We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
After hearing opinions on this from everyone beginning with the academic A-team at ESPN through Bill Nye the Science Guy, its actually refreshing to get some thoughts from a group with more in their heads than a wagging tongue. HeadSmart Labs is staffed with engineers from Carnegie Mellon, arguably one of the best engineering schools in the nation. Their work - using a scientific method - confirms the results observed on game day. This info is out there on YouTube. If I could find it, the main stream media should be able to find it - but it's not in their interest to put this to rest.
When I was a kid, I liked the Stones, but I thought the Beatles were more - I don't know, artistic?, revolutionary?, groundbreaking? - in any event, I thought they would age better. After all, the Stones just seemed like hard rocking irreverent bad boys (not that there's necessarily wrong with that).
Mrs. Mudbug (who is more of a '50s and '60s rock and roller and R&B girl) and I (who is more of a late '60s, early '70s rocker) were talking about them the other day and we both agreed that in our opinion, that overall, the Stones had actually aged better than the Beatles.
Maybe Kerry can go to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, etc. and show them how they misinterpret the Koran and how it should be interpreted. But then, we'd need a new Secretary of State because they would chop his head off for being an unbeliever - unless he converted.
El-Sisi is my latest hero. I just hope he survives long enough to have a lasting impact. Sadat was another hero in the same mold and it didn't end well for him.
I wrote this last Thursday. It's only my opinion but it's as good as I can say it:
Sisi is nearly single-handedly fighting radical Islam at its core. What makes this even more interesting is that he seems to be getting no support from Western media or from all appearances, Western governments (if you do a google search on "reaction to Sisi's speech, the first page is almost entirely conservative sites).
Obummer was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything (and six years later still has done nothing to further world peace - or is it whirled peas?). Are there any bets that Sisi will somehow be overlooked for the next Peace Prize? But then, I don't think that that award has ever been given to anyone who has even stopped a fist fight.
Many of us are clamoring to hear from "moderate" Muslims. While the elites in media and government are excusing or defecting blame for radical Islamic violence, they are at the same time ignoring one of the most important moderate Muslim stories.
To me, this implies that the press and the silent Western governments are either afraid of blow back from radical Islam or are not really interested in moderate Muslims in the first place.
Bush was slammed for telling the world that they were either with us (against the terrorists) or against us (for the terrorists). He was right. Sisi is apparently with us. The media and Western governments... maybe not so much.