Claudia Cote, M.D., Selected as one of America’s Best Doctors

On June 29, 2005, research organization Best Doctors Inc selected pulmonologist Claudia Cote, M.D. as one of America’s best doctors. Dr. Cote is a critical care physician at the Bay Pines Veterans Administration Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida, a suburb of St. Petersburg.

As a veteran and a patient at the medical center, I have been receiving excellent clinical care for emphysema from Dr. Claudia Cote for more than 4 years. During that time I participated in a research program she conducted at Bay Pines that resulted in the release of an excellent new inhalant, tiotroprium bromide, that dilates bronchia and fights against lung infection. Dr. Cote’s care, follow-up, medications, and rehabilitation programs have enormously improved my quality of life and sense of well-being while reducing the dangers to my health of lung infections and inordinate worsening of my condition. In my opinion, she is an excellent physician, researcher, and clinician who deserves the respect and support of her colleagues and seniors.

Dr. Cote is as impeccably professional as she is caring and friendly. Her research projects have brought in over $1 million revenue to the medical center and helped thousands of veterans with pulmonary lung disease to get desperately needed high-quality relief. When any emergency arises, she gives prompt attention to resolve the problem. I have never knowm her to compromise ethical standards while giving veterans top priority.

Dr. Cote is well-educated, has published numerous papers on the findings of her research, and has significant breadth and depth of clinical experience, including emergency room medicine. She is well-qualified to be Chief of Medicine and Chief of Staff in the nation's top medical facilities. She has established a state-of-the-art rehabilitation program for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, ably coordinated by Eric Kalbfell, RRT (see July 2004 HealthPower article "Bay Pines VAMC Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program", http://www.nchpdp.med.va.gov/HealthPOWER/2004_July.pdf). According to patients who complete the program, results are excellent to the point of being "alarming."

Dr. Cote has been acknowledged for her professionalism by the St. Petersburg Times (http://sptimes.com).

• On 6 March 2004, Times reporter Paul de la Garza wrote of an incident in which one of Dr. Cote's seniors ordered her to sign an expired veteran's death certificate without first performing an autopsy to determine the cause of death, and Dr. Cote risked career problems by proceeding to get permission to do the autopsy anyway.

• Dr. Cote's dedication has continued unabated in spite of a workload and political pressures that have threatened her health and her career (See http://sptimes.com article by Paul de la Garza on 5 March 2005).

In 2004 Dr. Cote published a study with fellow researcher Dr. Bartolome Celli that documented methods of improving treatment of lung disease (http://www.healthcentral.com/newsdetail/408/517721.html). Details were published in the online edition of Postgraduate Medicine (http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2005/03_05/cote.htm - Cote CG, Celli BR. New treatment strategies for COPD: pairing the new with the tried and true. Postgrad Med 2005;117(3):27-34).

I am not the only one to recognize Dr. Claudia Cote as a “Pearl of Great Price” among her peers. Dr. Cote's professional competence and devotion to outstanding patient care have also impressed her colleagues. It was at the behest of her peers that Best Doctors, Inc., selected Dr. Cote, as one of the best doctors in America for 2005-2006.

The Best Doctors database consists of the top 5% of the nation's doctors, all of whom were selected nominated by peer review. According to Lucy Stec, Director of Research and Polling, Dr. Cote is one of only 378 new Best Doctors in the Tampa Bay area. Only physicians who are licensed, board-certified, and free of professional misconduct are allowed to be Best Doctors.

Best Doctors, Inc, has been publishing its Best Doctors list for individuals, corporations, and insurance companies since 1992, and adds new doctors every 18 months. For more details call 800-675-1100 or visit http://bestdoctors.com.

How to Ensure Positive Career Growth

1. You are more powerful than you think you are.When the deck seems stacked against you, it is wise to remember that a spirit fragment of our Heavenly Father indwells your mind, and that little piece of God is your constant companion throughout eternity.He is constantly guided you to achieve the most magnificent destiny possible for you.There can be no reasonable fear in the mind of one who seeks to know, love, and be like God, for there is not power on or off our world that can effectively combat the noble desires of a human being who is in companionship with and following the will of God.No temporary setback can hamstring a person of unbending intent to pursue truth, beauty, and goodness.
   
   
2. An organization’s only memory is in its files. If it isn’t written, it didn’t happen and it isn’t true. The wise worker therefore keeps a written record of goals, accomplishments, and events (including words and deeds by political allies and enemies) that help or hurt both, and takes a copy home. Similarly, the wise worker ensures the organization’s permanent files contain evidences of positive things related to his career.
   
3. A wise worker continually solicits written and signed “success stories” from juniors and clients or patients, having them evaluate quality of leadership or quality of client care rendered by the worker and/or his juniors. This allows the worker to build an undeniable portfolio of accomplishments that can be used to corroborate the worker’s claims of accomplishments.
   
4. A wise worker periodically (at least monthly) aggressively informs his seniors of his skills and accomplishments, and makes sure that at least two levels above his immediate senior are aware of those skills and accomplishments. Failing to do this is the number one reason workers get fired. The only effective way to do this is in the form of a written commendation signed by one’s immediate senior, even when seniors only want to write evaluations once a year. Thus, the wise worker writes up his own truthful commendation, noting objectives achieved, expectations met and exceeded, related external achievements, papers and books authored and published, recognitions, awards, certificates, and honors received in and out of the organization, notable achievements of juniors and of the “team”, citations and letters of recommendation or appreciation by juniors and clients.
   
5. A wise worker always seeks to expand knowledge, ability, control, and responsibility, and to make such ambitions and skills clearly known to seniors who will be beneficially affected by such expansion. Together these equal personal power. Anyone who is threatened by or jealous of such expansion can become a political enemy. A wise worker will identify such persons and find ways either to convert them into allies or limit their power to obstruct the worker’s growth. Once the skills requisite to a job have been mastered, the wise worker always demands more responsibility and more money.
   
6. A wise worker is never afraid to quit a job. An organization bent on hamstringing a worker’s power expansion and unwilling to provide more money and more responsibility to accommodate the worker’s reasonable growth requirements does not deserve to have the worker in the organization. There are always additional organizations ready and willing to pay more money and give more responsibility to a powerful worker. Thus, the biggest pay raises usually result from quitting or getting fired.
   
7. A wise worker networks to create allies who will support him in political conflicts. Senior-level workers retain a personal Public Relations professional to build a positive and visible public image, both written and photographic. Senior workers ensure political enemies and allies are kept informed of all positive image building incidents (news articles, published works, speaking engagements, conference attendances, charitable activities, etc).
   
8. A wise worker is punctual and keeps himself cheerful, well-groomed, physically fit, properly nourished, and sufficiently rested to “look good” and perform well. A wise worker always takes full annual vacation for relaxation, plus all discretionary days off in order to handle personal matters and reduce job stress, and a wise worker does not skip lunches. Time off and breaks during the work day are essential to keeping emotional and spiritual batteries charged.
   
9. When faced with determined political enemies or unreasonable organizational opposition, the wise worker seeks to determine who is behind the opposition, and the full range of the opponent’s accomplishments, sins, and personal power, identifying also the opponent’s allies. The wise worker will use allies and personal meetings with opponents to glean information about the nature of and reasons for the opposition, always maintaining a calm and respectful demeanor. Wise senior level workers will engage a private detective to unearth sins and errors of political opponents, then determine which of the discoveries to reveal in order to undermine the enemies’ position and turn them into “dead agents” (discredit them). The wise worker uses only such pressure against an opponent as necessary to terminate the opposition. The wise worker knows and uses the principle of “A head on a pike.”

In the above list there are four things worth doing as a matter of priority and urgency to your career.

1. Commendations.Immediately start writing your own commendations, and encourage your juniors to do the same, then present them to your immediate senior on the first day of each month, every month, without fail, and stand in the senior’s presence till the senior signs it.
   
   
2. Client Critiques.Immediately institute a “success story” program in which you and your staff hand a critique form to every single client for whom you care at the time you have finished delivering the care.The form lets the client rate you and your service on a scale of 1 to 10 in the areas you deem are important (friendliness, competence, efficiency, thoroughness, sense of well-being, relief from distress, etc) and asks for a simple narrative “success story” regarding the experience in your office.The patient always signs and dates it, and the name must be printed so it is legible. These forms are summarized at the end of each month, and the scores tallied. The information is used to identify areas of weakness (which your team starts working on) and strengths (which your team talks about proudly with other workers.)The monthly tallies, with a highlight of several of the best narratives, accompany the commendation.
   
   
3. P.R. Hire a Public Relations firm and locate allies in the organization who will spread the factual “rumors” of your success and achievements in the press and among senior staff.These become a huge needle to poke a hole in the balloon of opposition your opponents float around the organization to defame or defeat you.When opponents hear and see the evidence of your success and how others appreciate you, it demoralizes them, and makes them loathe to attack you for fear of looking like fools.It actually prevents much opposition that might otherwise be there.
   
   
4. Investigator. Hire a Private Detective or recruit spies to dig up the dirt on your political opponents and their supporters.It is axiomatic that someone who is opposing you wrongly and who is attempting to defeat you using dirty tricks is himself dirty in other ways, and that he is hiding that dirt.When you discover it, decide what to reveal to him, and tell him in no uncertain terms, but politely and diplomatically, that he is wronging you and your beneficial activities.If he does not relent, meet with him again and present to him one of the evidences against him, and suggest it would be a shame for that and others to be revealed to colleagues and to the press.The kinds of things the detective will find include professional incompetence, plagiarism (especially while in college, but also in published works), misrepresentation of credentials, cronyism and nepotism, financial misdeeds and fiscal irresponsibility at home or in a past job, broken agreements, spousal abuse, sexual misconduct, philandering, support of evil causes, suppression of good causes, arrest history, and criminal history.Organizational executives almost never want these things revealed to their colleagues and public.
   
   

Parris Sneers at at the corrupt jackasses of Africa

I write in response to Matthew Parris’ 2 July 2005 opinion article “We must all sneer and scoff at the corrupt, cruel jackasses of Africa” at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1677350_1,00.html.

Parris said “A ruling class of greedy men, sheltered by a popular culture of gawping passivity in the face of political swagger, is suffocating the people of Africa and neither tears nor money nor rock music should be our first response. Rage, not rock, is called for…. “Governance” does not need to be created, but reformed, and there are men and women there capable of doing it.”
He could have said the same of America. And he should have. Here’s why.

Africa’s problem is almost identical to that of IberoAmerica – a ruling class dominates and almost everyone else is in poverty. Almost means it’s worse in Africa, and if it weren’t for the fact that Amerindian and Mestizo anti-apartheid outrage have not yet managed to overthrow their ruling class of whites or near whites they so fervently hate, it would be much worse than it is.

Unfortunately for Africa, white governance there is nearly ancient history, and that is its problem, thanks to the politically correct liberal elitists of America pressuring the government of South Africa into dropping apartheid practices that made the country a decent place to live and work.

The root of the African problem is one of IQ, a reality that Parris conveniently ignores. According to the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, the average IQ of African Blacks is 70. American psychometrists consider that to be the upper boundary of “moron.” Thanks to American culture, food, education, and genetic enrichment of the Black race, to the extent American Blacks have availed themselves of it, the average IQ of American Blacks is 85, a full standard deviation higher, but still a full standard deviation lower than the average American Caucasian IQ of 100. Only 16% of American Blacks have an IQ as high as 100. It is no wonder they cannot compete for the better jobs and better mates in America. Were they transported from America to the land of their ancestry, they might actually come to dominate their relatively stupid cousins who are African natives.

However, I doubt it.

Because of their low-IQ, Black people always have been, are now, and always will be pathetically miserable at self-government. Any self-government they evolve without the help of White, Indian, or Oriental overlords will be corrupt, brutal, and a miscarriage of justice. That is because the people are too stupid to build social and economic infrastructure that enable them to earn decent livings. So they live in poverty, and as in America, many resort to crime in order to get by. Unfortunately for most of them, and unlike in America, there is no monthly welfare check for impoverished African Blacks. For this reason, they elect only corrupt politicians, if they elect any at all, politicians who promise them a hand-out. Sound familiar? Sound anything like the government of Arkansas, Mississippi, the USA, or the UK?

Parris conjectures “there are men and women there capable of doing it.”

Really? So what? Most Black African natives who actually are smart enough to rule (and there are so few) have a political axe to grind or their personal pockets to line with public money. They might be capable, but they are systemically corrupt. That is a direct result of having a population of low IQ. When the stupid are allowed to vote, they always vote for stupid things. Parris would do well to remember that Intelligence Quotient is the measure of one’s ability to solve problems. Problems are solved by making wise choices and then acting on them wisely. Africa’s average IQ of 70 prevents both wise choices and wise actions unless people of high IQ rule without regard to the choices of the low-IQ public.

Parris suggests “Governance… be… reformed.”

In Africa? Fat chance. Stupid people cannot possibly evolve a superior civilization. As proven by the lesson of South Africa, Rhodesia, and the Belgian Congo, stupid people, handed the elements of a superior civilization, will trample those elements underfoot and strive to eliminate their benefactors. Given a decent city to live in, Blacks will quickly concentrate into an area and convert it into a ghetto, then into a drug-infested, crime-ridden war zone in which the major victims are Black. This is just as true of Compton and East Los Angeles, California, as it is of Soweto in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Parris is right, though. We should have no more pity for Africa, no more than we should have for the stupid and lazy of America or England who threaten riot an mayhem if the government doesn’t give them handouts.

Of course, you can rightly ask “Who is ‘we’?” It’s not me and you. It’s the demagogue politicians who are only so glad to rob from the rich so as to give to the poor and thereby buy votes. That is because America has established a kind of republic that values the vote of a stupid and ignorant welfare recipient as the equal of a Nobel laureate, Army General, or Fortune 500 Chairman of the Board. Actually, it is because America allows the indigent and those on the dole to vote at all.

In most of Africa, however, that doesn’t matter at all. As Josef Stalin so ably clarified, “It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.” You don’t need to guess who counts them in Africa.


Sincerely,

Bob Hurt

Harvey, Slavery, Nukes, Genocide

I am writing regarding Paul Harvey’s June 23 monologue in which he lamented America’s failure to be tough on terrorism, and the Baltimore Chronicle’s associated 5 July 2005 Action Alert posted at http://baltimorechronicle.com/070505FAIR.shtml and at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569 (see below).

I salute Paul Harvey for making such a valid point about the importance of using nukes to accomplish military goals while minimizing loss of life by American soldiers. I denounce the elitist apologist for terrorism who wrote the Action Alert. Harvey is incisive and accurate in his assessment of the abuse of American military power by sending soldiers to die when nukes can obviate conventional war in one fell swoop.

By contrast, his detractor, FAIR’s author of the alert, is deluded. Being all too willing to decry nuclear bombs that wipe out evil people, he seems unable to come to grips with the real team of questions:

1. How many enemy human lives is the life of one American soldier worth?
2. Is it right for individuals who should be showing mercy to empower government to destroy enemies?
3. Should a people be held accountable for the iniquity of their secular or religious rulers?
4. Is Islam a religion of peace or not?
5. Can nukes be beneficial in modern times?
6. Is Paul Harvey genocidal?
7. What are the benefits of war?

Harvey submitted the ultimate answer. I shall address the reasoning.

1. The worth of human life.
   
   The life of one American soldier is definitely worth an indeterminate number of enemy live. The whole idea of maintaining a military is to prevent enemies from oppressing, robbing, torturing, terrorizing, or murdering Americans. When an entire nation is devoted to such behavior, most particularly when exemplified by like the 9-11-2001 destruction, that nation’s people deserve to be wiped out, without the loss of a single American life. Even if it means nuking the place.
   
   Naturally, the best way to avoid such an offensive retribution is to establish an impenetrable defense through which enemies have no opportunity to hurt Americans. Maybe America, if it still exists after playing pattycake for centuries with Muslim terrorists and those who tolerate or support them, will get around to that in the next millennium.
   
2. Empowering government
   
   Individuals in a nation, while encouraged by all benign religions to show mercy to wrongdoers and love for enemies, have the right to live in relative peace and tranquility. Working together, they elect representatives of their wiser members who draft a constitution and form a government that has as one of its purposes the obligation to provide for common defense of the people. Governments like ours are thus empowered by their people to engage in war if and as necessary to defend our people.
   
   As horrific as was the nuking of Japan 60 years ago next month, it did save a lot of money, and not one American G.I. was lost in the process. As we all know, Japan became peaceful immediately, and the world has enjoyed liberty from Japanese oppression ever since. In addition, post war stability has been guaranteed by the presence of American military in Japan for the past 60 years, and by the fact that Japan has not been allowed to build a massive military.
   
3. Are people accountable for the wrongs of their rulers?
   
   People must be held accountable for the wrongdoings of their rulers. Other than the rulers, no one else can be held accountable. Only a people or a foreign entity has the potential to make a ruler rule rightly. Since the people are the ruled, the responsibility is theirs to ensure their rulers are righteous, or otherwise to depose them. This is true even if the ruler is a brutal despot who kills everyone who gets out of line. The people of a land are still responsible to erect a benign government. And if they cannot do it, if the ruler is a war monger and despot, then they deserve and should expect whatever horrible fate befalls them.
   
   Let us not think that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorist acts against America. As abundantly proved by http://judicialwatch.org, his agents planned and financed the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. The people of Iraq allowed him to rise to power, stay in power, conduct an 8-year, no-win war against Iran, and murder tens of thousands of his nation’s people throughout a 30-year reign of terror. While it was he who spearheaded those acts, it was the people of Iraq who by their complacency or incompetence empowered him. And it is they who are thereby at fault, just as the people of Afghanistan were at fault for empowering the Taliban, and through them, Al Quaeda, to destroy American lives and property.
   
   So, had USA government opted to nuke Najaf, Fallujah, and Tikrit and demand unconditional surrender before sending troops into the country, it would have been well within the USA’s right and reason to do so. Had the same thing been done in Afghanistan, Usama bin Laden might no longer be plotting the destruction of the people and property of America and its allies.
   
   After all, the people are responsible for the misdeeds they allow from their rulers. As such, they are not really “innocent,” even if they are being brutally oppressed by their rulers. In such a circumstance, it is their responsibility to shoulder their arms and overthrow their iniquitous government. That has happened twice in the history of the USA, and both times it was very costly in terms of life and property. It might be tough, but ultimately, unless helped by an outside nation, citizens have no other choice but to try.
   
4. Is Islam Peaceful?
   
   Islam is not peaceful, and it is only partly a religion. It is both a religion and a malignant political force to all who resist it. This has been proven not only by the past 14 centuries of Muslim conquest of a fifth of the world’s land mass, but also by ongoing efforts by Muslims in India, Kashmir, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines, Somalia, Chechnya, and numerous other areas of the world to destroy existing government and supplant it with dictatorial Islamic regimes. All truly Islamic states are dominated by an un-elected power structure. All are theocracies or just plain dictatorships. And all oppress their people.
   
   Until an Islamic government has been established, Muslim militants attack an existing government or its supporters in any way necessary to gain power.
   Both the example of Muhammad and his recital in the Qur’an gives Muslim militants (terrorists) carte blanch to oppress, torture, murder, and wage war against unbelievers. Of course, the Qur’an also double-speaks by encouraging individuals to show mercy and kindness to others. As a guiding document, therefore, the Qur’an encourages Muslims to do just about anything they please to infidels who resist Islam, be it peaceful or pugnacious. Thus, it guides wrong-headed Muslims to commit acts of terror.
   
   Islamic law also imposes radical and unfair social regulation on its adherents. Such law may be egregiously implemented as it was by the Taliban, or done somewhat moderately as it is in Saudi Arabia. Either way, it is a travesty in a modern world because it encourages the treatment of women as though they were chattel, the ownership of slaves, the requirement to exercise religious practices that should be a matter of personal and private choice, and oppression, robbery, torture, and murder of non-Muslims who resist Islamic rule.
   
   Islam cuts across national boundaries. Even though the focal point of Islam is Saudi Arabia (all good Muslims bow facing Saudi Arabia and pray 5 times a day), the “nation” of Islam has no earth territory, and its soldiers wear no uniforms. They see themselves as being authorized and commanded by God to eliminate any non-Muslims who resist Islam, and to do so by any means necessary. While there are many peaceable Muslims in the world, the truth is that virtually all terrorists in the world today are Muslims.
   
   The world cannot go on tolerating Islamic terrorism. Just as the people of a nation are responsible for the misdeeds of their rulers, so are the people of Islam responsible for the misdeeds of fellow Muslims who oppress, rob, torture, murder, and destroy in the name of Allah. It is up to them to take responsibility for and reign in their errant fellow Muslims. And since Muslim terrorists get their marching orders from the Qur’an, it is up to the benign Muslims of the world to take the Qur’an in hand, and excise from it all elements that even remotely suggest by word or example that Muslims are right in behaving hatefully toward others in the name of God, Muhammad, or anyone else.
   
5. Can Nukes be beneficial?
   
   Tactical nukes (neutron bombs) can be quite clean. They eliminate people without destroying too much property (except right at ground zero). A nuclear bomb is the most effective way of eliminating a nest of bad people. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, nukes should have preceded conventional bombing by several weeks. And, I believe one should have been dropped on Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, quite close to the Kabba. Here are the reasons:
   
   a. It would have made a serious point to the rest of the world, and to Islamic enemies of America: the same thing will happen to you if you don’t knock off the terrorism, next we take out your religious centers and every government that supports Islamic law.
   b. America will not allow an Islamic theocracy to exist without being held accountable for Islamic terrorism worldwide because such regimes always support terrorism, and America will not tolerate terrorism.
   c. We would not have the pain and suffering of thousands of our own dead and wounded soldiers, and the attendant family difficulties to deal with. As all past wars have proven, soldiers are permanently shaken up by combat, and the aftermath often causes a breakup of their families an numerous other social problems.
   d. It would have saved a lot of money. It is far cheaper to send in some nukes than to mobilize an invasion force. Yes, the force would have to be sent in anyway, but the bulk of enemy troops could have been taken out beforehand.
   e. We should do everything possible to reduce the loss of American life and property while at the same time driving for victory.
   
   
6. Is Paul Harvey genocidal?
   
   As for FAIR’s slimy insinuation that Harvey is in favor of genocide, I’m certain Harvey will ignore him. I won’t, though. It looks like a little history lesson is in order.
   
   It really is a shame that the crème of the red race was wiped out over 500 years of conquest by Europeans and Euro-Americans. Any honest student of history knows that the red race was characterized by an intense spirituality and racial pride (many called themselves “human beings”), and a concomitant intensity in hostility. Amerindians were so bellicose they could not get along with each other, much less the white man. That is why they never evolved any advanced system of government, and never progressed beyond the tribal stage, which is where most of their descendants still are. Their unwillingness or inability to be more socially harmonious prevented the development of wise representative government. Along with that, Amerindians did not evolve social systems that stimulated growth of education, literature, research, discovery, science, and technology. Until the 1800s, none of them had a written language, and that is the main reason we learn very little from our archeological digs in their concentrations of civilization.
   
   These factors conspired to make the Amerindians weaker militarily than Europeans and Euro-Americans. Their pride made them unwilling to serve the white man. They were unable to beat the white man in war. They refused to get along with the white man. The inevitable result was the destruction of the best of the red race. Only the dregs remain. That is a tragic loss to America’s gene pool.
   
   Europeans wiped out most of the Amerindians they contacted through either disease or war. At first the spreading of disease was accidental, but after the invaders discovered how badly it affected the Amerindians, they used it as a weapon. I doubt that anyone exposed to the constant threat of antagonism, terrorism and war by Amerindians blamed anyone for the use of any weapon that would bring permanent relief. That was not as much an effort to wipe out a race of people as much as it was an effort to wipe out an enemy group that had such an opposing culture. Naturally, the white people associated the culture with the race because no other racial group dressed and behaved the way Amerindians did.
   
   The same is virtually true in America today regarding the differences between Caucasians and Negroes. Certain styles of dress, speech, behavior, and naming children do stereotypically characterize non-professional inner city Negroes as being Negroes, even though they were reared in the same civilization as other Negroes who are professionals and choose to behave and dress as elite Caucasians. Naturally, many if not most Caucasians find Ebonics, jailbird music (rap), and jailbird attire (pants falling down because of no belt), all of which are stereotypical of inner city Negroes, to be loathsome. Fortunately, the news media does not tout stories of Negroes getting killed over it, so there’s little danger of genocide erupting as a result.
   
   What Paul Harvey pointed out is that any kind of weapon that gets rid of masses of enemies at one shot is a worthy weapon in war, and only a fool prefers to see his fellow countrymen killed in a conventional war rather than to use that worthy weapon. Harvey did not promote genocide. That genocide might be the result is merely coincidental.
   
7. What are the benefits of war?
   
   FAIR seems most averse to discussing the benefits of war. Unless one frankly faces the benefits, one cannot face the question of how to achieve those same benefits by peaceful means.
   
   War is another facet of the law of the survival of the fittest acknowledged by Charles Darwin. And, it is a means of achieving not just survival (its main benefit) but optimum survival.
   
   Some of the legitimate benefits include:
   
   Eliminating people and the governments they support who are hostile to you
   Unifying an area in which no enemies exist and you can travel without danger
   Gaining booty (land, money, riches, slaves, and other assets) by conquest
   Earning future revenues from the conquered people or their assets
   Discouraging other enemy people from attacking you
   Providing expansion room for your own people
   Spreading your religion
   Spreading your genes or enriching your gene pool
   Eliminating threats to your gene pool
   
   You might consider that modern national and international laws make it illegal to conduct wars, particularly for genetic reasons, as though there is no such thing as inferior or superior genetic groups. If you think this, you are wrong. A people’s prime responsibility is to improve the lot of future generations, and that can only be done by wise and continual efforts to enrich the gene pool. There are many ways to do this, including the adoption of wise and benign eugenics laws that encourage citizens with the average and better genes to meet, marry, and procreate. Suppressing the procreation of the inferior and degenerate is also a good way.
   
   You see, any intelligent people intuitively know that if a group with an average IQ 30 points below the average IQ of their group is allowed to emigrate and procreate without restraint, the emigrants will thereby dumb-down the gene pool. If you look at the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations you find that the average IQ of Italians is 102, and the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa is 70 (considered by psychologists to be the upper boundary of moron). Italians would be, therefore, insane to invite sub-Saharan Africans into their country to mate and procreate with their people, unless, of course they felt that they themselves were too smart for their own good (I know lots of Italians and never met one who felt that way or didn’t want to be smarter).
   
   And note that IQ, the ability to solve problems, is only one measure of a people’s ability to build an advanced and benign civilization. Aptitude for science, engineering, music, literature, religion, philosophy, family, business, and military strategy are also important measures, as is physical and mental soundness and strength. A people have a right and responsibility to themselves and the rest of the world to foster the good characteristics and suppress the bad, even if harsh legislation or war is required to do so.
   
   Our laws prevent us from applying the law of the survival of the fittest in willy-nilly fashion. Because of that, our humanity demands that we find humane, diplomatic, and forthright ways of accomplishing the benefits that the outlawed law of the survival of the fittest would otherwise provide.
   
   The law of the survival of the fittest demands that when a superior civilization meets an inferior one, it retain the best of the one it finds for gene pool enrichment and eliminate the rest. In the past, the conqueror would murder or enslave the defeated, and as a result of not doing it intelligently, produce even more problems. For one thing, slaves eventually get absorbed into the gene pool, often deteriorating it. For another, war usually slaughters the fittest soldiers, the ones whom it is most important genetically to keep alive for gene pool enrichment and future conquests. And always in war, the most inferior and degenerate are usually adept at hiding or keeping a low profile, so they are not eliminated.
   
8. How do we establish laws that achieve the benefits of the law of the survival of the fittest and of war?
   
   First of all, we have to discuss it rationally with intent to identify the truths in the issue. Ignoring it or pretending anyone who raises the subject is Hitler in disguise, as most liberal elitists do, solves nothing. Meanwhile, it allows our civilization to slide into a decline from which it could be impossible to climb.
   
   I’m going to leave this question unanswered, for that is not the purpose of my commentary. My purpose is to illustrate the reality that war does provide benefits, and that until our leaders start discussing ways to achieve them peacefully, and then frankly face and sincerely act up the findings, it is delusional to complain about how wars are conducted and whether nukes should be employed.

The point here is that war is a horrible, terrible recourse to the inability to resolve international differences peaceably. Sometimes it is the only alternative to oppression, robbery, torture, murder, and destruction at the hands of an enemy. There is no question that Islamic terrorists are the enemy of America, Israel, and every other non-Islamic government in the world that resists them. It might be considered somewhat genocidal to contemplate exterminating all Islamic terrorists, but so what? What right do they have to live while they are intent on hurting others just because they think God authorizes or commands it?

Of all kinds of wars, lobbing a huge nuke or two into an enemy land might seem to some to be the most terrible, but I don’t think it is. Had America been able to use the nukes at the beginning of the war with Japan, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would not have been wounded or killed, and many American families would have been saved the associated cost and horror. Saving our own lives and property was well worth the death and destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As General George Patton once remarked, the idea of war is not to give your life for your country, but to get as many of the enemy as possible to give their lives for their country. That’s what war is all about. And that’s what nukes do.

I am guessing Paul Harvey thinks it is wrong to agree to or abide by the Geneva convention’s outlawing of torture and weapons of mass destruction that kill innocent civilians as well as enemy combatants. If he does, I agree with him.

The only rule of war should be to win it as fast and cheaply as possible with as little loss of your own money, property, and life as possible. If the enemy doesn’t like it, let him behave decently.



Sincerely,
Bob Hurt

------------------------------------

ACTION ALERT:Paul Harvey's Tribute to Slavery, Nukes, GenocideHateful rant shows Disney's double standard on speechJuly 1, 2005Disney/ABC radio personality Paul Harvey, one of the most widely listened to commentators in the United States, presented his listeners on June 23 with an endorsement of genocide and racism that would have been right at home on a white supremacist shortwave broadcast.Harvey's commentary began by lamenting the decline of American wartime aggression. "We're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies--more moral, more civilized," he said. Drawing a contrast with what he cast as the praiseworthy nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Harvey lamented that "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos"--suggesting that America should have used its nuclear arsenal in its invasions of both countries.Harvey concluded:"We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever."And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."Harvey's evident approval of slavery, genocide and nuclear and biological warfare would seem to put him at odds with Disney's family-friendly image. The media conglomerate syndicates Harvey to more than 1,000 radio stations, where he reaches an estimated 18 million listeners. Disney recently signed a 10-year, $100 million contract with the 86-year-old Harvey.In 2004, Disney forbid its Miramax subsidiary to distribute Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, even though Miramax was the principal investor in the film. A Disney executive told the New York Times (5/5/04) that it was declining to distribute the film because, in the paper's words, "Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film...could alienate many."One wonders whether Disney executives are worried about alienating families who oppose slavery, nuclear war and Native American genocide.ACTION:Ask Disney why it finds Paul Harvey's nostalgia for slavery and genocide and his calls for nuclear war acceptable, but deemed Michael Moore's film unacceptable.

Questions about Islam

To Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Professor of Islamic Studies
The George Washington University

Professor Nasr:

I’ve been listening to your Modern Scholar course on Islam and the West, and while I find it interesting and informative, I am nagged with questions that no ordinary Muslim seems able or willing to answer. So I am writing to you in the hope that you can answer my questions.

I am not Muslim in respect to embracing the tenets of the religion of Islam, most particularly not Islamic law and Islam as a political and social regulatory force. However, I am a Muslim in respect to being devoted to a pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness in life, what you might call “doing God’s will,” and I do recognize much good in the religion of Islam. Therefore, I am not an antagonist, I am a sincere student of Islam, and I am eager to learn more about it. In fact, I have read the Qur’an at least once, and much of it several times.

As for my earlier background, I was reared as a Baptist and have studied most of the world’s major religions in some depth. But I do not consider myself to be a Christian. Rather, I am primarily a student of The Urantia Book (for the past 33 years), and I consider myself to be a follower of Jesus, embracing his religion instead of a religion about him.

Now, here are my questions. I encourage you to answer them before reading my comments below:

1. What are the principles of Jesus’ “gospel”, which Muhammad encouraged all Muslims to embrace? Where are they in the Qur’an?
2. From whom did Muhammad learn about the gospel and the principles of Christianity?
3. How do Jesus and Muhammad compare in character and nature, according to the Qur’an and recorded history?
4. Is every single word in the Qur’an considered to be a sacred recital of words spoken by Gabriel to Muhammad, and if not, what portions are not sacred recitals?

Here are my motives for asking (I shall be expressing my considerations, opinions, and research findings, and I encourage you to correct my misunderstandings):

1. What is the Gospel?

I have searched both the Bible and the Qur’an for an enumeration of the points of the gospel, and none is there. Both Jesus and Muhammad, however, implored others to embrace the gospel. The Urantia Book goes into considerable detail about the gospel, but of course Christians and Muslims do not consider The Urantia Book to be authoritative, so when I talk to Christians and Muslims it is important that I use as my sources of encouragement the respective texts they consider to be holy.

Since the Qur’an is does not purport itself to be a restatement or recission of the “Book” (Old Testament) or the “Gospel” (Biblical recounting of the life and teachings of Jesus), but rather it presents only summaries of some of the salient points of both, I do not see how the Qur’an could be considered an accurate or replete source of information about the gospel. Until 1955 there was no credible published work that enumerated the points of the gospel, and only the New Testament of the Bible could serve as a source. We must assume therefore that the gospel is recounted in Jesus’ teachings according to the Bible, to the extent allowed by its ancient editors, and attempt to unearth its points by a careful study.

My study has revealed the following major tenets of the gospel:

1. Acceptance of the reality of the Fatherhood of God.
2. Belief in the truth of the Brotherhood of Man.
3. Faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to be like God, to do his will.

The Urantia Book corroborates the above A B Cs of the gospel.

Why were these good news to the Jews of Jesus’ day, and why are they good news to Muslims? Here is what I think, and note that even the gospel Jesus taught to the multitudes was a step down from the advanced spiritual truths he taught his close associates. These points correspond to the A B Cs above.

1. Neither Jews nor Muslims actually see God as a Heavenly Father. Rather, they see him as an all-powerful deity who will crush them for their sins and misdeeds if they are unrepentant or iniquitous. Yes, they both claim God loves his human subjects, but they do not think of him as a loving Father. Jesus actually taught that a spirit fragment of the Heavenly Father indwells people’s minds and yearns for them to follow his leading. This implies the potential of divinity in human beings who seek to find, know, love, and be like God.
2. Neither Jews nor Muslims actually believe all other humans are their siblings. Jews believe only fellow Jews are their “neighbors,” and Muslims believe only fellow Muslims are “brothers.” Yes, they both claim it is right to love other people, but they do not really feel a divine mandate to love them as though they are brothers. By contrast with brotherly love, which Jesus preached to the multitudes, Jesus taught his close associates about Fatherly love, and elevation in quality of relationship to fellow humans.
3. Neither Jews, Christians, or Muslims actually believe humans can be like God. Most Christians assert man inherited a sin nature from Adam and Eve, and can never have fellowship with God unless they accept the notion that his crucifixion constituted a blood sacrifice that atones for sins. Jews are mostly silent on the subject because many, if not most, of them don’t even believe in an afterlife. Muslims actually believe God makes people be evil and makes them reject him, as though they have no choice in the matter. Jesus taught the multitudes that they should strive for personal perfection, and he did not focus on punishment that might be in store for them if they made mistakes. Rather, he focused on the good that would happen to them if they were righteous. He taught his close associates that humans are potentially divine, and that with his approval they can go on to meet the Father face to face.

Note the last sentences in each itemized paragraph above. These are the elevated principles Jesus did not teach the multitudes, but they are nevertheless advanced tenets of the gospel. I am certain you can see why they are such good news. Thinking of God as a father helps people feel they live in a friendly universe where they are expected and encouraged to be good, and they have a blood bond to their creator. Thinking of all people as siblings (or, better yet, as beloved children) inspires people to be tolerant of the faults of their fellows, to love them, and to serve them unselfishly and lovingly. This makes the universe seem to be even more friendly and living in it to be a joy. Thinking the desire to be like God will eventually make people more like him inspires people to show God’s (the Father’s) loving nature to all other people, and to anticipate the power-personality synthesis that results from becoming more like god.

Aside from reiterating the good news of the gospel, I am suggesting in the above comments that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are generally ignorant of the ABC points of that gospel, and so they really don’t get the “good news”. Both Christians and Muslims claim ardently to be believers in and followers of the gospel. However, if you ask any Christian or Muslim to enumerate those points, you will not get cogent, intelligent, direct answers. Many Christians, when asked about the gospel, will present their opinions about the atonement doctrine (believe in Jesus as savior or burn in hell), or say “open your heart to Jesus.” Muslim, however, never even discuss the gospel.

I personally believe this is the major cause of the problems in Christianity and Islam. They give lip service to principles they do not understand and cannot explain, and they are not really imbued with the spiritual verve an embrace of that good news can bring them. Were they able to enumerate the gospel’s points as I have above, they might find a major common point of agreement between the two religions which does not now exist, and thereby they might begin a process of uniting under that gospel. After all, teaching the gospel was the reason for Jesus’ public ministry, and Muhammad pointedly warned his readers that humiliation was in store for those who do not heed the gospel. If you believe the account in the four books of the bible that tell about Jesus’ life, the spirit presence of God appeared as an apparition and on two occasions told those within hearing range “This is my beloved son. Heed him.” Yes, I am aware that Muhammad said Jesus was not God’s son. He was speaking about a genetic, physical son. Since he also claimed that Jesus came from the “Spirit of God,” obviously he believed Jesus was God’s spiritual offspring. According to Jesus’ gospel, of course, we are all God’s children.

Does that make sense to you?

2. How did Muhammad learn about Jesus?

Muhammad does not explain in the Qur’an how he came to learn about Jesus. If you accept his account, he was simply reciting what Gabriel had told him. However, I recently read that a Syrian Christian taught Muhammad about Jesus. I personally consider that to be quite likely, regardless of what Gabriel said. My question is: who was his teacher here on earth? Here’s why I ask:

In working to help enlighten Christians about the gospel, I encounter enormous resistance. Most of them, particularly the preachers, believe the so-called apostle Paul was the one charged with bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, and of course they believe he did so accurately. I believe differently, however, and the proof is in the New Testament for any honest researcher to discover. Paul explained that he went temporarily blind on the road to Damascus, was told by the heavenly voice of Jesus to go to Damascus and get further instructions, then went to Arabia, then back to Damascus, then to Jerusalem where he met Peter and Jesus’ brother James, then back to Damascus where he spent 3 years before starting his missionary work. He singularly failed to explain where he went in Arabia, why he went, and what he learned.

It seems likely to me that the instructions he received in Damascus were to go to Arabia and Jerusalem to learn the gospel from Jesus’ former apostles. Which of them might have been in Arabia, and where in Arabia would they have been? I believe the two apostles who went to Arabia were Andrew (elected to be the leader of Jesus’ 12 apostles), and Abner (the head apostle for John the Baptist and mentioned in The Urantia Book). Andrew escaped the persecutions in Jerusalem by going to Philadelphia, the last “foreign” town in which Jesus preached before returning to the area of Jerusalem to resurrect Lazarus and be crucified. He had been well received in Philadelphia. What is Philadelphia? It is present day Amman, Jordan, and it was outside the jurisdiction of the Temple leaders and secular leaders of the Jews, so Andrew would have been safe there.

The Urantia Book explains that Andrew and Abner founded a church in Philadelphia that was loyal to the teachings of Jesus, and it survived, sending missionaries throughout Arabia, until it was overrun by Muslim armies early in the 7^th century. Most likely it was a missionary from Philadelphia who met with and taught Muhammad.

Why is this relevant? Well, it explains a number of inconsistencies in the biblical record. Since Paul said nothing about what he learned in Philadelphia, we must assume he disagreed with what he was taught. John Mark, the lad who had been closely associated with Jesus and his apostles for 4 years, abandond Paul in Paul’s first missionary journey, probably because he disagreed with Paul’s teachings. And Paul did in fact teach a very strange set of cult beliefs about the relevance of Jesus’ death. He was the author of the atonement doctrine that I find so alien and pagan in nature. Jesus never taught the atonement doctrine, and Abner, Andrew, and John Mark all knew it. Therefore, Paul refused to reveal anything about the gospel teachings he learned in Philadelphia.

Even the book of Revelation (John Zebedee’s vision) reveals in the 3^rd chapter that Jesus was fully pleased with only one of the seven churches mentioned - the church in Philadelphia, founded by Andrew. He found some fault with the others, all of which had been established by Paul.

Now, since the rank and file Christians during the days of Muhammad’s early life were of a more Greek Orthodox persuasion, overly honoring Mary as the “mother of God,” pushing a convoluted concept of the Trinity, claiming Jesus was the second person of that Trinity, and giving the gospel short shrift, and since the missionaries from Philadelphia, being loyal to the gospel, disagreed with them, therefore, naturally, the missionary who taught Muhammad told him of the disagreement and complained about the faults in their doctrines. Interestingly, in the Qur’an Muhammad denounced Christians for precisely those shortcomings, and in his denunciation he made it apparent that some Christians acutally believed correctly. Who would those correct Christians be? The ones in Philadelphia, of course. It is a shame that he sent his Muslim warriors into the last bastion of the gospel on earth and destroyed the church from which missionaries of that gospel had been sent to teach him.

I want to corroborate my theories about this. Therefore, I would like to know what other information is available regarding Muhammad’s Christian teacher(s), where I can find it, and what it says. Do you know of any scholarly works that deal with this subject?

I believe Muhammad was correct in denouncing parts of the written record of Jesus’ life and the incorrect following of Paul rather than Jesus by most Christians. Some of the four gospel records in the bible were edited to make them seem more consistent with Paul’s fraudulent concept of the plan of salvation and his false gospel. This is evident from the fact that fundamentalist Christians pick two or three references to blood and ransom as the sole proofs of the atonment doctrine in Jesus’ comments. Even those, however, they misconstrue to make them fit what they want to believe.

3. Comparing Jesus with Muhammad

Although Muslims say they honor Jesus, I do not understand what they mean by this. I also do not understand why Muslims do not elevate Jesus way above Muhammad in honor. The reason is the accumulation of testimony in the Qur’an about both Muhammad and Jesus, not to mention the biblical record of Jesus’ life and teachings, and other historical writings about Muhammad.

To begin with, there is no human-recorded eye-witness history of Jesus life and teachings outside the first five books of the Bible’s New Testament.

However, there is a considerable record of historical commentary about Muhammad’s life and teachings. These indicate Muhammad had a villainous side to him, albeit perhaps justifiable by the circumstances. He did send his warriors out to raid, loot, and murder settlements of people who were, by and large, innocent. And there is no question that Islam has been spread for the past 14 centuries at the point of a sword or barrel of a gun by Muslim warriors following Muhammad’s example. These facts are indisputable, and they early raids of looting and murder are corroborated by Muhammad’s comments in the Qur’an. In fact, fatwahs and testimony from numerous Muslim clerics about the Qur’an’s support of of holy jihad (actually, acts of war and terrorism) against infidels (non-Muslims) are the basis for the use of oppression, robbery, torture, murder, terrorism, and war against non-Muslims in the world today. This would not look so bad were it not for the fact that Muhammad set the example for this behavoir himself, and in numerous places in the Qur’an, he encourages it.

Ignoring the biblical record of Jesus’ life, and focusing only on Muhammad’s comments in the Qur’an, we see that Muhammad claimed Jesus was a magnificent, honorable, noble, peace-loving, man. Muhammad claimed Jesus was born from the spirit of God, physically born from a virgin, that he himself was a creator, healer, and miracle worker, that he was a prophet, that he brought the gospel to people, that he was closely associated with God, that he ascended to heaven after being resurrected from the dead, and that he will be the judge on judgment day.

The only such characteristic Muhammad claimed about himself was that he was a messenger who received Allah’s words from Gabriel.

That is quite a comparison! Muhammad was a messenger, but otherwise there was nothing holy about him, and he did not get his messages directly from God.

If you believe the biblical account of Jesus, it exalts Jesus only slightly more than does the Qur’an. It indicates Jesus was a spiritual son of God, that he actually communicated directly with God, that he promoted and practice only peace among people and unselfish loving service to others, and that he has “all power in heaven and earth,” whatever that means.

Thus, both Muhammad and the bible grandly elevated Jesus in divine and human status above Muhammad, and this is clear from Islam’s holiest of books, a book you have said is to Muslims what Christ is to Christianity. And yet, Muslims, in their personal beliefs and practices, ignore what Jesus taught and how he lived his life, and focus exclusively on Muhammad, what he taught, and how he lived his life. This seems to me to be very strange, particularly in view of the fact that Muhammad was, according to recorded history and the Qur’an, a war-monger and a promoter of terrorism, while Jesus was a committed man of peace and good will to all. How can Muslims do this in good conscience, given the magnificent claims Muhammad made about Jesus and his gospel in the Qur’an?

Summary and Conclusions

I have presented questions with background considerations that provoke those questions because they demand hard-core answers that are truthful, not an effort to skirt the truth. I hope you can shed some light on the answers, for I know there is much good in Islam.

I think Dar al Islam and Dar al Christianity would both be better of if the adherents of these religions do what both of their head prophets told them to: heed the gospel, live the gospel, and spread the gospel to everyone in the world.

The only way Islam will ever be reformed from the somewhat evil political force that seeks to make women into virtual chattel, inflict mortal punishment on any people who resist embracing it, and uses madrasses to inculcate children with the notion that it is noble to murder infidels in the name of God, is for Muslim educators, community leaders, and clerics to start focusing on living and teaching the gospel.

The only way Christianity will ever escape from the dark ages of fraudulent pagan ideology like the atonement doctrine is for its leaders, educators, and clerics to start focusing on living and teaching the gospel.

Both groups give lip service to it, and many in the groups try to live righteously, but how can they teach principles they don’t know? Unless the three basic points of the gospel are explained to them, how will they ever discover them with clarity in their convoluted holy books? And WHO will do the explaining, if not people like you? Have you already explained it in any of your 50+ books? If not, why not?

My final question to you is this: did you know the gospel as I have explained it above before reading my explanation? If so, where and how did you discover it? Please be specific. I’d love a pleasant surprise in your answers.

In closing, I want you to know that I have not intended to defame Muhammad, the Qur’an, Islam, or Muslims in the comments I have made, and I am willing to be corrected in any errors I have made. I have not knowingly misstated the truth in anything I have said, nor have I pulled any punches to avoid offending you. I have tried to present my considerations and reasonings frankly, and I can support all of my assertions about information in the Qur’an or Bible with relevant, straight-forward scripture. Since I am not writing a paper for any of your classes, I do not think such support is necessary, particularly since you are a well-read scholar on the subject.

Bob Hurt

How to Make Jugito's Peach-Jalapeño Jam

Yesterday Maria drug me out of my batcave for a 13-mile drive up Alternate U.S. Highway 19 to Tarpon Springs for some authentic Greek cuisine prepared by real Greeks from real Greek recipes. It was the second day of July, on the evening of which Heavyweight Sam Peter was going to K.O. his journeyman opponent early in the second half of round two. I'd been thinking of the impending fight earlier in the day.

Then, throughout the first half of our chatty trip, meleleuca honey was on my mind because it's weird, delicious, and available only at one roadside apiary between Dunedin and Tarpon Springs. Unfortunately, the place had been closed, and I was grieving. Peaches were far from our thoughts this gloriously sunny Saturday afternoon, but that was about to change.


Adventure at the Roadside Fruit Stand

Suddenly, we passed a little makeshift fruitstand on the right. Both our heads swiveled, as though we were dashboard monkeys, to see what the vendor was offering. We saw flashes of red, yellow, green, and, wonder of wonders, peach.

I pulled to the shoulder, slammed the gearshift in reverse, and backed up. In spite of our being relatively close to Georgia, presumably the source of delicious Georgia peaches, peaches seem never to be in season on the left coast of central Florida. I think the peach mafia is hoarding the best ones - the only peaches our super markets carry are rock-hard or mealy. You never know, though, what a roadside stand might have. Maybe those peaches were going to be sexily succulent and leave us with juice dripping down our chins and onto our shirts.

"Are those peaches any good?" Maria yelled out the window at the vendor. He was a wrinkley wisened, toothless Hispanic man. She had to yell twice to make her tiny voice heard above the traffic noise.

"I'll give them to you, if you want them," the man hollered back. I heard the pop of her door as she swung it open. We both got out of the car, navigated the huge plat of mud that separated the roadside from the fruit stand, and went over to inspect the peaches.

Sure enough, the vendor was going to give those peaches to us. We asked why. "They're mealy," he replied.

Maria wanted to know what that meant, and the vendor told her they're not good for eating because they're getting old. He showed her how easily they broke apart, and tossed a couple of noticeably bad ones into his garbage pail.

"We'll take all you have," I told him. "Maybe I can make juice out of them." The batch of peaches comprised four or five trays of about 3 pounds each.

The vendor agreed they might make good juice. He looked up and smiled at me. That reminded me of my grandfather who had a similar, toothless smile. Then, as he handed me the bag, he noticed my baseball hat. Maria had bought it for me in an airport a few years ago and had it embroidered with the words "Jugito - Curandero del Barrio," which means "Little Juice Man - Healer of the Neighborhood." He ventured no comment about the hat, but only smiled bigger. Maybe he thought Jugito means "Man of little Juice." He'd have been right, but I'll save that topic for another article.

I browsed for vegetables while Maria chatted in Spanish with the Vendor. She was delighted to discover he was a native of Puerto Rico, as she is.

$5 and a couple of bags of vegetables later, Maria and I carried our loot to the car. We had bought tomatoes and yellow squash from him, both of which are so delicious when prepared rightly. We like to slice the tomatoes, array them on a large plate, squeeze a lime on them, salt and pepper them, sprinkle them with chopped oregano, basil, parsely, or cilantro, and let them sit for a while to develop flavor. And, we slice and simmer the squash with a little butter, salt, and pepper till tender.

Oh, right, I nearly forgot. This article is about making Jam. I guess I'd better get on with it.


Enter, Don Pancho Villa

On the corner of Drew Street and US Highway 19 in Clearwater, Florida, about 3 miles from our home, Don Pancho Villa's bodega and cafe caters to the burgeoning community of Mexican expatriates in Pinellas county.

Back in the mid 90's one family arrived from the Mexican state of Hidalgo, and began inviting their other friends and relatives. Now the Clearwater area of Pinellas county sports a population of 25,000 Mexicans from Hidalgo, upwards of 15% of the population. Missing the low prices and indigenous food of Mexico, they need Don Pancho Villa's. There they can buy a cheap lunch of pulled pork, rice, beans, and salad, and they can stock up on groceries bearing Mexican labels, or freshly hacked animal flesh from the meat counter. And of course, there is a plentiful supply of fresh and dried hot peppers.

Loving hot peppers, and craving the aroma in our kitchen, I had sent Maria to Don Pancho Villa's on Friday to buy some red jalapeño peppers and to order a 20-pound case of habaneros. She had returned with over half a pound of large, red, juicy jalapeños that I couldn't wait to bite into or mince and sprinkle over some fried eggs and sourdough bread. They were sitting in the refrigerator when Maria and I returned home from Tarpon Springs.


Jam Session - The Peaches and Peppers Meet their Fate

As 9 P.M. neared, I was anxious for the Sam Peter fight to start, and Maria was in the kitchen peeling one of the peaches. She started complaining about how the peach didn't seem all that good, and in fact she was disgusted with it. Apparently she had found out what "mealy" really means. I told her not to worry and that I'd juice them. So, I took over from her to save her the agony of disappointment in the peaches.

Before long, the peaches were washed and pitted, and my Champion juicer was spinning with eagerness to rip the flesh of those peaches apart and convert them to liquid. I had jammed about a fourth of the peach flesh into the garbage disposal because it had turned brown. But that still left me with 8 or 10 pounds. As I ran them through the machine, I recycled the pulp to get all the juice out, then poured the thick nectar in a large pot. When I was finished, I had half a gallon of nectar. I transferred it to my pressure cooker, stirred in a teaspoon of vitamin C powder to prevent it from turning brown, and began to gather the other ingredients for making peach jam. I didn't figure Maria would be terribly interested in drinking the nectar because of her bad experience with that one peach. When I mentioned making jam to her, she brightened, and suggested I throw the jalapeños in too.

So, I ran the red Don Pancho Villa jalapeño peppers through the juicer, poured the fiery liquid into a sauce pan, and cooked it down till most of the liquid had evaporated. I poured the remaining liquor into the pressure cooker too, squeezed in the juice of two lemons, and turned on the heat.

When I make peach jam, I don't like to overdo the sugar, and I never use pectin, which thickens it. Instead, I bring the nectar to a boil, stir in 85% sugar and about 3 tablespoons of fresh lemon juice per quart of nectar, and then boil the concoction over high heat, stirring constantly, till I cannot stir down the bubbles. At this point, at sea level, the temperature of the boiling mass is between sustained between 120 and 123ºF, and then I remove it from the heat and pour it into sterilized, warm jars. Then, I screw the lids on snugly, and set the jars into boiling water for 5 minutes. Prepared this way, the jam will be thick, and it will have a very long shelf life at room temperature. The acid from the lemon and ascorbic acid works with the sugar to thicken the jam and make it hold its shape. Too much acid will make the jam "weep", and thin liquid will be forced out of it while the jam gets too thick. The idea of boiling is two-fold. First, it reduces the amount of water in the jam mass, and that makes it thicker. Second, it heats the sugar to the "soft-ball" stage, and that makes it thick without carmelizing it or turning it rock hard.

In the past I have made mistakes you'll want to avoid. I've added too much lemon juice, and that makes the jam weep and taste too tart. I've added too little, and that has made the jam runny. I've not boiled long enough, and the jam has been runny, necessitating a reboiling. I've boiled it too long, and that has made the jam too thick to spread easily. I've failed to stir the pot constantly, and that has resulted in a caramelization of the jam on the bottom of the pot, imparting a burnt flavor and flecks of dark matter to the jam. I've also added too many hot peppers, resulting in a jam that is too hot to enjoy on toast.

I met an old woman at the local Pepper Extravaganza who makes jam, and I asked her how she managed to get such good, rich flavor into it. She explained her secret. "I only cook it as long as I have to in order to make it jell. Overcooking takes away flavor." She always uses pectin in her jams in order to thicken them nicely without boiling them too long.

Pectin is a thickening agent that naturally occurs in all fruits, but it is more prevalent in some than in others. Unless you boil the moisture out of peach jam and raise the heat of the boiling, sugary mass to above 120ºF, you will need to add pectin in order to thicken it. Typical brand names are Certo and SureJell. Since you will be boiling it only a short time, and foam will form on the top, you will need to skim off the foam just before pouring into jars.

What? You want a regular recipe? Okay, here goes:


How to Make Jugito's Peach-Jalapeño Jam

Equipment:

Stove
2-gallon stainless steel or porcelain pot with flat bottom
Pot Holder
Long-handled spatula
Long-handled spoon
Candy thermometer
Sterile jars with rubber-seal lids, all of which are still warm


Ingredients:

Enough peaches to make 1/2 gallon (8 cups) fresh peach nectar
12 big red juicy jalapeño peppers
7 cups sugar
2 lemons


Directions:

1. Juice the peppers
2. Put pepper juice in pot and set it to boil so as to reduce liquid and thicken remainder.
3. Meanwhile, juice the peaches, and recycle the pulp to extract all possible juice.
4. Pour peach nectar in pot and stir into pepper nectar.
5. Squeeze the lemons and stir juice into nectar.
6. Bring nectar to boil, stirring constantly.
7. Stir sugar into nectar. If you are going to use pectin, stir it in now.
   
8. Bring to rolling boil at high temperature, stirring constantly.
9. If you are using pectin, remove from heat, skim off foam, and skip next step.
10. In this step, stand back from the pot, wear gloves and an apron, and use long-handled utensils to avoid being splattered and burned with magma-like nectar. Continue boiling at high temperature, stirring constantly, using spatula to prevent sludge buildup on bottom of pot. Boil till temperature is sustained above 120ºF and below 124ºF for one minute. At this point, stirring will not diminish the bubbling.
    
11. Immediately pour hot jam into sterile jars, wipe any spill of the threads and rim, then put caps on and screw down the tops snugly.
12. Clean the pot, fill 1/2 full with water, set on stove, set sealed jars into the water, and bring to boil with lid on. Boil for 5 minutes, turn off heat, and allow jars to cool in the pot. This assures all bacteria are killed.
13. Label the jars so you will know what is in them.
    
14. Refrigerate jam after opening jars.
15. Send me a jar of your jam.

How to Use Peach-Jalapeño Jam

This jam has a delicious, sweet flavor and packs plenty of heat. Suggested uses are:

1. Spread the jam on buttered toast and eat with freshly brewed hot coffee.
2. Decant some into a bowl and set beside Wheat Thins and a block of cream cheese or aromatic French cheese.
3. Spread instead of syrup on pancakes.
4. Use as a glaze for barbecued or roasted ribs, chicken, beef, pork, rabbit, or venison. Note: don't spread it on till the barbecue or roast is already well-browned and crusty on the outside, or the sugar will burn. After spreading it on, let it roast a little longer but watch it and remove it before it burns.
   
5. Spread thinly on a loved one, and lick it off. Careful where you put it - that pepper burns. But hey, be adventurous. What's a little heat between lovers?

Naming a Power-Packed Jam after Sam Peter?

I know what you're wondering. You're wanting to ask me: "You mean you missed the Sam Peter fight in order to make Peach-Jalapeño Jam?"

No, but the fight didn't last long enough to interfere. While the nectar was coming to a boil, the fight started, and I was glued to my seat. Sam Peter, for all his black Nigerian beefy bulk, was the smaller of the two fighters. Throughout the first round, his larger opponent, Taurus Sykes, managed to keep his distance, and nevertheless had several close calls as Sam began to get his range. I counted three zooming overhand rights that barely missed and seemed to leave a sonic boom around Sykes' head in their wake.

At the bell, I got up to check and stir the pot. I turned the heat to low. All was well in nectarville, and this could be a long fight. I headed back to the beckoning glow of the tube.

In the second round, Sykes wasn't so lucky. In spite of being warned in his corner to stop backing up and to shift to the side, all Sykes did was back up, putting him directly in the path of Peter's freight-train attack.

After a hard right from the Nigerian Nightmare knocked Sykes firmly against the ropes, Peter came in, ducked down, then slammed an overhand right just above Sykes' left temple. Sykes began to crumble, and Peter landed at least two more like the first, knocking Sykes to the mat. Not even the ropes could save him. He didn't answer the 10-count.

I don't consider Sam Peter to be that great a boxing talent, but his punching power and killer instinct are awesome. He claimed "Nobody can take it," and I'm sure he's correct, if an opponent backs straight up from his attacks, but a more skilled boxer can evade him, side-step him, and pound his ribs to slow him down and make him drop his guard.

Sam Peter, like my Peach-Jalapeño Jam, packs a wallop. But I'll watch him develop a little longer before I nam a pepper jam after him.

Fred: Whine About Something Meaningful

Re: http://fredoneverything.net/WhatPrice.shtml

Why, Fred, are you whining about Iraq and the bleeding of our dead troops (1700 killed so far) there? Do you have an ox being gored in the Iraq mess? No, I didn’t think so.

Stop your sniveling long enough to compare our Iraq and Afghanistan losses with our losses in Vietnam and Korea (over 50,000 each), and our losses in WWII (hundreds of thousands). By comparison, TWAT (“The War Against Terror”) is a day at Boy Scout camp, thanks to our superior weapons, unlimited budget, and the prickly resolve of Wubyuh.

I watched George make his comments on TV last night, and I agreed with him before he spoke a word. The strategy is now and has been crystal clear. Tough it out while we build up the Iraqi ability to defend their country against insurgents, include them in the fight, and avoid sending more troops over there than necessary. Then pull-the-fuck out while continuing to maintain military bases and a serious presence there.

Why stay there?

You don’t think our need for military in the MidEast will diminish after Iraq is strong enough to handle their own insurgency problems, do you? Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Yemen, and the entire Arabian peninsula are still run by Muslim dictators of one stripe or another, and none of them are friendly to America, although Jordan’s Hussein still puts on a good face. We’ll need to be there for another couple of centuries. And wisely so, as demonstrated by our 60 years of peaceful relations with Japan and Germany.

If you want to bitch about something meaningful, try these:

1. The Bush administration has no plans to force the a heavy excise tax on Iraqi oil to repay Americans for the excessively high price of petroleum products and for the necessity of entering Afghanistan and Iraq to begin with.

2. Iraq is an endogamous, tribal society beleaguered by an oppressive religio-political Islamic culture, and that is the reason its people do not follow national leaders and tend to resort to Mafia-like system of social justice. The terrorist-style murders by Al Quaeda operatives and recruits, and the Islamic training schools are products of that system and typical of Islamic states everywhere, supported by endogamy. Why? Because marrying nieces, nephews, cousins, aunts, and uncles forces people to be clannish or tribal, and to answer to tribal leaders over national authorities. This is one of the reasons Muslim states loose wars against true nations (for example, it is the reason tiny Israel kicked the asses of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan twice) – tribal leaders are made colonels and generals, and when they fall in battle, their troops go home rather than fight for another tribe’s leader. Saddam Hussein was nothing more or less than a tribal leader, just as the heads of the tribe of Saud are the leaders of Saudi Arabia, and the leaders of other tribes run the various Emirates of the Arabian Peninsula. In order to make Iraqis follow national rather than tribal leaders, and in order to diminish the Mafia sub culture of Iraq, secular authorities must pass laws prohibiting endogamy, and they should encourage mixed breeding with people from other lands.

3. American GIs are discouraged from mingling with Iraqis, partly because they do not speak Arabic. Instead, they should be encouraged to impregnate as many Iraqi women as possible. This will help to reduce the anti-American sentiments of future Iraqis. The French did a similar thing after WWI to Germany, albeit for a more sinister reason. They quartered black Moroccan troops in Germany and encouraged them to impregnate as many blonde German women as possible, as though any encouragement was needed. The main reason for this was to humiliate and punish Germans. History shows the practice (along with others intended to demean, punish, and humiliate Germany) backfired, for Hitler rose to prominence mostly because he promised Germans an end to the humiliation and the rebuilding of national and racial pride. The practice, in our case, would have a much more benign motive – to promote peaceful relations between nations.

Pepper Mash

Hot Pepper Mash (I'm fond of habaneros, scotch bonnets, and jalapenos) is mashed or ground up hot peppers, which are then fermented both to preserve them and to add flavor while reducing fresh vegetable harshness. Sauce makers use pepper mash as a base ingredient for hot sauce, ice cream, fudge, and so on. A little dab will do it, since the mash is 90% or more peppers, and fermenting does not diminish the heat.

The trick is to get the peppers to ferment in spite of relatively low sugar content, let them age, and to do so without refrigerating them or adding vinegar or chemical preservatives.

Koreans do this with cabbage (mixed with other veggies, fish sauce, and so on) and call it Kim Chi. Some pepper mashers suggest adding Kim Chi as starter. I don't bother. The technique I use is to add 10% pickling salt to the ground peppers, add a little vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to retard mold, and let the mash sit loosely covered to bubble away. Sometimes a little water must be added to keep the solids from direct exposure to air.

The solids tend to trap gas bubbles and rise. To prevent discoloration and mold, it is ideal to keep the solids submerged. When fermenting mash in a straight-sided vessel like a crock, it is best to set a plate that is slightly smaller that the crock diameter into the crock, then set a sealed plastic bag containing 3 or 4 pounds of brine on top of that. Thus, the gas bubbles will escape around the edges of the plate and never be exposed directly to air.

The fermentation is mostly finished within 6 weeks. Some mashers, Like McIlhenny, the makers of the world-famous Avery Island Louisiana Tabasco sauce, leave the mash in wooden casks up to 2 or 3 years to age and take on the flavor of the cask. Frankly, I don't care for Tabasco sauce that much, and I think the aging is pretty much a waste of time.

In spite of this, I have some mash that fermented for 9 months in glass jars, and I like the taste better than 6-week ferment. Ideally, I think mash should ferment for at least 3 months, for it does gather a richness of flavor, up to a point, as time goes by.

Last weekend I took 50 pounds of mash, packed in 96 half-pint jars, to a local pepper festival, and sold jars for $10 each under the brand name of "Jugito's Magma Hot Pepper Mash", coming home with 22 unsold. I was the only one selling mash. It was a fun event.

Members of the local Dunedin Brewer's Guild bought more mash than any other group. One of the guilders, a home brewer, went home, made a batch of fudge with my mash in it, and brought a slab back to me. It was tasty, and the heat was sneaky, noticeable only after chewing a bit. It was my first hot pepper fudge.

I had planned to enter some mash into the amateur pepper sauce and salsa competition, but the rules would not allow exhibitors to enter. I had already made up a batch of award-winning salsa, and it was too much for me and Maria, so I gave most of it away to neighbors.

I had also made a brand new sauce I dubbed "Smokey Peppamato." It contains Scotch Bonnet, Habanero, and Jalapeno pepper mashes, ground chipotle peppers (smoked jalapenos), lime juice, the extracted juices of smoke-roasted tomatoes and bell peppers cooked down with cilantro, and Bragg's apple cider vinegar. It is warm and delicious.