Clairol’s old ad asked the tantalizing question, “Does she, or doesn’t she?” posing the Earth-shaking question of whether some woman dyed her hair or not but subliminally asking all kinds of other questions about said woman and what she does and doesn’t do.

The title question, “Will she, or won’t she?” is similarly packed with innuendo but related to significantly more profound import, namely, Will Israel attack Iran before Iran   is nuclear-capable and missile-capable of reducing much of Israel to a glowing, molten puddle.

The stakes are incredibly high, not only for the State of Israel   but for the United States, the Mid East, Western Europe, and much of the rest of the globe.

Should Israel stage a pre-emptive assault on Ahmadinejad’s nuclear and nuclear- delivery facilities, it would face a severely adverse reaction from a world and a United Nations which historically haven’t wildly embraced either Jews or their homeland.  Should Israel not attack Iran and have one or more of its cities obliterated, its retaliation against Iran would surely be far worse than pre-emptive surgical strikes.

What to do?

To say the geopolitical situation is complex and grave would be gross oversimplification.  Israel has often shown it doesn’t conduct its foreign policy with a watchful, cautious eye toward international or American opinion even though the United States is its chief benefactor, arms supplier, and possibly its lone, reliable ally.  However, change is in the air and its new, feisty prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu seems well aware that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are no George Bush and Condi Rice. 

The Bush administration often demonstrated a total, unflinching commitment to the State of Israel.  Despite the support of the vast majority of American Jewish voters for Obama and despite the very powerful Jewish Lobby in this country, the Obama administration has been less than committed, and Bibi is well aware of that as well.

What to do?

Political considerations are never simple matters.  Even Julius Caesar, backed by the indomitable Roman army, had to placate, cajole, and intimidate when necessary the various factions in Rome as well as in the provinces.  Israel is no Rome and Netanyahu is no Caesar and his options are very few and very limited.

How would the United States react to such a strike?  Israel has acted unilaterally before when it staged successful raids on Libya and at Entebbe . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com/)

Macho, macho man!  What abs!  What pecs!  What a lot of BS! 

The Washingtonian’s May issue features a shot of our “hot” president on its cover, much like these      except that the magazine “caught him” with sunglasses looking even cooler and hotter.

Gimme a break! to quote the old sitcom.  Is this what we’ve become, a nation of “bobby soxers” and groupies drooling over a president of the United States as if he were some brainless, drug-addled rock star? 

Actually, that’s not too far from the truth.  Our chief executive, the commander in chief of our armed forces, ostensible leader of the Free World–until his last trip to Europe–campaigned as if he were Jimi Hendrix reincarnated so what else could we expect from a pin-up boy? 

AOL went further and, to better establish the contrast with Obama’s predecessors, provided America with comparative shots of presidents in relaxation mode: http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-washingtonian-cover/438057?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl5|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fmain%2Fobama-presidency%2Farticle%2Fobama-washingtonian-cover%2F438057.

I’m not sure of the purpose of displaying President Obama strutting along a beach somewhere in Hawaii, wearing shades or not, and proudly displaying his physique as contrasted with an aged President Reagan and a flabby President Clinton.  Anyone unaware that Barack was intentionally strutting his stuff in those photo ops must also be unaware that no unscreened papparazzi can just snap pics of a president-elect nor of the real thing even with a telephoto lens.  Those men in black with clip on ear pieces are paid to ensure that.

Our new president, (under 100 days he is still new, after 100 days he becomes older), is very much into image, his image for all too image-conscious American voters.  Just imagine if FDR had made the covers or Time or Look in his wheelchair or President Taft had posed in a bikini bottom, with or without a wax!  The manipulative Obamanians will have none of that!

Earth Day 2009!

For all those waiting in patient expectation, this year’s Earth Day celebrations will be held this Wednesday, April 22nd, at various locales on Earth.

(Nostalgia buffs may want to peruse last year’s reflections on this momentous annual event, “Earth Day 2008″ at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=78.)

This will be the 39th annual Earth Day. The 2009 and 2010 observances have been subtitled, “The Green Generation,” in recognition of the advent of spring, I foolishly assumed, but that was an incorrect assumption as it turns out. I guess the package deal is meant to reduce the Earth Day carbon footprint, or something.

Old farts may recall the original Earth Day in 1970 when its proponents were warning Earthlings to button up their overcoats, assuming that by now the then-imminent New Ice Age would have spread across the continent and enveloped everything from the Statue of Liberty to the fruited plain to the Golden Gate Bridge in one huge ice cube. We all know what assumptions and assuming can lead to.

We all make mistakes, no? The Earth Day people view critical mistakes as occasions to re-group, take a temperature reading, and re-define what they’re talking about since that can vary a great deal.

The Great Freeze Scam was thereafter supplanted in favor of the Global Warming Scam, merely coincidental with age-old, cyclical and natural solar activity, until the damned planet started cooling off again. Undismayed by reality, those who truly care about the Earth as opposed to the rest of us who don’t give a damn, switched gears and tactics and adopted a new buzz term, “climate change.” That, they figured, would cover them no matter what the Earth decided to do.

Put another way, any port in a storm, as long as an atmosphere of crisis could be maintained. Crises scared people and a sense of crisis in lieu of actual science was much more effective in instilling fear. More importantly, scared people would go along with just about anything, even absurdity.

Within the infinitesimally brief period of mere decades, the Earth Day gang had gone full circle. They initially were warning humankind that we were all gradually becoming encased in a global ice cube that would be so cold that human habitation thoughout the planet would be extinguished and we would all wish we were basking in the warm fires of Hell. It progressed to terrifying the planet that it would be bubbling over from an unbearable, unending heat. Lady Liberty and the Golden Gate could be on the verge of melting into, respectively, New York harbor and San Francisco Bay and America’s fruited plain would be like toasted oats. They finally settled on the fail-safe, mid-range buzz term of climate change which would cover their crisis-centered sorry asses no matter what.

I think the 2004 blockbuster movie, “The Day after Tomorrow” was the tipping point in the thinking of the Earth Day scaremongers. It had some great special effects but the preposterous premise that the hot horrors of global warming would, virtually overnight, lead to the frigid ferocity of global freezing tested their imaginations to such a degree that an alternative had to be found to preserve the minds of Al Gore and Company, and climate change was their savior.

Hope springs eternal with that whole crew, not hope for humanity as much as hope to accomplish the true goals of the movement which are wrapped up in U.N. schemes such as the Kyoto Protocol and re-distribution of the world’s wealth, a euphemism for stealing from Americans to give unto non-Americans.. . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com/)

In the interests of fairness and since I have recently been accused of being a “mother f****r,” a homophobe, a bigot, a hater, an ignoramus, a slanderer, and a closet homosexual, (See comments following “Day of Silence . . .” article, http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=931#comment-1840), I hereby offer even more space for a supplementary rebuttal from a representative of the gay community.

Copyright restrictions prohibit reprinting the entire rebuttal–which may be a poor choice of words for a homosexual’s commentary–but I will provide the link to “Homophobia Is Killing Our Youth,” published on Newsvine.com and written by “ladyblue999:” http://ladyblue999.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/18/2699852-homophobia-is-killing-our-youth.

Needless to say, I feel compelled to comment on the commentary by ladyblue999, to whom I shall refer as 999 for the sake of simplicity. First of all, for clarification, I believe 999’s title is a reference to gay youths, not young people in general, allegedly being killed by homophobia.

In the second sentence of her brief article, (assuming 999 is a “she,” something not always determinable among transgenders), 999 writes, “Amidst all this homophobic murder, . . .” Now, that’s confusing since one can’t distinguish whether 999 is referencing the “killing” in her title, which in itself is hyperbolic, or referring to actual murders of gays in our society. If the latter, then 999 is perpetuating a myth created by the LGBT Lobby that straights are roaming the landscape slaughtering homosexuals willy nilly, or even regularly.

Stuff happens, of course, and sometimes very evil “stuff” such as the murder of anyone for any reason, every instance of which should be condemned by all members of civilized society. However, if 999 is suggesting that instances of killing homosexuals by non-homosexuals even remotely approximates the reverse, i.e., gays murdering non-gays, she is a victim or a perpetrator of that manufactured fallacy.

Since this space was offered as an opportunity for 999 to speak out, I won’t belabor the point except to say that that fallacy goes back to the senseless murder in 1998 of Matthew Shepard by two degenerate cretins who, it has been proven, killed the Wyoming student not because he was gay but because they wanted to rob him. Gays, however, jumped on the case to advance their own causes even if their basic premise was flawed.

What, in the name of God, is going on with America’s Catholic universities?

Notre Dame alumni are putting the screws to their alma mater, hitting it where it hurts most: in the Irish endowment.

The purpose: Dumping university president, Rev. John Jenkins. The reason: Jenkins’ invitation to pro-abortionist President Barack Obama to speak at commencement on May 17th and Jenkins’ surrender of the values upon which Notre Dame was founded. The prospects of success: Nil, in either ousting Jenkins or in stopping their school from honoring a man who stands in opposition to virtually everything Notre Dame and the Catholic faith holds true and sacred.

(http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46823)

It would represent a further embarrassment to all concerned to revoke the Obama invite at this point and an equal embarrassment to force Jenkins to step down under duress. However, the school still has high hopes and anticipates President Obama will abide by tradition, even if the school has abandoned its traditional moral principles. A university spokesman indicated that, “Notre Dame expects Obama to Wear Prayer to Virgin Mary on His Chest When He Accepts Honorary Degree:” http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46844. That is the same traditional robe worn by such luminaries as George W. Bush and Martin Sheen and, as another spokesman added, “everyone” wears that robe when receiving such recognition by Notre Dame and so will Obama.

Don’t bet the farm on that expectation. Not that Obama isn’t into tradition but his traditions aren’t quite the same as Notre Dame’s. A White House spokesman when asked about the robe hemmed and hawed over an answer and sputtered, “I’ve looked around, but I don’t have an answer for you.”

We will get that answer in a little over a month at the graduation ceremony. I wonder how proud the new graduates and “Rudy” Ruetigger feel about the whole mess created for their beloved school by Father Jenkins.

That other prestigious, eastern United States Catholic university, Georgetown, had already succeeded in upstaging its sister Catholic school in South Bend by its shameful action when Obama spoke there recently. Georgetown deferred to Obama by covering the religiously-symbolic letters, “IHS,” which were never an issue for other speakers. For Obama, for some reason, the iconic symbol was “out of context.” GU subsequently offered the lame excuse that it required the space for flags. (See http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46784 and “Pusillanimity on Parade in Academia:” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=959.)

In what appears to be a never-ending competition for publicity, or for something far worse, Georgetown outdid itself during this year’s Lenten season

If I may digress for a brief bit, GU’s desecration of Lent brought to mind the priest and family friend who had officiated at our wedding 40 years ago. Twenty years later, Father Joe decided he had had it and left the priesthood. His winters of discontent were not rooted in his religion or the priesthood per se as much as it was discontent with the new priests entering that vocation. He expressed the reason for his giving up his vestments in a rhetorical question: “What other profession offers such a ripe field for homosexuals to pursue their homosexual inclinations?”

His point and the cause of Father Joe’s justifiable anger was the influx of gays into the priesthood, the results of which have become all too evident in contemporary headlines about predator priests and child molestation. As vocations by the truly priestly plummeted, the Church sought to fill the ranks by allowing entry into its seminaries not only to “non-practicing” homosexuals but to others of questionable character and morality, as long as they hadn’t been caught yet.

The results are also evident at Georgetown University. Jesuit GU bastardized the first week of Lent with “Sex Positive Week,” dedicated not exclusively to homosexuality but open to all “positivity.”

Pleae see “Sex, Morality, and the Decline of a Nation,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=958. That article discussed moral absolutes, gay views on those absolutes, and the general decline in America’s moral attitudes and behavior and what all that means for Western civilization.

This, obviously, is largely a subjective analysis and comments have clearly shown that there are differing opinions, mostly from the gay community. But that’s what makes for horse races and crap games.

As a disclaimer, I should concede that I am no moralist or social philosopher. I am commenting and reflecting simply on the basis of many years observing the social scene in America as well as on evident truths which too many of us refuse to confront.

Despite the gay reaction, this is not part of a campaign to single out homosexuals which, it has been alleged, was the purpose in numerous other articles here. Gays represent a prime example of America’s slipping into the cesspool of moral degradation and eventual oblivion but they are hardly the only examplars.

Cases in point:

AmericanThinker.com recently featured a piece entitled, “Moral Education for the New Order,” http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/moral_education_for_the_new_or.html, which primarily focused on on the ethical values of America’s young people. That article by Kyle-Anne Shiver cites various polls on the political, religious, and social views of our youth. All are intimately related and all indicate a downward spiralling of the quality of their lives and, as a consequence, of America’s future.

Cheating in school, lying to parents, stealing, plagiarizing, etc. all have two common denominators: Those most likely to cheat, lie, steal, and plagiarize tend toward the liberal and irreligious end of the political spectrum, and they have an outstanding sense of self esteem.

Liberal thinking leads to moral ambiguity and ambivalence at the same time it confers a false sense of self worth predicated on bad choices liberals make. Lie and cheat today, and get away with it, and it becomes an ego boost that’s carried into adulthood when the the liars and cheaters will continue those habits. No matter what they do, those youths–and their liberal elders, as seen in a related poll–believe they are “better than most people.”

As Shiver concludes, “Liberals tend to think of themselves as not only smarter than conservatives, but also as more honest, more charitable, more loving and more just in their relations with other human beings. . . [whereas] the exact opposite is actually true.” (See her article for a host of examples, details, and sources.)

To forestall misinterpretation, neither Ms. Shiver nor I suggests that conservatives are sacrosanct. Witness former Idaho Senator Larry Craig who, though never convicted, apparently tried to play footsie in a public men’s room with a non-footsie- playing law enforcement agent. Craig’s main challenge now is to convince his wife and kids that it was all a mistake.

Save These Dates!

With the holy season of Easter behind us, it’s time to mark these imminent dates and events on your calendars.

April 15:  Be sure your tax returns are postmarked by this date to insure Uncle Sam and Uncle David (in New York) don’t impose a stiff penalty for your audacity in submitting your federal and state tribute late to the state or the feds! Neither looks kindly on such procrastination. As Obama’s vetters for such positions as Secretary of the Treasury know full well, our Democratic leaders are permitted to procrastinate and even ignore the tax mandates with which we groundlings must abide but watch your butt if YOU follow suit! That is, unless you are apt to consciously, or sub-consciously, tend to chant, “Change!” In that case you still have to pay through the nose but you should be content with the change left in your pocket after you pay your dues.

April 15:  Yep, this requires some multitasking expertise since you must first cough up to the feds and maybe to your state the cash they need to administer social programs from which you derive no benefit and to reward simple servants whose hearing defects limit their ability to answer phones. Nevertheless, cast aside your tax-anger on Wednesday and get thee to a Tea Party, whether you prefer to indulge in a nice cup’a tea, a nice cup’a coffee, or a few slugs of high test Coke to get you moving in the morning. “Tea Parties” are being held throughout the nation on April 15 to protest the efforts of Obama and his tax cheats to impose on us, our children, and our grandchildren the burden of paying for their profligacy. For background on America’s first tea party, click here:  http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=949.  For local tea times, consult your local rebels and remember to BYOT, Bring Your Own Tea.

April 17:  This is another day that may soon live in infamy, if we allow it. America’s resident gay blades and their fellow travellers are intent on conducting a widespread Day of Silence in Massachusetts and other public schools on April 17th. The plan is that straight, normal, heterosexual kids will keep their mouths shut, so they cannot object, and their ears wide open, so that they will be receptive to the “gay” message. That message has two components, one, that straight kids accept them as normal and, two, that confused straight kids sign up for more information on the glories of homosexual life. See “Day of Silence–Day of Seduction,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=931 and call or picket your school to register your objections.

If I had a choice among not paying my taxes by April 15th or not attending a tax rebellion on that date or not protesting that effort to seduce our kids on April 17th, I’d skip my taxes, pay the penalties, skip the tea party and protest the Day Of Silence. That day and its many ramifications could affect America, and our kids, far more grievously than unfair and outrageous taxes.
(http://genelalor.com/)

It began April 24th, 1915 and continued until 1917. When it was over, a million and a half Armenians were gone, dead, murdered by Turkish forces for one simple, sick reason: They were Armenians and Christians. Approximately fifty percent of a people were all but exterminated because the Ottoman Turks wanted to purify their land by ridding it of those they considered Christian “vermin.”

To this day, Turkey is an Armenian-genocide-denier, comparable to Jewish Holocaust-deniers but absent the stigma assigned to those who refuse to concede that the atrocities committed by Hitler’s Nazis actually occurred. Almost worse, and despite voluminous evidence to the contrary, America and the rest of the world seem to have accepted the official prevarications of the Turkish government that the Armenian genocide either never happened or was the consequence of a civil war.

The extensive documentation of the atrocity committed by Turks against the Armenians, the continuing Turkish denial, and the fact that the Armenian genocide of almost a century ago was a prototype for subsequent genocidal events, all were subjects of a 2005 Danish conference: http://www.diis.dk/sw11640.asp

Apparently, President Obama’s advisors failed to provide him with a briefing on those events prior to his recent visit to Turkey where he never deigned to raise the issue, never asked, never demanded, that the Turks finally admit their horrendous history. That disgraceful, politically-correct omission was motivated by Turkey’s strategic importance, its predominantly Muslim population which Obama dared not offend, and a craven lack of moral will to exert pressure on a nominal ally.

If those who are blissfully ignorant of the past are destined to repeat it, American presidents who intentionally disregard history’s atrocities are destined to encourage more of the same.

Adolph Hitler knew very well what the Turks had done twenty years earlier, and gotten away with. He adopted as his templates many of their rationales and actions to effect his Great Solution for the “Jewish problem.”

To Hitler, the Jews also were vermin and he too wanted to cleanse the Motherland, as well as the rest of the planet, of all traces of their influence and presence through his infamous policy of “Judenrein.” Based on world inaction and lack of reaction to how Turkey handled their “Armenian problem,” he seems to have believed that no one would give much of a damn.