Barry Farber Fan

Deja Vu

2007-08-22T18:33:00.000-04:00

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/13/83050.shtml

It's hard it improve upon perfection, so I'm not even going to attempt it outside of this suggestion.

The drive-by media is really not doing an adequate job.

The Importance of Vetting

2007-08-03T21:21:00.000-04:00

Obama Suggests Reckless Talks
Barry Farber

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/31/150453.shtml

We've all seen them. We've all worked with them. We've all been one at some point too - and some of us have been one more than a couple of times. Some of us help them, others laugh quietly, some of us are friendly, while others are aloof. Sometimes they do well, sometimes great, but sometimes they don't fit in and they go on and repeat the process somewhere else.

Being the new guy isn't easy. There's a learning curve on every job - you encounter more failures than success when you start out. You have to learn the language and pace of a job. The language can be industry specific or simply the cadence. And the pace is the rhythm of the work. We've all witnessed newbies, bursting with enthusiasm and ideas, all too willing to rip the establishment because they see systems that are cumbersome or (in their eyes) don't function effectively. Generally some company veteran pulls the young upstart aside and tells them not to rock the boat so hard that it gets swamped. Contained, tempered, or measured enthusiasm is the ideal.

We deal with this everyday in the business world. Management changes, they bring in 'their team' - people they've worked with before or went to college with - and they systematically get rid of those members of the previous administration that don't ascribe to the new vision or direction of management. The new team thinks they know how to do things better or more efficiently because it worked at their last company or supposedly worked for some other company.

The trouble with this is that businesses lose oodles of knowledge when employees leave. A lot of these people were also new once - they tried their ideas, some failed, some succeeded, but they learned - and they know more than their job description, pay grade, or age belies.

This is why the whole apprentice system was invented in work - you learn the procedures and short cuts from an expert in that profession. And most of us, in lieu of apprenticeship, started out in positions much lower than a CEO or editor-in-chief. It's the same thing with school too when you think about it. We aren't born knowing things like sciences, mathematics, literature, or sports, all of these have to be learned.

We even have to learn how to socialize. There are rights and wrongs in every culture. From the proper etiquette, to proper language appropriate to our surroundings, to couture...all of it has to be learned or else there is too much social discord or disruption.

Disruption - social disruption - is the precursor to change in many historical instances. Now, I'm a believer that some change is good, and challenges to the social norms are needed from time to time - either to test the merit of social law, or to ferret out those that seek to destroy the whole for personal benefit. But wholesale anarchy? Never, unless you're ruled by a dictator or tyrant.

So, when is it okay to rock the boat? Logic and compassion dictate that it should be when the fewest amount of people would be harmed, and most would find benefit. Say, the change from long skirts to shorter skirts, or from horses to cars, or from cars to mass transit. Granting women the right to vote, overnight delivery to fax, and fax to internet...things like these are all 'good' change.

And this brings us to Barack Obama. His degrees from two prestigious universities indicate he's smart, but I've known 4.0 students that needed maps to get home, so the degrees - while impressive - don't matter. We know he's a charismatic speaker and has an innate ability to charm an audience that candidates in both parties would die for. I'm sure he's a nice guy to hang out with, and heck, I'm certain a majority of the people in this country would prefer to go to a BBQ at his place versus all the other current candidates. It seems like he's a great family man, and clearly takes his faith seriously, unlike some of the religious posers out there on the stump.

But that being said, we're not hiring a guy to be class president or leader of a social welcoming committee. We're in the process of hiring a President. It is fitting that the process leading up to employment takes as long as four years, and that the personality examination covers a candidates entire lifetime. Candidates have to go through this long, drawn out political vetting to prove they are the best choice for the job. The media scrutiny, the lack of sleep, the personal sacrifice, and the constant crush of humanity are a mere shadow of a precursor to the daily realities of the office. If a candidate develops cracks during this phase, he or she gets passed over, like Howard Dean and his primary implosion of 2004.

Being the leader of a nation - any nation - is perhaps the toughest job in a country. Being the leader of the United States is that much harder because of our global reputation as a leading democracy founded on a culturally rich and diverse immigrant base. We are a beacon of what can be when cultural and social divisions are willing set aside for the greater good. Thus, the leader of our nation has to be a person that has a precisely balanced sense of right and wrong, has an empathy for humanity, has the ability to see beyond tomorrows headlines, has the innate ability to see multiple angles of problems and solutions, has the fortitude to handle criticism with dignity and admit errors when appropriate, and has the ability to make decisions based on facts - not political or party agenda. It is not surprising that very few citizens of our great nation care to take up the challenge. The white hot spotlight of the world is permanently focused on the office. It's like that MTV show 'The REAL World', only the cameras are on for 1461 days straight, or 2922 days if you are good enough to get invited back.

Back to the boat rocking - Obama's recent international policy 'faux pas' are indicative of someone who fails to understand that the establishment he wishes to disrupt.

He's the new guy - we get that.

He wants to shake things up - we get that.

But his reckless statements (talks with Cuba, nuke option off the table, and let's invade Pakistan) show how politically naive this junior Senator really is. And, he has a degree in political science with a concentration in international relations! Say what you will about Hillary, she looks like a beacon of international light next to his dim policy ideas. Obama will impress the impressionable, but he leaves those of us with an understanding of global relations feeling very, very cold inside. The 'what if he were president' is almost to horrific to imagine given his current skill set and charisma.

Obama needs to invest more time is being a Senator, and perhaps he should join a few committees to get a better understanding of Washington and the global importance of the office of President. He needs to be an apprentice first; he is verbally reckless which is not a leadership quality. Only time on the job can give him the proper skill set to take the next step. He may not recognize his own deficiency, instead relying on his multicultural background to give him the illusion of a mental leg up in international politics. He parentage does not give him any super ability to understand cultures - his experience is his own - not his father's or his mother's. It would be like me having an inborn understanding of Germany because of my father, who is a naturalized citizen, was born there. I've never been to Germany or speak the language.

Mr. Farber is being polite when he uses the word reckless.

I see something more dangerous than the power crazed and ethically bereft Clinton's, the hypocritical 'poor man' Edwards, and that sufferer of chronic mental and verbal diarrhea, Howard Dean.

Here is someone with no grasp of the enormity of the position he seeks. Frivolous words haphazardly tossed out have the potential to incite our enemies and alienate our allies. Our media and foreign media can twist those words around to their benefit. The media sells papers and advertising in times of strife, so always keep in mind their financial objectives! Obama seems clueless about this, sort of like the new guy making political blunders - shaking hands with a snarly, anti-social CEO. Or being friends with two sworn office enemies, or showing up a superior to impress someone higher on the food chain, or not knowing enough to replace the empty water cooler bottle.

Yes, Mr. Farber, Barack Obama is reckless. But I would also call him clueless.

Perspective

2007-07-24T21:00:00.000-04:00

CNN's Iraq Story Backfires

Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/19/102035.shtml

I was cruising around the TV and actually caught a portion of this CNN piece. I can only speak to what I saw.

I agree with Mr. Farber that CNN completely missed the message. Here were supposedly 'average' Iraqi's complaining about how it isn't safe and what a lousy job the troops were doing.

From all the cuts, it looked as though they were heavily edited. I guess we should expect this from CNN. I'd like to see the unedited , raw footage...and hear the questions. What do you think the chances of that are? Truthfully, we have a better chance of Putin renouncing the recent anti-West tact he's been on. I'm sure that footage is buried in a vault or had an unfortunate encounter with V8. Do you think CNN asked leading questions? And do you think it was translated correctly? I think we can make an assumption that CNN carefully selected who they spoke to and what they broadcast.

What ended up being shown was exactly as Mr. Farber described - Iraqi's complaining about the lack of security. What in the world was CNN trying to get across to their audience? I really think they hoped we would be left with a lingering feeling of anti-troop feeling of disgust.

Now I'll freely admit that I didn't like the Iraqi's cavalier attitude about our soldiers. They were basically saying 'send more' while failing to appreciate the soldiers' and our collective sacrifice. Maybe this was the deeper message - disgust with the Iraqi's - that CNN wanted. It does seem to be in line with the leftists in government and those Iraqi benchmarks they're always screaming about.

Like it or not, any 'benchmarks' set are going to fail. Iraq is a socially complex region. Divisions go back eons, and these social fractures can not be set and healed in the space of 5 or 15 years. Iraq needs at least a generation and a half, maybe 30 to 40 years, and a few politcal equivalents of George Washington and Abe Lincoln, to set their foundation, and then a hundred years of 'nip / tucks' to hide to political scars. Our short term politicians are looking for a quick fix to use as a bullet point on their resumes!

Take a quick look at the United States after we declared independence - do you think things were perfect here? It took decades to get the states to think as a country. Sure, we now see ourselves as Americans, but dig a hair deeper and people take a certain pride in their State. Even now, we still have divisions that conjure up specific emotions - North, South, West Coast, East Coast, rural, urban, mountain, and coastal. And these are just regions! The social geography is more emotional - racial, ethnic, and religious differences have almost torn us apart at times.

Asking the Iraqi's to pull it together quickly after years of a brutal dictatorship, with their religious divisions, is utterly ridiculous. Imagine having to create a country, complete with national pride, while you're dodging car bombs! Put in this context, I can almost understand the 'average' Iraqi's frustration with security. The average guy on the street is only thinking of three things - his family, his ability to transact business, his safety. His idea of 'country' is probably defined by his religion - excluding or limiting the power of those who don't ascribe to the same beliefs. It's only natural - his religion is the largest group he recognizes. He isn't going to fully grasp what it is we're sacrificing, but he certainly knows things could be a whole lot worse if we were not there. He can't begin to fathom our feelings about this war and why we fight with such passion until he feels a similar passion for his country.

I find that Mr. Farber's mention of John Reed particularly poignant. Perhaps only ardent socialists and those of us vehemently opposed to socialism know who Reed was. For Joe Average, Reed was probably a paragraph in a Social Studies textbook years ago. For those unfortunate enough to experience our post-secondary education systems of late, they may have been required to read 'Insurgent Mexico' or 'Ten Days that Shook the World.' Reed is, according to Wikipedia, portrayed as an American Journalist. Perhaps it is fitting that he is embraced by the left and held aloft as a hero of his craft. Here was a man who was born into wealth and affluence, studied at the best schools, and lived a life of privilege - that is, he didn't have to labor at job to put food on the table. It is interesting to note that John Reed was a rabid supporter of labor, and encouraged this group to radicalize on a global scale. He crossed the line between reporting and involvement...he became part of the story versus merely reporting it. So much for objective observer! This hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left, but in Reed's case - he actually went out and truly participated in causes in Mexico, the U.S., and Russia. He was a mixture of elitist and reporter. He should be called a journalist and agitator. He was one of the first, modern, limousine liberals - or, if you prefer, country club communist, or high society socialist. Anyway you put is, this man was actively involved with swaying public opinion to his way of thinking, which caused huge social strife in his era, and who's lingering effect is felt to this day. That he is romanticized by those on the left should come as no surprise. He was pure propaganda. Perhaps his final years were an example of divine justice.

So where does this leave us with CNN attempt at an anti-Iraqi, anti-troop piece?

If you answered 'laughing at CNN', ding-ding-ding. 'What a bunch of maroons' as Bugs Bunny would say. They sought to push us one way, but ended up proving the opposite.

Regrettably, there are people out in TV land who will take CNN at face value and see this piece as reinforcing their particular viewpoint. I guess the drive-by media has a drive-by viewer. If you want a news analogy - it's McDonald's vs a home cooked meal. Do you like your news quick, simple and off a pre-written menu, or do you prefer nutritious, hearty, and a foundation for prolonged conversations?

In closing, I think I'll offer a solution to the concerned Iraqi's.

The number one task at hand is security. More allied and Iraqi troops will handle this.

How then can we create national pride - the type of national pride that transcends race, religion, ethnicity? How can we bring all the good people of Iraq together? How can we develop a deep pride that shows itself on the world stage, exponentially growing as it achieves success? How do we foster something that is uniquely Iraq, and not the United States?

One word. One solution.

Soccer.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070729193532.3lhy0gi0&show_article=1

Trust, but Verify

2007-07-08T10:47:00.000-04:00

Mr. Farber's recent column, Derailing Terrorists, offers a very good solution to a very real problem.

Trust is a necessary element for any group.

A company trusts it's employees not to sell or tell company secrets.

A counseling group promises not to talk about individuals outside of their group discussions.

A football team trusts that members won't give their playbook to the competition.

A defendant trusts his lawyer not to tell others that he or she actually committed the crime they are charged with.

A stockbroker can not act, or tell others to act, on insider information.

A policeman trusts that his partner will back him up in a shoot out.

A fireman trusts that his buddies will be there to pull him back if he gets into an impossible situation.

A consumer trusts that a vendor is selling a quality product at a fair price.

A driver or airplane pilot trusts that others on the road or in the air are sober and sane.

All around us, trust is necessary for society to function. Without some modicum of trust, we would still be living in caves or isolated homesteads - killing outsiders or those encroaching on our land.

Trust is the foundation of all human societies and behavior.

Trust is what elevated us from small groups of 10-30, to large specialized groups of millions.

If you want a long dissertation on how societies formed, leave a comment...and I'll write it - this is what I know best.

The ability to trust others is what defines us a civilized people. Even within the most primitive groups - say those living in the highland of Papua New Guinea - trust those within their own group. They don't trust anyone else, but then, they don't know other groups other than their neighbors...and their neighbors are the most likely to kill them, hence the limited trust of all outsiders.

All groups, therefore, are capable of trust. Humans made a great leap forward - and out of the animal realm - when we learned to trust other enough to divide labor. What do I mean by that? Men did hunting, women handled the bulk of child rearing, farmers did farming, traders traded, doctors healed, weavers wove, entertainers entertained, builders built, etc. These people were not tied to cultivating crops or raising livestock unless they were specifically farmers. And farmers weren't out healing the sick or entertaining or building pyramids or cities because they were tending to their fields and flocks. Dividing labor involves a higher level of trust - you trust others to do what you can not do.

Side note: if you look at Neanderthal skeletons, you would see that males and females have the same types of bone breaks, fractures, and muscle structure. The Neanderthals did not have a division of labor - women were equals to men. Modern humans, on the other hand, practiced a division of labor. What happened with these two strategies? Because women joined men in hunts - they probably experienced lower birth rates due to injury and life loss of the mother (primary food source) than modern humans.

This specialization has lead us (collective 'humans') to a higher level of understanding of the world around us. Freed from the tedious chore of supplying food for our bodies, we have been granted the opportunity to utilize our brains in ways our fellow living creatures have not been able to. Think of all the art, poetry, music, religion, and written works created by mankind! Think of science and the path of understanding we have begun to traipse down!

All of this is achieved because we have learned to trust others. Despite all the just and horrible wars, the killings and the bombings...we still trust. We still desire and crave trust. We want to believe and we do believe in the beauty of a trusting and open society. Perhaps it is uniquely American to feel this way, but if that is true, I would be deeply saddened.

And so, we come to the thrust of Mr. Farber's article. Do we trust a group in our midst? I would rather not repeat the 1940's decision to inter Americans of Asian decent, although I can understand the reasoning given the cultural climate and challenges of the times. If we accept Executive Order 9066 as a worst case scenario, I see Mr. Farber's version of an, as he phrases it, "internal White Letter" as a reasonable solution. If the American Muslim community adopts this policy now and self-police themselves, they can avoid the dark side of human nature from rearing its ugly head in America.

What will transpire in the next 20 years will probably determine whether or not this nation - under God, of the people, by the people - will perish from this earth. (credit to A.L.) I like to think of Americans as above the cultural fray, but in truth, we are not.

My favorite president, Ronald Reagan, had a motto, 'Trust, but verify.'

Now is the time for verification before we tumble into the depths of human nature.

Doppler Shift

2007-04-28T22:32:00.000-04:00

There has been a blue freight train approaching for many years. And a few weeks ago, it passed us in a whoosh, leaving us in it's red wake.

Twenty-three years ago I was a member of student government at a small college in Upstate NY. Outside of enjoying marginal power when it came to funding, I really didn't do much except to make sure paperwork was in order for the various activities for clubs. Most funding decisions were made during regular business hours, and larger distributions were always discussed and decided at large, full board or full council, meetings.

At this particular college there were two main Spring events - Spring Weekend and Black Spring Weekend. Both had festivities and celebrations - music, fun, and activities. Due to the increasing number of clubs and sports asking for funds, the monies for these two spring traditions were becoming less and less. There was a big push by the white members of the executive council to lump all the funds into a huge, well funded, multi-cultural weekend, where everyone had a least some representation. It would have been great - rap was at it's infant stage and very fresh, rock was coming back, and disco was on the decline.

Enter blue shift.

Not surprisingly, the black student leaders were utterly threatened by this suggestion, claiming it was (I'm paraphrasing it) akin to the evil white machine taking away their traditions and it was grounds for taking matters into their own hands. In a move that shocked me, the black leaders called a secret meeting, inviting only those people necessary to get a quorum. I happened to hear about a meeting...and as a staff member, I always attended. When I walked into the room, I was one of two white faces in the room. I didn't feel uncomfortable in that, but I was utterly sick to me stomach when I realized what was going on. Under the watchful gaze of the faculty advisor (the other white person) the meeting was rapidly called to order, and in a matter of minutes, funding was allocated and approved - with seemingly no discussion.

I was floored - here was politicking and backroom dealing at its worst. I had never witnessed people being so greedy and have utter disregard for doing things above board. I got harsh looks when I tried to protest, and I seem to recall being told that this is how it's always done and how it has to be done. I was hushed up because I dared to speak, and I recall one female member took great delight in dressing me down - practically calling me a racist for daring to oppose the motion. I prided myself on honesty, truth, and true equality. Yet here were people saying no, we want to be separate and have our own celebrations with no ties to anyone else. They wanted equal funding to Spring Weekend, even though the black population on campus was only 25%. What could have been a great event - two groups coming together, true unity - was turned into the something ugly. Very ugly.

The senior ranking member of the executive council - whose girlfriend had ripped me to shreds - pulled me aside within minutes of the meeting being adjourned. He said he knew I wasn't a racist and that his girlfriend was out of line. She just didn't know me, and had a thing against white people. But, he further explained, this is how black people have to gain power in order to achieve equality.

And just like that, I experienced red shift.

Equality.

Power.

Two very interesting social constructs.

What is equality? What is power? It depends on where you are standing.

If you're angry others for injustices (real or imagined) - you gain power to dictate equality.

If you're honest - you use your talents to gain financial equality and get social power.

If you're honest - equality means giving people a fair shot, not because of their skin color but because of their character and quality.

When Imus said his remark - one he has said before, mind you - Sharpton and Jackson brought the full force of their power to bear on his employers and sponsors. MSNBC and CBS, perhaps looking for a way to unload Imus, immediately ditched him. There wasn't even a pretense of standing up to Sharpton...they just caved. Or as Imus would put it - folded like a cheap camera. Imus has probably had some sort of protest coming for years - mostly from women. How he has escaped being noticed is no secret - who watches or listens? Okay - name any women you know who do. Very few, right?

What could have been a springboard to a great racial discussion ended in a power flex, and an all too predictable outcome.

So, who has the power? That's obvious.

How are they using it? I haven't seen much in the way of discussion outside of what Sean Hannity is doing with Sharpton.

Like it or not, we're living in red shift until this whole racial thing balances out.

How are we going to change this? Raise your children to celebrate and respect difference, and above all - celebrate with others.

What does this mean for society at large, and stepping back into Mr. Farber's column, this means the mob rules.

And that, my friends, is a frightening concept.

Farber on WABC

2007-04-28T21:38:00.000-04:00

Note to all: Barry Farber will be on WABC Sunday, April 29th at 7PM filling in for Brian Whitman.

Campus Safety Net

2007-04-28T15:04:00.000-04:00

After more than a year of not writing, it's time again to pick up the laptop and start blogging away. I'll start from the latest Barry Farber column and work my way back.

Campus Safety.

Like Mr. Farber, I agree that there are some relatively simple, low tech ways to get the word out to instructors and students on university campuses. Even with a minimal security force, campus and local police can be deployed in groups of two or four to buildings and conduct sweeps. Loud speakers on police vehicles, megaphones, alarm systems, or simply runners...there were several ways last weeks tragedy could have been minimized after the first two deaths in the residence hall.

But I want to go beyond his argument and look at two underlying problems I see in this case.

First, directly after the two slayings in the residence hall, the investigators thought they were dealing with a murder / suicide. Unless I'm mistaken, there is usually a weapon close by the alleged murderer's body. In the absence of this, it is probably best to err on the side of caution and assume that a killer is on the loose. I realize at the time that the police were given some erroneous information about the person or persons involved with the first shooting. Regardless, at this moment SOMEONE should have suggested locking down the residence halls - all of them, not just the one where the murders took place. In theory, this could have been done by 8:15 AM...the residence director of AJ calls the RD's of neighboring dorms, and they, in turn , inform their staff and other dorms. Residence Life is trained to handle these crisis's. They can't get the job unless they've gone though rigorous vetting and show an aptitude for handling those social outliers.

Lock down phase #1 done. The academic buildings are another matter, and this could have been done with the suggestions listed above.

This brings me to my other problem with this horrific incident. And that is, where was the Resident Assistant / Adviser on Cho's floor? RA's are the first line of defense, and offense - as witnessed in the death of Ryan Clark. RA's are responsible for knowing the people on their floors, dealing with social and personality issues, as well as maintaining some sort of parental-like watch over their residents. You'd have to be blind not to notice that this guy was odd, and it's the sort of thing that would come up at a weekly, or monthly staff meeting IF everyone was doing their job correctly. If Cho's dorm would have gone into lock down, there is a chance that the staff in his dorm might have been able to alter the outcome of the day - but it probably would have come at the expense of their lives. Cho was bent on killing, and it was just a matter of how many.

Safety Net

My daughter is an RA at a large, metropolitan college. She has a student on her floor that she has expressed concern about in the past, far before Virginia Tech. She noticed that this person had no friends, which is very odd on her campus. She did the everything she's been trained to do - spoken in depth, one on one with this person, shared meals, suggested counseling, and has watched to see if this person has developed friendships throughout the year. When VT happened, this person is the first one she thought of, and she made sure to check up during the next few days. She reports that all is fine.

My sister-in-law is a middle school, creative writing teacher. A couple of months ago, one of her students wrote a graphic, violence filled story and submitted it to the student publication she directs. She told me that this story went beyond anything she ever read before, and the violence was directed at the child's authority figures and spoke of harm inflicted upon the child. The very next day, she marched into her superiors office and announced 'We have a problem.' Within short order, the child was interviewed, and placed in a facility that could better deal with his social and personality problems.

Our safety nets are often those who are outside the judicial and law enforcement realms. They are regular people - our extended family, our neighbors, our friends, our bosses, our co-workers, our teachers, and on and on. They are people who raise their hands and say, 'whoa' regardless of the consequences.

If more people had said 'whoa' in the last 100 years, how many lives would have been spared?

Alec Baldwin on WABC

2006-03-27T14:13:00.000-05:00

Occasionally other news gets my attention. This is one such event.

One recent Sunday evening, Alec Baldwin was guest hosting with Brian Whitman on WABC Radio in New York. Part way during the program, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin called in and confronted Baldwin with prior statements he had made against our current president and vice-president. The exchange has been widely reported on right wing blogsites, with both transcript and audio. After listening to the complete audio a few times, and getting a good feel for how the ENTIRE exchange went down, I wanted to see who accurately reported the news. I bloggled (kind of like 'googled' but using the Blogspot website) 'Alec Baldwin' and found several websites talking about the heated exchange - most of them were in support of Hannity and Levin. The one liberal one that I found, http://frankwarner.typepad.com , had portions of the exchange but they were not in sequential order. The author of the blog had taken the liberty to rearrange the dialog to suit his agenda. Surprised? I guess the answer depends on whether or not you find yourself on the left or on the right.

Note to those who find themselves on the left side of politics - always, always, ALWAYS go to the source!! Do not settle for someone telling you the news, or giving you snippets of the news. Those of us on the right listen to the entire broadcast, and prefer to listen to it live. The moment something goes in for editing - whether right or left - we, the people, lose out. The left often charges those of us on the right as being manipulated, but after years of watching the news (CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, C-SPAN, ABC, FOX) , listening to the news (1010WINS, WABC, WCBS, NPR, Air America) , and reading the news (Newsday, The New York Times, USA Today) I can honestly report that those stations and print media outlets leaning to the left do NOT give the public a full and accurate picture of the world.

And another thing to note, not all of us on the right hate those of you on the left. I read your websites, your blogsites, I watch your TV programs, and listen to your talk radio. I have a fairly good idea of how vitriolic the hate is for those on the right...and you are WAY off base. The hate isn't justified. The pied pipers of the leftist media have you guys totally twisted. I really, truly feel sorry for those people on the left because when confronted with an opposing view, all the left can do is spit out the hate they have been filled with. Do people on the right spit out hate? Yes...some of them do. Some people on the right say some horrible things about people on the left. I don't condone this. A jab here or there, that is okay and within everyone's tolerance level. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves, or see ourselves from the other side of the aisle. However, debate is best when it is done with facts...not cutting insults, or someone else's warmed over ideas. People who resort to name calling should not be involved in a debate. People who lump all people on the left or all people on the right together are missing something. That something can be summed up as follows. In this great and wonderful country, we need both sides - we both keep each other in check.

This left / right balance works internally, but once we step outside our borders - we have to have a unified message. There are far greater dangers in the international world, and our internal struggles should not become fodder for those that would destroy us.

What is the world truly like? In the movie, Independence Day (Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum), there is a very telling scene. The alien that Will Smith's character brings back to Area 51 has killed Dr. Odem and is using Odem's voice to communicate with the president.

[Paraphrasing]

President: I know we can live in peace. There is much we can learn from one another.
Alien: Peace? No peace.
President: What is it that you want us to do?
Alien: Die. Die!

The alien then does a bit of mind control on the president, and the president sees the entire plan of the aliens laid bare before him. The alien continues with the mind control, trying to kill the president through thought waves.

Head of security: Is this glass bulletproof?
Lt. Mitchell: No, sir!

Lt. Mitchell and others with guns shoot through the glass and kill the alien as the president speaks of how the aliens are like locusts moving from planet to planet, destroying world to support their race.

Who's who?

President: Left
Lt. Mitchell: Right
Alien: Enemies that would destroy our country just because we exist.

Now, those of you on the left will think that the alien represents the US government...surprised that I guessed that? Don't be - I know how your handlers think and what they have taught you to think.

From the time of WWI onward, the policy of the U.S. gov't. is to liberate countries and return them to the people of those said countries when the region is once again stable. The aliens of the movie are only interested in full scale destruction.

The leftist president wants peace. Hey, left-wingers - we ALL want peace...but the right seems to be the only side concerned with the terms. When a peace does not include peaceful coexistence, it is NOT peace.

So, to wrap this up for all of you - always get down to the source of the news...when people repeat mantra's (whether left or right) they sound empty headed. Always think through your arguments for yourself...be original.

The Gift of Self-Effacing Laughter

2006-03-23T09:22:00.000-05:00

Somewhere in our past, the great people of the U.S. learned how to laugh at themselves. Maybe it was because we hail from different corners of the globe, or maybe it is because our forefathers didn't like their place in their native countries...but whatever it is, we learned that humor is a good way to diffuse tension. I make fun of you, you make fun of me...that way, we hurt and laugh in equal portions. Humor has a way of cutting through the P.C. B.S. and striking at the heart of our issues with 'others'; other races, other religions, other nationalities, other political ideologies. If you dish it out, you have to have the good sportsmanship to take it back.

'Others' often threaten us. Why? Because we are forced to define and defend who we are. This isn't a recent problem...this goes all the way back to the dawn of time. Whether it is groups of people, groups of animals, or even groups of planets...it is important to define who and what we are, and where our territories and boundaries are.

There is a world of difference between a conservative in NYC and one in TX, just as there is between a liberal in Utah and one in California. It isn't easy standing out in a crowd, and it isn't easy taking the opposite viewpoint when you are hopelessly outnumbered. But somehow, people manage to do it every day. In Yiddish, it's called 'Chutzpah,' in American English it's called 'balls.' Is there any Imam or Muslim out there with this sort of moxie? Is there a Islamic comedian who can pull a William Shakespeare and show us that the pen is mightier than the sword? Is there a Jerry Seinfeld living in Iraq or Egypt? Is there a Second City TV group in Jordan? Even an inter-religion Brady Bunch would help, as it could switch between serious and comic sides of family life. The point is - we have all got to learn to get along because I don't see any major cultural group disappearing any time soon.

Remember the rule...you highlight my shortcomings, I highlight yours...we both hurt equally, we both laugh equally...and eventually, we're a bit more tolerant and respectful of other peoples differences. This process stings sometimes, but it is far less destructive than blowing people up, or inciting mob violence on an innocent people. And who knows, in time, we may be able to call each other 'friend.' The best banquets have a little bit for everyone, and no one goes away hungry!

C.S. Lewis's series 'The Chronicles of Narnia' had a poignant moment in the 7th book, The Last Battle. In it, a soldier who had faithfully worshipped the god Tash found himself in the perfect Narnia. He was confused because the god Tash he was praying to was not the deity who he found in this perfect world. Instead, his loyal faith and good generous nature was claimed by Aslan - who represents purity and goodness. Aslan explained that devotion, purity, generosity, and belief in one's faith puts everyone on the same path to the same heaven...we are, for a lack of better terminology, spiritual cousins regardless of our relgious practices.

Back in the 70's, shows like All in the Family, S.N.L., and Chico and the Man ruled the television. Here, people came face to face with 'others,' faced their fears, and found out - 'Hey, they're not much different from me.' Shows like 'Good Times' and 'Welcome Back Kotter' gave those of us in the 'burbs an idea of urban living, while 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie' gave a taste of rural living. Were any of the depictions fully accurate? Probably not. But the point is, we all learned something about people who lived differently.

It is human nature to be threatened by other ideas or lifestyles. Why? Because each of us have established our own pattern for survival, and each of us thinks that we have it all figured out. Anyone who lives differently, with different ideals, threatens the stability of society, or so we believe. Within cultures that are threatened by change - the 'others' take on a sinister persona, and not surprisingly, violence erupts. In cultures, such as ours, where cultural diversity is an inherent part of our society, the 'others' are merely someone to peacefully protest against or verbally abuse through various media...rarely does it resort to physical violence. We can not turn our backs on thousands of years of social evolution...we are genetically hard wired to quickly determine between good and bad, between friend and foe, between right and wrong. This is the most basic survival skill taught to us by our parents (avoid strangers, don't cross the street when a car is coming, eat healthy food not candy.) Fearing, even loathing 'others' is something we have to learn to control...it doesn't come naturally because it is closely linked to our inate desire to survive. Merely saying 'you're my new best friend because I love everybody' isn't what I'm writing about....this stuff is tough, difficult, and painful to overcome - and if you aren't hurting, you are not doing it right. Your concept of who YOU are has to be examined and redefined many, many times...much like a Buddhist working towards enlightenment.

We have to step outside of ourselves occasionally and view the world as a large, squabbling human family. Will we always get along? No. Will we always agree? No. If we all did what a boring world it would be! But there are some basic truths about our human family.

1) Parents want their children to succeed.
2) Parents want their children to love them, respect them, and seek their advice.
3) Parents want their children to be individuals, but not so individual that they can't brag about them with their neighbors.
4) Parents want their children to adhere to the faith (or non-faith) they were raised with.
5) Some people are greedy.
6) Some people are generous.
7) Some people are cold.
8) Some people are warm.
9) Some people get off on manipulating others.
10) Some people are easily manipulated.
11) Some people blame others for their misfortune.
12) Some people realize that they alone control their destiny.
13) Everyone has the capacity to love and bond with someone else, or some object.
14) 99.9999% of us think that we are good, kind, generous, and right 99.9999% of the time.
15) Each minute of life is a precious gift, ask anyone who is on their death bed.
16) Every single person in this world is part of what I call 'The Tapestry of Life.' (I'll define it further in a forthcoming blog.)
17) All of us mourn for those that die too young.
18) All of us were born.
19) All of us will eventually face death.
20) All of us feel safer when we belong to a group.
21) Socially, nothing is more enjoyable than a good belly laugh with friends.

Whether it is South Park or Seinfeld, or real life experiences, we've learned that humor strengthens our bond to 'others.' We use humor within our groups and between related groups. The next step is to take it to groups that have little in common accept the list above. ;)

It will be a painful process, with swift advances and hasty retreats. It will take a multitude of voices. It will take chutzpah. It will take vision. It will take a great love for humanity and the future of humanity. It will start when someone out there realizes that the world isn't getting any larger, and we are all stuck on this earth together, whether we like it or not.

Is the world ready for global humor?

It will take a very long time, maybe thousands of years, before vastly different cultures become close friends...but just think about how many belly laughs we will have along the way!

Here is Barry Farber's original column -

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/7/141154.shtml

Which Barry Farber?

2006-03-23T09:02:00.000-05:00

For clarification purposes, this is a blogsite for discussing issues raised by Barry Farber the radio personality and conservative columnist, as well as a forum for to discuss international politics.

This is not a site to discuss folding pens or motivational speaking.

All views on these topics are welcomed.

Just One Voice

2006-03-22T14:20:00.000-05:00

A number of years ago, Barry Manilow had a great song titled 'One Voice.' I forget all the lyrics, but by the end of the song it was a chorus of Barry's singing the song.

That's what I'm looking for right now.....a few people who care about this country, who truly love it and realize that it is unique in the history of humanity. We are very fortunate to be born into a society that allows individuals to change their social status. It doesn't matter who you are here - it you have an idea, the drive, the ambition, and are willing to work hard at achieving your dreams - you will be successful. No one gives you a leg up...you have to make your own luck.

Earlier today, an old friend sent me one of those chain letter emails that promised luck to you, but only if you sent it out to 20 people. While I'm happy there isn't any postage involved in email, I refuse to clog up my friends email boxes with this sort of trash. You don't get lucky by forwarding useless megapixels - you get luck by touching peoples souls, letting them know they are special, and they count for something in the huge world. We are all connected to each other, every last one of us. We can reach out to the world and let them know that the United States is comprised of people from all over the earth, who generally get along with one another. Are we perfect as a society? No, but we are always looking to improve and right the wrongs.

We all seem to be born with a dire need to make the world like us - both in the affinitive sense and the duplicate sense. In reality, the majority of the world doesn't want our input. They have a 'do NOT forward that good luck chain letter to me' attitude, and who can blame them. We're the new country on the block; we're the upstart. We're the nouveau riche invading the socially stratified country club, threatening to upset world order with our ideas of equality - it's no wonder that we are ostracized in the U.N. We're dangerous to those people whose power is derived from subjugating the masses.

The left unfairly criticizes our country because they want to appear intelligent and in with the international set, but in reality - the international set is only interested in protecting their position at the top of the social heap in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere.

I don't doubt that people on the left and right care about the poor of the world, but we've got to make sure our international efforts and dollars go towards increasing opportunities for the poor - education, clean water, jobs, stable family units, and giving them a voice in their communities. This isn't going to happen when people are stuck in an artificial class system.

Every year the U.S. hands out billions in aid to countries. If we are truly interested in making the world a better place, we have to spend those dollars wisely. We have to be aware of cultures, people, and their relationships to their environments. In Africa, we have people living in conditions only a camel would like, but these people survive because they have adapted to the environment. Coming in with foodstuffs and creating artificial villages surrounding distribution centers is NOT the answer. Stopping the nomadic way of life kills the nomads! The answer lies in breeding disease resistant camels and livestock, pest control, and minimal irrigation for areas hit hardest by drought. Well meaning humanitarians shouldn't apply Western bandages to a problem - we should look for a solution WITH IN the culture of those in need. These intelligent, and beautiful native people achieved a balance with nature eons ago - we have to listen to the voices of their forefathers! They have an abundance of native wisdom that we have yet to tap!

And, more in line with Barry Farber's recent column, the U.S. has to examine where our foreign aid dollars are going. Our role has got to change - we no longer have the excuse of the Soviets and the Red Scare. Communism rots a country from the inside out, as does fascism, totalitarianism, and dictatorships. These institutions are inflexible, rigid, and bound to fail with time because leaders of these types of societies are consumed with greed AND not easily replaced. It's time for countries to take an interest in protecting themselves, which they can do far better than us. If those that would destroy democracy and freedom are hidden in a country, who better than nationals to ferret them out! We should offer logistical support, but let others control the tactical elements.

If we carefully target areas that we can improve through technology and cultural awareness (our inherent national strengths), we can save millions of dollars...appear less like the nouveau riche...improve the world...and reduce our tax burden.

Your opinion counts...and you probably have part of the answer. We don't have to necessarily agree on all issues - but a keen interest in reducing foreign aid to countries that should be handling costs internally is imperative.

Who out there in blogland is looking to make a bit of luck and change the world for the better?

Check out Barry's latest column and feel free to comment.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/19/191743.shtml

Farber Fan Site

2006-03-22T13:49:00.000-05:00

This blogsite is dedicated to discussion of Barry Farber's take on world history and politics. Additionally, I'm looking for people who want to take an active role in reducing unnecessary foreign aid and hopefully, reducing our tax burden.

It is time to get our international spending under control and reduce government waste.

Who's with me????