Don't Be Fooled Again

Bring them home NOW!!!

American Bloat

Okay, NOW I am angry! What I just read is raising my blood pressure and is also raising a desire within me to be a part of and witness a good old-fashioned worker revolt!

According to The Institute for Policy Studies’ 14^th Annual Executive Compensation Survey, the average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) earns more in one working day than the average worker does in an entire year. Excuse me, but WHAT THE SHIT IS THIS?!?!?

The survey states the following facts:

1) CEOs averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, over 364 times the pay of the average American worker

2) The private equity boom has pushed the pay ceiling for American business leaders considerably further into the economic stratosphere. The top 20 private equity and hedge fund managers, Forbes magazine estimates, pocketed an average $657.5 million(and yes, that is per person), or 22,255 times the pay of an average U.S. worker.

3) CEOs at major American corporations enjoyed, on average, $1.3 million in pension gains last year. By contrast, only 58.5 percent of American households led by a 45-to-54-year old even had a retirement account in 2004, the most recent year with data. Between 2001 and 2004, the retirement accounts of these average households gained only $3,775 in value per year.

4) CEOs of S&P 500 companies, according to Corporate Library data, retire with an average $10.1 million in their Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, just one type of special account large American companies routinely set up for their top executives. But most Americans now move into their retirement years with no pension protection whatsoever. In 2004, only 36.3 percent of American households headed by an individual 65 or older held any type of retirement account. The accounts that did exist, on a per household basis, averaged only $173,552 in value, a minuscule 1.7 percent of the dollars in the supplemental accounts set aside for America’s top CEOs.

5) The top 386 CEOs took in perks worth an average $438,342 in 2006. These perks ranged from using private company jets for personal travel to reimbursements for country club fees, commuter expenses, and even the extra taxes due on bonus income. A minimum wage worker would need to work for 36 years to earn the equivalent of what CEOs averaged just in perks last year.

These facts bother me a great deal, as I am certain that they would most people with any sense. The fact that these people are being paid this kind of money while a person who works 40+ hours per week and still has a hard time paying his or her rent is beyond any sort of justification. Honestly, I do not know what is more disturbing, the fact that these conditions exist or the fact that we accept that they exist without resistance.

Put this into perspective. A person who went to college for business is going to earn an average of $10.8 million per year. A surgical staff nurse, who will most likely have gone through an equal amount of training and schooling as the CEO, can only expect to earn $68,398 per year. This seems a bit lopsided to me. Worse than this is the fact that CEOs earn more in perks than the average American worker earns in salary.

The average CEO gets the perk of “commuter expenses” while I can’t even get a partial gas allowance for my 28-mile trek each way to and from work. Some of these CEOs get their country club expenses reimbursed, while I can’t get a clothing allowance for the type of clothing that I am required to wear (and subsequently destroy) for my job. Some of them get to use the private company jets for personal travel, while I am expected to pay for my own hotel up front with my own credit card if I am required to travel for my job. It just doesn’t seem fair. The funny thing about these perks is that they are compensation that is over and above their normal compensation, so their normal living expenses are effectively provided by the company for which they work. The machine operator in a manufacturing plant doesn’t even get an allowance for day care expenses while they slave away for $10 per hour. How sickening is that?

I have long thought that the less physically demanding one’s job was the more money one would earn. This study simply reaffirms that notion. What I find to be the most disgusting of all is the argument against raising the minimum wage. Corporation claim that raising the minimum wage would hurt American corporate productivity. That’s interesting, because if the statistics are correct and the CEO is being paid an average of 45% more now than 10 years ago, would it not make sense to adjust the CEOs salary to a comparable rate of growth as the people who produce the goods or services that the company markets? For instance, Alan Mulally of Ford Motor Company received a total compensation of over $39 million in 2006. Strangely, Ford currently plans to close 14 manufacturing plants and eliminate 30,000 jobs over the next 6 years (as of 2006). It doesn’t sound to me like this man is earning his keep. Why not fire him and hire someone that will do the job for $1 million and put the remaining $38 million into general labor costs. The same could (and should) be done across the corporate spectrum so that the average worker can earn enough money to live on.

What Americans do not seem to grasp is that one does not need a 6 bedroom, 6 bathroom home for 4 people. One does not need a $60,000 vehicle when a $30,000 vehicle will suffice. One does not need to own 6000 acres of land when 10 will do just fine. One does not need a 60-inch television to watch from 20 feet away when a 42-inch will do. One does not need to eat at a restaurant that costs $100 per plate when a restaurant that costs $25 per plate will quell your hunger just as well and probably tastes better anyway. America is a sick place full of sick people and the American dream has been beaten into submission by the wealthy and powerful.

I’m going to go and put my shackles back on now.

Land of the Incompetent, Home of the Ignoramus

When asked by Aimee Teegarden at the Miss Teen USA pageant why 1 in 5 Americans could not identify the United States on a map, Lauren Caitlin Upton of South Carolina inadvertently answered the question without actually giving an answer. Here is what she said:

“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh… people out there in our nation don’t have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and… I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our”

Wow. Just wow.

Out of a sense of fairness, I would like to state that I think that she was most likely just nervous. Surely, no one is actually that stupid without fitting the medical evaluation of mentally retarded. In fact, she later corrected her original statement (and I use the term “statement” very loosely) by saying: “Personally, my friends and I, we know exactly where the United States is on a map. I don’t know anyone else who doesn’t. If the statistics are correct, I believe there should be more emphasis on geography in our education so people will learn how to read maps better”. That’s better.

The emphasis here is not so much on what she said at first, but what issue she brings to light. That issue would be the dumbing down of America. What is more telling is that this question even needed to be asked. The fact that 1 in 5 of all Americans couldn’t identify their own country on a map is very sad to me. In fact, it’s downright depressing. Have we really sunk so low in intelligence that we do not even know where we live? Are our educational standards that bad? The sickening truth is… yes, they are.

Somewhere along the line, the bureaucratic American education system decided that the educational requirement standards needed to be “adjusted” to suit people who were being left behind because they couldn’t keep up. Instead of helping these people catch up and actually committing to the work that it took, they made things easier for everyone else. The problem is, by making things easier on everyone else, we have actually made things harder in the long run.

This idea that we have to make things easier on people who do not grasp specific concepts is a cop-out and it is a short-cut to mediocrity. We should be challenging people to do better. If they have difficulty, then we should do whatever it takes to make sure that they get what they are being taught. Think of it this way: if a man walks into a state department of motor vehicles and asks for a drivers’ license but fails the test by giving incorrect answers to 50% of the questions, should we go ahead and give him the license because the test wasn’t geared for him to pass it? Do you really want less-than-qualified drivers on the road behind or in front of you?

Believe it or not, that was not a totally unrealistic analogy. The University of California at Davis turned away a white medical student in 1978 who was unqualified. He sued the school before the U.S. Supreme Court (University of California Regents V. Bakke) on the basis that equivalently qualified minority students were allowed to enter the school based on their race and that he was not afforded the same treatment. He claimed that this was “reverse discrimination”. The Supreme Court sided with him and he was granted entrance. So, now we’re allowing under-qualified people to become doctors because of their “disadvantaged status”? That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. What’s next, medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors who are minorities being dismissed as racist? It isn’t a matter of racism or discrimination. It’s a matter of common sense. If I go into emergency surgery, I want the most qualified doctor operating on me. I don’t want some doctor who got into school based on his or her skin color and still only achieved a solid 2.0 average. I want the person who actually worked his tail off and studied for his MCATs and got into school because of that and earned a 4.0. God forbid I get one of those idiots who doesn’t know right from left and removes the wrong lung if I have cancer.

We need to stop coddling people through life. We need to stop telling every single kid we see that they are each special for no reason. We need to make people earn what they are given. We need to grant diplomas and degrees to people who actually work for them. We need to drop this idea that certain people are disadvantaged when it comes to education and that we should make allowances for it and actually do something to eliminate the disadvantage. We need to stop making excuses for people and start encouraging them to try harder. We need to stop letting people think that it is perfectly okay to turn the same screw for 40 years at $35 per hour in an automotive plant without ever knowing how to read. We need to stop using material wealth as a measure of success. We need to rediscover the idea that a days’ work is actually worth something and that it feels good to complete it.

All over the world, Americans are viewed as ignorant. The bad part of this view is that it is not inaccurate. We are ignorant. We are ignorant of the customs and cultures of other nations. We are ignorant to the fact that we are not always right or better. This ignorance also leads us to project an air of superiority. We are like a playground bully who assaults the smart kids because he feels threatened by their intelligence. The ironic thing is… we are threatened by their intelligence, and rightfully so. The rest of the industrialized world is outdoing us because we coddle people from cradle to grave. We need to stop it before it’s too late.

Conspiracy V. Fact

I have had quite a few people in my MySpace friends list that you might call “conspiracy theorists”. For that matter, I would probably be considered a conspiracy theorist myself. There are a couple of notable differences between me and them, however.

One difference would be the sources that we choose to believe and use. For instance, many of them would choose to site any of Alex Jones’ various outlets (PrisonPlanet.com, InfoWars.com, JonesReport.com, PrisonPlanet.tv) as a reference. I, on the other hand, do not choose to use anything that Alex Jones has to say as a reference. It isn’t that I don’t believe him. It isn’t that I think that he is lying or has some ulterior motive in what he has to say. The reason that I do not site Alex Jones is that he is widely known as a conspiracy theorist. If I want people to reach the truth and to understand it, I am not going to waste my time referencing a website that is not viewed by the majority of people as a reputable news source. I am not trying to reach people who believe as I do, I am trying to convince people to believe the way that I do. I cannot accomplish that by remaining within my own circle. To do so is sort of like trying to convince a vegan why he or she should eat only vegetables.

My feeling is that most people want to know the truth about most things, especially the things in the news that affects them. However, they want to be told by people that they view as reputable. So, I research articles by sources that I know people trust (whether they are wise to or not is debatable) such as: The Washington Post, Yahoo News, CNN, Fox News, The New York Times or any other major network or newspaper. I also find it challenging to search for truth from sources that, I believe, lie about or distort the truth on a regular basis. To me, accepting what Alex Jones says at absolute Gospel is no different than watching John Stewart or Stephen Colbert and thinking that you are watching the Nightly News with Walter Cronkite. There is typically a grain of truth to what these people say, but the rest of what they “report” should be taken with a grain of salt.

Another difference between myself and other conspiracy theorists is how far I am willing to go with these theories. There are some CTs (conspiracy theorists) out there who believe that there is some sort of conspiracy involving “reptilian species” controlling human affairs. One of the people espousing these theories is John Rhodes. John Rhodes actually believes that these “reptoids” are the descendants of dinosaurs and that they live in the Earth's "underworld". Is he wrong? I don’t know. Maybe he is wrong and maybe he isn’t, but I think that there are more important issues to worry about right now. Another of these “reptilian theorists” is David Icke. David Icke actually expounds upon the reptilian theory by claiming that the world is actually being controlled by shapeshifting reptilian humanoids. He claims that many of the world’s most prominent leaders are members of this race. The British Royal Family (except for Princess Diana), the Bush Family, the Clintons and many others are included in his list. Is he right? I don’t know. I don’t know if any of this is true. What I do know is that quoting these people is not going to help me expose any truth to anyone other than people who already believe. It is more likely that I would be cast as a nut and dismissed altogether. Most normal people tend to tune out when you start talking about aliens and reptile/human hybrids. I am not, by any means, discrediting any of these theories, nor am I stating that the people who believe in them are abnormal or weird. I can't because I do not know enough about them and I do not know that they are untrue with any certainty. I do, however, know that conspiracies about the CIA, Mossad, Shin Bet, FBI and the Bush Administration are much easier to swallow than aliens and reptilians, especially when they are backed up by what the general populace believes to be legitimate sources. Some guy writing a blog with references to another blog would not be considered legitimate in my view.

That brings me to one of my favorite sites; What Really Happened. I actually read this site religiously. Michael Rivero provides me with TONS of inspiration to write the blogs that I write. However, a large portion of what he posts at the above link comes from blogs, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and a handful of others. Again, these sources cannot be considered as factual evidence. That doesn’t mean that there are no facts behind them. What it means is that these are effectively op-ed pieces and are the opinions of the author. Opinions are not facts. I think that we remember this from grade school.

The point of this posting is that, when you read something from an internet source, it is vitally important that you dig a little bit deeper than the surface. Read the article carefully and take a few notes. Research those notes for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources due to its lack of a peer review process, but it does quote its sources in footnotes. Look at those sources and decide for yourself. The same can be said of the mainstream media. The MSM likes to spin things to fit whatever agenda they are promoting at the time. It doesn’t mean that they are not telling the truth. It just means that they aren’t telling the whole truth.

It's All Our Fault

This past weekend, I went out to see the documentary “No End in Sight”. As I said in a previous post, this was an excellent film. It actually shed a lot of light on a few things that I wasn’t aware of. Well, I was sort of aware of them, but not to the degree that I am now that I have seen this.

This film could easily be dismissed as an anti-Iraq War film. I don’t really see it that way. It was actually more of an informative breakdown of the utter incompetence with which the occupation was and is being handled. It didn’t spend any time dealing with conspiracy theories. It did, however, point some fingers at the current administration regarding their rush to go to war in Iraq. This is not a conspiracy theory. It has basis in well-documented fact. I won’t go into any of that because that is not what this posting is about and it is only briefly touched on in the film.

This film could also be easily dismissed as left-wing propaganda. Typically, I might agree with that assessment. However, the mere presence of one person in particular negates that accusation entirely. That one person happens to be none other than Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell. He was also a signatory on the PNAC letter urging former President Clinton to invade Iraq in the late 90s. When someone of such as Mr. Armitage comes out negatively of the occupation that he had a hand in starting, you just know something has to be wrong. His mere presence, ironically, lent a large amount of credibility to what was being said.

I knew that L. Paul Bremer had done a couple of things during his tenure as interim governor of Iraq that were questionable such as deciding what contractor got what contract and for how much. There also remains the issue of the missing $9 billion in Iraqi funds, but we’ll leave that alone as well… for now. I also knew that the Iraqi military had been disbanded. What I did not know was that this came from a direct order from Bremer. I also did not know that more qualified people (like General Jay Garner and Colonel Paul Hughes) were telling him and anyone who would listen that this was a mistake. From what I gather, the Iraqi military was disbanded simply for being members of the Iraqi military. I suppose that one could argue that they may have been loyal to Saddam Hussein. However, given that Iraq had a policy of military conscription, I doubt that. There also remains the fact that these newly former and unemployed soldiers were volunteering to work for the Americans in order to provide for their families and to aid in securing Iraq. This act was stupid at best, prejudiced at worst. I use the term “prejudiced” because that is what it appears to be.

So, let’s take a look at some of Mr. Bremer’s “orders” and how they affected the population of Iraq:

Order #1- This order involved the de-Ba’Ath-ification of Iraqi society. On the surface, this doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. Unfortunately, what this really accomplished was putting people who were in positions of authority completely out of work. This included teachers and engineers of varying fields. Essentially, if you were a member of the Ba’ Ath party in Iraq, you were pushed aside. Never mind the fact that some of these party members were only members because Saddam Hussein would have had them and their families murdered otherwise. So, that was step one.

Order #2- This is the order that disbanded the military by way of dissolving the Ministry of Defense. As I said before, this was stupid. I could understand if the upper levels of the Ministry of Defense were dismissed, but the average soldier and the chain of command up to battalion level have no real control over the orders that they are given. It seems to me that these people could have and should have been re-trained for security purposes and utilized for that purpose. This would have allowed them to remain functional as members of their society and would have served to better stabilize Iraq in a much speedier way. Instead, Bremer “fired” nearly 400,000 people and tried to stabilize a country of 25 million with a force of only roughly 168,000 coalition troops. The mind boggles.

Order #14- This order involved a list of “prohibited media activities”. For a force who only wanted to depose Saddam Hussein and bring the Iraqi people Western-style democracy and freedom, it certainly looks a little suspect that they would limit the freedom of the press. Could it be that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) wished to propagandize what they were doing? Maybe, just maybe, it was because the CPA was afraid that the Iraqi people might not actually want Western-style Democracy and limiting the activities of the media was one of the major ways to make sure that the Iraqi people took what the CPA was shoveling.

Order #46- Order 46 actually amended Order 39, which governed foreign investment. What Order 39 stated was that the only business venture that a foreign company could not engage in was retail sales. This left the door wide open for foreign investors to take advantage of a severely weakened Iraqi populace. While it said that foreign companies could not participate in direct retail sales, it still allowed for them to sell the goods for retail sale to Iraqi businesses. This puts the Iraqi on a course to become a nation of nothing but consumers. Being a nation of consumers places that nation at a distinct disadvantage in that they are unable to provide for their own lives and, thus, they become a nation of dependants. I don’t see how this can be a good thing. Independence is good for a nation because it inspires a sense of self worth. It inspires people to produce and, when people produce, they feel better about their place in the world. It seems to me that, if we truly had the best of intentions in “freeing” the Iraqi people, we would have made provisions for the state of their national psychological well-being as well as their economic well-being.

Order #38- Order #38 actually, get this, places a tax of 5% on goods sold in Iraq for what is called a “Reconstruction Levy”. So, we went to Iraq without the direct request of the Iraqi people, destroyed just about everything and now we’re taxing them to rebuild what we destroyed. Not only that, but we aren’t even giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to rebuild it themselves. We have basically given certain American contractors the authority to rebuild what we destroyed and we are taxing the Iraqis to pay them. Wow. The audacity of some people just astounds me at every turn.

It occurs to me that these “orders” are exactly what has created this “insurgency” in Iraq. These "orders" also explain why we saw jubilant Iraqis in the beginning of the occupation and now we see angry Iraqis. What we are seeing is not terrorism. It is not an insurgency. What we are seeing is an entire nation rebelling against oppression. What we are seeing is an entire nation so hopeless that it would rather die than live under our version of "freedom". Certainly, they were oppressed under Saddam Hussein, but they weren’t starving. Under Saddam Hussein, they at least had clean water and electricity. Under Saddam Hussein they had education. Under Saddam Hussein, they had hospitals and access to preventive health care. Granted, it wasn’t up to our level, but it was better than nothing at all. Under the CPA, they have none of this. What they have are random home inspections that often result in the prolonged detainment or, sometimes, even death of a household’s sole breadwinner. What they have is a lack of constant electricity so that they may stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer. As awful as Hussein was, what they have now is, dare I say, worse. The utter hopelessness that these people must be feeling is what is at the root of terrorism. It isn’t religion, its hopelessness. If we truly want to fight terror, ridding the world of this hopelessness and degradation with an even hand and equality in mind is the only way to go about it. One cannot fight an ideal with bombs and guns.

A Must See Film!!

I don't say that a film is a must see very often, but this one definitely fits that description. Everyone needs to see this film! It is brilliant and unflinchingly honest. Go and check out the trailer:

 

No End In Sight

Lunatic-In-Chief

George W. Bush is a lunatic. Either that or he is completely delusional and in dire need of some of the medication that Big Pharma likes to experiment on the rest of us with. You know which meds I’m talking about. The ones that they have commercials for that promise great results with a “relatively low risk” of diarrhea, sleeplessness, drowsiness, heart palpitations and possibly, although unlikely, death.

Anyway, W has now done what I was afraid he would do. He has compared the war in Iraq to the conflict in Vietnam. The comparison is not incorrect. Well, the comparison that he drew is incorrect. It is incorrect in that he is citing the negative affects of what happened when we left Vietnam without acknowledging the policies executed while we were there. He completely ignores the negative parallels between the conflict in Vietnam and the conflict in Iraq. Instead, he is choosing to be selective in what he gleans from history. We parents call this behavior in our children “selective listening”.

You see, just like Vietnam, the Iraq war is being extended to the benefit of investors and defense contractors. Just like Vietnam, we are making very little, if any progress in Iraq. Just like Vietnam, our young men and women are dying for the benefit of other people. Just like Vietnam, the war in Iraq is immensely unpopular at home. And just like Vietnam, the people of Iraq don’t actually want us there! The way I see it, what we are doing in Iraq is the national equivalent of rape.

Picture this: A man sees a woman across the street from him with a large purse across her shoulder. He notices that the woman is being forcefully dragged up the street by another man. The first man sees an opportunity to intervene in the progress of the woman-dragging man. The first man seizes the opportunity and strikes down the second man rather easily and handily. Does the first man now have the right to the contents of the woman’s purse and the right to have his way with her sexually? Does the first man have the right to stand up in court and state that, because he helped her escape the second man, she now owes the first man something in return?

That’s how I see this situation in Iraq. Bush (the first man) saw Saddam Hussein (the second man) ruling the Iraqi People (the woman) under a brutal dictatorship. Bush knew about the oil reserves (her purse) and decided to strike down Saddam Hussein (Operation Iraqi Freedom). Bush did that rather easily, but he decided that he wanted the Iraqi People to do what he wanted them to do. He wanted access to the oil reserves (contents of her purse) and he wanted to build military bases with the intent of further excursions into the Middle East (to have his way with her sexually). Now he is asking us (the court) to approve of this internationally misogynist behavior. We aren’t having it, though. And we won’t take your revisionist and lopsided review of history as a means to allow it, sir.

Michael Vick-tim

By now, I’m sure that EVERYONE has heard about that situation with Atlanta Falcons’ Quarterback Michael Vick. Now, I think I’ll add my two cents to this whole deal.

Michael Vick is a no-good piece of shit. That just about sums up my opinion of him. Before anyone tries to defend him in any way, I suggest that they look at the following photograph:

That is what the “winner” of a dog fight looks like. I can only imagine what the loser looked like. I suspect that the loser looked somewhat like raw hamburger.

I have heard many people attempt to turn this whole situation into an issue of race. I say that that is beyond ridiculous. I have even heard people compare dog-fighting to the hunting of deer (I’m referring to RL White, the head of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP). This is also beyond ridiculous. I don’t even see how anyone could possibly make that comparison. For one thing, deer are not trained to kill other deer inside a ring. For another thing, no one is out hunting dogs that I am aware of. In my estimation, none of the differences between deer hunting and dog-fighting even matter. The dogs at Michael Vick’s “kennel” were subjected to what could best be described as inhumane treatment. They were trained to fight and to kill other dogs. When they did not perform to the standards that their owners would have liked, they were executed by electrocution, drowning, strangulation, hanging, shooting and, in one case, smashed head first into the ground.

Because of the means of execution that I stated in the last sentence of the last paragraph, I cannot help but marvel at the following statement:

"I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down," Marbury added. "I think he's one of the superb athletes, and he's a good human being. I just think that he fell into a bad situation." – Stephon Marbury of the New York Knicks

How on Earth can anyone look at the treatment of these animals as an indicator of the behavior of “a good human being”? One of the ways that a society can be judged is by the way that it treats its animals. Sure, we eat meat, but we do so for survival. Meat processing companies do not always treat the animals that they process for this meat in the most humane of ways, but they should be held accountable for this. In my opinion, all animals should be treated humanely and, if they are food sources, should be slaughtered in the least cruel of ways. We, as humans, are responsible for the care of the animals that are less than us. Michael Vick should be punished severely for his reckless disregard for the life of another being.

As for this being a race issue, I say screw that. People say that this is only a big deal because Mike Vick is black. That’s bullshit and these accusers know it. The only reason that this issue is being covered by the media to such a large extent is because Mike Vick is famous. Famous and stupid. He is stupid because he had a contract with the Atlanta Falcons for $130 million. He also had endorsement deals with Nike, EA Sports, Coca-Cola, Powerade, Kraft, Rawlings, Hasbro and AirTran Airways worth many more millions of dollars. He has effectively thrown all of this away over dog-fighting. From every report that I have read, Michael Vick had not had any serious run-ins with law enforcement (that lead to any conviction) prior to this incident, including during his youth in public housing in Virginia. So, why commit yourself to something so thuggish now that you are so successful? What a waste of a human being’s potential.

But Mike Vick is not alone in this waste. There are many others in sports and entertainment who have thrown their potential down the proverbial toilets or hurt themselves in some way due to thuggish behavior. Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Ray Lewis, Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls, Suge Knight, Adam “Pacman” Jones” are but a few. I do not understand why it is that people feel the need to engage in this manner of behavior when they have so many options at their fingertips. Apologists like to imply that it is because of their race. I can site several examples of people of the same race who have not engaged in this type of behavior once they became successful. Some of those would include: Ice-T, Ice Cube, Shaquille O’Neill, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Warren Sapp, Deion Sanders and many others. So the race question is moot. The number of sports and entertainment figures who have avoided trouble far outnumber the number of those who have not.

In the end, I do not feel one iota of pity for this sack of excrement. He is not a victim of the media. He is not a victim of a racist criminal justice system. He is a victim of only his inability to distinguish right from wrong. So, in effect, he is a victim of only himself and he is the only one to blame.

Funny...

Or at least somebody thinks so.

But for some odd reason, I'm not laughing.

With "Friends" Like These...

Does anyone else find it interesting that the Bush Administration trumped up charges against the government of Iraq, invaded that country and deposed of its leader, killed tens of thousands of its citizens and now displays displeasure that the new leadership of Iraq is not performing as the Bush Administration would like?

I also find it interesting that President Bush actually mentioned specifically that the Iraqi government could not come together to pass something as simple as an oil revenue law. I guess he figures that there is no real need to hide it anymore. He’s on his way out and he has no need to fear impeachment any longer, so why not just state the truth of why we invaded Iraq in the first place but in a really subtle way? That’s what I think that the comment was. It was an admission of truth, just not so much that the average person would notice.

So, basically, the label of “bully” now fits the Bush Administration perfectly. Bullies are known for pushing people that they view as “weaker” than them to submit to their will. The Bush Administration did that with Iraq. Bullies who actually somehow manage to make friends with anyone, typically place a demand on those friends to display loyalty only to them. When those “friends” show interest in people other than the bully, harsh words and, sometimes, blows are exchanged. I have to wonder if blows are what’s next between the United States and Iraq. This situation reminds me a little of that film with Julia Roberts: “Sleeping With the Enemy”. The relationship is great until the person being controlled doesn't arrange the washcloths the way the controller wants them to be and someone is getting a black eye and a spousal raping.

I also wonder if the whole idea of us keeping troops in Iraq in order to prevent Iraq from becoming a “haven for terrorists” is going to wind up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we push the Iraqi government hard enough, are they going to wind up hating us as a result? Will they become military allies with Syria and Iran? Given the current state of the Bush Administration’s relationship, or lack thereof, with Iran and Syria, that cannot be considered a good thing. The Iraqi people have more in common with the people of Syria and Iraq and they share borders, so it makes sense for them. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has the diplomacy skills of a badger, so we aren’t making any headway in that regard. Plus, the United States is already eyeing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, even though they are actually a part of the Iranian military. So what is there to stop them from declaring the new Iraqi army the same should they decide to partner up with Iran and Syria?

Looking at history, the countries of the Middle East do not have the best reputation for forgiveness. I fear that they may not forgive us for what our leadership has done. Will they differentiate between the American citizen and his or her leadership? Or will they go with what works and actually start backing real terrorist organizations in an attempt to destabilize us? If you wonder what I mean by “what works”, just look at what September 11^th has wrought. Not only did the Bush Administration go on the offensive against the terror organizations, but they have effectively erased our civil liberties in the process. They did so through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act. They have passed legislation to broaden their ability to spy on us by tapping our telephones and reading our e-mails. They do these things all in the name of “protecting us”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t need that kind of protection. What I need is freedom.

Iraqi PM lashes out at U.S. critics

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 54 minutes ago

Iraq's prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country "can find friends elsewhere."

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki blamed the U.S. presidential campaign for the recent tough words about his government, from President Bush and from other U.S. politicians.

Bush on Tuesday said he was frustrated with Iraqi leaders' inability to bridge political divisions. But he added that only the Iraqi people can decide whether to sideline al-Maliki.

"Clearly, the Iraqi government's got to do more," Bush said. "I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work — come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections."

Bush on Wednesday will strongly reiterate his support for al-Maliki, wary of how his comments the day before about the Iraqi leader had widely been interpreted. Bush spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president's speech in Canada on Tuesday was not intended to be a withdrawal of support for al-Maliki. As a result of media coverage, Bush will insert a direct line of support for al-Maliki in his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference Wednesday.

"Prime Minister Maliki knows where the president stands," Johndroe said before Bush's speech.

Johndroe said that after Bush's comments in Canada, the White House had tried to make clear Bush was not distancing himself from al-Maliki.

"It appears that did not come through for whatever reason," Johndroe said.

Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the earlier comments from U.S. officials.

"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.

"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.

Without naming any American official, al-Maliki said some of the criticism of him and his government had been "discourteous."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Monday that al-Maliki, a Shiite, should be ousted and replaced with a less sectarian leader.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he was disappointed and frustrated by the lack of political progress by al-Maliki's government. Crocker said the Iraqis themselves and Iraqi leaders were also frustrated.

The harsh exchanges erupted just a few weeks before Crocker and the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, are to report to Congress on military and political progress in Iraq.

The two are expected to point to some signs of military progress in Iraq. But the political situation in Iraq remains fractured, with wide distrust between Shiite and Sunni factions and no progress by al-Maliki's government on key issues.

Bush's statement on Tuesday was a marked change in tone from his endorsement of al-Maliki in November 2006 at a meeting in Jordan as "the right guy for Iraq."

In recent months, Bush has continually prodded al-Maliki to do more to forge political reconciliation before the temporary U.S. military buildup ends. But his statements Tuesday were the sharpest he has made about whether the Iraqi prime minister will survive.

"The fundamental question is, Will the government respond to the demands of the people?" Bush said. "And, if the government doesn't demand — or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."

Al-Maliki has faced numerous defections from his ruling coalition in recent months. Nevertheless, it is unclear that any group has the political pull to push him aside and put in place a new government.

Ousting al-Maliki would require a majority vote in the 275-member Iraqi parliament. As long as the Kurdish parties and the main Shiite bloc stand beside al-Maliki, his opponents lack the votes to do that.

Any change in leadership also would also greatly complicate U.S. military efforts to stabilize the country, especially if the change resulted in the government falling and negotiations to create a new government. The process of forming al-Maliki's government took months of wrangling as the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias gathered strength and influence.

___

Associated Press Writer Robert H. Reid contributed to this report.

Windows Live Writer Test

Trying out this new Windows Live Writer. Just wanted to see if it  works and how well.

Foxes In The Hen House

ISLAM PROF IS 'ZION'-HEARTED
SOURCE

By CHUCK BENNETT and JOHN MAZOR
August 15, 2007 -- The new principal of the city's controversial Arabic-themed school is an ardent Zionist who considered moving to Israel, according to her former Jerusalem roommate.
The latest revelation puts a strange twist on the saga of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, the new city school that's been in the cross hairs of critics since its inception.
Interim Principal Danielle Salzberg, 35, hosted an orientation seminar at the Brooklyn school yesterday for parents and students.

It was her first full day on the job since the school's original principal, Debbie Almontaser, a Muslim and Arabic-speaker, quit last week. She had been caught up in a furor over her comments to The Post downplaying the "Intifada NYC" T-shirts her organization was linked to.
Salzberg's former roommate Aliza Hemed described the new principal's two passions in life as Israel and educating youngsters. And, in the end, Salzberg chose teaching New York City's youth over life in the Holy Land.

"If anything, she was a Zionist. She had every intention to make aliyah [Hebrew for immigration to Israel] and move there, but she came back and fell in love with her [students] and the job," said Hemed.

"Most American Orthodox [Jews] have a love of Israel - I'm sure it's still in her."
Salzberg first met Hemed as an undergrad at New York University. They were both observant Orthodox Jews and Salzberg held leadership positions with the school's Hillel, a Jewish group.
Upon graduation in 1993, the two spent a year studying Hebrew and Middle East politics at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Salzberg stayed away from political rallies and other activities, Hemed said.

Then in 1994, they moved back to Manhattan where they shared an apartment on the East Side for several years. Salzberg began work as a teaching assistant in city schools while pursuing her master's degree in education from Columbia University's Teachers College.
"Her kids were her life. Every little progress they made she was so proud of them," Hemed said.
Salzberg, who had helped Almontaser develop the school's curriculum, did not return requests for comment.

The school's first sixth-grade class of 44 students is scheduled to begin Sept. 4. Eventually, the school will expand to the 12th grade.

While Salzberg is still technically an interim principal, a Department of Education spokeswoman said the agency wants to install her permanently.

"I'm sorry the last woman didn't work out, but I think we're better off going on and attacking the problem again and we've got the right person this time," Mayor Bloomberg said.

Still, Arab community activists said Monday evening during a meeting at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge that they will start a letter-writing campaign to try and get Almontaser reinstated.
Additional reporting by Michael Pope


First things first. Why does there exist any publicly funded school with a religious basis to it? I have been and remain under the distinct impression that we have a separation between church and state. Am I wrong about this, or have persons who hold authority over such things found a way to circumvent the rules regarding church and state?

Secondly, assuming the separation between church and state no longer exists or, at least, has been circumvented, why is a Jewish person who immigrated to Israel out of a sense of religious and ethnic duty being placed in charge of an Islamic school? Isn’t that sort of like utilizing a fox as a guard dog over a hen house? This is not meant as an affront to Jewish people at all. I would have the same complaint were a Muslim Imam placed in charge of a Hebrew school. I would have the same complaint if a white man were made the head of the NAACP. It does not make sense in any way to place a person over something designed to benefit a certain group of people who is not a member of that group. Do you see the problem here?

Maybe next we can elect Osama Bin Laden President. Maybe we can appoint Rex Tillerson (the CEO of ExxonMobil) as Secretary of Energy. Maybe we can elect a former CEO of a petroleum technical services and construction company as Vice President. Oh wait, we already did that.

Blast 2: Electric Boogaloo

This was something I found back in January of 2007. I posted it on January 17th on another blog, but I wanted to transfer it over to this one. I stiil think that it is beautiful. Also, in light of recent developments in the tensions between Iran and the U.S., it is appropriate.

"I saw this on the web today and thought that, not only was it beautiful, but worthy of reposting. So here it is:

LETTER FROM A U.S. CITIZEN “ADDRESSED TO THE WORLD”

First let me speak to the people in Iran.

There is a large majority of Americans who are terrified by our governments inability to hear our voices. We do not want war. Not with you, not with anyone. We admire your ancient culture and respect your religious beliefs. While our government takes steps toward instigating another illegal war, this time on your great nation, we, the majority of United States citizens, are trying everything that is in our power to prevent this.

We have recently elected new officials in Congress, which we believe and hope will stand up with us in our desires to put an end to our current administration’s designs of global occupation. However, we seem to have very little say in these matters anymore. While we may scream at the top of our lungs about how we feel, write letters to our officials, protest in the streets, demand accountability for our leaders’ actions, our president ignores us and continues his one-man circus act.

I wish to apologize to the people of Iran now, and assure you that we will do everything in our power to prevent our government leaders from another grave mistake in foreign policy.

Now, the people of Iraq hear me out.

Please understand our sorrow in what our leaders have done to your nation. While most of us believe that Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, we also understand that for many years, our country supported him and only deposed him as the president of Iraq when it was beneficial to our government. Our leaders lied to us about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Most of our citizens at the time were quite fearful over what was happening in the world due to the attacks on September 11, 2001, and our president used that fear to further his personal agenda. It was WRONG. It was not our place to overthrow a dictator; it was yours if you so choose.

However, now your country is in ruins and many people die every day. Our president has just said that this is “unacceptable” to him. As usual, it seems that his words are woefully inadequate. Unacceptable is not a word to use when tens of thousands of people have died, and many more will in the time to come.

We cannot fix this mess. We can only make it worse. The majority of American people want our troops to be drawn down in your country to allow the Iraqi people a chance to help themselves. Please understand that we do not want to just abandon you. We wish to support you with our finances, our expertise in technology, our moral support, anything except more lives.

I know that you have suffered beyond anything that the US has ever suffered. But now is the time to send a message to the world that you do not need the United States to continue to occupy your sovereign nation. On behalf of most American citizens, we are eternally sorry for what we have allowed to be done to you.

To the people of Israel…

I’d like to say we understand.

We recognize your struggles in the world. We understand that for many years you were persecuted. However, that does not give you the right to do to others what has been done to you. I’m not suggesting that you bare all of the responsibility for the struggles in the West Asia, but you’re not helping to solve it either.

Your fight is for property. Your fight is for recognition. Your fight is for peace. May I suggest to you that if after 60 years nothing has changed, maybe you’re going about it the wrong way? I know that you will illicit images of bombings and terror to reinforce your actions. But please consider, violence in response to violence, only leads to more violence.

There must be a better solution. There is plenty of space to allow two separate and sovereign nations to exist. Israel and Palestine. I understand that there are more issues to discuss here, however, we have to start somewhere.

Do we really want to blame all the ills of life on “the other guys”? This sort of thinking is shortsighted and full of its own bigotry. And please, before dismissing me as just another anti-Semite, look at my name and understand that we share the same heritage.

To the people of the United States…

Are you afraid?

I am. Not of Al-Qaeda, not of Sunni or Shia militias, not of insurgents, not of so-called “Islamofascist”, not of dirty bombs, not of having to “fight them here”, not of a nuclear Iran, not of planes blowing up, not of anthrax in the mail, not of Hamas, not of Hezbollah, not of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), or of terrorist cells in my backyard.I am not afraid of any of the things that our government has worked so hard to scare me into believing is at my doorstep. Instead, I am afraid of our government. Can we forget about the lies that we were told over and over again by our leaders? Can we forget about the atrocities committed in our name? Can we forget the way the rest of the world sees this great nation now? Never.

Can we stand by while legislation such as the Military Commissions Act dissolves our basic civil rights? Can we stand back and let our leaders listen to our phone calls, read our mail, investigate our library cards, or read our e-mails? I sincerely hope not.

Our president has given himself the authority to deem anyone at any place an enemy combatant. With this label, one can be arrested, detained indefinitely in Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) or some other military prison without charges being levied against them, and tortured.

Or, if they are lucky, they will be brought to trial.

Just not allowed to see or confront the evidence against them under the guise of national security.

It could be me for just writing this letter. It could be you for just reading it. Is this our country? Is this what the United States of America has turned into?

No more freedom of speech, lest we anger the president.

No more freedom of assembly, lest we anger the President.

No more right to a trial by a jury of our peers, no more protection against self-incrimination, unless you can withstand the torture.

We are at his mercy. We did the right thing during the November elections by taking steps to put an end to this lunacy. However, it can’t stop there. We need to take a step back, Democrat and Republican alike, to examine the horrendous damage that has been done and continues to be done, to us, and in our name.

The Revolutionary War was fought by brave people for a noble cause. This country was founded by people who refused tyranny and oppression. The majority has spoken and now action is necessary.

Stand up for what is right by putting an end to the war in Iraq, the war on the American people, and the instigation of more wars on innocent people. Are we Americans or not?

To the American troops

Please understand that you have our unwavering support. We know that you have your duty and take it very seriously. Rest assured, we will get you home. The majority of your fellow Americans are trying everything they can to end this war. Please know that our hearts break each day when we hear the news of another fallen soldier. Most of us do not support this war, BUT WE WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES.

Mr President, are you listening?

I know that you do not care about my feelings, or that of any other American. Sir, I voted for you the first time. I am deeply ashamed of it and will forever have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on my hands because of it. Almost every person in the world knows you are wrong.

Almost every American citizen knows that you are wrong.

You surround yourself with only people who agree with you, until they agree no more. Don’t you dare think that you stand for me or the vast majority of American people. You never have. We are not nearly as ignorant as you would like to believe we are.

So bide your time in office, Mr President. We are not going to allow you to destroy us anymore. Only a coward allows people to die instead of standing up like a man and admitting they were wrong. Know this sir, that legacy that you care for so much will forever be tainted with deception and death.

Brian Bloom

Blast from the recent past...

This was something I wrote on a blog I had briefly at another site. It was about things I was for or against. I wrote it a while ago, as you will most likely notice by the lower death toll of Americans in Iraq. I abandoned that blog fairly quickly, but some of the things I wrote there still stand. I just figured I'd go ahead and bring a couple of those things over to this blog.

Anyway, here it is:

I am AGAINST the current “war on terror”. Not because I think that terrorism is a good thing. I don’t. It’s also not because I think that terrorism should not be stopped. I merely question the wisdom behind trying to stop terrorism in the manner in which we claim we are trying to. If one looks at the situation, we (and I use that term “we” VERY loosely) are currently engaging in some of the very same activities that more or less created the very terrorists that we are fighting against. We (again, LOOSELY) have invaded a country which was guilty of NOT ONE of the reasons we gave for the justification of invading it. In effect, we have basically left it in ruins. Do we not see that this will only lead to further acts of apparently random acts of violence? Put yourself in these shoes for a moment: you’re a 7-year-old and you are at home asleep. Your parents and siblings are all in your house with you. Suddenly, you hear a loud BANG and your front door lands in the middle of the floor. This is immediately followed by your father yelling in your native language to a man with an American flag on his shoulder who cannot understand your father. You run from your room and reach the living area just in time to witness your father being shot to death and your mother being dragged away. This is immediately followed by your and your siblings being dragged away. What would you do? For that matter, what COULD you do? For the rest of your life, the only things you can remember are your father’s brains lying on the living room carpet and an American flag behind the trigger of the gun that took your father’s life. What do you do once you reach young adulthood and a man comes along offering you a way of exacting revenge against the devil that took your father’s life and destroyed yours? You were too young when it happened to know that it was all a misunderstanding and that the man with the flag was simply doing as he was ordered. Your revenge fantasies become focused on the flag that killed your father and what it represents. You begin to look through the magnifying glass that is your local radical fundamentalist and he focuses your energies on the ant that is the man who killed your father, represented by that flag. That fundamentalist tells you that your religion says that you will receive great rewards from Heaven if you blow yourself up in the name of your God. Why not? It isn’t as if you have anything else to lose.

That’s just my take on it. You can believe what you want. I just think that the only way to stop terrorism is to fight against what causes it. Some of those things are: bigotry, intolerance, poverty and the exploitation of cultures and nations that those in power deem to be “lesser”, yet still possessing resources that we covet. Mr. Bush, do you hear that? I said “covet”. Wasn’t that one of the commandments that your God passed down to you? Exodus 20:17 says: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Mr. Bush, do you or do you not practice Christianity? If so, do you believe it wholeheartedly or are you selective in what parts you choose to follow? Just curious. If DICK Cheney (or anyone beside yourself) is controlling your every move, just remember that you are the President and you don’t have to do anything that you don’t want to do or that violates your “principles”. I won’t forget those things. Neither will your God. That’s why I hold you personally responsible for the deaths of over 3052 American troops and who knows how many Iraqi civilians. You, sir, are guilty. I would very much like to see you impeached on the grounds that you lied and those folks died. I would also very much like to see you turned over to the World Court to be tried for crimes against humanity. That’s something that you didn’t even let Saddam Hussein have. So you see, I am wishing you far better treatment than Saddam Hussein received. Even Richard Nixon took his lumps like a man. You are not only guilty, you are a coward.

Whose Fault Is This, Anyway?

Pastor: Illegal Immigrant Who Sought Sanctuary in Chicago Church Deported

Monday , August 20, 2007

LOS ANGELES —

SOURCE

An immigration activist who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid being separated from her son has been deported to Mexico, the church's pastor said.

Elvira Arellano was arrested Sunday afternoon outside Our Lady Queen of Angels church in Los Angeles. She was deported several hours later, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, where Arellano had taken refuge.

"She has been deported. She is free and in Tijuana," said Coleman, who said he spoke to her on the phone. "She is in good spirits. She is ready to continue the struggle against the separation of families from the other side of the border."

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Chicago confirmed the arrest Sunday. Spokeswoman Gail Montenegro said the agency would have further details on the deportation Monday.

Arellano, 32, became a symbol of the struggles of illegal immigrant parents when she took refuge in the church to avoid being separated from her 8-year-old son, a U.S. citizen.

She had said Saturday she was not afraid of being taken into custody by immigration agents.

"From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want," she said in Spanish. "I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight."

Arellano came to Washington state illegally in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last year.

She sought refuge at the storefront church on Chicago's West Side on Aug. 15, 2006. She had not left the church property until she decided to travel by car to Los Angeles, Coleman said.

Coleman said Arellano, who is staying with a friend in Tijuana, had brought to light her struggle, and for that, "she has won a victory."

"She'll be organizing on the Mexican side of the border while we're organizing in the [United] States," Coleman said Monday. "She'll be talking to organizations throughout Mexico and congressmen in Mexico City."

Coleman said he and other activists will continue Arellano's original plan to go to Washington, D.C. and take part in a prayer meeting and rally for immigration reform at the Capitol on Sept. 12.

Immigration activists responded with anger to her arrest, and promised protests and vigils to support her.

"We are sad, but at the same time we are angry," said Javier Rodriguez, a Chicago immigration activist who worked with Arellano. "How dare they arrest this woman?"

Anti-illegal immigrant groups said the arrest was long overdue.

"Just because the woman has gone public and made an issue of the fact that she is defying law doesn't mean the government doesn't have to do its job," said Ira Mehlman, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration.

Arellano has repeatedly called for a stop to immigration raids that break up families with some members who are in the U.S. legally and others illegally.

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian. At an afternoon news conference in Los Angeles, the boy hid behind Lozano and wiped away tears.

"He's taking it better than we thought he would," Lozano said.

While being arrested, Arellano spoke briefly with her son before submitting to authorities, Lozano said.

"She calmed him down, hugged him and gave him a blessing," said Lozano.

Do you know what I say to this? I say GOOD! While I think that it is disconsolate that this woman and her son are being forcefully separated, I think that it is good that the Federal government is actually doing its job for once.

Looking at this situation, I have to ask whose fault it is that this woman came here illegally and gave birth to a child so that it could be a United States citizen? The simple fact of the matter here is that we live in a country that has laws regarding immigration. For that matter, EVERY country has immigration laws. Ours just happen to be among the most liberal. This woman first came to the U.S. illegally in 1997, which was 2 years before her son was born, so it isn’t as if she didn’t know. She was deported for it at that time, so why should now be any different? Let’s also not forget the fact that she worked for a time under a falsified Social Security number, which is also a crime under our laws. Instead of taking responsibility for breaking the laws of our country, she sought refuge from a church. Great! So, if I decide to commit identity theft, can I gain refuse from a church and avoid jail time simply because I have a child? See, that’s what these people are asking us to do. They are asking us to ignore our laws and ignore their breaking of them simply because they have a child.

If I go to Mexico without going through the proper channels and obtain a job under false pretenses, I get deported. If I go to Canada and try the same thing, I get deported. The difference between those countries and ours is that my child would be sent with me. So, why should immigrants of illegal status here be treated any differently? Is it because we allegedly “have it better” in the United States than people in Mexico? I don’t think so. The reason I don’t think so is because the people of Mexico have the same abilities that we do. The last time I checked, Mexico was a democracy. So the people there have the ability to change their country from within to make it better. Not just that, but they also have the ability to ask for help from other nations who are capable of doing so. If I am suffering financially, it is my obligation to ask for help. It is not the obligation of those around me to offer it, nor would it be appropriate for me to hold a grudge against them for not doing so. What this woman is doing is the equivalent of me filing a lawsuit against my neighbor for not offering me a meal when I was hungry, even though I never asked. Granted, we as Americans should show compassion for those less fortunate. However, when people take advantage of that compassion by circumventing our standards and our laws, I do not feel as if we owe them anything. Hell, according to what I just read in the article, the woman has been here, off and on, for at least 9 years yet she still does not speak enough English in order to grant an interview! What that tells me is that she has no real desire to become a part of our society. She does not want to adapt to our culture. Instead, she wants the rest of us to adapt to her culture and what she thinks is right. She wants us to give to her, but she does not want to reciprocate.

What I find to be most irritating is that what I just stated above will be interpreted as racist or xenophobic by some. What I said can not be seen as racist or xenophobic by anyone with a rational mind. I do not have any issue with immigrants. I do not have any issue with Hispanics. In fact, I actually encourage immigration. As long as it is legal. Immigration is a large part of what America is. As a matter of fact, it is precisely what America is. Unless you are 100% Native American, your ancestors emigrated here. So, I say that the accusations of racism and xenophobia are simply used as a way to instill a feeling of guilt in those who oppose illegal immigration. My apologies for their folly, but that horse doesn’t jump with me. I merely ask that people who want to come to the United States for a better life do so legally, and that they learn to speak English when they do come. I wouldn’t even consider going to another, non-English speaking country, expecting the citizens of that country to capitulate to my demand that they speak my language. That is why English-to-whateverlanguageyouwant dictionaries are manufactured. That is why foreign language course are offered in schools. Some of those classes are even taught for free at community centers and churches, so there is no legitimate reason for the lack of conversational English skills.

It is the responsibility of the guest to learn the ways of the host. At least that is how I was raised. The host should make certain concessions for the needs of their guest, but not to the point of sacrificing the host’s own way of life for the guest. Let’s say that I have a guest in my home for a week. I have a child living with me (which I do). If my guest is a swinger with numerous sex partners, should I not have the ability to ask that they refrain from their sexual practices while my child is in my home? Should my guest be an occasional recreational drug user, should I not have the ability to ask that they refrain from this activity while in the presence of my child? What I am attempting to point out is that, when people come here to the United States, they are effectively entering the “home” of every United States citizen and asking them to change their way of living for them.

I Kid You Not...

when I was sitting in a Burger King in Oakwood, GA this afternoon. A woman stepped out of her SUV wearing an open-backed one-piece swimsuit and a pair of elastic-waisted shorts. She was a rather zoftig woman of, I would guess, around 220+ pounds. This is not what prompted me to write. What prompted me to write was the fact that, when she turned her back to me, I noticed a tattoo in the center of her back. It was, rather unfortunately, a tattoo of a Waffle House, complete with a sign. This image covered from the area approximately 4 inches from the waist band of her shorts to approximately 4 inches below the bottom of her shoulders. I think that this is one of the worst instances of white-trashiness that I have witnessed in person.

I put down my fries and left feeling as though I were going to lose what I had just finished eating.

Hurricane Shatrina

Earlier today, around mid-morning, I was at work. While there, my co-worker Tom and I decided to take a short break and have a cigarette and get a drink. This is a custom for us. At approximately the same time each day, we do this. Today was no different.

I work for a manufacturer of mailing equipment based in Connecticut. Because of this, I work out of the facility of the company who contracts with my company for service. As such, I have no supervisor from my own company to deal with on any sort of regular basis. In fact, I am more or less the supervisor at the site in which I work. I say more because I have the responsibility and I say less because, while I have the responsibility and the workload of a supervisor, I do not get the pay for it. For the moment, however, that’s alright. The time will come when I am promoted and am actually paid accordingly for my efforts. Plus, it’s kind of nice to be able to basically come and go as I please and I speak to my manager approximately once per month.

Anyway, in order to get said drink, we must go into the employee break room of the facility in which I work. Inside this break room is a television. On each and every occasion that I have entered this room around mid-morning, this television is tuned to either Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. Both of these television shows are the talk show version of raw sewage. In fact, I’m fairly certain that these shows are contributing factors to the startlingly rapid downfall of society. Those and reality television. If the aforementioned talk shows are entertainment raw sewage, then reality television is municipal landfill. Holy shit I hate reality television!

Back to the point. This morning, the time in which I walked into the break room happened to be the time in which Maury Povich was being broadcast. I don’t know if you’ve witnessed the continual train wreck that is the Maury Povich Show lately, but let me just say that it is one of the most spectacular train wrecks ever seen. Every show is about one of 3 subjects: Are you my baby daddy? Are you cheating on me? Or wild police videos. That’s it. No substance, no depth… nothing but societal train wreck. Today’s show was about paternity tests. The portion of the show I was unfortunate enough to see was remarkable in its unbelievable display of ignorance.
It involve a woman by the name of Shatrina (you read that right), who was claiming that a newly married man was the father of her 10-month-old daughter. The entire time that Maury was talking to this man, who happened to be sporting a black faux-fur coat, and his wife, the camera would show in split-screen Shatrina backstage. Shatrina looked as if she were ready to assault someone. She was breathing heavily and rocking from side-to-side and shaking. I could tell that she was angry, although it didn’t take a genius to figure this out. During the course of the interview with the faux-fur coat-wearing “gentleman” (I didn’t catch his name) and his high-class wife (hers either), the man repeatedly denied that he was the father of this child, which is fairly standard. He claimed that he had only slept with Shatrina a total of maybe 3 times, as if this weren’t enough times to impregnate someone. Well, intelligent people take more than three times. Stupid people seem to breed with a handshake, but I digress. Latrine, oops, Shatrina, claimed that the encounters between she and the corn-rowed gentleman on the stage had numbered above 50. Here are some of the verbal exchanges that I remember from the show (quoted phonetically):

Shatrina: “He KNOW he ma baby daddy! He e’en laid up in ma be’ an’ give huh huh name”

Pimp Daddy: “She KNOW I ain’t dat baby daddy! Dey ain’t no way I da baby daddy ‘cos I only been wid huh maybe 3 times.”

Shatrina: “You a lie and you know it! I been wid you mo den fiddy times. You been all up in ma be’room and you e-en name ma baby. You da wun name’ huh Liasia-Chanel. Don’ you e-en tra ta be sayin’ you ain’ huh daddy”

Pimp Daddy: “You wrong beyotch! You jus’ tryin’ ta hurt me ‘cos I picked huh ova yo ass.”

Maury then stepped in with his newly dark dyed hair and announced the results og the previously taken paternity test.

“Pimp Daddy, in the matter of the paternity of Liasia-Chanel, you ARE the father”.

Pimp Daddy immediately went into a rage of disbelief that he could actually have to suffer the consequences of his own lack of responsibility in protecting himself. At least that’s what I think it was. I could be mistaken.

I feel as if I should end this blog with an apology. The things I said here sounded awfully racist. The statements I quoted were, and I swear before God on this, taken directly from the show. I added the spelling so that you could get an idea of what it was that I saw. This blog was not an indication of my personal feelings toward any race. It was, in all seriousness, exactly what I saw. The names weren’t even made up. Sad, isn’t it? I feel sorry for the world we are leaving behind.

I’m going to go and open up another Pabst Blue Ribbon now because I need it.

"Think Tank" Insanity!!

This was found on the website of a "think tank" by the name of Family Security Matters. The article has since been removed from the website, but you can still see it in it's original form, complete with images and text, from Google's cached page. My commentary follows this immediately and is in bold-faced type!

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestige while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

____________________________________________________________________

Okay. My first thought would be… WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PERSON?!?!? However, I believe I will allow the calmer and more rational side of myself to take the lead here.

In the first paragraph, he states that “He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president”. Only the first part of this statement is true. The second part of the statement is debatable due to circumstances regarding the accusations of voter fraud in Ohio. In fact, there are still questions surrounding the first time he was elected in 2000 with regards to voter fraud in Florida. So, Mr. Atkinson is basing his argument here on the debatable notion that the majority of Americans actually elected President Bush. The last time I checked, President Bush only had 47.9% of the popular vote in 2000, indicating that the majority of American voters did not, indeed, choose him in the first place. This tells me that he may not have been elected President in 2004. So, Mr. Atkinson’s statement is technically fraudulent.

In the second paragraph of this neo-conservative tripe of an article, Mr. Atkinson states that “this rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy”. He could not be more wrong about this. What he conveniently leaves out is that fact that we all know that President Bush either deliberately lied, ignored or fabricated the so-called “evidence” that he used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Initially, President Bush attempted to persuade the United Nations to enforce the resolutions that it had enacted against Iraq by way of military force. When the U.N. didn’t give him what he wanted, he chose to act on “intelligence sources” that fit his need. It turned out that those intelligence reports were, as previously stated, false or forged. See, that’s why we are angry with President Bush.

Something else that Mr. Atkinson conveniently forgets is that we have a Constitution that allows us to recall any elected official whenever we, as a people, decide that these elected officials have crossed a boundary that we feel is criminal. Considering that the invasion of Iraq was a direct violation of Principle VI, Section A, Subheading 1 regarding crimes against peace of the Nuremberg Principles, which is a treaty that we (as a nation) signed and that we (as a nation) are Constitutionally required to obey all treaties under Article VI of the United States Constitution, I would say that George W. Bush should be considered criminal. I will refrain from going into detail about, what I consider to be, the direct violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by deliberately subverting it via Executive Order simply because it really doesn’t pertain to this article.

In the third paragraph, he states that “if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands”. This statement indicates that the American people actually wanted to invade Iraq. Truthfully, most of us did. Unfortunately, we were deceived into believing the threat was real, so the folly belongs to President Bush alone. He committed this “folly” because he wanted to. More accurately, he committed this folly because he was told to. I do not believe for one second that he is intelligent enough to decide whether or not to he wants white bread or whole wheat, much less formulate a plan of this magnitude.

In the fourth paragraph, Mr. Atkinson attempts to frighten the reader with the possibility that Iraq might produce weapons of mass destruction, a point that has been debunked time and again. He also states that the electorate allowed it. Well, that part is true. However, we all (myself included) thought that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a legitimate threat because our President told us that he was. What are we supposed to believe? What reason did we have to suspect that he might tell us, the American people, a deliberate lie to get us into a war?

In the fifth paragraph, Mr. Atkinson again resorts to fear-mongering by indicating that Iraq would present a larger threat should the American military be withdrawn. I posit that Iraq was not a threat to begin with, so this is a threat of President Bush’s making. The right thing to do would be to pull out and let the chips fall where they may. At this point, I believe that a defensive posture would be more suitable than the overtly aggressive one that has been undertaken. There comes a time when the piper must be paid.

The sixth paragraph encroaches upon total absurdity. Mr. Atkinson actually states that President Bush should have implemented nuclear weapons and slaughtered Iraqis until they complied or were all dead. Then, he goes a step closer to absurdity and says that the electorate is cowardly because they would not be in favor of the use of nuclear weapons and the slaughter of millions of Iraqis. Had President Bush actually carried out what this future mental patient suggests, he would have been guilty of the worst war crime in global history. I may get flack for this, but it would have been far worse than the Holocaust in terms of loss of life. So, I’d like to ask this: Mr. Atkinson; how it is considered cowardly to not have a desire to murder tens of millions of men, women and children? How would it be considered cowardly to not have the desire to murder tens of millions of men, women and children because of the actions of one? Also; how would this be “wise”, politically, for a President to do?

This man is clearly off of his proverbial rocker and, quite possibly, genocidal. He points to this fact in the seventh paragraph where he states that “The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide”. Not only is this statement insane, it is also too limited and without depth. He goes on to imply that Israel must raze Iran. This is based on the incorrect assertion that Iran has stated their desire to “wipe Israel off the map”. This is untrue. What Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said was that “the current Israeli regime must be erased from the pages of time”. He also went on to state that he was not opposed to the existence of a Jewish State, “should the people of that state choose it”. Ending a regime is a far cry from wiping a nation off of a map, sir. Get your facts straight and stop drinking the imperial Kool-Aid!

He ends the paragraph by stating that President Bush must do what is popular, instead of what is “necessary” for the survival of America. It is true that he must do what is popular. That is why he was elected and that is the reason why we even have elections. However, killing every Iraqi is not what the people want and it is not necessary for our survival. What is necessary for our survival is that we must learn to accept that not every nation on Earth wants to live the way that we do. What is necessary for our survival is that we get help for the massive superiority complex with which we suffer and learn to get along with our fellow humans on that basis and that basis alone. Mr. Atkinson, President Bush and his cronies and the mainstream media that serves them would do themselves well to learn that.

Over the course of remaining paragraphs, Mr. Atkinson implies that President Bush should

A) Use Julius Caesar as an example and appoint himself “President-for-life”

B) Use Julius Caesar’s tactics and pacify a nation through mass slaughter

C) rid America of her only hope for freedom by liquidating Congress and the Supreme Court

D) embark on a campaign to rule the entire globe

Mr. Atkinson is clearly maniacal. He appears to actually believe that, to make America better, we should destroy everything it stands for and we should dynamite its very foundations. I am perplexed as to how this man who is undoubtedly suffering from some form of psychosis can righteously call himself an American. I, truthfully, do not know what is more disheartening or disconcerting: the fact that Mr. Atkinson wrote this drivel in earnest, or that there are people out there who agree with him.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.