Black Friday Stampede Kills Worker At Wal-Mart

Today, the news reports that a Wal-Mart employee has been trampled to death by shoppers smashing through the doors of a Long Island Wal-Mart the morning after Thanksgiving—commonly known as "Black Friday." The unidentified victim, employed as an overnight stock clerk, tried in vain to hold back a crowd of hundreds just after the Green Acres Mall store opened at 5 a.m.
I have long been dismayed by mindless shoppers whose state of consciousness appears to be little more than that of preprogrammed buybots, often obstructing my aisle as they gaze uncomprehendingly at a box of cereal that's about as half-empty as the cranium cavities in which their discount options percolate in lieu of actual thoughts. As America's system of voracious capitalism teeters on the brink of collapse and presidential appointees pay ad-hoc homage to socialism by siphoning off hard-earned taxpayers' money by the billions to mismanaged monolithic mega corporations, the shopaholic masses know little better to do than to spend their quick-devaluing dollars on cheap "luxury" goods manufactured in friendly dictatorships with low wages that will soon fail, become outdated, or are carted off to self-storage facilities as closets, basements, and attics clutter with earlier acquired crap.

Wal-Mart, as one of the most predatory and anti-worker enterprises, has become a mecca for minions of susceptible lower-income earners, where they can exercise their lack of education, culture, and purpose by unloading shopping carts stocked with big brand boxes into their gas-guzzling SUVs, only to return hungry for the next sales event. Just as they can't see themselves as unfulfillable voids with a unsatisfiable appetite for soon useless stuff they can't be expected to see other lifeforms as more indispensable. By clearing the doorway of human debris Wal-Mart avoided a riot and possibly more casualties, conveniently citing consumer safety as priority #1. Save for a minor incident Black Friday was carried out around the nation for what is was intended: to shovel as much money into the pockets of retailers as possible and ring in the Christmas shopping season during which we are expected to commemorate the miracle birth of Jesus whose image personifies suffering, forgiveness, kindness, compassion, and an appeal to the best in us...

I give the American Dream as the backdrop in this unfortunate mall clerk's fading nightmare on Main Street another ten years before its fairy-tale veneer will have entirely peeled back and exposed an utterly subdued, intoxicated, on credit living nation that's just as easily manipulated by power-grabbing politicians as by the morally bankrupt multi-national corporations that control them. Lofty shopping mall names like Green Acres may foreshadow a future of empty storefront facades they once adorned if todays' relentless consumerism continues to indiscriminatingly feed the all-devouring locust called Capitalism.

About Holiday Sales
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bush's Parting Gift, Another Great Depression?

Many comparisons have lately been made between our current economy and the Great Depression. While future historians may have a better view of the severity of both incidents, a real comparison can of course not be made unless we strain ourselves to give equal weight to a majority of causes. The comparison is not only questionable, but seems to suggest that we'll be facing the same hardship now as the nation did back then. There's no doubt that both times a financial crisis spearheaded what some would call a catastrophy, but what I see as a collapse of Capitalism. I'm not saying this will be the end of Capitalism, as it can recover and I'm sure it will, but right now it's flat out on its back and if that isn't a collapse then what is...

Indeed, the patient is Capitalism and its recovery is not expected any time soon. It's all too clear now that pure, unadulterated greed lies at the core of a system that sprouted from the industrial revolution and turned the globe into a mine field of interdependent economies and a landfill for the results of glutinous consumerism. In the end just promises of future product availability turned out to provide the strength that held up the house of cards the economy had become. Capitalism, which after all believes in itself and free markets, deserves to be left to its own devices to recover—however painful that process may be. All the money now thrown at it will be wasted if it's only used to keep the machine running without looking at what it exactly produces. But, the people now protesting, the taxpayers, should also realize that they have been feeding the private jet uppercrust by indiscriminately buying their spit & shine crap, useless mass-produced trinkets, and stuff that doesn't work, is badly designed, badly engineered, and produced by poor suckers without shoes in dictatorships. So, in the end it's us that are sick and we better understand that real medicine never tastes like sugar water.

Under Bush, regulations that were in place to control corporate behavior have been relaxed to the point where Wall Street ran euphorically wild with the bulls until all was exhausted and greedy CEO's got into their private jets to beg in Washington for more party money from you, the taxpayer. It's a scam that has been played by the Republicans since they took control of the White House. We were promised victory in Iraq, lower gas prices, Obama's, uh, Osama's head, national security, and ended up getting bilked for billions of dollars while being spied on domestically. They controlled everything until two subsequent elections taught them that America had enough of these out-of-control control freaks that call themselves conservatives but conserved nothing, except for their hatred of gays, immigrants, and the French.

Now, I have no doubt that the greedy corporate bastards that got us in this mess will be the same that get us out, as they control the government, global resources (that may include you!), product manufacturing, infrastructure, media, and market (that certainly includes you!). Of course, they will also be the ones shaking things up by buying failing companies for a fraction of their worth and letting others die. In the process, many may die, either physically, or figuratively (and I hope that isn't you, or me!), before the markets stabilize and then it will begin a new cycle with the kind of outcome that will lead to comparisons with the Great Depression.

Only the people at the base, the workers, citizens—consumers all—can change the course if they are beginning to think and shop differently. As we've seen now—and I hope it's a lesson—it's our money that controls the players at the top, not the other way around, as "trickle-down" Reagan-onomists and rightwingers have had us believe for too long. Luckily, as has been proven by Obama's election, the books he wrote, and the discourse that took place in blogs and other media helped turn hapless citizens into informed buyers. The Obama brand may still disappoint, but its emergence stands in sharp contrast with the old-school baseless attacks the political right depended on. This is a different time and this time we know better. We're no longer the unshaven great unwashed from the Great Depression era. We've got blog power!

Let us hope that we can do better and that an open dialog about what our real needs are may lead to better products that address real needs at prices that reward everyone in the product cycle fairly. To follow what things are heading in that direction I recommend treehugger.com.

About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Huckabee: Gays Haven't Crossed Civil Rights Violence Threshold

While Mike Huckabee holds on to the view that gays haven't yet crossed the Civil Rights Violence Threshold, he apparently doesn't realize that such statement sounds like an invitation to turn gay-bashing up a notch, now that Newt Gingrich has also publicly declared that there is a "gay and secular fascism prepared to use violence." Oh, boy! The gays and seculars are coming, armed to the teeth with rakes and clubs!

Seriously, ultimately all issues of race, gender, equality, etc., will need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it's stacked with conservative political appointees. At the core of all arguments against equality is either stupidity, bigotry, faith or a combination of all three, which is what is commonly projected by those publicly airing their fearful opinions. What we see here is only the beginning of the battle. The "concerned" citizens need to be separated from their biased fears and begin accepting that any form of discrimination is hurtful and shameful for a nation that sees itself as civilized, modern, and advanced.

We're not talking about "others" who happen to be "different." We're talking about our children, born from our blood. To deny them anything less than what we reserve for ourselves is selfish, loathsome, and despicable.

Religion and State must be separated as per the Constitution. Religious groups are nothing but cults, even if they belong to big brand name cults. The Law ought to be fact-based, and since marriage is recognized under the law as a contract (whatever you think about it from your cult perspective) it should be applicable to all citizens, regardless of age, sex, gender, etc. America has a terrible past when it comes to discrimination and still voices ring out loud and clear to continue doing just that. It is what made Dick Cheney and his wife so evil in my eyes, having a gay daughter, yet denying her equal rights.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Netflix Rocks With Roku...

This year circumstances prompted me to buy a new HDTV. I settled on the Series 5 Samsung 32" after reading nothing but great reviews on the web and although it was more than I wanted to spend, Cirquit City extended a $100 discount, just because I asked and maybe also because I heard rumors they're going bankrupt. They may be giving even more discount now that it's official. After looking at the different sizes I settled on 32" because broadcast picture quality is not always great as often extreme video compression leads to blocky and blotchy on-screen artifacts especially when motion is involved—something that's just amplified on a larger screen. So, I figured the 32" size and the fact that the Samsung has an extreme high response rate this model delivered the most bang for the buck in terms of features, sharpness, rich blacks and color fidelity. I briefly had an LG in the same size that I returned because there were things that bothered me where the Samsung more than delivered.

If, like me, you're not all that interested in the HD broadcast channels (Bikini Destinations [implants galore], or cooking shows) the next best thing is playing a DVD. Now, recently Netflix made Watch Instantly available for Mac owners and I had tried it, but since I work all day on my Mac using it also for movie watching is not appealing to me and certainly can't compare to watching a movie together in bed.
Alas, a trip to Netflix revealed that there's also a $99 device (a small box by Roku) available for instant watching on your HDTV. I decided to give it a shot.

Now, I also own the Apple TV, a device I've had for a few years and which last year became capable of renting and watching movies on. Unfortunately a recent issue HD movie rents for $5 and is good for only 24 hours, whereas the Netflix Watch Instantly feature is free and affords unlimited watching movies and TV shows with any 1 DVD at-a-time plan of $8.99 or higher.

While not as good as the screen quality of Apple TV (which cost $229, has a 40Gb hard drive while Roku only streams and with which you can do so much more, like playing and buying music, TV shows, watching YouTube, etc.), the Roku delivers higher quality on your HDTV compared to watching Netflix on your computer. Supposedly, within months the service will begin including HD quality as well, at which time it should be very competitive with the Apple TV, except for price, where Netflix is the winner. Still, that's not where it all ends, as not all Netflix content available on DVD are (yet) available as Watch Instantly content. The same goes for Apple TV, where Hollywood reigns supreme. However, where Apple TV has been lacking in independent movies, the free Netflix movies have a decent offering of those.

Of course, within time all this technology will change again, but for now the combination HDTV-Netflix-Roku is pretty irresistible for movie fanatics I think, especially with the same box soon being able to stream HD content. Netflix seems to have out-competed Blockbuster and surely Tower Video and positioned itself for online streaming at affordable prices. Even though there are competitors, such as Hulu, with Netflix's vast customer base my money's on Netflix.

I hope my experiences have given you something to consider if your situation is somewhat like mine—technology-wise, of course.
Ciao!

A dinosaur bailout...

Towards the end of the presidential election the McCain camp attacked Obama on his liberal socialist agenda in the midst of a period in which Wall Street, lenders, and the auto industry is begging for citizens' tax dollars. It's not that the people want socialism, it's the capitalists that in their crumbling greed have discovered that when vision fails, innovation lags, and products miss the mark, government by and for the people affords one last money grab before extinction or survival of the fittest prevails. Before they got on their knees they have fought unions, wrecked the environment, bought politicians, and distanced themselves as far as they could from the common man, dangling a world of soulless luxury in front of us to get us to max out our credit just to keep up with the Joneses. The dinosaurs had grown too big for their brains and moved too slow and ultimately demise was their fate. A different world emerged in which smaller, smarter, and better adapted to the environment creatures existed. Let these mammoths die and watch smaller, smarter, and better adapted to the environment companies emerge. People have to learn to do things themselves again and not have dinosaur corporations do the thinking for them.

Death of the DC Darling

The DC Madam is dead. She did what few women chose by way of suicide; she hung herself. While it's unclear if she did this alone or may have had some "help," one thing we know: she was recently convicted for running a call-girl operation.
She maintained she was merely a single mom trying to make ends meet. Many single moms have chosen for the sex trade in order to keep their economy afloat. In America, that means engaging in illegal practices. Prostitution is a no no, but as we've seen when politicians are involved hardly any ever serve time, and the only victim is their spouse having to flank her man as he publicly sobs and promises to seek help for his deviant behavior.
Sex can't be a crime, if it's something everyone does. It should not be a crime to make an arrangement with another consenting adult. The US has a terrible record of criminalizing its citizens and publicly exposing anyone suspected of a crime. Lives are destroyed and reputations tarnished because by criminalizing sex between adults there can't be protection of individuals on either side of the transaction. There are cultures where prostitution is much more accepted, such as in The Netherlands. When I lived there a long divorced friend surprised me one day by announcing she'd been working in a brothel for the last 3 months. She was enjoying the extra money, enjoying the sex, and enjoying the friendships with other women, most of them divorced mothers. She was taxed as a sex-worker, and no one in our circle of friends ever spoke ill of her choice. In fact, her new line of work seemed to have empowered her. We all know that her situation isn't uncommon for many women that find themselves without adequate income. Most of us prostitute ourselves for the gain of our "Johns" by engaging in the trade of time and energy. The bodily fluids we exchange for wages is our sweat. Rationalize for yourselves why one form of physical exploitation is accepted and the other one is not. It doesn't make sense. Legalize it, legalize pot and other victim-less behaviors and America's overcrowded prisons can begin being used for people who actually commit crimes.

John McCain, hero or traitor? Some straight talk...

2008 presidential nominee, Republican Senator John McCain (born August 29, 1936 in Panama) is repeatedly being called an "American hero" by people on all sides of the political spectrum and all walks of life. He's often being thanked for his service to his country.
Not much thought seems to go into such words of praise. After all, since 9/11 almost anyone in public service who wears or wore a uniform is now customarily being labeled "hero," or "heroes" in the case of an entire group or profession.

Most know bit and pieces of McCain's story, as it's been widely publicized. He comes from a family of four-star admirals in the US Navy. He became a Navy pilot and in 1967, on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down and captured, badly injured, by the North Vietnamese. He spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war during which time he was according to his own statements tortured before being released in 1973.

While he survived 5 airplane crashes (4 while piloting!), his hero status is mainly attributed to the time he spent as a POW, and during which he claims to have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of his captors. It's well-documented, including by McCain himself in various books he wrote and in interviews, that he ended up divulging military information to his captors and signing "war-crime confessions," acts commonly associated with treason, but long since forgiven by many (but not all) due to his ordeal, which by his own account, included two years of solitary confinement.

If the above description contains the information necessary to define him as an "American hero," so be it, but it's a far stretch from how the idea of "hero" came to be understood.
Let's first make it clear that McCain has never referred to himself as a hero, but rather that he "was privileged to serve in the company of heroes, but never, never have I described myself as having done anything heroic." Indeed, reference to his capture on his own website is limited to the following paragraph: "John McCain spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was finally released and able to return home years later, John McCain continued his service by regaining his naval flight status. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross."

Does McCain know better than anyone that flying technically advanced aircraft over the city of Hanoi on his 23rd bombing mission, releasing tons of bombs on a predominantly civilian population during a misguided war in which America was the aggressor was a far cry from the kind of behavior that sets a true hero apart? Moreover, the man who first saved him from drowning after he crashed in the Hanoi lake and then shielded him from being killed by bystanders, a peasant (and hero, by every definition!) by the name Mai Van On, died without a mention in any of McCain's publications, or a token of his gratitude other than a photo op.

Not that McCain was without valor, again, by his own account. In 1968, after the North Vietnamese discovered he was the son of an Admiral and offered to release him (which in itself is questionable, as he was a golden catch for their propaganda), he says he refused. He would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. We have only McCain’s word for it.
Yet, this incident itself is hardly ever mentioned as the reason for his widely perceived status as hero. It's certainly overshadowed by his own testimony in U.S. News and World Report, of May 14, 1973, in an article written by former POW John McCain, in which he states that "On October 27, 1967, four days after being shot down, (McCain) called for a North Vietnamese guard. (McCain) told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." And he did, from ships' positions to personnel readiness, attack package routes, and targets... Maybe that's why it's not odd that on a 1993 visit to Vietnam, McCain pleaded with his former captors not to release any records they hold pertaining to returned U.S. POWs. Many believe McCain's records could prove so damaging to his reputation as a Senator they could eliminate his chance to become president.

As outlined above, and as publicly stated by McCain, so far there's nothing classically, or traditionally, heroic in his tale. To the contrary.
I'd go further and express that today America suffers from an inferiority complex that's being compensated for (and smartly exploited for political gain) by bestowing the title of hero haphazardly on just about anyone in uniform. Protesting it is tantamount to being seen as “anti-American,” or “unpatriotic.” Then, should we not ask why Americans need to turn deeds performed in the line of duty into acts of heroism? Can't that be called a superiority complex?

If you act on an impulse and run into a burning barn to save someone, is that the same as having trained for just such an event and go in with experience and full support of other firefighters, wearing special equipment designed to help you see, breathe, communicate, and survive? I don't want to minimize a firefighters virtue, but someone can't be a hero just for putting on a firefighter suit (or a fly-suit as Bush tried for his infamous "mission accomplished" statement).

If definitions are changing when it comes to what makes a hero, is it really just up to those intended on manipulating our emotions for political gain to create modern mythology, and invent a quintessential "American" branded kind of heroism, or do the centuries-old definitions of heroism still apply today?
By comparing tales of heroism from ancient to recent we can establish the common traits of the hero. History seems to indicate that among other things there must be perceived risk and selfless intention to become a hero. In the example of John McCain, his choice to enter the US Navy be considered selfless act, but once enlisted, just doing his job—and by extension being captured while doing it not very well—doesn't necessarily make him a hero.

In the classic sense, the title of "hero" is reserved for those who do something extraordinary that goes far beyond the call of duty. Someone who saves others with disregard for his or her own life or limb is by definition a classic hero. John McCain saved no one and instead engaged in the brutal act of raining fire and brimstone from the sky on civilians in a country that had never threatened the US. This is a man who cheered on the US's Christmas Bombing of Hanoi from his confinement, knowing very well that while aimed at breaking the North's resistance it would also wreak great havoc among civilians. That in itself seems selfish rather than selfless and shows that at the time he had learned little about the cruelty of war and remained a stout supporter of the US's involvement in the Vietnam war—all the while collaborating with his captors and acting as a war criminal for their propaganda purposes.

America's cult of celebrity worship may have more to do with how we perceive modern day heroes. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 delivered Jesus and Martin Luther King as #1 and #2 heroes. John Wayne and Michael Jordan were in the top 10. I don't want to diminish the personal contribution and sacrifices these individuals have made to society, but what does that tell us about the quintessential American hero? That celebrity status is more valuable to us than the performance of actual heroic feats?
What some of these individuals exhibited can certainly be attributed as traits that at least partially characterize a hero, such as courage; or not giving up until a stated goal is accomplished; or doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences; or doing more than what's expected of them; or changing society for the better; or exhibit a willingness to risk personal safety to help others...
However, most of these traits have to do with character, which is supposedly already present prior to the performing of any act of heroism. In that respect, McCain has exhibited character more than anything else, and I would present that his character falls in one of two camps for judgment: those that agree with his behavior as a POW and later as a Senator, and those that don't.

While heroes may have a strong character on the outset, often a hero's character develops during the journey toward hero-dom, and can be the result of it, as may be the case in the example of an otherwise as ordinary perceived individual surprising everyone by running into a burning barn to perform a heroic feat. In that respect, heroes don't sit by the fire waiting to be called into action. Rather it's a set of circumstances that propels an ordinary individual into action with heroism being the extraordinary result.

Is then bravery alone enough to be labeled a hero? The press today likes to paint our soldiers in Iraq as quintessential "American" heroes at every opportunity, but while they can certainly be viewed as brave for going into combat and risking their lives, they do so in the line of duty, a duty which often have them empty their weapons almost indiscriminately in the general direction the enemy, often killing and maiming innocent bystanders, afterwards conveniently dehumanized with official terms such as "collateral damage," or "casualties." Heroism in itself it is not, as argued earlier, even though heroic moments may ensue when for instance comrades are rescued under fire. For the recognition of those specific moments there are medals, but a soldier’s presence alone in a combat arena cannot be used to label them as heroes. It's simply not how heroism has been defined throughout time.

In McCain's case we're looking at a man who initially performed in line with the duty he signed up for. Loss of life, injury, capture, and imprisonment were and are risks that are well understood by anyone engaging in combat and are also part of training and the military code of conduct. Collaborating with the enemy is not being taught as a survival technique. On the contrary, the entire military machine hinges on the principle of honor. It is difficult then to rhyme the military's notion of honor with McCain's willingness to divulge military secrets during his captivity. For that reason alone, McCain is probably the most unsuitable person to ever have gotten this close to the presidency. What man in his right mind would declare it's "fine by me" to see our military remain in Iraq for a hundred years? As argued before, a hero is someone opposite from the idea of putting more lives at risk. Oddly enough, McCain has not shown to be particularly occupied with the soldier's or veteran's well-being, and his dealing with POW cases and families raises more questions than it answers.

To this day, there are plenty that see McCain as a traitor instead of a hero. Many of them served in the military the same time he did. They remember him as the man who as soon as after four days in captivity (during which he claims he was tortured, a claim contested by other POWs) made a deal with his captors and did the opposite of what a hero would've done. There are pictures of McCain warmly embracing his former interrogators (and torturers?). Apparently he's either very forgiving, or has his own reasons as touched on earlier.

So then, in light of the aforementioned, is John McCain the quintessential American hero or a traitor? A strong case can be made that he was and is not a hero by any standards, but has become someone with celebrity status Americans often confuse with that of a national hero, like Michael Jordan. On the other hand, if a traitor is someone who aids and abets the enemy willingly and repeatedly, an equally strong case can be made that it applies to McCain, enforced by his own statements, and the question then is if such a person ought to be President of the United States...

Obama Intelligent Enough For You?

The Jeremiah Wright controversy is one of Obama's own making and I'm sorry to see an otherwise brilliant man fall victim to the God-hoax he thinks he has to keep embracing in order to be electable in this country.
As I write this his future is uncertain as it pertains to seeking the presidency. Personally, I hope he'll be able to overcome these adversities, as I regard him at this moment in the race as the only viable candidate who exhibits the poise, the calm, and the vision of someone able to lead America away from the self-destructive path it's been on for eight years. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain represent the old school thinking that has brought us to the brink we now find ourselves on and they will certainly not be able to deliver the changes we need as a people and as a nation, and which we needed yesterday.

In Obama we have a man who at this moment has proven to many that he's intelligent, seeks new ways of governing, and appears to be the kind of charismatic individual that can bring people together and can get things done. He indeed represents the "hope" that his campaign runs on. However, I'm troubled that Obama in all his brilliance has not been able to figure out something even my son already came to terms with at an early age, namely that there's no proof there is a God, either Christian, Muslim, or otherwise denominated, and that there's no proof Jesus existed or if he did "said" anything currently attributed to him (as if a scribe was always by his side), or that raging men in long gowns somehow have earned the distinction to explain to the rest of us how everything fits together if only you are willing to believe that there's someone omnipresent at the helm of our ship balancing precariously on the cusp of a steep waterfall.
I would have had more respect for Obama if in his new thinking he also could've done away with the ancient, trivializing, tribal rituals that have spread across the world in the form of religion of one ilk or another. If he'd been able to do that he could've made a case for why all the crappy divisive political bickering has taken us into a reality of war, debt, environmental disasters, etc. That the political pandering to the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and luminaries of the Catholic church has at every turn exposed the dirty underbelly of America, where Jesus's mythical message of love is curiously absent when it comes to women's rights, acceptance of gays, sexual abuse of the innocent by priests, greed, power, etc.
As a thinking man Obama could have distanced himself not only from the hocus pocus of Jeremiah Wright's designer-brand of Trinity Christianity, he could have easily figured out that everything Jeremiah Wright's Church stands for can be achieved politically. Why do we continue to leave the most important decisions of our time to an unseen, unacting, uncaring God when it's us and our hope (the very definition of Obama's message) that can make all the things happen that need to happen in order to survive the coming period of global warming, unnatural disasters, food scarcity, and mass migrations.
So, in that sense, yes, the chickens have come home to roost in the form of Obama's negligence to trust his intelligence, and it's to his detriment that he could not inspire those of us who have long abolished the silly sermons, crappy leaflets, and devastating dogmas of the men and women "of the cloth," who haven't been able to create an inkling of paradise on earth even in their own homes.
Had he been just a tad more intelligent and less calculating, by counting on those afflicted by the God-hoax, he could have found plenty of like-minded free thinkers congregating in the audience of almost every comedian who isn't afraid to speak his mind, be his name George Carlin, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, Larry david, Keith Olbermann, and countless others who appear much wiser, free-er, and insightful than most any politician. And because we don't carry bibles, pray in groups, or build club houses at every street corner, and can't be counted easily doesn't mean our numbers don't run in the millions. We are the ones who look through the bullshit of a God who can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted other than as dictated by organized religious practitioners; we are the ones who see through the bullshit of old style politics, the bullshit of promises that can't be delivered on, and are well aware that Jesus won't come back to save us (sorry to have to break it to you).
Maybe Obama can save us, but I'm still doubtful he possesses just that tad more intelligence that is needed to denounce the dumbest of dumbest among us who insist to believe in something that doesn't exist, which includes John McCain being any different than George Bush.
Jeremiah Wright personifies old dogma's, conflicted thinking, and leaving important decisions to a higher being. That describes George Bush as well. And because of that analogy Obama stands a lot closer to George Bush and everything that has gone wrong with America in the last eight years than he may be aware of.
My advice to Obama: You are currently our only hope for change within government. Realize your destiny and see that religion is the enemy of us all. Maybe then you can replace all those believers that may turn their backs on you with the intelligent people we're always told by politicians make up America but no one ever appeals to...

Keith Olbermann's anger...

It has been reported that Rudy Giuliani's campaign expressed its dismay at NBC News reporter Keith Olbermann's commentary on April 25, in which he accused Giuliani of using the language of Osama bin Laden with "the same chilling nonchalance of the madman" to argue that Republicans would keep Americans safer than Democrats from terror.

Luckily, Keith Olbermann can defend himself better than anyone, but that should not be necessary. If only America had more political parties, there would be room for more views, including those of a "rogue" reporter. As we've seen under Bush and his "mandate" a one percent majority of those that did not stay home to watch "Days of Our Lives" and got out to vote can lead to a near-dictatorial chokehold, not unlike a communist party's rule in China, or previously, Russia. People like Olbermann have dared to stick their neck out to keep the power-grab hungry politicians in check that will squander their own beliefs and our vested hope for a better future for dollars and a nod from the dummies that believe their fear-monging diatribes. Only now journalist are becoming a little more courageous and begin looking for the hard facts, but not long ago they sheepishly reported the propaganda coming from Karl Rove's keyboard. Olbermann, Colbert, Stewart, and others who dare to expose the Giulianis, Roves, DeLays, Cheneys, Bushes, Rumsfelds, Rices, McCains, Frists, etc., do that with wit and an uncanny instinct for truth and truthiness, venting our combined anger and frustration as we witness the rape of decency, democracy, and humanity that shamefully parallels what once took place in Germany in 1933. We applaud that these "news entertainers" are not easily scared into the kind of self-censorship that was prevalent after 9/11, as illegal eaves-dropping programs and other highly questionable government campaigns to manipulate the masses became in effect.

Simmons Wants To Ban Words Widely Used by Rappers...

In today's news: "Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons said Monday that the recording and broadcast industries should consistently ban three racial and sexist epithets from all so-called clean versions of rap songs and the airwaves. Currently such epithets are banned from most clean versions, but record companies sometimes "arbitrarily" decide which offensive words to exclude and there's no uniform standard for deleting such words, Simmons said..."

I think people may miss the point that Simmons' suggestion pertains only to the "clean" versions of songs. Those with the label "explicit" will remain just as the artist intended. Once again, it comes down to leaving educating your kids to record companies or other outside institutions. Why favor censorship when it can only lead to other kinds of censorship? There are many words that can be offensive in context. If your kids gravitate towards abusive language in music or otherwise you have missed some opportunities to teach them values and you can't blame it on whatever they are exposed to. The world's a messy place that you can't clean up by banning words. Niggers, ho's and bitches have every right to be associated with, just like you have every right to distance yourself from those definitions. That said, I welcome the discussion because only when we can use words may we be able to understand each other. I respect Mr. Simmons' initiative, but I respectfully disagree with the idea of banning or censoring language.

About the Imus controversy...

To all those ganging up on Imus as if he's the epithomy of racism in America—for calling a dominantly black basket ball team members "nappy-headed hoes"—while it'd be easy to join you because I personally don't like Imus, you're obviously comfortable calling for censorship, something I'm not comfortable with. Censorship flies in the face of the Constitution, the way I see it. Imus wasn't calling for actions against black women. He insulted them. Bad call. If you want to censor the airwaves, vote with your dial. I have long decided that Imus, Limbaugh, Hannity, Stern, and a whole bunch of others have every right to be assholes and that it's my right to tune them out. That said, I welcome the discussion about race and who can and cannot use certain words, because America isn't done yet with its past. Maybe it will lead to liberating the word "nigger," "niggah," and all its derivatives, currently held hostage by members of the black community, sanitized for your protection with the nomer "N-word." Being Caucasian (you know, from the Caucasus, where the white people come from), I can buy rap music with lyrics containing these words, but not sing along in public. How idiotic is that? How racist is it that black people can say "nigger" and white people can go to jail for it? Chris Rock can say nigger, bitch, and ho 500 times in his show and get away with it. Should he be banned? Everyone in the audience is laughing, because it can all apparently be taken with a grain of sugar. So why not Imus? Ask yourself, have you alway been politically correct? Even in your thoughts? Stop censorship. Accept we are all assholes at times.

I just learned that Imus has been dropped by MSNBC. Is this the beginning of the great sanitazion of the airwaves? I bet not. Imus did not break any laws. The aforementioned assholes will stay on, trumpetting their bigot attitudes to their bigot audiences, protected not just by the First Amendment, but by those profitting from or aiding and abetting bigotry, for political reasons or otherwise. Racism is as alive in America as it's ever been, and as long as no one is actually hurt by it, we have to acknowledge that it can be pretty funny as well, as evidenced by Martin Lawrence's, Chris Rock's, David Chapelle's and a host of comedians ability to cater to their audiences' sense of humor and relevance. If Imus had had the ability to wrap his remarks in a comedic sense, something he utterly failed at, he'd still be bazooning his sour commentary at MSNBC, a broadcaster that like many other broadcasters has failed to give equal air time to non-white talk show hosts...

posted by Rudolf Helder at Thursday, April 12, 2007

In response to "When Black Republicans Go Bad" by Trey Ellis

I think the posting of Trey Ellis's view "When Black Republicans Go Bad" contains some disturbing elements that appear to escape most responders. Now, Mr. Ellis makes it obvious that he is dark-skinned by posting his picture along. I guess that makes him somewhat of an authority on matters of race, although last time I checked I was still labeled "Caucasian" so by the same token that should make me an authority of whatever sums up us "white" folks.

Now then, I hereby willfully distance myself from that notion and rather go by the merits as Mr. Ellis presents them. If I get this right, Mr. Ellis's major gripe is with "blacks" that don't act "black" politically and his references focus on Claude Allen and Justice Clarence Thomas, who, as I perceive it act according to him— perhaps along with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell—as "blacks" suffering from an Uncle Tom syndrome.

The gist of Mr. Ellis's rant is the question of "why are we so surprised that Claude Allen, until recently the President's chief domestic policy advisor, is being accused of scamming Target out of over $5000?"
Well, he may be surprised, but mainly it seems because Mr. Allen is " a black man who got his start working for Jesse Helms, the former Senator who had the delightful habit of calling all black people, "Fred."

In my personal opinion, anyone, from any background has the right to associate themselves with whomever they choose, even if that may lead to their downfall. So, as a "liberal" I simply accept that Mr. Allen apparently feels some kind of ideological kinship with Jesse Helms. Perhaps Mr. Ellis will next ponder the insanity of many "blacks" that associate themselves with Jesus—who is not being portrayed as "black" by church or media, while he most certainly was not as "white" as he's commonly depicted...

Then, Mr. Ellis introduces the nigger/Fred parable as further evidence that Mr. Allen is not only "black" but also crazy (a crazy nigger). Yet, Mr. Allen has no accusations as such levied against him. Rather, he's being charged with defrauding Target of $5,000. What's unfortunate is that he's "black" and now Mr. Ellis not only holds it against him that here is a "black" man who plays Uncle Tom to his "white superiors," but also conforms to the biased view that "blacks" would more than anyone engage in crime and violence. More than Republicans, or almost as much as Republicans? I'm missing the point.

Yes, Mr. Allen must be crazy and criminal because he also associates with other crazy Republican "blacks," one of whom "sees pubic hairs in a can of Coke."
Hell, and that happens to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. Mind you, still an Uncle Tom anyway according to Mr. Ellis. (By the way, the Coke phrase originated from Senator Orin Hatch's questioning during Thomas's confirmation hearings and is not on record as confirmed by Thomas)

Poor "black" people! They just can't shake the stigma of being stereotypically "black," no matter how hard good-willing nigger-anecdoting "blacks" like Mr. Ellis try to explain their duty to other "blacks" to not think for themselves but align without restraint with the spineless Democrats that have failed to grasp power in the previous two and possibly next elections. How about "blacks" that think for themselves and want to associate with winners? Are they like Jews for Christ? How screwed up is that?

Mr. Ellis goes on to expose "black" Republicans like Mr. Allen and Justice Thomas that subscribe to a "hyper-whiteness," by "staking out positions that even whites in the South grew out of in the Fifties." Excuse me? Justice of the Supreme Court? Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to The President? Here Mr. Ellis's reasoning begins to fall apart, but he blindly continues by asserting the stereotypes "blacks" and "whites" (and Asians, and Arabs, and Eskimos?) apparently have when he states that it's "no wonder" that [black Republicans] "every now and again snap" by associating "petty criminality with 'blackness' and [romance] with "the size of [their] schlong[s]."

And there we have it. Mr. Ellis's own views don't seem to reach beyond these stereotypes and he certainly doesn't offer any other views here.
Therefore, his final wag of the finger whereby he lectures Mr. Allen and Justice Thomas not to associate " blackness" with crime, violence and sexuality is as lame as an, uh, lame dick.
Mr. Ellis seems quite content with the example he chooses of a Willie Horton whom he calls not "the sum of us [blacks]." His article does nothing for the "black" psyche of a free people, free to choose, and free of being a slave to their own history. In a way, Mr. Ellis has described himself, or rather summed himself up as someone who is confused about his own blackness. That's fine. The finger points back.

If I may then sum it up myself: there are plenty assholes, and they exist on either side of the very narrowly defined American political aisle, no matter what the color of their skin is. So, where's the hype? A greedy bigot Republican ought not to be defined otherwise than for what he or she stands for. Mr. Allen has merely operated in agreement with the current neo-con culture of deception, corruption, misinformation, murder, and torture. One day, he and his ilk may face greater consequences than being accused of stealing $5,000. Mr. Ellis, in my opinion, has written a racist piece and that's what I accuse him of.

posted by Rudolf Helder at Saturday, March 11, 2006

Intelligent Divide...

When you have a headache do you rather take a pill, or pray to the Almighty? If you answer, pray to the Almighty, this blog’s for you, Bud.

Let’s travel back to 1925. Darwin's evolution was put on trial by a bunch of creationists. They accused a Tennessee teacher of lecturing that humans descended from a single cell. The idea! Creationists believe they’ve been modeled from play dough by a really big hand, sometime in the year numero uno. The teacher won. Darwin won, and science created the headache pill.
Now, in 2005, the whole shebang is getting a makeover, this time under the headliner, “Intelligent Design vs. Science.”

Sorry, Bud, but it was on the news. I guess you know, you don’t belong to the most informed nation in the industrialized world. Jay Leno even had you on Jaywalking a few times, to make a point that ordinary Americans are a hilariously under-educated bunch. As a subscriber to Darwin-principled science I’d go even further by saying your Intelligent Designer doesn’t seem to have favored you with that which has helped the rest of us evolve as a species: a large brain.

Of course, you may disagree, so let me sucker-punch you: besides my native Dutch I was taught three other languages in public school: French, German, and English. Right off the bat we learned there were more countries than our own. Made it easier for me later to pick up some Chinese and Indonesian—languages, dude, not food. You, on the other hand, still can’t differentiate between "your/you're," "its/it's," “were/where,” “hear/here,” “their/there,” “quit/quite/quiet,” and “to/too.”
And that makes deciphering your blogs hard work, mon!

Now, when we meet, you immediately notice I have “some kind of European” accent even before I have finished my first sentence. Besides not hearing what I said you fail to find The Netherlands on the map. Granted, it’s not a big blob like your country, but since you assert that I’m “from Scandinavia” I at least expect you to point to those countries that unlike The Netherlands make up that geographical group. You can’t. That spot your finger’s on is the Czech Republic. No, no, Turkey ain’t correct either.

During the eighteen years I’ve lived in the U.S. I’ve experienced you repeatedly assume I must be a political, cultural, religious, or economic refugee, someone you graciously shelter and share your “American Dream” with—which, by the way, may be a dream for you, but is a nightmare for many outside of your borders. Dude, I'm no refugee! The Netherlands is so advanced, they have national healthcare, multiple political parties, liberal drug policies you can only dream of, bicycle lanes, and sophisticated systems to keep the ocean out of their back yards.

Meanwhile, knowing squat about other countries, you thumb your nose at an increasingly more sophisticated world in which brown-skinned people, once they’re done stitching your Nikes, wipe their ass with every grade level of private education you so proudly support on your SUV’s Ivy League bumper stickers. If your Harvard can deliver a nitwit to the White House, don’t be surprised if I tell you Indians (no, not native Americans, you dummy) are running universities, businesses, and institutions that rival America’s. Now, they’ve had a “No Child Left Behind” policy for the last hundred years, enforced by every parent who could afford to buy their kids shoes and a schoolbag.

Sorry! I know, right now I have maneuvered you dangerously close to your threshold for criticism, and the little neurons in your brain have begun firing off pre-programmed pulses that translate into “Euro-trash,” “America-hater,” “Socialist,” “Communist,” or... Or what? Running out of labels already? How about “Moron,” “Asshole,” or “Prick?” After all, you feel only you have the right to criticize America, but how? Admit you’re not very creative when it comes to introspection. It’s always easier to just point your finger at your political opponents, be they “Liberals,” or “Conservatives.”
Well, you’re neither liberal, as in “free from bigotry and authoritarian dogmas, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others," nor conservative, as in "moderate, cautious, tending to conserve and preserve the use of natural resources.”

Is it because you basically live under a near-totalitarian regime, a frail and continuously faltering two-party system, in which the ruling 51% makes life miserable for the 49% that lost the last election? Is it because your idea of democracy is to relentlessly sabotage the other side’s political efforts, unrestrained by lies, treason, bribery, and character assassination? Is that why you have been trading in your hard-earned civil liberties lately without nary a stir from a population too preoccupied with reality shows to notice?

Still, you behave as if U.S. branded democracy and freedom are commodities no country can be without. Especially no Muslim theocracy. Yet, you are rapidly turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy yourself, complete with the similar insane fanatical fundamental neoconservative religious extremists you say we must fight “over there.” Well, I wish you would learn to recognize their vermin counterparts “over here,” like fanatical right wing “religious” leader Pat Robertson in 2005 calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Did anyone protest? I mean, any Christians? Is it because “kicking butt,” has become second nature to you, and you need little incentive to start spreading mayhem that may cost the lives of tens of thousands?

Is it because you have long forgotten how to have a decent and entertaining discussion, now that you’ve been conditioned to see everything in black and white, good and bad, left and right, red and blue? I have watched you quietly disintegrate during conversations, when confronted with facts like, for instance, Henry Ford supporting Hitler and the Nazis. Is it because you don’t know your own facts? That when it comes to ethics, freedom, democracy, and justice, America often behaves like a Mafia Don, more than a dove with an olive branch? Could that begin to explain why you could have helped create the very terrorists that are now defecating on your flag? I’ve tried Bud, but instead of looking for an answer you ask with tearful eyes, “Why does everyone hate us?”

And here lies the rub, dude; most people don’t hate America and Americans. There’s much to admire you for after you wiped out the buffalo and the Injuns, but no one cares for your ignorance of the facts and your standard “fuck you” response. Most people may even think Americans are funny and a little odd with their “best country in the world” syndrome. Dude, many of you have never even crossed state lines, let alone visited Belgium! You know, their neighbors, the French, are crazy about Jerry Lewis, and the Germans will always laugh at Dick und Dumb (Laurel and Hardy). The Dutch? Well sorry, Pal, they think you’re pussies for not being able to keep your backyard dry.

Which brings me to another thing: will you ever look abroad for solutions you desperately need at home? You think you know everything. True, Tommy Ridge taught us that duct tape can protect you from chemical terror attacks, but you couldn’t find any WMD’s after you started a whole war just to locate them. I’ve met you while traveling. You’re usually lost, and that while you’re just trying to find a MacDonald’s so you don’t have to eat the local food. Now that you are in Iraq, have you learned anything about the culture? Ate a falafel? Rented an Iraqi DVD (hint: they’re in the foreign movie section)? Or, explored Iraqi music at your local record store? See, you don’t give a shit! How can you liberate a people you don’t care about? You’re like the boy scout carrying an old lady through traffic, while all she did was wave at her grandchild on the school bus—you know, that smoke-belching pre-WWII yellow scrap you carry kids around in. What’s up with that old shit, dude? Aren’t your kids the future? Don’t they deserve modern buses? That reminds me of your furniture: most U.S. designers seem to get their inspiration from the All In The Family set and create furniture for Archie Bunker’s behind. That’s a long run for the La-Z-Boy, boy.

Maybe that’s the reason why America, while arguably more modern than Cuba, still seems mired in the past. Your roads are in need of repair, lacking sidewalks, street lights, and street signs; old ugly utility poles litter your skyline, your offices and living rooms have fake veneer walls, and your vinyl siding is made to look like wood.
Is that the American Dream you speak of at every opportunity: everything just like the real thing? Fake tits, fake pearls, fake dog testicles, fake orgasms, fake Christians, and now fake science: “Intelligent Design…”

No wonder, you live in a fantasy world in which you’re king; Mattress King; Tire King; Grocery King. And next, Oil King! But hold on buster, you’re an emperor with trillions in debt—you don’t actually own anything and have to borrow from the Saudis and your grandchildren’s social security funds. And yet, calling you on your bullshit is tantamount to treason. Well, I have news for you; your country’s being kept afloat by other nations that haven’t quite collected the last bloody dollar from your Treasury Bonds.

These nations used to be friends, but on your last escapade few came along, because you resorted to lies, name-calling, and French fries renaming. You are no longer welcome where you used to be. You’ve isolated yourself. So then, prepare to live out your days in the gated community that America has become, complete with Mexican guards. You will have to eat your unsigned Kyoto Treaty, choke on your own pollution, your chemical rivers, your acid rain, and the genetically engineered tasteless micro-waved crap you call food. And if you aren’t killing each other first with your gazillion handguns, Uzis, AK-47’s, and other assault guns, you might as well just sit tight and wait until the terminally-pissed-off terrorists get a hold of the WMD’s you yourself have stockpiled within your own borders.
Yep, it’s all working out quite neatly for you, isn’t it, dude?

Could you have done anything differently? Probably not. I’m afraid you religious creeps have become so predictable there’s not an original idea coming out of you anymore, but then you surprise everyone with a rerun of creationism, this time deceptively relabeled “Intelligent Design.”

By now you may have concluded, along with the rest of the world, that “America,” “Intelligent,” and “Design,” are words that don’t go well together in one sentence. Don’t understand me wrong, I do know that you have some smart folks amongst you that in the past have engineered stupendous stuff, like the Chrysler Building, the atomic bomb, and telescopes that can fly past the moon, but these folks are a dying breed, and you know it. They’re the bespectacled intelligentsia; engineers, architects, and scientists—coincidentally, once your ‘A’ students, children every parent would be proud of. In theory they could fix some of the humungous problems you helped create, like global warming, or improve levees that keep out the ocean, but where you are going intellectuals and their stem-cell research are not needed, because from here onward you’re riding the A-Train to Armageddon.

After all your hard thinking, you have concluded that life’s too complex for your burdened brains and that only some super being like, let’s say, the omni-present, yet invisible, terminally-pissed-off and cruel Almighty of the Catholic Circus could have been tinkering with the little cells, veins, fins, flapping wings, leaves, and trees. Oh, suddenly everything in nature fits neatly your “My Pet Goat” story for grownups called “Intelligent Design,” a thinly disguised version of Genesis that contains none of that confusing evolution stuff that first has fish crawling onto land and turn into birds. Oh no! As evangelical realists you put your faith instead in a talkative snake, a babbling bush, and a lone rib that turns into a complex woman. Makes for a great movie. Something Tim Burton could sink his twisted teeth into.

So, gradually it's coming to this: after Pol Pot in Cambodia, Hitler in Nazi Germany, Stalin in Russia, and slews of dictators, madmen, and syphilis-crazed kings before Bush, you are now about to muffle the U.S. intelligentsia, its thinkers, its innovators, engineers, programmers, architects, teachers, chemists, professors, and every scientist you can chase down. Before you ship them off to your concentration camps, to your mental institutions, your gulags, and labor camps, you may offer them to save their hide by denouncing Darwin’s theory of evolution and instead go with the Pope’s and Pat Robertson’s sanctioned legend of a carpenter, a fisherman, and a whore who, if they visited today would be appalled to learn what evil has been and is about to be committed in their name.

Just like the Muslims can’t forget that the Crusaders kicked their cottoned heinies hundreds of years ago, so have the idiot fundamentalist abortion clinic bombing Christians been brooding on kicking the collective ass of intellectuals with an open mind and a critical attitude that makes short work of their ancient cult, its priests’ abusive practices, and detrimental influence on society’s progress.
The idiots among you that are now challenging evolution do that 80 years after the first Monkey Trial and 313 years after the Salem witch hunts, right at a time when we have made enormous progress by applying Darwin’s principles in every aspect of science, be it medicine, biology, biophysics, biochemistry, or anything else with which we try to explain our physical existence. Scientists are about to find a cure for cancer when your prayers could not; and scientist will be the ones to find a cure for AIDS—not your Intelligent Designer you suspect of giving it to us in the first place to punish us for our sins, something He seems to be quite fond of.

Unlike religious fanatics whose narrow world view is based on an old book with cryptic contributions from many writers, for a scientist life is ever evolving, based on forever questioning, and ever inching closer to discovering another truth, revealing itself like layers of an onion being peeled back, promising a cure, a new possibility, a different view. Science is a state of constant wonderment, and much has been accomplished by the curious.
Your Christian demagogues on the other hand may lead you into Bible prayer groups (and into forking over money), but don’t seem to know how to interpret Jesus’ words without creating war upon war, slavery and oppression, discrimination and inequality, and constant suffering wherever they bring the “good news.” Your religious leaders ask you to make sense of a God that can ask you to slaughter your first-born son, but if you actually hear His voice, like Pat Robertson claims he does, you'll find little sympathy even among your fanatical peers if you carry out such an insane request, and you will go to jail, or more likely, a mental institution. That’s because reasonable people have devised laws that protect us from religious fanatics.

Still, the stakes are high, as we edge closer to a totalitarian theocracy with every victory you extreme fundamentalist evangelical Christians score. This time, the deluded "scientists" who defend intelligent design during your new Monkey Trial are well-groomed debaters, but nevertheless they are effectively saying not to bother with research because hey, it’s way too difficult.
Crap!
As species we got as far as we have by applying logic and cleverly bypassing the church’s ominous and stifling influence whenever possible. Otherwise the world would still be flat, the sun would be turning around the world, and we would be riding horse-drawn buggies, wear tall black hats and long beards. Not to mention, many scientists would have died a natural death, rather than burning at the stakes that you always seem to keep preheated. If you want proof of what a theocratic society looks like, look no further than Arab countries and how time has largely stood still there.

Now America’s powerful and political religious zealots want to return to biblical times as well and drag us all along. Soon, Hollywood will burn. Hemlines will drop to below the knee, and de-liberated women can start growing hair again in previously undesirable regions. Men will go on crusades to spread the freedom you’re denying our own women, our own homosexual children, and try to steal the oil that keeps our economy moving. Meanwhile, your greedy eyes are fixed East for the return of the “Son of God.” As if you deceptive, lying, cheating, and murdering bastards of all people would know how to treat someone who makes that claim. Hopefully, you’ll recognize Him before he’s picked up for behaving suspiciously near The Green Zone, sent to Abu Grahib, crucified by the CIA, and raised from the grave for an autopsy.

If you find that scenario even remotely plausible, you’re showing to have a sufficiently large brain after all. Doubt is the way to salvation, Pal, not dogma. Why not debate how our brains’ size may have evolved over supper? If you turn out to be an entertaining and interesting guest it doesn't have to be our last one...

© 2005 Rudolf Helder

Socrates Superstar...

I don’t know who in the next century will be remembered as this century’s superstar, but my guess is that it’s probably not going to be J-Lo. For those that’ll come after us I hope that unlike us they won't be stuck with the same old All-Time-Cast-of-The-Ages. First, there’s Jesus Christ, by far the most popular and a real superstar, but after Mel Gibson’s portrayal there’s not much room for a sequel. A prequel perhaps...
So, in our ongoing thirst for historical drama we’ve feasted on a whole legion of lesser players that nevertheless made it to Hollywood stardom, such as Ben-Hur and Sinbad-The-Sailor. But, with Gladiator and Troy, we are fast running out of suitable heroes.

I know, there’s still Castor and Pollux, and I thought for a moment about their storyline that goes something like: Castor and Pollux were the offspring of Leda and the Swan (problem #1). Leda gave birth to an egg (problem #2), from which sprang the twins. Helen, their sister, who later became famous as the cause of the Trojan war, was one day kidnapped from Sparta by Theseus and his friend Pirithous (confusing) and rescued by Castor and Pollux. Next, the twins went on the Argonautic expedition (The Life Aquatic?). During the voyage a storm arose, and Orpheus (who?) prayed to the gods, and played on his harp, whereupon the storm ceased (problem #3) and stars appeared on the heads of the brothers (problem #4).

For the life of me, while this is a terrific script, I can’t see it turned into a believable movie, except for the kidnapping part.

Then there’s that Minotaur (recycle into a Phantom of the Opera story), Hercules (very old hat), and a slew of lesser bit-players, but how truly exciting were any of these guys in real life? Eating grapes during ongoing orgies doesn’t make for holistic family entertainment. No, if we as true Darwinians want to evolve further we will have to start selecting heroes of a different kind, with a more uplifting storyline. Football-player-turned-soldier Pat Tillman was on my list for a while but his tale of opportunistic Pentagon propaganda combined with vengeful friendly fire has yet to be written with honesty. Of course, as hero Jesus has much to offer, but when I once offered the other cheek it didn’t work out very well, and come to think of it, neither did it for him. So, it’s time to put the smacking, punching, stabbing, machinegun fire, poisonings, and beheadings behind us.
I think we need a different kind of historical hero. One that can teach us something other than that screwing your own mom is a bad idea. Really, what has Troy, or Hercules, taught us that you can wrap your mind around and have a solid discussion about?

I’d like to see a movie about Socrates.
Socrates’ life marks such an important point in history that it’s defined by pre- and post-Socratic periods. Having lived a few hundred years before Christ, Socrates could be a sort of transitional hero with a storyline that has no daggers but still an itsy bitsy poison before the lights come on.

As a young man, Socrates became fascinated with new scientific ideas and listened to debates by local philosophers.
He was a searcher and soon neither science nor philosophy could satisfy him. He wondered: “What is 'self?'” While the temple of Apollo at Delphi prominently displayed the phrase, “Know Thyself!” it proved to be a maddingly difficult task. Socrates felt that in spite of all the philosophizing people had little curiosity about the status of a self; in a way they were a little like today’s partying-like-there’s-no-tomorrow “conservatives,” comfortable in the belief that “self” is constantly needy for more pleasure, more prestige, and more power, or money. Socrates’ peers further thought that no one would ever act against his or her own interest, regardless of how people talked as though they would. Socrates reasoned that until we know what true human nature and excellence is we are engaging in false pretenses.

Socrates stood for the development of moral character through the practice of open dialogue. He devoted himself to free discussion with the young citizens of Athens, insistently questioning their confidence in the truth of popular opinions. Socrates declined to accept payment for his work with students, many of which were fanatically loyal to him. Their parents, however, became displeased with his influence on their offspring, and his association with opponents of the regime had made him a controversial political figure. A jury found him guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens and interfering with the religion of the city, and they sentenced him to death in 399 B.C. Gracefully accepting this outcome, Socrates drank poison and died in the company of his friends and disciples.

I think that more than a bunch of primitive power brokers slaughtering each other’s CGI armies, a portrayal of such a thoughtful man seems just about the right kind of hero in a time we’re about to slit each other’s throats and turn the US into another Serbia.

Socrates’ struggle may offer us a spellbinding assessment of the current battle between steadfast ignorance of looming environmental disasters and the absence of critical inquiry into extreme far-right doctrines. Socrates wanted to destroy the illusion that we comprehend the world and make us accept our ignorance—something many have an inert problem with. Socrates believed in the possibility of acquiring knowledge, by discovering universal definitions of the key concepts governing human life.

To me, Socrates appears as a man for our time, at once satisfying our need for a historical context of our own humanity and offering faith in a livable future, as well as providing an example of believing in one’s own need for truth and honesty, especially in a time when our leaders lie to us and try to stifle our intellect with the most ridiculously notions of science backed by medieval religion.

It’s important to mention that Socrates dismissed the notion of piety, of doing whatever is pleasing to the gods—the external authority of his days. He argued that defining morality in reference to (god or government), suffers from a logical dilemma about the origin of our own inherent "goodness," which he viewed as originating from within. But, during his imprisonment he also argued that an individual citizen—even if the victim of unjust treatment—can not refuse to obey the law. With that statement he miraculously rises above the status of rebel, or even that of insurgent. He merely accepted that after laying down the truth as he saw it he could do no more than placing his fate in the hands of corrupt and misguided individuals who acted with a political agenda and merely sought to snuff out his flame.

That makes him a martyr in my eyes—a hero who tried to carefully investigate the nature of virtue itself. Most remarkably, Socrates states that knowledge and virtue are so closely related, no human ever knowingly does evil: we all do what we believe to be best. Improper conduct, then, can only be a product of our ignorance rather than a symptom of weakness of the will. In other words, one can regain one’s true virtue by being open to reason and being willing to change. In a time where Christian and Islamic doctrine are heading for a massive nuclear fueled confrontation under leadership of near-fascist theocrats, Socrates’ value as an independent and open-minded thinker can not be emphasized enough.

Hollywood hooligans, what are you waiting for?

©2005 Rudolf Helder

Shooting at Shadows...

“Then the terrorists will have won.”
You’re familiar with the phrase. It’s used to bolster our resolve, inflame our fighting spirit, and shut up the Administration’s critics that beg for our troops to come home—kids of eighteen shooting at shadows, getting killed daily by a faceless and stateless enemy, variously labeled “suicide bombers,” “terrorists,” “insurgents,” “islamists,” “radical Muslims,” “jihadists,” “intifadah,” “mujihaddeen,” “al-jazeera,” “hamas,” “al qaeda,” “Taliban,” or simply “extremists.”
Confused?
Indeed, it’s as maddening as hearing “liberals,” or “neocons” and not knowing what sets a Neo Conservative apart from a regular Conservative.
Without the Administration defining it any better, “terrorism” is quite too broad a term to dedicate a war to. It worries me that a war without a clear focus could in principle extend to become a catchall for everything that doesn’t jive with those in power. Kind of like the way it is in a totalitarian regime—such as the former Soviet Union. Or a Muslim theocracy—like Iran. Or a Christian theocracy. You know, the one we’re rapidly moving toward…

We need to demand a clear definition of what it is we’re supposed to be fighting, or next we could be taking on the entire pissed-off Muslim world or anyone FOX-News labels an extremist with a liberal agenda, like uh, Cindy Sheehan. Or do you rather stick with the handy term “insurgent?” According to my dictionary an insurgent is one who justly opposes the tyranny of constituted authorities…
Hm. Odd that the Administration has made that its favorite term.
Could we be fighting opponents of tyranny? What kind of tyranny could we possibly impose on Muslims? Invasion and destruction of holy sites? Christian doctrine? The siphoning off of oil fields?

Not to worry, folks, the quagmire's going to be over soon according to Vice President Dick Cheney, who said on Larry King that the insurgency is in its last throes.
Now, you should know, I’m very fond of the word “throes” and I use it all the time. It means “a condition of agonizing struggle or trouble.”
Wait!
Wouldn’t that make you almost sympathize with these underdogs in their throes?
Not if we paint them as elusive killers with supposedly Russia-obtained nukes that have us trembling in our Nikes.

Sure, for the next round the military will retrain its decimated forces. The CIA will get it right. We will purchase new, more effective weapons: Mini helicopters for snooping on the enemy— turbaned teams of Kalashnikov-hugging men in a dusty Toyota pickup truck threatening our way of life; Cave-busting drones to ferret out old-what’s-his-name.
The made-for-TV game of hide and seek and stealthy attack will continue, but I believe the War on Terror was lost the day it was declared. Like the War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, The War on Whatever, it is an unwinnable event, wrapped around a catch phrase, for which there’s not going to emerge a “winner,” an all-American hero to be played by Mel Gibson or Russell Crowe.
Instead, Americans will need to get used to the images the hurricanes Katrina and Rita have anchored in our not-so-sub-conscious, images of tens of thousands of citizens in peril, filing out of a region in barely moving, slowly-running-out-of-gas SUVs. Hell, who cares about terrorists in some faraway place when the weather and corrupt politicians conspire to kill you first? Terrible events for which there’s no duck tape will inevitably take place. If anything, the Administration has made that clear, when Bush recently referred to, “the mistakes of past administrations.” That’s getting mightily close to admitting that we have created the shadowy terrorists ourselves. It’s like admitting that perhaps we’re creating these “natural disasters” ourselves. It’s like admitting we could be doing things equally wrong today. But the policies haven’t changed and they aren’t bound to. They’re still lining the pockets of Halliburton and the richest contributors to the GOP’s election campaign.
We’re learning that all that’s left to expect from our governing friends are cleanup operations and acting like you’re wearing a thinking cap when you’re too dumb to correctly name your enemy, or comprehend the Kyoto Accord’s significance in fighting global warming .

So, if we can’t expect foresight, vision, and educated talent to solve the problems facing us where are we as citizens supposed to turn to? The church, that protects priests but not our children? A church, that is witness to “acts of god” that are manmade? A church that’s powerful enough to have politicians mandate scientists stop exploring areas that cause theological schizophrenia? Think again. The men of the cloth aren’t exactly problem solvers. Not in Iraq and Iran and not in Rome or Washington. So, without anything going to change we can be sure that the problems will multiply to finally strangle us—be they terrorist, or environmental, or both… Am I the only one who pictures bin Laden watching CNN and discussing how to create Katrina-like events based on our ignorance and unwillingness to create security for everyone, including, yes, including the terrorists, those shadowy figures we helped create, much in the way Mickey created the mops in Fantasia?
Without correctly identifying and acknowledging our problems and opening a dialogue, better get used to vehicles clogging freeways as liberals and republicans alike flee their homes. It’s not going to matter if your government’s ineptness did you in or the terrorists’ resolve—they’re dancers in a deadly embrace.

Yes, America is losing its innocence fast and it’s high time.
Maybe this time a Green Party will look like a valid alternative with an emphasis on the environment. Clearly, we can’t keep voting for the same guys that are making today’s mistakes. Are you comfortable with the idea of your eighteen year-old shooting at shadows in some oil-rich region of the world?

©2005 Rudolf Helder

Face Value...

Class, today we’re going to be talking about subjective interpretation, or, taking things at face value. Now, in life we learn many things, from our parents, teachers, supervisors, peers, and whatever we retain is what we base our decisions and opinions on. With me on that?

Okay. Let’s make a quick jump to the week Hurricane Katrina hit. Remember President Bush’s demeanor? While New Orleans catastropically tanked, the news informed us Bush was busy campaigning, playing guitar, and most of all vacationing, in spite of his homework of having to skim through Mark Kurlansky's book “History Of Salt,” John Barry's “The Great Flu Pandemic of 1918,” and Edvard Radzinsky's “Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar.” Light reading for you and me, but a gargantuan task for someone who has been spotted holding “My Pet Goat” upside down.

Now, for subjective interpretation. Remember how disgusted the entire nation was, including the ever-forgiving Religious Right, when the president failed to acknowledge in a timely and compassionate-conservative manner the horrific events taking place in New Orleans? When he finally strode into New Orleans, wide-armed, shirt sleeves rolled up, it was too late to erase that first impression, no matter in how many directions he pointed from that truck he climbed onto. All fingers were pointing at him. We, as a nation, had taken him at face value, and no spin or blame game was going to change that. It was like that photo op with the bullhorn and firemen on the twin tower rubble never happened, and all we remember is how the president of the United States had sat through two terrorist attack reports in a preschool classroom without stirring once.

You see, when we take things at face value, we instinctively judge things before our rationale—or FOX-News’s spin—have a chance to dilute our first impression with glib, intelligently phrased, "objective" chatter. Sure, there’s a place for rationale, discussion, pro and con in our thinking, but what if we’re constantly being told that first impressions don’t count? That Brownie is doing a heck of a job? What if you subscribe to some political, religious, or social platform, and those doctrines dictate that you think accordingly, before your subjective interpretation has time to start a process of reflection, questioning, doubt… and arriving at conclusions that are all your own? Subjectively yours.

Class, I’d like to make a case for subjective interpretation, and I’d like to make you revisit the judge John G. Roberts hearings, and how quickly you dismissed shots that revealed our senators body language and showed that some, after asking a question, contently crossed it off their list without listening to the judge’s reply or pose a follow-up question. What does that tell you? Class, these are the people you vote into seats of power and I want you to begin paying attention to such signals. Simply put, I want you to start taking things at face value. Be subjective.

Anecdote: For a while I was seeing this Japanese woman. She’d lived in the US for several years, but was neither interested in politics nor fluent in English. One time, as we watched the news she told me she liked democrats. Why, I asked. Well, she’d noticed that every time a politician had a friendly, calm face it was a democrat, and every time a politician’s face showed anger, or discontent it turned out to be a republican. I made me laugh, but the point had been made: she’d taken these people at face value and the interpretation made sense to her.

So, I’d like to give you an exercise and subjectively interpret the faces of the following lia.., uh, people: John Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld… Any rightwinger will do. Then, pick some politicians of the opposition and repeat the exercise. Of course, you must try to see—not just look.

What can we learn from this? That we’re born with a blank expression and have a lifetime to plaster our demeanor onto it. So, my conclusion is that what you see is what you get. Now, in life we learn many things, from our parents, teachers, supervisors, peers, etc. Then there are things you got to figure out for yourself by using your gut. You can call that subjective interpretation. Fine. Take it at face value. Reports due next week. Class dismissed!

©2005 Rudolf Helder

Intelligent Design...

I have lived in the US for almost 20 years. Why that is significant, is because I find myself regularly comparing the US I encountered at my time of immigration and the US I experience today as a resident.
Coming from Europe, where everything old is quaint, and everything contemporary is well-designed I have often stood astonished at America’s widespread disregard of its history. I’m not talking about the almost propagandistic US history taught to America’s youngsters—at the exclusion of world history at large. I’m talking about its buildings, bridges, houses, neighborhoods. You’ve seen the dilapidated streets in large cities. Neighborhoods and buildings with character left to rot, houses in Victorian style ready to fall down, or an entire city wrecked by the shoddy engineering of a bunch of brittle levees.

In a lowest-bid-wins world, when there are no higher ideals, no higher aims, no desires to preserve, to restore, to improve, everything is allowed to slowly turn into the abandoned cardboard homeless people crawl under to keep dry.

Today, there’s a lot of talk about intelligent design. If you don’t know what it is you can look it up. I’m all for it. Foresight, rather than intelligent design was available when the first levees were built in the late 1800’s, but intelligent design was still absent when their purpose was last evaluated.

If you want to attribute intelligent design to your god, that’s your prerogative, but god doesn’t build levees, the Dutch do. If you’re more interested in attributing intelligent design to someone or something you can’t see, feel, or smell, yet created the heavens and the pimple on which we live maybe you’re overlooking the intelligent design that should go into every man-made project. The cars you build should not blow up and burn everyone inside, and neither should your levees break and if one does, there should be intelligent design that deals with such a “what if” scenario. Like, duh, a second levee, or a system of dikes, ditches, and containing walls. A system that could allow flooding of one area, but not all areas…

If you’re unfamiliar with the intelligent design the Dutch applied to safeguard their below sea level country from the ocean you really ought to study the Dutch Delta waterworks, especially if you are Army Corps of Engineers long associated with America's appaling slate of yearly floodings and faced with an annual review of a historical American town below sea level, like, for instance, New Orleans.

Then again, putting the protection of dry land into the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers may not be such a good idea, as their recommendations may be compromised with low bid contract awarding, resulting in a single cement wall to keep an entire ocean at bay. The Dutch on the other hand, having spared no expense built themselves a protection system that not only takes into account the threat of the elements, but also consecutive threats if the first defense fails. Systems of dikes, water management, levees, and pumps are intelligently designed to thwart as much as possible occurrences as have taken place in, let’s say, Bangladesh, or New Orleans.

Did I mention I’m Dutch? Imagine my growing bewilderment when at least three weeks went by after Hurricane Katrina and the demise of New Orleans before anyone (I believe it was Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball) mentioned the Dutch storm-water systems.
Days later Al Franken, of The Al Franken Show on Air America, featured a Dutch ex-minister who illuminated him on what the Dutch installed to protect their country.

Now, as I write this, the levees in New Orleans are breaking again, this time under pressure from Hurricane Rita’s rainfall. Is it not maddening that after 4 weeks a second flooding identical to the first is occurring? Whatever had been done to stop the first flooding apparently did not include shoring up the levees that had not broken yet.
Now, what I’d like to hear next time someone mentions intelligent design, is the good news that the best heads have come together to design a practical and lasting solution for a long-ignored problem. And, this is probably hardest for Americans to accept, but think Nike, think call-centers, think Wall-Mart: if you can’t get it here, go overseas and outsource. I’m sure there are some excellent Dutch engineers sitting by the phone right now, ready to apply intelligent design to any dike worthy of their twiddling thumbs…

©2005 Rudolf Helder

Checks and Balances...

As I write these blogs, I wonder who my audience is. You see, I'm becoming convinced that it's increasingly a matter of us and them. Or, as Kipling remarked, "East is Left, and Right is Wrong, and never the twain shall eat." Exactly such a divide is splitting America in two. There are those that see it the Republican, and Libertarian way, and those that see it the Democrat, or Liberal way. Wedged in between exists a gray mass of the Undecided. Well, if you're undecided, my feelings are that you should support through your taxes whichever party is in ruling power. However, with decisions on either side often being controversial and unacceptable to the other side I feel that a new and fairer method of Checks and Balances is in order.

I have lived in this country for almost 20 years and I cannot say I have witnessed before the disregard currently reserved for those on the other side of the political aisle. I've seen cases of nose-thumbing where the Republicans felt they could stick it to the Democrats for losing the election. I've read up just a bit on the American Constitution and it strikes me that such animosity wasn't at all what the founding fathers had in mind.

Now, the Constitution has seen many amendments and I believe it's due for another one, this one with respect to how a ruling government's causes are being funded. What I propose is that sympathizers of both political ideologies officially proclaim their allegiance and are thusly identified for tax purposes. I further propose that corporations and businesses do the same, and wear their political affiliation on their sleeve, right next to their company logo. These measures will help citizens with specific leanings put their money where their mouths are, and it will enable the IRS to funnel tax payers' money to those causes that these citizens and their party support. For example, if the GOP decides to invade another country it will have to recruit from its Red base and the Undecided population, while the Blue base, being in opposition can be comfortable in the knowledge that none of their resources are going to be used for a cause to which they don't subscribe, not even if the Draft is reinstated.

This new system of Checks and Balances will also afford political parties ways to keep a closer tab on what the voter feels about the way they're being represented. Ultimately, when a funding stream begins to dwindle because certain causes are no longer supported by the population their representatives will be forced to pay close attention.
People will be allowed to switch parties, but only after a cooling-off period in the Undecided pool, so as not to create a sudden imbalance of power. When the next elections come along they are permitted to re-assign their allegiance.

Companies that make contributions to a specific political party should be allowed to do so, as long as they are identified by allegiance. Thus, a Blue company cannot make contributions to a Red party, whereas an Undecided company can make contributiions to both. Naturally, the Reds may not be in favor of organized labor. Consequently, those that are may align themselves with the Blue base where social concerns are more a way of life.

The scope of this blog prevents me from going into too much detail about my proposal, but it's my vision that in the future we will see a transition to a system where ideology (or the absence thereof) is directly related to its funding stream.

Now, what if a President bungles, ah, let's say, an emergency response to a large scale disaster, such as a breached levee? In such a case, if people strongly disapprove they can withdraw support by giving up their base color and moving into the Undecided pool. While that becomes a measurable indication of people's support or lack thereof, it will not immediately cause an interruption of funding. That may happen if they switch to another party when the elections come around.

Of course, this amendment in the way that taxes are levied, may give rise to new political parties, perhaps with specific environmental agendas, like a Green party. If senators of parties are in agreement about health care measures, or otherwise, fundings from all three parties' members can flow toward such cause, but Green citizens should not have to pay for measures their Green representatives do not vote in favor of.

It's like going Dutch for lunch, but with a political twist.

All in favor for more fairness say "Aye."

©2005 Rudolf Helder

Imagine...

If the people of Germany would've had email and Internet in 1933, could World War II and the extermination of 6 Million Jews have been avoided? Would anyone have started a blog on February 27, 1933 criticizing Weimar Republic President Paul von Hindenburg for appointing Adolf Hitler Chancellor?
Would anyone have questioned the circumstances under which a feeble-minded Dutch "communist," Marinus van der Lubbe was quickly captured, accused, and executed as the arsonist that burned down The Reichstag—Germany's Parliament, a building as significant as, let’s say, The World Trade Center?

When soon thereafter, upon declaring a national emergency, Hitler began suspending civil liberties including expression of opinion, freedom of the press, and right to privacy, and created his version of Homeland Security, which included the later much-feared SS storm troopers and Gestapo special police forces, would anyone with a yahoo account have notified the world of possible dire consequences?

Today, as citizens within an age of electronic communication we can ask ourselves, "what are we witnessing now?" "Where do all these seemingly loose ends lead?" "Why did Dick Cheney lie about WMD's?" Or, "Who are the modern-day Herman Görings, the Rudolf Hesses, the Joseph Goebbels?"

The conditions that gave rise to Hitler's Third Reich, can be recreated anytime by instilling a fear within the population for great external threats, such as weapons of mass destruction (in other hands than ours), terrorism (not carried out by us), and epidemics (not released from a lab by us). The "evil-doers" are not referred to by name, except in the case of Saddam. The name bin Laden is seldom mentioned, whereas the invisible "Al Qaeda," is what we are told to fear, even as we publicly disclose our latest security holes, such as shipping containers loaded abroad.

While historians may not agree if a communist plot involving Marinus van der Lubbe, or the Nazis themselves had a hand in the Reichstag fire, can we be sure that a similar scenario is not being played out by those whose abilities to make deals with powerful corporations far outdistances our scrutiny?
It’s for this reason that I keep thinking about the people who after WWI witnessed the Nazi state rising out of the ashes of a devastated Germany. A large incident, such as the Reichstag fire worked out really well for the Nazis (to paraphrase Barbara Bush's comment at the Super Dome). Well, 9/11 has worked out really well for the Bushes. Now they have set their sights on making Jeb Bush the next emperor in the dynasty they're seeking to establish. At what cost to us? To the world?

One has to wonder what magnificent powers are at work that within a nation of 350 Million, 3 members of the same clan—none appearing too brilliant—can become leaders of the "free world." Can someone ask Bill Clinton that question? What's he smoking these days that he keeps cozying up to the Bushes? Doesn't he have a dynasty of his own to attend to?

In 1933 the Nazis were able to advance their cause at the expense of surrounding nations, the Jews in Germany and other nations, and later at the expense of many Asian nations by teaming up with the Emperor of Japan. The extent of suffering that resulted from Hitler's quick rise to power in 1933 is simply incomprehensible.

Should we then not be vigil, when we are witnessing the foundation being laid for a new Empire? Should we not reserve the right to question every move by an Administration that acts more and more like the Catholic Politburo, but is really just a fraternity of old friends?
When Mao had everybody waving little red books, children betrayed their parents and many died terrible deaths in prison camps during what is now regarded in China as an unfortunate and embarrassing period. So then, can it not happen here with all the “God in The White House” rambling going on? Are we that different from the fearful families under Hitler, the trembling parents in Mao's Cultural Revolution, the manipulated masses under Saddam, the terrified citizens of New Orleans, flooded out of their houses because of the Bush Administration’s appetite for war funds? Society is head over heels militarizing. There are now at least 3 channels on my TV related to military might—and its culture of death and destruction.

Ask yourself, as someone living in the new Millennium with cool wireless access to electronic media, how would you feel if years from now you realized you had witnessed evil rise and had done nothing but turn up your iPod?
Do you know how many Muslims and other terror suspects are currently held in American prisons without due process?
Do you care? Do you care if your government bombs Afghanistan, then rounds up anyone with a gun, kidnap them, and imprison them in Cuba, bypassing the Geneva Convention a previous Administration had ratified? Do you care if your government is found to torture Iraqi and Afghani civilians, or have it done for us by Syrians and Egyptians? Do you care what citizens of other nations think of an America that can no longer lecture China and Burma on human rights?
Perhaps this time we are empowered as individuals to see through the new laws that enable Government to hold its own citizens without due process for unlimited time. Maybe you think Jose Padilla had it coming, but the same law pertains to you, your neighbors, your friends, and your children...

Soon, another election comes around. During the last one the Secret Service played a questionable part in keeping non-Republicans out of the circus tent. Why? It all looks so innocent. Arnold sure will make us laugh again.
Yes, I mustn’t be paranoid, but don’t you sense it when something isn't quite right? I can't quite put my finger on it or see the end game, the way Rummy can. I believe the Jews are safe within their self-erected Patriot missile defended ghetto. It could have something to do with oil, nuclear energy, and Christian doctrine administered by Marines—quite possibly to President Chavez of Venezuela, just like in the fatwa from religious Nazi Pat Robertson (no doubt drunk with righteousness after his voodoo doll took out Judge Rehnquist to make room for John Roberts).

Within one year, with just a few short strokes of the pen Adolf Hitler became dictator. It happened in Germany, in Stalin's Russia, Iraq, and Mao's China, but of course, it couldn't happen here, not with that charmingly bumbling, folksy, deeply caring, church-going chap W.
Or could it? Has anyone seen the plan?
If history has taught us anything, it's that status quo can be destroyed by a single large crisis, followed by elimination of civil liberties and increasing police and military powers. Let's say, under those conditions a whole airplane can disappear into the Pentagon, never to be found... Let's say under those conditions a President could invade a country that has absolutely not threatened us... Under those conditions elections will be rigged... Under those conditions whoever dissents shall be silenced...

Imagine, if we wouldn't have email and Internet today.
Well, we do, so perhaps we have already thwarted a catastrophe.
If you believe that, you can go right back to sleep.

©2005 Rudolf Helder