About Me

Name: Scott Keys
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Waaahhh!! It's cold here!!!

Posted by Scott Keys on Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:30:58 PM
It's always entertaining to listen and read local LA media hyperbolize about any deviation in the great weather we almost always have. Today's Daily News featured a picture of people in coats , scarves and hats waiting in the "cold" yesterday at a bus stop - in 50 degree temperatures!! "BRRRRRR" screamed a headline on the website as apochyphal phrases like "state of emergency," and "extreme peril" filled the story!!! As Dave Barry would say, I'm not making this up. Yeah, it got a little nippy last night, maybe as low as 31 degrees. If you're sleeping on the street that can be a problem, I understand, but the TV news loves to make a big deal of anything slightly unusual. In the best traditions of Chicken Little they always actually trumpet approaching winter rain storms (notice I didn't even say thunderstorms) with huge full screen banners warning, "STORM WATCH 2006!!!" (or whenever). Cue scary, Jaws-like music and...cut to commercial!! What a joke. Put on a fuzzy sweater and get over it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Weak

Posted by Scott Keys on Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:41:38 PM
Let's wrap up this chapter of dialogue with a few observations, Dave (you can read Dave's previous comments under the "Iraq, etc." post) :

You didn't even attempt to address the substance of most of what I said except for your two citations from Colin Powell, both pre-9/11. One of the speeches was almost 6 years ago! Information continues to come on on the WMD thing. Keep watching if you're truly interested in finding the truth. I changed my opinion about their existence once new info emerged. And since you made no attempt to refute them, I'll take it to mean you concede all the many other points I took the time to make. Thanks.

I didn't quite understand your story analogy about the girl who called in sick. Was it that I misunderstood you? Dave, I can only react to what you actually write. I'm not going to guess what you mean. If you say we shouldn't make regime changes in independent countries, I'm going to take you to task for exactly that opinion. Be as specific as possible, please. I'll do the same.

Do you mean to sound as bigoted toward Christians and Jews as you do in the section where you compare Moslems to adolescents because of the comparative age of Islam? And do you realize how condescending this attitude is to Moslems? They're like children? Dave, they had a dynamic, thriving, fully-flowered  civilization a thousand years ago. The question isn't why is Islam a child, it's what happened between 1000 and today? And please don't tell me the "West" screwed them up somehow. If you're interested in the reasons there are several good books on the subject.

>I guess, then, that it boils down to who gets to decide what's "outright imperialism and subjugation," and what threats really do, in fact, threaten the continuation of our way of life."

That's right, it does boil down to that and we get to decide for us, like every other country gets to decide for itself. We haven't conquered, occupied and subjugated anyone I can think of lately. I believe we make good decisions generally, (here comes standard disclaimer; I hate having to do these) NOT TO SAY WE'RE PERFECT. But I believe we are the good guys and our decisions have made the world a better place on the whole. You believe we're the good guys, don't you, Dave?

While I agree that often on many social issues it's hard to tell them apart (spending too much money comes to mind) when it comes to personal freedom and allowing me to keep more of what I make the Republicans are the party with which I have the most in common. Campus speech codes, limits on campaign spending, and smoking/food bans are examples of ideologies of the left. I guarantee the Democrats will try to raise your taxes as quickly as they can. The Republican Congress of the last few years lowered my taxes several times, so that's a significant difference. The War on Terror is the most important issue of our time and on this, the Republicans stance is more in line with my own.

>So, on another front, how about a Hillary, Obama ticket? Any chance in hell that #1 a woman could be elected president and #2 a black man could be elected president?

Yeah, I think the right woman and the right black man could both be elected. I would vote for any man or woman of any color who stood for the things I believe are right. Neither of these people inspire this confidence in me, to say the least. I think Colin Powell was probably electable in 2000and I always felt the Republicans missed a huge opportunity by not nominating Jeane Kirkpatrick for VP in 1988. If she's interested at some point, and right now she's not, Condoleezza Rice might be electable.Course, she's a Republican and doesn't qualify as a "real" woman or black to most liberals.

I'm only trying to reason through this stuff myself, Dave, but I try to get my info from a wide array of sources as possible. Maybe you do too but from what you write I don't get that sense. And calling me a parrot and that I'm "parroting" the party line is not an argument, by the way, nor even "sarcastic", I'm afraid. It's another ad hominem, or personal, attack. And I apologized for being sarcastic.

As to your comments on the food ads ban in the UK, OF COURSE I'm against it and why aren't you? that is if you enjoy thinking and making your own decisions? The stats don't lie and fat kids are obviously a problem but we shouldn't expect the government to step in and solve it by censoring TV. You're not in favor of censorship are you, Dave? I ate this stuff growing up and so did you and so did all my friends. The vast majority of us were not fat kids so maybe something else has changed. In any case the government's responsibility for "safety," as in national defense, is pretty clear cut and you can even make a case for disseminating info so people have the facts to help them make informed decisions but that's where you have to leave it in a free country! The logical outgrowth of this concern for Public Safety is government intrusion into every aspect of your life. First ban ads, then ban the foods themselves, then let's ban activities that are dangerous because, after all, we're paying for your health care so we get to decide how risky yo should be in your personal pursuits. If you can make a case for one of these you can make a case for all of them. And yes, I would allow tobacco advertising on TV. Why not? It's a legal product? I can decide whether I want to be an idiot and smoke or not (I don't smoke) and I'll be responsible, thank you very much, for educating my children on this stuff. Sorry but your opinions on these issues are what made me think you would be registered Dem. It's that side of the aisle that advocates intrusion into people's personal lives to a much greater extent.

All of this having been said, I very much appreciate the back and forth and hope it's not boring for anyone else who happens to be reading. Maybe it's serving a purpose as my manifesto. The Musician's Manifesto and Rancorous Rantings. Marx had Engels. I need a lackey. Someone to do most of the work (a la Engels/Marx) so I can sponge money from my family and take the lion's share of the credit. Thanks, everyone, for reading and contributing.






Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PBS Anti-Semitism show

Posted by Scott Keys on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:09:06 AM
Here's a news flash: Apparently when Arabs were treating Jews badly before the 1930's it was just "normal prejudice" accompanied by "oppression and persecution." Real anti-Semitism didn't arrive in the middle east until it was exported by the Nazis and other Europeans. The Arabs weren't anti-Semites - they just hated and killed the Jews! That was what was reported in PBS's "Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century" on Monday evening Jan. 8. I'm sure it must 've been a comfort to those who were oppressed, persecuted and killed from the 8th century on in the region to know that their murderers didn't hate them for being Jews - they just hated them period! DISCLAIMER: This isn't to say that anti-Semitism wasn't epidemic in Europe from the middle ages through the 19th century and despicable in all of its manifestations(including the repulsive "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"). But, as evidenced by a poll showing that just 5% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion(compared to over 95% in, I think it was, Lebanon), this kind of irrational hatred is long past in the West.
Also we got to hear pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel Middle East scholar Rashid Khalidi tell us that if only Israel would give the Palestinians somewhere to go there could be a peaceful settlement of this whole mess. Wow. I'll have some of what he's having.
The program was actually pretty even-handed, in my opinion, except for the laughable premise of the importing of the whole idea of anti-Semitism from Europe. But maybe I just don't know any better. Natan Sharansky was excellent as was Salameh Nematt and a couple of others interviewed. Very watchable - the hour went by quickly.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Iraq, et al

Posted by Scott Keys on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:42:28 PM
Finally have time and energy to reply to Dave. Here goes:
First, thanks for reading the blog and double thanks for posting the comments. It's exactly what I was hoping for. Secondly:

>Although it may be comforting to justify a mistake by saying, "everyone thought it was true," I just can't go with that idea. I believe there were plenty of people who thought there were no WMDs, both in this country and in Britain, but that wasn't the intelligence either Tony Blair's or W's administration wanted to hear.

me: If you know the name of someone in a position of authority who didn't believe he had them I'd like to hear a name, otherwise your "belief" is just that; your personal "belief."


>Once again, the only justification that I remember W giving for invading Iraq was WMDs.

me: Sorry that's all you can remember , Dave, but it doesn't make it true. Here's a quote from the President's radio address of 3/22/03:

                      "...And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end                            Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people..."


>I also appreciate that there may have been weapons there that were moved out, the "great deal of evidence" that you propose exists I also haven't seen.

me: Here's one place to go to see the docs that came to light last year. If you're unconvinced just do a search. I can't blame you much for not hearing about these. The news folks didn't give it much coverage.

>Two, three, four, seventeen wrongs just don't make a right.

me: We've addressed this and, I hope, cleared up the confusion about the "no WMD" argument on a couple of levels: as the only reason to go to war and, in light of emerging evidence, their apparent existence.

>I'm really very glad you promised to say it only once. That means I won't have to read it again.

me: Well, I didn't actually promise but, just to please you, I won't reiterate a point that, again, I think we've clarified?

>(P.S. the very fact that Ted Kennedy believes something to be true is justification enough to doubt it.)

me: And if Teddy were the only one claiming it I wouldn't disagree with your opinion of his believability.

>Your comparison of Japan, Germany and Italy in the forties to Iraq is puzzling and possibly a bit hasty. Iraq hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, nor had it declared war on us as those three nations had.

me: I didn't "compare" anything, that's your characterization. You said we shouldn't make regime changes in independent countries. No reference to being attacked or not. We did, in fact, cause a regime change in Japan, Germany and Italy so my example met your criteria. Did you want to be more specific for my edification?


>I still stand behind the idea that no matter how strong our country and overwhelming our military, we shouldn't be attempting to spread democracy at the point of a sword.

me: It would be great if rogue, aggressive states like Iraq could be persuaded to be nicer and let their people have a voice in their own governance and not, you know, torture and kill them and stuff. It never happens that way. Ever. Whether we should be doing it or not is certainly food for discussion and honest difference of opinion. Depending on the situation, and with the condition that is in our best national interest it is my opinion that the US should be able to do whatever it sees fit, barring outright imperialism and subjugation, to ensure the continuation of our way of life.


>Many criticize Moslems for having spread Islam at the point of a sword (something, BTW, that Christians have done quite a bit in the past as well), but then we think it's okay to spread democracy the same way. A little hypocracy, maybe?

me: You're right: Both Christians and Moslems are guilty of attempting to spread their religion through the use of force. The difference is, and it's crucial, is that Christians stopped doing it a long time ago. Moslems believe that it is their duty to God to make believers of all infidels (that's you and me, Dave), or help them on their way to the afterlife. We're attempting to help establish a democratic government in the aftermath of going in to eliminate a threat to our national security. That's not hypocritical in the least.

>...I really do believe that some of W's motivation for invading Iraq was to stop people criticizing his father.

me: There's that "believe" thing again. We believe differently I guess. But I believe the motivation for going in was as enumerated by the President and Congress when we attacked. It seems like enough reason to me without the psycho-babble about proving something to his father.

>I think I'm fully aware of what the first Gulf War was about.

me: I'll take your word for it.

>No one voted the US the protectors or the policemen of the rest of the world.

me: And thank goodness for that. It's bad enough we have the UN voting on stuff like this, telling countries(independent ones) what they should do. We always ought to do whatever we think is right for us as a nation, regardless of whether anyone else agrees. Hope that never changes.

>The interesting thing I have noticed about the war in Iraq is that we keep changing our reason(s) for being there. First it's WMDs. When that doesn't pan out, we talk about supporting Al-Qaeda. When that (apparently) doesn't pan out, we talk about oppression of minorities. When that suddenly looks bad (because some of our friends also oppress minorities - come to think of it, so do we), we start talking about invading neighbors, gassing people, and paying families of suicide bombers. So what WAS the real reason?

me: I think we've covered this. These reasons were all articulated before the war. We didn't change our reasons every other day, despite what you may remember as the sequence of events. But I am curious: who are the minorities that suffer government oppression here in the US?

>I mistakenly (apparently) thought this wesite was sponsored by former AG Ashcroft. There was a banner at the top of the page when I logged in that had his picture. My comment was of a more general nature, wondering if whomever "runs" this website would encourage the free speech of someone who doesn't agree with them. I'm fully aware of current administration officials.

me: Sorry for the assumption about your ignorance of admin. personnel. Have never seen a pic of Ashcroft on the site. The blog is sponsored by Townhall. com, a conservative site for sure but totally unmonitored and uncensored.

>The Republic Party in general, and W in particular, have made mistakes that have embroiled us in a really unfortunate situation in the Middle East. Almost no one over there any longer wants the "help" of the US in resolving conflicts and trying to bring some modicum of peace to the region. We are seen as arrogant imperialists at best and stupid screwups at worst.

me: Well I'll be the first to admit that if the only thing you read are major newspapers and the only thing you watch is the network news that's certainly the position you'd have. It may even be correct but it if you want to get an alternative viewpoint you might not be quite so sure that you're getting the whole story. Here is a blog by a guy named Bill Roggio who is actually on the ground in Iraq close to the troops, not sitting in a hotel or news bureau office somewhere. This blog is by an Iraqi living in Baghdad. These might at least convince to moderate your opinion of what's going on and how we are perceived over there.

>Although not a Democrat, I was heartened that the majority of the nation (a slim majority, to be sure) feels like business as usual with Republicans in power isn't working any longer.

me: Do you have a party affiliation? If you're not a Democrat you certainly have the talking points memorized. And exactly which part of the nation's "business as usual" isn't working? The 7.3 million jobs created in the last 3 years? The 4.5% unemployment? The robust economy? I think people voted on the war and it doesn't seem to be going well, I'll admit, but I'm not convinced that we should cut and run. I think it would a disaster for Iraq, the region and eventually for us.

>Slim, you seem to have a rather sarcastic edge to you. Here's something to remember: Those who can't logically argue against a position ridicule it.   

me: You're right, my response was too sarcastic and I apologize. Must have been something I ate. By the same token I think your inference that I didn't respond logically is mistaken. It's perfectly possible to ridicule while being logical and I think that's what I did. I didn't attack you personally, call you names or anything, even though I was a bit sarcastic. I strive to always be logical and persuasive without the ad hominems characteristic of the kind of discourse to which you refer.

Anyway, I look forward to your next comment. How did you happen upon the blog? Did someone I know call it to your attention? Sorry this was so long. Later...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's only multiculturalism!

Posted by Scott Keys on Friday, January 05, 2007 9:19:58 PM
Why all the navel-gazing and hand-wringing over the treatment of Saddam just before his execution? It was probably a manifestation of the Iraqi culture and we're not supposed to voice a negative opinion of what may very well be their traditional way to treat the condemned. Who are we to say that it was "wrong" to taunt him on the gallows? Maybe taking a cellphone video of it is just sort of a high school prank kind of thing. Happens all the time, ha ha, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Let's try not to be so judgemental in the future.
Seriously, I wouldn't have blamed the Iraqis if they had put him in an open ox cart and paraded him down the main thoroughfare in Baghdad, allowing people to spit and throw things at him. Maybe not our idea of the proper procedure but I thought were supposed to be relativistic when it came to value judgements of other cultures. I wouldn't have participated necessarily but, then again, I didn't lose a mother, father, or other close relatives to one of his torture squads. Not sure how I would've reacted in that case. Enough already; the guys dead and good riddance. Get over the entirely rational albeit slightly naughty behavior at the hanging. Sheesh.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Colbert @ the WH Correspondents Dinner

Posted by Scott Keys on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:37:01 AM
A little late - several months actually - but a reply to a relative who belatedly sent me comments about the guts it took for Colbert to get up and roast the President that night. Also how crucial the press is to our frredom. Sure, but
(I wrote):

I'm a Stephen Colbert fan and he was occasionally, moderately funny at the Correspondents Dinner, which is what I think you were talking about. But outside of a few remarks I didn't think he was funny and not because he wasn't "nice." It was just lame material, in my opinion. He got up and most people, me included) thought he bombed. It does take a certain amount of moxie to get up there and do that but, if you've ever seen any tape from this yearly function before, you know that getting up and making fun of the President is exactly what's expected by everyone there and what the dinner's all about. What really takes character is going to the dinner knowing what will take place then sitting there allowing yourself to be mercilessly pilloried by the people who get up to speak. And this combination of a willing, sitting duck victim - the president - and an insult comic - Colbert - is what makes it a great thing and makes me proud to be an American too. No question the press is a crucial element in a free society. The only criticism most people have with the MSM these days is its penchant for allowing its biases to insinuate themselves into the body of what the press claims is news reporting. If they're going to accept the responsibilty of protecting the republic (and believe me, they're not shy about taking credit for this modest job)we have the right to demand they're completely and utterly honest every minute of every hour of every day. I don't think we should we settle for any less.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

junk food ban in UK

Posted by Scott Keys on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:03:27 AM
This is unbelievable. Foods that can't be advertised in the UK on shows that kids might watch:

         Marmite, Flora Lite, half-fat cheddar cheese, Dairylea triangles, bran flakes, camembert, sugar-coated puffed wheat, instant hot oat cereal, Jaffa cakes, reduced calorie mayonnaise, multi-grain hoop cereal, half-fat creme fraiche, takeaway chicken nuggets, potato waffles, Greek yoghurt (sheep), ham, sausages, bacon rashers, low-fat spreads, peanuts, cashew nuts, pistachio nuts, peanut butter, raisins, sultanas, currants, low-fat potato crisps, olive oil, butter, pizza, hamburgers, tomato ketchup, chocolate, brown sauce, cola, lemonade.

                                                                                                                                                                    9:03 PM
   
    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

reply to Dave

Posted by Scott Keys on Monday, January 01, 2007 11:37:37 PM
A couple of quick thoughts to reply to Dave who took the time to post a couple of comments. Dave says:

         I supported the invasion of Iraq only because our president assured us that Saddaam had WMDs          pointed at the US. I believe a US president is not allowed to make a mistake like that.

me: Dave, Dave, Dave...I'll say it just once. Please try to assimilate it: EVERYBODY THOUGHT HE HAD THEM!!! EVERYBODY!!! GOT IT? THE UN, THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, GERMANY, SWEDEN, TED KENNEDY, EVERYBODY!!! And , in fact, there has been a great deal of evidence to show that chemical weapons existed, there was an ongoing nuclear weapons program, and WMD were probably moved out of the country. And he never said they were "pointed at THE US." And what is "not allowed to make a mistake" supposed to mean? It's nice you believe that. I believe I will be playing shortstop for the Detroit Tigers this year.
               
         ...I don't believe the US has the right to decide to make a regime change in an independent               country...

me: Then I guess you think we should have left Japan, Germany and Italy alone during the 1940's.

         ...regardless of whether one's father should have "finished the job" back in the Gulf War.

me: This is rather pitiful. Kind of a halfhearted ad hominem combined with an ill-informed concept of what the first Gulf War mission was about.
    

           If we're going to get into the regime change business because of oppression and bigotry, when            are we going to invade Saudi Arabia?

me: Probably when they start attacking their neighbors, gassing their minority populations and paying $10,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I think that might provoke us.

In a another posted comment Dave adds:

               Very interesting to see if Mr. Ashcroft will allow this type of free speach[sic] when it doesn't               jibe with his opinion   


me: (heavy sigh) Dave, you've gotta keep up with the news, bud. Ashcroft hasn't been Attorney General since November of 2004. Which type of free "speach" did Mr. Ashcroft inhibit while he was in office? Did you, personally, find that your ability to speak out on issues was a problem during the Ashcroft tenure? Do you have friends and relatives wasting away in prison due to crimes against the Ashcroft "speach" codes? Silly question, Dave.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

hello all

Posted by Scott Keys on Monday, January 01, 2007 3:04:30 PM
Just a note to those of you I just put on a notification list; this blog is just another way to keep in touch and maybe exchange some ideas. Even if we don't agree on everything I hope we can keep it convivial, lively and in the spirit of "men [and women] of goodwill can disagree.," that sort of thing. There'll also be posts about family and other doings. By all means feel free to ignore any or all of this. I hope to hear from you!

                                                                                                                                                                              12:04 PM
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

the AP has lost it

Posted by Scott Keys on Monday, January 01, 2007 2:38:47 PM
Here's a perfect example of how the MSM insidiously manipulates public opinion. On 12/28 the AP published an article covering an"embargoed interview" with President Ford headlined "Ford highly critical of Bush, Cheney and Iraq invasion." The clear implication of the headline was that Ford was opposed to the Iraq war in general and, in response, there sits a letter to the editor in today's LA Daily News wondering why we weren't told of Ford's "strong opposition to the war in Iraq." Whoa there, buddy!! Go back and you can read in the body of the original article that Ford was very specifically critical of basing the invasion on the presence of WMD, not of the decision to invade. People have a hard enough time understanding the pith of most of what they read and hear, in my opinion, without being delibarately misled by supposedly neutral news bureaus. Only the latest in a series of purposeful mislabelings. Can't trust the AP anymore either.

    
                                                                                                                                                                                   11:48 AM

Update: I don't think this is a partisan thing and ought to be viewed by everyone as a disturbing new feature of news reporting no matter what your opinion on the issue in question. We just want them to be honest, right?    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Happy New Year!!

Posted by Scott Keys on Monday, January 01, 2007 1:25:17 PM
Stayed up and kissed my wife several times as 2007 arrived. What a blessing to have a healthy family. Can't believe Dick Clark's still at it.  Fighting through the effects of the stroke must be difficult for him. Hope he hangs in there. He looked good. Better than most of us.
Random thought:
How come celebrities feel the need to look as unkempt as possible? All the younger ones on last night looked like drug addicts or bums. Sheesh. And how long before putting a brush or comb through you hair before you go in front of a camera makes a comeback? Why in my day...

                                                                                                                                                                                  10:24 AM

         
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I tell you what...

Posted by Scott Keys on Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:16:23 PM
Wow, a new blog! This is groung-breaking and unique. Me and 50,000,000 other under-informed people writing on the internet! Well, maybe we can have some fun, encourage some dialogue with family and friends and maybe...just maybe...oh, I don't know...CHANGE THE WORLD, MY FRIEND!!! OK, we'll start a little less ambitiously. Let's see what developes. Hope you'll visit us and come along for the ride.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »