also don't think only one thing caused such a big change in expectations vs. outcome. Instead, a matrix of factors weighed in all at once. Let me break down what those were.

1.) Turnout!
This, more than anything else, could skew the pre-election polls. Typically, pollsters work with an expectation of likely voters, and turnout for primaries is typically much lower than for a general election. But this primary shattered records and exceeded all expectations. The disaster in Flint has pissed off Michigan voters, and they mean business against anyone seen as establishment! They came out to support the anti-establishment candidate in droves! Pollsters never saw it coming.

2.) Hillary's debate points didn't hit the way pundits thought.
Last Sunday, at the Democratic debate in Flint, when Bernie Sanders attacked Hillary for supporting trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP, Hillary had a ready response, pointing out how Bernie had voted against the General Motors bailout. She, and all the pundits, saw that as a tete-a-tete, and called it a wash. Clearly, voters disagreed, perhaps on the rationale that GM wouldn't have needed bailing out if it weren't for NAFTA in the first place.

3.) The Bloomberg Factor.
There was only one significant news story involving the election other than Sunday's debate, and that was the announcement by Michael Bloomberg that he would not run as a third party candidate. The Bloomberg factor (as I called it in this blog), threatened to act as a spoiler if Bernie Sanders was the candidate, thus creating an avenue for Donald Trump to win the presidency with less than a majority. A respectable percentage of Hillary's supporters undoubtedly backed her because they wanted to prevent exactly that sort of thing from happening. But with Bloomberg ruling himself out, many Michigan voters must have decided that it was "safe" to support Bernie Sanders now. And did so!

4.) Late-breaking deciders.
There were a lot of undecided voters hovering in the middle. Pollsters must have thought that they would split down the middle, just as they have in every other Midwestern state which has voted so far. They didn't. They went almost universally for Sanders.

5.) Problems at the polls.
Hillary may have a legitimate gripe when it comes to the polling stations. News stories broke out during the night of polling stations running out of ballots because turnout was so high, and some voters being improperly turned away. Now, Detroit news sources have verified and legitimized the stories, so that they cannot be denied as coming from tabloid sources. You can read about it yourself in the Detroit News here. Certainly, many voters had to wait in long lines before they could vote, and large numbers of them got mad and left. How many votes Hillary lost this way is impossible to quantify, but this happened mostly in big urban areas which favored Hillary. She could argue that this amounted to the barely 1% difference that Sanders won by. This is a huge problem for Bernie, because it de-legitimizes his surprise win.

So, all five of these happened all at once, and the result was a huge last-minute swing for Bernie Sanders, and the most embarrassing failure of pre-polling in living memory. But does that give Bernie a win for the day? As all the other news pundits have already recognized, the answer is no.

Bernie lost Mississippi that same night. Not only did he lose it, he lost it BIG. It was a bloodbath! Not even close. 83% to 16%. Hillary takes nearly all that state's delegates. Meanwhile, Bernie's surprise win, while eye-catching, merely splits the delegate vote nearly down the middle. Bernie gets 7 more delegates that Hillary for winning Michigan. But he looses a difference of 25 delegates to Hillary because she beat him so soundly in Mississippi. That gives a net gain to Hillary of 18 delegates, and so Bernie falls behind with his Michigan victory instead of catching up.

It is the very definition of Pyrrhic victory.

These close victories aren't enough for Bernie. He has to not only win a big state like Michigan, he has to win a big state BIG!

And if he doesn't, then this is just going to end up being one long, drawn out primary battle that serves no purpose except to drain financial resources which could better be spent fighting Donald Trump. I, of course, argue that the Democratic party ought not emerge from the primaries bruised and battered.

But, of course, with Bloomberg out, the prospect of a Sanders comeback seems like it might not be so much of a disaster.


Eric

*

Oh, Nevada? You Really Need Hillary! Here's Why:

Scalia is dead.

Holy fucking shit. Scalia is dead. Honestly, I thought he would be the last hyper-conservative to go. I thought he would live to be 97 and still be on the court. For a man aged 79, he looked more like a man aged 65. I never thought he'd be the first SCOTUS death on Barack Obama's watch.

And what a death! Say what you will about his being evil, he was a giant of a man, larger-than-life in so many ways. Even Ruth Bader-Ginsburg gave him a touching obituary.

Conservatives will never be able to replace him.

Perhaps this is why they've gone completely ape-shit in a way nobody has ever seen before. They know that this is a loss that will inevitably swing the court to the left. Even if a Republican president were to somehow to select his replacement, they could never find another Scalia. They could never find someone so staunchly committed to ridiculous ideas who defends them with such eloquence. Never.

Even the wildest conservative justice is a moderate next to him.

And so we see the dying Republican machine digging in its heels like never before. Within hours of the announcement that Scalia was dead, leaders on Capital Hill and presidential candidates all said that Obama should not even think of naming a replacement. No, don't you dare, Mr. President! No! Don't do your job! Don't even try!

Because this signals the end. A moderate is enough to end the culture war. This is it. This is the end of the conservative court. This puts SCOTUS out of reach for conservatives. If Obama names one more, moderate or not, that's it. Kiss your conservative court goodbye. Kiss overturning Roe v. Wade goodbye. Forget about overturning anything having to do with ACA. Forget overturning gay marriage. It's over. The culture war has been won.

Of course, it's been won for quite some time now. It was won back in 2012. And in denial, pissed off republicans elected an even more obstructionist congress. But it's been done. They know it's over.

Oh, and by the way, the Republican race for president has not been going very well, either.

So, finally, here's my message, and it goes directly to the people of Nevada. Yes, you, you wonderful people of Sin City and Reno. Yes, you where everyone goes to do everything Republicans want to oppose. You who revel in the sex, drugs and gambling that they hate. It's up to you.

You need Hillary.

You see, a supreme court justice is far more likely to get through the Senate if Hillary can wield her might to help get it done. She can go to various legislators and say, "You vote against Barack's pick, and there will be consequences!" And she has the juice to do it, too! You can bet on it!

But she won't be able to do this if Bernie (and I still love Bernie) keeps the nomination of Hillary as an ongoing question. The longer Hillary remains doubtful, the longer it will be before Obama can get a SCOTUS pick through.

Yes, it's that simple.

And here, you see the real difference in ability between Hillary and Bernie. For all his merits, Bernie cannot go to legislators and say, "Look, Mr. ____, I've been in the D.C. Prayer Group with your wife for years. I know about your (insert scandal here), and I'm willing to use it! I'll undoubtedly be the next president. Are you sure you want to fuck with me?! You'll vote for Obama's pick, or else!"

Nope. And I doubt Bernie would ever do that, even if he had the intel.

So let's do the right thing, and give Hillary a sweeping victory in Nevada this Saturday, okay? Our next Supreme Court pick depends on it. And perhaps the next, and the next.

Oh, sure, the Republicans could conceivably gum up the works for a whole year in the hopes that they can get a conservative candidate into the White House and vote for their own man. But that's a long shot, and they know it. It's far more likely that they would stall for a year, lose the House, lose the Senate, and then only be able to sit back helplessly as liberal after liberal got named to the Supreme Court. They would watch Ruth Bader-Ginsburg retire. They would watch Anthony Kennedy Retire. They would watch Stephen Breyer retire. They would watch, powerless, as John Roberts and Clarence Thomas were the only ones left.

But while that outcome gives me warm fuzzies inside, it is not a done deal, yet, and Bernie could still upend everything without meaning to do so. The basic objections I have with Bernie still apply, none of which have to do with his policies. Aside from his inability to play dirty politics (and lack of firepower to do so), I still say that he's 1.) too old, 2.) too inexperienced, 3.) likely to get outspent by a ton without accepting superpac money, 4.) vulnerable to a "Red Scare" attack as opponents highlight the word 'socialist' on his resume, 5.) also vulnerable to an "atheist" attack, because as a secular Jew, he practices no particular religion.

Republicans have seen this. A lot of his support comes from conservative cross-over votes because they see Bernie as more beatable than Hillary. And they're right!

And now we have yet another Bernie liability I haven't yet spoken about, namely, the Bloomberg factor. Yes, Michael Bloomberg could toss his hat into the ring as an independent if Hillary doesn't win. That could conceivably mean a three-way split of the vote where Trump could win with only 34% of the electorate! Oh, the horror!

Bernie will adequately represent my desires and wishes as the Democratic nominee, should he win. If he does, I'll put my 100% effort into making sure he wins. But damn, what a gamble! I wish I didn't need to keep making my case for Hillary this way.

So are you hearing me, Nevada? Give Hillary a convincing win. Make it look like she's gotten through the storm. Let her help Obama give us a nice left-leaning moderate on the Supreme Court. You can do it! Yes, YOU!

Because otherwise, we could be waiting a long, long, time for our next justice.


Eric

*

'Hillary Schill' or 'Bernie Blind?'

I've gotten very little blow-back from my previous post regarding Bernie Sanders, and I suppose that's a good thing. But I do get a high degree of blow back on social media when I support Hillary. The sense that I'm getting from the Bernie Sanders camp is a kind of star-struck euphoria that's typical of a rock-star following. And while I don't for a second believe that Bernie has the kind of electoral magic that Barack Obama had in 2008, I do think that Bernie's followers are rather blind. I sense this, because my pro-Hillary posts are often met with vitriolic comments like, "anyone but Hillary," or simply, "Bye!" as if, by supporting the only candidate I feel has a realistic shot of winning, I've somehow disqualified my opinion from even being considered.

Look, I like Bernie. And for the hundredth time, if he's the nominee, he will have my full support. But I find it silly to be so completely blind about the man! He's human! And the downsides I pointed out last time still apply. He is:

1.) Highly vulnerable to a "Red Scare" attack.
2.) Quite likely to get outspent by a fuck-ton of money.
3.) Simply too old.
4.) Politically untried outside of relatively quiet Vermont.

In short, a vote for Bernie is a gamble. And a BIG one!

So let's go easy on the Hillary supporters, shall we? I mean, it's hardly irrational to believe that the woman who has been attacked, and attacked, and attacked, and is STILL standing, has every realistic expectation of enduring just a little bit longer!

And if you don't think she's gotten all the dirt on every politician through her weekly prayer groups with the other politicians' wives, you're naive! And an even bigger fool for thinking we don't need that kind of ammunition in the years to come. Don't casually dismiss that.

And STOP being so BLIND when it comes to Bernie! He's a nice old Jew who would make a nice old Jewish president. But I believe we don't need nice.

I believe we need a complete bitch who is feared!

Eric

*

More On Hillary Vs. Bernie

In terms of candidates, the Democrats have already won. The two finalists, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are both outstanding choices. No matter who wins, we win.

Ah, yes, but which one?

I'm growing more accustomed to the idea of a Sanders candidacy. Back in August, I argued very strongly for Hillary being the candidate. But, as I said then, if Bernie somehow wins, I'll back him 100%. I still feel that way. But I have some grave concerns which I hear no one in the media talking about, which, I feel, means that I and this little blog need to address them. At least all seven of my readers will be in the know.

In my August post for Hillary, I focused on her attributes and why we need them. In this post, I'm focusing on Bernie's faults. I do this not out of malice, but because they are genuine, and need to be addressed now before we take the Big Plunge with the Iowa Caucuses. Bernie seems to be the ideal leftist. But is he? Let me voice my concerns here so that I can backpedal over to the pro-Bernie side, if the time should come, knowing I did my dirty, but necessary, civic duty.

First of all, and I for one am not afraid to say it, Bernie is too old. The oldest president ever to start his inaugural term was Ronald Reagan, who was 69, and turned 70 only three weeks after being sworn in (he was born Feb. 6, 1911). Towards the end of his second term, he was manifestly beginning to show signs of Alzheimer's disease. By contrast, Bernie just turned 74 back on September 8 (he was born in 1941). Assuming he wins the nomination and the presidency, he would be 75 at the time he took office, and nearing 80 when running for his second term. The risks for dementia increase exponentially after 70, and this is a grave concern when it comes to our commander-in-chief.

Is Bernie a severe risk? Certainly, I don't want to be ageist, and if a man has all his marbles, he should be allowed to use them in the best possible way. But he is manifestly beginning to slip. In each of the four Democratic Party debates I've watched, Bernie has had a moment where he lapsed. In the first debate, a question was posed to all the candidates (there were five at the time), and then the moderator called upon Bernie Sanders to answer it first. He jerked up as if startled, and said, "Excuse me, could you repeat the question?"

Oh, dear.

Now, as gaffs go, getting caught woolgathering is pretty light. Hell, I've been caught woolgathering in class ever since I was five years old. But this man was on stage with all the world watching him as a man with a serious chance to win the office of President of the United States! That's no time to be daydreaming! And what's more, he'd done this in each debate. Granted, only once each time, and only a slight lapse each time, but on occasion, his focus and  his ability to hear things clearly have abandoned him at key moments. Now, if he can't maintain during a three-hour presidential debate, is it not fair to ask if he can do so over an entire four-year stressful grind as president?

Now, I should emphasize that I have no solid evidence that Bernie is losing it, nor do I have any inkling about whether or not he will go senile in the coming years. But it is not just his marbles I'm concerned with. The stresses of campaigning take their toll on the entire body. In the most recent debate (January 17th), Bernie was beginning to lose his voice towards the end. Sheesh! We haven't even started in Iowa, and Bernie's voice box is already going?

Back in 1996, when the 73-year-old Bob Dole was the Republican nominee, he was plagued with physical maladies which went beyond the old war wound in his right shoulder - one which forced him to always shake hands left-handed. A bout with the flu would take him out during a key campaign swing, or cancel a particular speech. At one point, he fell off the stage, leaving him with an awful eye-wound which turned the white of his left eye blood-red, making for a very gruesome picture to show the news cameras. Yes, voters might look past such things, but historically, they never have. Bob Dole lost by a mile to a younger and more vibrant Bill Clinton. Bob Dole was slightly younger then than Bernie Sanders is now. I would hate to see Bernie's campaign fizzle out in a similar way (although I highly doubt he is capable of polling as low as Dole did).

The media can't say it, but I can. A geriatric senator who has never had to contend with political rigors outside of relatively quiet Vermont might just be too far past his prime to be able to adequately perform on a nationwide stage.

And Hillary? She's no spring chicken, either. But assuming she wins the nomination and the presidency, she would be only slightly older than Reagan was when he took office. Factor in the biological fact that women live longer and hang onto their marbles a bit better, and age no longer becomes much of an issue.

Oh, and lest we forget, we Democrats were begging for Hillary to run ever since 2012. My, how fair-weather fans have bailed!

But I digress. The other factor not in Bernie's favor is money. Yes, he doesn't have any super-pac money. That's great in principle, and it just might work for getting nominated, but what good does it do to be the nominee when you get buried by the post Citizens' United avalanche of contributions from the ultra-rich? The Koch brothers alone have pledged half a billion! And while it's true that money can't buy you love (look at Jeb Bush, for example), it can buy up all the airtime available and price you out of the market. Bernie's voice could literally get washed out in the din of all the negative political ads.

Finally, there's the S-word: "Socialist." This one, at least, the media has been talking about. We who have been following things know that Bernie has drawn a distinction between "Socialist" and "Democratic Socialist." But will the electorate see things that way? I don't think society has cured itself of the stigma that it's held for Socialism, and even I, firmly on the left, have a knee-jerk reaction to the word. So have other leftists such as Chris Hayes, who famously ranted about it on numerous occasions. All the Republicans would have to do is play the "Red Scare" card, and Bernie could very conceivably lose. Yes, polls show him beating any Republican candidate more so than Hillary, but that's for now. Polls shift! And after a Red Scare tactic, they could very well shift a significant amount.

Hillary has baggage, yes, but she's strong enough to carry it. And she has many scars, but she's been battle-hardened. She has survived, and even thrived, on a national stage which has tried to knock her out at every opportunity - and failed. She'll win. Period.

That having been said, let me highlight my official qualifier. I'll still enthusiastically take Bernie over any of the idiots on the Republican side who are pretending to be candidates. A man with a good heart and a feeble mind or body is far superior to one with all his faculties and no heart whatsoever.

Eric

*

But Is It True?

Seems like in recent days, terrorism is all the vogue. I've often posted about how we ought not judge Muslims based on the actions of a few lone radicals, but I hold no such restriction upon Islam itself. So let me take a quick swipe at the creed which some dare to kill innocents over. After all, if one commits an act of terrorism over a creed, it becomes more than fair to ask if that creed is even true.

The essence of Islam is that there is one God, and Muhommed is his prophet. So what do we know of Mohammed? He is revered as the ideal man in the Muslim world. But was he? Even the most generous depiction of Mohammed must admit that he waged war to spread his creed, tortured political opponents, married multiple wives (at least one of whom was underage even by ancient standards), and put believers of other religions to the sword (in Medina, if nowhere else). In other words, this guy was an asshole by any metric, ancient or modern. This, we must conclude that if there is a true religion, it must lie elsewhere - at least in the words of a different prophet.

There are five pillars of Islam according to the Sunni tradition. One is the declaration of one God, and Muhommed as prophet, which I just dealt with above. The second is obligatory prayer five times a day. Ridiculous! The very notion that any God would require such endless adulation so constantly is ludicrous in the extreme. Were I God, I would tell people. "Shut up, already!" The third pillar is charity. I don't really have too much of a problem, there. The fourth is fasting for Ramadan. I really don't think that not eating is particularly gracious or holy, and it isn't healthy, besides. And the fifth and last pillar is the pilgrimage to Mecca. This one refutes itself, as the annual logistic nightmare that takes place in Saudi Arabia every hajj makes my case for me.

So, out of five pillars, four are ridiculous.

And people kill over this shit?

And that is merely today. Only a few centuries ago, Christianity tortured people to death in order to save their souls, all over a tautological blood redemption allegedly done by a man born of a virgin who walked on liquid water.

It's easy to ridicule others' beliefs. But your own beliefs are just as ridiculous.

Why believe when you can know?

My commitment to the truth is absolute. When I left Christianity, I did so because the evidence was incontrovertible that it was false. As a result, I lost nearly everything. I lost my golden-boy status, my career in the ministry, and my direction in life. I had to start all over again. Furthermore, were I to announce a return to Christianity after years of being an atheist, I would become a celebrity. I could write best sellers, do lectures, and become a millionaire! The reason I don't do so is because truth means more to me than millions of dollars. 

What's your excuse?

So when I am confronted by people who not only will not face the truth of their religion's falsehood, and on top of this, not face it to the point of inflicting it upon others, and on top of this being willing to kill others over it, I'm baffled!

How much does truth mean to you?

The real question, for all of us, is this: If evidence presents itself runs contrary to your beliefs, are you willing to change your beliefs as a result?

If your answer is no, then I argue, you are the true harbor of terrorism. Because terrorism thrives in such cognitive dissonance.

Eric

*

The Paris Attacks - And What MUSLIMS Should Do About It

Almost a year ago, when Charlie Hebdo happened, I nearly went ballistic. I very nearly lashed out, calling out all Muslims as evil for simply being Muslim. It didn't matter how peaceful or moderate a Muslim might be, I nearly said, because the beliefs themselves provide fodder for extremism, which they - the peaceful of Islam - then don't bother doing anything substantive to stop. If you're peaceful and loving, and happen to be a Muslim, you have but one choice, as I argued then. LEAVE! Because only the abandonment of Islam will make terrorism stop! Only empty houses of worship make religious leaders change!

Well, I was right about that last part, as far as it goes. Fortunately, I was talked off the ledge by some very kind and intelligent friends who reminded me of what it's like for a peace-loving Muslim who upholds Western democratic values. They get reviled, insulted, spat upon, ostracized, all because of something they had nothing to do with and openly condemn. That's not fair! That's not reasonable! And yes, it's part of why people who are treated that way get radicalized.

I understand that part of the natural reaction to an event such as 11/13 (we might as well give the Paris attack 9/11 and 7/7 status, right?) is for people to become extra xenophobic. They want to yell at people who wear the hijab or burqua. They tell Arab-looking people to "go home!" They shout profanities at men who unroll prayer rugs in the park. But I'm also aware that this is part of what the terrorists want. They want us to be Islamophobes! They want us to lash out.

Just as I nearly did almost a year ago. It radicalizes the moderates, and the cycle continues forever.

I suppose I can't blame people for lashing out. I'm a pretty anti-war guy, generally speaking, and back then I was tempted to say "outlaw the creed and burn every Mosque and minaret." Today, I, even I, am tempted again to say we should simply drop two or three nukes on Daesh (ISIS) held territory and win the war by making the entire area a radioactive wasteland. After all, it certainly seems odd that a nuclear power is getting pushed around by some Kalishnikov-waving imbeciles driving Toyota pickup trucks, doesn't it?

And yet - no. Islam really can be a religion of peace - if given the chance. It proved so back in the Christian Dark Ages when the ancient classics of Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras were nearly lost. The Islamic culture, not yet radicalized like it is today with Wahabiism, was able to preserve those works of learning, paving the way for the Enlightenment and what we today call Western values of freedom and democracy. How ironic that same culture has now transformed into something which gave birth to a terrorist philosophy which is trying to destroy the very democracy Islamic culture once helped create! Today, Islam is not a religion of peace anymore. But it once was, and could be again. How? I'll get to that in a minute.

Muslims point out that condemning all Muslims for the acts of a few among them is like blaming all Germans for the rise of Adolf Hitler. Good point - almost. The only problem I have with that line of thinking is, I do blame all Germans for Hitler! At least, the Germans of that generation. And I don't merely say so as an American of German descent. I say so because it is an historical fact. The Nazi loyalists never did achieve a working majority among the German populace. They didn't need to. The remainder of Germans, those opposed to the Nazi regime, were simply too afraid to speak out. They were scared of reprisals to themselves, and more importantly, to their families. As the Nazi party flourished, they looked the other way for the sake of their own personal well being, and for prosperity. That was to their eternal discredit. They should have had the courage to speak up and derail the Nazi regime before it threatened to bring the world crashing down into fascism. They didn't. Nazis, and their leader, Hitler, came to prominence largely because the peaceful majority of Germans did almost nothing to stop them.

Just as peace-loving Muslims do now.

Oh, I get it. Speak out against Jihadism, and you put the risk of your wife and children being knifed down in the middle of Brussels in broad daylight. Yeah! Who wouldn't understand that kind of threat? But isn't that level of evil even more reason why we should find some way of standing up to it? Can't there be some solution that allows us to dig in our heels, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and say with one voice, "Enough of this shit?!"

Up until now, the approach of peaceful Muslims has been to let the largely Christian military powers attempt the futile effort at exterminating the terrorists through the use of their military superiority. They feel that not speaking out against this is enough. Well, I doubt that. It hasn't worked so far. I mean, short of dropping several nukes between Syria and Iraq (and I still privately wonder why the hell we don't!) military might really isn't going to achieve much.

So what can we do? Shit, we have to do something!

And here's where my science-fiction writing ability comes to the forefront, because as a writer of tales, I can see strange strategies and plots where most don't. And what do I see?

I see a story - a grand tale about a secret spy organization whose sole purpose is to root out terrorism from within. Secretly funded by Muslims and Muslim-world governments, it finds the terrorist cells and then kills them before they strike. It is acting out on the realization that Islam's greatest P.R. challenge is terrorism, and that it cannot survive as a religion unless it is stopped. And so this organization goes forth, battling terrorism behind the lines, gaining intel that most spy organizations miss, killing the terror cells in their caves and their hovels, and keeping the world safe for religious freedom and democracy. Think of it as INTERPOL meets S.H.I.E.L.D. blended together with the Free Muslims Coalition and Muslims Against Terror. I intend to call this fictional super-spy organization the "M.P.K." for "Muslim Peacekeepers," and I think the story line would best be published as a graphic novel. I've never tried a graphic novel before, but I like the prospect of trying.

You see, Muslims could support something like this without fear of reprisal because it's a secret organization! Fuck, I'm a genius!

And here's my challenge to the peace-loving Muslims of the world: While I write about this organization in fiction, you should make it reality in fact - or at least enact something which makes a similar stand against terror. No, it doesn't have to be a super-spy organization with secret decoder rings and fancy exploding pens, but it does have to be making a stand - and a strong one. The way I see it, you have two choices if you want to live in Western democracies without hanging your head in shame. 1.) Fight terrorism with every fiber of your being, or 2.) leave Islam! Those are your only two choices. Because ever right-thinking Muslim prays the same prayer when some act of terror is first reported on the news. That prayer goes like this: "Oh, dear Allah, please let it not be a Muslim!" And I say that it's high time you did something about that prayer!

Hands that help are better than lips that pray, as Ingersoll once said. Ben Franklin once put it, "God helps those who help themselves." In other words, Allah says, "Answer your own damned prayer!"

Yes, conspiracy to commit terrorism should be punishable by the death penalty. France should probably bring back the guillotine and Germany should get over it's scruples regarding capital punishment. But otherwise, the only thing we can do is let Muslims stand against terrorism, or watch terrorism slowly destroy their religion forever. Why? Because Islam is radicalizing, and also growing somewhat, but it is also setting the stage for it's own destruction. Christianity did something similar before its current demise. It's coming, Muslims, unless you stop terrorism now.

People don't leave radical religions for any sort of outside threat. Believe me, I know, being a rare escapee from such, and knowing well the mentality. They only leave when their conscience is pricked, and that can only happen when we turn the other cheek, as Jesus is said to have recommended. It's not easy, but the best way to fight terrorism is to let the Muslims fight the physical fight, while we win the war of words, and defeat radical Islam (and Islam itself, I might add in my atheism-promoting moment) in the free marketplace of ideas.

In the meantime, go M.P.K.! I'm going to have so much fun writing this!


Eric

*

A Radical Proposal For Russia (And Reflections On Mom)

So, yesterday morning, my mother finally passed away from Alzheimer's disease - something no human being should ever have to endure. And consequently I find myself mulling things over, taking some time off from work, and reassessing a lot of things. Who wouldn't? And perhaps that's the sort of thing that causes me to write a blog post, not about my own mother, but about (oddly enough) foreign policy. Not that my mother doesn't deserve a write-up; believe me, she's going to get a big one, and not on something so deliberately tainted as this blog of mine. Rather, everything that she went through brings into focus how much I just plain see things differently than everybody else, and probably a lot clearer.

I could complain about how unintentionally condescending people have been, telling me to do this or that to help care for her - as if somehow she were somehow still there after her brain had gone. Or I could do a rant about how people actually dared to speak to me of spiritual matters in regards to her soul being at peace, as if somehow I didn't know far more about the subject than they do. Hell, I could decide to go off about how absurd it is for our culture to object to euthanasia in the face of such travesties as Alzheimer's. Certainly, were I to be diagnosed with the disease, I would join the Hemlock Society the very next day. Is the world really filled with that many imbeciles?

Then again, I really think I shouldn't be so cavalier. It's not like I don't suffer from my own delusions regarding what my mom went through. After all, I understood on an intellectual level that my mother's brain was gone long before her body was, and yet I scolded numerous hospital doctors for talking about her when she was right there in the room with us - people of science; people like me. They knew far better than I did how dementia worked, and yet I presumed to argue with them on their own turf! How arrogant of me! I understood perfectly well that science said she wasn't really there. But damn it all, that was my mother's face looking at me! I wanted to scream, "Couldn't we at least try to be polite and talk about her outside in the hallway?"

I guess I'm an imbecile too, sometimes.

No, I have my non-intellectual, emotionally driven moments, just like everybody else. So I'm not justified in going off on other people acting human in front of me. I therefore shrug it off when people say that they're "praying for me," telling me that mom's "happier now," or saying any of the other unintentionally insulting shit that goes along with learning someone has had a death in the family. They're not being stupid. They're just being human. Ultimately, I'm only human, too.

Which brings me, jarringly, to Russia.

Why? Well, the subject of Russia intervening in Syria has been something I've been pondering for quite some time. But when your mother dies and you take time off from work, one of the consequences is that you find yourself watching the first Democratic party presidential debate on CNN, and you see that nobody on the stage, not even Hillary Clinton, has as effective a plan for dealing with Russia's incursion into Syria.

And I do.

When my mom was first diagnosed with Alzheimer's, I moved back home, and the Obama economic recovery was being hampered by Republicans, and thus moving too slowly to have caught up with the accounting trade. Hence, I found myself living at home, in my parents' basement, turning 40, making very little money, and having very little prospects of pulling myself out of that hole anytime soon.

So I started writing. Honestly, what the hell else are you going to do in that situation?

And now, at my mother's death, I am again driven to catharsis, and find myself sharing the brilliant thoughts I had during the Dem-Debate. Hence, I'm sharing them. (Thanks again, mom.)

So why would Russia be so anxious to get involved in Syria? As is often the case, it comes down to money and resources. Syria is one of the few nations willing to trade with Russia in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine. While other nations are slapping sanctions on Putin, Syria is willing to provide much-needed oil - below market. Russia depends heavily upon oil exports because it is one of the few resources that gets around trade sanctions, and the Syrian oil fields would go a long way to sustaining the Russian economy. When trade sanctions are lifted on Iran, Russia will be able to compete for Iranian oil, but this additional resource will also flood the market, driving oil prices down. With lower oil prices, one of the only commodities left to Russia for export will become a lot less profitable.

So! Into Syria Putin goes! His goal? Well, he says there are only two options: The Assad regime, or ISIL. He sides with Assad, and is currently trying to rescue his rule from rebellious factions which seek to oust him.

But oddly, he isn't bombing ISIL targets just yet. Why? Well, he doesn't want an incident between Russian and American planes, to be sure. But also, ISIL sustains itself primarily from oil sold on the black market at a discount.

And Russia is undoubtedly a primary buyer!

So, what Putin really wants is the oil. He will eventually target ISIL. But he'll seize the oil wells before he targets the troops.

Our goals in the region are to oust the Saddam-Hussein-like Assad, and then encourage the region towards democracy while simultaneously eroding ISIL and driving it to extinction. Easier said than done. And the real problem is that Putin has a valid point. There really isn't a pro-democracy force with the military strength or political will to guide Syria to democracy.

Which is where my radical proposal comes in: How about we ask Putin to oust Assad and temporarily rule Syria while guiding it to democracy?

Yeah. I know. That's big. It's huge. It's a real gamble. And it just might fucking work!

But what can we offer in exchange? Why would Russia be willing to get even deeper into a military quagmire in a middle eastern country just for us?

My second proposal regarding that is even more radical: In exchange, we push for partitioning off a portion of Eastern Ukraine for autonomous rule. Possibly even a newly annexed Russian territory.

Am I seriously proposing the violation of the sovereignty of two nations in order to permanently end the conflicts in both? Yes! It's not fair to the people of Western Ukraine to lose another region in addition to what they've already lost in Crimea, and it's not fair to see Assad given a golden parachute to live out his days in the lap of luxury in Petrograd. But at a stroke, it achieves peace in two regions of the world while satisfying democratic freedom in both. I think that's worth it.

It might be a tough sell in the U.N., but I think the nations of the world would be willing to forgive another Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory if it meant building a new democracy in Syria. Trade sanctions on Russia could eventually be relieved, and the U.S. and Russia together could tag-team to defeat ISIL. (It would mean a new Republic of West Iraq, but that's a subject for another blog post.) Putin may be mad, but give him an opportunity to play the role of international hero, and he may very well jump at the chance.

Like a patient with Alzheimer's, we could let the whole thing fester until it dies horribly, or we could end the suffering quickly.

I argue for the latter - for reasons of regret as well as realization.


Eric

*