People love you when you are getting the crap beat out of you. When your face is being pushed into the muck, that is when people care.

For example: People seemed to tolerate Israel when Hamas rockets rained down into this tiny State; day after day.
However, the minute that Israel retaliated against Hamas, they lost all compassion from the world.

The United States also found this to be true…
Just after 9/11 when we were at our lowest, the world poured out sympathy for us. (I believe France even send us 2,000 beds. Or, maybe that was during Katrina?)
However, the minute we lashed out at Afghanistan and pulled Saddam from a hole in the ground, we lost sympathy from the world. We become “the hated.”
So, if we use this analogy, the answer would be to keep getting your ass handed to you- FOREVER, until the day you die. Then, and only then, the world will love you.
(Note) You are dead. Your ass was kicked every single day of your life by “someone.” However, the world LOVES you.

So, I’m trying to figure out where this concept came from? (Because, usually; the “good guy” is justified regardless if he is winning or losing a battle.)
Did it come from Hollywood..??

Name one movie where the “good guy” gets his ass kicked AND NEVER retaliates near the end of the movie?
I can’t think of one?
(My first thought was Clint Eastwood’s “The Unforgiven.” Where the “good guy” was actually bad. The “Bad guy” was actually fighting for a good reason. However, near the end of this movie; the “bad” GOOD guy does take revenge and is respected in this old western town.)
Could you imagine Batman, Rambo, or James Bond getting slapped around AND NOT seeking some sort of revenge?
Even Hollywood movies teach people to fight for what they believe, so this idea that “losing is GOOD” doesn’t necessarily come from Hollywood.

The Bible teaches people to “turn the other cheek” and to love your enemies. However, the people who are pushing the “good guy must lose” idea probably do not read the Bible.
This idea that “winning is bad” could come from the school system. I seem to remember the idealism being taught that there may not be a “right and wrong”, (or good and bad) because of a “gray area” where the BAD guy might be a good guy to someone else.

So if you were taught (and you believe) that right could be wrong and “bad” could be good, then you wouldn’t want to see America or Israel win a war. (Because of the gray area where right could be wrong and good could be bad.)
OK, I understand that. (I do not agree with it, but I can understand it.) But, then how could these same people go to the movies and watch a “hero” beat up the bad guys..??
Somehow, they are able to turn off this “gray area” idealism long enough to watch the movie?
Maybe we have found our answer…

I believe that every person instinctively understands right from wrong. (They just pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.) In school, or maybe through parents, children learn of a “gray area” between right and wrong. This causes these people to rethink what they knew to be true.

Here is a great example
:

The democratic mayor of Baltimore (Sheila Dixon) was just indicted for stealing Christmas gift cards for the poor and using them on herself to buy video games and furs. She was having sex in her office, (with a guy who wasn’t her husband). And she took many gifts in exchange for city contracts awarded to the gift givers.
At this point: it doesn’t matter if you are a democrat or a republican; if you are White or Black, you KNOW what Sheila Dixon did was wrong.

So right now, your “gray area” idealism is turned off, and you can tell right from wrong.
However, in the weeks to come; you will be bombarded with “extra” information about Ms. Dixon. Maybe you will learn that she grew up in a tough situation. You might learn that there are many other politicians doing about the same thing, so why pick on the Baltimore Mayor?
(These are things that shouldn’t matter..!! She committed a crime.)
Your “gray area” idealism will kick in and you will no longer be able to tell right from wrong and a criminal will get away with a crime.

Take Illinois Governor Blago; when we first heard the audio tape of Blago trying to sell Barack Obama’s senate seat, we all knew that he was a criminal. (No gray area.)
However, in the weeks that followed; the spin started that “Blago hadn’t really committed a crime yet. He just TALKED about selling Obama’s senate seat. Blago didn’t actually sell it yet..”
(Would that be like a terrorist who TALKED about blowing up the White House. But he is OK because he didn’t actually blow it up yet..??)
Republicans even began to speak highly of Blago because “he made the democratic party look bad.”
In this last example, republicans are using the gray area idealism to allow a crook (Blago) to stay in office, (because democrats put Blago there and the people need to see what the democrats have done.)
A crook is a crook, and Blago should have been made to step down long time ago.
Lets take one more look at today’s news:
A video tape of Britain’s Prince Harry calling an Afghan tribesman a “raghead” surfaced this weekend. He also called a fellow Pakistan soldier his: “Paki friend.”
Now, most of us know that during a war, soldiers talk tough to “toughen” each other up. Prince Harry was serving in the British military and during a war, you may not always be politically correct.
However, in the next few days; depending on which side of the political fence you dwell on- you will look at this statement by Prince Harry different.
If you are for the war in Iraq, you will believe that we always call the enemy names. Hell, terrorists call us names like “western dogs” and “pigs.” So what if Prince Harry called a terrorist a “raghead?”
However, if you are against the War in Iraq, you will believe that what Prince Harry said was the worst possible thing ANYONE could have said. You will believe that statements like this are causing Arab people not to like us.
“Gray area” idealism is a fun way to debate in the safety of a school. It gives a person representing an unfavorable position a chance to win the debate. However, it is a terrible way to send a child into the real world.
People MUST know the difference between right and wrong.


Every car thief could argue the “gray area” of why they should have a car.
Every rapist could point out the “gray area” of why the girl was “asking for it.”

“Gray area” idealism is a great debating trick, but that is as far as it should go.
Radical Islam is USING the gray area idealism to win your mind over to their side. Terrorists have you convinced that right could be wrong and that bombing a restaurant full of innocent people is OK- because… (Well, they have many reasons. “We killed innocent people because you buy oil.” Or- “Israel sits on land that was ours, so instead of talking- we shoot rockets into Israel because of the gray area and you have no freaking clue of what is right and wrong..”)

Gray area idealism causes you to fall for political spin and not recognize an enemy (until it is too late.)
I have to fight very hard to shut down my “gray area” idealism (that was forced into my brain as a child), or I find myself falling victim to the spin doctors.
You begin to believe that:
It’s OK to blow up innocent people and retaliation is the evil.
It is OK to steal gift cards from the poor because your life was bad and everyone is doing it. (Or because you think republicans do worse.)
When you think about it; how could “right” ever be wrong..??


Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic

Advertisements