Thursday, October 18, 2007

World History

Ever wonder what the world looked like 2'000 years ago? How much land did the Romans actually rule? What lands did the Chinese rule 1'500 years ago? What did the Arab Islamic Empire look like? How about Alexander the Great's empire?

I've been a big fan of history ever since I was a little kid. I remember reading about Charlemagne's Frankish Empire before I was in High School. The Roman Empire has always been my favorite, and it spanned over 2'200 years. Imagine what the US would be like 2'000 years from now!

When looking for maps online, I never had much luck finding maps I was satisfied with. Sure I'd find good maps covering one or two small regions (like France or Greece, etc.), but I couldn't find any maps that covered whole continents. And believe you me, I looked!

Check out World History by Thomas Lessman.
http://www.thomaslessman.com/History/Maps.html.


I was forced to draw my own maps. It took a LOT of research, but I've done it! PLEASE look around, and see if you can find any maps that are as detailed, extensive, or accurate as the historical maps I've drawn. And if you DO find better maps, let me know!

So far I've been able to draw 15 of these maps, covering the world (well, at least the Eastern Hemisphere) from 500 BC to 1025 AD. I've got my complete set available on my website;

So if you like history, check out my Historical Maps at www.ThomasLessman.com/History/Maps.html, and see what the world looked like at various key points in history.

Thomas Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

WW3

(Published in the Topeka Metro, Oct 12, 2007)

I hate to say it, but I seriously doubt we'll survive another World War. It's not nukes or chems that I'm afraid of. Think about this:

1. There are 30 million + illegal aliens in our nation. If even 1/10th of them are hostiles? That's 3 MILLION enemy soldiers inside our own borders, strategically located inside our nation!

To be "hostiles", they don't have to be soldiers from islamic, or communist, or rival nations. Hostiles also include groups like "M-13", the central american gang that is rampant in the American Southwest. Groups like La Raza openly flout their anti-Americanism, yet they are slated to receive over several MILLION $$$ in federal subsidies in the next few years? Why don't they give equivalent funding to the Minutemen?

It seems our own federal government is working against us too! How hard has the government tried towards revoking the 2nd amendment and disarming our own citizens? The British lost the Revolutionary war because American Citizens were armed and able to fight back. Germany knew it would fail in any invasion of the US because they knew many of the citizens were armed. Kinda puts a damper on any organized invasion of the US, when the enemy knows we can field a "Citizens' Army" larger than anything they can throw at us...

Add to that the almost determined effort by the federal government to outsource many of our best paying, quality jobs to 3rd world nations (thus impoverishing a LOT more of our population than they let on). AND stationing our troops in so many nations that our own army is terribly stretched thin and unable to return to the US if we are attacked on several fronts.

A friend of mine brought up a tragically great point the other day. I want to preface it by saying that I get a lot of calls from guys who have been screwed over so bad in family courts (which can destroy a life and smile while doing it). Some of them (and other groups) get so frustrated they say it's time to stop working within the system to reform it, and just grab guns and start fighting back.

I tell each of them that, while I understand their frustrations, grabbing our guns is the stupidest thing we can do. The citizens of the US have set themselves up for failure. If we can't get 20 guys to stand outside their courthouse and publicly protest against officials they know are anti-American, what on earth makes you think we can get 20 MILLION people to stand up and fight back with guns? Because it will take at LEAST that many to stop the Apache helicoptors, stealth bombers, tanks, and other advanced weapons that would be thrown at us.

My friend brought up a great point. "If America revolts, WHO do you think will be putting down that revolt?" He said, "It won't be our own military; very few of our soldiers will fire on their fellow citizens. Instead, it will be UNITED NATIONS troops who would be sent in as "peacekeepers", because they are well armed and trained, and they have no alliegance to the US or our citizens. In fact, many are from nations who strongly hate the US. Do you really think they'd have any mercy or understanding for "We The People", knowing that we elected our own government?

Thomas A. Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us
Phone: 785-230-4546
----------------------------------------------

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

"Deadbeat Dads" editorial from KMBC-TV

This editorial by Wayne Godsey of KMBC-TV <Click Here> is a kick in the face to all fathers, and just in time for Father's Day. KMBC-TV can be emailed via their "Contact KMBC" page at http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/contactus/index.html

Trash Can editorials like this cannot be allowed to go unchallanged. Real reporters actually check facts and get both sides of the story. This guy is the GENERAL MANAGER of a TV station, yet he didn't think to talk to any of the people he's so carelessly stereotyping?

The facts are:
1. Most "deadbeat dads" are regular fathers crushed by child $upport orders that can take more than half of their income - literally leaving dads without money for rent, food, or bills. How is dad supposed to be able to take care of the kids when they're with him if he has no money to feed or clothe them?
2. States have incentives to keep child $upport high because they get federal reimbursements for every dollar they collect (Bradley amendment, USC 42 sec 666).
3. Courts routinely segregate parents into unequal classes (custodial and non-custodial), giving custodial parents a lot of power over the other parent's life and relationship with the children. This encourages parents to fight for power (in and out of court), which makes a lot of money for attorneys, therapists, and other court personnel.
4. Restricted visitation, parental alienation, and "Kids, meet your new daddy this week" syndrome are just a few issues that non-custodial parents and children face. Courts rarely do anything if mommy won't let daddy see the kids (but she tells the kids their daddy doesn't love them anymore - so she found them a new daddy at the bar last night, and he's better than the one last week...)

That's barely the beginning of the OTHER SIDE of the story that Wayne Godsey failed to mention when he jumped on his editorial bully pulpit. My question is, does KMBC-TV have the courage to show BOTH sides of the story, or should we write them off as a "Trash Can Newscast"?

Thomas A. Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us
----------------------------------------------

Friday, April 20, 2007

"Politically-Correct" Racism

"Politically Correct" Racism
By Thomas Lessman, Date: 4-20-07

A joke by shock-jock Don Imus about "nappy-headed hos" helped set off another mini-explosion in the powder keg of racial issues in America. Imus apologized repeatedly but was suspended from his show and later fired. Several things about this whole episode bother me.

Why do some people think it's ok to insult, degrade, or discriminate against other races, but not their own?

Imus' joke was nothing compared to racial jokes told by Carlos Mencia, Dave Chapelle, or Chris Rock (who doesn't hide his contempt when he calls white people "crackers"). Many rap stars sing about "nappy-headed hos" (among other terms far more insulting*). Do the race crusaders think it's okay for some people to be racist, but not others?

Welcome to "politically-correct" racism and the glaring hypocrisy of racial politics in America.

Some of the most vocal protesters demanding Imus' blood openly flaunt their own racism, saying it's not really racism if it's said by someone who is black. The "politically-correct" racists were silent when Al Sharpton spoke about "blood-sucking Jews", but raised hell when Mel Gibson said it. Snoop Dogg, of all people, said that Imus' words were demeaning to black women. This from the guy who raps about using women and putting them in their place because, "we don't love them hoes". (While I like some of Snoop's songs, that doesn't change the fact that he's a racist hypocrit!)

When confronted with proof of their racism, most "politically-correct" racists respond predictably. First they try to deny it and accuse their critics of being racist. Then they try justifying their racism by claiming it's not really racism when blacks are racist because blacks are a minority.

I fully support the right of free speech whether I agree with the opinion or not. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are hypocritical, race-baiting opportunists, but in a free nation they have the same right to speak just like everyone else. What bothers me is that they think the right to be pompous, self-righteous, racist hypocrits belongs only to them.

Either racism is wrong and it's wrong for anyone to be racist, or it's not wrong and everyone can be racist. I personally believe racism is ignorant, but I refuse to stay silent while racist hypocrits like Sharpton, Jackson, and Snoop Dogg promote their own racism.

Some civil rights leaders DO understand that point. The only real civil rights leader in Topeka, Sonny Scroggins, has spent decades fighting racism in all forms. While Scroggins dislikes the terms used by Imus, he also understands that Imus' words were no worse than what Snoop Dogg raps. Recently, Sonny has been protesting on Wanamaker to stop Gangsta Rap (which made Snoop Dogg rich). Says Scroggins, "Either racism is wrong, or it isn't, but they can't have it both ways."

I respect those words of wisdom from Sonny, and I will be joining him in protest as time permits. I encourage you to protest with Sonny too, if you truly believe racism is racism regardless of the color of the racist. You can contact Sonny at 785-232-3761 or
BiasBustersOfKansas@yahoo.com.

Respectfully,
Thomas A. Lessman
. www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog:
www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email:
talessman@yis.us.
Phone: 785-230-4546
----------------------------------------------

* "Where them nigga hoes at?" (FYI, that's the opening line of the rap song "Playa's Ball" by E-40 & Too Short.)

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Apology to Reporters Tim Hrenchir & Fred Johnson

I owe Topeka Capital-Journal reporters Tim Hrenchir and Fred Johnson an apology.

About a month ago, I called into Jim Cates Show to voice support for Jack Woelfel's campaign, and we later began discussing certain problems the Topeka Capital-Journal has with "shoddy reporting". Jim asked what I meant by that, and I brought up a few examples.

One article in particular that I pointed out was the CJonline article from Oct. 30, 2006, titled, "Voting Habits Steady". The author of the article highlighted my voting record as the worst, saying I had voted in only 12% of the elections I was elegible to vote in. (Article link: www.cjonline.com/stories/103006/loc_votehabits.shtml)

That's incorrect, because as a registered Libertarian, I'm not able to vote in many elections that registered Republicans or Democrats are able to vote in. The author also downplayed the fact that I've shown up to vote during elections, only to be told there was nothing I could vote for because I'm registered Libertarian.

Anyway, Jim asked who the reporter who wrote that story, and I replied that I wasn't sure, but it may have been Fred Johnson or Tim Hrenchir. I was wrong; it wasn't Fred or Tim. Earlier today I re-read the story and realized it was Barbara Hollingsworth who wrote the story.

That's not the only time I've noticed factual in-accuracy of some articles published in the Topeka Capital-Journal, but it was the first one that came to mind when I was on air.

In any case, I named the wrong reporters, and I apologize to them for my error.

Respectfully,
--------------------
Thomas A. Lessman
Web: www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email: talessman@yis.us
--------------------

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Electing a Better City Council

The Topeka Metro recently published my letter in support of Jack Woelfel for City Council.

Electing for a Better City

I gained respect for my former opponents Ann Mah and Jack Woelfel after the 2002 elections, and it's been an honor working with them ever since.

Now one of them - Jack Woelfel - is running for Topeka City Council district 9.

Topeka has a few good leaders (like John Alcala and Sylvia Ortiz) who care about our city and lead as best they can. Unfortunately some city leaders (like Blackburn and Duffy) have their own agendas and they don't care how their schemes hurt our city, as long as they get what they want.

Jack Woelfel is a man of integrity who believes in responsible government and fiscal responsibility. He has the best interests of the City and its residents at heart, and Topeka will prosper with him on the Council.

I urge you to consider your choices and elect Jack Woelfel to Topeka City Council.

Respectfully,
Thomas Lessman

Friday, February 09, 2007

Islam vs. the West?

I'm about as close to an expert on world history as anyone can be without having a degree. My strongest point is Roman History, as well by Ancient and Medieval history of Europe and the Mid East.

The Moslem Turks conquered my favorite Empire, the 2206 year-old Roman Empire (in 1453 AD, 40 years before Columbus arrived in America!). So you can imagine how irked I am that the Moslems destroyed one of history's greatest civilizations.

And I agree that one of our biggest security issues today is terrorism from Moslem extremists. (Though I think Illegal Immigration is a far more dangerous threat).

The thing is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are different sects of the same religion. All three worship the same God; the only difference is that Jews don't believe the Messiah has come yet, Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah, and Moslems belive that Jesus was a Prophet, and that Mohammed was the final Prophet.

In any context historical or modern, Moslems are no more violent than Christians, Jews, Hindus, even Atheists. Because when it comes down to it, we're all equally human, no matter what God(s) we do or don't believe in.

The man who wrote "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" was on a local radio show here just a few days ago. First he said that Islam is a dangerous religion because it teaches its believers that infidels (non-Moslems) are only worthy of death. That's not true - Islam teaches that non-believers should be converted at every opportunity, but those who don't convert should be taxed. Seriously.

Then he started talking about how Moslems are bad because they behead or stone criminals to death. The irony here is that Christians were still doing much the same thing only a few decades ago - and some Christians still do.

It's tragic that several thousand innocent people were murdered by Moslem extremists in the WTC bombings. (Though I do believe parts of our own government had their hand in planning that tragedy). It's also tragic that several thousand innocent people have been murdered - some intentionally, some not - during our wars to get Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

I agree that we MUST stop the Moslem extremists, because of the fact that they are determined to destroy every one of us. But remember, not every Moslem is an extremist, just like not every Christian is a David Koresh or a "Reverend" Phred Phelps.

My point is that we'll never win this war through the commercialized Propaganda that the authors who wrote "The Truth About Mohammed" and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" are trying to get rich off of.

While I agree that it's way overboard to threaten this guy with death, what did he expect? How many Christians would be pissed off if an Buddhist wrote a book called, "The Truth About Jesus"? If an Atheist spit in your face and called you a moron who wastes his faith on an invisible cloud being, wouldn't your first reaction be to want to kill him? When you spew false propaganda about a man's religion, isn't that much like spitting in his face and insulting his beliefs?

The only way we can win this war against terrorists is to eliminate the terrorists, NOT by killing innocent people or preaching hateful propaganda against the survivors. All that does is create even more extremists, which creates more terrorists.

Respectfully,
Thomas Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/