Hello! You are in my Political Bath-House,
or Sauna if you prefer. It's sweaty here...
(Updated on November 6, 2005. See a new note at the bottom of this page and next pages...)
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
Since I have reasons to believe that Plato can't feel insulted by my intrusion into his domain, I allow myself to emphasize once more his words "good men" and "evil men" a good cause for such an underscoring being that the History unambiguously teaches that the evil men are usually incomparably more dynamic, energetic, aggressive, and offensive. If it would be otherwise, Plato would have had no chance to make such an observation. And we also wouldn't be witnesses of neither Communism nor Nazism.

My life in the former USSR was accompanied with a rancorous rushing sound the Soviet government has been constantly, non-stop, effusing about America: America is a Consumer Society; American Imperialism falls into decay; Americans are poor; Americans are oppressing African Americans and the laboring class; Americans are anti-Communists (sic! they pretended they believed that the nation must treat it as a condemnable feature, and they didn't imagine how many even intellectual - or pretending to be such - Americans are in fact right opposite). The only exception was made for those Americans who cursed the USA and worked for the USSR, like Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, Paul Robeson, Angela Davis, Gus Hall, and, in particular, such often translated and published in the USSR liberal authors as Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, and alike: this species was attributed to the best friends of Soviet Communists. Of course, the word "McCarthyism" played a role of a bugaboo for both kids and adults: how dare McCarthy persecute Rosenbergs! Of course, the cover page of the popular Politico-Satirical Magazine "Crocodile" was every single week bedecked with Uncle Sam crooking bloody hairy arms. In full concordance with Lenin's mantra "Of all arts, for us Bolsheviks, Movie is the main weapon", Americans in the Soviet Cinema production looked even more stupid than Russians in the "Bondiana". Khrushchev, Master of tap-dancing on the UN rostrum, who - due to his pre-Bolsheviks Elementary parish school education - was at odds with logic, introduced a new tune in this sounds cloud: "Catch up and surpass America!". Wits who perfectly knew how difficult is to buy anything in empty Soviet stores, immediately added: "and then we will run ahead of America with naked asses".

So, as many of us so-called Soviet citizens, I was imbued with a fondness for the whole American kit and caboodle but...in a Democratic embodiment. In other words, the only achievement of Soviet propaganda was the fact that significant part of urban population liked America and American Democrats "in absentia". When my fate raised a question "Where to go?", America was my obvious choice. Democratic Party was my obvious preference.

End of 1994. AMERICA!!! And almost right away - a knock-down. A killer goes free, a highly professional detective who uttered a common word for a fictional play a year before the trial, is near to getting a death penalty. Well, of course, I exaggerate. A little. But still, I am stunned, I am shocked. I was taught "the American minorities are oppressed", the Whites being brazen merciless exploiters. And here...All white jurors are convinced the defendant is guilty of murder of the two; all non-whites are of opposite opinion. The defendant goes free, but soon a Civil Court acknowledges his guilt. The boat is gone, though, and I am in my first knockdown. In my former country, if somebody said me a word I might feel as insulting one, say, "you sheeny mug", what I do? Squeal and slander? If I am a man with guts, I dip the head of my offender into a toilet bowl and flush (which I did several times). Communists didn't have the Affirmative Action for Jews. Neither for anybody else besides themselves. But freeing killers? One had to be in a very high governmental position to go free...if any court trial at all. But wait...Mark Bernes, a popular singer whose name was later assigned to an asteroid, had hit by his car a pedestrian with no consequences, I mean, no consequences for Mark: the pedestrian peacefully moved to the other world. Yeah, almost the same case... if not to take in account that it was not a case of the premeditated murder and attempts to fox justice. And racial card played by the "tolerant" Society. I was clearly not prepared for such a specific brand of justice and fairness. Racial card to free killers and condemn and write off a highly professional detective for words? In a society of the First Amendment? In a society of equal opportunities? "Equal" meaning what? There is something to become pensive.

Anyway, the constant TV jeremiad by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel, and countless indigent non-Caucasian like-minded persons, and then an excellent idea of "reparation" raised by them forced me to sit and to think. To re-think, and to triple-think. About Tatar-Mongolian yoke. Listen, I was under oppression THREE HUNDRED YEARS! Longer than Al Sharpton. It affected my Slavic language, and as a result, I speak now some Russian (it's like Ebonics* versus English). Thus, many of my grand-grand-grand-grand-mothers were raped, and as a result, I have Mongolian cheek-bones and a squint. A terrifying medley of a pre-Columbian Mongol and a pre-historian Jew. What a horror! So, why  don't I demand reparation from Tatar Autonomous Republic and Mongolia? Am I stupid or what? So, let me sit and start writing a Requisition to the Hague Court. Who knows, maybe, I'll get a horse harness of Genghis Khan. Together with love from his descendants.

*Don't sue me for this word, please; instead, see The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000

OK, let's be serious. Are interracial relations important? Of course. In my former USSR, there were, as far as I know, roughly 140 languages: it's 140 nationalities. All of them wanted to be called as they call themselves. It's natural, I don't see any problem. The same - here. If non-Whites want to be called African Americans, - fine. It's not the first time: a word of Latin - then of Spanish and Portuguese - descent has been used since 1555 until 1930 "New York Times" stylebook and then, late 1960s, was ousted by "Black", which is nothing more than just literal English translation of the same. Does it have anything to do with the actual skin color? I think, as much as the word White with the color of my skin. Zilch. Redskin? Yellow? Pink? Beige? What a stupidity! But it's just a philological convention. For convenience and brevity sake. Instead of hundreds of possible terms. Evolution didn't reward people with other proper words. But to me...as a Russian proverb says: "Call me a pot but heat me not." To me the problem is not the manner of calling but the fairness of applying THE SAME principles of calling to different nationalities. Why nobody calls me "a European American"? Why should I be "a Caucasian" (as it is being prompted in many Application forms)? The only thing I have in common with Caucasus is that I spent over there my vacation a few times in the same way as some New Yorkers go to Bahamas; do they become Bahamians? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, says that this term in not in scientific use. Why, then, so-called Latinos, or Hispanics, are called by linguistic criteria, not by skin color or other anthropological features? The only Hispanic feature they have is the language which now is far from Spanish or Portuguese both in vocabulary and pronunciation. Even some grammar differences. Like my English. By race, they were and still are Indians (who were conquered by conquistadors just in the same way as I was conquered by Tatars: does it mean I became a Tatar?). Just one sight would be enough to acknowledge that racially (ethnically, if you will), they are mostly quite different from the Spaniards and the Portuguese. Should they be ashamed of being Indians? I don't think so. I think, all this wordy mess is nothing but ravings of madmen suffering a heavy P.C. madness. But who will listen to my complain that I don't want to be equated to a Chechen, neither Abkhazian, nor Kartvelian. I am a simple modest Russian. Half Jew. Or vice versa. Oh, yes, I am a European American. I am an American.

So. Do we really want racial Equality? Are we really not racists? If yes, then stop calling me White - it's not my skin color: white is Milk, not skin. Stop calling me Caucasian - I am not from Caucasus. I am simply American. Stop calling my friend Mark, a Vietnam Veteran, Black or Negro: his skin is of different color. He is simply an American. Stop calling another one friend of mine, Jun, an Asian American, a "Yellow skin": Asia consists of dozens of countries of different nationalities; he is a good Japanese gentleman, and his skin is whiter-than-white. He is simply an American. Only when all our Application Forms will stop asking what race we are of, ONLY then we can say that we overcome Racism. Leave those questions to anthropology scientists. ONLY.

I lost my job because of 9/11 and then became disabled due to my heavy emphysema, which went much worse after I inhaled a lot of WTC dust. When I came to a Job Center, all clerks I met over there were of non-European origin (you already understand my terminology, don't you?). I never thought somebody can talk to me with such a disdain. I felt like in Kafka's Metamorphosis, but this time I have transformed into a leech...

We all ARE racists. Both light-skinners and dark-skinners. And now I am not sure who is more.

I am watching on TV how media sharks are sinking their teeth into a Pentagon representative, General Hood, and he is muttering some explanations about Gitmo instead of telling those media liberal activists: Shut up! Why don't you say a word about desecration of Christians and Jews, Bible and Torah by Moslems? Recall execution of Jews in Ramallah police station (two young Russian Jews, actually, still kids, were lynched by blood-thirsty Palestinian Arabs crowd, and an Italian reporter took shots of this nightmare, but then Italian government apologized -sic! - for showing these photos: there were posted on the Internet, and I managed to grab them together with "apology") and desecration of Americans on a Fallujah bridge. General, stop apologies and just say: "Shut up!"

OK, OK, I understand, we are in the Democratic country, everybody has right to say and ask whatever s/he wants.

Even the purely military problems, strategy and tactics, are being publicly disputed, thus giving an excellent information to the enemies, by the way. It's like an accountant will teach me how to play Viola. May I ask: does Democracy necessarily mean Stupidity?

The question stays, though: Really everybody? I mean, am I in the category having the Right of Speech? Or only Ward Churchill with Jesse Jackson and Barbara Boxer have it?

Who has counted how many times a day we say or hear words Democracy, Democrats and Republicans? I assure you: incomparably more often than in my former country. Now, who knows the origin of those words? I mean, the original meaning in their native languages...
Republic: Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public...
One of my most favorite part of the definition is this:

(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
I like this melody: l-a-w, entitled (no illegal voters, criminals), responsible to them (=me). Oh, sweetness!
Democracy: Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), from δημος (demos), the people, and κρατος (kratos), power, rule, and the suffix ία (ia). One cannot but wonder that that time, 'demos' was reflecting also a notion 'crowd'. Thus, the term means "power (rule by) of the crowd/people". The ancient Athenian voters did make decisions directly, rather than voting for representatives, as in a republic. Of course, over time, the meaning of 'democracy' has changed, and the modern definition has largely evolved since the XVIIIth Century with the successive introduction of "democratic" systems in many nations. Interestingly enough, both Webster and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language have given well expected explanation of the term as "majority rule": "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority" - a notion our Democrats don't like so much today but did like so much a few years ago. Majority has recently chosen Republicans twice - Democrats don't like it. Majority doesn't want the Same-Sex-Marriage - Democrats spit upon the majority opinion. Majority doesn't want abortions - Democrats don't pay attention. Now Democrats say: "Minority must be heard!" So, why didn't they want to listen to Republicans when Republicans were Minority? Oh, girly levity and fickleness!
As a rough approximation, one can say, that we have kind of pair "power of crowd versus public law". Interestingly enough, one of well known phrase of Alexander Hamilton is this: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."*

*Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, was killed on a duel by his political rival Aaron Burr, Jr., an adventurer, a major formative member of the Democratic-Republican party in New York and a strong supporter of Governor George Clinton.

"Democrats are tolerant"...Sorry, who? Democrats? Well, something is not "kosher", and I have to look up a meaning of the word "tolerance":

"Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve...."tolerance" carries with it the understanding that "intolerance" and conformity breeds violence and social instability." - Wikipedia.

"The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others" - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

"sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

'Kill Rumsfeld" add  - is this a sign of tolerance? See The Washington Times .

'N.C. GOP Office Damaged By Vandals'  - is this a sign of tolerance? See WRAL.COM .

 DNC's refusal "to add a link to the Democrats for Life of America on the Democratic National Committee website." - is this a sign of tolerance WITHIN the own Party? See CNN.COM/Inside Politics.

Firing a teacher only for wearing a necklace with the Cross -  is this a sign of tolerance?

Hunting for Boy Scouts Camps - is this a sign of tolerance?

Taking out 10 Commandments - is this a sign of tolerance?

Prohibiting Christmas trees, Pledge of Allegiance in schools -  is this a sign of tolerance?

Oh please, don't make me laugh! The only tolerance Democrats have proven with no ambiguity is the tolerance to shameless irresponsible Sex and to individuals like Ward Churchill (Democracy Now!; etc.), Sami Al-Arian (Free Sami Al-Arian; "Petition"; etc.), Jose Padilla, John Walker and alike. If not to mention screeches about human rights of  Spc. Jeremy Hinzman, Pfc. Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey and other deserters.

Yes, I am one-eye, one-ear freak (I'm not big enough to be a Cyclop): I hear and see only Democrats' tolerance to enemies. Am I missing something?

And I don't stop thinking about Freedom of Speech how it is understood and used by our leftists if to apply it to Lenin and Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot...I'm afraid civil rights attorney Michael Gross will again speak furiously about Lenin's/Hitler's human rights...probably until they kill his mom...Or?

I recall:

It was a military tribunal session in late 1950th or early 1960th in Jankoy (Crimea, USSR), which I heard from a friend about and which Vladimir Voinovich also portrayed: they were trying two soldiers who agreed to perform military service in the Red Army but refused to take guns; judges begged them to re-think and promised they will be released. "We are Baptists, and the God said 'Don't kill'", they said. "But you may be sentenced to death", judges warned. "We prefer to be killed than to kill", they insisted, and got seven years of imprisonment (unusually soft sentence for the USSR of that times, by the way).

I respected them then and I respect them now. They don't remind me Jeremy and Brandon who volunteered for the Army to get money for college. How is a person who takes money without giving back called?

I don't trust and I don't respect John Kerry and Jane Fonda. I don't trust Michael Moor. I don't trust Cindy Sheehan. This species reminds me a movie where Burt Lancaster conducts an experiment of survival with a faked nuclear attack.

“Our freedoms were given to us not by the Founders but by our civil liberties activists”, an exalté damsel – I believe, from “News Hound” or somewhere else on the Internet, I don’t remember precisely – said (if not literally but definitely something very similar.)

Well…my point now is not “who” but rather “what” and “what for”. What liberties in particular they're usually talking about? First and foremost – in terms what is being discussed and disputed publicly at most, it’s so-called dispute “pro-life – pro-choice”.

First of all, I have to translate this euphemism from Demglish into plain English: “anti-ABORTION – pro-ABORTION”.

When we understand that the entire dispute is about the ABORTION, we easily realize that “pro-life” notion is pretty self-explanatory and can be with no ambiguity explained as “keeping a conceived baby alive”.

The issue is not so simple as it might seem to be, but since the dispute is – at least, this is what I hear at most – in particular about so-called “partial-birth abortion”, let me first read the following definitions given by Merriam-Webster Dictionary and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000: 1. Abortion - “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus”; 2. “Partial-birth abortion - A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted.”

So, ‘a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix uteri’…If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a human being, don’t we?

To simplify the thing while avoiding too many pure medical, philosophical, and political definitions, I have to ask myself: “Do I remember at least even one time when my wife or my daughters told me ‘look how the embryo/fetus is knocking me from inside’”? No, I DO NOT! What I do remember is “look how our BABY is knocking me from inside”.

Gotcha! It’s an ingenious trick – I feel a great heritage of Lenin! – the notion of “abortion” is closely connected with DEATH; so, to avoid possible scowls, just call the Abortion differently: the Choice! Sounds great, very Democratically: Choice – what can one be dreaming more of? Choice = Freedom. Hurray! Those who are against Choice are against Freedom, against Democracy! Yoicks! Tallyho!

To me – a medieval obscurantist, religious zealot, narrow-minded fanatic, neo-con, Republican moron, troll in a narrow fishbowl, what else? – a creature that knocks at the wife’s belly and whose sex, number of fingers and nose shape are already perfectly visible is definitely a baby, a PERSON. Thus, the Demglish pretentiousness finally reveals its genuine meaning: “Right to kill a baby”.

If a pregnancy is a “woman-life-threatening” case (a pure medical issue) or a woman was raped, yes, I agree, it’s mostly unavoidable. Otherwise, buy a condom, damn, if you cannot deal with your sexual burning, but don’t kill for the sake of your pleasure!

We always have to keep in our mind that the "abortion" as an action is an "antithesis" of Sex. In other words, an abortion's goal and predetermination is to "delete" eventual natural consequences of a sexual intercourse - pregnancy. In the simplest form, it can be expressed with no actual and philosophical distortion in a following sentence: "Due to a possible abortion, a woman is released of responsibilities related to a possible conception". To some sort of people, it sounds even simpler, as an Imperative: " Have Sex and don't think about consequences!".

If it is so, then a question raises: why a human being in our society is granted with Constitutional rights and protection when that human being is OUT of a woman's womb and is NOT granted with the same when the human being is IN a woman's womb?

From a broader social-philosophical aspect, I have a question: do we all understand that as long as women are the only entities responsible for life reproduction of a society, any society interested in remaining alive and active is naturally required to discourage abortion. This is simply a question of Life or Death of a Society - if women stop delivering babies, then societies stop existing. It's that simple.

It is a deep delusion of libertines and some feminist movements to treat pregnancy as a mere "issue of privacy". Unborn live human beings are live Human beings and they are Members of a Society with all their Constitutional rights and protection, and it would be extremely unfair if a woman pretends to a Constitutional support for her own if she does not protect the same of a human being she is having in her womb. By the Nature or by the God, by Evolution or by Intelligent Creation, but women are made responsible before Society...whether libertines accept it or not. Therefore, pregnancy is not a "mere private thing".

And one more thing: I wish very much America to remain English-speaking country.

So... Do our legislators and civil liberties advocates understand that when they fervently demand privacy and civil rights for women in reference to pregnancy, they just mix up - intentionally or unintentionally - two different issues: a sexual act as a private matter and Pregnancy that unavoidably becomes a social matter per se as soon as viability of a fetus is established, thus making a fetus a human being - a baby. As long as a woman pretends to any governmental support of any kind, pregnancy is no longer a mere "private issue".

What essentially is the LIBERTINES’ aggressive fight for irresponsible Sex? A “right to kill a baby” is being demanded by them to feel free having sex as many times and with as many different men as they want. On a philosophical level, it means that Libertines want to live in a society while being free of the society; or, demand from a society without giving to the society. I am not sure that such ideology can be a guarantor for a prosperous society.  Is this the Freedom Americans heroes gave their lives for?
I think that the non-stop combat our "pro-kill-baby right" activists are so ardently conducting is directly related to the bursting all moral banks "sexualization" of our society. As soon as you turn on your TV, you see and hear that on all channels - doesn't matter if it is a commercial, and add, a talk show, news, a sitcom, a movie, a TV serial, or, in particular, any telecast from Hollywood, our International sanatorium for drugs-sex-addicts - they compete who and how many times more in a minute says the word "Sex". Thus, I am now informed that 'this earring is sexy', 'that Sheetrock is sexy', 'that magnifier over there is sexy', 'that chandelier is sexy', and so on, and so forth...
There is a minor detail, though: those who - professionally or amateurishly - fight for Right of Speech and Privacy, completely forgot that I also suppose to have the same. But I don't.
And now I have an idea; shortly, it can be called "Pay-per-Suck" (I declare this term as my intellectual property protected by law). But since this notion requires a thorough explanation, I secure it for myself for next time...

November 6, 2005:
Do you remember “Katrina”? Do you remember how all TV Channels were non-stop reporting  about Bush's and FEMA's failure?
No, I am not talking whether is was fair or not.
I’m just saying that as of 3:00 PM, November 6, 2005, only Fox News and MSBNC are reporting about devastation and rescue operations in Kentucky and Indiana, where a deadly tornado happened between 3:00 PM and 9:00PM on November 5, 2005.
20 people confirmed dead, over 200 injured. Mostly Whites (as I saw on MSNBC and Fox News TV).
Are they not worth attention of Liberal TV Channels?
ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS NY21, NY25 have something more important to report – sports, diet, fashion, etc.
Is my question covered by the Right of Free Speech?
Attention! If you want to get acquainted with my new "theory" and reflections about Abortion issue, please click here.
to be continued...

This site was last updated 11/26/05