Clinton Portis can’t figure out why everybody’s up in arms over Michael Vick’s dog fighting ring. The way Portis sees is the dogs belong to Vick, the house belongs to Vick so who cares? When advised that dog fighting is a felony Portis seemed surprised.
The big deal about dog fighting is that it is decidedly cruel. We’re not talking about a tussle between a couple of puppies in the front yard. Dog fighting is a brutal death sport where the losing dog is mortally wounded if not killed. Often the winning dog sustains severe injuries and it is not uncommon for both animals to be left for dead in some abandoned pole barn.
The dogs are bred to be killing machines. When they get loose they attack. A fighting dog running free will savage family pets, children and even full grown adults. These are dogs that have been mistreated to the point of murderous rage. They are raised and trained to be bigger, stronger and faster than normal members of the same breed.
Training methods include treadmills, heavy chains, tires, and regular beatings. Dogs are shocked, burned, and cut in order to deaden nerves and encourage growth of scar tissue. Perhaps the sickest training method is the practice of rendering a passive dog, often a stolen family pet, defenseless and allowing the killer in training to hone its skills. The hell holes where fighting dogs are trained often include the mauled bodies of mild mannered breeds such as retrievers, boxers, German shepherds and huskies, many with their mouths taped shut to ensure the valuable fighting dog wouldn’t fall victim to a lucky desperate chomp.
This is not some misunderstood vocation. These are not happy dogs. Certain breeds enjoy performing the tasks for which they were bred. Border collies love to herd. Anything. Sheep are great because sheep love to be herded but border collies can be seen at any dog park trying in vain to round up the other dogs. They don’t much like to play fetch but they will give chase to establish order. How dare that other dog leave the imaginary corral? It’s not cruel to put a border collie to work at a golf course to run geese off the greens. Border collies must be trained…not to herd but to stop herding on command.
Huskies like to pull. The Iditarod comes under fire from animal rights groups every year because of the risks posed to the dogs. Of the hundreds of dogs who race each year some will get hurt and on occasion one or two might die but great lengths are taken to ensure veterinary care is available along the way. The huskies, however, love every grueling mile. Huskies live to run and pulling a sled makes all of that running worthwhile. Anybody who has owned a husky or a husky mix will tell you that there isn’t much you can do to engage them…they don’t fetch or play catch…but once they have something to pull they don’t want to stop running. Huskies will run themselves to death and die happy. And on the rare occasion a husky doesn’t want to run, nobody will make him. Huskies are stubborn dogs.
Various breeds, including those used in fighting, make excellent guard dogs. These animals require more training because they aren’t inclined to play with strangers. Strangers are a threat to the pack and these dogs are committed to protecting their pack. Even though they can be trained to attack, the idea isn’t to kill but to subdue. Dogs will kill food but when they fight they fight to submission. Generally a guard dog will handle everything with a curled lip and a low growl. Often that’s enough to get the job done.
Retrievers come by their name honestly. They are working dogs too and they love to fetch things. A Retriever will work himself into a frenzied lather on a sweltering day chasing a Frisbee for hours. They’ll swim hundreds of yards to bring that stick back to the person who threw it and literally beg for it to be thrown right back in. Guide dogs, though not generally of a particular breed, enjoy their vocation and while it’s not nearly as fun as chasing a tennis a ball across a soccer field, the pack mindset makes the work enjoyable. They love feeling needed.
And that’s the problem. Dogs aren’t really made for fighting. Dogs are socially oriented. Since dogs are direct descendants from wolves they do indeed possess formidable killing skills and in certain instances they can fight quite well but fighting is reserved for protection. In the wild wolves fight with rival packs for territory and within the pack dynamic they challenge each other for dominance but it is rare for these skirmishes to be deadly. Moreover, domestic dogs have had that instinct suppressed in order to protect man from the politics of the pack. People who raise wolves have experienced the occasional challenge for dominance, an inconvenience traditional dog owners don’t endure thanks to thousands of years of breeding and training. .
Dogs aren’t murderers. It goes against their design. To instill that compulsion in a dog the trainer must utilize exceptionally cruel tactics. In many cases these tactics are counter productive. For every dog that becomes a worthy fighter, three become chronically timid. They’ll bite when approached but they won’t go on the offensive. These dogs are often sold to novice fight breeders and subsequently abandoned because they simply aren’t competitive. So most of the dogs entering this world fail to meet the standards of market value; they are expendable.
People who are drawn to the dog fighting culture are not good people. This is not a vice like high stakes poker or midnight lap dances. These are people who simply have no respect for life. People who can’t respect animals generally can’t respect other people either. Dog fighting is a sick criminal act and the people who promote it, watch it or even defend it are dangerous.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Pope misses the point
The Catholic Church represents religious corruption at its worst although the current incarnation pales in comparison to the totalitarian religion that plagued Europe during what history refers to as the Dark Ages. Crusades, inquisitions and assassinations were the tools employed by the Vatican to destroy rivals and oppress the masses. Back then the Catholic Church rejected remarkable advancements achieved by the cultures that preceded the Holy Roman Empire. Concepts like sewage containment, medicine and personal hygiene were cast aside along with philosophy, art and science. People who sought enlightenment were tortured and killed.
Today the Catholic Church has stopped murdering people…at least in large numbers. Now the Catholic Church is run by impotent, beet-faced old men who scream their stifling rhetoric from ornate thrones. Although the Pope claims to speak the word of God, he and the rest of the Vatican power elite lack the faith to appear in public without armor and a highly trained security detail. Apparently God can’t be trusted to protect the Pope from those who might wish him harm. That’s your first clue that the Church believes more in power than it does in divinity. The Pope is worshipped as a demigod but he still needs to cruise the streets in an armored car. Ironic, eh?
Recently Pope Benedict dropped by to visit Brazil. South and Central America are Catholic strongholds, a holdover from the brutal manner in which Spanish and Portuguese missionaries imposed Catholicism on the indigenous people. Worship or die was the gist of the Church’s message back then. It hasn’t changed much. The church just can’t follow though on exterminating heretics anymore. They are trying to get back to that place, though. That’s why Benedict, a man with ties to the NAZI party, is there. He knows a thing or two about extermination.
Latin America struggles with overpopulation, under-education, disease, poverty and economic exploitation. Rain forests are being consumed at an alarming rate but the people are not seeing any of the financial gain. Typically American corporations like Cargil purchase huge blocks of land, slash and burn it through some local shell company and farm it until the soil is depleted. American get cheap stuff while Brazilians get the shaft.
Latin America needs protection from exploitation; they need birth control and help in educating the people to improve the quality of life. Did the Pope offer any assistance? Nope. He denounced abortion and encouraged people to devote more time to their faith. Never mind the AIDS epidemic spreading through South America; forget about the alarming number of babies born into poverty. Don’t worry about the literacy rate. Go to church and don’t forget to tithe. In order to bolster support for the Catholic Church, the Vatican opted to throw Latin America a bone and offer up a Latin American Saint. Amen. How about a clinic?
Elsewhere, particularly in places where people can read, the Catholic Church is struggling. In the U.S. the religiots flock toward evangelical denominations because they like an aggressive religion. Conservative Catholicism has all the teeth of Presbyterianism in this country. Our Bible thumpers need people to hate. The Catholic Church avoids hating people and focuses on issues. That’s why South and Central America are so important. The Catholic Church has an endless supply of ignorant people who can be molded into reliable Catholics. It’s not India, but if the church can stamp out birth control it might be soon.
However when it comes to those issues the Catholic Church is as blustery and misguided as Pat Robertson. The Vatican’s opposition to abortion is one thing. There are reasonable people who make solid arguments against abortion. It’s a genuinely debatable subject. But the Church also frowns on the use of birth control. Catholic leaders have taken foreign aid organizations to task for distributing condoms and showing people how to use them in African countries devastated by AIDS. The Catholic Church supports an abstinence only message and feels condoms are simply immoral. There’s no logical reason to oppose condoms. Perhaps the Church should think about making sex without a rubber a more severe sin than sex with one. Seven Hail Mary’s instead of five.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that people will make mistakes and sin, which would seem to provide a reason to support the use of condoms. To Catholics, sex outside of marriage is a sin but so is killing yourself. There are places in the world where sex is practically suicide, so why not deliver condoms to people with a stern message about morality? We have Catholic Priests who can’t keep it in their pants…how can we expect some 17 year-old Brazilian boy to resist temptation? Especially in Brazil!!! Have you seen the women there?
The Catholic Church limped toward progress under Pope John Paul II. He tried to fashion himself into a bit of a humanitarian. He recognized the real problems in the world and tried to create enough flexibility in the Church to address them. Mother Theresa was often criticized by Bishops and Cardinals for not promoting Catholicism aggressively enough but John Paul encouraged her to continue helping people. She might not have put butts in the seats on Sunday but she was doing a lot of good. Bishop Deamond Tutu ruffled a lot of feathers for getting caught up in political skirmishes but John Paul, although Tutu was not Catholic, went out of his way to support and praise Tutu for his efforts.
John Paul II still held to conservative views on sexuality and contraception but not to the forceful extent that Benedict does. It seemed that John Paul II wanted the Vatican to focus on the bigger picture and unify the world to promote peace. Perhaps the grandiose platform ignored the smaller issues the regular parishioner could relate to. Benedict is clearly thinking small.
It’s a dangerous time for that. The gap between the rich and the poor is expanding. The world is a hectic place and people need all the help they can get. An organization as powerful as the Catholic Church should be focused on real problems not rhetorical issues. Fire and Brimstone might sell tickets but what good is that if the audience isn’t there to buy them?
Today the Catholic Church has stopped murdering people…at least in large numbers. Now the Catholic Church is run by impotent, beet-faced old men who scream their stifling rhetoric from ornate thrones. Although the Pope claims to speak the word of God, he and the rest of the Vatican power elite lack the faith to appear in public without armor and a highly trained security detail. Apparently God can’t be trusted to protect the Pope from those who might wish him harm. That’s your first clue that the Church believes more in power than it does in divinity. The Pope is worshipped as a demigod but he still needs to cruise the streets in an armored car. Ironic, eh?
Recently Pope Benedict dropped by to visit Brazil. South and Central America are Catholic strongholds, a holdover from the brutal manner in which Spanish and Portuguese missionaries imposed Catholicism on the indigenous people. Worship or die was the gist of the Church’s message back then. It hasn’t changed much. The church just can’t follow though on exterminating heretics anymore. They are trying to get back to that place, though. That’s why Benedict, a man with ties to the NAZI party, is there. He knows a thing or two about extermination.
Latin America struggles with overpopulation, under-education, disease, poverty and economic exploitation. Rain forests are being consumed at an alarming rate but the people are not seeing any of the financial gain. Typically American corporations like Cargil purchase huge blocks of land, slash and burn it through some local shell company and farm it until the soil is depleted. American get cheap stuff while Brazilians get the shaft.
Latin America needs protection from exploitation; they need birth control and help in educating the people to improve the quality of life. Did the Pope offer any assistance? Nope. He denounced abortion and encouraged people to devote more time to their faith. Never mind the AIDS epidemic spreading through South America; forget about the alarming number of babies born into poverty. Don’t worry about the literacy rate. Go to church and don’t forget to tithe. In order to bolster support for the Catholic Church, the Vatican opted to throw Latin America a bone and offer up a Latin American Saint. Amen. How about a clinic?
Elsewhere, particularly in places where people can read, the Catholic Church is struggling. In the U.S. the religiots flock toward evangelical denominations because they like an aggressive religion. Conservative Catholicism has all the teeth of Presbyterianism in this country. Our Bible thumpers need people to hate. The Catholic Church avoids hating people and focuses on issues. That’s why South and Central America are so important. The Catholic Church has an endless supply of ignorant people who can be molded into reliable Catholics. It’s not India, but if the church can stamp out birth control it might be soon.
However when it comes to those issues the Catholic Church is as blustery and misguided as Pat Robertson. The Vatican’s opposition to abortion is one thing. There are reasonable people who make solid arguments against abortion. It’s a genuinely debatable subject. But the Church also frowns on the use of birth control. Catholic leaders have taken foreign aid organizations to task for distributing condoms and showing people how to use them in African countries devastated by AIDS. The Catholic Church supports an abstinence only message and feels condoms are simply immoral. There’s no logical reason to oppose condoms. Perhaps the Church should think about making sex without a rubber a more severe sin than sex with one. Seven Hail Mary’s instead of five.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that people will make mistakes and sin, which would seem to provide a reason to support the use of condoms. To Catholics, sex outside of marriage is a sin but so is killing yourself. There are places in the world where sex is practically suicide, so why not deliver condoms to people with a stern message about morality? We have Catholic Priests who can’t keep it in their pants…how can we expect some 17 year-old Brazilian boy to resist temptation? Especially in Brazil!!! Have you seen the women there?
The Catholic Church limped toward progress under Pope John Paul II. He tried to fashion himself into a bit of a humanitarian. He recognized the real problems in the world and tried to create enough flexibility in the Church to address them. Mother Theresa was often criticized by Bishops and Cardinals for not promoting Catholicism aggressively enough but John Paul encouraged her to continue helping people. She might not have put butts in the seats on Sunday but she was doing a lot of good. Bishop Deamond Tutu ruffled a lot of feathers for getting caught up in political skirmishes but John Paul, although Tutu was not Catholic, went out of his way to support and praise Tutu for his efforts.
John Paul II still held to conservative views on sexuality and contraception but not to the forceful extent that Benedict does. It seemed that John Paul II wanted the Vatican to focus on the bigger picture and unify the world to promote peace. Perhaps the grandiose platform ignored the smaller issues the regular parishioner could relate to. Benedict is clearly thinking small.
It’s a dangerous time for that. The gap between the rich and the poor is expanding. The world is a hectic place and people need all the help they can get. An organization as powerful as the Catholic Church should be focused on real problems not rhetorical issues. Fire and Brimstone might sell tickets but what good is that if the audience isn’t there to buy them?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Who's Really Supporting the Troops?
As public sentiment against the war grows, war hawks have escalated their assertion that protesting the war is tantamount to disrespecting our troops. They claim that our soldiers are disheartened that so many people believe they have failed. This is a cowardly tactic employed by the shameless people who have engaged this country in an unjust war.
If the soldiers feel that the public has lost faith in them it is only because these same people are telling them as much…Lying to them. Unlike Vietnam, where public resentment was projected on the men and women who served, those who oppose this war have been extraordinarily cautious in their rhetoric. Nobody wants our troops to feel disrespected.
Some of the Democrats in Congress clamored to cut funding for the war but the Bush Administration quickly characterized that as an attack on the troops. The idea of cutting funding was intended to give Bush no other option but to bring our forces home. Even though that intent was clearly explained, war hawks immediately began waving yellow ribbons. Talk about disrespectful.
Those opposed to the war haven’t lied to the American people. They didn’t stage the Jessica Lynch rescue nor did they make a mockery of Pat Tillman’s death. It’s the war hawks who have attacked individuals, like Cindy Sheehan, and made matters personal.
There are soldiers, active and retired, who are convinced that victory is the only option. They insist that withdrawing now means that the terrorists won but withdrawing forces now is not really surrendering. Sometimes withdrawing from a bad course of action to regroup and develop a more efficient plan is how to win a war. There’s a difference between battles and wars.
The notion that we can’t abandon what can only be described as a bad decision is the same imperialistic philosophy that made it possible for Colonial forces to upset the superior British military. British commanders refused to concede failure in their plan and eventually lost the war. They were trained to fight big, so the Colonists made themselves small.
Like Britain, the US has spread itself too thin to manage an unconventional war on an unfamiliar battlefield. During the Revolutionary War, Britain bolstered its forces with mercenaries from Germany known as Hessians. These soldiers were effective in traditional warfare, but as the battle wore on the Hessians lacked the passion to finish the job. They were there for the money.
In Iraq, the Bush Administration has contracted its own Hessians in the form of international security companies that employ mercenaries. Many of the mercenaries are former US soldiers who get paid 10 times the salary our regular troops receive. Furthermore, these mercenaries happily convey the disparity to our soldiers in order to help these security forms recruit more talent. That damages morale far more than people at home demanding an exit strategy.
Iraq is and, aside from the 15 years Saddam held sway, has always been a chaotic mess. The problem is the nomadic nature of the culture. Even though the tiny tribes have consolidated their power into larger units, Iraq is a fractured culture. In addition to the religious conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims you also have disputes between Arabs, Persians, Kurds and Turks. Even if the religious issue is resolved, the ethnic clashes will continue. And yet, we’re still supposed to believe that victory is attainable.
Of course victory has not even been defined. Bush seems intent on fighting until we win but he has never addressed how we will know when we’ve won. Even the most passionate soldier has to be discouraged by the intangibility of Bush’s goal. As difficult as any mission would be in an area as complex as Iraq, victory anywhere is impossible if it is not specifically defined. Technically speaking, we aren’t even fighting a war right now. We aren’t even certain who are enemy is.
The public is aware of this. An Iraqi government has been installed but it clearly has no power. Extremists from all sides are able to undermine any authority the government has which makes it seem likely that this government wasn’t really approved by the people so much as it was favored by US officials. Bush has indicated that the US will stand down when the Iraqi government stands up but we have no idea when that will happen or if it is possible. The government is secular, as any government most be if it will successfully serve people of different creeds, but most of the country wants a theocracy. The problem is that those who want a theocracy can’t agree. War isn’t the answer. The fundamentalists feed on war and chaos. War frightens people and drives them to extremism.
It’s unfortunate that Bush and his cronies didn’t heed the advice of his own father. Removing a tyrant like Saddam without understanding the complicated issues haunting Iraq was a terrible idea. Many of the war hawks are resigned to agree. However, they insist that we can’t turn back the clock and our only option it to stay the course and see this thing through.
That’s ridiculous. You don’t keep paddling full force down a river if you think there might be a waterfall ahead. You don’t keep driving down the highway when you realize you’re heading into oncoming traffic. Successful military leaders throughout history have been known to withdraw from hopeless battles rather than incur too many losses, but giving up a battle doesn’t concede the war. Great leaders aren’t afraid to retreat, revise and redeploy. Unfortunately our military doesn’t promote great leaders. Advancement in our military is based on one’s ability to say yes.
Recruitment figures are down. The military has been forced to extended tours and exploit all sorts of little fine print tricks to force people into servitude. Stop loss measures have been enacted that prevent weary troops from being discharged and the inactive ready reserve has been called into action, surprising many people who had long since been discharged. National Guard forces have been thrown into heavy combat situations with inadequate training, outmoded equipment and a half-baked plan of action.
That’s where the lack of support is. Lies, half truths and sneaky contracts undermine the resolve of our soldiers. The people calling for an end to this war want to bring them home safe and sound. Unfortunately the soldiers are being told that we think they’re failures. That’s not true. The soldiers didn’t let anybody down. They failure begins and ends with the Bush Administration. Everybody else is a victim of a combination of incompetence and treachery.
If the soldiers feel that the public has lost faith in them it is only because these same people are telling them as much…Lying to them. Unlike Vietnam, where public resentment was projected on the men and women who served, those who oppose this war have been extraordinarily cautious in their rhetoric. Nobody wants our troops to feel disrespected.
Some of the Democrats in Congress clamored to cut funding for the war but the Bush Administration quickly characterized that as an attack on the troops. The idea of cutting funding was intended to give Bush no other option but to bring our forces home. Even though that intent was clearly explained, war hawks immediately began waving yellow ribbons. Talk about disrespectful.
Those opposed to the war haven’t lied to the American people. They didn’t stage the Jessica Lynch rescue nor did they make a mockery of Pat Tillman’s death. It’s the war hawks who have attacked individuals, like Cindy Sheehan, and made matters personal.
There are soldiers, active and retired, who are convinced that victory is the only option. They insist that withdrawing now means that the terrorists won but withdrawing forces now is not really surrendering. Sometimes withdrawing from a bad course of action to regroup and develop a more efficient plan is how to win a war. There’s a difference between battles and wars.
The notion that we can’t abandon what can only be described as a bad decision is the same imperialistic philosophy that made it possible for Colonial forces to upset the superior British military. British commanders refused to concede failure in their plan and eventually lost the war. They were trained to fight big, so the Colonists made themselves small.
Like Britain, the US has spread itself too thin to manage an unconventional war on an unfamiliar battlefield. During the Revolutionary War, Britain bolstered its forces with mercenaries from Germany known as Hessians. These soldiers were effective in traditional warfare, but as the battle wore on the Hessians lacked the passion to finish the job. They were there for the money.
In Iraq, the Bush Administration has contracted its own Hessians in the form of international security companies that employ mercenaries. Many of the mercenaries are former US soldiers who get paid 10 times the salary our regular troops receive. Furthermore, these mercenaries happily convey the disparity to our soldiers in order to help these security forms recruit more talent. That damages morale far more than people at home demanding an exit strategy.
Iraq is and, aside from the 15 years Saddam held sway, has always been a chaotic mess. The problem is the nomadic nature of the culture. Even though the tiny tribes have consolidated their power into larger units, Iraq is a fractured culture. In addition to the religious conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims you also have disputes between Arabs, Persians, Kurds and Turks. Even if the religious issue is resolved, the ethnic clashes will continue. And yet, we’re still supposed to believe that victory is attainable.
Of course victory has not even been defined. Bush seems intent on fighting until we win but he has never addressed how we will know when we’ve won. Even the most passionate soldier has to be discouraged by the intangibility of Bush’s goal. As difficult as any mission would be in an area as complex as Iraq, victory anywhere is impossible if it is not specifically defined. Technically speaking, we aren’t even fighting a war right now. We aren’t even certain who are enemy is.
The public is aware of this. An Iraqi government has been installed but it clearly has no power. Extremists from all sides are able to undermine any authority the government has which makes it seem likely that this government wasn’t really approved by the people so much as it was favored by US officials. Bush has indicated that the US will stand down when the Iraqi government stands up but we have no idea when that will happen or if it is possible. The government is secular, as any government most be if it will successfully serve people of different creeds, but most of the country wants a theocracy. The problem is that those who want a theocracy can’t agree. War isn’t the answer. The fundamentalists feed on war and chaos. War frightens people and drives them to extremism.
It’s unfortunate that Bush and his cronies didn’t heed the advice of his own father. Removing a tyrant like Saddam without understanding the complicated issues haunting Iraq was a terrible idea. Many of the war hawks are resigned to agree. However, they insist that we can’t turn back the clock and our only option it to stay the course and see this thing through.
That’s ridiculous. You don’t keep paddling full force down a river if you think there might be a waterfall ahead. You don’t keep driving down the highway when you realize you’re heading into oncoming traffic. Successful military leaders throughout history have been known to withdraw from hopeless battles rather than incur too many losses, but giving up a battle doesn’t concede the war. Great leaders aren’t afraid to retreat, revise and redeploy. Unfortunately our military doesn’t promote great leaders. Advancement in our military is based on one’s ability to say yes.
Recruitment figures are down. The military has been forced to extended tours and exploit all sorts of little fine print tricks to force people into servitude. Stop loss measures have been enacted that prevent weary troops from being discharged and the inactive ready reserve has been called into action, surprising many people who had long since been discharged. National Guard forces have been thrown into heavy combat situations with inadequate training, outmoded equipment and a half-baked plan of action.
That’s where the lack of support is. Lies, half truths and sneaky contracts undermine the resolve of our soldiers. The people calling for an end to this war want to bring them home safe and sound. Unfortunately the soldiers are being told that we think they’re failures. That’s not true. The soldiers didn’t let anybody down. They failure begins and ends with the Bush Administration. Everybody else is a victim of a combination of incompetence and treachery.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Learn From Tragedy
The shootings that took place on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg Virginia can only be described as awful. More than 50 people fell victim to what we can only describe as a deranged shooter and 33 people, including that shooter, ended up dead.
Leave it to the news reporters, particularly the talking heads on the networks, to guide the story into the realm of blame. With the shooter dead by his own volition, we don't have an object to project our outrage upon so the press has opted to question the actions of the university, the police and gun control laws.
Over the coming weeks we'll see the police second guessed for failing to lock down the sprawling campus. University administrators will be condemned for not beefing up security measures. Government officials will be questioned on what they are doing to protect our universities from such a terror and of course we'll have to bang on the gun control drum again. In fact much of this has already happened. Deep down inside we know that the only person to blame for this tragedy is the shooter. Life isn't safe. Bad things happen to innocent people every day. We're all going to die and not all of us by natural causes.
If we're going to start doling out blame we need to be fair. Instead of asking the campus police why they didn't lock down the campus after what appeared to be an isolated shooting we should be asking why so many people allowed themselves to become victims. Ultimately our survival depends on our abilities as individuals and as individuals we must be ready to take action to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm.
Granted this was a man who was well-armed, not a terrorist with a box cutter but still at some point you have to realize that this guy is shooting everybody in sight. We all have that fight or flight chip imbedded in our programming as does every other animal on the face of the earth. When confronted by a superior foe every living thing has the innate desire to run but if the option of fleeing has been removed the tiniest animal will bare its teeth and fight to survive.
Humans have that instinct but we program ourselves to resist it. For years the so-called experts have told us to cooperate with bad guys and wait for help to arrive. The problem is that those bad guys don't tend to follow the same rules. Women have been encouraged to resist attackers who intend to rape them because FBI studies reveal that every second of resistance increases the chances of survival by 30%. Law enforcement officials have revised their advice to potential victims. Instead of cooperating and remaining calm, people are being instructed to scream, fight or run like hell because too many cooperating victims have been rewarded with a bullet in the face. Your chances are better if you fight back.
What happened at Virginia Tech was not a rape or a mugging. This was a madman on a suicide mission, but at some point you have to realize that your best chance of surviving is to fight back. Nearly 60 people took a bullet and many more rounds were fired. At some point this shooter had to stop and reload. Why didn't somebody charge him as he changed out clips?
Maybe it's not fair to second guess the victims. Most of us would be paralyzed with fear if we faced a similar situation, but that's exactly the problem. Instead of preparing ourselves for defense we want to rely on security officers and policemen to save us from the bad men. We program ourselves to be victims hoping that we can endure being victimized long enough for a hero to rescue us.
It's time for that mentality to go. Whenever something like this happens we are soon regaled with stories of how woefully unprepared our security forces, be they police officers or unarmed security guards, are to handle such a situation. The fact of the matter is that most police are better equipped to write traffic tickets. Even though they receive training there just aren't enough opportunities to put that training to work on a daily basis. It's not that the police are incompetent; we simply set our expectations too high. Most cops aren't superheroes.
It's not practical to have a sniper hiding in every closet waiting for a rogue gunman to show up. We can't have an armed Air Marshall on every flight because some fundamentalist might try to set his shoe on fire. There's no feasible way to eliminate every dangerous situation so we have to accept risk and prepare ourselves to take ownership of our own survival.
Leave it to the news reporters, particularly the talking heads on the networks, to guide the story into the realm of blame. With the shooter dead by his own volition, we don't have an object to project our outrage upon so the press has opted to question the actions of the university, the police and gun control laws.
Over the coming weeks we'll see the police second guessed for failing to lock down the sprawling campus. University administrators will be condemned for not beefing up security measures. Government officials will be questioned on what they are doing to protect our universities from such a terror and of course we'll have to bang on the gun control drum again. In fact much of this has already happened. Deep down inside we know that the only person to blame for this tragedy is the shooter. Life isn't safe. Bad things happen to innocent people every day. We're all going to die and not all of us by natural causes.
If we're going to start doling out blame we need to be fair. Instead of asking the campus police why they didn't lock down the campus after what appeared to be an isolated shooting we should be asking why so many people allowed themselves to become victims. Ultimately our survival depends on our abilities as individuals and as individuals we must be ready to take action to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm.
Granted this was a man who was well-armed, not a terrorist with a box cutter but still at some point you have to realize that this guy is shooting everybody in sight. We all have that fight or flight chip imbedded in our programming as does every other animal on the face of the earth. When confronted by a superior foe every living thing has the innate desire to run but if the option of fleeing has been removed the tiniest animal will bare its teeth and fight to survive.
Humans have that instinct but we program ourselves to resist it. For years the so-called experts have told us to cooperate with bad guys and wait for help to arrive. The problem is that those bad guys don't tend to follow the same rules. Women have been encouraged to resist attackers who intend to rape them because FBI studies reveal that every second of resistance increases the chances of survival by 30%. Law enforcement officials have revised their advice to potential victims. Instead of cooperating and remaining calm, people are being instructed to scream, fight or run like hell because too many cooperating victims have been rewarded with a bullet in the face. Your chances are better if you fight back.
What happened at Virginia Tech was not a rape or a mugging. This was a madman on a suicide mission, but at some point you have to realize that your best chance of surviving is to fight back. Nearly 60 people took a bullet and many more rounds were fired. At some point this shooter had to stop and reload. Why didn't somebody charge him as he changed out clips?
Maybe it's not fair to second guess the victims. Most of us would be paralyzed with fear if we faced a similar situation, but that's exactly the problem. Instead of preparing ourselves for defense we want to rely on security officers and policemen to save us from the bad men. We program ourselves to be victims hoping that we can endure being victimized long enough for a hero to rescue us.
It's time for that mentality to go. Whenever something like this happens we are soon regaled with stories of how woefully unprepared our security forces, be they police officers or unarmed security guards, are to handle such a situation. The fact of the matter is that most police are better equipped to write traffic tickets. Even though they receive training there just aren't enough opportunities to put that training to work on a daily basis. It's not that the police are incompetent; we simply set our expectations too high. Most cops aren't superheroes.
It's not practical to have a sniper hiding in every closet waiting for a rogue gunman to show up. We can't have an armed Air Marshall on every flight because some fundamentalist might try to set his shoe on fire. There's no feasible way to eliminate every dangerous situation so we have to accept risk and prepare ourselves to take ownership of our own survival.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Imus reveals deeper problem
The outrage over Dom Imus is misplaced. It's no surprise the aging "shock jock" said something off color. Imus' entire career is based on his own stupidity. He's a boorish loser who couldn't hold down a job, then stumbled into radio, almost by default, and found an audience who enjoyed listening to him make an ass of himself. He got on the air and proceeded to see if he could get fired. Everything escalated from there.
Don Imus probably isn't very sincere in his apology. There is a hint of indignation in his explanation when he mentions that there are some groups who can't be made fun of. The implication is that the people who are angry simply can't take a joke. Sadly what isn't resonating with Imus is the fact that he is not funny. He really hasn't been all that funny since he decided to hijack Howard Stern's career after Stern essentially bitch slapped him in the ratings.
It's not even outrageous that Imus hasn't been fired yet. Granted, plenty of people have been shown the door for much less offensive comments, but Imus has been encouraged to push those buttons all along. Nobody called him to the carpet when he was reported as using the dreaded "N" word behind the scenes during 60 Minutes interview. Imus and his cohorts have a long history of making inexcusable comments on the air.
The outrage is that he has an audience. The problem is not that Don Imus is a racist piece of redneck garbage or that he has a cadre of cackling Klansmen inserting insightful commentary into the morning drive. Don Imus has a constitutional right to be a jerk. We all do. It's just sad when people get paid for it.
The reason he has a national radio program is because there are people who happily listen to his show. They love the racist remarks. Howard Stern has an audience that enjoys crude humor and juvenile antics; Don Imus has an audience that appreciates anger and hate.
Imus might think that he turns everything he says into a joke by laughing afterwards, but when you laugh after saying something mean you're just being cruel. Imus appeals to a cruel audience. There's a big difference between being crude and being cruel. Don Imus illustrates what happens when a burned out old drunk tries to distinguish between the two. Howard Stern's mastery of this fine line is why he can buy and sell a clod like Imus.
That's what people should be upset over. Ignorance is a part of daily life. Stupid people are everywhere. We shouldn't be shocked when a couple of bigots get together to share their racial views. What should shock us is that enough people agree with those views to keep a hack like Imus on the air. People like Don Imus should be cleaning out port-a-potties all the while complaining that Zionist conspiracies are the reason they smell like feces. He should be sitting at the corner of a broken down bar with blue hands drinking Natty Lite muttering to himself, not hosting a syndicating radio program.
Don Imus is a jerk. That's not a crime. The fact that a moron like Imus is in the position to cause such a fuss isn't the crime…The fact that Imus is a profitable business venture is. Shame on the people who listen to him.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Freedom of Speech comes at a price
Freedom of speech is an inalienable right. In a country engineered to foster and protect personal civil liberty nobody should feel legally obligated to remain silent. The United States of America became a country for a number of reasons and not all of them were good. Clearly some of our revered Founding Fathers had ulterior motives for rebelling against England. Our political system was built upon a network of cronyism and a consolidation of power within the confines of an aristocratic society. To this day that consolidation of power is abundantly evident, particularly when you look at the last two presidential elections. Bush and Kerry not only attended the same expensive university (Yale) they belonged to a secret fraternity that has a long history of enlisting very rich and powerful people. The eerie possibility of a conspiracy aside, this country was still founded on some pretty important concepts that provide common people with a considerable amount of influence. The first amendment protects one of those concepts. The most important concept.
The Constitution essentially spells out the rules. It doesn’t establish the laws of the land but rather outlines the authority of the government. The Constitution doesn’t specifically address crimes but it does limit what can be interpreted as a crime. Murder is a crime because it involves one person infringing upon another’s right to life where as the issue of flag burning is widely debated because it can be argued that burning the flag is a form of expression which is an extension of the first amendment. Abortion is also a confounding subject because we have not been able to establish a legal standard to determine when a human life qualifies for constitutional rights. Everybody has an opinion but nobody has an answer.
Freedom of speech or, to be more accurate, expression is the cornerstone of liberty. If people are permitted to question and criticize their government, their government will have to address those grievances or face the consequences in the next election. This power was clearly demonstrated quite recently when the Republicans finally exhausted the patience of the voters. Without the first amendment the Bush administration could have quashed every story about Iraq, prevented public inquiries into corruption and avoided accountability for questionable actions. The great thing about the first amendment is that it applies to and empowers everybody.
The bad thing about the first amendment is that it applies to everybody regardless of sensibility. So you have gutter dwellers like Andrew Dice Clay making a career out of being a vulgar, less intelligent version of Don Rickles. Hickory, Dickory Dock… As offensive as his alleged comedy routine might be, he has a right to perform it. Fortunately the first amendment also provides puppets like Triumph the Insult Comic Dog the right to offer a much wittier version of this form of expression. It’s sad when you’re beaten at your own game by a rubber hand puppet, but Dice also has a constitutionally protected right to ignore the obvious and beat the dead horse that is his lackluster career. There is no law against being a bloated, washed up hack.
The first amendment allows people to peacefully assemble. That means that thousands of people can come together for a free concert to raise awareness for world hunger. Unfortunately it also means that the KKK can hold a rally on public property anywhere in the country. As morally corrupt as the KKK is to reasonable people, denying them the right to express themselves would be based on subjective reasoning and open the door to denying anybody that same right. There are plenty of examples where the first amendment has been compromised for good and bad intentions.
Tony Dungy recently exercised his first amendment rights when he spoke at a banquet hosted by the Indiana Family Group. IFG is an independent arm of Focus on the Family and Dungy touched a nerve when he stated that he whole-heartedly endorses the group’s position on gay marriage. Being a right wing faction of fundamentalist zealots, they are against it. Dungy later insisted he is not gay bashing, but that he believes in biblical scriptures and strongly supports the idea that a family is best served by a traditional Christian union between a man and a woman. It sparked a lot of criticism.
People countered the criticism Dungy received by citing the first amendment. Dungy has a right to express himself. So does Tim Hardaway who said that he hates gays. Dungy didn’t come out and bash gays the way Hardaway did but both men were simply exercising their right to express themselves. Dungy hit the first amendment trifecta by involving speech, press and religion. As was his right as an American.
However those who choose to criticize Dungy are also exercising their right to express themselves. Just because we are free to speak our minds doesn’t mean we are exempt for the consequences. How many coaches have lost their jobs for letting racially insensitive remarks slip? Dozens. And rightfully so. Sometimes an employee can express themselves in such a manner that the reputation of the company might suffer. This is especially true in high profile jobs. So when Howard Cosell said something about a monkey getting loose ABC had to fire him even though nobody believed Howard Cosell was a bigot.
That’s why the NBA was well within its rights to distance the league from Tim Hardaway. He’s no longer welcome in the NBA family and barred from attending events as a representative of the NBA. He might still have the right to purchase a ticket and watch the game like any other fan but he won’t be sitting in the owner’s box or appearing on television as a sanctioned member of the NBA.
Similarly the Colts would have been justified in firing Tony Dungy is they felt his comments might have a negative impact on the team. The NFL could have taken action as well. Neither organization is leaping to Dungy’s defense but both have distanced themselves from reprimanding Dungy on this matter. Dungy was speaking on behalf of Tony Dungy, not the Colts or the NFL. He made his bed.
Joe Lunchbox might not be held similarly accountable for his actions. People don’t always pay attention when the average person has something to say. So when Joe Lunchbox publishes a racially inflammatory blog he might not loose his job, but he still runs that risk. People are finding themselves in hot water over what they publish on the internet and those companies actions are being upheld in the courts. That’s why Klansmen wear sheets over their heads. They realize they are taking a socially unacceptable position and until they can convince the rest of society to embrace their views, or at least make a living spewing hate like David Duke, they remain anonymous.
Still, this right to free speech is interesting. In addition to affording people the right to express unpopular opinions while affording others the right to criticize or support those opinions, the first amendment also allows people to question the motives behind the comments. That’s more compelling. It’s not important to discuss whether or not the statement is right or wrong, opinions don’t have to be either. However it is important to consider the motivation behind those comments. Perhaps there’s more to the story and a discerning public has every right to explore it.
In Tim Hardaway’s case it’s quite likely that he is gay himself. There’s no proof of that but typically people who are so vocally homophobic are reacting to their own confused sexuality. Hardaway is probably terrified that he will be revealed as not only a homosexual, but a submissive one at that. He’s carefully tried to fashion himself as a man’s man but he knows the façade is thin. In order to overcome the fancy clothes, expensive jewelry and unaccounted for late nights with “friends”, Hardaway has to seem so overly disgusted with homosexuality nobody could believe it. Sadly, he’s too stupid to know that we’ve been on to that
Tony Dungy didn’t seem insecure about homosexuality but it’s interesting that his concern on this subject is rooted in the health and welfare of the family unit. That’s very interesting. Given the tragic loss his family recently experienced, Dungy shouldn’t present himself as an authority on what makes for a healthy family. His son, James Dungy took his own life at the age of 18. Now all public accounts characterize Dungy as a great father and a dedicated husband but anytime a teenager takes his or her own life there’s always something amiss inside the family.
Is that a low blow? No. It’s a reasonable question. Dungy put himself in that position when he questioned the impact homosexual parents might have on children. Most kids stray from the ideal path as they try their wings. Underage drinking, drug experimentation, even minor brushes with the law are common but suicide is rare. Most suicide attempts aren’t even sincere, they’re just dramatic ploys for attention and sympathy. If Tony Dungy was such a great Christian father, why did James take his own life? More importantly, what makes Dungy feel he knows what’s in the best interests of a family? Could homosexual parents do much worse?
It could be argued that Dungy did everything right. Sometimes kids just screw up. That might be true if the child dies in a stupidity induced accident. If James Dungy had gotten drunk and fallen off a cliff it would be hard to point the finger at Dungy, but this wasn’t an accident. James Dungy took his own life and it wasn’t the first time he tried. The kid was clearly in pain and couldn’t face whatever was causing that pain. Maybe he was gay and unable to talk to his devout father. Maybe he was bipolar and Tony was too busy being a coach to get his son the help he needed. We’ll never know the real answer but there’s a good chance that Tony Dungy does.
And that doesn’t matter. Tony Dungy has to face those demons on his own but when he takes that public forum and goes on record with such a strong statement he forces people to question his credibility. Given the circumstances Tony Dungy is no authority on family. If Tony had spent a little more time with his family and a little less at all of those speaking engagements James Dungy might still be alive today. Whatever the case, people probably should consider the source before putting any stock in Dungy’s opinion.
The Constitution essentially spells out the rules. It doesn’t establish the laws of the land but rather outlines the authority of the government. The Constitution doesn’t specifically address crimes but it does limit what can be interpreted as a crime. Murder is a crime because it involves one person infringing upon another’s right to life where as the issue of flag burning is widely debated because it can be argued that burning the flag is a form of expression which is an extension of the first amendment. Abortion is also a confounding subject because we have not been able to establish a legal standard to determine when a human life qualifies for constitutional rights. Everybody has an opinion but nobody has an answer.
Freedom of speech or, to be more accurate, expression is the cornerstone of liberty. If people are permitted to question and criticize their government, their government will have to address those grievances or face the consequences in the next election. This power was clearly demonstrated quite recently when the Republicans finally exhausted the patience of the voters. Without the first amendment the Bush administration could have quashed every story about Iraq, prevented public inquiries into corruption and avoided accountability for questionable actions. The great thing about the first amendment is that it applies to and empowers everybody.
The bad thing about the first amendment is that it applies to everybody regardless of sensibility. So you have gutter dwellers like Andrew Dice Clay making a career out of being a vulgar, less intelligent version of Don Rickles. Hickory, Dickory Dock… As offensive as his alleged comedy routine might be, he has a right to perform it. Fortunately the first amendment also provides puppets like Triumph the Insult Comic Dog the right to offer a much wittier version of this form of expression. It’s sad when you’re beaten at your own game by a rubber hand puppet, but Dice also has a constitutionally protected right to ignore the obvious and beat the dead horse that is his lackluster career. There is no law against being a bloated, washed up hack.
The first amendment allows people to peacefully assemble. That means that thousands of people can come together for a free concert to raise awareness for world hunger. Unfortunately it also means that the KKK can hold a rally on public property anywhere in the country. As morally corrupt as the KKK is to reasonable people, denying them the right to express themselves would be based on subjective reasoning and open the door to denying anybody that same right. There are plenty of examples where the first amendment has been compromised for good and bad intentions.
Tony Dungy recently exercised his first amendment rights when he spoke at a banquet hosted by the Indiana Family Group. IFG is an independent arm of Focus on the Family and Dungy touched a nerve when he stated that he whole-heartedly endorses the group’s position on gay marriage. Being a right wing faction of fundamentalist zealots, they are against it. Dungy later insisted he is not gay bashing, but that he believes in biblical scriptures and strongly supports the idea that a family is best served by a traditional Christian union between a man and a woman. It sparked a lot of criticism.
People countered the criticism Dungy received by citing the first amendment. Dungy has a right to express himself. So does Tim Hardaway who said that he hates gays. Dungy didn’t come out and bash gays the way Hardaway did but both men were simply exercising their right to express themselves. Dungy hit the first amendment trifecta by involving speech, press and religion. As was his right as an American.
However those who choose to criticize Dungy are also exercising their right to express themselves. Just because we are free to speak our minds doesn’t mean we are exempt for the consequences. How many coaches have lost their jobs for letting racially insensitive remarks slip? Dozens. And rightfully so. Sometimes an employee can express themselves in such a manner that the reputation of the company might suffer. This is especially true in high profile jobs. So when Howard Cosell said something about a monkey getting loose ABC had to fire him even though nobody believed Howard Cosell was a bigot.
That’s why the NBA was well within its rights to distance the league from Tim Hardaway. He’s no longer welcome in the NBA family and barred from attending events as a representative of the NBA. He might still have the right to purchase a ticket and watch the game like any other fan but he won’t be sitting in the owner’s box or appearing on television as a sanctioned member of the NBA.
Similarly the Colts would have been justified in firing Tony Dungy is they felt his comments might have a negative impact on the team. The NFL could have taken action as well. Neither organization is leaping to Dungy’s defense but both have distanced themselves from reprimanding Dungy on this matter. Dungy was speaking on behalf of Tony Dungy, not the Colts or the NFL. He made his bed.
Joe Lunchbox might not be held similarly accountable for his actions. People don’t always pay attention when the average person has something to say. So when Joe Lunchbox publishes a racially inflammatory blog he might not loose his job, but he still runs that risk. People are finding themselves in hot water over what they publish on the internet and those companies actions are being upheld in the courts. That’s why Klansmen wear sheets over their heads. They realize they are taking a socially unacceptable position and until they can convince the rest of society to embrace their views, or at least make a living spewing hate like David Duke, they remain anonymous.
Still, this right to free speech is interesting. In addition to affording people the right to express unpopular opinions while affording others the right to criticize or support those opinions, the first amendment also allows people to question the motives behind the comments. That’s more compelling. It’s not important to discuss whether or not the statement is right or wrong, opinions don’t have to be either. However it is important to consider the motivation behind those comments. Perhaps there’s more to the story and a discerning public has every right to explore it.
In Tim Hardaway’s case it’s quite likely that he is gay himself. There’s no proof of that but typically people who are so vocally homophobic are reacting to their own confused sexuality. Hardaway is probably terrified that he will be revealed as not only a homosexual, but a submissive one at that. He’s carefully tried to fashion himself as a man’s man but he knows the façade is thin. In order to overcome the fancy clothes, expensive jewelry and unaccounted for late nights with “friends”, Hardaway has to seem so overly disgusted with homosexuality nobody could believe it. Sadly, he’s too stupid to know that we’ve been on to that
Tony Dungy didn’t seem insecure about homosexuality but it’s interesting that his concern on this subject is rooted in the health and welfare of the family unit. That’s very interesting. Given the tragic loss his family recently experienced, Dungy shouldn’t present himself as an authority on what makes for a healthy family. His son, James Dungy took his own life at the age of 18. Now all public accounts characterize Dungy as a great father and a dedicated husband but anytime a teenager takes his or her own life there’s always something amiss inside the family.
Is that a low blow? No. It’s a reasonable question. Dungy put himself in that position when he questioned the impact homosexual parents might have on children. Most kids stray from the ideal path as they try their wings. Underage drinking, drug experimentation, even minor brushes with the law are common but suicide is rare. Most suicide attempts aren’t even sincere, they’re just dramatic ploys for attention and sympathy. If Tony Dungy was such a great Christian father, why did James take his own life? More importantly, what makes Dungy feel he knows what’s in the best interests of a family? Could homosexual parents do much worse?
It could be argued that Dungy did everything right. Sometimes kids just screw up. That might be true if the child dies in a stupidity induced accident. If James Dungy had gotten drunk and fallen off a cliff it would be hard to point the finger at Dungy, but this wasn’t an accident. James Dungy took his own life and it wasn’t the first time he tried. The kid was clearly in pain and couldn’t face whatever was causing that pain. Maybe he was gay and unable to talk to his devout father. Maybe he was bipolar and Tony was too busy being a coach to get his son the help he needed. We’ll never know the real answer but there’s a good chance that Tony Dungy does.
And that doesn’t matter. Tony Dungy has to face those demons on his own but when he takes that public forum and goes on record with such a strong statement he forces people to question his credibility. Given the circumstances Tony Dungy is no authority on family. If Tony had spent a little more time with his family and a little less at all of those speaking engagements James Dungy might still be alive today. Whatever the case, people probably should consider the source before putting any stock in Dungy’s opinion.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Where did America go?
The United States is showing all the signs of an empire in decay. George Bush is the corrupt byproduct of possible inbreeding who has seized more control over the government than was ever intended.
The United States lulled itself into a false sense of security by aggressively building a military around the concept of détente. In amassing enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet 10 times over the U.S. kept its chief rival, the equally powerful Soviet Union, at bay. Meanwhile all of our military tactics were designed to fight a big army in the northern hemisphere.
Similarly the CIA was geared to exploit contacts around the world in order to gain an advantage over the Soviet Union. Our operatives are no strangers to the Islamic world, but the Middle East was always handled as a staging area to wage important battles in the Cold War. After the Reagan era passed, Republicans remained beholden to big defense contractors and money was diverted to unnecessary projects while a much needed transition was neglected.
The Clinton administration endures a lot of finger pointing from Republicans who are struggling to explain our current difficulties in the Middle East. They erroneously claim that Clinton cut defense spending and left our military out of touch with developing trends but the reality is that the Republican controlled Congress undermined Clinton’s efforts to scale back Cold War surpluses and focus on building a more efficient and mobile defense capable of adjusting to variable conditions. Such an evolution would have left Republican cronies in the defense industry, like Dick Cheney, without a steady income.
There is no denying that the events of 9-11-2001 demanded action, but the indignant posturing and self-righteous stance taken by the Bush Administration squandered international good will that the United States had carefully established through years of diplomacy. When the UN expressed concern over our tactics Bush threatened them and later appointed an ambassador who had publicly expressed disgust with the United Nations. John Bolton served this nation as a destructive force in the UN, eroding relationships and undermining the authority of the Security Council. Instead of offering ideas to help the organization, Bolton repeatedly took shots at it. John Bolton was a global slap in the face.
Now, with our military stretched so thin the Department of Defense has resorted to recalling honorably discharged soldiers in a back door draft, Bush has set his sites on Iran. It doesn’t matter that we can’t seem to extract ourselves from two active fronts. Nobody in this administration seems overly concerned that the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks remains at large; China has made a few not-so-subtle moves that require consideration and the American people have clearly demonstrated their frustration with the leadership of this country. However, Bush doesn’t care. He has a sick infatuation with his power as it relates to the Middle East.
Is it religious? Does he buy into the Christian Fundamentalist theory that all Muslims are evil? If so, isn’t he guilty of the same myopic theology Osama bin Laden is associated with?
But Bush is no Christian. Like the evangelists who write sermons with dollar signs in their eyes, Bush uses religion to secure power. He’s a man of the coin, as was his father, grandfather, and great grandfather. His entire family is morally and ethically corrupt. Under his administration companies like Halliburton, Exxon and Shell have seen huge increases in profit and his relatives have reaped the rewards in the form of stock ownership. This so-called war on terror has been carefully orchestrated by Dick Cheney to provide Bush-friendly corporations with every opportunity to maximize profits. Oil prices have risen nearly 200% under Bush’s leadership. That’s no coincidence.
It’s also no coincidence that our enemies seem to be ghosts from the Reagan era. George H.W. Bush spent his single term in office cleaning up Reagan’s messes in South and Central America. George W. Bush seems to be pulling the scabs off of wounds the Reagan administration inflicted in the Middle East. Isn’t it interesting that Osama bin Laden received money, weapons and training from the CIA and US special forces units in the 1980’s? How about the fact that Saddam received help from the US in stabilizing his control over Iraq so he could focus his full attention on a bloody war with Iran?
It’s really pretty frightening. Ronald Reagan was a devious leader who was never held accountable for his actions. He was simply too charismatic. It was obvious his policies weren’t working. The American middle class endured a horrible economic situation throughout his administration while the upper class enjoyed monumental returns on investments. The gap between the rich and the poor expanded, the national debt exploded and the US left its fingerprints on economic and political strife all around the world. But Reagan was never called to the carpet. To this day he is lionized as some sort of American hero.
His cult of personality was strong enough to propel the seemingly feeble George H.W. Bush and his moronic lapdog J. Danforth Quayle into the White House but they were such weak figures that the first Bush administration, though nearly identical to Reagan’s, was blamed for 12 years worth of broken promises.
Under Clinton, the Republican party reformed itself as the great white hope. Angry pundits fueled racial and social animosity while the Republican congress spent millions of dollars, tax dollars, trying to destroy Bill Clinton and any hope the Democrats had in securing an extended period of control over US politics. Then George W. Bush emerged, ensconcing himself in all things Reagan and, like a modern day Nero, the ne’er-do-well offspring of over-privileged aristocrats assumed a position of power with no sense of responsibility. How can a man with such a concise history of utter irresponsibility be elected? Behold the power of Reagan.
Even Reagan’s ghost can’t hide the glaring problems. This administration went too far too fast. Bush seems to know his time is just about up. The right-wing venom ran dry in 2006 and Democrats seized an unthinkable majority in the Congressional election. Sadly, Bush and his advisors see it as some sort of fluke. Instead of seeing the upset as a sign that people want a change, Bush has dug in his heels and refused to discuss any type of exit from a hopeless situation in the Middle East. With Iraq continuing to spiral out of control, Afghanistan reverting back to the totalitarian rule of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden living in Pakistan, Bush has started a game of chicken with the most formidable country in the Middle East. He’s a small-minded man with too much time on his hands. A lot can happen in 18 months…with Bush in office none of it is good.
The United States lulled itself into a false sense of security by aggressively building a military around the concept of détente. In amassing enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet 10 times over the U.S. kept its chief rival, the equally powerful Soviet Union, at bay. Meanwhile all of our military tactics were designed to fight a big army in the northern hemisphere.
Similarly the CIA was geared to exploit contacts around the world in order to gain an advantage over the Soviet Union. Our operatives are no strangers to the Islamic world, but the Middle East was always handled as a staging area to wage important battles in the Cold War. After the Reagan era passed, Republicans remained beholden to big defense contractors and money was diverted to unnecessary projects while a much needed transition was neglected.
The Clinton administration endures a lot of finger pointing from Republicans who are struggling to explain our current difficulties in the Middle East. They erroneously claim that Clinton cut defense spending and left our military out of touch with developing trends but the reality is that the Republican controlled Congress undermined Clinton’s efforts to scale back Cold War surpluses and focus on building a more efficient and mobile defense capable of adjusting to variable conditions. Such an evolution would have left Republican cronies in the defense industry, like Dick Cheney, without a steady income.
There is no denying that the events of 9-11-2001 demanded action, but the indignant posturing and self-righteous stance taken by the Bush Administration squandered international good will that the United States had carefully established through years of diplomacy. When the UN expressed concern over our tactics Bush threatened them and later appointed an ambassador who had publicly expressed disgust with the United Nations. John Bolton served this nation as a destructive force in the UN, eroding relationships and undermining the authority of the Security Council. Instead of offering ideas to help the organization, Bolton repeatedly took shots at it. John Bolton was a global slap in the face.
Now, with our military stretched so thin the Department of Defense has resorted to recalling honorably discharged soldiers in a back door draft, Bush has set his sites on Iran. It doesn’t matter that we can’t seem to extract ourselves from two active fronts. Nobody in this administration seems overly concerned that the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks remains at large; China has made a few not-so-subtle moves that require consideration and the American people have clearly demonstrated their frustration with the leadership of this country. However, Bush doesn’t care. He has a sick infatuation with his power as it relates to the Middle East.
Is it religious? Does he buy into the Christian Fundamentalist theory that all Muslims are evil? If so, isn’t he guilty of the same myopic theology Osama bin Laden is associated with?
But Bush is no Christian. Like the evangelists who write sermons with dollar signs in their eyes, Bush uses religion to secure power. He’s a man of the coin, as was his father, grandfather, and great grandfather. His entire family is morally and ethically corrupt. Under his administration companies like Halliburton, Exxon and Shell have seen huge increases in profit and his relatives have reaped the rewards in the form of stock ownership. This so-called war on terror has been carefully orchestrated by Dick Cheney to provide Bush-friendly corporations with every opportunity to maximize profits. Oil prices have risen nearly 200% under Bush’s leadership. That’s no coincidence.
It’s also no coincidence that our enemies seem to be ghosts from the Reagan era. George H.W. Bush spent his single term in office cleaning up Reagan’s messes in South and Central America. George W. Bush seems to be pulling the scabs off of wounds the Reagan administration inflicted in the Middle East. Isn’t it interesting that Osama bin Laden received money, weapons and training from the CIA and US special forces units in the 1980’s? How about the fact that Saddam received help from the US in stabilizing his control over Iraq so he could focus his full attention on a bloody war with Iran?
It’s really pretty frightening. Ronald Reagan was a devious leader who was never held accountable for his actions. He was simply too charismatic. It was obvious his policies weren’t working. The American middle class endured a horrible economic situation throughout his administration while the upper class enjoyed monumental returns on investments. The gap between the rich and the poor expanded, the national debt exploded and the US left its fingerprints on economic and political strife all around the world. But Reagan was never called to the carpet. To this day he is lionized as some sort of American hero.
His cult of personality was strong enough to propel the seemingly feeble George H.W. Bush and his moronic lapdog J. Danforth Quayle into the White House but they were such weak figures that the first Bush administration, though nearly identical to Reagan’s, was blamed for 12 years worth of broken promises.
Under Clinton, the Republican party reformed itself as the great white hope. Angry pundits fueled racial and social animosity while the Republican congress spent millions of dollars, tax dollars, trying to destroy Bill Clinton and any hope the Democrats had in securing an extended period of control over US politics. Then George W. Bush emerged, ensconcing himself in all things Reagan and, like a modern day Nero, the ne’er-do-well offspring of over-privileged aristocrats assumed a position of power with no sense of responsibility. How can a man with such a concise history of utter irresponsibility be elected? Behold the power of Reagan.
Even Reagan’s ghost can’t hide the glaring problems. This administration went too far too fast. Bush seems to know his time is just about up. The right-wing venom ran dry in 2006 and Democrats seized an unthinkable majority in the Congressional election. Sadly, Bush and his advisors see it as some sort of fluke. Instead of seeing the upset as a sign that people want a change, Bush has dug in his heels and refused to discuss any type of exit from a hopeless situation in the Middle East. With Iraq continuing to spiral out of control, Afghanistan reverting back to the totalitarian rule of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden living in Pakistan, Bush has started a game of chicken with the most formidable country in the Middle East. He’s a small-minded man with too much time on his hands. A lot can happen in 18 months…with Bush in office none of it is good.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Last Laugh
The Dixie Chicks had the last laugh. After being vilified by the NASCAR set for speaking candidly about George W. Bush, the Texas trio circled their wagons and channeled their feelings into a monumentally successful hit single. The dramatic video spent the maximum number of weeks as the number one video in VH-1’s weekly countdown and just last week the girls raked in the most coveted awards at the Grammies.
The Dixie Chicks were country music mainstays who enjoyed marginal mainstream success before they denounced sharing Texas with George W. Bush. The pressure of winning back a fan base blinded by rage, tobacco juice and discount sales at Walmart nearly tore them apart but the Natalie and the girls stood strong, spoke their minds and penned a powerhouse. Millions of record sales later they were honored on their industry’s biggest night.
There are some country music fans that dismiss the success of Not Ready to Make Nice as a desperate sell out to the liberal left, but political sentiment rarely tops the pop charts. You can make some waves but eventually people get tired of being preached to. That’s why Paul McCartney topped the charts while John Lennon pontificated. Lennon was more talented and intelligent, but Paul wasn’t afraid to write marketable crap. The Dixie Chicks weren’t guaranteed any airplay. A lot of stations resisted .The fact of the matter is the song was great and it demanded an audience. The lyrics were deep, the music was well-crafted and the video was excellent.
If you want to talk about sell outs look no further than Toby “Chicken Heart” Keith who exploited indulgent nationalistic anger to sell hayseed records and fill redneck venues with inbred hicks by taking cheap shots at the Dixie Chicks. As if milking patriotism for every penny it was worth wasn’t crass enough, eh? How much money is tough-talking Toby making off those stereotypical Ford commercials? And why is a guy so verbally committed to the working man still schilling for a company currently cutting loose tens of thousands of blue collar workers? Talk about selling out.
Unlike Keith, who is an able bodied man capable of serving his country in deed rather than word, the Dixie Chicks have courage. They knew they were taking a big chance by turning their backs on the ignorant fans that make up the vast majority of the people who buy country records. Maybe there was a time Natalie wished she would have kept her opinion to herself but after standing on top of the world of music, if only for one night, she has to be pleased with the consequences of her actions. She spoke her mind, stood behind her words and eventually, after a lot of abuse, got what she deserved. If Toby stood behind his words he’d be in Iraq right now fighting for his country.
There are three lessons to be learned from all of this. The first is that country music fans are small-minded idiots. The second is that Toby Keith is a bloated, cowardly hillbilly hack and the third is that sometimes living well really is the best revenge. The Dixie Chicks could have pointed that out as they accepted their awards, but they let the moment speak for itself.
The Dixie Chicks were country music mainstays who enjoyed marginal mainstream success before they denounced sharing Texas with George W. Bush. The pressure of winning back a fan base blinded by rage, tobacco juice and discount sales at Walmart nearly tore them apart but the Natalie and the girls stood strong, spoke their minds and penned a powerhouse. Millions of record sales later they were honored on their industry’s biggest night.
There are some country music fans that dismiss the success of Not Ready to Make Nice as a desperate sell out to the liberal left, but political sentiment rarely tops the pop charts. You can make some waves but eventually people get tired of being preached to. That’s why Paul McCartney topped the charts while John Lennon pontificated. Lennon was more talented and intelligent, but Paul wasn’t afraid to write marketable crap. The Dixie Chicks weren’t guaranteed any airplay. A lot of stations resisted .The fact of the matter is the song was great and it demanded an audience. The lyrics were deep, the music was well-crafted and the video was excellent.
If you want to talk about sell outs look no further than Toby “Chicken Heart” Keith who exploited indulgent nationalistic anger to sell hayseed records and fill redneck venues with inbred hicks by taking cheap shots at the Dixie Chicks. As if milking patriotism for every penny it was worth wasn’t crass enough, eh? How much money is tough-talking Toby making off those stereotypical Ford commercials? And why is a guy so verbally committed to the working man still schilling for a company currently cutting loose tens of thousands of blue collar workers? Talk about selling out.
Unlike Keith, who is an able bodied man capable of serving his country in deed rather than word, the Dixie Chicks have courage. They knew they were taking a big chance by turning their backs on the ignorant fans that make up the vast majority of the people who buy country records. Maybe there was a time Natalie wished she would have kept her opinion to herself but after standing on top of the world of music, if only for one night, she has to be pleased with the consequences of her actions. She spoke her mind, stood behind her words and eventually, after a lot of abuse, got what she deserved. If Toby stood behind his words he’d be in Iraq right now fighting for his country.
There are three lessons to be learned from all of this. The first is that country music fans are small-minded idiots. The second is that Toby Keith is a bloated, cowardly hillbilly hack and the third is that sometimes living well really is the best revenge. The Dixie Chicks could have pointed that out as they accepted their awards, but they let the moment speak for itself.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Shrubbish...
After digging the Republican Party into a hole Jesus Christ couldn't climb out of, George W. Bush has taken a closer look at the mess in Iraq. He has little choice because only two years after the country gave him a mandate on the strength of a narrow margin of victory in a dubious Presidential election, the voters delivered Bush a furious rebuke by giving Democrats control of both the House and the Senate. Granted the Democrats hold a slim majority but when you consider how beleaguered the "cut-and-run welfare mongers" were through 2005 it was a huge reversal.
Now Bush has to mend fences. He is facing a legislature that will lose patience with him quickly and his own party is afraid to side with him. The expectation is that Bush will spend the next two years fixing the damage he has done here and abroad.
The key project is the war in Iraq. While those who still support the military efforts in the Middle East claim that the causalities have been minimal, this endeavor has dragged on longer than this country's involvement in World WarII. The expense has been monumental and the effort has our military stretched so thin there is reason to believe that our defenses have been weakened to a point that leaves us easy pickings for any country that might see our demise as advantageous to their long term growth. Who would do such a thing? Nobody's sure but China has a lot of people very nervous. Especially Russia who could be driven into thrid world status by a prosperus China.
The idea of Russia attacking the US to gain some sort of economic advantage in an evolving global economy might be a long shot but before World War I this country was a sprawling nation of farmers held at bay by greedy industrialists. By 1950 we had finished two global wars and started what might one day be considered the most significant conflict of all: the Cold War. If you could go back in time and describe the current balance of power to somebody in England back in 1909 they would have laughed at the ridiculous notion that the United States was the most powerful country in the world and that China and India were the most rapidly developing nations. Things change.
What's frightening is that these issues seem to elude Bush. Domestically Bush is interested in setting back our conservation and environmental policies to what we had in place back when the last great Republican president was reelected. Sadly Lincoln was assassinated before he could address anything beyond slavery and a war perpetrated by treacherous southern plantation owners who didn't like the idea of paying for labor but had he been given the time it's reasonable to believe that he might have established a national park or two.
But Bush has invested most of his energy, at least whatever is left after he clears brush on his Crawford estate, on foreign policy. Not surprisingly, for the man who thinks Chumbawumba is a country in Africa, this is his weakest skill. Unless you're the sort of world leader who might be inclined to pound on a desk with a shoe, foreign policy demands a considerable degree of diplomacy. For some reason, no matter how small a country might be, they insist on being treated with respect. Bush treats them like valets at Augusta National. That is when he's not grabbing them from behind like some 1950's CEO making a pass at his secretary.
It doesn't matter why Bush opted to invade Iraq at this point. Those dishes have already hit the floor. The problem is that this clod is still running around blind folded in the china shop. It didn't take a genius to see that ousting Saddam from power in Iraq would create unending chaos in that corner of the world. In fact, the man who first recognized those consequences was our President's father. Granted, kids do tend to defy their parents for spite but its a phase they grow out of by the time they run for elected office, usually.
Now, faced with an angry general public that has grown weary of the open-ended Iraq strategy, Bush has to bring a swift end to the futility. People have heard all the lies and watched the deception unfold with deliberate arrogance. Bush and his administration acted as though they had absolute power and made false promises about the progress being made with a wink and a nudge to the majority of the population they thought they couldn't lose. But they misjudged the stupidity of the public and squandered the benefit of the doubt their shameless manipulation of religion had gained them.
The war in Iraq has decimated global relations for the U.S. During this misguided war on sensibility, Bush has successfully alienated the entire world to the U.S. While few world leaders could condemn Bush for rapidly deploying forces after 9-11, the heavy-handed and ineffective tactics soon evoked concern. That's when Bush, like a crazed gunman, started wagging his finger and making threats. You were either with us or against us. No questions.
Now Iraq is a total mess and it is difficult to see what benefit ousting, capturing and executing Saddam Hussein has delivered. Clearly Saddam's totalitarian regime was borne at least partly out of necessity. His secular government and the mild-mannered Sunni people it favored held sway over a country of fundamentalists from numerous backgrounds including more aggressive Sunni clerics, Shiite extremists, Kurds and a number of general antagonists out to create chaos for the sake of chaos. As brutal as his tactics were, perhaps it was necessary to maintain control.
Like him or not, Saddam had control over a country that seems impossible to control. Britain tried for quite some time to no avail. In fact a significant part of the reason there is so much instability in the Middle East is thanks in large part to imperial meddling. The countries we're are now fighting with were designated by British rule and the borders were inexplicably drawn with total disregard to religious creeds. Mortal enemies were forced to share small countries with limited resources. Such was the case with Iraq. Saddam simply rose to power and succeeded in maintaining it. He couldn't have done it with out the CIA and the Reagan administration but that's another story.
For some reason, in spite of history and his father pleading otherwise, George W. Bush thinks that victory is attainable. He believes he can install a pro-American government in Iraq and that an approved democracy will prevail. Mind you, a democracy that supports Hammas or Al Qaida is unacceptable. Apparently the voice of the people will only be heard if they say what Bush wants to hear.
Instead of taking a cue from the recent election, Bush has opted to increase our presence in Iraq and essentially, to borrow a phrase from the Vietnam era, escalate our effort in order to help the precarious Iraqi government gain control over the uncontrollable. Unless this Iraqi government is willing to employ the brutal tactics Saddam was executed for, the opposing forces of fundamentalism will win. That's the problem in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East: Fundamentalists are not reasonable. For the most part they are ignorant people blinded by rage. Because they are uneducated they don't understand their anger or how to resolve it so they are easily manipulated through religion. The religious leaders are intelligentr and informed but also power-hungry and selfish. It's a cult mentality.
If Bush really wants to bring an end to terrorism and stabilize the Middle East he would be well advised to deploy diplomacy instead of the military. The lesson 9-11 should have taught us is that these are people who are not afraid to die. What good does it do to threaten them with death and destruction when they have proven a willingness to blow themselves up to further their cause. It's like throwing Br'er Rabbit in the brier patch.
Now Bush has to mend fences. He is facing a legislature that will lose patience with him quickly and his own party is afraid to side with him. The expectation is that Bush will spend the next two years fixing the damage he has done here and abroad.
The key project is the war in Iraq. While those who still support the military efforts in the Middle East claim that the causalities have been minimal, this endeavor has dragged on longer than this country's involvement in World WarII. The expense has been monumental and the effort has our military stretched so thin there is reason to believe that our defenses have been weakened to a point that leaves us easy pickings for any country that might see our demise as advantageous to their long term growth. Who would do such a thing? Nobody's sure but China has a lot of people very nervous. Especially Russia who could be driven into thrid world status by a prosperus China.
The idea of Russia attacking the US to gain some sort of economic advantage in an evolving global economy might be a long shot but before World War I this country was a sprawling nation of farmers held at bay by greedy industrialists. By 1950 we had finished two global wars and started what might one day be considered the most significant conflict of all: the Cold War. If you could go back in time and describe the current balance of power to somebody in England back in 1909 they would have laughed at the ridiculous notion that the United States was the most powerful country in the world and that China and India were the most rapidly developing nations. Things change.
What's frightening is that these issues seem to elude Bush. Domestically Bush is interested in setting back our conservation and environmental policies to what we had in place back when the last great Republican president was reelected. Sadly Lincoln was assassinated before he could address anything beyond slavery and a war perpetrated by treacherous southern plantation owners who didn't like the idea of paying for labor but had he been given the time it's reasonable to believe that he might have established a national park or two.
But Bush has invested most of his energy, at least whatever is left after he clears brush on his Crawford estate, on foreign policy. Not surprisingly, for the man who thinks Chumbawumba is a country in Africa, this is his weakest skill. Unless you're the sort of world leader who might be inclined to pound on a desk with a shoe, foreign policy demands a considerable degree of diplomacy. For some reason, no matter how small a country might be, they insist on being treated with respect. Bush treats them like valets at Augusta National. That is when he's not grabbing them from behind like some 1950's CEO making a pass at his secretary.
It doesn't matter why Bush opted to invade Iraq at this point. Those dishes have already hit the floor. The problem is that this clod is still running around blind folded in the china shop. It didn't take a genius to see that ousting Saddam from power in Iraq would create unending chaos in that corner of the world. In fact, the man who first recognized those consequences was our President's father. Granted, kids do tend to defy their parents for spite but its a phase they grow out of by the time they run for elected office, usually.
Now, faced with an angry general public that has grown weary of the open-ended Iraq strategy, Bush has to bring a swift end to the futility. People have heard all the lies and watched the deception unfold with deliberate arrogance. Bush and his administration acted as though they had absolute power and made false promises about the progress being made with a wink and a nudge to the majority of the population they thought they couldn't lose. But they misjudged the stupidity of the public and squandered the benefit of the doubt their shameless manipulation of religion had gained them.
The war in Iraq has decimated global relations for the U.S. During this misguided war on sensibility, Bush has successfully alienated the entire world to the U.S. While few world leaders could condemn Bush for rapidly deploying forces after 9-11, the heavy-handed and ineffective tactics soon evoked concern. That's when Bush, like a crazed gunman, started wagging his finger and making threats. You were either with us or against us. No questions.
Now Iraq is a total mess and it is difficult to see what benefit ousting, capturing and executing Saddam Hussein has delivered. Clearly Saddam's totalitarian regime was borne at least partly out of necessity. His secular government and the mild-mannered Sunni people it favored held sway over a country of fundamentalists from numerous backgrounds including more aggressive Sunni clerics, Shiite extremists, Kurds and a number of general antagonists out to create chaos for the sake of chaos. As brutal as his tactics were, perhaps it was necessary to maintain control.
Like him or not, Saddam had control over a country that seems impossible to control. Britain tried for quite some time to no avail. In fact a significant part of the reason there is so much instability in the Middle East is thanks in large part to imperial meddling. The countries we're are now fighting with were designated by British rule and the borders were inexplicably drawn with total disregard to religious creeds. Mortal enemies were forced to share small countries with limited resources. Such was the case with Iraq. Saddam simply rose to power and succeeded in maintaining it. He couldn't have done it with out the CIA and the Reagan administration but that's another story.
For some reason, in spite of history and his father pleading otherwise, George W. Bush thinks that victory is attainable. He believes he can install a pro-American government in Iraq and that an approved democracy will prevail. Mind you, a democracy that supports Hammas or Al Qaida is unacceptable. Apparently the voice of the people will only be heard if they say what Bush wants to hear.
Instead of taking a cue from the recent election, Bush has opted to increase our presence in Iraq and essentially, to borrow a phrase from the Vietnam era, escalate our effort in order to help the precarious Iraqi government gain control over the uncontrollable. Unless this Iraqi government is willing to employ the brutal tactics Saddam was executed for, the opposing forces of fundamentalism will win. That's the problem in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East: Fundamentalists are not reasonable. For the most part they are ignorant people blinded by rage. Because they are uneducated they don't understand their anger or how to resolve it so they are easily manipulated through religion. The religious leaders are intelligentr and informed but also power-hungry and selfish. It's a cult mentality.
If Bush really wants to bring an end to terrorism and stabilize the Middle East he would be well advised to deploy diplomacy instead of the military. The lesson 9-11 should have taught us is that these are people who are not afraid to die. What good does it do to threaten them with death and destruction when they have proven a willingness to blow themselves up to further their cause. It's like throwing Br'er Rabbit in the brier patch.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Miss USA
So let me get this straight, the woman who won the country's biggest beauty contest is what one might be inclined to call a slut. The woman or, more appropriately, girl who was declared the hottest chick in the US likes to get down and so does the younger winner of the Miss Tenn USA pageant. Is that supposed to disturb us?
Considering we are talking about women who want to earn a living with their hot bodies should anybody be shocked? When you consider the vanity one must have to even participate in this contest it's shocking that these so-called scandals aren't the norm.
About 20 years ago Vanessa Williams had that crown snatched off her head for posing nude in some amateur porn pics. This was before Al Gore invented the internets so we had to wait for Penthouse to publish those pictures but once they hit the market Vanessa Williams was called on the carpet and her title of Miss America was stripped leaving her doomed to a life of anonymous sex with fat business men for spare change. Nobody ever heard of her again.
Actually, losing the crown was the best thing that could have happened to her. She became an instant star landing movie roles and singing chart topping songs. She became one of the biggest names in Hollywood and it was all made possible because she received more publicity for losing her crown than she did for winning it in the first place. It also helped that she was released from any contractual obligations tied to the pageant. Actually it was the woman crowned in Vanessa's place we never heard from again.
Her counterpart Jeri Ryan is also an actress but Jeri Ryan had to slowly claw her way into the business in spite of being a runner up in the 1990 Miss America pageant. Ryan's biggest role and claim to fame came in playing a virtual dominatrix in Star Trek: Voyager. The woman who won in that same year (1990), Debye Turner, has done little of note. In fact most Miss USA winners prove to be too vapid to qualify for any real jobs so they generally end up doing local news and if they manage to read their copy without too many mistakes some get a shot at national news reading.
Sadly, for the Miss USA pageant women who pose for Playboy often prove to have more noteworthy careers. Maybe it's because society respects somebody who doesn't pretend to be something she's not. We act as though these Miss USA contestants are innocent little virgins who are unaware of how beautiful they are. In reality they represent the very worst of female sexuality. They go beyond confidence and they exude that self-centered arrogance that makes everybody hate the prom queen. Miss USA pretends its about intelligence talent and personality as much as it is physical beauty but in the end it's all about looks. That's why Pamela Anderson is more respectable. She's never pretended it wasn't about her body. Maybe she's smarter than we give her credit for. She's certainly more successful than any Miss USA winner, aside from Vanessa Williams who technically didn't win.
Interesting. It would appear that America prefers hot women who put out. I know I do.
Considering we are talking about women who want to earn a living with their hot bodies should anybody be shocked? When you consider the vanity one must have to even participate in this contest it's shocking that these so-called scandals aren't the norm.
About 20 years ago Vanessa Williams had that crown snatched off her head for posing nude in some amateur porn pics. This was before Al Gore invented the internets so we had to wait for Penthouse to publish those pictures but once they hit the market Vanessa Williams was called on the carpet and her title of Miss America was stripped leaving her doomed to a life of anonymous sex with fat business men for spare change. Nobody ever heard of her again.
Actually, losing the crown was the best thing that could have happened to her. She became an instant star landing movie roles and singing chart topping songs. She became one of the biggest names in Hollywood and it was all made possible because she received more publicity for losing her crown than she did for winning it in the first place. It also helped that she was released from any contractual obligations tied to the pageant. Actually it was the woman crowned in Vanessa's place we never heard from again.
Her counterpart Jeri Ryan is also an actress but Jeri Ryan had to slowly claw her way into the business in spite of being a runner up in the 1990 Miss America pageant. Ryan's biggest role and claim to fame came in playing a virtual dominatrix in Star Trek: Voyager. The woman who won in that same year (1990), Debye Turner, has done little of note. In fact most Miss USA winners prove to be too vapid to qualify for any real jobs so they generally end up doing local news and if they manage to read their copy without too many mistakes some get a shot at national news reading.
Sadly, for the Miss USA pageant women who pose for Playboy often prove to have more noteworthy careers. Maybe it's because society respects somebody who doesn't pretend to be something she's not. We act as though these Miss USA contestants are innocent little virgins who are unaware of how beautiful they are. In reality they represent the very worst of female sexuality. They go beyond confidence and they exude that self-centered arrogance that makes everybody hate the prom queen. Miss USA pretends its about intelligence talent and personality as much as it is physical beauty but in the end it's all about looks. That's why Pamela Anderson is more respectable. She's never pretended it wasn't about her body. Maybe she's smarter than we give her credit for. She's certainly more successful than any Miss USA winner, aside from Vanessa Williams who technically didn't win.
Interesting. It would appear that America prefers hot women who put out. I know I do.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Happy Holidays
Thanks to Bill O'Reilly millions of Americans have decided to take back Christmas. Instead of politely wishing people Happy Holidays, they intended to proliferate the social landscape with blood curdling screams of Merry Christmas. Some have even declared that they intend to inflict this holiday jeer on people they know or suspect as being non-Christian. Jesus must be proud. If you say Merry Christmas but mean go to hell does that make it OK?
Ironically the expression of Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings came about in mainstream parlance thanks to fundamentalist Christians who took umbrage that Christmas was associated with such a display of unabashed commercialism. When retailers would beckon holiday shoppers with attractive signage that wished everyone a Merry Christmas, these devout practitioners of the Christian faith would write letters and stage boycotts because they were offended that their savior was being used to boost year end sales figures. Jesus did not die on the cross for Hasbro.
Now that the flames of insecurity have been aggressively fanned be evangelists hurting for cash and pundits aching for ratings, the push is on to attach Christ to everything. Stores that refuse to specify Christmas are attacked by venomous wags and accused of waging war on Christmas and Christianity. The Nativity must be honored at all costs. Happy Holidays is what the terrorists want us to say.
It's sad because almost everything about Christmas has roots in paganism. The bright colored lights date back to solstice celebrations, the tree is rooted in Norse tradition and Santa Clause is a composite of a number of polytheistic and pagan characters. Jesus never gave anybody presents. He didn't slide down chimneys, or ride in a flying sleigh behind eight magic reindeer.
Theologians concur that Jesus wasn't born any where near the December 25th and peg his birthday in the late spring. In fact, the whole story of the Nativity appears to be a fairy tale concocted to dramatize the undocumented birth of Jesus. As the demand grew for a commemoration of this event, the Catholic Church opted to position the date to coincide with competing holy days. It's no coincidence that December is a busy month for spiritual celebrations. In the northern hemisphere it is the darkest time of the year and symbolizes the beginning of the coldest months. Instead of abolishing ancient tradition, the church decided to trump it. As it would turn out, Christ never really was in Christmas outside of a Papal decree.
Of course none of that matters. Spirituality is a personal matter and how a person chooses to celebrate their beliefs is entirely up to them. It's interesting that so many people of so many faiths choose December as a time to join family and friends to honor their personal beliefs... even if those beliefs are in holiday clearance sales and credit cards. If it brings people together it can't be that bad. Unless it's Old Spice, but then that doesn't bring people together, does it?
That's why people like Bill O'Reilly should just let it be. Why turn the Holidays into some misguided holy war? Whether praise be to Jesus, Santa, Allah, Rudolph, magic Hebrew candles, or low low prices can't we all just get along?
Ironically the expression of Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings came about in mainstream parlance thanks to fundamentalist Christians who took umbrage that Christmas was associated with such a display of unabashed commercialism. When retailers would beckon holiday shoppers with attractive signage that wished everyone a Merry Christmas, these devout practitioners of the Christian faith would write letters and stage boycotts because they were offended that their savior was being used to boost year end sales figures. Jesus did not die on the cross for Hasbro.
Now that the flames of insecurity have been aggressively fanned be evangelists hurting for cash and pundits aching for ratings, the push is on to attach Christ to everything. Stores that refuse to specify Christmas are attacked by venomous wags and accused of waging war on Christmas and Christianity. The Nativity must be honored at all costs. Happy Holidays is what the terrorists want us to say.
It's sad because almost everything about Christmas has roots in paganism. The bright colored lights date back to solstice celebrations, the tree is rooted in Norse tradition and Santa Clause is a composite of a number of polytheistic and pagan characters. Jesus never gave anybody presents. He didn't slide down chimneys, or ride in a flying sleigh behind eight magic reindeer.
Theologians concur that Jesus wasn't born any where near the December 25th and peg his birthday in the late spring. In fact, the whole story of the Nativity appears to be a fairy tale concocted to dramatize the undocumented birth of Jesus. As the demand grew for a commemoration of this event, the Catholic Church opted to position the date to coincide with competing holy days. It's no coincidence that December is a busy month for spiritual celebrations. In the northern hemisphere it is the darkest time of the year and symbolizes the beginning of the coldest months. Instead of abolishing ancient tradition, the church decided to trump it. As it would turn out, Christ never really was in Christmas outside of a Papal decree.
Of course none of that matters. Spirituality is a personal matter and how a person chooses to celebrate their beliefs is entirely up to them. It's interesting that so many people of so many faiths choose December as a time to join family and friends to honor their personal beliefs... even if those beliefs are in holiday clearance sales and credit cards. If it brings people together it can't be that bad. Unless it's Old Spice, but then that doesn't bring people together, does it?
That's why people like Bill O'Reilly should just let it be. Why turn the Holidays into some misguided holy war? Whether praise be to Jesus, Santa, Allah, Rudolph, magic Hebrew candles, or low low prices can't we all just get along?
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
KKKramer's tirade
Who would have guessed that Mel Gibson and Michael Richards (aka Kramer) were the charter members of Hollywood's chapter of the KKK? Mel tried to bury his bigotry with woeful tales of a life long battle with alcohol but a blood alcohol analysis revealed that Mel was not drunk enough to justify hitting on Star Jones, let alone deliver a blistering anti-semitic tantrum. Mel was just buzzed enough to be put off at being hassled by the cops. He was outraged that his popularity had waned and in the midst of his anger he allowed his deep-seated venom to spew. Jews! He wasn't drunk, he threw a pampered celebrity tizzy that escalated into Mein Kampf. Even if you give Mel a pass, the fact that his father offered an impromptu history lesson on the Holocaust reaveals that Mel comes from a long line of bigots.
Michael Richards can't hide behind the booze. The washed up doofus who stumbled into temporary super stardom on the hit sitcom Seinfeld has been desperately trying to find a market for his talent which is rather limited. The talent and the market. The iron was hot about six years ago, now the series is losing its luster in syndication. Game over, Mike.
Unlike the rest of the cast, Richards was a nobody before he got a part in a fledgling sitcom many thought would bomb. It was a side project for Jerry and an easy, no risk gig for Dreyfus and Alexander as both had established themselves as capable actors. Seinfeld might have made them rich beyond their wildest dreams but they had rubbed elbows with big stars and had solid credentials. Richards had a bit part in a Weird Al film. Even though his counterparts have struggled to capitalize on the fame their roles in the greatest sitcom ever provided, Alexander and Dreyfus have been granted numerous opportunities to carry on and seem content to call Seinfeld the pinnacle of their careers. Richards had one shot in a poorly conceived show that shamelessly tried to rehash the slapstick aspect of Kramer and nothing since.
It's ironic. The brilliant physical comedy that Richards used to propel a peripheral character into a primary role has been the bane of the actor's career since the show ended its run. Without that shtick Kramer would have been a semi-recurring character along the lines of Wayne Knight's Neuman, but Richards is forever typecast as a character who lacks the depth to carry a show.
So Richards, desperate to stay viable, opted to roll the dice and give stand up a shot. He generated genuine laughs on the show, so why not clown around on stage? The problem is that on TV the real geniuses (if the show is good) are in a back room writing the jokes and layering the comedy. Richards executed his role with brilliant comedic precision but without writers and directors to hone his performance, capturing that same magic is difficult if not impossible. For an actor who spent the better part of a decade riding a wave of enormous singular popularity, the downward spiral of anonymity is painful. Nobody wants to be a has been.
Michael Richards took the stage full of anger, resentment and desperation. He was up there trying take back his fame, laughter was secondary. When members of the audience called him out for the washed up hack he has become, Richards snapped and let loose a string of racial epithets directed at the African Americans who allegedly heckled him.
Mind you, this wasn't a Don Rickles type of rant where racial epithets are bandied about in jest. Richards seemed to lament the passing of the era where black men were hung from trees and tortured by white oppressors. Funny would have been racially-charged jokes about black people not watching Seinfeld. Funny would have been having enough cultural awareness to drop a few Martin Lawrence references. Really funny would be taking the high road and employing a little self-deprecating humor about being a one trick pony. Jon Stewart mines his less than stellar acting career for big laughs every other night.
Richards and Mel Gibson went beyond the reaches of anger and revealed an ugly side of their personalities. At least Richards has a plausible reason for launching into a racial tirade...the hecklers were black. Had he limited his outburst to a quick epithet and moved on an apology would be sufficient but Richards elaborated and revealed a social philosophy. Michael Richards doesn't like black people. That makes him a racist. There's a big difference between calling somebody a nigger and telling them that 50 years ago they would have been hanging from a tree.
Sadly, this is another example of how deep-seated the racial problem is in this country. If the guy who played Kramer is harboring such unmitigated hatred toward blacks and Mel Gibson is sitting on a powder keg of anti-Semitism we have to assume that its a rampant problem. How many business owners feel the same way?
Even if these people make an effort to suspend their bigotry in public exchanges these feelings will have an impact on their daily decisions. That means a guy like Mel Gibson is going to subconsciously find faults in a Jewish applicant while he overlooks flaws in a Christian candidate. Michael Richards will cut a white employee slack for being 10 minutes late but come down on the black one for violating the attendance policy.
There's not much we can do about it. Mel Gibson is who he is because he was raised in a culture of anti-Semitism and as an adult he has chosen to foster those feelings. Michael Richards is one of those angry white guys who sees the leveling of the playing field as an infringement on his rights. Both of these men resent the object of their rage. When Mel Gibson sees Jon Stewart and Billy Crystal hosting the Oscars he believes that it is an example of the tremendous power Jews have in Hollywood. When Michael Richards sees Dave Chappelle inking a 100 million dollar deal to perform bad sketch comedy he thinks it's because of affirmative action.
Guys like Mike and Mel see the world in US verses THEM terms. They don't want to accept that beyond race, culture and creed we are all just people and there is an extensive amount of common ground that can be exploited for personal gain in the entertainment field. Gibson could have enlisted the assistance of Hebrew theologians to consult with him on Passion. Richards could have combined comedy and his experience in Hollywood to probe the depths of racism in the casting office. While the success both have attained demonstrates that these men aren't exactly idiots, they are just ignorant enough to let their prejudice trip up their careers.
Racism is alive, well and a lot closer to home than anybody cares to admit.
Michael Richards can't hide behind the booze. The washed up doofus who stumbled into temporary super stardom on the hit sitcom Seinfeld has been desperately trying to find a market for his talent which is rather limited. The talent and the market. The iron was hot about six years ago, now the series is losing its luster in syndication. Game over, Mike.
Unlike the rest of the cast, Richards was a nobody before he got a part in a fledgling sitcom many thought would bomb. It was a side project for Jerry and an easy, no risk gig for Dreyfus and Alexander as both had established themselves as capable actors. Seinfeld might have made them rich beyond their wildest dreams but they had rubbed elbows with big stars and had solid credentials. Richards had a bit part in a Weird Al film. Even though his counterparts have struggled to capitalize on the fame their roles in the greatest sitcom ever provided, Alexander and Dreyfus have been granted numerous opportunities to carry on and seem content to call Seinfeld the pinnacle of their careers. Richards had one shot in a poorly conceived show that shamelessly tried to rehash the slapstick aspect of Kramer and nothing since.
It's ironic. The brilliant physical comedy that Richards used to propel a peripheral character into a primary role has been the bane of the actor's career since the show ended its run. Without that shtick Kramer would have been a semi-recurring character along the lines of Wayne Knight's Neuman, but Richards is forever typecast as a character who lacks the depth to carry a show.
So Richards, desperate to stay viable, opted to roll the dice and give stand up a shot. He generated genuine laughs on the show, so why not clown around on stage? The problem is that on TV the real geniuses (if the show is good) are in a back room writing the jokes and layering the comedy. Richards executed his role with brilliant comedic precision but without writers and directors to hone his performance, capturing that same magic is difficult if not impossible. For an actor who spent the better part of a decade riding a wave of enormous singular popularity, the downward spiral of anonymity is painful. Nobody wants to be a has been.
Michael Richards took the stage full of anger, resentment and desperation. He was up there trying take back his fame, laughter was secondary. When members of the audience called him out for the washed up hack he has become, Richards snapped and let loose a string of racial epithets directed at the African Americans who allegedly heckled him.
Mind you, this wasn't a Don Rickles type of rant where racial epithets are bandied about in jest. Richards seemed to lament the passing of the era where black men were hung from trees and tortured by white oppressors. Funny would have been racially-charged jokes about black people not watching Seinfeld. Funny would have been having enough cultural awareness to drop a few Martin Lawrence references. Really funny would be taking the high road and employing a little self-deprecating humor about being a one trick pony. Jon Stewart mines his less than stellar acting career for big laughs every other night.
Richards and Mel Gibson went beyond the reaches of anger and revealed an ugly side of their personalities. At least Richards has a plausible reason for launching into a racial tirade...the hecklers were black. Had he limited his outburst to a quick epithet and moved on an apology would be sufficient but Richards elaborated and revealed a social philosophy. Michael Richards doesn't like black people. That makes him a racist. There's a big difference between calling somebody a nigger and telling them that 50 years ago they would have been hanging from a tree.
Sadly, this is another example of how deep-seated the racial problem is in this country. If the guy who played Kramer is harboring such unmitigated hatred toward blacks and Mel Gibson is sitting on a powder keg of anti-Semitism we have to assume that its a rampant problem. How many business owners feel the same way?
Even if these people make an effort to suspend their bigotry in public exchanges these feelings will have an impact on their daily decisions. That means a guy like Mel Gibson is going to subconsciously find faults in a Jewish applicant while he overlooks flaws in a Christian candidate. Michael Richards will cut a white employee slack for being 10 minutes late but come down on the black one for violating the attendance policy.
There's not much we can do about it. Mel Gibson is who he is because he was raised in a culture of anti-Semitism and as an adult he has chosen to foster those feelings. Michael Richards is one of those angry white guys who sees the leveling of the playing field as an infringement on his rights. Both of these men resent the object of their rage. When Mel Gibson sees Jon Stewart and Billy Crystal hosting the Oscars he believes that it is an example of the tremendous power Jews have in Hollywood. When Michael Richards sees Dave Chappelle inking a 100 million dollar deal to perform bad sketch comedy he thinks it's because of affirmative action.
Guys like Mike and Mel see the world in US verses THEM terms. They don't want to accept that beyond race, culture and creed we are all just people and there is an extensive amount of common ground that can be exploited for personal gain in the entertainment field. Gibson could have enlisted the assistance of Hebrew theologians to consult with him on Passion. Richards could have combined comedy and his experience in Hollywood to probe the depths of racism in the casting office. While the success both have attained demonstrates that these men aren't exactly idiots, they are just ignorant enough to let their prejudice trip up their careers.
Racism is alive, well and a lot closer to home than anybody cares to admit.
Monday, November 13, 2006
What Americans Fear.
Al Jazeera.
What comes to mind when you see that name? Most Americans immediately think of terrorists and raving fundamentalists. That might be because most Americans can't tell you the difference between Al Jazeera and Al Qaeda. Those who know that Al Jazeera is actually an Arab news network mistakenly characterize it as a propaganda tool of extremists. Apparently American military strategists see it as easy pickings. Al Jazeera has had its offices bombed by American forces. Twice. Oops.
Ironically it's the extremists who seem to despise Al Jazeera the most. While certain totalitarian-leaning western conservatives believe that Al Jazeera expresses a view that is sympathetic to Al Qaeda, it's the fundamentalist leaders of Islamic nations who see Al Jazeera as a serious threat to their power. Funded primarily by the progressive emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Al Jazeera provides the Arab world unrestricted access to information, a thorn in the side of zealous leaders who relish complete control over their people. Knowledge is power and once a despot loses control of the information, he loses control of the people. Even though Al Jazeera's reporters infuriate western leaders by getting close to suspected terrorists who elude international authorities, the journalists seem motivated by a desire to offer the other side of the story. A side that most Americans don't want to hear.
Al Jazeera represents hope...the hope that the West and the Middle East aren't as divided by culture and creed as many believe. Organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda don't see themselves as terrorists but as liberators who are fighting an enemy too powerful to confront by traditional means. While no westerner in his right mind could justify the attacks perpetrated by these organizations, the fact remains that there are people in other parts of the world who can. Al Jazeera offers some insight into the circumstances people in these parts of the world face and that understanding can help us find find common ground. It's worth pointing out that it wasn't all that long ago British leaders described Colonial militants as terrorists. Our history books list those same men as patriots. Perspective is a funny thing.
Assuming that Al Qaeda is alone in despising American influence throughout the Middle East is undoubtedly erroneous but concluding that everybody in the Middle East wants all Americans dead is preposterous. We're being arrogant if we actually believe that Osama Bin Laden is out to get us because he disapproves of Desperate Housewives and bacon, the reality is that his issue is the heavy-handed manner in which the west has treated the Middle East. Al Jazeera simply communicates that point. Just because they present a side of the story we don't like doesn't mean they aren't unbiased.
Al Jazeera simply offers a global perspective that isn't readily available through domestic outlets. Even though CNN makes an effort to be worldly and the BBC has an uncanny knack for digging up hard to find news items from around the world, western networks are prone to self-aggrandizing and the story often gets lost in egos of those reporting the news. Christiane Amanpour is a prime example of an international reporter who has allowed her personality to become bigger than the news. We need a fresh perspective.
Al Jazeera recently opened up a Washington Bureau and will be launching an English language broadcast later this week. In spite of massive efforts to find outlets in the US, most cable providers have been reluctant to pick up the channel. It's ironic that a country so proud of its free press would see fit to stifle a voice simply because of ignorant misconceptions. The CEO's will offer up financial concerns as the reason they won't pick up Al Jazeera. They'll claim that there isn't enough of a market to justify offering up a channel, but with space being made for inane offerings like ESPN U and VH1 Classic, it would appear that barring Al Jazeera has more to do with good old fashioned American bigotry than it does free market economics.
Al Jazeera provides information.
What are we afraid of?
What comes to mind when you see that name? Most Americans immediately think of terrorists and raving fundamentalists. That might be because most Americans can't tell you the difference between Al Jazeera and Al Qaeda. Those who know that Al Jazeera is actually an Arab news network mistakenly characterize it as a propaganda tool of extremists. Apparently American military strategists see it as easy pickings. Al Jazeera has had its offices bombed by American forces. Twice. Oops.
Ironically it's the extremists who seem to despise Al Jazeera the most. While certain totalitarian-leaning western conservatives believe that Al Jazeera expresses a view that is sympathetic to Al Qaeda, it's the fundamentalist leaders of Islamic nations who see Al Jazeera as a serious threat to their power. Funded primarily by the progressive emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Al Jazeera provides the Arab world unrestricted access to information, a thorn in the side of zealous leaders who relish complete control over their people. Knowledge is power and once a despot loses control of the information, he loses control of the people. Even though Al Jazeera's reporters infuriate western leaders by getting close to suspected terrorists who elude international authorities, the journalists seem motivated by a desire to offer the other side of the story. A side that most Americans don't want to hear.
Al Jazeera represents hope...the hope that the West and the Middle East aren't as divided by culture and creed as many believe. Organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda don't see themselves as terrorists but as liberators who are fighting an enemy too powerful to confront by traditional means. While no westerner in his right mind could justify the attacks perpetrated by these organizations, the fact remains that there are people in other parts of the world who can. Al Jazeera offers some insight into the circumstances people in these parts of the world face and that understanding can help us find find common ground. It's worth pointing out that it wasn't all that long ago British leaders described Colonial militants as terrorists. Our history books list those same men as patriots. Perspective is a funny thing.
Assuming that Al Qaeda is alone in despising American influence throughout the Middle East is undoubtedly erroneous but concluding that everybody in the Middle East wants all Americans dead is preposterous. We're being arrogant if we actually believe that Osama Bin Laden is out to get us because he disapproves of Desperate Housewives and bacon, the reality is that his issue is the heavy-handed manner in which the west has treated the Middle East. Al Jazeera simply communicates that point. Just because they present a side of the story we don't like doesn't mean they aren't unbiased.
Al Jazeera simply offers a global perspective that isn't readily available through domestic outlets. Even though CNN makes an effort to be worldly and the BBC has an uncanny knack for digging up hard to find news items from around the world, western networks are prone to self-aggrandizing and the story often gets lost in egos of those reporting the news. Christiane Amanpour is a prime example of an international reporter who has allowed her personality to become bigger than the news. We need a fresh perspective.
Al Jazeera recently opened up a Washington Bureau and will be launching an English language broadcast later this week. In spite of massive efforts to find outlets in the US, most cable providers have been reluctant to pick up the channel. It's ironic that a country so proud of its free press would see fit to stifle a voice simply because of ignorant misconceptions. The CEO's will offer up financial concerns as the reason they won't pick up Al Jazeera. They'll claim that there isn't enough of a market to justify offering up a channel, but with space being made for inane offerings like ESPN U and VH1 Classic, it would appear that barring Al Jazeera has more to do with good old fashioned American bigotry than it does free market economics.
Al Jazeera provides information.
What are we afraid of?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Unsympathetic Victims
Maurice Clarett had the world on a string. For one brief football season he was a god worshipped by a throng of scarlet clad minions screaming his name. Then, suddenly, the cheers were replaced with boos, insults and threats. As a freshman at The Ohio State University, Maurice faced long odds of getting significant playing time. Coach Jim Tressle had a reputation for diligently standing by his veterans while only the best and brightest of the freshman class would see meaningful playing time, let alone carry most of the load. Maurice increased his chances by graduating from high school in December and enrolling at Ohio State in January. This gave him the opportunity to get some reps with the varsity squad during the spring practice session. When he got his chance he proved to be a formidable weapon.
Mind you, Maurice wasn't some nobody. He was a record setting running back out of Northeastern Ohio, one of the most competitive bastions of high school football in the country. Texas might have gotten some notoriety thanks to Friday Night Lights, but if football is a religion, Northeastern Ohio is the Vatican. That's why the Pro Football Hall of Fame sits in Canton. People had big expectations for Maurice and he exceeded them.
What makes Maurice even more remarkable is the fact that Ohio State's offense was terrible. The line didn't control scrimmage, the passing game was inefficient at best and if it were not for the explosive running of Maurice Clarett, Ohio State's offensive production would have been rated dead last among the 117 Division I A programs. Somehow Maurice managed rush for well over 1000 yards in spite of every defense in the country keying on him. He even missed a few games, but fortunately they were against weaker foes. He was a major reason Ohio State went undefeated and he made the biggest play in the Fiesta Bowl against Miami to clinch a national title. Without Maurice Ohio State wouldn't have contended for the championship let alone win it. After that Maurice fell fast and hard, always finding a way to break through the cold hard tile of one low to reach a new depth. The story is well documented.
Now Maurice is facing potential charges that could land him in prison for 35 years. While it's unlikely he'll serve more than a fraction of that time it's clear that there is something wrong. He's mentally unstable, but it's doubtful he'll be ruled incompetent to stand trial. Maurice knows the difference between right and wrong. He just can't figure out why the rules should apply to him.
A lot of people are through with him. Most Buckeye fans closed the book on him the minute he insinuated that Ohio State might be less than perfect. Common sense leads one to believe that there was a lot of truth to the accusations levied at Ohio State, but it's also clear that Maurice had a vested interest in embellishing his story. Somewhere in the middle the truth is waiting to be revealed. However, as long as Ohio State brings in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, the NCAA would like to leave that stone unturned. But Ohio State didn't try to rob two people this past January. Ohio State didn't lead police on a chase with loaded weapons in the car. Ohio State didn't resist arrest. Maurice is an adult and must be held accountable for his crimes.
Of course, things went sour a long time ago, when Maurice was still a kid. Former Notre Dame coach Bob Davie claims that Maurice Clarett frightened him on a recruiting visit because the then junior tailback wanted to graduate from high school after his junior year to start college early. Maurice wanted to get on the fast track to NFL money and Bob Davie smelled trouble. He refused to work with Maurice on an early admission and Clarett went elsewhere.
It's clear that Maurice did not have proper guidance as a child. He grew up in a lousy neighborhood around lousy people. His family always had their hands out, taking money from anybody willing to purchase a piece of the little kid with NFL written all over him. He was recruited to play at a high school that was not in his school district and that move helped Maurice's mom improve her standard of living, but Maurice didn't get his. Rules prohibited him from getting paid.
At Ohio State, Maurice had access to more revenue sources and, like any major football program, Ohio State was well-versed in looking the other way. Maurice landed himself a nice off campus apartment, a sweet little ride and a tidy stack of cash for playing around. While Maurice's mom might have seen a little coin back in his high school days, the story of Clarett's impoverished upbringing was all over the news. Young kid from the ghetto makes good. So why didn't anybody at Ohio State ask Clarett where the goodies were coming from? Standard Operating Procedure. Schools like Ohio State are successful because they have the resources to make sure their players are taken care of. It's off the books and the paper trail rarely implicates the coach or athletic director, but anybody who has watched the football team show up to practice knows that there's something going on. Nice cars, nice clothes, and everybody seems to becoming from a nice pad off campus.
Maurice made the mistake of getting caught. He filed a police report that detailed enough booty to make the NCAA take note. He later claimed that he filed a false report but the NCAA was already on the case and it was clear that Maurice was on the take. Even if he was dishonest about what was in the car, there was still the question of how that car was acquired. Conveniently, Ohio State was able to deny any culpability and Maurice was suspended.
That's where he really spiraled out of control. To Maurice college was just an obstacle preventing him from capitalizing on his talent. He didn't want to take some scraps in secret, his jersey was selling out in every store at over $100 a pop and he wasn't getting a dime. Maurice was single handedly generating millions of dollars and he was getting room, board and some half rate education he didn't even want. In his mind it wasn't that big a step up from being a slave. All the while his counterpart, Lebron James, was driving a Hummer to school and inking shoe contracts before he graduated. High School. Maurice had just won a national championship in one of the highest rated college bowl games in history and he was borrowing cars from a program friendly dealership. You bet he felt like a slave.
Maybe not slavery, but at least indentured servitude, and the NFL likes it that way. If players could skip college teams would draft them and eventually the NFL will have to earmark money to develop young prospects that formerly honed their skills at the college level. The players who simply went to college would have to be on the payroll which would expand rosters and that means less profits. The NFL likes the free farm system the NCAA provides and the NCAA loves the revenue it doesn't have to share with the talent. There are a lot of reach people associated with the NCAA and none of them are current players. It doesn't matter what the average fan thinks of the system. What matters is that a lot of players like Maurice Clarett don't like their choices. They don't like being subjected to arbitrary academic standards that don't apply to other students. They feel that college is a distraction from their ultimate goal.
They could be wrong. Perhaps college is a shining opportunity and they should be grateful. Maybe they should make the best of it and prepare themselves for the possibility that football is not in their future. But that's not fair. Nobody seems to discourage singers, actors and dancers from chasing their dreams. Nobody busts Bruce Springsteen's chops for not going to college. He had a dream and chose to live it. We find that trait admirable. After all, they can always go to college later. So why are we so insistent that college athletes take education seriously? Especially when there are so many non athletes on campus that don't take it seriously. Why do we want jocks to pretend they care? For a headstrong young man who doesn't like being told what to do, this system alone would be enough to push him over the edge.
But athletes face different circumstances. Guys like Maurice Clarett show tremendous talent at an early age. Instead of instilling a sense of discipline, people tend to coddle the athlete and make excuses. The more talented the athlete, the more crap people will put up with. As a society we wonder why professional athletes exhibit such irresponsible behavior, but if we look at the way we treat those young superstars we can see it. They are never held accountable. Maurice was coddled throughout his childhood. His mother was always looking for a way to make a buck off her son's ability, shuffling him from one youth team to another. The coaches catered to him and everybody tried to curry favor with a kid who needed a little guidance. In high school it was more of the same. Special treatment, limited discipline and whatever they could sneak him under the table.
It's not just Maurice, but he epitomizes what happens when a child becomes a god. We call it self destruction but it's more like sabotage. Maurice is going to face the consequences of his actions but the reason he lacks good judgment is because every adult in his life let him down. Even at college he was surrounded by advisors who told him what he wanted to hear and those who had a vested interest in Maurice staying out of trouble chose to look the other way for fear of upsetting the petulant star. That's why he couldn't make the cut with the Broncos. Maurice actually thought that the NFL was going to kiss the ground he walked on just as everybody had throughout his career. When he was treated like just another football player he withdrew and the Broncos sent him packing.
A lot of people won't even give Maurice that much. There are people who simply don't want to hear the sob story, but for every athlete we lift up we destroy another. James Brooks was a successful running back in the NFL. He played for 13 years, most of them as the featured back for the Cincinnati Bengals. A few years ago Brooks was convicted for felony nonsupport and it was revealed that he couldn't read. After a long successful career in the NFL, Brooks was trying to hold down a job as a security guard to cover his expenses. Dexter Manley was a dominate defensive end in the NFL who spent 11 years terrorizing quarterbacks. After he was suspended for failing a drug test Manley revealed that he was illiterate in spite of spending four years at Oklahoma State. Brooks spent six years at Auburn.
How does that happen? Most of us are functionally literate by fourth grade, if not earlier. How can somebody get through all those years of school and not be able to read? While Manley and Brooks both had opportunities to learn to read as adults, somebody still let them down as children. What sort of message does that send to the child? Shame on all of the people who let that happen. It's not just bad parenting, it's lousy stewardship by all the people involved in the child's welfare. Teachers, coaches, tutors, even sport agents share the blame for something so reprehensible. If basic education can be circumvented in the name of sports, is it so hard to imagine that the more intricate aspect of developing basic social skills is neglected as well?
Maurice Clarett is a jerk and he deserves what's coming to him. Sadly there are some other people who had a hand in sending him in the wrong direction who will never be held accountable. Sometimes athletes are victims and the crimes committed against them place those kids on a collision course with disaster. That's another dirty little secret in sports and it negates all of the positive things we attribute to athletic competition.
Mind you, Maurice wasn't some nobody. He was a record setting running back out of Northeastern Ohio, one of the most competitive bastions of high school football in the country. Texas might have gotten some notoriety thanks to Friday Night Lights, but if football is a religion, Northeastern Ohio is the Vatican. That's why the Pro Football Hall of Fame sits in Canton. People had big expectations for Maurice and he exceeded them.
What makes Maurice even more remarkable is the fact that Ohio State's offense was terrible. The line didn't control scrimmage, the passing game was inefficient at best and if it were not for the explosive running of Maurice Clarett, Ohio State's offensive production would have been rated dead last among the 117 Division I A programs. Somehow Maurice managed rush for well over 1000 yards in spite of every defense in the country keying on him. He even missed a few games, but fortunately they were against weaker foes. He was a major reason Ohio State went undefeated and he made the biggest play in the Fiesta Bowl against Miami to clinch a national title. Without Maurice Ohio State wouldn't have contended for the championship let alone win it. After that Maurice fell fast and hard, always finding a way to break through the cold hard tile of one low to reach a new depth. The story is well documented.
Now Maurice is facing potential charges that could land him in prison for 35 years. While it's unlikely he'll serve more than a fraction of that time it's clear that there is something wrong. He's mentally unstable, but it's doubtful he'll be ruled incompetent to stand trial. Maurice knows the difference between right and wrong. He just can't figure out why the rules should apply to him.
A lot of people are through with him. Most Buckeye fans closed the book on him the minute he insinuated that Ohio State might be less than perfect. Common sense leads one to believe that there was a lot of truth to the accusations levied at Ohio State, but it's also clear that Maurice had a vested interest in embellishing his story. Somewhere in the middle the truth is waiting to be revealed. However, as long as Ohio State brings in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, the NCAA would like to leave that stone unturned. But Ohio State didn't try to rob two people this past January. Ohio State didn't lead police on a chase with loaded weapons in the car. Ohio State didn't resist arrest. Maurice is an adult and must be held accountable for his crimes.
Of course, things went sour a long time ago, when Maurice was still a kid. Former Notre Dame coach Bob Davie claims that Maurice Clarett frightened him on a recruiting visit because the then junior tailback wanted to graduate from high school after his junior year to start college early. Maurice wanted to get on the fast track to NFL money and Bob Davie smelled trouble. He refused to work with Maurice on an early admission and Clarett went elsewhere.
It's clear that Maurice did not have proper guidance as a child. He grew up in a lousy neighborhood around lousy people. His family always had their hands out, taking money from anybody willing to purchase a piece of the little kid with NFL written all over him. He was recruited to play at a high school that was not in his school district and that move helped Maurice's mom improve her standard of living, but Maurice didn't get his. Rules prohibited him from getting paid.
At Ohio State, Maurice had access to more revenue sources and, like any major football program, Ohio State was well-versed in looking the other way. Maurice landed himself a nice off campus apartment, a sweet little ride and a tidy stack of cash for playing around. While Maurice's mom might have seen a little coin back in his high school days, the story of Clarett's impoverished upbringing was all over the news. Young kid from the ghetto makes good. So why didn't anybody at Ohio State ask Clarett where the goodies were coming from? Standard Operating Procedure. Schools like Ohio State are successful because they have the resources to make sure their players are taken care of. It's off the books and the paper trail rarely implicates the coach or athletic director, but anybody who has watched the football team show up to practice knows that there's something going on. Nice cars, nice clothes, and everybody seems to becoming from a nice pad off campus.
Maurice made the mistake of getting caught. He filed a police report that detailed enough booty to make the NCAA take note. He later claimed that he filed a false report but the NCAA was already on the case and it was clear that Maurice was on the take. Even if he was dishonest about what was in the car, there was still the question of how that car was acquired. Conveniently, Ohio State was able to deny any culpability and Maurice was suspended.
That's where he really spiraled out of control. To Maurice college was just an obstacle preventing him from capitalizing on his talent. He didn't want to take some scraps in secret, his jersey was selling out in every store at over $100 a pop and he wasn't getting a dime. Maurice was single handedly generating millions of dollars and he was getting room, board and some half rate education he didn't even want. In his mind it wasn't that big a step up from being a slave. All the while his counterpart, Lebron James, was driving a Hummer to school and inking shoe contracts before he graduated. High School. Maurice had just won a national championship in one of the highest rated college bowl games in history and he was borrowing cars from a program friendly dealership. You bet he felt like a slave.
Maybe not slavery, but at least indentured servitude, and the NFL likes it that way. If players could skip college teams would draft them and eventually the NFL will have to earmark money to develop young prospects that formerly honed their skills at the college level. The players who simply went to college would have to be on the payroll which would expand rosters and that means less profits. The NFL likes the free farm system the NCAA provides and the NCAA loves the revenue it doesn't have to share with the talent. There are a lot of reach people associated with the NCAA and none of them are current players. It doesn't matter what the average fan thinks of the system. What matters is that a lot of players like Maurice Clarett don't like their choices. They don't like being subjected to arbitrary academic standards that don't apply to other students. They feel that college is a distraction from their ultimate goal.
They could be wrong. Perhaps college is a shining opportunity and they should be grateful. Maybe they should make the best of it and prepare themselves for the possibility that football is not in their future. But that's not fair. Nobody seems to discourage singers, actors and dancers from chasing their dreams. Nobody busts Bruce Springsteen's chops for not going to college. He had a dream and chose to live it. We find that trait admirable. After all, they can always go to college later. So why are we so insistent that college athletes take education seriously? Especially when there are so many non athletes on campus that don't take it seriously. Why do we want jocks to pretend they care? For a headstrong young man who doesn't like being told what to do, this system alone would be enough to push him over the edge.
But athletes face different circumstances. Guys like Maurice Clarett show tremendous talent at an early age. Instead of instilling a sense of discipline, people tend to coddle the athlete and make excuses. The more talented the athlete, the more crap people will put up with. As a society we wonder why professional athletes exhibit such irresponsible behavior, but if we look at the way we treat those young superstars we can see it. They are never held accountable. Maurice was coddled throughout his childhood. His mother was always looking for a way to make a buck off her son's ability, shuffling him from one youth team to another. The coaches catered to him and everybody tried to curry favor with a kid who needed a little guidance. In high school it was more of the same. Special treatment, limited discipline and whatever they could sneak him under the table.
It's not just Maurice, but he epitomizes what happens when a child becomes a god. We call it self destruction but it's more like sabotage. Maurice is going to face the consequences of his actions but the reason he lacks good judgment is because every adult in his life let him down. Even at college he was surrounded by advisors who told him what he wanted to hear and those who had a vested interest in Maurice staying out of trouble chose to look the other way for fear of upsetting the petulant star. That's why he couldn't make the cut with the Broncos. Maurice actually thought that the NFL was going to kiss the ground he walked on just as everybody had throughout his career. When he was treated like just another football player he withdrew and the Broncos sent him packing.
A lot of people won't even give Maurice that much. There are people who simply don't want to hear the sob story, but for every athlete we lift up we destroy another. James Brooks was a successful running back in the NFL. He played for 13 years, most of them as the featured back for the Cincinnati Bengals. A few years ago Brooks was convicted for felony nonsupport and it was revealed that he couldn't read. After a long successful career in the NFL, Brooks was trying to hold down a job as a security guard to cover his expenses. Dexter Manley was a dominate defensive end in the NFL who spent 11 years terrorizing quarterbacks. After he was suspended for failing a drug test Manley revealed that he was illiterate in spite of spending four years at Oklahoma State. Brooks spent six years at Auburn.
How does that happen? Most of us are functionally literate by fourth grade, if not earlier. How can somebody get through all those years of school and not be able to read? While Manley and Brooks both had opportunities to learn to read as adults, somebody still let them down as children. What sort of message does that send to the child? Shame on all of the people who let that happen. It's not just bad parenting, it's lousy stewardship by all the people involved in the child's welfare. Teachers, coaches, tutors, even sport agents share the blame for something so reprehensible. If basic education can be circumvented in the name of sports, is it so hard to imagine that the more intricate aspect of developing basic social skills is neglected as well?
Maurice Clarett is a jerk and he deserves what's coming to him. Sadly there are some other people who had a hand in sending him in the wrong direction who will never be held accountable. Sometimes athletes are victims and the crimes committed against them place those kids on a collision course with disaster. That's another dirty little secret in sports and it negates all of the positive things we attribute to athletic competition.
Monday, July 10, 2006
The Root of the Problem
A lot of people seem eager to mitigate the transgressions of our troops and our government by contrasting some of the more mild offenses committed by our side with the brutal response of our opposition. This tactic is nothing new. It is called propaganda.
A prudent course of action in this ongoing war on terror would be to pick our battles wisely and use brute force sparingly. This would minimize our casualty rate, reduce collateral damage and win global supporters to our cause. Of course the most important element to an effective plan of action and a glaring deficiency in our current efforts is to understand the source of our enemy's rage. If we were to eliminate our enemy's motivation the war would end immediately.
The mistake we are making is believing that the so-called terrorists despise our lifestyle.Big Macs. Busty, breathless teenage sluts. Rap music. While there is no doubt that these fundamentalists disapprove of the things we enjoy, that is not the reason they readily sacrifice themselves for their cause. The motivation is not philosophical.
We have made enemies because of our economic and political influence over the Middle East. The U.S. consumes a ponderous amount of oil every year but the wealth doesn't seem to trickle down to the people who work hard to quench our thirst. In fact, our corporations and politicians have conspired to keep the money and the power in the hands of corrupt leaders who ignore the needs of their people. The fact is some of the most coveted targets of the terrorists we battle with are leaders of the very countries those terrorists call home.
In the US we think of citizens of oil producing countries as wealthy sheiks who drive expensive cars through the sweltering desert, but the majority of the people living in those countries are destitute. We don't hear about the millions of children dying of cancer because the water they drink is tainted with the byproducts of irresponsible drilling. To save a few bucks a barrel our government happily ignores these issues so Americans can continue to gas up the Excursion.
Bloody battles were waged on American streets so that our workforce could become empowered. We celebrate Labor Day because the working class united to demand a bigger share of the profits their hard work made possible. Laws were passed, regulations were enacted and wealth was shared. The result has been advantageous for everybody. We live in a nation of remarkable resources and opportunity. Unfortunately that oppressive greed that drove our workforce to gang violence wasn't eliminated, it was shifted overseas. How can we be surprised that we are now witnessing a backlash from those who have been exploited for so long?
Bush ran on a values-oriented agenda. He even had the audacity to claim he was doing god's will, but a righteous man always judges himself before he attempts to scrutinize the actions of others. If Bush were truly a man of god he might have pondered such concepts as turning the other cheek or removing the plank from his own eye, but Bush tossed the bible aside in favor of John Wayne . The man of god became the cowboy when the chips were down and now that the hand is unfolding it's clear that a little patience and humility would have gone a long way. Instead were stuck in a no-win situation that we'll be paying for in years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)