PC Talk Back 12/30/04

Hey Folks,

First I would like to say to all of the return readers, thanks for supporting this blog. It's been over a month since I've started this and it's had a very positive effect on my life. Part of that belongs to you because the more you all read the more I'm inspired to write...and write well...no more pictures of Paris Hilton, I promise.

While PC is my own personal politics and news page I also submit some of columns and reviews to 411mania.com's politics page. In addition, beginning in January I will be reviewing books for popandpolitics.com. The first reviewed I've submitted is Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas?" Please check that out if feel so inclined.

Since popandpolitics.com has me writing exclusive reviews for them, I've been left with maybe a third of my potentially reviewable library of books. I've posted a new poll asking what you would like to see reviewed on this site since a lot of the current pop and politics books will be spoken for. Feel free to e-mail me suggestions.

That brings me to the last poll which a few people voted on and most voiced that they didn't like the new look of PC. I'm open to suggestions here. What don't you like about the site? Feel free to let me in on the aesthetics you'd prefer and I'll see what we can do. The ads stay though : P

Lastly, I'll be moving from NY to Miami, FL in two weeks. During the transition, there may be a day or so when I don't post because of all the real life happenings that need attending to. Please keep checking in, because I intend to get right back to daily posts once I'm settled into my new life.

For those of you interested in this move and how I'm dealing with, I've started a diary-type blog at markradulich.blogspot.com which will be reserved for the kind of ramblings I'm trying not to post on this site. Also, and I haven't promoted it much because there just hasn't been enough time to develop it more, another blogger and I have a music exclusive blog at pantslessaggressionmusic.blogspot.com where we post concert reviews, album reviews, mixes and music related stories.

Thanks again to all the loyal readers for posts, thoughts and support.

Happy New Year

Mark

A Charlatan and a Menace

Black America is not some monolithic entity or voting constituency that can be motivated in total by the same causes and issues. Just like any other race in America, they are subject to what I will call George Carlin’s disease. That is, during one of his bits, Carlin uttered the line, “…if you killed everyone in the world and just left one guy standing, that crazy mother$%#&er would attack the mirror!” That’s just as true among the various sub-groups of Blacks as it is among Whites, Arabs, Asians, etc.

This is why I laugh when some people say that what is missing in the Black community is a leader. Who should that leader be exactly? Should it be Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) whom led an investigation of the CIA’s alleged role in drug trafficking back in the 80’s? Or how about Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr. whom is currently the chairman of GOPAC, which is the premier training organization for Republican candidates across America. Rep. Watts was elected by the good people of Oklahoma 4 times before he retired and moved on to GOPAC. Then there’s the rising star of the Democrat party, former civil rights attorney and newly elected Jr. Senator, Barak Obama. Some are saying that he’s destined to be the first Black president of the United States. Surely he would make a fine leader, hell I’d even vote for him despite Newsmax.com calling him a socialist. But my favorite choice for this illusive title of “Black Leader” is newly appointed Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. There’s not a day that goes by that I’m not praying she runs against HILLARY in 2008.

All four of those individuals are testaments to the possibilities Black people have in America, under the right circumstances. All four of those people could be exemplarily leaders for Black America. However, I think it is safe to say that Dr. Rice and Rep. Watts have a distinctly different agenda and worldview than does Rep. Waters and Jr. Senator Obama. So which side would more benefit “Black America”? Are Blacks better served by more conservative values or by more progressive policies? Are the majority of American Blacks, in actuality, of a more conservative moral stature or are they generally more liberal in areas of ethical behavior? It’s certainly a hard nut to crack and I think it would be an exercise in hubris for any one person to say they represent all Blacks.

That brings me to Jesse Jackson. He is the self-proclaimed leader of the Black Community. He does this by targeting big corporations, accusing them of racism and then demanding rather large reparation as payment for their evil ways. However, as near as I can tell none of the money he’s extorted from corporate America has made its way into the pockets of Black America. From what I understand, the money he receives from these payoffs is used to fund his Rainbow-P.U.S.H. coalition and any number of his private fancies. So if by leader he means corrupt and unaccountable, than he’s a leader in the same vein as many Washington bureaucrats. Bravo.

Normally I can ignore Jackson just as I ignore the likes of Jerry Falwell. Personally I think they are both two sides of the same wooden nickel. But this latest rant from Jackson as reported by Newsmax.com really irritated me:

[President Bush has implemented economic policies that resemble those of the Roman Empire, which forced the baby Jesus into homelessness on the night of his birth, former civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson said in a pre-Christmas rant late Thursday.

"In the last [Bush] budget, we cut housing again, and that was Jesus' dilemma. In Bethlehem, his family ended up homeless," Jackson told MSNBC's Campbell Brown.

"Rome was a wealthy country that left Jesus and Mary and Joseph, in a sense, homeless," he complained. "He was born an at-risk baby."]

I’ll give him points for creativity. It takes a lot to offend me Mr. Jackson, well done.

Aside from the tremendous idiocy of this statement as well as the awe-inspiring lack of historical or theological context, one must ask, “How does this help Black people?” How exactly does a statement such as this serve the Black community? Does Mr. Jackson really believe that comparing the Bush Administrations social-welfare and housing policies to Roman Imperialism will result in some kind boon for the Black community? That group didn’t show embarrassment when WMD couldn’t be found in Iraq, a highly doubt Jackson can shame a more progressive housing policy out of them. Surely he must know that too so one is left asking, “To what end does a purposely malicious statement such as this serve?”

The answer is that is serves Jackson and Jackson alone. It gets him publicity and makes him relevant. Despite not having accomplished much for Black people in the last 20 years, he’s still a top draw in the circus that is mainstream politics. Much like Charlie Rangel, he can get away with spouting all kinds of hatred and nonsense because to call him on it is to brand yourself a racist. Not to mention that he’s a quasi-private citizen, not an elected official. We can’t just throw the bum out lord knows some have tried.

What irks me is that this charlatan of civil rights does more harm to Black people than he does help in any noticeable way. Civil rights, economic equality, equitable suffrage and representation for Black people in America are serious issues that deserve legitimacy in the public forum. I believe when Jackson addresses a national TV audience and goes into his “parody of a Civil Rights Leader” routine by saying things like, “the U.S. appears to be indifferent toward the poor as we seek tax cuts and no-bid contracts for the wealthy; as we engage in wars of choice - driving our nation into isolation," he undermines the actual struggles for parity in the U.S. In short, I think Jackson is a menace to Black people far and wide.

Black politicians and their constituency want to be taken seriously, as they should be. But in terms of marketing, if you want to sell yourselves to the American public at large and give weight to the issues that affect you the most, it would be better to do without the likes of Jackson reducing your message to that of a minstrels act. Much like the Democrat Party at large, you aren’t going to get anywhere insulting your audience. Somewhere in between Dr. Rice and Senator Obama there’s a middle road that right now is congested with people like Jackson. His ilk can only drive the struggle into the ditch.

Whoever leads Black America to the land of milk and honey, liberal or conservative, Democrat, Republican or whatever, it shouldn’t be Jesse Jackson. That would be the equivalent of letting Mahmud Zahar, the leader of Hamas, lead B'nai B'rith International.

Baghdad accuses Syrians of backing Baathist insurgents

Earlier this year I read a book entitled, "The Secret History of the Iraq War" by Yossef Bodansky. One of these days I'll get around to reviewing for popandpolitics.com but for now I will say that a big part of the book talks about how Iran and Syria were instrumental in inciting and funding the insurgency in Iraq. In a lot of ways, this war is also a war by proxy with both of those countries. Now an article from the London Times sheds some more light on Syria's involvement.

"From Nicholas Blanford in Damascus

IRAQ has confronted Syria with evidence indicating that senior Syrian officials have been assisting the Iraqi insurgency, it emerged yesterday.

The evidence includes photographs of Syrian officials taken from Iraqi fighters captured during the offensive against Fallujah last month.

US Marines in Fallujah also found a hand-held global-positioning system receiver with waypoints originating in western Syria and the names of four Syrians in a list of 27 foreign fighters contained in a ledger.

Hassan Allawi, Iraq’s newly appointed Ambassador to Syria, told The Times in Damascus: “Prime Minister Iyad Allawi wrote a letter to the Syrians saying he had the pictures but was not going to release them despite being under pressure from the Americans to do so.”

Mr Allawi said the photographs were found in the possession of Moayed Ahmed Yasseen, also known as Abu Ahmed, leader of the Jaish Muhammad group composed of former Baathist intelligence personnel. One picture showed Mr Yasseen standing beside a senior Syrian official, he said. Mr Yasseen was arrested in Fallujah in mid-November.

The evidence has triggered renewed accusations by US and Iraqi officials that Syria is providing assistance to former Iraqi Baathists who are believed to be running the insurgency from Damascus.

Last week General George W. Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq, said that the exiled Baathists had formed a group called the New Regional Command and were directing operations from Damascus. He said the Syrian authorities were “not going after the big fish, which is really the people that we’re interested in”.

Mr Allawi claimed there was an “Iraqi Baathist invasion of Syria” which was a real danger to the Syrian Government. “It is overwhelming,” he said. “They stole gold and robbed banks and came here. They have enough funds to keep fighting for 30 years.”

Western diplomats in Damascus say it is unclear to what extent Iraqi Baathists are involved in the insurgency and what level of assistance is being provided by elements in the Syrian regime. “There is a high level of suspicion but not much evidence,” a European diplomat in Damascus said.

Mehdi Dakhlallah, Syria’s Information Minister, said it was impossible to monitor all Iraqis who had entered Syria since the war. “Syria has always been open to all Arabs and if they have the correct documents they can enter,” he said. “But we cannot read their minds about what they are going to do once they are here.”

Former officers in the Iraqi intelligence services are also suspected of entering Syria using fake passports.

There are officially 250,000 to 300,000 Iraqis living in Syria, although the International Organisation for Migration says the figure is probably much higher.

Most of the wealthier Iraqi exiles have settled in the Mezzeh district of west Damascus. They drive expensive cars and dine in the priciest restaurants. Most Sunni Iraqi exiles openly support the anti-US resistance.

Among names mentioned by the exiles as leaders of the reorganised Iraqi Baath party are Sabawi Ibrahim, a half-brother of Saddam Hussein, who headed Iraqi intelligence at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, and Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed, secretary-general of the Iraqi Baath party regional command.

Many Iraqi exiles say that Syria is being unfairly singled out for criticism when there are many more Baathists, including senior figures of the old Iraqi regime, living in Jordan."

More on this as it develops...

Black Wall Street; and Other Betrayals in Black America

I like to debate. I have no qualms with confrontation. Generally speaking I believe I can enter into any conversation and hold by ground with the fair amount of knowledge I possess. However, every once in a while someone will bring a piece of information to my attention that sends me into a tailspin and I am left to reconsider my original position.

I have often entered into debates about what Black people should do in America in order garner more political and socio-economic clout. Recently, my arguments were met with a simple question, “Have you ever heard of Black Wall Street?” As well versed as I am in Black American History this was something I’ve never heard of. Black Wall Street was described to me as a thriving arena of Black owned and operated businesses that rivaled the most successful business communities in America at the time. Unfortunately it was bombed off the face of the planet and it probably doesn’t get talked about much outside of the occasional college classroom. The lesson in all of this for some people is that one should not make too much noise or get to successful, or you’ll be destroyed.

I had a hard time dealing with this parable so I went to do my own research and see what “Black Wall Street” was all about. I refused to listen to some crackpot story about a boomtown that was annihilated due to racial hatred of Blacks in America. As usual, my research validated the crackpot story and I was left aghast.

Our story begins oddly enough in Tulsa, Oklahoma in the early 1900’s. This is an excerpt from the Book “Black People, And Their Place In World History” by Dr. Leroy Vaughn:

“The "Black (Negro) Wall Street" was the name given to Greenwood Avenue of North Tulsa, Oklahoma during the early 1900’s. Because of strict segregation, Blacks were only allowed to shop, spend, and live in a 35 square block area called the Greenwood district. The "circulation of Black dollars" only in the Black community produced a tremendously prosperous Black business district that was admired and envied by the whole country.

Oklahoma’s first African-American settlers were Indian slaves of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes": Chickasaws, Choctaws, Cherokees, Creeks, and Seminoles. These tribes were forced to leave the Southeastern United States and resettle in Oklahoma in mid-winter over the infamous "Trail of Tears." After the Civil War, U.S.-Indian treaties provided for slave liberation and land allotments ranging from 40-100 acres, which helps explain why over 6000 African-Americans lived in the Oklahoma territory by 1870. Oklahoma boasted of more All-Black towns and communities than any other state in the land, and these communities opened their arms to freed slaves from all across the country. Remarkably, at one time, there were over 30 African-American newspapers in Oklahoma.

Tulsa began as an outpost of the Creek Indians and as late as 1910, Walter White of the NAACP, described Tulsa as "the dead and hopeless home of 18,182 souls." Suddenly, oil was discovered and Tulsa rapidly grew into a thriving, bustling, enormously wealthy town of 73,000 by 1920 with bank deposits totaling over $65 million. However, Tulsa was a "tale of two cities isolated and insular", one Black and one White. Tulsa was so racist and segregated that it was the only city in America that boasted of segregated telephone booths.

Since African Americans could neither live among Whites as equals nor patronize White businesses in Tulsa, Blacks had to develop a completely separate business district and community, which soon became prosperous and legendary. Black dollars invested in the Black community also produced self-pride, self-sufficiency, and self-determination. The business district, beginning at the intersection of Greenwood Avenue and Archer Street, became so successful and vibrant that Booker T. Washington during his visit bestowed the moniker: "Negro Wall Street." By 1921, Tulsa’s African-American population of 11,000 had its own bus line, two high schools, one hospital, two newspapers, two theaters, three drug stores, four hotels, a public library, and thirteen churches. In addition, there were over 150 two and three story brick commercial buildings that housed clothing and grocery stores, cafes, rooming houses, nightclubs, and a large number of professional offices including doctors, lawyers, and dentists. Tulsa’s progressive African American community boasted some of the city’s most elegant brick homes, well furnished with china, fine linens, beautiful furniture, and grand pianos. Mary Elizabeth Parrish from Rochester, New York wrote: "In the residential section there were homes of beauty and splendor which would please the most critical eye." Well known African American personalities often visited the Greenwood district including: educators Mary McCloud Bethune and W.E.B. DuBois, scientist George Washington Carver, opera singer Marian Anderson, blues singer Dinah Washington, and noted Chicago chemist Percy Julian.”

So far, so good. This is clearly an indication of how anyone can make it in America. An entire race of people can be freed from the bondage of slavery and stake their claim in the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But it never is that easy. This tale of unbridled success and pride was smote in one series of horrific events. More from Dr. Vaughn’s book:

“On May 31, 1921,the successful Black Greenwood district was completely destroyed by one of the worse race riots in U.S. history.

A 19 year old Black male accidentally stumbled on a jerky elevator and bumped the 17-year-old White elevator operator who screamed. The frightened young fellow was seen running from the elevator by a group of Whites and by late afternoon the "Tulsa Tribune" reported that the girl had been raped. Despite the girl’s denial of any wrongdoing, the boy was arrested and a large mob of 2000 White men came to the jail to lynch the prisoner.

About 75 armed African Americans came to the jail to offer assistance to the sheriff to protect the prisoner. The sheriff not only refused the assistance but also deputized the White mob to disarm the Blacks. With a defenseless Black community before them, the White mob advanced to the Greenwood district where they first looted and then burned all Black businesses, homes, and churches. Any Black resisters were shot and thrown into the fires. When the National Guard arrived, they assisted the others by arresting all Black men, women, and children, and herding them into detention centers at the Baseball Park and Convention Hall. As many as 4,000 Blacks were held under armed guard in detention…

The "Chicago Tribute" Newspaper reported that Whites also used private airplanes to drop kerosene and dynamite on Black homes. By the next morning the entire Greenwood district was reduced to ashes and not one White was even accused of any wrongdoing, much less arrested.”

How do you argue with a man that says, “There’s no point in Black folks trying to take on the government?” I think this sad episode is evidence enough that the deck is often stacked against Black American’s when they have been unduly wronged.

This is not an isolated event either. There was of course the Rosewood massacre that John Singleton made a movie about. “Rosewood was a small community located in the swamps of northwest Florida. All but one of the 150 families living there in the early 1920s were African-American. The residents of the peaceful neighborhood were fairly well off; many of the men worked in the sawmill while the women traveled to the nearby town of Sumner to clean house for its white residents. Poor racial relations and outbreaks of violence against blacks plagued post-World War I America, and Florida was no exception. The haunting history behind this community began the first week of January 1923. On New Year's Day, a white woman in Sumner falsely accused a black man of breaking into her house and beating her. Within the hour, a white mob of about 1500 people determined to "protect white womanhood" began its week-long attack on the citizens of Rosewood. After the lynchings, shootings, rapes, beatings and burnings were over, the town of Rosewood had been wiped out.” (Credit myflorida.com)

And then of course there was the summer and fall of 1919 that featured 26 bloody race riots in large cities across the country, which became known as the Red Summer.

Certainly with the advent of the civil rights movement, Gandhi and television, the American elite has been embarrassed into offering inclusion to the Black community. But while Black people in America have accomplished unparalleled success, the echoes from ages gone by apparently still haunt them. The older men whom I deal with at work remember those tumultuous times. Parents in the know still tell these stories over and over again to their children, because lord knows “Black Wall Street” doesn’t exactly fit in to the school curriculum of pro-America propaganda passing as history.

Where exactly does this leave us as a country? Where does this leave Black people in America? Is the lesson here that one should look out for ones own self, his people be damned, because if you don’t crazy White people will blow up your city? Have the vast majority of Black people allowed themselves to forget the lessons of “Black Wall Street” on the assumption that those days are long over? Or is it those very lessons that take the very heart of Black people from NY City to Los Angeles and condemn them to an existence in the success shadow of every other race in America?

It’s all very overwhelming for someone like me who dreams of the day when political equity and power for Black Americans means something more than Al Sharpton’s half-assed run for the Presidency. I long for the day when Black Americans evolve from being a voting block to a powerful lobbying group that rivals Jewish, Christian-Right and Hispanic interests.

How do I look my clients in the eye after an incident like the burning of “Black Wall Street”? Does the guilt and the shame ever wash away with time?

This Is a Muppet News Flash!

I'm so mad I could just spit. Paris Hilton stole my catchphrase that I stole from a roommate in Los Angeles back in 1998. Well I'm not giving it up! I will continue to say, "That's Hot!" under the premise that it's my catchphrase. See, this is what happens when I stop watching the news for five minutes and take a brief gander at pop culture.



This just in from the Left Coast Report:

"Jim Carrey's Heavenly Thoughts

Jim Carrey has discovered something that a lot of folks in La-La Land and society at large have yet to find out. There's a difference between pleasure and happiness.

Carrey tells Playboy magazine that he has given up almost all pleasurable pursuits and is living like a monk. 

"I don't eat wheat. I don't eat dairy. I don't smoke cigarettes. I don't smoke pot. All these things I've enjoyed. I live very sparingly," the actor explains.

"Heaven is the other side of that feeling you get when you're sitting on the couch and you get up and make a triple-decker sandwich. It's on the other side of that, when you don't make the sandwich. It's about sacrifice..."

The Left Coast Report hears that when Hugh Hefner read Carrey's interview he decided to give up one of his seven girlfriends."

I thought this was interesting. Jim Carrey has apparently stumbled into the heart of Christianity. Living without satiating ones immediate desires is essentially what Jesus was preaching back in the days of the Roman Empire. One should commit themselves to their spouse, protect their children and bury their dead. Life was to be lived sacrificing the base wants. It was this sort of philosophy that attracted those citizens that were repelled by Rome's increasing decadence. I'm just wondering if Jim Carrey realizes this or if he thinks he's come up with a grand new philosophy.

In all seriousness, if you are interested in this subject, check out "The Rise of Christianity" by Rodney Stark. It's a sociology book about how early Christianity spread throughout the ancient world.

OK, so his post is absolutely worthless. I have another article to work on for Popandpolitics.com and I wasn't in the mood to do a second real article.

Tomorrow, back to serious business.

Charlie Rangel: Democrat Attack Machine

There aren't many reasons to watch "Hannity and Colmes" on the Fox News Channel if you are looking for halfway decent analysis. Colmes consistently makes the most intellectually juvenile points while Hannity just berates the guests into submission. However, if you like your politics like you like your wrestling then this is the show for you.

One reoccurring character that I think deserves his own debate show across from Ann Coulter is Harlem Representative, Charlie Rangel (D). This guy is the Stone Cold Steve Austin of talking head analysis and pop culture politics. He can say and do anything he wants (within reason) and nobody ever challenges him on it. I cannot recall the last time he faced a serious opponent from the Republican Party for his seat in the House of Representatives. His district is Harlem, which is home to the Apollo Theater and most recently Bill Clinton's office. Unless there's a biblical exodus of African-Americans living there I'm fairly certain his seat is more than safely guarded.

And that is what makes Charlie Rangel great to listen to. He doesn't have to parse his words. He doesn't have to hold anything back. He just lets it rip, damning political correctness and all that it stands for. I've yet to see anyone else stand up to Sean Hannity the way he does. Mind you, I disagree with just about everything the man says and stands for but I'll be a monkey's uncle if when he's on I'm not completely fixated on his visage. He's like Al Sharpton but with a respectable political career.

Rangel appears to be the permanent vice-president of the Democratic Party. In other words, he is their go-to attack dog for any issue that needs attention brought to it. For example, before the election it was Rangel that introduced a bill into the House that if passed would have brought back the draft.

"Yesterday's draft bill — sponsored by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat — was defeated 402-2, with even Mr. Rangel voting against the proposal that called for reinstituting the practice abandoned in 1973 when the military converted to an all-volunteer force...

Mr. Rangel said that his bill deserved "serious consideration" and that the surprise vote, scheduled just yesterday morning, was a "blatant politicization of the issue of meeting our military staffing requirements."

The bill, which Mr. Rangel said he introduced to make a political point that the military is being stretched too thin under Mr. Bush, would have required everyone, including women, between the ages of 18 to 26, to serve a period of military service," (Credit The Washington Times).

What made this episode so dastardly is exactly the sort of thing that makes Rangel so damn entertaining. This guy can introduce strictly for political purposes and with no intentions of voting for it himself and he suffers no political damage. Late in the election cycle the Dems needed to invent an issue that would spark interest in likely Kerry voters, namely the youth vote. And that's where Rangel does his dirty work. He takes advantage of mounting fears of a draft and then submits legislation that actually calls for reenacting it. The best part is, for a while there, the Bush Administration really did take the rap for it. It was absolutely brilliant until of course the GOP called his bluff and put it to a vote. I tell you, Vince McMahon couldn't write something this good. Rangel is the political mafia king of Harlem, "and there is no higher!"

The latest dirty trick has so far, followed much the same path as the draft issue. This time Rangel is gunning not at a specific issue, but a specific person. This from Newsmax.com:

"Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., announced on Sunday that he's introducing legislation to impeach Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"I put in a bill for his resignation. It's shameful," Rangel told NBC's "News Forum" in New York. 'Not only for his resignation, for his impeachment as well, because he would allow us to believe that he was shocked and he did not know exactly what we would be faced with [in Iraq].' "

What chutzpa! What audacity! And Frankly, how very, very cheeky indeed! Better men than Rangel have tried to take on the Bush hydra and all of its many tentacles head on and have suffered greatly for it. Not this guy however, he's a real pro. He's taken it upon himself to take out old McNamara himself, Donald Rumsfeld. What do you do with a guy like that? How do you handle a seemingly invincible political opponent whom has no fear of clearly more powerful figures?

See, this is why I love Charlie Rangel. He may say some of the strangest comments I've ever heard - I mean stuff that would make Dennis Kucinich raise a questioning eyebrow but he's one of the few people in Washington that are not hiding behind a wall of rhetoric.

Straight talk is good, even when it's insane.

Doin' It TO the Kids

As I've gotten older I've come to appreciate my family. No longer am I the angry punk rocker that avoided family functions caterwauling like Keith Kaputo of Life of Agony that, “No one understands me!” Today I thoroughly enjoy our family holidays and I treasure just how devoted we all are to each other. One of the things that usually brings a smile to my face is the interaction between my cousin, her husband and their nearly 2-year-old son. There’s a noticeable lack of dysfunction in that family and soothes me. I watch the father and the son play together and I am mesmerized by the interest. He’s not just fulfilling a role; he seems to actually be interested in his son that he brought into the world. I see him and my only wish is that everyone should have a father whom is as invested in his or her child as he is.

Then I read something like this and my buzz is killed.

“A GIRL of 20 has become the youngest person in Britain to need a new liver because of binge-drinking.”

But wait, there’s more.

“The girl, who began boozing when she was 12, was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver in hospital after collapsing following a heavy drinking session.”

If you read the story there’s one noticeable detail missing from the narrative. There is absolutely no mention of the parent’s role in this. There’s no mention of her upbringing. It’s as if she hatched from an egg a critically sick alcoholic and the real story is in her needing a new liver. That’s not the story here. The real story is that yet another child has been betrayed by the institutions that were supposed to protect and nurture her.

Would I be naïve in asking if there is actually a parent out there who thinks they are doing the right thing by exposing a 12-year-old to alcohol? I see it where I work all the time. As part of the interview process I have to ask, “When was the first time you tried alcohol,” and the typical response is between 9 and 12. I suppose it’s one thing if it were just plain old “Lord of the Flies” style neglect but I doubt it.

I remember this story too.

“It's a story of a "traditional" junior vs. senior girls' football game that went terribly wrong. Normally, this "right of passage" for students would involve food being dropped on the juniors; this hazing went to an extreme level. Not only were there physical beatings involved in this hazing, but seniors used feces and intestines in various ways on the juniors. Some of the more unfortunate girls were even reported to have been forced to eat the feces and several students were hospitalized.

This is a fairly extreme case of hazing mixed with typical high school irresponsibility. However, there has been evidence that parents may have even been aids in setting this up. It has been reported that two parents may have provided the minors with kegs, and some may have also helped their daughters bag up the feces.”

That’s right, some of the parent’s bought their children kegs. To this day I stand by original reaction. Any parent that gave those girls alcohol should have had their parental rights terminated and charges definitely filed against them.

And it’s not just alcohol that’s the problem. Adults here in the United States and our good friends across the pond in Europe seem to think that having sex with children is a dandy idea. For example, the lowest legal ages of consent are found in Spain (12) and in Albania, Italy and Iceland (14). Some other countries place the age of consent at 16, as do some states such as Montana, Connecticut, Kansas, Michigan and Maine. Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina take the prize at 14 years of age.

That’s just Europe and the United States; I don’t even want to get into the rest of the world.

I’m sure any of the guys reading this have stories to tell of conquests made at various tender ages. This isn’t about you or me and it isn’t about our immediate needs. As I say to my clients day in and day out, there is an objective morality in this world and it’s worth adhering to.

I’ve head various arguments about teenagers being ready for sex at an early age. Here are the facts:

1) Most children under 18 aren't emotionally or psychologically mature enough to cope with a sexual relationship, or the impact of intercourse.

2) Sex under the age of 18 poses serious risk of cervical cancer.

3) There's an increased risk of pregnancy, STI’s and HIV.

For regular readers of my column, if you are wondering what drove a fairly progressive person like myself away from the Green Party, it was this moral relativism that I see as defining all left movements. Adults are in the nasty habit of manipulating children for their own disgraceful and selfish needs and unfortunately I don’t see this changing anytime soon.

There is a “Culture War” going on in this world but it’s not between Hollywood and the Christians. It’s between parents and adults who hate children and people like my cousin’s family. I’ll say it again, if you think giving a child; teenager or otherwise, alcohol or drugs, then you hate children. If you think, as an adult, it’s OK to have sex with a child from the ages of 12-18 then you hate children. If you are more invested in any other detail in this world than the children you brought into it, then I believe you hate children. Parenting is about sacrifice not selfishness.

I pray for my baby cousin. I pray for my baby cousin because he will have to go to school with other children stricken with self-loathing that they inherited from miserable parents. I pray for my baby cousin because despite the best intentions of his parents, he will have to endure a gauntlet of media streamed violence and sex that has no business in the arena of childrearing.

I pray for my baby cousin because it needs to be done.

Buried in the Sand: The Deception of America – A DVD Review

This is yet another polemic DVD in a long line that started with Fahrenhype 9/11 and took a turn for the worse with Celsius 41.11. I have to hand it to Michael Moore, his movies may be full of lies and distortions but they are entertaining. This thing, which was directed by Rob Cartee and narrated by Mark Taylor, felt like an hour-long infomercial for GOP talking points. The entire time I sat watching it I kept thinking to myself, “Does this movie have a point?” The left in America felt the invasion of Iraq was illegal and when no WMD’s were found they seemed to have been validated in that belief. Enter “Buried in the Sand” which appears to be a response to that argument in pictures. There’s 101 cogent and well thought out reasons to have invaded Iraq and this movie drives home the most irrelevant one of all: Saddam Hussein tortured some of his people.

Has political debate in this country really come to this? In order to present an argument that favors preemption and confrontation over appeasement we now need to resort to snuff films. I’ve read other reviews of this documentary and I’m not sure we were watching the same thing. This was 90 minutes of some vague narration and grotesque images of abuse toward the Iraqi people. We see over and over again grainy images of men being whipped in the face and on the heels of their feet; beaten in one place until the kidney fails; hands chopped off; beheadings; arms purposely broken; and a stoning. I guess if you’ve been asleep since September 11th, 2001, this stuff will shock you…as the narrator said over and over and over and over and over again. However, for the folks that are aware of what’s going on the world it shouldn’t come as a great shock that people in the “old world” can be absolutely vile to one another.

The problem I have with this documentary is that it doesn’t present any arguments in any kind of context. It’s a series of violent and horrific images that rival a Troma film with less of a plot line. Even Fahrenheit 9/11 had some aspect of a story to it. This was, as I stated above, nothing more than a snuff film and a cheap advertisement of hawkish talking points. In the year or so I was making arguments for going to war with Iraq, not once did I say, “We need to invade his country in order to stop the torture.” Yes it was a very good thing we did by going in there and ridding the Iraqi people of the Hussein family but if you really wanted to invade some place for humanitarian purposes, you might want to start first with Central Africa.

I felt that there was nothing new to be learned from this movie unless you really didn’t know how to enact a “stoning”. The points the narrator makes in this movie could have been taken directly from Sean Hannity’s talking points memo because they were just as juvenile. I can only assume that the point of this thing is for the good folks of Middle America to see it and become indignant with self-righteous determination to rid the world of “evil doers” like Saddam Hussein.

Well you know what, the world is not that simple. As hawkish as I am about National Security, there has to be more to validate any use of the American Armed Forces than the plot outline of a He-Man cartoon. I think this documentary is insulting to the American public. It strips away all of the nuance and debate and leaves you with this context free image of a barbaric place and one should be left feeling like it’s our duty to liberate it. That’s a childish GOP commercial, not a respectable presentation of the horrors of the Hussein regime.

If you truly feel like you cannot establish a cogent opinion on the Iraq War without seeing up-close images of beheadings and whippings then this is your movie. However, if you can string two thoughts together and have some knowledge of the world beyond your own neighborhood then don’t waste your time or money. If you want a movie that truly takes you into the heart of Baghdad then see “Voices of Iraq”.

“The producers of this groundbreaking documentary distributed 150 digital video cameras across Iraq to enable everyday people -- mothers, children, teachers, sheiks, even insurgents -- to voice their perspectives on issues such as war, terror and the democratic reform. The result is a unique tableau documenting Iraqis' lives and their hopes as they struggle with years of turmoil and strive to build a civil society.” (Credit Netflix.com)

This movie shows some of the graphic violence that the Iraqi’s had to endure but it tells a much better story. Instead of hammering you over the head with some ham handed excuse for “liberating” a country, it lets the Iraqi’s tell their own narrative and leaves you with enough information to decide on your own.

If “Buried in the Sand” and “Celsius 41.11” are the high-watermark for conservative documentaries then boy are we in trouble. For the love of all that is pure and good in the cinematic world, please stop making these stupid movies. They are not entertaining and they insult the voters.

Arianna and Me

I've seen Arianna Huffington a bunch of times on Fox news and Real Time with Bill Maher. Most of the time I find her extremely irritating. I generally disagree with everything she has to say and I find her views on SUV's/energy conservation to be, at the very least, hypocritical. Not to mention when she ran for governor during the recall she became nearly unbearable, at least in my humble opinion.

However, you could have knocked me over with a feather this afternoon when whilst surfing the internet I came across her December 8th column and found myself in complete agreement with this part of it:

"And if middle-of-the-roadism is such a great vote-getter, why don’t we see Republicans moving there? In fact, framing the political debate in right-left terms is so old, so tired, and so wrong that we need to resist all temptation to do so. There is nothing left-wing about wanting corporations to pay their fair share rather than hide their profits in PO boxes in Bermuda, or in ensuring access to health care now rather than paying the bill at the emergency room later.

That’s why the DNC race is so important. The party needs a chairman able to drive a stake through the heart of its bankrupt GOP-lite strategy and champion the populist economic agenda that has already proven potent at the ballot box in many conservative parts of the country. Just how potent is revealed in “The Democrats’ Da Vinci Code,” a brilliant upcoming American Prospect cover story by David Sirota that shows how a growing number of Democrats in some of the reddest regions in America have racked up impressive, against-the-grain wins by framing a progressive economic platform in terms of values and right vs. wrong. These are not “left” ideas; they are good ideas."

Here Here! I've been saying this since the election. The Iraq war sucked all of the air out of the political debate in the country. The Dems were so busy trying to pick a side in that debate they seemed to have forgotten about our countries domestic agenda. I think I was the only conservative who applauded Howard Dean when he told a Tallahassee audience on the campaign trail in 2003 that southerners have to quit basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays." While I think those are all important, at the end of the day they fall to wayside if the voter is unemployed, homeless, hungry and sick.

However, Dean's critical mistake was marketing himself as the anti-war candidate. Sure it got the far left crowd in his pocket but that sort of rhetoric dies quickly in heartland. As Arianna suggested, if you combine sound progressive economic policies that combine the best in capitalism and socialism (like the Basic Income Guarantee) with "apple pie" patriotism and a strong national defense, you've got yourself a viable candidate.

Where's Bobby Kennedy when you need him?

I Spit On Your Grave

AESTHETICS OF HATE: R.I.P. DIMEBAG ABBOTT, & GOOD RIDDANCE

Conservative columnist William Grim (wgrim@myrealbox.com) wrote a piece entitled above, that essentially blames the recently murdered heavy metal guitarist Darrell a.k.a. “Dimebag” Abbott of causing his own death. He says that heavy metal itself is the culprit and had Abbott not created such wretched “music” then a “fan” wouldn’t have been moved to murder. But here’s Mr. Grim in his own words, “I cannot deny that there much in Mr. Abbott's demise of one being hoisted on one's petard. The squalor, inhumanity, filth (both in the metaphorical and hygienic senses), depravity, ugliness and ignorance of everything that heavy metal represents (Like rap, I cannot use the noble term music in a description of heavy metal) creates a mindset among its devotees in which Mr. Abbott's assassination was an event that was all but waiting to happen.”

As a matter of fairness, the line before the above statement was, “I in no way want to engage in a blaming the victim scenario.” I cannot see how he isn’t blaming the victim here but hey, he’s the writer of the piece and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

The bulk of the piece revolves around trying to get good conservative folks to take back the arts in the name of all that is good and Godly in the world. For example, “Here is one area in which conservatives have failed and failed miserably. Whether it is out of a lack of interest or despair, conservatives for too long have ceded the entire field of aesthetics to the trust fund red babies of the blue states. And look at what this has brought us. So-called heavy metal music, so-called rap music, operas and stage plays in which modern "stagings" reduce Verdi and Shakespeare to the condition of a schizophrenic's finger paintings. Leftist domination in the visual arts has made a mockery of the aesthetic greatness of modernism and replaced it with the turd encased in Lucite. And the grammatically-challenged racist rantings of Amiri Baraka now pass for poetry.”

For someone attempting to paint himself as a thinker of the highest order, I’m left perplexed as to why he’s attacking a murder victim whom he’s never met. He’s also apparently never done a serious study of the origins of heavy metal, the psycho-dynamics of why it appeals to certain segment of the population (in the millions world-wide mind you) or the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in former soldiers returning from combat.

Nathan Gale didn’t kill Darrell Abbott because the devil or the rhythm made him do it. Nathan Gale was a former marine and apparently was in desperate need of therapy. Locals in his area of Ohio saw, “…his hulking, hooded figure walking quickly up and down Fifth Street several times a day, often dressed in the same outfit for days in a row.” (Credit VH1.com) That’s a clear sign of some degree of dementia, in my humble opinion.

The armed services are hiring licensed clinical social workers to work with former combat soldiers to properly reintegrate them back into society rather than just cutting them loose “Rambo style”. I don’t know what happened to Gale or how he left the marines but this sad incident, as well as his inexplicable behavior was a tragic cry for help. It was not an indictment of the lyrics and style of underground music.

I’ve been critical of liberals for resorting to name calling when logic failed them but Mr. Grim reminds us that conservatives are just as fallible in the childishness department. “He (Abbott) was an ignorant, barbaric, untalented possessor of a guitar and large amplifier system. Freakish in appearance, more simian than human, he was the performer of a type of "entertainment" that can be likened only to a gorilla on PCP. Lacking subtlety, wit, style, emotional range and anything approaching even the smallest iota of intellectual or musical interest, Mr. Abbott was part of a generation that has confused sputum with art and involuntary reflex actions with emotion.”

As Andrew Sullivan would say, you sir, get the Malkin award. I think it’s rather morbid and classless to insult the recently departed. Especially when you espouse the aesthetics of Bach and Beethoven. Mr. Grim would most likely be saddened to know that many musicians in heavy metal were inspired by classical music and some were in fact classically trained musicians. He would most likely be flabbergasted to know that black metal musicians such as Dimmu Borgir employ the use of a full orchestra when recording their albums. My how gauche!

Mr. Grim’s entire column sinks to depths of grave robbing in my opinion. He is using the occasion of a musician’s tragic murder to invoke the “Culture War” and promote elitism. He’s doing this in blind ignorance of the music he’s criticizing. I doubt Mr. Grim has ever spoken to a fan of heavy metal or has been to a concert. I would gather he’s never actually ever done any fieldwork and interviewed any metal musician to see if his hypothesis, that they’re all “simians,” is actually valid. That is what we academics like to call, “fallacious thinking”.

Maybe I’m giving him too much credit and he just likes to pick on kids and dead people from his computer in Germany where nobody can confront him. But then, I don’t know the man and I don’t want to be judgmental. That would be classless.

I am willing to make a deal with Mr. Grim however. If he can assure me that men and women across the globe will never bring children into the world they don’t want, then I will condemn heavy metal, the music I clung to in my formative years. If he can assure me that fathers across the globe will never abandon their children, then I will condemn heavy metal, the music I clung to in my formative years. If he can assure me that a mother will never again birth a child addicted to drugs, then I will condemn heavy metal, the music I clung to in my formative years. If he can assure me that every child in every part of the world will grow up in an environment free of crime, filth and disease, then I will condemn heavy metal, the music I clung to in my formative years. If he can assure me a child will never be molested or raped ever again, then I will condemn heavy metal, the music I clung to in my formative years. If he can invent a cure for alienation, then I will condemn heavy metal, the music I clung to in my formative years.

In the words of Socrates, “I only know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” Mr. William Grim sir, you stand in good company.

"I think we're going to blow them up."

"When asked what he envisaged would be the Bush administration's eventual answer to Iran's nuclear facilities, John Pike, president of the noted Washington-area defense think-tank Global Security, told Asia Times Online, "I think we're going to blow them up." He added that he believed the effort would be some time before the 2006 US elections."

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"?

During this past election cycle when befuddled friends and family asked me why on Earth was an educated social worker like myself voting for George W. Bush I usually answered, "Because I think he'll kill more Arabs than Kerry."

Now if you're still reading this, I'll explain why I would say such a thing and how some of my thinking has changed since I first uttered that phrase. Prior to the Iraqi war, I was of the belief that the Arab/Persian/Muslim world could not be reasoned with under any circumstances and it was only a matter of time before the Arabs ET. Al. had the bomb, which they would then give to any number of terrorist organizations. I felt that the governments of Arab ET. Al. nations were not serious in their commitment to the "War on Terror" and would continue to play the terrorist organizations against the Western World until the true nature of Wahhabism revealed itself in the form of a nuclear attack on US soil. Looking at the two candidates at the time, I felt that the Bush administration would be the safest bet to take the fight to the Arab ET. Al. doorstep rather than a potential Kerry administration. I was of the belief that there could never be a reform movement in the Muslim world and the only language the terrorists, the Mullahs and the Arab leaders understood was "shock and awe". In short, I thought Bush would kill more Arabs than Kerry would.

Over time I read lots of books and watched lots of news and slowly but surely it dawned on me that more than likely, the Bush administration would not take the fighting any further than Iraq. My father has taken great joy in pointing out that my main reason for voting for Bush had been betrayed...well there's still gay marriage but that's another column for another day.

In all seriousness, one of the issues that has made me a bit more reserved in my desire for all out war with the Middle East is a strong pro-democracy movement in Iran. The more I read about Iranian dissidents challenging the legitimacy of the Mullahs and specifically Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the more I wish for them to remain living rather than annihilated by one of our nuclear weapons. Couple that with strategic, economic and military cooperation with both China and Russia and you've got the makings of a real World War III. That's some potential Axis Powers we'd be facing. Not to mention the wrath of Syria, Egypt and Pakistan, our most important ally in the war in Central Asia against Al Qaeda. Our ally's would be Israel, Britain and Australia...and that's about it.

Now with reports that the Bush Administration is war-gaming an invasion of Iran and the above quote in the Asian Times, I'm starting to think that they might just be brazen enough to try this stunt. Suddenly I'm not so excited about that prospect.

I'm looking at the writing on the wall and thinking to myself, "What have we done?" It could be that starting a war with Iran before they have the "Arab Bomb" is tactical and worth the risk of dragging China and Russia into an even bigger war. If we do attack Iran, most assuredly we would be at war with Syria and Lebanon almost immediately. If there is truly hostile intent emanating from Iran then maybe instigating a war is the safest choice of action for us. But still, I can't get the image of Berkley-like Iranian teenagers demanding freedom and democracy and instead getting a mouth full of MOAB (mother of all bombs) for their troubles.

It's not fair. For the first time since 9/11 I'm seeing the complexities of the Arab/Persian/Muslim world and realizing that there has to be a middle road somewhere between protecting the US from the "Arab bomb" and reducing Tehran to Hiroshima.

Is it too much to ask for the Iranian people to learn a lesson from Ghandi and just strike until the Mullahs are embarrassed out of power?

Down With NASA

I got an interesting editorial mailed to me yesterday by term limits advocate Paul Jacob of Common Sense. The article entitled "NASA's Last Days?" spoke about the transition that's beginning to happen in the realm of the Space Age.

Jacobs states that, "The most important news story of this fall, ultimately more important than the re-election of the president, was the awarding of the X Prize to Burt Rutan for his SpaceShipOne flights. For it shows that private enterprise is both willing and able to enter space. At a profit.

Yes, the Space Age has launched into a new era, the Industrial Space Age.

Now, NASA had big news, recently, too. Its X-43A scramjet broke the world speed record for an atmosphere-burning aircraft, going nearly ten times the speed of sound. It then glided down to the earth's surface for a soft landing.

But after landing in the ocean, NASA abandoned its multi-million dollar plane to sink as junk. Contrast this with SpaceShipOne, which cost a tenth as much and has shot up into space several times and come back down for re-use."

With all that's going on right now capturing my interests I had completely forgotten just how much I loathe our space program. If there is one common conservative thread in any of my articles it's that I do not approve of capriciously throwing money down the drain. I support policies that are the cheapest and most productive. The X-43A scramjet is indicative of Washington's callousness towards the American taxpayer. Frankly, it sickens me.

For quite some time now I have been saying to anyone that will indulge me that NASA should be gutted entirely from the federal budget in lieu of privatizing the space industry. The business and industrial world should be free to do what they do best, make products that consumers will compete for in a market that will gladly accept them. I fully support a space race among private corporations rather than this bloated tribute to Soviet style waste called NASA.

While I was reading Jacobs' article I began thinking about what's new at NASA these days. Lo and behold I got my wish for an interesting story. "NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe resigned Monday, leaving the $158,000 government job after three years to seek a $500,000-a-year job as chancellor of Louisiana State University's main campus. He's the top candidate, and a decision is expected Thursday, school officials say."

The article states that O'Keefe was brought in to curb the mounting spending costs of NASA which some allege, contributed to the space shuttle Columbia disintegrating upon re-entry in February of 2003. O'Keefe's departure is seen by some as abandoning a sinking ship. Well I say good, let it sink. I truly believe the federal space program outlived its usefulness once the Soviet Union collapsed back in the late 80's. For the good of all American taxpayers and the future of American leadership in science, please let's give up this fool idea that the government can effectively run a space program. It's the height of naiveté to think that it can (hell, right now we can't even get enough armor to the troops in the battlefield).

Let our representatives in Washington DC stick to what they do best - paying farmers not to grow crops!

The United States of Eurasiafrica

The Jerusalem Post had an interesting story on December 9th about a trade agreement between the European Union and Israel. The article states, "The European Union said Thursday Israel is among seven nations who will be part of its new European Neighborhood policy, even though the Foreign Ministry said Israel has not yet formally agreed to the EU's "action plan" for membership.

This program offers free access to goods, services, people and capital to countries neighboring the European Union in exchange for economic and political reform on a country-by-country basis."

The article goes on to say that, "The "European Neighborhood" accords with Moldova, Ukraine, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are aimed at making Europe more secure by bringing stability and prosperity to volatile regions."

This is probably a good thing.

Just as competition drives the marketplace and allows consumers to be king, so does competition in politics. I believe it is competition that brings as much honesty as there can be to an institution completely made up of human beings. Though I wish we had in this country a viable third or even fourth party, with the two we have, there has to be a certain amount of deliberation before anything can get done in the capital of our country. Even in a situation like we have now where one party dominates the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of our federal government, there are still plenty of state and local seats held by the opposition. No party has absolute control and so we're relatively safe from someone anointing themselves king...even Bush family members.

I think international politics should follow the same structure. While I'm not crazy about the United Nations and their treatment of the US, I think they play a valuable role in keeping us fairly honest just by their existence. I feel the same way about the European Union. Just look at the map and you'll see something very obvious. Europe, Africa and Asia are all connected landmasses just as North and South America are connected landmasses. It would make sense that a viable global competitor to the US would follow the same basic structure. That is to say, smaller states on a continent joining as one huge trading area, sharing natural, scientific and political resources for the betterment of the masses at large. It's only a matter of time before Canada and Mexico do the same thing on our end of the pond. And here I should say, I'm talk about something way beyond NAFTA or GATT.

The reason why this makes sense to me and I think it's inevitable, is because without a proper economic and political opponent, the US is free to run amuck (much as it has) all around the world. It does so for the betterment of our country and our principle interests...which is fine except that generally speaking, our interests usually harm those in which among we are inserting ourselves. It's a simple monopoly lesson really, without a proper Super Power competitor, why shouldn't the US do what's in it's best interest? The rest of the world be damned!

I'm all for being a super power and I'm preferential to the US being the leader of world affairs, however, I think it's important to keep perspective and only a viable Super Power that challenges us economically, scientifically and politically will ever be able to that. Balance is what is called for and if folks on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean can find some common ground and a similar sense of unity that resembles US statehood, then a sense of balance can be achieved.

After years of horrible mistreatment of the Jews in Europe and historically, the utter contempt for Israel by the Europeans, this "EU-Israel neighborhood agreement" is a good first step toward liberal democratic sanity.

Now if we can only bring the Arab terrorists out of the 14th century we'd really be cookin' with gas!

Progressive Conservatism 2.0

You may have noticed one or two changes to the site.

First, I want to thank my friend Mark (the other one) for helping me fix the site. We wanted to make it less gaudy and more classy. We also wanted to make it easier to read.

Personally, I wanted a more "newspaper"-ish look to the site and I think we've accomplished that. Leave a comment and tell me what you think of the new look.

And tomorrow, we get back to serious business, I promise.

...And Now for Something Completely Different

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

I don't know if this is funny or scary...probably a little from column A and a little from column B.

Oh well, back to serious business.

The Teflon Bureaucracy

No human institution is perfect. I accept that and I think most people do as well. Early on in Mr. Bush's presidency many corporations such as Enron, Tyco and WorldCom were plagued with scandal and people were quick to assign vast amounts of guilt to all corporations around the United States. "Corporate Criminal" and "Corporate Responsibility" were the buzz phrases and people were acting like a few corporate scandals amounted to restarting the French Revolution. More to the point, the Democrats, among others were calling for the head of George W. Bush claiming the buck of corporate responsibility stopped with him.

Fine I won't even bother to argue that point.

But what's good for the goose is good for the gander and that brings me to the UN. The UN and specifically Secretary General Kofi Annan, has been swimming in scandal for quite some time now. The Observer out of England reports that,"Annan is mired in the deepest crisis of his career as America continues to put pressure on him to resign. His 10-year tenure at the head of the UN is in danger of collapsing under the weight of a series of scandals ranging from sexual harassment claims involving top UN staff, to human rights abuses by UN soldiers and officials in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the long-running Iraq oil-for-food corruption investigation."

Sex abuse, Human rights abuse, graft, possible sponsoring of terrorism? Obviously the Democrats are demanding that Annan step down from his position of authority...no wait, that would be the greed-head, war-mongering, racist, neocon Republicans.

The Democrats on the other hand are reserving judgment. According to Newsmax.Com, "Rep. Kucinich, D-Ohio, fired off a letter today to Secretary of State Colin Powell claiming that criticism of Annan was 'disgraceful and premature.' Believe it or not, here is an actual line from Kucinich's letter, as revealed by the Associated Press: 'There has been no hint of impropriety on the part of the secretary-general, who on numerous occasions has proven his honesty and integrity.' "

Let's chalk this up to partisanship and just say there's no integrity in national politics. That's fine except the Bush Administration appears to have learned nothing from the last election. Specifically, you cannot appease the opposition. There can be no bipartisanship in Washington while policy debate continues to resemble a race riot. But that doesn't seem to stop the Bush Administration from trying to befriend vipers.

Case in point, yet another article from Newsmax.Com states that, "The United States expressed confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday and said he should remain at the helm of the United Nations, an abrupt turnaround from its refusal to back him last week after a U.S. senator called for his resignation."

Well that's just dandy. So let me get this straight, Tenet screws up WMD in Iraq and he doesn't get fired. Rumsfeld fails to plan for a prolonged insurgency in Iraq and he doesn't get fired. Nearly every National Security case former US Attorney General John Ashcroft pursued was either dismissed or downgraded to trivial charges and he doesn't get fired. And now Kofi Annan is presiding over an organization that is an impediment to the U.S., has issued numerous resolutions against Israel despite other Arab countries being just as guilty if not more, has been implicated in countless sex and human rights abuses, and may be partially responsible via the Oil For Food Program for sponsoring terrorist organizations and yet we don't want the guy fired. Mind you, we the American taxpayers fund this nonsense to the tune of 25% of $1.3 billion a year. Loyalty is way expensive in Bush World.

The only reasonable explanation for wanting to keep Annan around is that the Bush Administration must think they'll replace him with Osama Bin Laden.

Dimebag Darrell is Dead

The link to the CNN article is on the title of the post but here is the horrible sum it all:

"COLUMBUS, Ohio (CNN) -- A gunman stormed the stage during a heavy metal concert in Columbus, Ohio, on Wednesday night, firing at the band and audience and killing four people before a police officer shot and killed him, police said.

One of the dead was guitarist "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott, 38, of the band Damageplan. The gunman also wounded two people."

At this time the police don't have a motive for the killing. This appears to be a senseless violent act of an obviously sick man.

My condolences to all of the victim's families including the Abbott family.

Conspiracy or Quack? A Cure For AIDS

I posted yesterday on Pop and Politics Talk Back that researchers in France might have found an effective treatment for AIDS. Shortly thereafter I got a comment about how there actually is a cure for AIDS called IMUSIL. As always when I see something like this I go straight to Google and do some of what I like to call, "lazy research". That is to say, I search a bunch of websites for some kind of confirmation that whatever crazy thing I just learned is actually true. As per usual I got mixed evidence. On the one hand, there are all kinds of crazy explanations and books that basically say AIDS was created in a US lab for the purposes of exterminating Gays and Blacks. Then there's a whole host of other sites that say this theory is a bunch of hooey. Echoes of Bill O'Riley calling me a left-wing Internet whacko, go dancing in my head and I'm left thinking, "Should I actually re-print this thing and damage what little credibility I've earned?" Then I remember I'm a blogger, "...and I say what da heck!"

In all seriousness, in the hour it took me to examine the data relevant to a possible cure for AIDS, I only found one article that I thought was relatively believable, entitled, "A Cure for AIDS/HIV, mysteriously withheld." The article talks about IMUSIL and how it can be used to cure AIDS. However, the company, Marantech, LLC of Rhode Island for some strange reason opted to disallow their invention to be used as said cure.

Towards the bottom of the press release, there's a copy of a patent that was filed with the US Patent Office on October 14, 1997 under the heading "Method of curing AIDS with tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystal devices" with the following information about clinical trials and protocol:

Here is brief excerpt

What is claimed is:

1. A method of treating AIDS-afflicted humans comprising injecting a multitude of tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystals into the bloodstream of the human subject.

2. A method for increasing white blood cell counts in AIDS-afflicted humans comprising injecting a multitude of tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystals into the bloodstream of the human subject.

3. Methods of treating AIDS-afflicted humans according to claims 1-2 where the concentration of said molecular crystals is approximately 40 PPM of the total blood weight of the human subject.

Weird, I know.

There's another person involved in this story. His name is Dr. Boyd E Graves JD. His claim to fame is a flowchart from 1971 that, "makes it perfectly clear, the design, intent and purpose of the U.S. Special Virus program. As Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of UNAIDS says, the HIV/AIDS virus is the result of many steps in the laboratory, it was no accident. The 1971 flowchart provides absolute evidence of the United States' intent to kill its own citizens and others." I looked him up too and again got mixed evidence of his sanity. Some site him as a recipient of the AIDS cure and a legal machine, demanding that justice be served. Others site him as a nut and site IMUSIL as irrelevant in the world of AIDS medicine. The other puzzling thing about this Graves character is that for someone who is attempting to take on the US government, the United Nations, the World Health Organization and world wide pharmaceutical companies, his name doesn't appear in any recent google news searches. The closest thing I can find is an article that says he was forcefully evicted from his home and is currently homeless. There also do not appear to be any new additions to his website.

Part of me wants to believe that this is all crap. I'm not big into conspiracy theories and I'm not one for believing in the purposeful malignance of my government. "To all things there is a logical reason", is a principle I try to apply to the inexplicable events in the world around us. And then I think of The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. I think of "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race", by Edwin Black. I think about how Blacks and other minorities have actually been hurt more by the creation of public housing, than have been helped by it:

"Frustrated with the housing problems of the poor, many local governments finally decided, "We'll give it to 'em!"  Public housing did just that.  In the hands of upper middle class, white politicians bent on achieving visible results, public housing programs between 1950 and 1968 built 559,000 units--at the cost of demolishing some 1,646,000!  Though nonwhites occupied only a minority percentage of urban substandard housing, over 65% of those turned out of their homes were black, Hispanic, or members of other racial minorities." (p. 6 and p. 8. Cf. William G. Grigsby, Housing Markets and Public Policy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 963), p. 258.)

I find it terribly troubling that my choices are either to believe that my government is purposely trying to kill minorities or go on assuming everything I've been taught about HIV/AIDS is absolutely correct.

Cynical or gullible is no choice indeed.

I Am a Friend of Israel

You Are a Pundit Blogger!

Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read. Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few.

What kind of blogger are you?

Well this ain't no Live Journal.

Meanwhile...over at NewsMax.com:

"Just as Latinos are escaping the Democrat barrio and blacks have begun to run from the Democrat plantation, Terry McAuliffe and company have a new migraine to cope with...

...Artemis Strategies announced today, citing a poll of 600 Jewish voters in central and south Florida by Michael Cohen, vice president of Fabrizio, McLaughlin (that):

Bush gained 7 percent more Jewish votes in Florida in 2004 than in 2000.

He crushed Sen. John Kerry among those who cited terrorism, national security or Israel as top concerns.

He won 27 percent of Jewish Democrats in Florida, whereas Kerry took only 4 percent of Jewish Republicans."

I believe one of the reasons we went into Iraq was to stave off a potential military threat against Israel. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was vehemently apposed to Israel's existence. The two most egregious affronts to Israeli sovereignty were the Scud missiles fired on Israel during first Gulf War and, most related to the War on Terror, his regimes supporting of suicide/homicide bombers by paying a reward of $25,000 per bombing to the families of the bomber.

I think young Jewish Americans realize that the only friends Israel has are mostly conservative Americans. The Israeli state is seen as illegitimate by half the Arab world and just hated by nearly all of the European Union. It would strike me as deal with the "devil you know" for Jewish Americans to vote for the conservative candidate (such as Bush) whom is most likely to help protect Israel.

While I don't think protecting Israel was first and foremost on President Bush's agenda, the fact remains, whatever drove him to depose Hussein, also helped protect Israel. It doesn't surprise me that in turn he picked up more Jewish votes on Election Day.

If the trend of Latinos, African-Americans and Jews voting for Conservatives/Republicans continues then the Democrats are going to need more than "soul-searching" to reposition themselves as a true opposition party. They're going to need all new constituency groups.

Have You Ever Seen That Reefer Man?

"A Panhandle couple is under arrest after notifying police Thursday that their quarter-pound stash of marijuana was stolen and that they needed the weed back, because they were going to later sell it."

I can't decide if this is uncanny stupidity or a sign of something larger. My thinking is this, are so many people so brazenly breaking the drug laws in this country that the least savvy amonst us actually think the police won't arrest them when they admit to being drug dealers?

I'm no fan of our drug laws. As a drug and alcohol counselor I've seen the damage prohibition has done to the lower income neighborhoods. In a caseload of about 30 "addicts" I would say 20 are crack dealers whom have only indulged in marijuana and now, because they are on probation or parole, have to complete an outpatient drug rehabilitation program. Some of them really are addicted to marijuana and need the therapy while others, and they know this as well as I do, are just there because it's better than prison.

Every now and again, at least one person will announce during group therapy that he thinks there's an inherent hypocrisy in prohibiting marijuana smoking but keeping alcohol and cigarettes legal. Now in my opinion he's absolutely right but it's a little more complicated that just, "da government wants that chedda, ya herd!"

We're still a moralist country with strong puritan roots, despite how caustic our pop culture society may have become. In the heartland, or as Michael Moore calls it, Jesusland, people are trying to adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices. One of those beliefs is that one should not introduce mind-altering chemicals into ones body that would might move you to commit greater sin or leave a greater chasm between yourself and God. As silly as that might seem to anyone reading this, it's been enough to promote drug prohibition not only in this country but across Europe and around the world.

A wise woman once said to me, "People can't handle huge change. The trick is to change a little over time and sneak the big stuff in when nobody is paying attention." The debate over medinical marijuana is a trojan horse that will inevitably lead to legalization and regulation of illicit substances...and I'm OK with that. Legalization of medicinal marijuana seems to be on the horizon as patient lobbyist make stronger cases for legalization. In addition there are agencies like the Drug Policy Alliance that are working feverishly to have the drug laws in this country abolished. In NY we are slouching towards repealing the draconian Rockerfeller Drug Laws. It will take some more time but I think the steam is slowly being let out of the War of Drugs.

In the meantime, drug dealing is still illegal and the two folks mentioned above are likely candidates for the Darwin Awards.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Double Feature Review: Bush's Brain

Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential
By James Moore and Wayne Slater

Rasputin lives!

Karl Rove has become, according to co-authors James Moore and Wayne Slater, the unelected, “Co-President” of America. He was the man that drove the policies that defined George W. Bush’s stint as Texas Governor. Today he is the architect of White House policies on Capitol Hill. The authors state that it is unfair to characterize Rove simply as the puppet master and President Bush as the dimwitted puppet. It is more like, Rove acts as the filter through which President Bush learns and then President Bush makes an executive decision. They have a somewhat parasitic relationship as Rove is carried into the halls of American power through the body and face of George W. Bush.

“Bush’s Brain” is the tale of two stories. The first story is of how Karl Rove came to be the “Co-President” of America. It traces Rove’s history from his days as a skilled high school debater at Olympus School, Salt Lake City, Utah, to his days at college as a Young Republican to his career in Austin, Texas as the proprietor of direct mail business and political consultant for the Republican Party. The book describes in detail Rove’s personality make-up, his uncanny photographic memory, his insatiable to desire to win at any cost and his lack of a moral compass. Karl Rove is a political machine, forged from the fire of a dysfunctional, broken family and fueled with the blood of blind loyalty to the party.

The second story is how Karl Rove became Rasputin to the Bush tsardom. George Herbert Walker Bush selected Karl Rove in 1973, to become chairman of the College Republican National Committee. I say selected instead of elected because apparently, the election for said position was in contest and had to be decided by then chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), Bush 41. In the end, the decision to choose Rove over his opponent was driven by blind loyalty to the PARTY. In the opinion of former President Bush, Rove’s opponent had been disloyal and therefore branded a traitor. Rove got the gig and the message…only loyalty matters.

During this time, Rove was also hired by Bush 41 as a special assistant at the RNC. It was then when he met strapping young lad George W. Bush. W. would come down on weekends from Harvard Business School to borrow the car and cruise Washington DC for…well God only knows and it was Rove’s job to hand him the keys to the Gremlin (yes, the car in question was a gremlin). Rove saw in young W. the makings of a marketable candidate and thus their parasitic friendship was formed. Bush would eventually go into public service has his namesake legacy would have it and Rove would have his racehorse to carry him into the White House.

A good chunk of the book deals with Rove’s time in Texas and the campaigns he worked on (other than W’s.) This is the meat of the book and the most telling part about the danger Karl Rove represents. The chapters entail Rove’s use of dirty tricks to not only beat opponents for offices of public service, but to systematically end peoples careers and drive them out of politics. On Rove’s trail of tears lie the careers of folks like Mike Moeller and Pete McRae whose political careers ended not in a lost election but a federal penitentiary. Other battered and broken political nemeses were Jim Hightower, Ann Richards and John McCain.

I thought the book was fair to Rove and President Bush. It neither treats the President like a moron nor does it explicitly say Rove is running the government. There are many points where the authors take great pains to show President Bush as a thoughtful, though not intellectually curious, decision maker and leader of men. They also paint a somewhat sympathetic portrait of Rove as someone who has obvious psychological failings but happens to have a job where that sort of ethical absence is a virtue to be rewarded.

The only part of the book I thought was ridiculous was the section that dealt with the Iraq war. First off, the authors go out of their way to rationalize their belief that the war was absolutely a bad idea. That’s not the point of the book. I mean, there’s only 100’s of books that deal exclusively with that subject alone and they present arguments to back up their thesis. The authors tended to editorialize their opinions and present only their side of the argument. Now most people who will end up reading this book will already be of the belief that the war was a terrible idea so it won’t offend them. It bothered me however because I felt like a pretty balanced accounting of the Bush Administration was marred by obvious partisanship and bias. It didn’t ruin the book because it’s only maybe two chapters but it was annoying. The authors should have presented what they thought were the facts of Rove’s involvement in the Iraq War and then let the reader decide from there.

Overall I thought the book was interesting and it is certainly a cautionary tale of how political consultants can shape and control the political battleground. The lesson to be learned here is that the electorate has to be a bit more savvy to the machinations of people like Rove or only unaccountable people like Rove will end up running the government…if they aren’t already.


Bush’s Brain: The DVD

It basically covers the same material that was in the book, but obviously in a much shorter form. The authors of the book provide interviews as well as other people from both sides of the political fence. Some notable names are Max Cleland, whom speaks about the campaign tactics used against him in the 2002 mid-term elections, John Weaver whom speaks about the dirty tricks employed against John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary and Bush critique, Molly Ivins.

I think this film version does President Bush less credit than the book did. In the book the authors point out that Rove crafts policy for the purpose of getting his candidate elected. Furthermore, the authors state that Bush makes decisions based on the information his staff presents him. If they are not presenting all of the facts than Mr. Bush doesn’t make a very informed decision. That may be dangerous but not necessarily a mark of stupidity. The film doesn’t even go into that much detail and just paints the relationship as more of a Wizard of OZ sort of thing with Rove behind the curtain and Bush just all show.

Lastly, there’s a segment in the film about a young man who died 4 days into the Iraq War. The point of this is to drive home the message that Rove’s callous policymaking costs American lives and the Iraq War was nothing more than a marketing tool to win the 2002 and 2004 elections. One could make that argument with sufficient proof but it was very out of place in this documentary and in my opinion, very unseemly.

If you can only deal with one version of the Karl Rove story, take some time and read the book.

Open Letter to the Social Workers in America

Remaining Relevant...

“Relevance” is a word that I hear bandied about a lot these days. The talking heads on cable news programs ask, “Is the UN still relevant?” Hollywood actors turned activists ask themselves, in terms of political discourse, “Are we relevant?” Once in 1992 former President Bill Clinton held a press conference for the express purpose of announcing that he was still “relevant” after the GOP claimed a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades.

From my vantage point, and maybe it’s the pessimist in me, I have feared for a few years now, of the waning relevance of the social work industry and social workers in general. Part of this fear I have of becoming slowly but surely irrelevant, stems from our seeming over-eagerness to redefine ourselves as “psycho-therapists”. We’ve merrily tap danced our way into the field of psychological therapy through lobbying for licensure and the ability to accept insurance, gladly taking less than PHD psychologist. In the three years that I went to Fordham University, I was not overwhelmed by the amount of grassroots activists and advocates that used to be the core of social work. I was stampeded over by folks who thought they were taking a short cut to the coveted “shingle outside their home”; the illustrious psycho-therapy private practice. These were the same people whom when asked, “Is social work political,” they answered with blank stares and yawns.

This isn’t the only problem haunting social work however. We are the supposed to be the self-proclaimed experts on how to end the War on Poverty. We are supposed to be the very soldiers and generals marching through the streets bringing those in need out from the cold abandonment and into the light of success. We are supposed to be the living embodiment of the New Deal and the Great Society…but we aren’t.

When any social worker is asked, “What should we do to end poverty once and for all,” the answer they usually come up with, “Spend more money!” Every niche and every constituency group has a lobby that is ever asking more of the American taxpayer. And then we as a group get indignant when the folks providing said money demand results. Furthermore, we cry revolution whenever “The Conservatives’ (cue wicked music) decide they are going to cut funding to programs that don’t produce results.

I fear we are encroaching upon irrelevance because we cannot, as an industry, seem to get out of our own way. There are viable solutions to poverty, which is our supposed field of academic expertise, but because of our apparent inability to evolve, we won’t promote them.

Of course I’m talking about the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). The BIG is, in short, the cheaper, simpler answer to welfare/public assistance, farm subsidies, corporate buyouts, social security, unemployment insurance, public housing and all of the bureaucracies they create.

This is from “A history of income guarantees”

“During the Nixon era Friedman's views were to dominate. Friedman saw in the application of the negative income tax an opportunity to pay the poor and only the poor, to dismantle much of the welfare infrastructure which sustained service delivery (and has well paid bureaucrats and social science professionals), to rationalize the tax and social security systems, and - he hoped - also to abolish farm subsidies and transfers to the middle class such as those provided through the education and housing systems (Friedman & Friedman 1980 ch.4, Friedman 1968, Cohen & Friedman 1972 pp.21-52, 99-114). Lampman (1965), another early advocate whose views were influential in the Johnson administration, argued that the negative tax is both a supplement and a complement to the existing welfare programs, although he believed it would and should reduce public assistance. Negative income tax represents for Friedman a "means to attack existing poverty with a minimum of income redistribution (Green 1967 p. 61)." Lampman and Friedman made much more of alleged work disincentive effects than did contemporary writers like Theobald.” BIG History

Any social worker who stands against the BIG without offering up an equitable solution but for the sake of preserving the failed relic of the “Welfare State” is not only betraying the public trust but is also failing to hold up our much ballyhooed “social work ethic”.

Social work isn’t about preserving the bureaucracy or income redistribution for the sake of punishing the wealthy; it’s about helping people help themselves and ending poverty in America. This business of standing against the BIG makes those that do no better than corporate pirates. There is one difference however, capitalists in America will always be relevant, even if they are thieves, while we slouch toward extinction due to our own shortsightedness.

Sincerely,

Conservative Social Worker
Mark Radulich