America: You've Got to Check This Place Out Before You Die

About six months ago, I was stuck for several hours making a delivery in some town in northern New Jersey. Moonachie, I think it was, or alike. From the front of the building, one could easily see the Empire State Building looming in the none-to-far-off distance. The sun was setting. Lights all over New York City were turning on. The ESB itself was lit up in layers of red, white and blue.

There's something about the Empire State Building; an awe inspiring quality that no other building in America posesses. It's no longer the tallest building in the world (I believe right now it ranks in at number nine), but it has a majestic presence which many of it's vertical superiors lack. The Twin Towers didn't have it (I got to see them a couple of times before they were destroyed), even the Sears Tower comes up short (ba-dum-ching!). I don't know what it is. Maybe someone else does. It's just one of those things everyone should see at least once before they die.

Then it occurred to me: most people never will. Infact, the vast majority of Americans will never see the vast majority of America. There are so many things worth seeing between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Three thousand miles of mountains, plains, cities, rivers, deserts, and God knows what else. But the majority of Americans will live out their entire lives and die having seen very little, if any, of it.

In this regard, I suppose I've been blessed. I've been able to travel, by road, to and through most of the country, both as a truck driver and in personal recreational travels. There are a great many people who are much more globally traveled than I (I've still yet to leave the states), but I've gotten to see America in an up close and personal fashion which most do not. The view from an airplane window does not come close to doing it justice.

Neither does TV. For instance, most people have never seen Washington DC, save for on TV and in movies. These usually consist of images of the National Mall, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Capitol and the White house, usually shot from a helicopter. Maybe they feature some shots of the gleaming glass cages on K Street NW that house the power brokers and influence peddlers. If all you ever see of our nation's capitol are these images, you might thing that DC is some panacea made of shining stone and marble, a modern day Olympus.

But I grew up near DC. I know it like the back of my hand. What you see on TV is just a tiny sliver of the city. The rest of it is quite different. The ghettos which make up the majority of the town don't make it on the air. You don't get off the freeway in Anacostia. K Street SE might as well be a whole other country (in the third world). Many people I've talked to around the country have asked me what DC is like, and most are amazed when I describe all this to them.

But that's just DC. Truth is, when you travel this great land of ours most of what you see will astound and delight you. Los Angeles has some pretty well publicized shortcomings, but I don't care who you are: you will feel a certain giddiness at seeing that big HOLLYWOOD sign on the side of the mountain. Most folks don't know this, but that is actually not unique to Hollywood. Many of the outlying towns nestled in the hills that surround LA have the same sorts of signs mounted on those hills.

Get drunk in Chicago. Everyone should. Personally, I'm fond of the Nocturna New Years Eve party at Metro, across the street from Wrigley Field. But there's enough different shit for all types of people to do. Once your hangover has subsided, and sunlight no longer hurts your eyes, check out the skydeck on the Sears Tower. From the ground, it may not appear to have the majesty of the ESB, but the view from the top more than makes up for it.

But truthfully, the most astounding things you'll see are not cities, or buildings, or anything else forged by the hands of men. It's the naturally occurring, the things mande by nature and God Himself that make the journey worth the pain in the ass that travel is. Take Arizona for instance. Driving across the northern part of the state on I-40 (what used to be US-66) you'll be driving through miles and miles of arid desert and huge rock formations. In the distance you'll see mountains, big ones, slowly getting closer. At times there will be snow on their peaks, even though it's sweltering where you are. Eventually you'll climb up into them, approaching Flagstaff. As you do, the temperature changes. The overall climate changes, and the landscape changes drastically. Where a moment ago you were surrounded by sand and tumbleweeds, now you're seeing lush green grass, forestry, even small ponds and streams. You could mistake it for Kentucky. If it's winter, you'r probably getting snowed on (people look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them I got stuck in a blizzard in Arizona, which has happened to me). Then you'll head back down the hill, getting a view of how high up you are that leaves nothing to the imagination, and be back in the desert heat like it had never changed.

I can't do things like this justice on a word processor.

Modern day to day life in these united states is techno-centric, to say the least. It's very easy for human beings to perceive ourselves as being a larger than life entity, crushing and dominating the world around us. But watching forty ton trucks that look like toys next to the Tennesee mountain they're driving around; or crossing the river between Wisconsin and Minnesota, knowing it's the very same river you crossed a thousand miles away down in Baton Rouge; or being surrounded on all sides by a north Texas sunset that fills an endless sky with more colors than the eye knows what to do with; or looking up afterward at the stars that fill all that blackness like sand on the beach; serves as a reminder that we're actually only one part of creation, and far from the biggest. Indeed, even the most strident humanist would not find it difficult to think there might just be something out there far more powerful than us.

So anyway, at your earliest possible convenience, gett off your fat ass and go check out America for yourself. Don't just take my word for it. After all, I've been drinking since noon.

Arms, Race

I just watched XXX: State of the Union on cable. I should have gone with the turpentine cocktail when I had the choice.

All in all the flick was about as worthless as I expected. Bad acting, worse plot, and all sorts of extravagant scenarios that simply don't happen in DC. Ice Cube has proven he can act. I don't know why he chose not to in this flick. Samuel L. Jackson couldn't save it, nor could a delightfully wicked performance by Willem Dafoe, as the eeeevil Secretary of Defense hellbent on assasinating the liberal Wiener-in-Chief.

There was one scene that caught my attention, though. Ice Cube, whose charachter is a master of espionage, is posing as a preacher heading up some black religious lobby, talking to a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. The NRA man asks him for advice on how to attract black folks to their upcoming convention. Cube snidely replies [paraphrasing] "Don't play country music...and tell your members to stop shooting black people."

I laughed out loud. You mean to tell me that we have some widespread problem of NRA members going around shooting blacks? Please...the only group with a widespread propensity for shooting black people, is, well, black people. Young black men, to be specific.

Here lies the unspoken underpinning of the entire gun-control debate: race. Indeed, the entire issue of crime revolves around it. And it seems that virtually everyone, on both sides of the issue, goes to great lengths to avoid saying so.

Fact: whites are afraid of blacks. When white people think of crime in America- drugs, gangs, murder, muggings, robbery, home invasions- they think of young black males. Young black males wearing baggy clothes, doo-rags and sneers. Young black males like the ones they see mugshots of on the nightly news, always wanted in connection with some violent crime or another. Young black males like the ones they see on MTV and BET, endlessly posturing and posing and bragging about what thugs they are, how they run drugs, rob people, kill people, how many times they've been shot (apparently not enough) and so on. Black kids, and an ever increasing number of white kids, go out of their way to emulate these numbnutses, and then they wonder why white women pull their purses in close or cross the street whenever they see a black kid coming toward them. Whites are (and have to be) endlessly mindful not to make a wrong turn in the city, and of what exit they take off the freeway. They can't simply walk where it's convenient. A white guy going to see the latest crappy independent film at the Charles Theater in Baltimore after dark knows he can't just park a few blocks away on North avenue and walk to the theater if the area in the street in front of it is crowded and the parking garage is full. Odds are his car will be broken into if he does (which is why there's always ample parking on North ave.), and the odds that he will be harassed or worse by the local hoodrats greatly increase (this goes double if "he" happens to be a "she"). To them, black = danger. The stats bear them out.

So allow me to translate: when the average rank-in-file proponent of more gun control, particularly a white one, says something like "we need to get rid of guns because we have too much crime" what they really mean is "I'm afraid a nigger will shoot me if I ever happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." Very few are actually worried about white people owning guns. The suburbs and rural towns are stocked to the hilt with them. In my little Maryland town, you'd be hard pressed to find a house without at least one rifle or shotgun in it. Yet crime remains low, accidents few, and homicides non-existent. The town does have a small black population, and right now several of its boys are reaching their formative adolescent years. They're starting to look like the homies in the rap videos. When they walk down the street in a pack (usually about half-a-dozen or so), white folks take notice. They're suddenly mindful of their cars; whether they remembered to lock them or what they might have left in them. They look for signs that the boys might be casing them, or houses. A group of young white males does not receive this kind of attention. Folks don't worry about whether or not they're packing heat. But in the back of their minds, they always wonder if the black kids might be.

Out in the country, of course, this isn't really a huge cause for great fear or anxiety. The odds that these kids, black or white, will actually attack people are pretty slim. The kids are as aware as anyone else that breaking into someone's house is very likely to mean coming in on the business end of someone's firearm. When virtually everyone in a town is ready, willing, and able to defend themselves, their families, and their property with lethal force, and everyone knows this, the effect is that they rarely have to.

In areas with strict gun control laws, which are almost always high population centers, the story is quite different. People who are forbidden by law from arming themselves are easy prey for aggressive types who could give a rat's furry ass what the law is. In the major American cities, the latter are almost always black. So are their victims, for the most part. The vast majority of prison inmates are blacks who commited crimes against other blacks. The criminals are usually armed, usually in violation of numerous gun control laws. The victims are usually not, usually because they're obeying the same laws the criminals don't care about. Still, we keep hearing that if we just pass more laws to restrict the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves, they'll be safer. No one in their right mind actually believes this (granted not everyone in the gun control lobby is in their right mind), but it doesn't matter. The people, predominately white, who espouse this idiocy and work to pass it into law can't get past the mental image of the snarling black thug, of whom they are so afraid, and their mistaken belief that more gun control will de-fang him.

Note also, that when gun control advocates and especially politicians go on their tirades, they almost always talk about exceptions and provisions for "hunters" and "collectors". This is what these folks think white gun owners are all about. It's not true. Go to any forum site that focuses on guns, the second ammendment, gun laws, etc., and you'll find the pro-gun people going on primarily about self defense. True, many of them are hunters, and a fair number are also collectors. But all are folks who understand that telling a thug, of any color, that he can't carry a gun, or assault, rape, rob and murder people, doesn't mean he won't. The primary reason they support the right to keep and bare arms is so they can better defend themselves and their own in the event, however unlikey it may seem, that they should need to against bad people.

But alot of people, especially politicians, don't seem to know this. So allow me again to translate: whenever you hear a politician say something like "I will work to ban handguns and 'assault' weapons, but will protect the rights of hunters and collectors", what he really means is "don't worry white people, we're not really coming after your guns, just those damned savage jungle bunnies."

Black folks who live in high crime areas seem often to have more sense on this matter than white liberals in the 'burbs. When you are surrounded by danger, and have no one to protect you but you, you tend not to support the idea of being disarmed by your government. Don't believe me? Walk around North ave. or Anacostia and ask the average resident what they think on the matter. Try not to get robbed while you're doing it.

As for those black kids out in my little country town, I normally see them walking in the direction of the little park with the ball court and the fishing pond at the end of town. Often they're carrying a basketball. Sometimes they carry rods. Makes sense. I doubt they'll ever be much trouble, or at least no more than any adloescent boy is. But everyone's eye will always be on them, regardless. I'm sure they are not unaware of this.

Bombing Civilians: It's Just Not A Nice Thing To Do

Americans, for the most part, have a sort of idealistic notion of what a fight should be. Hollywood has doubtless had much to do with preserving, promoting and romanticizing that notion, but the notion itself dates back far before the advent of film. The notion of honor in battle, whether it be between individuals or warring factions, is fixed in the minds of the American populace, its men and boys in particular. It's an ideal not often aspired to in practice (when given the choice between fighting dirty or dying honorably, most will choose the former), but it exists in our minds, and when we are not personally facing battle or harm, we seem to expect others to follow it.

This ideal manifests itself in many forms. For instance, in a bar fight, you're not supposed to hit the other guy below the belt (I've witnessed many bar fights, and participated in a few. I've never seen one where one, both or all of the participants walked away without being hunched over and holding their nuts). In war or armed conflict, we're supposed to target enemy soldiers and operatives, and the leaders they answer to, but never, never civilians. Indeed, all conceivable precautions must be taken to ensure that civilian deaths on our enemy's turf are minimal, at the very worst. We are to do this even at the cost of prolonging battle, enabling our eneimes, and losing the lives of our own armed forces personel. We do this because it is "the right thing to do."

Like most Americans, I've always considered this to be so obviously right as to be above questioning. Wars should be waged between fighting men who deliberately pick up arms. Civilians, particularly those who are unarmed (which is the vast majority of them), are unwilling pawns stuck in the middle. This is particularly true in wars involving Muslim countries and terrorist groups, where the fighters deliberately hide themselves among innocent civilians because they know nations like America and Israel won't take the scorched earth approach necessary to kill them in such situations. It's noteworthy that these are the same cocksuckers who deliberately attack civilian targets, such as restraunts, schools, and schoolbusses full of children.

But the civilians themselves are not to blame. Most civilians on either side of a war rarely want anything to do with it, and would prefer it had never happened, so they could go about living out their days peacefully and without much interference. I have always believed this without question, like an article of faith.

As of late, my faith has been shaken.

I'm not saying I've changed my mind, not yet anyway. I'm just saying that recently I have realized that it may be possible that civilians are not entirely seperate from the actions of their governments, their armies, or their terrorists. To make it even wierder, my faith in this matter has been shaken by, of all people, Alan Colmes.

For those of you who aren't hopeless political junkies who get their fix via the 24 hour news cycle, I'll expound. The second highest rated program on the Fox News Channel is its opinion show Hannity & Colmes, a conservative vs. liberal debate show hosted by Sean and Alan, respectively. The format is pretty simple: put an unwavering neoconservative mouthpiece in a room with a liberal who carries no regard for logic or reality, throw in one or two guest pundits to be savaged by either side (and often by each other), give them a topic to discuss and watch the sparks fly. Colmes is the show's faithful left wing nutjob. He's certainly better than most liberal pundits, and certainly better than anyone on Crossfire, since he attempts to make rational sounding arguments and rarely gives into the temptation to simply shout down his opponents. Indeed, he'd be a brilliant man if he weren't so incredibly delusional, but I suppose that can be said for a great many liberals.

Anyway, I was recently listening to an arguement between Colmes and an army colonel. Unfortunately, I heard this on FNC's satellite radio broadcast while I was driving, and I didn't catch the colonel's name. I have also been unable to track down a full transcpript of this show segment. If I find one, I'll post a link.

The two were arguing over the ongoing fighting between Israel and and Palesinian terrorist group Hamas. For those of you who have been living in a cave for the past year or so, Israel long occupied the Gaza strip, along their eastern border. Th Palestinians claimed that the land was rightfully theirs (as they claim all of Israel to be) and their terrorist groups, such as the PLO (led by the late Yasser Arafat) and Hamas carried out strings of attacks against Israel for years trying to get it back. Israel, although showing remarkable restraint (they could erase the entire Palestinian poulace in minutes if they wanted to), has never been shy about responding with bombs of her own. Last year, however, Isreal forcibly evacuated all of its citizens from Gaza, and as some sort of damned fool peace offering or token of goodwill, surrendered it to the Palestinians. The Pallies, of course, immediately began using their newly acquired turf to stage more attacks against Israel. Rockets, mostly. When their last election came around (the first since the death of Arafat last year), the Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted Hamas into power in most offices of their "government."

Which brings me to Alan Colmes. Colmes argued long and loud that a) Hamas is the democratically elected and therefore rightful government of the Palestinians, and b) as such, Israel must lay down its arms and go to the negotiating table with them.

Obviously, point "b" is absolutely ludicrous. Hitler was the duly elected leader of Germany during WWII. That didn't mean other nations were forbidden from fighting the Reich when they started invading neighboring countries. Negotiating with them was a waste of time and blood. Chamberlain proved it.

But that first point, well, that's dead on the money. The Palestinian people did elect Hamas into power. Deliberately. Hamas's platform is pretty straightforward. No economic package, no tax cuts, no universal healthcare, it consists of one and only one campaign promise: we will kill as many jewish men, women and children as humanly possible. This is what the Pallies voted for. This must be what is important to them. This must be what they want done. In short, under Colmes's theory, it's not just some fringe terrorist group that is responsible for these attacks. The Palestinian people themselves have declared that they want no less than the death of every Israeli jew. They are actively working toward that goal.

If that is the case, then why should Israel take any precautions against killing them? Indeed, why shouldn't Israel be wiping them out altogeher?

Now, before anyone damages their monitor while cursing my name, I'd like to say that I do not think this is good idea. Mass genocide is so unspeakable a thing, I'm loathe to think of any conceivable scenario where it would need to be an option (I'm not saying I can't think of any, only that I am loathe to). Still, if the choice ever came down to one people or another being eradicated, I can't say I'd ever fault either people for making sure it wasn't theirs. I just can't imagine that there could ever be a no-other-way scenario.

Also, I have no idea what portion of Palestinians are actually voters. For instance, do women vote? Do the young? The old? How much of the vote is based on fear of Hamas? Was it a true count, or did Hamas just claim it was and muscle their way in because the Palestinian Authority had simply grown too weak to oppose them? All of this would have to be determined before I could support any change in the policy of minimal civilian casualties.

Still, Colmes's point does reveal that that very situation could very well exist. Indeed, traditionaly speaking, when the duly elected and recognized governing body of one nation aggressively attacks another, that is considered an act and open delaration of war. In open war, all bets are off. With the love of God and maybe a little dumb luck we might just avoid the kind of dreadful scenario I've been pondering.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch.

Ed, and the Hellhole on Strawberry Knoll

I drove through northeast Gaithersburg today. It was the first time in several years I had gone through that strange mixture of yuppie developments and condos (all carefully insulated from their surroundings by fences, large hedges and strategically planted rows of trees), and the Montgomery County Airpark, a gritty, industrial area peppered with shades of the Underclass.

The little beer stores that carry almost no imports but have fortified wine on display right in the front door, along with Milwaukee Beast and various malt liquors, are all still there, much as they ever were. I didn't see the panhandlers begging for change out in front of them today, though. Perhaps the police have been cracking down on them. Perhaps they have been for a while. Ten years ago, they were a constant fixture. You got to know them by name. Old Man Tom, for instance, was a grey haired old codger (probably not nearly as old as he looked) with a thick grey beard that put the Gibbons brothers to shame. He never bathed, smelled like stale beer and piss, and lived in a big wooden shipping crate out behind some plumbing and heating company. The crate is still there, I didn't see him. I'd be surprised if he's still alive. There was Richard, who lived the life of the upscale bum: he had an old camping trailer on a scrap and storage yard at the end of the industrial park. You could count all his ribs, but he always made sure his dog had enough food.

It was in these surroundings that I met Ed, and thus began my official introduction to the Real World (the one we live in, not the shitty TV show).

When I was 17, in the summer between my junior and senior years of high school, I had a day job at an equipment rental shop in the airpark. I was one of two yardmen: prepping machines, cleaning and checking them, shit like that. The other one was Ed. I don't know how old he was, and I'm not sure he knew. I'd guess early forties. But he was a pleasant fellow, easy to get along with, and funny as hell. He spoke with a distinctive Maryland country boy accent, and real fast, kind of like Boomhauer from King of the Hill. He was also the first black man I'd ever really known.

Now of course, being as I was only 17, the coolest thing about Ed was that he could buy beer, and had no problem doing so on my behalf. I drove him home from work almost everyday, and he'd usually invite me in to knock back a few. He lived in a hellhole in the Bottoms, on the far side of Strawberry Knoll.

The Knoll was a short hill with a steep point. On the side ascending it, were developments of were 3 story prefab houses made of popsicle sticks and Elmer's glue, with large pricetags and small plots of land, practically sitting on top of each other. I couldn't help thinking of them as housing projects for yuppies. Nor could I help thinking of them as being somewhat separate, and distant. The way they sat just far enough off the road and tucked just far enough behind the hill so as to seem inaccessible, out of reach, almost seemed like an ominous teller of what came next.

The far side of the Knoll was The Bottoms, a whole different world. The houses were old, mostly disheveled and with ill kept lawns, and sat right on the road like they were trying to crowd you. The residents were mostly black, which even at 17, with no concept the black underclass or how it differed from anything I was accustomed too, made my senses all perk up. It was a form of alertness I had not felt before. It would be a while before I learned what it meant.

Nothing bad ever happened to me there. In fact, I came to enjoy hanging out at Ed's place. Even after I left the rental shop and moved on to a new job at a college a few miles away, I went by there frequently. I would often take my white teenage friends from back home there. We'd drink beer and smoke weed and do other stuff that seems so much cooler when you're still a kid.

There were things in that place though, that disturbed me, even before I realized I was indeed disturbed. For one thing, despite his age, Ed lived with his mom. Not only that, but so did at least three of his brothers, one of his nephews, and one of his sisters. At any given time there might be more people in the house, many of whom weren't even related and some who none of the family even seemed to know. All of these were grown, able bodied men and women, yet Ed seemed to be the only one who ever worked. They contributed practically nothing to the household or to their mother's care (Ed included). Their mother, for her part, was a sweet old lady, prematurely aged by a hard life. A farmer's daughter, then a farmer's wife, and the mother of 14 (yes, four-teen) children, too many of whom never amounted to much. The ones still living there were shiftless with a capital SHIfT.

If I would find occasion to swing by there during the day, I'd usually find half a dozen or so grown men sitting listlessly around the television watching Jerry Springer or alike, or sitting under the large shade tree in the backyard, drunk and high on any and everything in the early afternoon. One time I happened in on this, and Ed wasn't there. He wasn't really good for much, but he did maintain employment. Even so, two of his brothers were there whom I knew, as well as Wayne, the quiet, timid, little guy who almost seemed scared of his shadow. There were also maybe 8 or 10 guys I'd never seen before. But I had the day off from work, and nothing else to do, so I walked up to shoot the shit with them and maybe steal a beer, and I made the mistake of entering the conversation with "What's this, a holiday? Is everyone off work today?"

All of them, including Ed's brothers, glared at me like they were all going to get up and kick my ass. They also had a look like they were trying to figure out what I meant, which I now realize they genuinely didn't understand. That intimidated them. The looks were meant to keep me in my place. By this time, I'd already learned that you never show any sign of weakness or backing down with these people, so I remained silent and stared back, until little Wayne broke the ice by chuckling, referring to me by name and offering me a beer.

I'd received this kind of reception from people at Ed's house before. Bad attitudes, looks of mistrust, and endless posturing aimed at making sure I knew who was boss. But this was the day it finally occurred to me the reason for all this: I was white. I had become familiar enough to Ed and his brothers, but anyone who didn't already know me well were automatically suspicious and resentful of my presence. This was exacerbated by the fact that I was clearly the intellectual better of everyone there, and they all knew it. I didn't understand the significance of it, but I knew it to. I couldn't pretend, even to myself, that I didn't notice the abhorrent English, lack of education and literacy, and the vacuous expressions that overtook their faces during almost every conversation, as they tried to pretend they were keeping up with what I was saying. I didn't think it was any big deal, but most of them were intimidated, and to some of them that meant the same as being insulted. I'd been in fights with a few of them. The rest never let them live down the fact that they got their ass kicked by a teenage white boy, but in reality it's not usually too difficult to stomp an out of shape drug addict, especially when he's so fucked up he can't even walk straight.

They could be cool with me though, when useful. Unlike any of them, I had a valid driver's license, and wheels, with tags that didn't come from a car in the beer store parking lot. Everyone was mighty nice to me, blessing white folk and God Almighty who is Father to us all, when they needed a ride.

After a while, Ed came home. We had a few beers, and I left. As I drove away that day, It all finally made sense to me:

This was the Underclass, and I was witnessing it for the first time.

I thought about all the things I'd heard, things I'd heard genuinely racist white guys say, as well as things that bleeding-heart types had told me racist white guys would say. I couldn't say that they were true as blanket statements (and still can't), but in that house I saw an awful lot of things firsthand that I had been told weren't real. Things that were supposed to be all filthy lies told by evil white supremacists who make it all up because they hate black people for no reason at all. Black people were all supposed to be wholesome and good and oppressed and beautiful, with a rich and heartwarming culture and the-slums-got-so-much-soul and anyone who says otherwise is racist and a nazi and probably eats little puppies. Indeed, I've since met many black people who are as decent, respectable and just all around good people as anyone could ask. But my first experience was with the black underclass, and I saw a lot more of what the rednecks told me I'd find than what the bleeding-hearts told me.

"Oh, so this is what made Whiskey a racist!" No. These events did not make me a racist. That didn't happen until quite some time later.

Ed and I remained close friends for a few years, though visits became much less frequent. One day I stopped by while I was in the neighborhood, and one of his sisters told me he had disappeared a few months before. He didn't say where he was going, and as far as I know, he never came back.

As for quiet-timid-little Wayne, last I heard of him he had gone to jail for cracking his brother Sterling's head open with a baseball bat over a matter of $20. Sterling had a shitload of stitches, but he came out alright. The head is the safest place to hit Sterling. There never was much in there to hurt.

Safety, and Why it Sucks

A couple of days ago, I was sitting at an intersection in Taneytown MD waiting to make a left hand turn onto the town's one main road from a side street. Right next to me, and easily within earshot, was a cop writing tickets to two young boys for riding their bicycles without helmets. Neither boy looked like he could have been more than 13 years old.

Let me be clear: the cop was in no way abusing the boys, verbally or otherwise. He was as polite as cops ever are. The boys were duly respectful, if a little shaken (this cop was a pretty big dude, easily more than enough to intimidate a couple kids just by his presence). Ultimately, the cop was doing his job...

...which is busting kids for riding bicycles without helmets?!
Who the hell came up with that brilliant idea?

When I was a young'n, growing up it then-rural Carroll "Cow" county MD, every kid in the neighborhood had bikes, mostly BMXs. We rode constantly, everyday, because there wasn't much else to do, at least not until Super Mario Bros. 3 came out. We occasionally fell, collided accidentally, collided deliberately, jumped curbs and homemade ramps and went airborne like damned fools. We skinned knees, sprained ankles, broke fingers and toes, and usually got right back up and rode (how else were we going to get home?). We'd never seen a bike helmet. It was a foreign concept. If we'd seen one lying on the ground, we'd have probably reported it to the police.

All in all, we fared alright, even without helmets and even with the big steel un-kid-proofed contraptions at the old McDonalds Playplaces (many of us had our first mosh pit experiences on the spring loaded Grimace cage). Last I heard, we're all still alive and in good health, with no lasting effects from our various injuries. Except for that Miller boy, who might have sustained brain damage, but we figured he'd have been that way no matter what.

Today, everywhere you go, there's an endless gaggle of laws and regulations aimed at making sure we're all "safe", usually from ourselves. Children have to wear helmets while riding bicycles. Adults have to wear helmets while riding motorcycles. Drivers have to wear seatbelts while driving automobiles. All are things that only affect the individual in question. All are things that don't make anyone around them any safer. All are things the state will go into your wallet over, should you fail to do them.

Some laws make sense. I can see the point behind speed limits, or DUI/DWI laws, or reckless driving laws. If I'm operating a half ton piece of metal at a-mile-a-minute or better, and am drunk, or high, or going too fast to properly control the thing, then I'm putting everyone else on the road at risk. This is unacceptable. But if I'm simply driving without a seatbelt, the only increased risk is to myself. If I'm not putting anyone else at risk, then it's not the state's business. I certainly don't owe them any money for it.

Yes, I've heard anecdotes from several people about how their seatbelt kept them in control of a vehicle during a wreck. I've also heard just as many about how seatbelts have broken bones, severed limbs, choked people and rendered them unconscious during wrecks. When you get in a wreck, odds are something bad is going to happen to someone. It can unfold any number of ways. The variables are too many to count, much less preempt.

On another front, we see the persecution of smokers. I'm not talking about jacking up taxes on cigarettes. That may be unfair and born of malice, but it's not a tax anyone has to pay. The smoker can decide whether or not to buy cigarettes. I'm talking about laws which do little or nothing to actually curb smoking, but make smokers miserable. The latter is the real reason the assholes who push for such laws do so. They're not concerned with anyone's health, and they know all the hoopla over second hand smoke is at best over-hyped, at worst fraudulent. Most of it relies on epidemiology, a crude statistical science. A little info on how such studies are conducted might come in useful. The point is, these laws are simply designed to punish smokers for not acting the way these assholes want them to. For instance, in Montgomery county MD you can no longer smoke in bars. The net effect? People go to bars and spend most of their time standing in front of the place with their buddies, talking and smoking cigarettes. The bar owner loses money because people outside can't buy their alcohol and greasy food. Those bars that don't have a clear and private outdoor space for smokers lose business to those who do. But the smoking, in and of itself, doesn't decrease. The smokers and the bars that serve them are simply made as uncomfortable and as inconvenienced as possible, and that's the idea. The whole damned point of going to a bar is to engage in unhealthy living. Assholes who fancy themselves your betters disapprove, and are punishing you for it. That's all it is. Purely punitive measures, born of vindictiveness and malice.

Notice that no serious motions are put forth to actually outlaw bars, drinking, or even cigarettes. That's not the idea. If there were suddenly no smokers, the do-gooder assholes would have to find someone else to feel superior to. Make no mistake, this will happen anyway. Next it will be alcohol, then they'll want to tell you what food you can eat, regulate your exercise habits, etc. But the other half is, of course money. Taxes, to be specific. In Maryland, it's perfectly legal to buy as many packs or cartons of cigarettes as you please. But going across the state line into Virginia to buy your smokes can get you arrested. Comptroller William Donald Schaefer, MD's favorite self-absorbed tyrant, has the state police monitoring key points along the Potomac, searching for people buying multiple cartons of cigarettes in VA and bringing them back across the river, thus avoiding MD's substantial cigarette tax. VA's tax is one of the lowest in the country.

Thing is, this is all perfectly legal. Cigarettes are a legal product, and if you buy them in VA, you owe VA taxes on them, not MD taxes. MD has no legal right to prosecute anyone for not paying taxes which are not owed. Of course, Schaefer has never been overly concerned with the legality of his actions, being more akin to an organized crime boss than a statesman.

All of this bullshit done in the name of...what? Keeping us safe? From ourselves? They have no right.

In the interests of full disclosure: I wear my seatbelt while driving. I reckon it's probably a good idea. I quit smoking six months ago, and with a bit of effort and willpower, I'm doing well. Again, I reckoned it was a good idea. But it was my choice, not the state's, and not the do-gooders'.

Of the nanny state, well, I figure Ludacris put it best when he said "Move, bitch! Get out 'da way!". OK, that might not have been what he was talking about, but it fits. Leave the smokers to die of cancer. Leave the beltless to die in car wrecks. And leave our children free to enjoy the wonderful and injury-ridden childhoods we enjoyed back in Cow county; dissembling themselves on bikes, scooters, ATVs, Radio Flyer wagons, and all other two and three wheeled instruments of death.

"But Whiskey, Radio Flyer wagons had four wheels!"

Not when we got through with them they didn't.

What was Once Rural Maryland

So here I sit, on a beautiful and lazy Sunday afternoon, with a simple glass of iced tea, as opposed to the usual pint of Guinness, Smithwicks or Sam Adams. My regular readers (both of them) know that the three aforementioned nectars usually accompany the writing of these pieces, but it seems unwise after last night's partying. You see, an old friend of mine just recently became a journeyman electrician and landed a new job making damned good starting pay. Since we all had always figured this boy would never amount to shit, and since we all had beer, him becoming a certified pro-feshnul seemed like a damned good excuse to get together in the backwoods Maryland town we all grew up in and drink it. We country boys really like marking milestones with beer. These include such miraculous events as birthdays, breakups, PBR on sale at The Liquor Barn, and days that end in "y".

So, sober and with my headache almost gone, I go back to counting down my last few days here in Taneytown MD, before I go back to Texas. As central Maryland towns go, Taney's not a bad one. Not yet, at least. Central MD used to be predominately rural towns and farmland. Even the infamous Balto/DC corridor was fairly low key only a few years ago. Baltimore and Washington, like twins from Hell, have pretty much always been shitholes, and are continuing to get worse as time goes on. Problem is, somewhere along the line the denizens of these cities found out how to escape them.

Thus began the sprawl.

Like fungus, or cockroaches, or any other nasty simile you like, they poured out of the cities and into the small rural communities who, somehow, never saw it coming. The city folk, you see, had grown weary of the stress, the crowding, the filth, and above all the crime that was (and is) part of everyday life in the city. Problem is, they brought it all with them. Towns like Mt. Airy, Cockeysville, Frederick, Fullerton and Bel Air are all but unrecognizable anymore.

Rural life may be more peaceful, friendlier and less stressful than urban life, and city folks seem to like these traits. But it's also less convenient, and they hate that. The city folks don't seem to want to drive or travel any distance for anything they want or need. Strange, since most of them still work in and around the cities, and endure long, difficult and miserable commutes to and from them each day. But other than that, they have to have every convenience right in their backyard, just like they did in the city. So come the strip malls. So come the chain restaurants. So come the Wal-marts, the wholesale clubs, the new roads and constant road construction, and the endless developments of identical, overpriced houses. So comes suburbia.

This of course, has it's good and bad points alike. Stores and construction mean jobs and income. Roads mean commerce. But also traffic jams, noise and congestion, frustration and irritability. A man trying to get home from work tends to get pissed when he has to sit for ten minutes in a mile long line of traffic on a country road that's always been there, because of the new traffic light in front of the new strip mall that hasn't.

Still the detriments go deeper. The sense of community that was once taken for granted in the small rural town, deteriorates rapidly in the new suburbia. Where once existed a small population of people who knew and did business with each other, now there is a population two or three times as large, of people who have no interest in knowing each other and do all their business with big chain stores run by faceless people far away. The original local businesses are diminished, often terminally, by their new imported competition, with whom they are simply not large enough to compete.

This is neither a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, it's just how the marketplace works. But it doesn't make for pleasant or tight-knit community.

Further, the values of the imported city folks and the original country folks often clash. By and large, the country folks are used to doing things their own way. One takes care of one's self and family, and doesn't butt into anyone else's business, for the most part. So long as you don't hurt or bother anyone else, you pretty much do as you wish. Looking after you and your's is your own responsibility, and no one else's. Courtesy and common sense make fine stand-ins for laws, and shooting rats at the dump is not only a God-given right, it's a rite of passage for every adolescent boy with a .22.

The city folks are pack animals. They figure everyone is and must be interdependent on everyone else, and can't seem to understand how any other way could ever be possible. They have a set idea of how things should be (basically just like the place they just left, only prettier), and quickly set about the business of making their new hometown conform to it. This is rarely difficult. Once there are enough of them, the businesses are happy to come right in and cater to them. On the legal end, they quickly gain control of local and municipal governments, since they quickly become the largest portion of the towns population, and usually wield the most money. From hence springs a gaggle of new laws and regulations to govern every aspect of daily life. This happens with such automacity that the process is hardly noticed. Also, they tend to bring the worst parts of their former surroundings with them. The urban culture (chiefly engineered by Hollywood and Madison avenue), drugs, crime and section 8 housing follow them wherever they go.

The resentment between the two groups begins almost instantly. The city folks have little use for their predecessors, who they tend to view as backward, and ignorant, and hold in contempt. The country folks have no love at all for their new neighbors, who they view as an occupying force. Worse, they can't leave. Even if they were willing to uproot and leave their homes (which is not unreasonable when home becomes unrecognizable), and move to the next small rural town, they know they're just delaying the inevitable: soon the conditions in their old hometown will deteriorate, and the same city folks will move on and steamroll the new town as well.

But for now, Taneytown has avoided this fate. Its lack of freeways and other major thoroughfares leaves it still fairly inconvenient to the city. The population is small, and most of the outside business interests are production based companies on the outskirts of town, and don't much compete with local business interests. Other than that, we've got a Food Lion and a McDonalds, but that's about it. But the sprawling suburbia is only 13 miles away in Westminster; another former small town, long since swallowed, steamrolled and now bulging at the seams. Sooner or later, it will sprawl the rest of the way here. I'll be long since gone, and won't be here to see it. That doesn't bother me one bit.

Below the Social Radar: Pity for the Overclass

It has been suggested by some that there are lower lifeforms among us. According to the likes of college professors, politicians and the endless string of vapid airheads on TV, these include such things as cockroaches, viruses and rednecks. They look at these things and see lower life forms. I look at these things and see the species which will survive the fallout.

Jeff Foxworthy describes the state of redneck-hood as "a glorious lack of sophistication". Fred Reed defines a redneck as "anyone without a college degree who can hang a door or lube his car." Thus far, I seem to fit into this category.

Foxworthy's use of the word "glorious" is fairly appropriate. A lifelong member of the Great Unwashed, also known as the working class, I relish the freedom of thought and speech afforded me by my blue collar surroundings, and the lack of expectations (or interest) from those who fancy themselves my intellectual betters. Rednecks say what they mean, and mean what they say. Whether or not what they say is in any way accurate is secondary, so long as they mean it. If one has an opinion or observation, he states it. Don't like it? Fuck you, wanna fight about it? If so, let's roll (this doesn't actually happen nearly as much as some people think, not even in Memphis). We like women who look and act like women (as opposed to stick figures who look like whores and act like us). We disregard polite society, ignore fashion trends, and have trouble understanding things that don't make no sense. A bushel of Chesapeake Blues and a case of Sam Adams constitutes "fine dining".

Sometimes though, I forget that others don't always have it so good.

I drive a truck. Few jobs are as emblematic of the blue collar working class (or of rednecks) as that. For the most part, my direct dealings are with other blue collar types: s/r workers, equipment operators, and lots and lots of Mexicans. Still, I do occasionally have to deal directly with the middle class types. Salesmen (excuse me, salespersons), planners, GMs and alike. Invariably, I see guys in polo shirts and khakis. Bad haircuts meant to simulate the hundred-dollar do's of various celebrities. All of the above scream "Look! I paid way too much for this crap at some trendy franchise department store/hair stylist/etc.!" A quick glance over the parking lot will instantly tell you which vehicles belong to which employees. Odds are real good that the polo shirt guy is hopping in the overpriced SUV or wanna-be sports car, and that the forklift operator is driving off in the Chevy pickup. The Hispanic shift leader will likely drive off in the '87 Dodge Ram, with the other 37 Hispanic workers in the back (ba-dum-ching!).

For the life of me, I just can't figure out the middle class types. People who go through four or more years of an overpriced, usually overvalued, education so they can spend the next 40 years in small offices and smaller cubicles doing mind-dulling phone and paper work all so they can...what? Live a prefabricated and static existence in suburbia? Trap themselves under a crushing mortgage on a poorly constructed house with a five square foot yard that looks exactly like every other house in their preplanned development? Overpay for junk of which they have no need?

Actually, I think that last one sums it up pretty well.

So much of what defines the middle class seems to be the principle of consumption for consumption's sake. Mindlessly they pursue whatever useless products the idiot box says are the flavor of the week. For instance, what on God's green earth does anyone need with a multi-disc DVD changer? How many movies do you plan to watch in a row? And is it really so hard to walk over to the machine and change the disc? For that matter, what purpose is served by a $10,000 flat screen TV the size of a small car? If you need a picture that big to see what's going on, I'd suggest a visit to the optometrist, not Best Buy.

Some say that it's all about status symbols. "Look at me, I wasted more money on useless crap than you did!" I'm sure there's some truth to this. Hummer SUVs are neither attractive nor practical vehicles, but their owners do seem to successfully "make a statement" with them, even if that statement is merely "I spent $55,000 on a car." They must be sending these statements strictly to each other, because I can honestly tell you that us working class types, really don't give a shit.

But frankly, I think it's worse than just vanity. They seem to consume junk almost out of desperation, as if they'll be un-whole if they don't have every trendy thing possible. Or worse, if someone else has something they don't. It's as if they're trying desperately to fill some void in their life with products, and are oblivious to the fact that it's not working. I think in large part, this is because the void is imaginary. A clever concoction of those who market the very junk the middle class buys to fill it.

Worse though, I think, than the ever-wanting nature of middle class life, is the ever-regulated nature of middle class life. Codes of conduct, speech and even thought are enforced strictly, albeit implicitly. In the old Soviet Union, saying the wrong thing meant spending the rest of your life in a prison/labor camp in Siberia. Somewhere along the line though, somebody figured out that such draconian measures were counterproductive and unnecessary. Controlling thought via the Iron Fist is a recipe for rebellion, but when done through coercion is nearly fool proof. Openly expressing the wrong opinion about a sensitive issue; stating (or even noticing) the shortcomings of a member of some protected Group; expressing an unappreciated sentiment or thought to an overly sensitive co-worker, can mean the loss of a job, or a promotion. It can result in legal action that can destroy companies and bankrupt individuals. When people have something to lose, they tend to conform, but they don't like it. Hostility born of resentment brews. They feel it, but are powerless to act on it. It brews more.

The purveyors of the Thought Codes are seldom anonymous, though to point them out or challenge them invites similar reprecussions. When I was in high school, and for a year after, I worked on the security staff of a community college near Washington DC. I was a part time employee, which despite working full time hours, meant I was eligible for no raises and no benefits. This didn't bother me, I never intended to make a career out of it. There were three other part timers there, all of whom had seniority over me, who wanted a full time position, which meant a good pay scale and excellent benefits.

Colleges, however, are bastions of political correctness and Thought Codes. When a full time position on security finally did come open, all of the part time units, save for me, applied for it. It was expected that the job would go to the senior part timer, who had been working there for over two years by then. But one of the full timers, who happened to be on the college's Affirmative Action Commitee, complained that there weren't enough women on staff (including the part timers, there were 15 guards total, 13 were men). There were over two dozen applicants for the post, and only two were women, one of whom got the job. Thing was, one of the job requirements was First Responder certification, and while she had once been certified, it was long since expired. Don't get me wrong, it was still a monkey's job, and she could and did perform it just as well as anyone else. Medical emergencies of the type that required such training were extremely rare. Still, the three part timers who applied had their certifications valid and up to date, which made them each better qualified candidates for the job than her. The simple fact was, they had each just been turned down for a job in favor of a lesser qualified candidate, all because they had the wrong genitalia. The boys were not happy.

To their credit, I never heard them blame or begrudge their new female co-worker. For her part, she simply applied for a job, and was hired. She was in no way involved in the politics of the matter. But the fellows had no recourse against the guard who was. The AAC was just about unassailable, and she was well known for her propensity for crying racism/sexism when people said things she didn't like. The men on staff walked on verbal eggshells when she was in the room. The part timers knew that if they complained, they were likely to be charged with sexual discrimination and have punitive action taken against them, which for part timers pretty much meant termination. All three of them were working towards careers in law enforcement, and such a black mark on their resum'es would likely be career suicide. So, they were silent. But resentful. And angry.

The further up the pay scale one goes, the more this kind of scenario seems to be the case. Of course, no matter where you are in the scheme of things, it is always right to be considerate of those around you. But if I have a co-worker who is lazy, or incompetent, and I wind up picking up his slack, when I complain to my supervisor about it, I won't be in fear of losing my job if said co-worker happens to be black, or female, or Mexican, or whatever. Cubicle workers and polo shirt types have to be endlessly mindful of such things.

But, just as I've chosen the life I lead, good parts and bad, they've chosen theirs, though I can't fathom why. But I will continue to feel a slight twinge of pity for the Overclass, even as I flip them the bird, pop the clutch and roll on down the great open road, carrying the freight they sold from the confines of their cubicles.

Hooray for Conspiracy Theories!

Last time around, I rated Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, in it's capacity as a Wild Conspiracy Theory, on a scale from nothing to nothing. The book was phenomenal, but the Theory didn't stack up well.

Still, the great WCTs are out there. Personally, I love these things. When taken with a grain of salt, the provoke thought, bend the mind, and are wildly entertaining. When taken too seriously, they provoke paranoia, twist the mind, and are wildly whacked out.

Every major event or development seems to have a WCT to go with it. Hell, even minor events and developments seem too, anymore. Be it the Kennedy assasination (a plot by Hoover, or Johnson, or the chain-smoker from The X Files), the US hockey win over the USSR in the 1982 Olympics (the CIA drugged the Russian goalie), the death of Princess Diana (assasinated by the British Monarchy/MI6 to cover up the fact that she was carrying an Arabic love-child), to the AIDS virus (engineered by Jews and tested on gays to eliminate blacks), theres a Theory for everything.

I reckon people can come up with WCTs for any number of reasons or none at all, but I'd also reckon that they usually arise from one of three:

1) Some people simply like putting together puzzles. This is not a bad trait to have, overall. It usually indicates above average intelligence. They love to assemble the pieces, discern the patterns, see what others miss. This trait is pretty much prerequisite for one to be a detective, doctor, historian, or alike. Problem is, that trait doesn't turn off just because there's no puzzle for it to solve. Sometimes when others don't see it, it's because there's nothing there. When this happens, the mystery oriented mind has a way of manufacturing a problem to solve.

2) Some people just can't handle that bad things happen, and sometimes do so for no fucking reason, or at least not one of the caliber we expect. I for one, was dumbfounded watching the World Trade Center collapse on TV. There was the requisite "oh-my-God-all-those-people" shock, but there was more than that. I wasn't amazed that the buildings fell, no structure has yet been built by man that can't be unbuilt. It was the how, and who that got me. Not a missle, no sophisticated weaponry, not the Red Chinese fucking Army. It was a handful of half-assed desert boys who executed a plan so damned simple, it went right under our noses. We were supposed to be impervious to shit like this, this isn't supposed to happen to us. But we aren't, and it did. Some folk just can't accept stuff like this. There has to be some evil genius super villain, there just has to be. Perhaps it's a problem of overinflated egos. I don't know where anyone gets the idea we're somehow suitable rivals for Lex Luthor. I think it would probably be generous to put us on par with Sideshow Bob.

3)Fixation on a scapegoat. Somebody or some group, which simply must be the root of all evil in the world, and directly responsible for any bad thing that happens. The Freemasons. The Catholic Church. The Jews. The Trilateral Comission. The United Nations. The Military. The Bildebergers. The International Monetary Fund. George W. Bush. Dick Cheney. Bill Clinton. Halliburton. The Government. Most have shady characters or histories, or both. But for the most part, I'd reckon the kind of organization and competence neccesary to pull off the great conspiracies theorized is often beyond those who traditionally get the fingers pointed at them.

I should mention however, that just because someone believes that a group is trying to dominate the world, doesn't neccesarily mean they're not. And just because you're paraniod doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

But, all that notwithstanding, here are a couple of my all time favorite conspiracies.

While running for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan swears he will not take on George Bush as his running mate, and says he will open an investigation into Freemason influence on Congress and national politics. But after a "closed door meeting", Reagan does a 180, takes Bush on and stops talking about the Masons. Shortly after his inauguration, Reagan is shot. Had he died, Freemason George Bush would have become president.

A Masonic conspiracy? Probably not, especially when you consider that Reagan was shot by a nutcase named John Hinckley, who belived that assasinating the president might win him the affections of Jodie Foster (yes, the lousy actress). Hinckley also admitted to having stalked Jimmy Carter on the campaign trail in 1979. Still, it makes you wonder who was whispering in his ear, "do it, John. Jodie hates this guy. If you drop him, she'll lay back and give it up for sure..."

Hurricane Katrina: Bush did it. George W. Bush deliberately withheld federal aid, monetary and otherwise, to citizens of New Orleans. He did this of course because he hates black people and wants them all dead, and all New Orleanians are black. He also sent Navy divers in just before the storm to set bombs at the base of the already outdated levees, to be detonated during the storm so the city would be flooded and kill even more black people.

Actually, if you talk to the right nutjob, Bush sent Coast guard ships in to ram the levees (they did this in the middle of the hurricane, so no one would notice), and conjured the storm himself, either through super-secret expirimental weather-weapons being tested by the military, or perhaps through sorcery. Great. Our president is not only a warmonger, an idiot, a Freemason and an asshole, he's also a warlock. But Bush planting bombs at the bases of the levees? Come on, we all know that was done during the Ford administration and they've just been waiting for the right storm to use as cover.

All narcotics are inventions of the white man specifically designed to destroy the black man. During the Nixon administration, and ever since, the US government has been pumping cocaine, heroin, PCP and all other manner of garbage into the ghettos of America's major cities in an effort to keep black communities torn, weakened and subserviant. Crack was invented on the orders of Ronald Reagan because they other junk just wasn't killing negroes off fast enough.

Nevermind the fact that any black community could easily counteract this strategy by simply not taking the drugs, and running those who do take them and those who deal them out of town on a rail (or better yet, just shoot the sumbitches). It just can't be that drugs are in the ghetto because the people there want them. Believe me, they do. I've spent most of my life living and/or working in the shitholes of Baltimore and DC, and I've been to similar shitholes delivering freight in almost every major city in America, and drugs are the great common denominator.

This is the type of WCT that both amuses me, and aggrivates me, most. The cop-out Theory. "It's someone else's fault I act the way I do". A similar one exits where the Jews, who of course run all movie studios and television stations, are destroying American culture by producing and airing the filth that passes for entertainment in movies, music and TV these days. Is most of it filth? Yes. Is there a heavy Jewish presence in Hollywood? Yes. Are they pumping any filth into our homes that we are not allowing, indeed asking them to pump in? No. We buy the movie tickets. We buy the CDs. We order the deluxe super cable service with the 50 extra uncensored channels that play shitty movies 24-7. If we didn't want it and spend our hard earned money on it, they wouldn't produce it. If the Jews are building the weapons of mass cultural destruction, then we are funding them, of our own free will.

Area 51. Supposedly a top secret military base where aliens have landed, bio-chem agents are being tested for use on the American populace, and the way is being paved for an alien invasion. Also, apparently the home of the Luciferian New World Order.

I can't even get going on this one. Read this, and judge for yourself.

But for the life of me, I can't seem to come up with a Wild Conspiracy Theory of my very own. I have one about how the Devil actually runs the whole world, but that's more of a theological thing. Non-Christains would say I'd gone over the deep end, Bible-thumpers would say I was stating the obvious. Both would be right.

I suppose since I don't put much stock in WCTs, I have trouble dreaming them up. But one day I will come up with one, a GREAT one, and join the ranks of Michael Moore, Alex Jones, Dan Brown, and that creepy guy at the bar who swears that the Justice Department fixes it's stats to make it appear that all serial killers are black, even though in reality they are almost all white.

Brown's Conspiracy Theory: Wild or just Whacked?

So, The Da Vinci Code hit the screen this past Friday. At first I was hard up to see it as soon as possible, but then a couple of people I know saw it and told me it was really boring, and for the very reason I feared it might be: long, intricate bits of exposition can make for a real page-turner of a book (which TDVC most certainly was), but it rarely translates well onto the screen. Nothing slows down a film's pace like having all the characters sit down and talk.

Still, I'll have to see it at some point, even if only after it hits HBO, because the book was fantastic and it deals (eloquently) with one of my personal favorite topics: Wild Conspiracy Theories!

But as Wild Conspiracy Theories go, how does Dan Brown's Code really stack up?

Hopefully without ruining it for the three people left in America who haven't read the book yet, here it is in a nutshell:

TDVC alleges that Jesus Christ was merely a mortal man, and that He and Mary Magdelene were in fact married. This union produced on offspring, a daughter, still in utero at the time of Christ's crucifixion. The other disciples were all insanely jealous of Magdalene, because Jesus loved her more than he loved them (?) and she feared they would kill her and her daughter. So, she fled by boat across the Mediteranean, and landed on the south shore of France, where she bore her daughter, who later married into the Merovingian dynasty of French roalty.

Fast forward about 300 years, and we see the founding of the Holy Catholic Church via Emporer Constantine and the Council of Nicea. From the get-go, the church somehow manages to erase almost all public knowledge or memory of this divine bloodline (which had a 300 year headstart on them), and forever seeks to destroy the San Greal (Holy Grail) documents which prove the descendent lineage of Christ. These documents, as well as the identities of those descendents themselves, are guarded by the Priory of Sion, a shadowy, secret society whose list of Grand Masters just happens to read like a who's who of the most famous (and attention loving) people of all time. The list includes the likes of Sir Issac Newton, Sandro Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and of course, a flaming homosexual painter named Leonardo Da Vinci, who riddled his works with vague and abstract "clues" as to the true identity of the Holy Grail (Magdalene). The church continues to this day to try to stamp out this all powerful secret via a sub-sect called Opus Dei (Work of God), which employs intimidation, bribery, and murderous albino monks to keep the world from finding out the truth.

Believe it or not, if you haven't read the book yet, you can have all the info I just laid out and still find it to be an intriguing read. Even so, most of it is easily debunked, which of course resulted in an almost immediate cottage industry of "debunking The Da Vinci Code" books. Author Dan Brown readily admits his book is a work of fiction, except when he can generate controversy and book sales by going on TV and claiming it's all fact. Even the authors of 1982's Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Brown blatantly plagiarised, won't go that far.

Brown liberally mixes fact and fiction, and has never claimed otherwise to my knowledge. Still, many of his assertions are at best demonstrably flawed, and at worst intellectually dishonest. For instance, there is an author's note at the beginning of the book which claims the Priory of Sion is a real organization, founded in 1099. More accurately, the Priory was a real organization, founded in 1954 by a convicted con artist named Pierre Plantard, who produced several elaborate forgeries of documents related to the Merovingian dynasty, in which he added himself as the last living member of their family tree, and thus rightful heir to the throne of France. The Priory is named therein as the group who protects and records said bloodline. Plantard claimed to be its then current Grand Master (conveniently putting himself in league with Da Vinci and alike). He arranged for those documents to be "found" by a reporter of his acquaintence at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, and made public. Plantard then did a much publicized television interview (member of secret societies protecting great secrets generally don't do that). I've heard it reported that the reporter, whose name escapes me at the moment (Blassard, I think, or alike) later admitted his role in the hoax. He has also since died. Plantard, likewise, passed on in 2000.

I should note that Plantard claimed only to be descended from the Merovingians, not from Christ Jesus. In fact, on a French radio interview he very specifically denied the latter. There is no evidence of any kind that the two bloodlines were ever intertwined, or indeed that Christ ever fathered a bloodline.

So as conspiracy theories go, Brown's, while certainly entertaining and thought provoking, rates fairly low, since so much of it has been thoroughly debunked, and what remains is flimsy at best. There are some great ones out there though, which I will delve into in my next entertaining and Illuminating (readers of Brown's Angels and Demons will note the oh-so-eeeeeeerie invocation of another secret society) column.

Liberty vs. Equality: Place Your Bets

There are certain questions which have vexed the generations, all the way back to the first. Questions which engage the minds and imaginations of all who bother to ask them, despite the fact that their answers are pretty much irrelevant. Why are we here? Where did we come from? What comes after this? Is this all there is? What the hell happened to white people? The answers to these questions and others like them have eluded the world's finest minds since the dawn of time. But they didn't have Guinness. I do.

So with a fresh pint settling itself in front of me (drinkers of pussy American beers will wonder what that means), and having answered all of the above four already (after about 7 pints, you realize "who gives a shit?" is actually the answer to all of them), I will now tackle an equally vexing, if less contemplated, matter: liberty, or equality? Which do we need more?

Both liberty and equality are laudable goals. They are the most basic foundation of American society. The Declaration of Independence lists one as an "unalienable right" with which all men are endowed by their Creator, the other the manner in which all men are created, and that's all in the same sentence. Problem is, they're both mutually exclusive. They don't get along well. In most cases, one must be sacrificed for the sake of the other.

So which one do you dump? Nine times out of ten, I'd say equality.

The root of the word "equality" is, of course, "equal", and "equal" means "exactly the same". 7 plus 3=10, because "7 plus 3" is exactly the same as "10". But people aren't numbers, and no two of us are exactly the same. Some are smarter than others. Some are prettier. Some are lazier. Some are stronger of mind, others of body, still others of both. Some are more contemptible. Some are less valuable. No matter how you cut it, the truth is we simply are not equal.

The cool part is, that for the most part we ourselves determine these variables of difference by the choices we make. The man who goes to work every morning and pays his bills chooses to be more responsible than the man who sits at home on his ass all day and has a pile of shut-off notices from the power company. The woman who helps her kids with their homework at night even though she's dead tired from working all day chooses to be a better mother than the public uterus living on welfare who has five kids to seventeen daddies, none of whom she could pick out of a lineup (though the police have occasionally asked her to), and can't help her fourth grader with his math homework because she herself can't do long division. The 180 lb. athlete who runs 3 miles every morning and drinks lots of protien shakes chooses to be in better shape than the 300 lb. trucker who posts internet blogs and drinks lots of Guinness. You get the idea. All men are created equal. They don't stay that way for long.

Somewhere along the line though, some Group of idiots decided that it just wasn't fair that some people are simply living better than others. The thought of people being left alone to make their own choices distresses these idiots to no end, because some people will surely fail to make the right choices, and suffer the consequences (worse still, they might make choices the idiots don't approve of, but that's for another essay). It also means that some will come out fantastically successful, and it's just not right that some people should be loving life while others are miserable.

These are the Relativists, the wierdos suffering from an insane notion that life is a zero-sum game. The idea is that if one person has something that another does not, then he must have acquired it unfairly, since the fact that only he has it is inherently unfair to begin with. Steps must be taken to insure equality of outcome, since that's the only way things will be fair.

At some point, the Relativist idiots began acquiring political power. Indeed, they've all but engulfed America's oldest political party. They've become an overwhelming force in the fields of academia, as well as the news and entertainment media. A whole industry has sprung up around pursuing equal outcomes despite unequal input in virtually all areas of life. Since, of course, this end is unattainable, its pursuit is endlessly profitable.

The problem is this: we can't actually make the people at the bottom of the spectrum more productive if they don't want to be. If they are content to live in abject squalor and slide by on minimal effort, we can't make them do otherwise. So, the only way to ensure equality is to bring everyone down to their level. Success cannot be mandated, but it can sure as hell be punished.

If we are to maintain equality, than no one must be allowed to excel. Success must be taxed, and failure subsidized. All standards of education, language, art and culture must be brought down to the lowest common denominator, so that the shiftless, the stupid, and the incapable appear to be just like their betters. The values of the underclass must be embraced and touted; those of the elite ridiculed and scorned. Complacency must be encouraged, and achievement must be portrayed as a four-letter-word.

In the process, liberty is quashed. The idea of equality has been the basis for the failed experiments in socialism and communism around the world. Invariably, these have either been totalitarian police states where the government controls all aspects of one's life (China, Cuba, the old Soviet Union) or totalitarian welfare states where the government controls all aspects of one's life (France, Scandanavia, Germany, and America is working on it). Phinneus Taylor Barnum once said that what made America exceptional was that it is "the land where every man is free to do his best". He was right, and this in and of itself flies in the face of equalibrium. Not everyone can or will do as well as everyone else and some will do better. Can't have that.

Of course, most of the "equal" results touted by the Relativist idiots are works of pure fiction to begin with. For instance, when a failing school system lowers its grading criteria so that it's students are showing the same grades as a better, neighboring school system, the reults aren't really equal. They just look that way on paper. Think that doesn't happen everyday? When a school system's test scores factor in determining how much of the total budget they will get next year, all kinds of creative math takes place. Naturally, the ones who get fucked are the students in the failing school.

As for me, I'll take liberty over equality any day. I'd rather take my best shot and fail than never be able to take the shot at all. Ben Franklin once said "He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither". I would add that he who would sacrifice liberty for equality, deserves to be bitch-slapped, stuffed onto a short bus and hauled off to a room with padded walls.

How to win Back Congress and the White House: Free Advice for Democrats

After my last few columns you might find this hard to believe, but I'm not a liberal. I'm a pretty right-wing kind of guy. I like tax cuts, and guns. I believe the U.S. Constitution is the greatest governing document ever written, and wish more of our government agreed with me. I love Jesus, and His followers (though not necessarily everyone who claims to follow Him). I dig rugged individualism, and the nothing promised, roll-the-bones-and-give-it-your-best-shot world of free market economics. I can't stand socialism. I'm not a big fan of public education, or welfare, or Hollywood. Regulations and litigation and whiney victim types make me nauseus. I'm all about drastically shrinking the size and scope of our government, and putting severe restrictions on whatever is left (all of this is provided for in the aforementioned Constitution).

It once was, that folks of my political bent had a home and ally in the Republican party. They were the party of economic vision. The party that gave us men like Eisenhower, godfather of the interstate freeway system, which has allowed our economy to thrive in ways and at speeds the world has never before seen. The party that gave us Ronald "Ronaldus Magnus" Reagan, who at a time when the Grand High Know-It-Alls of academia, politics and the media were wringing their hands over the monumental fuckup that was the Carter presidency and predicting the imminent downfall of America, saw and reminded us that America's greatness and potential lies not in her politicians and elites, but in her everyday people. Her farmers, mechanics, bankers, truckers, accountants, investors, teachers, preachers, carpenters and alike. He knew that as long as America remained (in PT Barnum's words) "the land where every man is free to do his best", then there was nothing the American People couldn't do. He was right, and there still isn't. He said it was "morning in America". He was right, and it still is.

For the forty or so years they were in the congressional minority, these were all the principles of the Republican Party. In a measly 12 years in the majority, they have pissed away all of them.

It didn't take the 'pubs long to figure out why the 'crats were so fond of redistributing taxpayers' wealth (read "pissing away our money"). With control of both houses of Congress, as well as the White house for the past five years, our government has grown at a rate unprecedented in our history. Bush has yet to veto one single spending bill. This congress is spending our money like it's growing on trees, instead of being generated by hard working Americans. New farm subsidies, No Child Left Behind (which sounds almost as Orwellian as it does stupid), the Department of Homeland Security (ditto), the list goes on and on.

Democrats have always been famous for pandering. The 'pubs have taken it to a new level. Take for instance the Bush administration's remarkably lax position on enforcing our borders and immigration law. Despite his strong foreign policy stance, endless emphasis on national security and the "war on turr", he seems perfectly willing to allow the INS to remain toothless and neutered, and wants to grant amnesty to illegal aliens currently in living in our country unchecked. The idiocy of this is not lost on nearly as many Americans at W. seems to think.

The way I see it, a return to power by the Democrats could probably do little to make this situation worse, at least not domestically (though I fear what the leftover trash and cowards from the 1960s who now run the party would do to our foreign policy). If however, the 'crats were to capitaize on some of the open wounds left to fester by the 'pubs, even if they only did it to get votes, the net effect would be an actual betterment of the situation, even if only a mild one. As such, I have come up with this short list of positions and actions 'crats could take which would guarantee them victory in both the 2006 midterm elections, as well as the 2008 presidential run. Also included are the reasons that the 'crats will never actually take them.

1.
Borders, Borders, Borders!!
Most Americans are not too keen on the notion of just letting any asshole who can run, swim or jump enter our country unchecked. Contrary to allegations made by many Democrats and even some Republicans, this aversion is not based in racially motivated hate on the part of all us evil white folk, but in practical logic. We don't know who these people are, how many there are, how much they're costing us, etc. Furthermore, they don't seem to be assimilating well into American society, and they don't seem interested in doing so. Things like learning to speak English (or at least to butcher it as well as we butcher it), or obtaining as much education as they can, can only help them take greater advantage of all the opportunity this country has to offer. Instead, they insist we learn their language (at least the Spanish speaking ones) and their high school dropout rate is phenomenal. On top of that, many don't seem to give a damn about themselves or their families enough to make any attempt to elevate themselves out of abject squalor. They seem content to live like animals and raise their children in filthy, drug and crime infested barios. The fucked up part is this: people who have the kind of work ethic that so many of these people seem to have do not have to live like this. People who do not want to live like this, cannot afford to work for the ridiculously low wages these people are willing to accept. Americans, especially working class types, tend to get pissed when they get turned down for a job because they can't speak Spanish.

Done properly, immigration can be made to greatly enhance and service a nation. America is the great living proof of this. Obviously there are immigrants we want to have cross our boder, and others we don't (gangbangers, convicted felons, pedophiles, terrorists, people looking to become welfare sluts, etc.). But all of this is academic until and unless we are in control of who is crossing our border. If Democrats were to acknowledge this and take real measures to act on it, such as stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, building a wall or fence along our southern border and busting employers who hire illegals, they'd be back in the majority overnight. Red districts (especially in the south and west) would turn blue quicker than a freshly kicked scrotum. For the past 5 years, the 'crats have whined in vain about how they're just as tough on national security as the 'pubs. This would be their chance to prove it.

They'll never do it. The reasons are simple, and exactly the same as the reasons the 'pubs will never do it.

First, the people who pay them don't want them too. All those eeeevil corpoprations you hear about that contribute to the Republican party, contribute to the Democrat party as well. It's called hedging their bets. For an example of what happens to a major corporation who doesn't, one need look no furher than Microsoft.

These people want cheap labor, plain and simple. Claims are made about how hispanic immigrants work not only cheaper, but also better, faster and longer than Americans (the accuracy of this claim is spotty at best), and that they do jobs Americans refuse to (this is pure unadulterated bullshit), but in the end it's usually all about the bottom line. In my experience, someone who will hire someone who he can't communicate with to save a few bucks an hour usually isn't concerned about quality workmanship.

The labor unions, who have a virtual strangle hold on the 'crats, don't want the borders enforced either. Union membership is dropping, their cashflow tightening. A massive bloc of illiterate, uneducated workers presents a solution to this problem, if they can get around the legal hurdles.

Lastly, they wont do it because they see a potential for a new Dependent Victim Class to exploit (DVCs, I think I might copyright that term). The only real great success stories of the Democratic party in the last half century or so have been their exploits in dividing people into Groups, harping on some real or imagined grievance and then pitting them against the Group whom they claim is responsible for that grievance (usually white males, but occasionally they pit them against each other). They then proceed to incessantly remind each Group that they are completely fucked, that all their problems are someone else's fault (again, those evil white bastards), that they can never make it on their own and that they need the Big Democrat Mommy to take care of them and fix all those problems. The problems of course, never get fixed. The scam would whither and die as soon as they did. This type of fraud works best on the uneducated, the poor, and the illiterate, all of which are massively overrepresented in our illegal alien population. Just how long the scam could be kept up is uncertain, but it's been working on the black population for decades now.

2.
Fuck your exit strategy, lets win!!
The one great saving grace the 'pubs still have on their side is the 'crat's war strategy, or lack thereof. The Bush camp has displayed for us their willingness (if not competence) to confront and defeat Islamic terrorist nations and factions intent on destroying America, Europe, and everything else that's not under Sharia law. The Democrats have displayed for us their willingness to capitulate to and run scared from them. Europe is right now displaying for us the results of that approach. They ain't pretty.

The 'crats have completely fucked themselves where the war is concerned. As soon as the war wasn't finished in a nice, neat, 30 minute made for TV episode, they thought they saw their chance to regain power in the form of reliving their liberal glory days of the Vietnam war. Almost immediately, they began throwing their hands in the air, and conceding victory to the enemy. They said we couldn't win. The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan were too hardened a group of fighters (they're gone). The Iraqi people would universally hate us (they don't), and fear us (they should), and want Saddam back (I'm not hearing any outcry). They would immediately reject our corrupt western democracy (Iraq's first election, per capita, had greater turnout than our last one, and we didn't have people trying to kill us while we stood in line waiting to vote). They impugnned (sp?) the integrity of our soldiers (at least they resisted the urge to call them "babykillers" and spit on them at the airports this time), accusing them of torturing enemy detainees (panties on the head? I know guys in Baltimore who do that for fun). It was all straight out of the Vietnam era playbook, and I doubt most people think that antiwar activists make for good commanders-in-chief. Bush's defeat of Kerry in '04 should be proof enough of this.

What's more, the only alternative strategy they've offered their pattented Paper Tiger Strategy (I'm copyrighting that one too) from the 1990s. It's a simple strategy cosisting of four main parts: Cut; Run; Give up turf to the enemy; Show the whole world what a bunch of pussies we are and how easily we can be scared into submission. President Clinton employed this strategy numerous times during his two terms in office. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing by Al Quaida operatives (no response), the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by Al Quaida operatives (no response), battling Al Quaida terrorists in Somalia (withdrawl after the first few casualties), the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen by Al Quaida operatives (no response). Democrats now say that by fighting back we are creating more terrorists. Perhaps, but they don't seem to be attacking as much. For all it's flaws, Bush's WOT has yeilded 5 years without another terrorist attack against Americans. The Democrats' PTS yielded a sunny Tuesday morning when four airplanes were hijacked, three were flown directly into three massive and crowded buildings in New York and Virginia, and one bound for the Capitol was taken down in Pennsylvania by heroic passengers who gave their lives to save others. When it was over, three thousand Americans were dead. Once again, it was all compliments of Al Quaida.

Democrats could win back power if they would simply realize that the best way to do it is not by seeing America lose, but by showing that they are willing and able to win. This would alleviate the single greatest remaining reservation holding them back.

They'll never do it. To do this they would have to shed their contempt for the American people. Unlike Reagan, they don't believe Americans can accomplish anything we set out to. They don't belive it's even possible for America to be a force for good. They hold a sense of self loathing that defines who they are. It's not fair that America is so rich, or that we succeed where other nations fail. They apologize incessantly to the world for our greatness, because they're just so damned scared that someone might not like us. This entire mentality is incompatible with victory.

..3
Give us a reason to vote for you
That one should be pretty much self explanatory. Explain to us what it is you stand for. What alternatives do you propose to the Republicans' MO? How will you improve our already blazing economy? How will you win the WOT? Why should we vote for you? "We're not George Bush" just isn't good enough.

They'll never do it. The reason is simplest of all: they have nothing. No ideas, no plans, no proposals. Lots of criticizm, but none of it constructive. They can give you a million and one reasons to vote against the Republicans (shit, I can do that) but not one to vote for them. As far as I can tell, there are none.

That's my advice. Centuries from now, when the Martians have long since eradicated the human race, one of them will find this on a hard drive discovered in an archeological dig and say,

"Damn, why didn't the Democrats listen to this guy? They'd have still been in power when we showed up."