Do the Hypocrite.

Why the bother about Israel?

I actually drew an agreeable thing from Hilary Clinton this week, it’s that anyone who is against what the Jews are doing in Gaza are racist and either unwittingly or maliciously are propagating the argument of the race bating demagogues they adhere to.  It’s downright disgusting, I mean if people are going to be hooting and hollering about Israel why aren’t these same people going nuts about Tibet? Wait forget Tibet, one of the major lawyers of Hamas are the Turks so why don’t those people first ask the Turkish people to stop being hypocrites and get out of Cyprus! I know a Greek guy who served back then before coming to the US and if you even mention a Turk to him he gets visibly tense. So I think at least for some Greeks the resentment is still strong.  How many more years must go by before we see the outrage by activists in flotillas trying to keep the Turks out of Cyprus? And don’t give me crap about that being too long ago; it was only the 80’s! This shit with Israel has been going on since the end of World War 2!

This kind of thing almost blows my mind but what brought me over the edge is that Hilary Clinton agrees with me. GTFO? What will happen next? Will she suddenly find the records that were subpoenaed from her back when her husband was President and she was a high powered lawyer? Will she stand up and acknowledge how she cost 300 Marines their lives? Will she confess to the conspiring of the murders of several of her once close friends? I doubt it, but Hilary Clinton agrees with me or rather sounds agreeable even if the only reason is because she’s a Liberal that’s been smitten by reality.

There is no better way to say this than to say a norm in all dialog of policy is to speak from ideal. I prefer to think that like me most know when they speak of ideals and so can also speak in a realistic tone. However it gets complex and this is the only complexity of politics: That people start to believe their ideals for good or bad are real enough, for example; one person sees their own ideal as being possible and altruistic and then they logically follow that someone else’s ideal if it poses a direct refutability must then by virtue not be altruistic. Bear in mind altruism in democratic political dialog is Spanish gold; it’s like a diamond in the rough that simply needs more attention until it can properly shine. This means anything that counters a belief that aims to shine that diamond and provide more light through its refraction through altruism is thus poor of altruism and if followed will lead to political bankruptcy.

To be absolutely clear here political bankruptcy isn’t even recognized as that, it is more naturally referred to as moral bankruptcy. But in reality words are like a placebo and in the case of Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, North Korea, Cyprus and so many other instances, placebos are not better than either a cure or preventing the problem.

That above paragraph is politics in a nutshell if you understand it then you understand why the world is the way it is. This is why I don’t see someone being a neoconservative as a negative; it means they are moving closer to my position. So I'll chant the old definition that a neocon is simply a liberal that has been struck with reality. 

The Clinton's are habitual liars and part of the way to identify either a politician, especially a liberal one is to look for the politician with a freshly licked index finger in the air.