Translate

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Will the US actually fight ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State?
An annoyed, sleep-deprived commentary on today's news.

Part 1) Introduction

Today is Wednesday, September 17, 2014.

When I woke up today and turned on Facebook, three news stories reached out and pushed my buttons regarding national defense and terrorism, and I couldn't help but repost them and rant about them a little.

Before I knew it, I was ranting about them a lot.

When I looked at the length of my final rant, I realized that there was no way that I could post that comment to Facebook, so I have turned here to my blog to do so.

If any of you have come here from Facebook, thank you very, very much! Please let me know who you are and what you think by leaving a comment below!

However, there may need to be a bit of an explanation to arrange the setting for this rant.

1) The rapid takeover of large parts of Syria and Iraq by a terrorist group called the Islamic State In Syria (ISIS)/the Islamic State In the Levant (ISIL)/or just the Islamic State, has gone on over the summer of 2014 with little resistance. They have brutally murdered whole towns full of people, including beheading Westerners and posting videos of those actions on YouTube, and The West has barely responded up to August of that same year.

Here is a copy of a very useful map that I believe came from a CBS News story posted to Facebook regarding the latest political moves from the group in September 2014:



2) There was some talk of the United Nations or the United States building a coalition to oppose the Islamic State, but so far nothing had come of it from The West as late as September of 2014.

3) The ISIL terrorists even threatened to kill the Pope when he stops in the Middle East on a planned visit later in September or October. This follows warnings from the Saudi government that ISIL could mount terrorist attacks in both the U.S. and the U.K. homelands within months if nothing is done soon. Heated words issued from both Western governments, but not much else. Then it was announced that U.S. naval air forces would target ISIL military units facing Kurdish troops and Iraqi army units in combat, and the first strikes began in September of 2014.

4) In September of 2014, U.S. President Obama made a series of speeches that included such gaffs as his saying that there is no plan to address the issue of the rise of the Islamic State terrorists; that there was a plan, but that they were discussing it with their allies and nations in the region and not ready to share it with the American people; and a Presidential address to the nation saying that there is a plan, but not saying what it is, and giving no specifics on it.

5) Amidst all of that I wake up cranky from a bad night's not-enough-rest, and this is the first thing that I see (followed by the link for the news story, and my comments on them):

Obama Stands Firm: U.S. Will Not Fight Another Ground War in Iraq
NBC News, September 17, 2014
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obama-stands-firm-u-s-will-not-fight-another-ground-n205321

'Here we go again. Let's fight a war by not fighting. Yeah, that'll work ....'

I followed that comment up with this one:

[Quoting from the video in that link] 'Obama: "We're going to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy." By being an air force for the Iraqi army, which has proven in the past that it will throw down its weapons, take off its uniforms, and run away instead of fight if given the chance. So we're going to do what American politicians do best, and talk them to death? Sheesh ....'

Joint Chiefs chairman won't rule out U.S. ground troops to fight Islamic State
BY CHARLES HOSKINSON | SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 | 1:36 PM
The Washington Examiner
http://washingtonexaminer.com/joint-chiefs-chairman-wont-rule-out-u.s.-ground-troops-to-fight-islamic-state/article/2553450

'Uh, huh ...'

Odierno Warns Airstrikes Aren't 'End-All Solution' in ISIS Battle
NBC News
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/odierno-warns-airstrikes-arent-end-all-solution-isis-battle-n205251

' ... right ... '

That was where I lost all control and went on a very long rant. Since I went to so much trouble to write it, I will now share it with you. Please comment below and tell me what you think!

--

Part 2) Rant ... er, Commentary

Okay, so I have a question:

History shows us that the only way that a war ends is when one side makes it so that the other side is either unwilling or unable to continue the fight. 

In the First Gulf War this basic principle of war did not happen to Iraq, and that ultimately led to the Second Gulf War. Now, it seems as if that did not happen against al-Qaeda in either Afghanistan or Iraq, either.

Therefore, the survival of al-Queda and the creation of its daughter organizations, such as ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and Boko Haram in Nigeria, are the result.

BTW, both of those organizations have now declared Islamic States in their parts of the world, and are egging The West to go to war with them. I have yet to hear anybody say exactly what the terrorist groups would get out of such a war, so I have to guess.

I assume that they believe that if they start a war with The West and somehow survive intact and win even a political stalemate, that they therefore will be free to form legitimate states on their own terms with no outside interference from anyone else. North Korea did it following the still unresolved 1950-1953 Korean War (have you watched M*A*S*H on the TV reruns lately?), so it is certainly not unprecedented.

From there, the next step is to eventually become a regional power like China or Iran, and have a global impact upon the direction in which all of human civilization will be headed. The goal being to move world opinion and behaviors either toward or away from the ideals of Western Civilization.

Think that can't happen? Look up the peoples known in American History books as the Pirates of Tripoly, or look up The Barbary Wars (in the late 18th and early 19th centuries). Remember the Marines' Hymn? 'To the shores of Tripoli.' Or if that is too serious for you, look up the book and the film 'The Mouse That Roared' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared). Same idea.

Now, I that know some might say, 'Well, airstrikes worked against Milosovic and his gang in Yugoslavia when President Clinton did it! His opponents said airstrikes alone wouldn't work, but they did!"

No, they didn't work alone. The United Nations had to put boots on the ground to make it happen, and the American air strikes were simply a part of the international coalition's efforts that supported that action. Yet it still took quite a long time to effect a change on the ground.

There were ugly genocides while the international community talked and talked and did not act. Where is the moral responsibility to all of the dead who would be alive today, and their families and communities who suffered in those genocides? What if The West had done what it had said that it was going to do, instead of talking and talking until they were forced to act even if the nations and the peoples of The West didn't want to really do anything in the first place, because of the seemingly unending and certainly undeserving deaths of all of those people. Even today the political ramifications of that war are not resolved, and that all began back in 1990!

Exactly where is the moral responsibility to lead the world into a peaceful and prosperous new era in that equation? What does that say about the moral authority (or to use the PC terms, 'credibility' or 'capital') of the 'Leaders of the Free World'? Whoever they are, now ..

So my question is this: Forget all the political talk, talk, talk. Are we fighting a war, or aren't we? Are we going to fight another war of words while waiting for someone else to take action, or merely hoping that we don't have to go in and do the work ourselves again? What will be lost that can never be regained in the mean time?

Keeping in mind what the consequences could be if we fail, or equally as bad, if nothing is done in time to prevent a catastrophe, what are we doing and how are we choosing to do it? Talking, with limited airstrikes to back that up with? Sounds like a couple of our top military commanders don't believe that will work ...

The terrorists don't seem to be fighting with words! So if you resort to saying that we can win a war with them by not fighting them directly, please explain how. Especially to the families of all the people they've killed, including American and British citizens.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Poverty, The American Dream, and Income Disparity in America

On Facebook I recently reposted this image, which started an interesting discussion:



The discussion went as follows:


  • Mary Beth I think everyone should be paid more...it is all crazy. It is so pathetic to even see how little the skilled workers get paid in San Diego
  • Steven Mason disagree. You raise minimum wage, everything from toilet paper to gasoline to milk will triple in price to accommodate businesses to pay workers.Those countries that that have high minimum wage all their goods are higher than ours.
  • Mary Beth Look at the price of gas...goes up all the time...effects prices of goods...now ask yourself what is fair. The middle class are being crushed by paying high taxes to compensate the folks who need gov\state help. The companies are making the money and they need to start spreading it around before people can't afford toilet paper 
  • Mary Beth I don't think min wage should go up everywhere in the U.S but it should be a law that major cities have to pay fair
  • Christopher N. Carroll I don't think that the working people are being taxed to pay for those on welfare is the problem so much as that those who accumulate the wealth of the nation don't get taxed at all! Even if they pay their taxes, and most don't, the tax rates on the wealthy are rediculously low. I looked up tax figures and economic growth patterns over the last 100 to 200 years recently for a project I'm working on, and the greatest period of grown this country ever saw was after world war II, more people became super-wealthy then than in any other period of the history of the world, and the tax rate on the wealthy was 97% You can't convince me that the cause of the problem is higher wages. Its taxes that are too high on those who can't afford it and too low on those who can afford it!
  • Steven Mason It's all the bureaucracy wasteful BS, thats taxes are being paid for. Give roads,a strong defense and medicare & social security and everything can just be thrown out.
  • Gene Arnold Every Congressionally mandated minimum wage increase in my memory has led to an inflationary spiral. I am leary of such things. And to put the discussion above in some context please find some recent numbers in US equivalent on a gallon of gas for: Denmark 7.93, France 8.52, Germany 8.09, and Australia 5.87. US average national price right now is showing at 3.45. My experience living abroad suggests other staple prices are also going to be higher. Artificial tinkering with the economy always has unintended consequences.
  • Christopher N. Carroll Good points, Gene! I think that one thing that we all forget is that it is one thing to talk about how things are compared to overseas, but a very different thing if we have actually lived there. Gene and Alicia have lived in several countries overseas recently, so I trust to their judgement a little more than to my own opinion when it comes to such things! Plus, centralized governments with a controlled economy have pretty much proven to be a disaster, and we don't really want to go that way, do we? Thanks for the heads-up, Gene! Now I've got to more carefully rethink my position on the issue. Hmmmmm .......
  • Christopher N. Carroll In reference to the comment that I made about tax rates in the Post-WWII Era: after what Gene commented, I must remind all that a lot of that more 'full-employment' we reminisce about when we think nostalgically about the past, esp. for those of us who didn't live in it, forgets one thing: Many people worked for below-poverty wages at the time. Am looking up wage info now, but a classic example is that referred to when people ask "Why aren't there Elevator Operators any more?" or "Whatever happened to those guys who would run out of service stations and work on your car for free when you pulled up for gas?" The reality is that those people got paid very little, far below what we would consider a minimum wage today. No one could survive on that sort of income now. The last bastion of such a stupid economic model in America is how servers in restaurants can make as little as $1.50 an hour, and have to survive on tips. Something stinks here ...
  • Christopher N. Carroll Another thought to consider: If you are against raising wages and your primary argument is that doing so will raise the costs of goods and services, and you are worried about the effects of that on the standard of living in this country and on the overall economy as a whole, as a corollary you also have to address how you feel about two other things: 

    1) By insisting on lower commercial prices for the goods and services that you want, you are in effect saying that you are willing to keep more of your fellow Americans in poverty in order to satisfy your own selfish desires to live inexpensively. How do you feel about that? And,

    2) The government in America now adopts some clearly Socialist concepts regarding subsidizing those Americans who live in poverty by taxing the working Americans (and not taxing the rich on their assets, or giving them loopholes to avoid taxation!), and giving some of the proceeds from those taxes to impoverished Americans as Welfare. What is you position on the Welfare State, and how does that jibe with your position vis-a-vis point number 1, above?

I wanted to continue that line of thought after reading several news stories about government figures regarding the poverty rate, but since I am so long-winded, I wrote something too big for Facebook to handle. So here it is:

My Two Cents Worth on Poverty, The American Dream, and Income Disparity in America
September 16, 2014

The figures showing a decline in the poverty rate in 2014 are misleading.

September economic numbers say that the poverty rate declined in America for the first time almost a decade. ('U.S. poverty rate drops for first time since 2006,' http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/news/economy/median-income-poverty-rate-down-census/index.html) The problem is that the poverty rate is still over 14%, and how can that be a good thing?

Plus, it is not the level of poverty at the lowest strata of society that defines the economic health of a society, but the economic growth rate of the majority of Americans that provides the engine of the economy with go-power. ('A Rare Drop in the U.S. Poverty Rate Doesn't Deliver Much Good News,' http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-16/u-dot-s-dot-poverty-rate-at-14-dot-5-percent-in-2013-drops-without-much-good-news)

The second story states that "[T]he total number of U.S. residents in poverty remained roughly unchanged last year, at 45.3 million." Exactly how is that a good thing?

The key paragraph of that story bears repeating:

'The data for 2013 portray persistent inequalities in U.S. poverty and income. [My emphasis. -Ed.] Median income for full-time, year-round, female workers was 78 percent of that earned by male counterparts. The poverty rates for Hispanic and black Americans (23.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively) were more than double that of non-Hispanic whites (9.6). “Over the last 40 years, since 1973, income at the 10th percentile was not statistically different, while income at the 90th percentile increased by 37 percent,” Census Division Chief Victoria Velkoff told reporters. The cutoff point for the 10th percentile in household income last year was $12,401; for the 90th percentile, it was $150,000.'

The biggest problem we have is that those living in poverty are stuck there, wages in general are continuing a decline that began in the 1970s, and the American Dream of upward mobility not just for the poor but for the working classes into the middle classes, and middle classes into something resembling the working rich, seems to be either dying or dead. This is reflected in the gap between rich and poor expanding to the benefit of the rich, instead of it being expanded by the inclusion of more Americans from lower economic classes, thereby also making room for economic classes below those an opportunity to climb the ladder, as well.

Just to run some more numbers, the last line of the first story states that 'The poverty threshold for two adults and two children in the U.S. is $23,624.'

$23,624 for two adults, assuming they are working 40 hours a week (which for minimum wage workers is unlikely), is a minimum wage of $5.68/hour. This means that if two adults living together each had a full-time job paying the the existing minimum wage, which is as of this writing $7.25/hour, they'd be making more than the poverty threshold, meaning that they would not quality for State or Federal welfare assistance. However, at minimum wage two adults even with full-time jobs can barely, or even cannot at all afford the cost of living in many places in America today,

A recent Pew poll suggested that as much as 56 percent of average American voters reported that their wages were not keeping up with the cost of living, while a majority of higher income Americans said that their income was either staying with or exceeding the cost of living (see Alaska Dispatch News story: 'States struggle to balance budgets as rich-poor gap widens." http://www.adn.com/article/20140915/income-inequality-states-struggle-balance-budgets-rich-poor-gap-widens).

This merely reinforces the data showing that the rich are getting richer, and everyone else are going nowhere.

Another example of the same comes from a Washington Post columnist (writing for the Deseret News): 'The roughed-up American,' http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865611018/The-roughed-up-American.html. He says that:

We have a peculiar prosperity. The economy is escaping the confines of the Great Recession; auto sales now exceed 16 million annually, the highest since 2006. But people don't feel reassured. They've lost confidence in the future. Americans feel roughed up by the economy, and their fears aren't fading quickly.

He goes on to say that the 'true middle-class squeeze' is that:

People's expectations about their living standards were set in the early 2000s, while their incomes and assets are stuck at levels 15 to 20 years earlier ... Having been roughed up, they face years of catch-up to get to where they once were. They feel poorer because they are poorer. They feel less secure because they are less secure. 

BTW, the author of this article has created some interesting charts showing the projected incomes and wealths of median and 'solid middle class' families, and he explains them quite clearly:

The left-hand column shows the income of the median family, the one exactly in the middle of all families. The second column shows the income of a group I call "the solid middle class." If the population is divided into fifths, they're the second fifth from the top: poorer than the richest 20 percent of Americans but richer than the other 60 percent. Though comfortable, they're not awash in money.

It is a short and insightful article, and well worth a read!

My two cents worth here are that:

1 Cent) Discussions and debate about such things as the minimum wage, or the poverty level, or levels of employment, or such politically-charged economic policies as 'trickle-down' economics or taxing the rich aren't ever going to solve anything. They, and other things like them, are simply symptoms of a much larger problem: that governments, even as large and powerful as the government of the United States of America, cannot get a handle on how to manage both the incomes and the wealth of their citizens.

That is to say, any government that cannot manage its tax codes, its paying for government expenses (including welfare programs), and its taking care of their citizenry - especially those living in poverty - is facing eventual ruin and collapse if they cannot manage the flow of both the incomes and the wealth of its citizens. This is because if the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer, and there are no economic classes in-between and no opportunity for there to be such classes in-between, and there is no opportunity for upward mobility from one class to the next, history tells us that that is a recipe for eventual economic collapse.

There is a point beyond which continuing growth only for the very wealthy is no longer sustainable (see Guardian news story 'Widening gap between US rich and poor is unsustainable, says study. Harvard study says situation unlikely to improve soon,' http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/widening-gap-us-rich-poor-unsustainable-pay-harvard-workers?CMP=fb_us). The problem is that if there is no mechanism below that economic class that is sustaining a society, if the power of the rich collapses there will be no infrastructure in place that will prevent that collapse from destroying a country's economy and eventually the country itself.

2 Cents) That raises a bigger problem of how does any government manage the incomes and wealth of rich people and corporations who can move their wealth around the world to avoid taxation? Even if some governments banded together and agreed to some sort of unifying taxation system, there will always be others outside that system that will provide safe havens for the rich for the benefit of those countries and the ruling parties of those countries, at everyone else's expense. Besides, history shows us that in cases where it has been tried (with highly centralized governments and closed economies), that has not only failed but such economies have been miserable disasters!

I myself am torn on the issue, and have been for years. On the one hand, I think that if you can strike it rich you ought to be able to enjoy the fruits of your labors and be able to pass the majority of your wealth on to your legitimate heirs without some busy-body outside force punishing you for success and taking your kids' inheritance away from them in abhorrent taxes. On the other hand, if there must be taxation to subsidize welfare programs for the needy (which undoubtedly is needed!), then it is foolish to overtax those who make an income and cannot afford higher tax rates, and undertax those who make fortunes and can afford higher tax rates!

What to do? I admit that I am not smart enough to know. I just wish that know-it-alls who run for public office would admit it when they don't know, and not be sell-outs to patrons with agendas that don't include supporting the societies that they depend upon to make their fortunes. It's the age-old problem, isn't it?

In the meantime, I guess that fixating on the symptoms of the problem aren't going to help. Just so long as we don't forget that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with, and let corrupt officials and selfish 1%-ers get away with ruling the world, and over all of the rest of us ....

---

I later added this to the story:

Here is more reinforcement of the argument that the problem is really one about our society not addressing the issue of poverty in the first place.

American paychecks fall to 1995 levels as poverty continues to sweep US, new census report shows
The Guardian > Money > US Money Blog
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/sep/16/us-census-bureau-stagnant-report-figures

My Two Cents' Worth:

1 Cent) Child poverty rates in America are comparable to that in India? Shameful!

2 Cents) The reaction to that by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation? Even more shameful!

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Two Cents Worth on
The Southern Poverty Law Center  

A person that I am very fond of reposted an article written by a social activist onto Facebook today, and predictably he got an argument started in the comments (that he ultimately had to put a stop to!) In his defense, and just to throw MHO into the mix, I wrote this reply, but because it is so long, good ol' Facebook will not let me post it. So here it is. enjoy!

Okay, I'm going to upset Keith again.

I hadn't heard of the Southern Poverty Law Center except in passing in the news, usually referred to in news stories regarding their legal activism regarding human and civil rights-related cases, so before I drew any conclusions and made a statement here, I felt it necessary to read the article that Keith reposted and to look up the Southern Poverty Law Center from as many different sources as possible.

This is what I found:

Almost all references to to the Southern Poverty Law Center are made alternatively by either far-left or far-right political activist organizations and their media proxies. The conventional media for the most part keeps their distance from the organization because of its questionable political positioning, much as they keep their distance from, say, Scientology, and for the same reason. Guilt by association leads to a general questioning of social authority when the source being referred to is a known extremist group.

The only source that offers a clearly and unchallenged positive perspective on the group is Wikipedia, and since anyone can write and edit a Wikipedia page at any time, we all know the validity of that source!

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-known advocate of protecting and defending human and civil rights in this country, and has successfully participated in several famous legal cases that have opposed corruption, abuse, and crimes against American citizens over the years.

As such, it has many important supporters and it  has made many powerful enemies. This is not a bad thing, as to succeed in legal matters you obviously have to oppose others and win over them, and they still have a right to hate you for it even if they lose the case. This simply proves that the organization has some merit or, being established by attorneys, knows how to play the game better than others, so to speak.

If that were all, everyone would be on the Southern Poverty Law Center's bandwagon. Unfortunately, that is not all. The group goes the extra step of being social and political activists for the causes that they support which, too, is not a bad thing. Everyone ought to support the causes that they believe in, of course.

However, it is how the Southern Poverty Law Center goes about supporting their causes that in turn causes the problems. They, being attorneys, are a quarrelsome and confrontational bunch. They prefer to get in your face and rub your face in the dirt, if for no other reason that that will discombobulate you, throw you off your guard, and make you easy pickings for their next oratory attack. How many of you took Speech in High School? Remember how they taught you the tactics of oratory? Winning is everything, how you win is just a tool to get there. Sure, that is somewhat questionable morally and ethically, but we're talking about winning legal and political arguments here, so anything goes, right?

Of course, that's why we all don't trust lawyers.

So, in that vein, the Southern Poverty Law Center prefers a strategy and tactics that in general moral and ethical terms puts them smack dab in the middle of the far left socialist extremist wing of the American Political spectrum. Or, in other words, arm-in-arm with individuals like Al Sharpton and groups like the ACLU. Again, not a bad thing if that is your thing, and such individuals and groups have done a lot of good things over the years. However, they have also done a lot of bad things, too. We're all human, aren't we?

The problem is that associating with such individuals and groups certainly paints you into their corner, so to speak. Of course, the same can be said regarding the other side of the spectrum if you join the NRA, or are an ardent fan of Fox News. Sometimes there is no accounting for taste, in either direction, eh?

And that is the point, ultimately: The Southern Poverty Law Center is clearly a liberal activist group and proud of it. More power to them, I say, if they can make it work. But then, I also say more power to the NRA for example, and I don't even own a gun. My point is that this is America, and as long as you aren't going around stringing people up from lampposts, you do have a right to express yourself. It says so right there in the Constitution (which everyone wants to fight over, too, BTW.)

Here is the nub of the issue, then, and probably where I will upset Keith the most. He always hates it when he says something that he thinks is very intelligent and clearly important, and you go and change the subject. I'm an Ogre, and I enjoy doing that to people just to get a rise out them. I just choose to do so when they clearly make a statement that exposes a slip in judgement, even if they are not the ones who made the slip but are just the ones who repeated it.

Sorry, Keith, I can't help myself. You have your pet peeves and I have mine. One of mine is that I hate to see a great guy like you get made a fool of by your blindly repeating propaganda spewed at you without stopping to think about it first, and maybe choosing to not repeat it at all. I know, we all do that; but you don't deserve to be made a tool like that, cos you really are an intelligent and caring guy. You just get passionate about the things that you believe in and other, more rotten people will take advantage of that. I hate to see that happen to you.

Sorry, pal; Love ya unconditionally, anyways. BTW, I think I mostly prefer it when you make such snap decisions and repost recipes about chocolate-based goodies, but again, that's just me.

My point is that here Keith has reposted something written by the Southern Poverty Law Center that is a pointed piece of propaganda, another small piece in their puzzle that they use to position themselves into the political fabric of legal and social forces of change in this country, that they use to convince other people to take up their point of view. Again, more power to 'em if they can make it work.

However, as such this cannot be taken as a reliable and unbiased source of information. Unless vetted, challenged, and showing opposing viewpoints, this is a one-sided argument and cannot be seen as anything but one side's point of view. As such, it is questionable both to promote this article as meaningful and to promote this article as an article of faith.

To protect yourself from barbs such as Randy is throwing, pal, you really need to preface such a reposting with a short comment about your position on such an issue before the link is put up. Otherwise, you are defenseless when someone with a heartfelt opposing point of view comes back at you, Keith.

You're smart enough to know that, but your passions lead you to act without thinking it through first. You've always been that way, that's one of the things that people love about you: you're smart and you're passionate, and you will go out and say what you feel. It's just that sometimes when you go and put your feelings out there on your sleeve they can get hurt, and I for one hate to see that happen to you.

So my two cents worth here are that:

1 Cent) Let's all be careful about what we post and how we post it, because doing reposting without a little review on the subject of the original post and its reasons for being posted in the first place can be a little reckless and dangerous, especially to each other, and we don't need to be hurting each other like that, and

2 Cents) Aligning ourselves with extremist groups on either the right or the left not only makes us targets for barbs that can hurt - which may not matter to you if you like that sort of attention or if you really think the position is worth fighting for - but, extremism itself is the biggest danger to a happy world, and we all know that.

There is a great quote that I'd like to repeat here but sadly I do not recall the name of the individual who stated it, or his exact words. Any fans of Ken Burns' Civil War documentary can probably quote it for you because that's where I saw it, and I hope that they speak up here and do so to share the information. But the quote is very important in this context, and I will paraphrase:

At the end of the documentary, a famous civil war historian and author made the striking comment that perhaps the greatest cause of the American Civil War was that people in America stopped talking to each other. They purposefully chose to defend extreme opposite points of view and would brook no other opinions.

Asked why this happened, the author said that one of the great strengths of America has always been that Americans have always found some sort of way to compromise. Not that that way was ever easy or without strife, but in the end Americans always found a way to get along.

It was only when Americans chose not to compromise that the country literally fell apart. That in the ultimate end is the downfall of any peoples: an unwillingness to see other points of view and make compromises, and that is the definition of extremism.

Want to see what the end result of that looks like? Look at the ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State and its behaviors today in Syria and Iraq. That is what uncompromising extremism looks like.

Who wants to see more of that at home?

I don't.

Please be careful when reposting items from one-sided points of view, people. That's a dangerous slope ....

P.S. Here are just a few examples of the articles that I found when I tried to do some research into the Southern Poverty Law Center. Clearly, there are no unbiased representations of that group to be found!

The article that Keith originally reposted, written by the Southern Poverty Law Center's founder and published on a politically left-wing blog: http://www.bemagazine.org/?p=9934

From The Daily Beast. 'Nuff said. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/13/agenda-21-the-un-conspiracy-that-just-won-t-die.html

Wikipedia's entry on the Southern Poverty Law Center:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

From a site that looks like a leftist blog but acts like a rightist blog: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/26/FBI-Dumps-Southern-Poverty-Law-Center

And from a clearly right-wing activist site that models itself on Wikipedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center