1. Secretary of Torture and medieval areas of persuasion
2. CEO of Halliburton. (Now you can receive your pay off.).
3. Gun shop owner. (Watch out when Dick demonstrates the use of his weapons.)
4. Darth Vader impressionist. (You'll be great at cocktail parties.).
5. President of Iraq. (Show the Iraqis how to run their government the American way.).
6. Supreme Commander of Neo Conservatives. (The title sounds great, and it really fits you.).
7. Oil Czar. (Now you can lead the oil cartel into oblivion)
8. Secretary of Extramarital Affairs. (Perfect job to snoop for the unfaithful politician.).
9. Lobbyist. (Take your pick. Why don't you start with energy.).
10. Dry cleaner owner. (Show how you dispose of your dirty laundry.)

This, to me, is Modern Conservatism in a nutshell. Anybody with even a passing familiarity with 20th Century History knows that this is absolutely true. Damn it, O'Reilly knows this is true. However, since he and the rest of the demons at Fox News know that it's inconvenient information, they know they can write it off in the minds of their flag-waving audience by simply branding it "Far-Left", and thus either irrelevant or downright treasonous to cite.

I bring this up because it's this same mindset that has given us such hilarious/frightening phenomena such as The Fox News Channel itself, World Net Daily, and, of course, Conservapedia. All of these are monuments to the Neocon Legacies of willful ignorance, brutish reasoning and rabid, commie-crushing paranoia. Conservapedia, however, might be my favorite.

Just like the Fox News Channel, the site was created because of alleged Liberal Bias of an existing institution. Where Conservatives started fomenting conspiracy theories of a Marxism within the pages of the New York Times, and the content of CNN, the Fox News Channel was created. Years later, they got the same ideas about Wikipedia, and thus Conservapedia was born.The geniuses behind this even went so far as to have a lengthy catalog of Wikipedia's Covert Socialism.

The general, outstanding dumbness of all of this is pretty obvious. I mean, if your problem with Wikipedia is clearly biased, then simply make an alternative that you feel is more objective. But no, Bush-America ain't havin' none of that. That's why instead of seeking objectivity, they just create a much more skewed version, one that caters to their stubborn worldview, reality be damned.

So if you're looking for a good way to waste an hour feeling your misanthropy percolate, Conservapedia is a must-read. But where to start? Because, as it turns out if you enter fun terms like "blowjob" or "butt sex", you only get pages like this. That's why, I've selected a few of my favorites to get you started. Enjoy:

Hollywood Values

In case you actually took the time to read over their entry on Wikipedia's Tofu-Loving Ways, you might have noticed number four, which is as follows:

Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.[10] But within hours liberals on Wikipedia completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about Hollywood Values, in order to censor examples of how the liberal ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; Wikipedia hides a record of its ideological deletions.)

So an example of Wikipedia's Bias is that it doesn't allow Bias on its site. Gotcha. Can you imagine that those Surrender Monkeys would rather read about The Damned or Ren and Stimpy?! (you are so wrong Daniel Coleslaw, since they didn't post our Conservative Bias, that means they're Liberally Biased. I mean, obviously!)

But that voice in my head is right, I mean, how could Wikipedia not post something this well-thought out? After all, they have a point when they talk about how Hollywood frequently shows "flagrant disrespect" for Marriage, Religion, Patriotism and so forth. They even have a long list of films where this is the case!

Wait, they don't. Funny, because I could probably point out plenty of films that clearly advocate these things (Religion: The Passion of The Christ, The Ten Commandments, and so forth. Patriotism: Rambo, Top Gun, and so forth. Marriage: Almost every Romantic Comedy or Chick Flick ever.)

What they offer instead is a long list of famous people who died from living the Hollywood Lifestyle, which include many people who no one would associate with Hollywood (Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Lenny Bruce...). The suggestion of course is that no one who doesn't live in Hollywood or embody their values has ever died from sleeping pills, suicide or alcoholism. This, as we all know, is totally absolutely true.

Liberal Bias

Now, you might well be thinking: what are examples of Liberal Style? Have no fear, Conservapedia also provides an enormous list of all the behaviors that bely a secret contempt for American Awesomeness and apparently hurt their precious little feelings so much that they took the time to throw in as many as they could (49 and counting):

1. Declaring that one is insulted as a response to an argument

10. Attempting to appear more reasonable than others, when often the opposite is true

15. Insisting on a mindless equality, as in "if you have an entry for Beethoven, then you must allow entries for vulgar rap artists!"

22. Over-reliance on mockery

24. Hostility to faith

So there you have it, if you do any of these things, you're a Liberal, you scumbag. I mean, you never hear Conservatives never get offended (that's why you can tell them things like: I'll bet Jesus could suck 50 dicks in under a minute). They never disguise their unreasonableness with an evil facade of reasonableness (what?). They never insist on mindless equality (they don't even care that their Hollywood Values bit didn't get accepted on Wikipedia). They never mock people (Dennis Miller must be a Liberal after all). And if you hate faith, then guess what (although attacking Muslim faith is a-okay!).

Of course, you shouldn't listen to me. I mean, just look at me, over-relying on mockery like this.

Fred Phelps

This one is just amusing because of the writers' efforts to portray the famous "God Hates Fags" Preacher of the Westboro Baptist Church as a Democrat. I've always been amused by the Conservative reaction to Phelps, who shares their views on gays, which was fine until he and his band of crazies started protesting military funerals because they died protecting a *cough* "fag-enabling nation" (boy is that weird to say). Sounds like a Democrat to me, doesn't it? We all know how those kids from A.N.S.W.E.R. are always protesting funerals and shrieking about how America is doomed because it *hack, gag* supports gay rights. Fuck you guys. Phelps is yours and everyone knows it.

And this is just a taste of the fun that awaits you all. It's all of the "Trustworthy" information you could want! Unless you happen to be interested in vulgar rap groups.

1. Michael Moore

   This man has a total backwards view of how things work. I think that he's separatist and liberal pig. He talks about ending hunger, but he won't put down his own fork. But he's number 10 because no one really listens to him anyway.

2. John Edwards

   John Edwards is one of the biggest liberal douche bags I've ever seen in my overview of American politics. He wants to end poverty, yet he spends $400 on his hair cuts. And he got rich as a malpractice lawyer. And he never gives his own money away. He just wants to take away from the “evil rich republicans” and give it to lazy people who are poor because they don't know how to invest their own money. He is a sue happy retard.

3. Chris Dodd

   This guy's been running for president for ever. He's another man who wants to take down the corporations. (The same corporations who make up 70% of the jobs in America) I've done research on him and I've found that he is not really much of a political figure and hence he's not much of a threat. But he also doesn't get how the rich people in America pay for over 30% of America income. That's not just counting the income tax. It's all of it. Trade, sales, fines, property, and all of that. They are the foundation of our country, and Chris Dodd doesn't get it.

4. Bill Clinton

   Not only was there a national announced recession during his presidency, (because of his tax increases mostly) but that's when the national debt actually started. But you won't hear people talk about that. He raised taxes and over spent making second rate jobs and new social programs. And none of those jobs lasted. The good ones like the computer and high tech jobs are all over seas now. He didn't see to it that they would stay. So he sucks too.

5. Al Gore

   This Greenpeace freak uses three times the power then your average American. And he talks about saving energy! I can't stand this guy. I'm very glad he didn't win the election in 2000. And I hope he doesn't run again. Anyone who cares more about trees then people shouldn't be the leader of the free world.

6. John F Kennedy

   Oh yes, I'm going there. The only reason people like him is because he was shot. This guy raised taxes, like all Democrats, and was too soft on America's enemies. And he started the Vietnam War pretty much. Well he made it more then it was. Don't forget the Bay of Pigs. And he blamed the CIA for it. He said that they didn't have the air cover they needed. Isn't there a Navy? You're telling me we had no ships between us and Cuba? Or no long range missiles in Florida? Think about it. JFK is the most overrated Democrat in history.

7. Ted Kennedy

   This is another bad Kennedy. (Like there's a good one) the Kennedy family got rich bootlegging liquor when the buying and selling of liquor was illegal. They're no better then Al Capone. But Ted Kennedy is a murderer! He knocked up his secretary and then drove her into the river. And he was an alcoholic for years. And most likely still is. That's a bad liberal!

8. John Kerry

   He never really sounded like he knew what he was talking about. And he got a medal for blowing himself up. And he gave up American soldiers. Other then that I didn't really think he was all that bad. Just that he was really far left. Like most of today's Democrats, he is a socialist. (Meaning communist all in all) and that, too, is a bad liberal!

9. Barack Obama

   Just like John Kerry, he is far to the left. And he will overspend if elected. The new social programs he speaks of are things like universal healthcare… which we will pay for. Just Americans. And he has almost no experience in politics. He uses his color to get votes. He also wants to “spread the wealth” over America. That is communism plain and simple. If you can't see that that's your fault.

10. Hillary Clinton

    She's not as far to the left as Obama, but not only do I think she would make an awful president, but she's the wife of an awful president. And I know Bush is a Better president then Bill was. But she started new programs every other day and spent billions of tax money on them. And she wants to do it again. Listen to the things she wants to do. I'm so tired of the Democrats wanting everyone to hold hands and give everything to people who are not willing to work. I'm all for peace, but there are still enemies in the world who will not be as enthused about it. Places like Iran and China to name a view. Some people just want to hurt us, and they should be killed. Maybe then we could have peace. Hilary is the worst Democrat in America right now. But there's no way she could win the general election. People aren't that stupid as to vote for her.

The status quo is the situation where maybe some of the laws change, different policies are enacted and different wars are fought but where the basic power-structure of the country is left intact no matter who is in power. This is because even though the Republicans don't like the Democrats and vice-versa they would rather play chess with the devil they know than poker with the devils they don't. And so neither of them tamper with the electoral college happy to know that even if they lose eventually the pendulum will swing back to them.

For the voter however this means that like in a dictatorship they only have only one real choice and although third, fourth and fifth parties do appear on the ballot everybody knows that voting for them is pointless and will probably lead to the wrong party winning.

In a dictatorship you are forced to vote for a candidate you might not support. In the two-party system you are forced to vote for candidates you might not support.

In George Orwell's novel "1984" There seems to be an eerie analogy to this state of affairs. On the bad side we always have either Eurasia or Eastasia while Oceania forms a coalition with the other to form the good side. There are two choices in this dictatorship. Oceania-Eurasia or Oceania-Eastasia. The occasional change of side seems to help diffuse doubts about the system. The system is subject to change. Things don't stay the same. We were on the wrong track and now we've corrected it.

But like on a see-saw going from Republican-America to Democrat-America is not really making progress it is repeating the same process over and over again until finally the see-saw wears down and breaks.

But the situation gets worse, because in truth neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are really happy with this power-sharing situation. And they should be because it has worked to both their benefits. But like everybody who has been in power too long they are looking for ways to consolidate power, to effectively change the two-party system into a one party-system. Of course neither of the parties will want to turn this nation into China. They don't need to. There are far more sophisticated ways to decide an election.

The Republicans have been using three main tactics. The first was redistricting. By trying to redraw the lines of voting precincts in such a way that they had a majority they tried to guarantee a standing majority of electoral votes.

Secondly they have tried to selectively change the law in those states where they are in the minority to divide electoral votes proportionally rather than winner takes all while blocking similar initiatives in states where they are in the majority. And thirdly they have tried to use their majority on the supreme court to fight initiatives that are not in their favor. For example they blocked initiatives that would have made it more likely for minorities to vote and initiatives that would have demanded more accountability from makers of voting machines. The Democrats on the other hand have tried to do the opposite. Their main focus has been on getting more minorities to vote and also to have the electoral college be divided proportionally in each state. This should benefit democrats since they usually win the popular vote and also because it would generate higher turnout which also favors democrats. This could of course benefit third parties as well, but as long as the electoral college is not abolished entirely there is little chance of a third party really making headway.

In the end neither party can really hope to make the US a one-party state. However if either one of them stays in power too long they have the ability to tweak the rules in their favor in such a way that eventually getting them out of power would be almost as hard as electing a third party now.

Having a system with at least three parties would bring some fresh air into the stale American political arena. It would also raise the chances of solving more issues democratically. For example if the third party was pro-choice and pro-gun and this reflected the opinions of the majority of Americans (don't know if it does, it's only an example) then they would be likely to vote with Democrats on the first issue and with Republicans on the second so chances would be that the outcome of votes would more accurately reflect the will of the majority on each issue. As the number of parties and the mix of stances grows so will the extent to which congress reflects the will of the people.

Most Americans don't want to change the system, they are afraid to rock the boat. That's how the Romans felt. That's how GM felt. Now Rome is mostly famous for what it was not what it is. For GM, having just been surpassed by Toyota it is not too late. They can still reinvent themselves. But they should have done it earlier.

For the US the time for change is already past. The boat has been rocked. Let's not fall overboard.

The choice eventually will be between a one-party system and a multi-party system. I know which one I would choose, and so do you.

In literature and on celluloid, atonement originates from pangs of remorse felt by an individual. When misguided and selfish actions are motivated by the obsession to conquer the object of "love", or when desire for gain and power leads to evil acts, the settings for a great tragedy are laid. This consuming tragedy brings immense suffering to all parties concerned. Yet, some principal agents of tragedy survive though often perpetually haunted by remorse to set about seeking atonement.

In addition to the inner sanctum of the human psyche, atonement or at-one-ment can be seen as happening on the social scene. On the social scene, we have in the last few years seen leaders of nations apologize for the horrors (usually during war) caused by their predecessors. If this apology aims at reconciliation with a large group then an apology represents a symbolic gesture whereby the wrongdoer voluntarily lowers his own status as a person like West German Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling at the Jewish victim's memorial at Warsaw Ghetto in 1970. Quite often other attempts at such atonement are often mere words like the ubiquitous "sorry," which means nothing.

History is always written by the victors of wars. By winning wars, the victorious groups raise itself above the loser and they thus are in no hurry to humble themselves voluntarily for the sake of atonement even if they have committed horrendous atrocities to gain victory. Winners usually get haughty, and arrogance prevents them from seeking any reconciliation with the vanquished except in rare cases. There is only one case in entire recorded history of a king having a genuine change of heart, after winning a battle. Appalled by the wanton violence and rivers of blood he caused, Ashoka (304-232 BC), the Maurya emperor of India, embraced non-violence and actively advocated atonement.

In various forums on the Internet many individuals are demanding two strong and extremely arrogant Western leaders to be tried as war criminals for two ongoing wars. But, these are individual sentiments not shared by the majority of voters. Political leaders hardly ever take responsibility for the consequences of their actions unless they are forced to by consistent and organised pressure from masses of their own constituents. Do many people in Belgium feel a burning need to atone because their king Leopold II sent about ten million people in Congo to horrible deaths for his personal gain?

In all the religious and spiritual traditions of humanity personal atonement is possible, in fact, a prerequisite for spiritual growth. But, collective atonement is a vision held up by religions originating in the Levant (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) but not in the Eastern, Native American, South American, African or Aboriginal traditions. The Levant religions, with a personal God, all have this vision that people of that group alone will be redeemed (after atonement) at a certain point in chronological time through the establishment of a supernaturally endowed "perfect" society or through a cataclysmic event of the judgement day. The "others" will of course perish by fire and brimstone during this event. But for the non-Levant traditions redemption takes place inside the psyche of the individual in a dimension transcending time and space. Levant religions also require a division of us -vs- them, "us" being the chosen group. The others, according to these religions are not the chosen people and shall not be redeemed. So why bother even thinking of group atonement, just say "sorry" if you really must?

If we would take snapshots of the world stage at different points of human history and compare it with our moment on the stage of history, we would notice that we are engaged in the same acts of war, depravation, violence, rape and pillage which people have done throughout. In spite of all the advances in technology, and liberalisation in the fields of social, political, and economic systems, our leaders today can still justify these atrocities with the willing support of majorities. The current political scene with constant blows and counter-strikes hardly makes a unilateral disarmament and turning the other cheek, seem a very viable option to belligerent partners across battle lines.

We can of course conclude that our leaders are no better than those of earlier times, but we shouldn't forget that if we didn't want our nations to wage wars to prevent vested interests we would need to make sacrifices e.g., in a lowering of living standards. Many of the powerful nations engaged in bloody wars might not survive in the battle for markets and resources if coercion would be impossible and the rules of the game would be fair play all the way.

If we are asking for atonement on a national scale for the sins of our fathers (or mothers for that matter) or if we are to stop using war as a means to secure ends, are we prepared for atonement in the form of higher prices for fewer goods, the huddled poor of ravaged shores moving in to share our spacious homes and clean cities? Shall we pedal our way on bicycles through wet and snowy streets to longer hours at work? Shall we agree to consume less when the hapless children of the teeming masses in impoverished countries with an abundance of natural resources claim the right to live as wastefully as we or our children?

Primary in the fight against international terror is the ability to analyze the potential for attacks on a given target. This can often be generalized, depending on the validity and reliability of sources, although threats can be specific as well. Targets typically include large infrastructure and other centers of socioeconomic activity that provide a substantial civilian population count at various times of day. Because of the broad range of locations that this spectrum encompasses, a counterterror analyst must consider any amount of varying places that may be on the list of a terrorist group for illegal activity. Included are nightclubs, cafes, government and embassy buildings, buses and other public transit, even hospital emergency rooms. Hence, demographic data must be collected on each place so that possible damage at its worst can be calculated as accurately as possible.

More to take into thought is to explore the realm of what will cause the most impact with the least amount of effort and manpower. With a single person, for example, a bomb strapped to his or her chest and detonated in just the right location can have an extremely devastating effect, with only one loss to the antagonizing side, but the potential for many casualties for those not associated with the murderous group. Analysts often have a very graphic mind, as they need to be able to envision the worst case scenario. Sometimes, if they lacked proper moral and ethical structure, they themselves could easily be effective terrorists because of their morbid mental capabilities.

Counterterror agents must have excellent research skills. They need to make connections on the inside of terror circles, which can be extremely dangerous if not done with proper finesse. Interrogation experience will also lead them to develop nontraditional ways of retrieving information from a source or suspect. They could utilize very unconventional manners in which to obtain this, sometimes breaking international law for the safety of the multitude. The necessity for this is stemmed from terrorism being “the deliberate and systematic assault on civilians to inspire fear.” (Netanyahu, Fighting Terrorism, 8)

Terrorist organizations have carried out a multitude and quite a variety of attacks, hence fulfilling the declaration made within the definition of terrorism by ex-Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (who also fought in an elite anti-terror unit in his younger years). Take into account the amazing creative thought held by the Central Intelligence Agency employees who, before the fact, figured out that an attack upon large buildings via plane crash could eventually be a reality, which was indeed eventually carried out by terrorists operating under the umbrella Al-Qaeda network. Unfortunately, lack of imagination on the Israeli side resulted in the death of an infant, who was shot by a sniper while held tightly in her grandfather's arms. This act proved the importance of violent yet inventive thought processes in the mind of a counterterror analyst, so as to imitate that of a terrorist themselves.

To take pre-emptive, preventive measures, it is necessary to brainstorm these unfortunate and harmful ideas. If the possibility of a baby being directly spotted for termination by a hostile sniper was known beforehand, then a security fence or additional security camera could have been placed in the most dangerous locales. Regarding the internationally known threats towards mass transportation, discos and coffee shops, it is ideal worldwide to install advanced x-ray scanning machines and retain well-trained armed personnel at the entries to each business or transit station.

The position of a counterterror analyst demands an open-mind and broad spectrum of thought, as it is a strongly mandated occupation in the modern multinational global society. If terrorism is left to continue its offensive moves against lands where the people cry for democracy over tyranny it will not remain at the same pace, but develop into a more popular and widespread form of spreading fear amongst others to obtain inessential fascist political gains. Yet, despite terror seeming eternally inevitable, even unassailable, one must understand that it can indeed be vanquished with proper utilization of available resources.

It is important to note that the Palestinian Authority is a working government. It was formed out of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a terrorist group that used murder of innocent civilians to reach a political goal. The citizens that will be referred to are citizens of the Palestinian Authority and not that of Israel. Any treatment of such citizens is in control of the Palestinian government, as they are the responsibility of it. The few Arabs living in the Palestine Mandate of Britain that did not pay heed to the recommendations of surrounding Arab nations to flee their homes in 1947 and 1948 to remove themselves from the path of an offensive war against the new State of Israel did become full Israeli citizens with complete rights as such. Their children and descendants to this day still hold full citizenship and enjoy equal rights to those of any other Israeli. The Arabs of the Palestine Mandate who fled, as they were promised their homes would remain when the Arab nations that attacked Israel won, are not Israeli citizens. Their descendants have the opportunity to become citizens of the Palestinian Authority, and many have taken advantage of this chance.

Historians of the Palestinian Authority make claims that Jerusalem and Israel as a whole rightfully belong to Arab Muslims and no one else. This is done in many fashions, but is well exemplified by an educational television production on PA-TV. The main points of the program all summed up to the conclusion that “Israel's Biblical history is Arab Muslim history,” (Hutchens, 5) not that of the Jews. The head of the Palestinian Authority public library, Dr. Jarir Al-Qidwa, and the former head of the PA University's history department, Dr. Issam Sissalem were the key presenters on the show. Both children and adults who have viewed this program are presented a distorted timeline and genealogy. They are lead to believe that Palestinian Arabs are the true Israelites and have the full, sole right to the land in which they reside. It produces minds that cannot comprehend historical facts and the entitlement of others to self-determination.

The television in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas is also controlled by the government, so much so that they even have their own channel called Palestinian Authority Television (PA-TV, for short). A production presented on the channel that represents the mind set of top Palestinian decision makers featured Dr. Ismaail Radwaan, who proclaimed, “Oh Muslims, prepare yourselves for the struggle with world Jewry so that your's will be the winning side. As though Allah's wisdom clarifies that the winning side in the struggle with Jews will be the Muslims.” (“Islam's War with World Jewry”) Palestinian citizens are encouraged to fight against the Jewish population, as their god has empowered them with the ability to conquer and eliminate each and every "Yeud" (Jew, in Arabic) that exists across the globe. It shows them that it is not a fight for land, but a fight about religion, as to make their god greater. For example, “Allah Akbar” literally translates into “our god is greater.”

Each Friday, the Muslim holy day of the week, a sermon is broadcast on the Palestinian Authority Television network. Sheikh Ibrahim Mudayris has frequented the position of sermon deliverer. Nearly each one has called for the destruction of Israel, which he also commonly predicts will indeed soon be destroyed. In spring of 2005, he gave a speech not unusual to any other, stating that, “The Hour [Resurrection] will not come until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them” (“Untitled Weekly Islamic Sermon”). Any partially devout Muslim who hears this will believe that the Sheikh has done thorough research into the subject. Clearly incitement speech, those who follow the ways of Islam, those who yearn for the resurrection of their messiah, will feel it their duty to take upon themselves the massacre of any Jews they come across. Unfortunately, the news has shown this played out many times, but does not keep record of the almost countless failed attempts, for it is the successfully carried out plans that make headlines.

A personal interview conducted with a graduate of Palestinian Authority schools, Morav Mamoud, exposes the indoctrinated hate of this educational system. Although standard school subjects are studied, each is twisted to present its own anti-Israel view. Mr. Mamoud had on hand a history book of his cousins,' which reads as follows, "Asthma, Abu Bakr's daughter, was my age when she played a role in supplying provisions and water and passing information about Kuraish [Tribe] to the Prophet and his companion during their secret Hegira [emigration] from Mecca to Medina. What role can I play in order to support the national resistance movement against the occupier and colonialist?" (History of Arabs and Muslims, 34) Although Mr. Mamoud has received his higher education in the United States and since been de-programmed of all hateful propaganda, he realizes that his peers back home are still continuously brainwashed to believe that the only way to realize their self-determination is by the elimination of another people, despite a similar genealogical line shared with the Jews.

Each year, millions of dollars are given to the Palestinian Authority to be used for schools, infrastructure, healthcare, and summer camps that are supposed to be filled with friends and fun. Nearly all of this money is misused, but indeed some is set aside for the camps. However, they are not your typical youth retreat. The main activities include obstacle courses featuring a hoop of fire the children must jump through and many other para-military training courses. Bardia Mohammed, a former attendee of one of these camps, remembers seeing, “the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock, covered with human body parts and blood,” (Interview with Bardia Mohammed) alongside these courses. The children, both boys and girls, are conditioned to think that the only way to attain the stated goal of an independent Palestinian state is via violence, not communication and negotiation. These kids are given toy guns as infants, but real receive real fire weapons at the young age of ten.

A key concern in nearly every Near Eastern country is that of human rights, especially the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. Those who are gay are usually either jailed, prosecuted, or even murdered for their sexual preference. Homosexuality may be legal in the Palestinian Authority controlled government, but gays and lesbians do not have any protection from discrimination, hate crimes, or honor killings. It is condemned within the Koran, hence the policy is unforgiving to these people who are trying to live their lives in content of a manner as possible. As honor killings are not outlawed, there even come instances where a person will be publicly hung for the sexually immoral behavior, though rare. Palestinian Authority officials are typically found condemning Israel's stance on homosexuality, as it does not follow the basic ways shared by their faiths. Hence, many gays will, instead of facing personal danger, flee the Palestinian Authority controlled area for Israel to obtain the freedom to be who they truly are, while others spit on Israel for going against religion.

A primary concern amongst the world Jewry during the elections for the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority was that one of the strongest candidates for the office had written his dissertation denying the Holocaust had ever occurred. This candidate was Mahmoud Abbas, who did indeed continue on to win the race for the office which he now holds. He makes erroneous claims in his doctoral thesis, all of which are blatantly anti-Semitic and purely hateful. An excerpt from his writing exhibits this well, "A partnership was established between Hitler's Nazis and the leadership of the Zionist movement...[The Zionists gave] permission to every racist in the world, led by Hitler and the Nazis, to treat Jews as they wish, so long as it guarantees immigration to Palestine." (Palestinian Media Watch) A leader such as this, although claiming to the international media that he wants peace with Israel, cannot be acceptable in the political arena, for his entire educational outlook is founded upon the belief that the Jews are inherently evil and not to be reasoned with in any manner. This viewpoint has a highly detrimental effect to the people Abbas is treasured by as not only a political leader, but a national leader, for they will, too, involve themselves in the acceptance of fallacy versus reality.

Israel has made multiple attempts towards establishing a treaty with the various terrorist organizations that reside within its borders, including those controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas, the religious Muslim terror organization operating out of the Gaza strip, is set to run in the upcoming Palestinian Authority elections as a valid political party. The purpose of its existence is not only to eliminate the internationally recognized State of Israel, but the world's Jewish population as well, an idea that is frightfully becoming more common place in modern times. Especially in Gaza, Hamas has tremendous influence over the people. Since Arafat's government did not provide the basic necessities for which he was funded to do, Hamas has taken over the humanitarian position for many Gaza residents. This allows them the opportunity to spew their hatred for their neighbors and insist that the Jews gave up their right to the land, as they deviated from the original laws G-D gave them to follow.

Islamic fundamentalism, a return to fundamental principles of Islam by rigid adherence to those principles, and intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism, is on a steady rise in the Middle East, especially in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. It is this government that influences its people to engage in detesting of the Jews and their attempt at a secure state in the land of Israel. Homicide/Suicide bombings have steadily risen in number since the establishment of a government in the Shomron (Northern West Bank), Yehuda (Southern West Bank), and the Gaza Strip. Kassam missiles have been shot into family homes throughout Israeli towns and settlements, in addition to being regularly stoned not only by Palestinian Arab citizens, but by members of organizations such as “Peace Now” and the “International Solidarity Movement,” who fall victim to the misrepresentation of reality in Israel and the Palestinian Authority controlled areas by the Palestinian government, who bases much of their portrayal of the Jews on purely religious ideals.

We all know where that is but the government has never justified the real reason behind it. The strange thing is that these people get notoriety anyway for the stuff they do, either through the press or their own autobiographies. I am disillusioned over the punishment process that seems trivial to say the least when it comes to these big shots. All one has to do is look at the penalty that Conrad Black has to pay. If it was an average individual, I am sure the penalty would be much larger.

And when it comes to the primaries in the US, one can hope there will be a good alternative to the leadership they currently have even though that leader is trying to trump up advantage points on controlling the spread of malaria and tried to reduce oil prices. Instead when you see the antics between the hopefuls, the fact that the voting count had been halted in one or more states to the discontent of one of the runners you can get further disillusioned that this is not the representational system as it was meant to be. It reminds me of the fiasco over the rigged voting in Florida before this president was reelected.

What is worse is how media is covering events like the Democratic primaries and there has so far been a hazy picture of who is winning there. I think race and gender are still big issues that Americans should admit too or if they are it is not getting across the border. They might argue they always have been issues that choosing a first woman or black president would not be an easy process. I worry about the general loss of decorum in the representational system, and the loss of American popularity as the people in power are still hanging on to the idea that only might is right.

Barak Obama is trying very hard to avoid getting into this mess by renouncing the comments made from one of his former advisor.

He prefers to rightly focus on the issues that matters most to the people of this country and for this he may seem to be weak depending on how we measure weakness.

However the other participants had better take a leaf out of his book and start to make this campaign a cleaner one because nastiness will have serious repercussions in the years to come.

President George W. Bush decimated his fellow Republican in the 1990 campaign but went on to have a very poor performance in office with the Iraqi war, 935 lies been reported, the possible regression in the economy, the firing of the US attorneys , and the resignation of Attorney General Gonzalez to name a few.

Could that time in the past have been John MC Cain's moment or is it now? Only time will tell.

Bill Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary to Paul Tsongas in 1992 in both votes counted and delegates received, yet his advisor James Carville dubbed him the “Come Back Kid”, thereby leading people to believe he had won and he never looked back.

Deception was sown then and there and came back to haunt Bill Clinton several years as the nation suffers humiliation at his impeachment trial.

The whole world watched the US highest office holders as he tries unsuccessfully to deceive the nation regarding his infidelity.

Nasty Campaigning does repercussions and many of our present leaders have better take note.

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines did not use the media but assassins to kill his political opponent Benigno Aquino in 1983 but was soon driven from office by powerful non- violent People for Power Movement.

The repercussions were too strong for Mr. Marcos and he died six years later in exile, a far place from his former place glory and wealth.

Whether it is the nasty campaigning or the bullet, the effect is the same, the opponent is removed from the fight and a corrupt victory has been achieved.

Michael Dukakis, a brilliant man who would have been an excellent President, was destroyed with the use of negative campaigning in the presidential campaign with George H.W. Bush in 1988.

However the winning president at that time did not have a very successful term and served only one term losing to Bill Clinton in 1992.

Leaders must realize that they will reap what they sow and sowing evil seeds to destroy an opponent does not immunize them from reaping the harvest from it during their time in office.

Sowing to the wind will always result in a reaping of the world wind that can have serious political, economic, and even military conflict.

When it was disclosed that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction it must have been most humiliating for the leadership of this country and he nation as a whole.

This is an example of reaping the world wind.

Presently Mrs. Clinton and her team of strategist are seeking out every possible way to destroy the credibility of Barak Obama who seems irresistible to many nationwide.

They have accused him of plagiarism, stained him as corrupt by associating with a Tony Rezko who he cross path with several years ago, and then with the NAFTA issue which was stupid of the Obama campaign and blown out of proportion by his opponent.

The nation deserves better than this and donations received should be better spent so that people can be helped to see who will be best able to lead them out of their economic struggles.

Communicating nasty news about each other benefits the news organization in terms of publicity, market share and financial gains, but at the end of the day the nations suffers, especially when voters are not presented with quality information they need on critical issues help to determine how they cast their votes.

The repercussions that may emanate from these nasty campaigns may prevent both parties not having enough time to be healed and be able to defeat the opposition.

The White House is both a physical and symbolic place where the most honorable, ethical, trusted, and reliable president presides over the nations business; yet aspirants are throwing dirt at each other in order to take the position.

Is it ethical to sow evil to receive the highest honor in the land? I don't think so.

However it is also unethical to hide information about one past while pursuing any political office.

Therefore based on the performances of several of the past Presidents who have sown much dirt and destructions, it seems the time has come go forward to end such despicable practices. It should be conclusive enough for readers to agree that the perpetuators of nasty campaigning will eventually get damaged in a greater way in the future.