Hello Readers,

Though I have not posted since last March, I am now getting back into blogging. A high-speed connection is to thank for that. Limpng along on dial up just wasn't cutting it. For those who have checking this page for updates, I am announciing the creation of a new blog. Here is the link, http://samnitegladiator.wordpress.com/. I will also be migrating all my old posts over to the new one.

Mike Grant

As many people know, the 2008 Olympics are scheduled to be held in Beijing, China. For those people out there (liberals, teenagers, and village idiots) who don't know a thing about China, I offer a quick refresher course free of charge (so you have no excuse not to attend.) China is best known (in my own little world) for being one of the last two Communist dictatorships to live into the 21st Century. Also, know that they are much more of a threat than the Soviet Union ever was. This is because they have successfully integrated elements of a free market economy into their society, but still have managed to keep control of their population. They do this in a variety of ways (here, here, here); bottom line is that they are good at managing their global profile. They are masters at manipulation and propaganda (if you wish to see through the smokescreen Communist leaders have erected, I recommend you check out the Jamestown Foundation and sign up for the free “China Brief” e-report.) But all that doesn’t mean squat to some U.S. “intellectuals” who are worried that Beijing’s pollution issue could cost them the 2008 Olympics. Not the various facts above, but the pollution issue. Ohh, THAT’S RIGHT!! Remember “global warming” is a “moral issue that trumps all others.” How silly of me. I was worried that we could be rewarding the head Communist honchos in charge of Communist China for brutally killing anyone who opposes them (Tiananmen Square, etc.) I guess I am in the minority. But I’m used to that.

Mike Grant

     I apologize for my long absence, but I got real busy for about a month; research papers, book reports, and english compositions don't write themselves. But I am back, with several new websites to pass on, along with my commentary on several recent news stories. I also hope to write something I have been putting off for a long time, Global Warming Part III as well as a two piece story on Iran. I will also be writing in more detail about two different types of Islamic Jihad and how the non-violent Jihad may actually be more dangerous than the violent jihad.

Mike Grant

This blog will split between ranting on Martin O'Malley and ranting on Sun columnist Dan Rodricks.

MARTIN O'MALLEY - THE MAN WITH THE BIG MOUTH

    Governor O'Malley is being quite the busy boy here in Maryland. When he isn't banning the death penalty (here, here), banning smoking, forcing the Clean Cars Act down our throats, or being "receptive" to 50% raise in gasoline tax, he is criticizing President Bush on the Iraq War. O'Malley attended his first National Governors Association meeting and was disappointed that President Bush was talking about Iraq more than health care and immigration during a Q and A session. O'Malley was quoted as saying,

"President Bush answered each of them, and went back to vamping for about 15 or 20 minutes as to why he is exactly right in what he is doing with the decisions he has made to get us into Iraq and to escalate the war," O'Malley said. "What is the word we use now? Surge?"

    First of all Martin, winning the Iraq War is kind of important to we the people. Health Care (for my thoughts on that see here) is on the back burner right now; and seeing as Maryland is one the easiest states for illegal aliens to get drivers licenses, Martin can't convince me that immigration is one of his top concerns. Especially when he is talking about giving illegal aliens instate tuition for college. Of course we can always go back to Martin's idea he "...was very, very worried about al-Qaida and still am. But I'm even more worried about the actions and inactions of the Bush administration" from a fundraiser for John Kerry in 2004. Or we can look at February 2005, when Martin said that "Bush's budget was an attack on U.S. cities similar to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." But never mind these negative thoughts. The important thing is that O'Malley thanked the White House for letting his daughter attend a state dinner with the good Governor. But that is kind of like a bully kicking you in the crotch and then thanking you for your lunch money.

DAN RODRICKS – LIBERAL COLUMNIST WHO DRIVES ME NUTS

    Every week, Dan Rodricks writes a column; and every week I read that column, though I am not sure why. Dan is one of the biggest Liberals I have ever read and he sets me of like no other. Dan is very liberal, very naïve, and very foolish. He is pro-gun control, anti-war (here as well, among many other examples), anti-death penalty, believes that spanking is a form of child abuse, pro-global warming, and is just basically liberal. Read his columns, if you want to be frustrated at his idiocy, and try to understand the convoluted logic he uses to arrive at his conclusions. Even better, Dan also co-hosts “The Buzz”, a local radio show, with conservative host Chip Franklin. The arguments they get into are something else; Dan just goes on in his whiney, Boston voice about how somehow Saddam Hussein managed to keep the “situation contained.” One time Chip finally snapped (so did I) and yelled at Dan that Saddam kept order by butchering hundreds of thousands of people. Dan calmly responded that “at least he (Saddam) kept it contained. How sick is that? Dan commonly gives column space to pacifists who claim that the Iraq War is “morally wrong.” I bet Dan would be singing a different tune if he was a Kurd in ’91. I could go on, but this blog would never end. In conclusion, Dan Rodricks someone who disgusts me almost more than any other political pundit/columnist I have ever read.

Thank you for indulging me in this little rant. It has been very therapeutic, but I promise I will try to keep them to a minimum.

Mike Grant

    I found this article from The Baltimore Sun to be very interesting. It also once again proved to me that Maryland is one of the craziest and liberal states in the United States. Senate President Mike Miller unveiled his budget bills today, and I doubt the people of Maryland will be very happy with it. Among other things, Miller is recommending boosting the Maryland Gas Tax up to 50%! Even worse, Governor O'Malley has said that he was "receptive" to the idea. Translation, if you pass it, I'll sign it. Up until this point, I had never head of a gasoline tax (foolish, naive me) and was even more surprised to read that Miller's plan would "tack 12 cents onto the current gas rate of 23.5 cents per gallon." According to The Sun article, this increase would mean that a typical customer would pay between $1.20 and $1.56; this would turn a $2.00 gallon of gas into a $3.20 gallon of gas (at least). Glad to see that I can do rudimentary math, but imagine how much cheaper gas would be if government would just leave it alone! But no they are "protecting" us from evil oil corporations! Quick question, who is protecting us from government?

    All this is being done in the name of "balancing the state budget" (i.e. robbing tax payer’s blind) and funding Governor Martin O'Malley's precious mass transit system. (When will Liberals learn that people don't like mass transit?) Now according to The Sun article, Miller said that his bill would bring in "$400 million a year, which would translate into $3 billion in projects over five years because it would allow the state to issue more bonds." Even more interesting, money from the gasoline tax would be funneled into the transportation trust fund, which would have no bearing on the budget. Also, if this money was used for a mass transit system, citizens who live rural areas (without access to mass transit) would be "subsidizing" the mass transit of urban areas. Talk about unfair, and I thought government was for fairness and equality for all? Silly, naive me. Though this law is far from passed, I am not confident that it will get thrown out of session. Looks like that cookie jar just got refilled.

Mike Grant

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in the U.S promoting her new book, "Infidel." The Liberals at Newsweek are already laying into Hirsi Ali and her book; it seems that the poor woman can't catch a break. I haven't read her book yet, but it is definitely on my list, so I am already recommending it. Newsweek writer Lorraine Ali wrote a scathing review of Hirsi Ali and “Infidel,” but I don’t really care about Newsweek’s opinion since the MSM is far more concerned about “Christian Jihad” than Islamic Jihad. But I digress. Lorraine Ali wrote that

    “…Hirsi Ali's memoir is as much about her political agenda as it is her life, and in between tales of her youth she wedges harsh and uncompromising declarations: "True Islam," she writes at one point, "leads to cruelty." If her coming-of-age story—and the saga of her nomadic family, who moved from prewar Somalia to Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia and finally Kenya—were allowed to breathe on its own, "Infidel" would prove an eye-opening look into the plight of African Muslim women.”

    Let’s look at one commonality here. All the women are MUSLIM!! But of course we are not allowed to look at the little fact or judge a religion based on their respect for human life. To support this point, I am going to list three new books, all written by women; all women grew up in the Middle East, all women suffered at the hands of Islam. Brigette Gabriel, Lebanese Christian who grew up during the Lebanese Civil War, wrote “Because They Hate.” Nonie Darwish, grew up in Palestine and Egypt and emigrated to the U.S. in 1978, wrote “Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.” I have reproduced the book description below:

    “One woman’s story of why she left the culture of Islamic Jihad to support American liberty and tolerance. Why are so many Muslims embracing jihad and cheering for al-Qaeda and Hamas? Why are even the modern, secularized Arab states such as Egypt producing a generation of angry young extremists? Nonie Darwish knows why. When she was eight, her father died while leading Fedayeen raids into Israel. Her family moved from Gaza back to Cairo, where they were honored as survivors of a “shahid”—a martyr for jihad. She grew up learning the same lessons as millions of Muslim children: to hate Jews, destroy Israel, oppose America, and submit to dictatorship. But Darwish became increasingly appalled by the anger and hatred in her culture, and in 1978 she emigrated to America. Since 9/11 she has been lecturing and writing on behalf of moderate Arabs and Arab-Americans. Extremists have denounced her as an infidel and threatened her life. In this fascinating book, she speaks out against the dark side of her native culture—women abused by Islamic traditions; the poor and uneducated mistreated by the elites; bribery and corruption as a way of life. Her former friends and neighbors blamed all their troubles on Jews and Americans, but Darwish rejects their bigotry and calls for the Arab world to make peace with the West. The only hope for the future, she writes, is for America to continue waging its War on Terror, seeding the Middle East with the values of democracy, respect for women, and tolerance for all religions.”

    Last but not least, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel, which I have already listed. Are we sensing a trend? These women fled their native lands out of fear of abuse, subjugation, and death to live in freedom in America. But the liberals don’t want us to know that. They choose not to publish images like these, which demonstrate how life has changed for Muslim women in countries which the U.S. has chosen to intervene in. People like Lorraine Ali, writer for Newsweek, writes that Hirsi Ali is a “…more a hero among Islamophobes than Islamic women…It's ironic that this would-be "infidel" often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose.” Talk about a slap in the face to someone who has endured so much pain and hardship. But this is a common tactic of The Left; if you can’t counter their arguments with facts, just insult them and yell over them. The Left ignores articles like this one (they just sweep it under the rug) and completely doesn’t comprehend the complete and total state of warfare we are in and how dedicated Islamic Jihadists are. Even Bill Maher gets it (how sad is that?!). If you want even more proof of this Islamic Jihad, check out this PDF published by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch; also check out this Terrorism Map PDF (up to 9/11) documenting major terrorist attacks.

Mike Grant

    The folks at Newsweek really are true geniuses. This article entitled "Were Losing the Infowar" goes on to describe how the successful PR campaigns of the Sunni insurgency and Shiite death squads in Iraq are inhibiting our ability to win in Iraq. Well DUH! This isn't exactly rocket science here, folks! But what really burns me is the tone of the entire article. On Page One, Scott Johnson writes about the change in how briefings in the Green Zone are given to the press corps, saying,"...even as Iraq emerged from the deadliest month in 2006 for American soldiers, Caldwell maintained the relentlessly upbeat patter that has come to characterize the briefings." First off, Johnson writes with that snobbish and obvious liberal sneer that annoys us all. Secondly, I looked up the word "patter" in the dictionary and this is what I found:

Patter (noun)

1. Glib and rapid talk
2. Meaningless empty chatter

    So apparently Scott Johnson thinks that Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, the briefer, just has meaningless words to say about the state of Iraq; Because of course we are losing, we have already lost, we should leave now, it's pointless, etc. etc. And it gets better; Soctt Johnson cites a draft report, obtained by Newsweek, written by the Baghdad embassy that says, "Without popular support from US population, there is the risk that troops will be pulled back ... Thus there is a vital need to save popular support via message." Jonhson also says that "Bush needs to convincing" in spreading his message. Well I'm so glad that the Newsweek staff has finally been hit in the head by the obvious, but with Jon Stewart, Dave Letterman, and the MSM making fun of Bush at every opportunity, it is kind of hard for people to take Bush seriously. Johnson also writes about how effective the Sunni Insurgency is very effective in showing U.S. casualties, but Johnson also conveniently forgets that the Liberal MSM, which employs him, does its best to help the Sunni Insurgents and Al-Qaida terrorists build up anti-war sentiment. See here and here (I will cover this later). But of course that is just good journalism, right?

Mike Grant

    Although I added this blog to my blog roll a while ago, I never wrote about it, but I am taking the time to do that today. Jihad Watch is a blog run by Robert Spencer; Mr. Spencer states the purpose of Jihad Watch and the definition and origins of Jihad on his site, which I have reproduced below:

    "JIHAD IS A CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur'an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5). Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.

    Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

    Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

    Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.

    Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. By shedding as much light as possible on these matters, we hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict."

    Scary, isn’t it? I’ve linked Spencer’s bio here, and as you can see, the man gets plenty of grief for pointing facts that others would prefer stay buried. Its kind of funny how that’s a recurring theme in life, where if you don’t like the facts you can just bury your head in the sand. Jihad Watch also has an email alert that you can subscribe to, which I have already done. Again, this is a site you should definitely check out.

Mike Grant

    Normally I don't agree with Cynthia Tucker. At all. Ever. But today is different. Tucker’s op-ed entitled "Black History Month trivializes black history" was one of the best pieces on Black History Month that I have read in a while. Tucker makes the case that Black History Month has been trivialized by the fact that it gets a media blitz for one month a year. She writes that, 

    "Black History Month does so much to suggest that the contributions, struggles, and individual sagas of black Americans belong outside the main body of American history: Give elementary school kids a month to digest the Underground Railroad, the civil rights movement and the accomplishments of Condoleezza Rice, and they've learned all they need to know. Nothing could be more wrongheaded or shortsighted. There is no American history without black history. We were here from the beginning. In 1619, dark-skinned men and women, kidnapped from Africa, arrived at Jamestown - established in 1607 as the first permanent English settlement in North America. 

    I think that Cynthia Tucker really hit the nail on the head with this one. Our history is one and our past, present, and future are intertwined, not separate entities from each other. That is why all history is taught under the title of American History; instead of White-American History, Asian-American History, Hispanic-American History, etc. At the end of the day, regardless of ethnicity, skin color, or religious creed, we are all Americans and that is what should be taught in schools. Instead, people are split up into different categories. Jim is a white kid "who acts white", Deion is black kid who "acts black", etc. People, though mostly blacks are ostracized for not being faithful to their race or ethnicity; i.e. Deion is made fun of and criticized for "acting white". What happened to the "melting pot of assimilation" and to quote the great Dr. King, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It seems ironic to me that the very people who we would think would be champions of a "color blind society" (which I fully support), where people are judged by their character not their skin color, actually do a good deal of damage to that dream. See Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.

Mike Grant

    John Hawkins has nailed it again with this piece. He pretty much sums up why Democrats stink on National Security. This allows me once to again to exhort the conservative blogosphere to raise awareness about Duncan Hunter in the time between now and 2008. See my blogs here and here. The only way the West is going to survive the War on Terrorism is if we inform ourselves (instead of leaving it up to the MSM) and kick idiots out of office and place in office competent, gutsy folks who can get the job done. I have linked the official Duncan Hunter site, so check it out and see what you can do. I have also linked his campaign platforms here. How could you not love this guy?

Mike Grant

     If you look up the word "liberalism" in a dictionary, I doubt you'll find a good definition. That's because "liberalism" isn't so much a word as it is a movement and ideology. The movement of liberalism has spawned both ideologies of Socialism and Communism. Socialism is an economic system, where the State controlled the economic resources of a country, and Communism is a totalitarian government which used the Socialist economic system. Both systems lead to poor economies, no personal wealth, and extremely small personal freedoms, among other things. But let’s not dwell on that, Liberals say, because the government has your best interests at heart. The government will solve all you problems and protect you from every danger, including the danger of yourself because you might make bad decisions. But of course we all have heard and rejected that siren song. This is where analyzing the Liberal thought process gets interesting because now we get to look at liberalism the ideology.

    Why do you think that Socialist and Communist countries are extremely secular, if not atheist? Liberals believe in the ideology and religion of Liberalism. The State, as the figurehead of Liberalism, has taken the place of God in their religion. There is no need for God because there is the State; and since God is omnipotent, Liberals believe that the State must be omnipotent as well, since their (false) “god” is the State. Their ideology dictates that the Sate is the answer to all of society’s ills, the "silver bullet" to the various monsters that need to be “warred” upon. Liberals view themselves as paragons and crusaders for such qualities as peace, tolerance, fairness, the poor, the disenfranchised, and the environment. They think that if they are for these qualities they certainly can’t be wrong and they can’t understand why people would oppose their policies. After all, the State knows better, the State will protect the people from themselves in the event that the people would make a bad decision. In my opinion this explains some of the stances that Liberals take:

GUN CONTROL: If the State is all powerful, there is no need for the civilian populace to defend themselves; the State will defend them

SMOKING/TRANSFAT BANS: You are making a bad decision that affects your health; the State will "protect you from yourself"

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: If the State is all powerful, or a “god”, then the State can ignore economic realities and pass legislation that would bankrupt the nation

    However, Liberals need something to justify the blatant power grabs that they practice. Since their ideology revolves around the State being “god” it is easier for them to justify their mission. Now matter how unjust their actions (all in the name of Fairness and Equality) become they virtually say, “God wills it!” to justify it. Knowing human nature, if you believe that God is on you side, you are more likely to act. This reasoning also justifies (in their mind) the suppression of political dissent and persecution of those dissenters. Beyond the simple reason of maintaining the power of the State, Liberals view anything that threatens their ideology as wrong and evil and something that must be suppressed. I have read that the Soviet Union collapsed only after the Soviet leaders stopped believing in the ideology of Communism. The same thing happens with Liberals (or anyone else for that matter), when they stop believing in their ideology; the neat and tidy universe that they have constructed comes crashing down around them and they feel that their life and beliefs have been nothing more than a sham. And since no one likes feeling like that, they ignore other people’s opinions which threaten their ideology.

    None of what I wrote above applies only to Liberals. The same basic principles that I have outlined can also apply to religious fanatics (another group at which my ire is directed) of all faiths and denominations. The idea of “blind faith” in any institution, whether governmental, religious, or even blind faith in one’s own personal opinion will certainly lead to any nations (however great it is) downfall. The key to survival as a nation and as a people, in my opinion, lies in the people’s ability to think for themselves and use logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion; and then evaluate the conclusion based on a solid moral code. Unfortunately, sometimes we are presented with two unsavory choices and must choose the lesser of two evils, but that is reality. And I would much rather have leaders who respect the rights of an individual to think and choose for himself rather than leaders who believe that they have all the answers and bring this country down the drain with them.

Mike Grant

    New Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is serious about banning the death penalty in Maryland. Some of us, who are convinced that the only thing that violent criminals understand is force, not "understanding", are very disappointed, but not surprised, by O'Malley's move. This op-ed, published by the Washington Post (interesting), and written by O’Malley outlines his sentiments on the death penalty. First off, O'Malley asks, "Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder?" and "Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to murder?" My own opinion is that the answer is yes to both questions.

    Liberals have many arguments against the death penalty. They include, innocent people getting convicted (which is a realistic concern), and how it is "unfairly applied." I will address these arguments below. When an individual "murders" another human being, that person's outlook on the sanctity of innocent human life is forever changed. I put murder in parenthesis because "murder", as defined by law, is "as the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law." When you kill someone in self-defense you can justify it morally and legally. Murder, simplified into it's most basic sense, is the killing of someone because they got in the way of something that you wanted; money, love interest, a witness to a crime, etc. Once you take a bite of that apple, it is very difficult to find your way back to the straight and narrow path. That is why recidivism is so high among murderers and rapists. Those crimes become so much easier, the more that someone performs them and there can be no "rehabilitation." 

    The risk of an innocent person being convicted and sentenced to death is definitely a legitimate argument against the death penalty. All it could take would be one mistaken id by a witness. However, there is a very lengthy appeals process which is meant to alleviate some of that risk, though an innocent person could still spend many years in jail. That said, many of the individuals that death penalty opponents use to support their argument were convicted or raping and then murdering their victim. They were convicted before DNA testing either existed or was used in widespread application. These people might never have been convicted if they had not been accused of rape. Now with the widespread use of DNA and forensics to convict someone, the risk of an innocent is greatly reduced. Take the Duke Non-Rape Case for instance. 20 or 30 years ago, those young men may have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. Not so today. 

    Second of all is the "unfair application" of the death penalty. Liberals use the demographics argument to support their "unfair application" theory. My response is this; Lets take a scenario where a black man is convicted (100% no doubt) of rape and murder and is sentenced to the death penalty. A white man is convicted (100% no doubt) of the same crimes and is sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Just for the record, if I was judge both would be sentenced to the death penalty, but that's just me. Does the fact that the white man received life without parole take anything away from the heinous nature of the black man's crimes? Not in my opinion. Reverse the situation; change the races to Asian and White, Middle Eastern and Black. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE RACE OF THE MURDERER AND OR RAPIST IS! The only thing that matters is that we ensure that they can never harm another human being (correctional officer, inmate, etc.) ever again. That is true justice.

    For my response to O'Malley's use of statistics to back his argument, see my blog here. To answer his financial point, I will write this. Every time an inmate is killed, stabbed, injured, etc. there is an investigation by the police. There are interviews, testing if there is blood, and possibly court. The bill for that process is enormous and I would like to see some hard figures on those costs compared to the costs he mentions in his op-ed. Second of all, if a correctional officer is killed, stabbed, injured, etc. the cost, scope, and length of the investigation is even larger. (That is because we actually lost an honorable and decent human being.) In my opinion it would be cheaper and more importantly safer to execute these hardened criminals. Correctional officers have been getting screwed for a long time, especially in Maryland, over the "cheaper option." The "cheaper option" doesn't pay the correctional officers enough and lets the prisons become run down dumps that are a virtual hell hole. So in that regard I am not in favor of the "cheaper option."

Mike Grant

     This dispatch from MEMRI came in today. It sounds very similar to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Hopefully we'll kick their a** all over again. Hopefully, NATO and the U.S. will stand strong against this onslaught. If we do the Taliban may exhaust their resources in this last big hurrah. We can only hope.

Mike Grant

    If anyone thinks that I am writing a lot about China lately, it’s because I am. I am finally taking the time to sit down and gather my thought on the danger that Communist China poses to the world. This story from the Washington Post only continues to show that China is not moving toward a free capitalist society. Apparently Communist China's "cure" for "internet addicts" is electroshock therapy. Even more shocking (no pun intended) is that the entire tone of the Post article is NOT one of condemnation and evil that is, but it debates if "internet addiction" is an actual affliction!! It has a picture of a 12 year old boy receiving electroshock therapy. But lets not dwell on that, because the article also mentions how "successful" China has been in combating drug use and alcoholism, saying that is received accolades, but also been criticized for its "harsh techniques." Of course the Post does not elaborate on these harsh techniques. The article goes on to say that a group of psychologists in the global community believe "internet addiction" is real and should be deemed a "mental disorder." FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!I believe these so-called experts are insane and should spend some time in their own hospitals. 

    Even better, the online Post poll asks the responders "Is there such a thing as internet addiction?" Not Communist China is going too far and is this simply an expansion of their Communist ways! And the best is yet to come. These "hospitals" are run by the military and are prisons more than anything else; Prisons for people who haven't done anything wrong, other than spending time online and informing themselves (as much as they can) about world events. Also, the idea that this is nothing more than more control by the Communist government gets ONE PARAGRAPH, which I have reproduced below:

    "But no country has gone quite as far as China in embracing the theory and mounting a public crusade against Internet addiction. To skeptics, the campaign dovetails a bit too nicely with China's broader effort to control what its citizens can see on the Internet. The Communist government runs a massive program that limits Web access, censors sites and seeks to control online political dissent. Internet companies like Google have come under heavy criticism abroad for going along with China's demands."

    And then the article moves on to more cheerful and PC topics about the dangers of "internet addiction" and the "in-patient rehab clinics" that will fix the "addiction" and "grave social ill." The cost of these clinics is $1300 a month. Then the article describes the tactics used by the military doctors at the clinic, saying, 

    "Led by Tao Ran, a military researcher who built his career by treating heroin addicts, the clinic uses a tough-love approach that includes counseling, military discipline, drugs, hypnosis and mild electric shocks." 

    The "clinic" is located on a military training base and has padlocks on every door and bars on every window. The Post mentions how Yu Bo, age 21, and Li Yanjiang, 15, "used to spend four to five hours a week online." That isn't even an hour a day for crying out loud! And then their PARENTS ship them off to this "internet rehab clinic" to "cure them!" Their parents (and the government) don't want them online at all! The article also mentions a 20 year old and a 17 year old who played online games. The 20 year old grades suffered so he was grabbed and the 17 year old played 15 hours "nonstop" according to him. Personally I would never do that, but it is THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE, not the governments!!! But I doubt that Liberals understand that concept. But never mind that, since Sun Jiting is now "cured" and has a life plan till he's 84. This plan was formulated with the help of a "counselor," who probably just locked his life up to the government. These "counselors" and "planners" do nothing more than brainwash people so they don't grow up to be revolutionaries and challenge the Communist government.

    Then there are the "serious cases." See below:

    "No one is comfortable talking about the third floor of the clinic, where serious cases -- usually two or three at a time -- are housed. Most have been addicted to the Internet for five or more years; Tao said, are severely depressed and refuse counseling. One sliced his wrists but survived. These teens are under 24-hour supervision."

    Maybe these poor teenagers commit or try to commit suicide because they are imprisoned without just cause, "cured" with electroshock therapy, and are brainwashed. That just might have something to do with it. Again the Post did NOTHING to condemn this, which makes them nothing more than stooges for the Communist Chinese government. In conclusion, there are people like those running the "rehab clinics" here. Sooner or later we will have "trans-fat" clinics or "smoking rehab" clinics. This could happen here so constant vigilance is the key.

Mike Grant

    Someone explain to me the logic of giving felons or ex-felons the right to vote? Why do we want them to have the ability to influence policy, and get to elect people who represent their views? And yet that is what the state of Maryland is working towards. My life just gets better. And this isn't even taking into account the early voting laws which the legislature is trying to pass. See Chet Dembeck's blog for more on these two topics.

Mike Grant