The World According to Whiskey

Big Whiskey Sam's "THE LIFE OF BARRY!"

2010-02-10T20:06:00.000-05:00

Normally, when I sit down to write one of these columns, I’m seeking perhaps to vent my frustration over the various insanities which dominate our societal, economic and political landscapes. Or, sometimes, I’m writing to share with my dear readers my unique and insightful observations on and solutions to said insanities (or, “to state the plainly obvious,” if you want to be a dick about it).

But not today. Today I am neither frustrated nor philosophical. Today, I am simply curious, and genuinely fascinated. Certain recent events have left me astounded and intrigued. Specifically, certain events involving our current president (at least indirectly), and the more, shall we say, ardent, of his swooning supporters.

By now, you’ve probably seen the video from Burlington NJ. For those of you who don’t get out much, here it is in a nutshell: a public school teacher leads a group of first-graders in reciting a poem/chant heralding the social edicts of “Barrack Hussein Obama,” followed by a song set to the melody of The Battle Hymn of the Republic in which they simply extol the overall greatness thereof. Needless to say, when this hit the airwaves, and especially when Glenn Beck got a hold of it, shit began hitting fans all across the fruited plains.

Conservatives and Republicans were apoplectic. This was hardly unexpected. Favorite right wing buzzwords like “indoctrination” and “brainwashing” have been given new life. The shock and outrage pronounced on talk radio and the internet were, to say the least, predictable; as was the fact that for the most part, they were pretty much real.

Equally predictable were the liberals populating TV and the blogosphere who, with all the snide condescension they could muster and righteous indignation they could feign, set out immediately to brand anyone who found fault with this kind of activity in a public school as a racist/wingnut/whatever. They then of course went into full spin mode, portraying this as harmless patriotism on the part of those adorable students, and basically backpedalled on everything they had said about patriotism and proper respect for the presidency during the eight years George W. Bush was in office.

None of this do I find particularly remarkable. What I find remarkable is the video itself, and more to the point, the strange mindset currently so prevalent in so many circles, of which this video is merely one example, and hardly the first.

It’s the pure, genuine Cult Of Personality that exists around President Obama.

I’m well aware that nothing new exists under the sun. Cults Of Personality have come and gone for as long as men have walked the Earth. But this is the first time I’ve ever gotten to observe one, a real one, as it happens. I say “a real one” because the term is often misused. Especially in our media and celebrity driven popular culture, “cults of personality” are attributed to virtually every dipshit who manages to find his fifteen minutes of fame. But a true CoP is much more difficult to come by, and even more so to achieve. Michael Jackson or Madonna may have millions of diehard fans (though I’m really not sure why), but the object of a true CoP has Followers. True Believers. Zealots. Minions.

In short: Worshippers.

What we are seeing from the Obama crowd (not all, but a surprising many) is nothing short of a religious movement. The term “cult” really is appropriate. We’ve all seen the video footage of idiots who think Obama will make the world right and life easy for them (also pay their mortgage, their gas tab, etc.). The acceptance speech in a sold out arena at the Democrat National Convention, set in front of marble pillars (perhaps imitations) designed to invoke images of the grand halls of Olympus. The people screaming, crying, even fainting at his campaign rallies. And of course, the throngs mindlessly chanting “YES WE CAN!”, without ever really bothering to ask “can what?”

Jesus would have been lucky to have these kind of crowds.

Over and over again, we hear people ascribing to Obama the power to “change” things, or to “bring change.” Nearly always, the focus is on him bringing change, personally, not on how he will aid or facilitate his followers efforts to bring about change, or just what that change might be. His followers seem to think he is somehow exempt from the basic pitfalls of human nature; such as temptation, powerlust, greed and arrogance (his detractors incessantly note, rightly, how he possesses that last one in abundance). Indeed, many of them seem to think he is in fact more than human: anyone remember Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, being interviewed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, claiming that "...in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

And of course, there is the virulent attack on anyone who dissents or even questions. As with any group of True Believers, heresy must never be permitted. Fortunately, the vast majority of our population is both far too lazy and far too comfortable to begin engaging in physical violence and bloodletting over this type of thing. This holds just as true for the Obamatons as it does for everyone else. Instead, the attacks consist mainly of verbal efforts to defame, intimidate, shout down, or otherwise stifle the speech of the dissenter. Name calling and character smears are most prevalent. Being as most Obamatons are Democrats, the patented “YOU’RE A RACIST!!” method of argument came into play quickly. And even though it appears to now have much less effectiveness right now as it may have had in years past, they show no signs of giving up on it any time soon. Snide remarks about dissenters’ intelligence, education, background, etc., are also going at full throttle. On most left leaning websites, you’ll find a lot more of these (peppered with various vulgarities, often as not) than debate tactics such as “I disagree because...” or “Here’s where you are wrong....”

Of course, like I said, none of this is new. Cults of Personality are a fact of life. One which has become more prevalent over the last hundred years, due mainly to advancements in communications technology. The end results of these cults have varied. On the one hand, you have CoPs like those surrounding Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., the effects of which on the population at large were at worst benign if not mildly positive. Then again, the last century also saw these same CoPs surrounding the likes of Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong, the effects of which were disastrous.

And that’s where the video comes in.

One rule that all religious movements, as well as socio-political ones, have in common is this: get ‘em while they’re young. The Bible, the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, you name it: they all make mention of the importance of instilling their values in children as early as possible. Most often, this is done in two arenas: in the home, and in school. And when the values being taught in those two places clash, all Hell breaks loose.

There is a valid reason so many people are outraged over the contents of this video. Think about it: a government run school, in which teachers (or at least a teacher) are leading extremely young and impressionable students in overt songs of worship to the leader of said government. And make no mistake, these were songs of worship, especially the spoken word one. Replace “Barrack Hussein Obama” with “Jesus” and maybe dump the one or two lines about the economy, and you’ve got a classic example of a children’s hymn in any Protestant Sunday School.

This was a remarkably effective textbook tactic of all of the tyrants I listed above. The Hitler Youth, Mao’s Red Guard, and so on. In order for any totalitarian regime to work, the state must convince its subjects that their first loyalty, before family, friends, community or God, is to the state. To the government. To Dear Leader. Naturally, the best and easiest way to do this is to get it into their heads as young as possible. The state must insert itself in between children and their parents.

And there are a great many citizens of these united states who believe that the federal government, regardless of who happens to be in it, if given a chance, will seek to do just that. They are by no means wrong.

Also, never forget that in the mind of the True Believer, the ends always justify any means. Ethics are irrelevant. Hell, even results are often irrelevant. All that matters is that they do what the Leader wants, or what they think he wants, them to do. This is why you see people in cults of all kinds destroy families, ruin lives, and even commit egregious violence, and have zero remorse. In their minds, they did right. There is a word for people who reach this point. The word is “evil.” There is a reason people, and especially parents, react strongly at the very possibility that such a person might be in contact with their children.

Now, do I think Barrack Obama is sitting in the Oval Office, rubbing his hands and snickering to himself, giddy with thoughts of his plans for total domination and supreme power over all? I doubt it. But then again, did Mao? Did Hitler? All the monsters I listed came to power in circumstances not all that different from those surrounding Obama: nations in financial crisis, ruled by corrupt and/or incompetent and brutal governments. The Batista regime and the Russian Tsars weren’t a whole lot less monstrous then Castro and Lenin were after them. All were hailed as saviors of their countries. I’m sure none of them went into office with ideas of becoming iron-fisted dictators, acquiring unlimited power and brutally crushing all who oppose. Didn’t stop all of that from happening, though.

So the point that really peaks my curiosity is:

Just what does President Obama think of all this? Is he sitting back on Air Force One, watching this video and others like it and stroking his ego the whole time? Maybe. I hope not.

Or perhaps he’s living The Life of Brian right now. Fans of England’s comedic supertroup Monty Python will recall their biblical satire of that name, in which the title character is mistaken for the new messiah by a mob of fools, who pursue him tirelessly and mistake everything he says or does for a miracle or message from God. If Barry is feeling a bit like that right now, i couldn’t blame him.

So when the president finally calls me, and says “Big Whiskey, what do I do? These people are mad! What do I say to them?” I will advise him to go on TV, which he was probably would have done within the next twenty minutes anyway, and say something to the effect of:

“My beloved supporters, I am deeply appreciative of all of the songs, poems and works of art so many of you have made in tribute to me. But enough is enough. Really, y’all need to get a life. I really wasn’t born in a manger. Stick to teaching the tykes to read and write. You need improvement in those areas anyway. And for the love of God (the real One, not me), if you feel you must write a poem for me, try not to set it to a meter that sounds reminiscent of goose-stepping Nazis!”

I’m sure that call will be coming any day now.

Here’s the now famous video:

Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must all lend a hand
To make this Country strong again
Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we all must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black, or white,
All are equal in his sight
Hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes, hmm, hmm, hmm
Barack Hussein Obama

Another one, from back during the campaign. Note the swooning teacher lady. Definitely a True Believer.

My personal favorite. I’ll let this one speak for itself.

And just a little proof that there really is nothing new under the sun.

Racist Robots!

2010-02-10T20:05:00.000-05:00

It is safe to say that I will not go to see the new Transformers movie in theaters. By and large, I don’t go to see any movies in theaters. I think the last one was something like four years ago in Florida. Generally, I just wait for a movie I want to see to come out on DVD, and either rent it or borrow it from some fool who actually spent the twenty-plus dollars to buy it. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, being of a genre I can’t stand, and by a director who’s batting .000 in my book, would normally be the type that couldn’t even prompt me to put a dollar in the Redbox. But now, just maybe, I might have to. Because apparently, the film is racist.

Today, while perusing the web to kill some time, I come across this headline, from AP Entertainment writer Sandy Cohen, via the Souther Oregon Mail Tribune:

Jive-talking twin Transformers raise race issues

Oh my Lord. Call the funny-farm Reba, the world’s finally gone off the deep end. Before I even get into this ridiculous article, just think about the headline: this is proof that we as a society are way too hung up on both racial grievances (real or imaginary), and superfluous pop-culture, so much so that we can’t resist entangling the two. It also proves that editors at the AP and/or the SOMT have the writing skills of a slow second grader (note the lack of proper capitalization in the headline), and don’t seem to realize that the last person to use the term “jive-talking” was the little old lady who translated Kareem Abdul Jabar in Airplane.

Apparently, two of the Autobots (if you don’t know what those are, aks somebody) in the film are being whined about because they represent stereotypes which are offensive to black people. From the article:

Harmless comic characters or racist robots? The buzz over the summer blockbuster "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" only grew Wednesday as some said two jive-talking Chevy characters were racial caricatures. Skids and Mudflap, twin robots disguised as compact hatchbacks, constantly brawl and bicker in rap-inspired street slang. They're forced to acknowledge that they can't read. One has a gold tooth..

OK, so far, I’m getting a mild chuckle. The potential for good comedy here is obviously pretty high, as the bickering-buddies shtick is one of the most time tested and proven tools in the history of comedy. Abbott and Costello, The Bickersons, Beavis and Butthead, Pegg and Frost, Riggs and Murtaugh, Amos and Andy (yes, that was deliberate), the list goes on. These types of characters are almost always stereotypical in some way, and are necessarily highly eccentric. They will, almost by default, be to some extent caricatures of whatever segment of society from which their characters derive.

That would be my defense of Skids and Mudflap. Except I’m not defending them. They don’t need defending.

As we read further down the article, we find predictable examples of the kind of tripe that makes thinking people roll their eyes and/or laugh out loud.

"They're like the fools," said 18-year-old Nicholas Govede, also of New York City. "The comic relief in a degrading way."

More still from another NYC moviegoer, who called the characters “outrageous:”

"It's one thing when robot cars are racial stereotypes," he said, "but the movie also had a bucktoothed black guy who is briefly in one scene who's also a stereotype."

And of course there are the obligatory intellectuals, offering opinions which are conspicuously devoid of intelligence. From an assistant professor of cinema and media studies (wow, if there’s a bigger bullshit course out there, I haven’t heard of it) at UCLA:

"There's a persistent dehumanization of African-Americans throughout Hollywood that displaces issues of race onto non-human entities,... It's not about skin color or robot color. It's about how their actions and language are coded racially."

And this, from a professor of popular culture (nevermind, I found one) at USC:

"There's a history of people getting laughs at the expense of African-Americans and African-American culture,"

To all of which, I reply:

So what?

The truth is, there’s plenty about blacks and black culture that’s worth laughing at. The fashions; the bravado; the attitudes; the hair weaves; the slang which borders on being its own language; all are inherently parody-ready. The examples are too numerous to count, and so are the comedians and filmmakers, black and white alike, who have both names and fortunes for themselves making fun of it. Anyone who’s ever sat through a 1970s ‘blacksploitaion film’ or a 1990s ‘growing up in da ‘hood film’ can readily appreciate the comedic genius of Keenan Ivory Wayans’s uberspoofs I’m Gonna Git You, Sucka and Don’t be a Menace to South Central while Drinking yo’ Juice in da ‘Hood. On a somewhat deeper level, Tim Story and Mark Brown did a masterful job of dragging out some of the less openly discussed points of black culture (street crime, low IQed hustlers, widespread ignorance and poor education, even the civil rights movement), and making them both thought provoking and hugely laughable in 2002s Barbershop. These films also received some flack in the press for being racially insensitive, though it was widely ignored, since they were made by black people.

And that, methinks, is the crux of the matter. Somewhere along the line, the notion became accepted in mainstream (i.e., northeastern white) culture that white people laughing at black people, or any caricature thereof, for any reason, is somehow an act of unspeakable cruelty, on par with eating live puppies, and must never be allowed. It really is the great taboo of our age (criticizing, analyzing or frank discussion of them in any form are also big no-no’s, but that’s for another day). As you might have already guessed, I call bullshit. If people are going to be laughable, laugh at them. If there’s humor to be found, enjoy it.

”But Whiskey!”, perhaps you respond in the gasping manner which has become a cliched fixture of these columns, ”Making fun of other peoples’ cultures is wrong! How would you feel if blacks were making fun of and laughing at your culture?

Huh? You mean they’re not?

Caricatures of all segments of white people and culture are as numerous as the stars in the big ass Texas sky. Black comedians mimic whites incessantly, with varying degrees of accuracy and funniness (D.L. Hughley and Paul Mooney in particular have had me rolling on the floor more than once). And no one makes fun of white people like, well, white people. Ever heard of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour? The Office? The Onion? Want me to keep going? Truthfully, I don’t think any racial group takes to self-deprecating humor as much as white people do. For that matter, I seriously doubt more than a handful of black people are really that offended by simple caricatures like these two robots either. Am I wrong? Any black folks out there want to correct me on this (not you Rance, I already know better)?

As an aside, I mention the Onion specifically because one of their entertainment editors is quoted in the AP article, complaining that Skip and Mudflap were racial caricatures and also had no real other part in the movie. I find this particularly amusing, since the Onion is some of the most irreverent comedy on the web, and relies heavily on caricatures and stereotypes for much of its shtick.

Of course, if one were to want some real evidence of racism in the new Transformers movie, they could check out this quote from lead actress Megan Fox, in an interview with Total Film UK magazine:

”“I’d barter with him [TF villain Megatron, if the two had a sit-down]and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the porch monkeys, chickenheads and gangbangers infesting our cities?”

Oh no, wait, she didn’t say that. What she really said was exactly the same, except it was ”white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America.” The interviewer’s response? ”Good answer.” Personally, I don’t pay much mind to the ramblings of Hollywood airheads, even really hot ones like Fox. I do however find it interesting that such unbridled contempt for the south and the midwest is no big deal in the entertainment biz, but a couple of CGI robots with homeboy accents is somehow newsworthy. It almost sounds like a mental disease. One which might easily be cured, I might add, by a regular dosage of The World According to Whiskey, but somehow I doubt Ms. Fox or any of her contemporaries will have the good sense to read it.

Oh well. Chump don’t wants da help, chump don’t gets da help. I’ll catch you on da flipside.

Original AP article, via Southern Oregon Mail Tribune
Megan Fox interview in Total Film UK magazine

The Onion caricaturing:

Denny’s Customers
Obama supporters
Black Football Stars

For not one but two ass kicking reviews of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, by the greatest Facebook/MySpace film critic of all time, click here, and here.

The Wolves, the Lamb, and the Dinner Menu

2010-02-10T19:51:00.000-05:00

Wow. I am dumfounded. I just went back and reread my last three columns (my Economy trilogy), and am seriously finding it hard to fathom just how much our politico-economic situation has deteriorated in just the meager four months since I wrote them. The examples of economic illiteracy I cited in them have already been outdone so many times over that they seem like they were written ages and ages ago. The housing bubble? Fannie & Freddie? The CRA? AIG? Stimulus? Bailouts? Who even remembers that shit?

All of those things had seemed unthinkable just a year before I wrote those columns. The shit that has gone down since then seemed unthinkable while I was writing them.

Since then, we’ve seen the most brazen power-grabs by the federal government in, well, at least since Roosevelt’s New Deal, possibly before, and certainly in the memory of anyone reading this blog. Arguably the most egregious, definitely the most obvious, example of this would have to be the takeover of Chrysler and General Motors.

They called it a bailout. I call that bullshit. What we ultimately saw happen was an utter subversion of bankruptcy law and contract law, with legitimate lawful creditors being given the shaft (aka, ‘having their money stolen’) in favor of the government and Democrat cronies, most notably the United Auto Workers.

I do not know all the ins and outs of bankruptcy law or of the bond market, but I do know enough to fill up a couple of paragraphs and bore you to death. Since I believe my trilogy probably already accomplished that particular goal, I’ll keep it brief:

A bond is a financial security, as is a share of stock. The difference is this: when you purchase a bond, you are in effect lending the issuer your money on defined terms, but without any ownership stake in the company or government entity issuing the bond. When you purchase stock, you are purchasing a share of actual ownership in the company. The payout for a well performing stock is generally better, and potentially far better, than that of a bond. But the stockholder, as part owner of the company, is implicitly assuming part of the risk associated with the company’s performance, and so the stock is also riskier than the bond.

Part of this is because when a company goes into bankruptcy, there is order in which the law prescribes that debtors be dealt with, after administrative and legal costs are met. In the case of the GM and Chrysler takeovers, certain bondholders who were secured creditors (the ones who get first crack) were paid out substantially less on the dollar than the UAW, which was a non-secured creditor, and which also received 18% ownership of GM and 55% ownership of Chrysler (The federal government now owns 60% of GM; I’m not sure how much of Chrysler, which is now also partly owned by Italian auto maker Fiat). I’ve read some conflicting reports as to specific numbers on this (or at least unclear, possibly due to an insufficient understanding of terminology on my part), but it appears that in some cases bondholders were forced to surrender the debt they owned in exchange for stock shares. Of course this is all happening because GM and Chrysler just went in the drink, so those stocks are practically worthless.

Bear in mind, by the way, this is after more than $20,000,000,000 were dumped into these companies, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, for the specific purpose of preventing a bankruptcy. Much of that money has been provably squandered, and still more is unaccounted for.

Predictably enough, proponents of the takeover, and even President Obama himself, have derided those bondholders and creditors who objected to all of this as greedy, as looters, as lacking a will to sacrifice for the greater good, and as eeeeevilll speeeecuuulaaaatoooors. Obama himself derisively uses the term “the money people” and declares “I don’t stand with them.”

But who are these bondholders? They are hedge funds, mutual funds, and investment firms. They are pension plans, retirement plans, and 401(k)s (including mine). It’s all one and the same, folks. Yes, there are people in there who are trying to play the market for a quick buck. The thought of them can be irksome, but there’s nothing really wrong with it. But most of that money is coming from peoples’ paychecks; savings; earnings. Yours and mine. And we are the ones being told to take the hit and like it. If all that’s not enough, we’re being told this by the same people who are taking our tax dollars to fund this madness.

Still more bizarre, the appointment by Obama of Steven Rattner as the head of the auto task force, aka “the car czar.” Despite very specifically say that he and his administration “have no interest in running the auto industry,” the president seems to have appointed someone to possibly do just that. I say possibly, because it’s still not really clear what this guy is supposed to do. Little of his specific job description seems to have been released, and he doesn’t seem to like interviews. But if he’s anything like the dozen or so other “czars” Obama has appointed (such as the “bank czar,” the “climate czar,” the “Great Lakes czar” (I shit you not), and the CEO “pay czar”), he’ll wield an awful lot of influence, and answer to no one but the president. Sound like any other countries we know?

I’ve heard people debate as to who the biggest loser is in this scenario (though I’ve yet to hear anyone name any winners). Obviously the U.S. taxpayer tops the list, but beyond that, I’d have to say:

Ford.

The Ford Motor Company has thus far resisted its original impulse to partake in this whole bailout craze, and as such is still an independent auto manufacturer. I don’t know exactly why they backed away from the fed’s bailout. Maybe they saw what was happening in other sectors that took bailout and TARP money, and decided they didn’t want the government meddling in their affairs in that way. You can bet their higher-ups took serious notice of fed actions to regulate CEO pay.

But now Ford faces the very real prospect of being in direct competition within its industry, against the federal government. This means that their competition will have a virtually unlimited pool of money (again, courtesy of John Q. Taxpayer!), and will be directly linked to the federal agencies both that regulate them, and that enforce those regulations. Remind you of an old parable? Something about two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner?

Sounds like Ford’s about to get a taste of what it’s like to be John Q..

The Economy, Part I: What the Fuck Happened?!

2010-02-10T19:18:00.000-05:00

The world is full of idiots. It’s possible you already knew this. If you’ve read any of these columns, you certainly know I already knew this. Nope, nothing new here. Idiots are all around us- definitely all around me- and for the most part their mindlessness, short-sightedness and minimal, two dimensional thinking-on-life-support is to be simply tolerated and ignored, their irrelevant opinions left to pass unobstructed through our ears, much as the wind does through Matt Damon’s.

But every now and again, one stumbles across some gem of pure idiocy so inane, so intellectually vacuous, that a thinking man cannot help but feel the grinding of it on his nerves. The only thing worse is if he hears it over and over again. Of course right now, as you may have noticed, the U.S. economy is having a bit of a hiccup, and when that happens, repetitious idiocy knows no bounds, especially for those of us who watch the news.

And it’s not just normal, standard variety idiocy either. No, it’s that extra special blend you get when you mix one part panic, one part anger, two hundred ninety-eight parts I-don’t-know-what-I’m-talking-about and one large cup of maybe-this-will-make-me-sound-smart.

So today, I mean to shatter it all. Today I will identify the idiocy, debunk it, correct it, and write a column that will probably be really, really long. By the time you finish reading it, you will understand the basics of our economy, why it’s currently as fucked as a billy goat in Georgia, know how to correct it, and possibly fall asleep.

Now the first piece of idiocy I’m thoroughly sick of hearing, is perhaps the most pervasive. I hear it everywhere on talk shows, in newspapers, on TV talking head shows, even from the poor fellow at the bar three weeks ago who sat and cheered haplessly for the Baltimore Ravens, as the Great and Mighty PITTSBURGH STEELERS!!! [cue choir of angels] marched past them for the third time this season, and onward toward their destiny of winning their sixth Superbowl ring and claiming their rightful place as the single greatest team in the history of the game of football, forever and ever, or at least until the Cowboys or the Niners pull off another one. This particular jewel of ignorance goes as follows:

“George W. Bush singlehandedly wrecked this economy.”

Bullshit.

I’m no fan of W.. The man is a fuck-up to the Nth degree, who lacks any concept of governmental restraint, the necessity of borders, the proper role of the military, or the function of the veto pen. But this isn’t his bag, at least not solely. He certainly didn’t help matters any, but no one man, not even a president, makes or breaks the U.S. economy. What impact he does have is seldom good, and is not always felt right away. Such is abundantly evident in the recent bursting of the housing market bubble, which is at the root of this entire economic quagmire.

Here’s how you make a seemingly vibrant housing market fall apart overnight:

First, you have someone go to take out a mortgage loan that he clearly cannot afford to pay back. Next, you have a loan officer for a bank or lending institution, whose income is dependent on the commissions he receives from writing good loans, write one up for the guy who can’t pay it back. Then you have a bank agree to loan the money to the man who can’t pay it back. After that, you’ll need an outside entity to buy that bad debt, the one that won’t be paid back, an take it off the bank’s hands at their own expense. That entity must then bundle numerous mortgages into a single note- bad loans mixed indiscriminately in with the good- a mortgage backed security, which they sell like a bond to an investment firm (those Wall Street guys of whose oh-so-evil ways we are constantly reminded) at a rate of interest slightly lower than what they themselves are getting from the loans. Mr. Wall Street is buying these securities with his investors’ money (foreign investors, often as not), and paying them back a return slightly lower than his own.

So everybody turns a profit, and everybody’s happy. For the moment.

But sooner or later, the guy who couldn’t afford his mortgage loan is going to default. This is inevitable. If he’s the only one who does, it’s no big deal. But if thousands of people default, or go into bankruptcy, or have to renegotiate their loans for a substantially lower amount of money, then the shit hits the fan. Houses get foreclosed, leaving the debt holder with a property which they need to get rid of as quickly as possible, which means selling cheaper, which devalues not only that home, but all the homes around it. When property values in general go down, those securities go right in the toilet, and every single person along that chain gets crunched.

“But Whiskey!” you may be crying out in shock and disgust, “That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard! Risking all that money on a guy who can’t afford his mortgage loan... why, it’s financial suicide for everyone involved! How could all of those people possibly do something that asinine?!”

Glad you asked. Actually the recipe for all of this is quite simple: Instant boondoggle, just add Federal Government.

Let’s travel back to a magical time called the seventies. In the seventies, bad clothes were in style, gas lines were long, the Orioles actually played in the World Series, and I was born. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act. In a nutshell, banks were given a CRA rating based on how many mortgage loans they wrote in low income neighborhoods in which said banks did business. The thing is, residents of low income neighborhoods tend to be, well, low income. This means that the majority of them, perhaps a vast majority, will be bad credit risks and/or lack the income necessary to qualify for a mortgage loan. That’s not to say that a bank can’t still provide needed services in those areas. People can still take advantage of checking accounts, interest bearing savings accounts, maybe CODs and shit (I’m really not an expert on banking services). But the majority of applicants for mortgages will not qualify.

The other thing, though, is that residents of low income neighborhoods tend to be, well, black. And naturally, cries of discrimination and racism were everywhere. Hand the keys to Congress and the White House over to a bunch of post-Kennedy era Democrats, and you can rest assured they’re going to do something about it, even if that something is wholly unprofitable and serves the purposes of absolutely no one involved, save for their own ability to say “Hey look, everybody! We did something!”

The CRA contained no direct punitive action, such as fines or criminal charges, for banks who didn’t comply sufficiently. Instead, a bank’s CRA compliance record was looked at by regulatory agencies (namely the Federal Reserve and FDIC) and taken into account when deciding whether to allow banks to go through with things like acquisitions, mergers, and opening new branches.

Fast forward to the nineties, and the Clinton administration. This was the first time the CRA was really given teeth. The administration clamped harder than ever on mergers and acquisitions, and also expanded the Act so that it was also used in deciding whether to allow banks to go into other fields, such as securities and insurance.

Now of course, forcing a bank to make bad loans will do nothing except put that bank out of business, in which case no one gets a loan from them. Enter the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Haven’t heard of them? Perhaps you’d know them better by their nicknames: Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

Formed long before all of this, Fannie and Freddie were Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs), which meant that while they were private sector companies, they enjoyed certain perks from the Federal Government that no one else did; mainly, a direct line of credit to the Federal Reserve, and exemptions from certain lending regulations to which everyone else had to comply. There were unofficial perks as well. The big one was that, although it was never actually in their charters, there was always a sort of wink-&-a-nudge understanding that the Government would guarantee their loans in full, and therefore they would never go under. The perfect cash cow.

Their business was securitizing mortgages. They bundled them into securities and sold them to investment firms like AIG, Bear Sterns, and so on. Their stock price was high, and profits were through the roof. They had, and still have, most of the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee, and most notably their chairmen (Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT), so thoroughly in their pocket that members of regulatory agencies have been brought before the committees and excoriated, slandered, called everything but a child of God, for so much as noticing that Fannie or Freddie’s books didn’t add up. But they didn’t.

To make matters even worse, during this same period, the Clinton administration eased regulations on the GSEs for buying up high risk mortgages, and put pressure on them to do more of just that. This is how the now infamous subprime mortgage market kicked into full gear, aided by the fact that the same sort of governmental idiocy continued unimpeded during the presidency of George W. Bush, and his naive vision of an “ownership society.”

You see, once you get to this point, the question for a bank making a loan isn’t so much “Is this person a good risk?” as “Can we sell this loan off to Fannie or Freddie?” And since the answer was usually “yes,” you saw a precipitous rise in high risk loans, especially Adjustable Rate Mortgages (the ones where they offer a low teaser rate at first, to get idiots to borrow more money, then jack the rate up a few years later). The loan officer? Hey, what the hell, right? If the bank will go for it, then he can write shit loans all day and roll in commissions. And the homebuyer gets to live in a house far nicer than he could ever really afford. For a while.

But then the ARM rates change, the defaults begin, and the foreclosures go up. Mortgage backed securities tank. Financial institutions fall. Bear Sterns has to run to the feds for a bailout, and many others follow (more on that later). The once mighty Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. disintegrates altogether. Fannie & Freddie stock tumbles more than 90% in a year. Both are fully taken over by the feds.

Most important though is this: the mortgage industry is the basis for all the rest of the money lending industry in America. Car loans, small business loans, credit cards. You name it. With the cash flow severely constricted, banks are lending less money. This is a huge problem, because Americans are addicted to debt.

Read that last sentence again. Americans are addicted to debt.

I said earlier that the bursting of the housing bubble is at the root of the economic quagmire, and it’s true. But America’s love affair with debt and deficit spending IS the root. The fact is, we want luxury, and we want it now. If we want it, we buy it, right then and there. If we can’t afford it, we charge it or finance it. We’ve grown accustomed to it, and living beyond our means has become the norm in our society. When this happens, the prices of goods and services will always adjust themselves accordingly, and soon things become too expensive to own without borrowing. Seriously, can anyone reading this now actually afford to walk into an auto dealership and pay cash for a new car? If so, please contact me. I’ll probably hit you up for some money.

But we did it to ourselves, folks. Bill Clinton and George Bush were both, in my estimation, egregious in their actions concerning Fannie, Freddie, and the mortgage industry. They did it solely for the sake of their own legacies (“Hey ev’r’body! Look how many people became homeowners on mah wawtch! See what a great pres’dunt Ah wuz?). But really, they just jumped on board to ride the tsunami we made. Wanna know who’s really to blame for our economic woes? Look in the mirror, folks.

You did it. I did it. It’s all our fault.

The Economy, Part II: You Can't Get There From Here.

2010-02-10T19:16:00.000-05:00

Right now, I want to make this abundantly clear: I am not an economist. Call me an economist, and I may very well punch you in the mouth.

I spend an inordinate amount of time listening to economists on the radio and TV. There are a few of I do respect, such as Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto, and Texas congressman Dr. Ron Paul (as a presidential candidate, Paul was an absolute charlatan, but his knowledge of economics and the history of the U.S. economy is first-rate). But all in all, most of them seem to be either political hacks spouting a party line, or dweebs who will simply say whatever to get a steady paying gig on a TV or radio show. Watch the weekend financial shows on Fox News, for instance. Invariably you’ll get a four person panel yelling at each other over what number 2+2 equals, and the only sum left unconsidered will be 4. I am thoroughly convinced that when forming their economic theories, economics and the economy are the furthest things from their minds.

Same goes for politicians. I seriously cannot fathom where they get their ideas about how to run the economy, or even the idea that they are capable of doing so at all. Precious few people on Capitol Hill have any real world, private sector business experience whatsoever. Of those who do, a curious amount seem to forget all of it when the cross inside the Beltway or land at Reagan National. Presidents? In the last twenty years, the only one who’s had any at all was W., and I have yet to find anything he touched that didn’t end in red ink.

As an aside, this is not some mystical effect that DC itself has on people, as some in the blogosphere like to claim. There are heroin dealers in the southeast quadrant who have mad business skills, and the bankrolls to prove it.

But here we are, in the middle of an economic clusterfuck, of which the feds were a principal catalyst, and these same bumbling boobs on the Hill are tripping over each other trying to figure out just how they’re going to charge in like white knights on their steeds and save us all. And as usual, their proposals all center around the absolute worst things they can: expanding the government, creating new bureaucracies, devaluing the dollar and taking on ever more debt. Not to mention aimlessly scattering shitloads of your money and mine all over the place.

The most obviously egregious example of this: bailouts. In the waning days of W., we saw the collapse of the housing market, Fannie and Freddie, the mortgage backed security, and all the Wall Street firms that were wrapped up in them. Now I don’t know what imbecile coined the phrase “too big to fail,” but the son of a bitch should be shot. Congress’s response to this mess, instead of letting companies who had made bad business decisions suffer the consequences and allowing the market to sort itself out (which it will anyway, one way or another), was to appropriate $750,000,000,000, turn it over to then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, to be dispensed pretty much at his discretion among the begging banks and companies. The result? Tens of billions of dollars are unaccounted for. Missing. See all of those zeroes, folks? That’s your money and mine, and we don’t even know where it went. The feds don’t know, and the recipients won’t open their books.

But the bigger scam here is that whether we have a full accounting of the money or not, the truth is all that was done here was the subsidization of failure. These companies screwed up, plain and simple. And instead of cutting their losses, you and I were just forced to cut the losses for them. Same thing with the infamous bailouts of the “big three” auto makers. They engaged in abysmal business practices, compounded further by the incessant back breaking meddling of the United Auto Workers. We just got handed the bill, so the execs could keep screwing up and the UAW could continue bilking the industry. This is of course the real reason that bailout happened at all: the UAW is a major cash cow for the Democrats, and if the big three go under, they go under with it. Pelosi and Ried and company simply can’t allow that to happen, no matter what.

Worse yet, much of this is coming as the purchase of majority shares of stock in these companies by the government. For example, the feds are loaning $150,000,000,000 to bail out American International Group (AIG). They will then own roughly 80% of AIG stock. AIG is one of the biggest insurers in the world, and the government will own its controlling interest. This, my friends, is what we call nationalization of industry, and we’ve seen it’s dire results all over the world.

Currently, the hot topic is President Obama’s stimulus plan, which carries with it the single biggest price tag in the history of humankind. To really call it a “stimulus” though, one must seriously stretch one’s definition of the word. What it really is is the throwing of roughly a trillion dollars into random infrastructure projects, thousands of new government jobs, and of course, a who’s who of the Democrat party’s favorite special interest groups. Needless to say, I have a few problems with this.

The first problem is the number itself. A trillion. One trillion. $1,000,000,000,000. The bill hasn’t gotten out of the Senate yet, and the final number could be a bit less (or more), but it will be in that ballpark.

Once you get into numbers this large, it is difficult for the mind to really grasp the enormity of them. So let me give you an illustration: let’s pretend that our current calendar has always been as it is now, and started on January 1st, 0001. If you opened a business on Jan. 1 0001, and made one million dollars every single day, seven days a week, without interruption, you would make your one-trillionth dollar on November 5th, 2738. That’s adjusting for leap years and everything.

The biggest problem with such a huge price tag is this: we don’t have it. There isn’t enough money in all of the U.S. government’s possession to pull this off. Drastic increases in tax rates will be an eventual necessity, but even that can’t be done to raise the money right now, as it would bankrupt most businesses and households. So how can they do it? There are only two ways.

One is to borrow it, which will be done mostly from foreign nations. Obviously, this will drastically increase the national debt. Personally, I find it amusing how the Dems railed and ranted about W.’s love affair with deficit spending (of which he was certainly guilty), but the moment they manage to get full control of both congress and the White House, the very first move they make is to take deficit spending into hyperdrive. This is, bear in mind, on top of all the runaway spending already going on in Washington.

The other way is to simply have the Federal Reserve print it up, and this is where we see the potential for true disaster. The value of the U.S. dollar is already in the tank, and the most surefire way to tank it further is a sudden infusion of an unthinkable amount of new bills. Remember, there is no real basis for the dollar. It is not backed by gold or any other precious metal, or any tangible commodity. It is simple fiat currency, mere paper, the illusion of its value maintained only by force of law.

So if you add a fresh trillion clams into circulation, the result will be massive inflation, quite possibly as bad or worse than what occurred during the Carter administration. Prices on everything will rise to compensate for the newly expanded pool of cash. Peoples’ money will go even less far than it does right now.

If all that’s not enough, there’s still the matter of exactly where this money is being slated to go. President Obama made a point of stressing how it will be used to fund massive infrastructure projects all over the country. Turns out this is actually only a small fraction of the total expenditure, the vast majority being straight up pork barrel giveaways. But even if these projects were the entire bill, they still miss the point. Yes, roads and bridges and electrical grids and shit need maintaining. But they do not in and of themselves generate wealth or income for anyone. These things are a means to an end only, and focusing on them as an end in and of themselves will not yield any form of long term benefit to the economy.

Of course the idea here, equally foolhardy, is that having all sorts of new construction projects of this type will create lots and lots of jobs in the form of hiring people to do them. Not really. The companies and contractors who will do this work are already out there, and most of them are hurting right now. These projects may provide revenue to these companies, but in large part they will have to address their bottom line first and foremost. This will mean doing as much work with as few expenditures as possible, which means they won’t be hiring any more new workers than they absolutely have to. Even then, who are they going to hire? I’ll wager that very few of the people who didn’t want to do these jobs in the boom times are going to jump at them now, especially when part of this same bill includes massive expansions of spending on welfare, food stamps, and Unemployment. So let me get this straight: our goal is to create new jobs while simultaneously expanding our subsidization of shiftlessness? Did I miss something here?

And let’s be serious people, we all know what happens when infrastructure projects become their own end: they never end. Once the work is finished, some reason will have to found to continue it anyway. Too many peoples’ livelihoods will have become dependent upon them to let them end. After this, these projects will become endlessly vacuous money pits. For examples, one need look no further than the Big Dig in Boston, or the infamous PA Turnpike.

At best, we’re talking about a band-aid on a shotgun wound. At worst, it’s the San Sebastian Mines writ Federal.

”But Whiskey!” you perhaps cry out in despair, ”If all of this stimulus, from the President who simply must be the single smartest, greatest champion of goodness and light ever sent down from On High to save us all from our flawed and incompetent selves, is doomed to failure, then what are we going to do? And just what the hell is a Sebastian Bach Mine anyway?

Well, for the answer to that second question, read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

For the first, read my next column, where while equipped with nothing more than standard household items- such as basic math and common sense- I will jerry-rig a foolproof plan for restoring the wealth of our great nation, like an economic MacGyver saving us all just in the nick of time.

Whether anyone will follow the plan however, is still up in the air.

The Economy, Part III: Big Whiskey Solves all our Problems.

2010-02-10T19:15:00.000-05:00

President Ronald Wilson Reagan, I think, put it best: “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.” One need spend but a few minutes watching C-Span to find indelible proof of this.

As I said in my last column, I’m always amazed by the propensity of Congress and of presidents to come to the conclusion that they know better than anyone else how to manage the economy of a union consisting of fifty separate sovereign states each with its own unique interests and demographics, and that only through action on the part of the government will we be able to find happiness or prosperity. This despite the fact (or in some cases because of it) that precious few of them have any real background in or understanding of business or economics.

Right now, our illustrious and much fawned over new president is starting to look like a prime example of just this. For examples of how his policies reflect this, read my last column. He displayed his cluelessness even further last week, in a speech he gave to a retreat of Democrat congressmen in Williamsburg VA.

For the most part, the speech was standard Obama fare: lots of lofty, high sounding words which in and of themselves mean very little, coupled with a list of all the glorious wonders which his “stimulus” bill will accomplish, unaccompanied by anything resembling an explanation as to how. Also thrown into this particular diatribe was a healthy dose of scare tactics, warning about how our economy will go from “crisis” to “catastrophe” if we don’t immediately pass his bill, instead of wasting time paying attention to what’s in it. Of course an Obama speech just wouldn’t be right if he didn’t revive his campaign talking point about “the same failed policies” and so on.

But there was one particular line I found very interesting. When addressing complaints by his critics that this bill was less a stimulus and more a litany of runaway pork spending, he made this remark:

"What do you think a stimulus is? It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”

Whoa. Damn. You heard it, people. The president of the United States of America does not know the difference between economic stimulus and simple spending.

We are in for an interesting four years.

In case any of you are are as bereft of common sense as Dear Leader, allow me to explain. What stimulates an economy is not the mere spending of money, but the generation of wealth. This is done by providing a product or service in exchange for pay. By default, this must come from the private business sector, since the government produces no tangible product or service for its revenue, but rather uses the threat of force to confiscate it from those who do. Anyone who has bills to pay knows that you cannot generate wealth by spending with reckless abandon. This is exactly what the president is proposing we do, and that we do it with money we don’t have.

That this money will be spent primarily on things which do little to even circulate money isn’t even the point (seriously, $50,000,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts? $650,000,000 for digital TV conversion coupons? Exactly how many jobs are these supposed to create? $335,000,000 for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases? Here’s a novel idea: don’t fuck strangers. Problem solved, disease prevented, and not a dime spent). The point is, no amount of government spending will cure what ails this economy.

Fortunately, I know what will. So does everyone else who has any concept of basic math and a lick of common sense, but that’s besides the point. It’s my column, so I’m going to play the sage here.

First things first: people, stop looking for the quick fix. A quick fix is exactly what our new economic illiterate in the White House and his supporters are hoping this stimulus will be. They are laboring under the erroneous assumption that simply spending money is the key to a vibrant economy. The truth is, we’ve had exactly this kind of “stimulus” going on for years. It’s called “easy credit”.

In reality, this market correction we are suffering through right now has been long in the making. It’s painful and highly unpleasant, but it really is what’s needed to make us well. Kinda like diarrhea.

Over the last twenty years or so, we’ve been maintaining the illusion that are economy is stronger than it’s really been and that we have more money than we really do, by borrowing money and financing purchases out the wazoo. This can’t go on forever, folks. We all know this to be true, but we really, really don’t want to believe it, and the chaos resulting from the credit crunch is proof. Sooner or later, the piper must be paid. On the micro level, it means that you are going to have to pay that mortgage, or that car note, or that credit card debt. On the macro level, we will have to make good on all the foreign debt we’ve accumulated. In both cases, the money to do so will eventually run out. When this happens, all hell breaks loose.

So the first thing people need to do to get the economy back on track is to start living within their means and, most importantly, revive the notion of saving money. Some people will tell you that saving money will do nothing for the economy, and might even hurt it. Those people fall into two categories: liars and fools. Building up a healthy stash of saved money is the key to being able to make purchases responsibly, which is ultimately just plain good business, for buyers and sellers alike. Savings are also the key to being able to weather new financial storms as they arise (and there will always be new storms). True, this will not immediately put cash into the hands of businesses, but think about this: which businesses do you think are most likely to survive our current recession, the one’s which have backup savings or those which spend every dime the get as soon as they get it? It’s all about the long term, people. No quick fixes.

Secondly, and this is a big one, we cannot allow our emotions to overcome our judgement. For instance, we’re all hearing sob stories about peoples’ homes going into foreclosure. These can be heartbreaking, but the simple fact is these things happen. Most often, they happen because people made stupid purchases they couldn’t afford. Their eyes were to big for their incomes, or maybe they just failed to think about how their lives may change in the future, such as a sudden job loss, or illness, or having kids (apparently those little drool & shit machines are really expensive). But the tug of heartstrings is not a valid basis for subsidizing bad debt. Nor is anything else. People who got in over their heads need to either find a way to honor their contracts or face the music. Same goes for businesses who make bad decisions: if they have to go under, they have to go under. Throwing taxpayer money at these problems may ease a few symptoms, but it will allow the disease to continue unabated. Then, when the money runs out...

As for the government, I think there is one major thing they need to do to enable the process of our economic recovery: get out of the goddamned way.

Eliminate the capital gains tax. This is a tax paid on any gain from the sale of non-inventory assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. In the investment world, this is huge, and that is the area from where most of the capital used in running every sector of the economy comes. When investors see a bigger return, the invest more . They do this, because they know it will make them money. Whatever portion government takes is wasted. Government does not invest, it merely spends. It does this because it is not dependent on wise investment to make money, relying instead on the threat of force to bilk the taxpayers. Also, on the micro, you-and-me level, this will enable us to keep 15% or more of the sale of a home or other piece of property, which we would otherwise have to fork over to Uncle Sam (the thief; not to be confused with Whiskey Sam, the sage-like and remarkably good looking last best hope for mankind).

Eliminate the income tax. The reason is simple: it is the interaction of individuals in pursuit of their own interests that generates and moves an economy. Confiscation of the fruits of their labor, invariably impedes it.

I get flack from some people on this one, but seriously, it’s the wise, and right, thing to do. This includes Social Security and Medicare, which need to be scrapped altogether. Seriously, look at your W2 from last year. How much could you have done with the thousands of dollars, money you worked for and rightfully earned, that the feds withheld from your pay? How much more easily would you have been able to pay your bills? How much more would you have had left over? How much would you have been able to save, for your future? Your children’s education? Your own education? A rainy day?

If nothing else, ask yourself this: are you better off having those five hundred-thirty-five dim bulbs in DC deciding where and how that money is spent, or would you and your family be better off deciding it for yourself?

And while you’re at it, contemplate this: Texas is one of the most financially sound states in the union right now, and it has no state income tax. California is so far in the hole they can’t see daylight, and it has the highest state income tax rate in the nation.

Eliminate business and corporate taxes, if for no other reason than the fact that businesses do not and can not actually pay taxes. In business, taxes are just another expense, one for which a business must compensate by adjusting their prices accordingly. It is the consumers, you and I, who actually pay these taxes.

“But Whiskey!” you might be wondering aloud, “If we get rid of all these taxes, how will the government have enough money to provide services for us?”

Well, there are duties, tariffs, excise taxes, for starters. You know those things specifically provided for just that purpose in the Constitution; that document that’s supposed to be the blueprint for how the federal government operates. But beyond that, here’s a really wild idea:

How about the federal government stop pissing away our money in the first place!

I’ve heard it said that we’re spending around $1,000,000,000 a day on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If so, we’re looking at close to $400,000,000,000 a year. That’s outrageous, especially when you take into account how much of it is pure waste (God bless the troops, and [insert patriotic sounding platitude here], but the DoD is as vacuous a money pit as any other department of the federal government). What’s even more outrageous? The fact that giveaway spending, specifically Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid/SCHIP and Unemployment/Welfare, are almost four times that (nearly $1,600,000,000,000 in 2007 alone). And that’s not to mention the myriad of other departments, bureaucracies, and good old fashioned pork that made up the $2,800,000,000,000 budget for that year (a year which, BTW, saw only $2.4 trillion in net receipts).

If the American citizen needs to live within his means, so does the government. Get rid of all this bullshit, and return tasks such as infrastructure, care for the elderly/sick/unfortunate/useless to the states, where they belong. Let Pennsylvania figure out how to deal with Pennsylvania’s concerns, Maryland to Maryland’s, Idaho to Idaho’s and so on. Says me, it is high time the states stood up and reclaimed our rights- and the responsibilities that come with them- as the sovereign peoples we are and of right ought to be, from the leviathan we’ve created inside the Beltway.

So all in all, the recipe for fixing the economy is to observe the math (I probably could have summed up this whole long assed column up in that one line, but what fun would that have been?). In truth, the math is like God: it is unmovable, and unbeatable. You can ignore it all you like, but when all is said and done, it will always have its way. The longer you try to put it off, the worse the hit will be when it does.

So that’s the economy. In a nutshell. Three columns worth of nutshell. You can thank me later.

Russia Predicts: "America will Die in 2010!" Big Whiskey Responds: "Huh. No Shit."

2010-02-10T19:07:00.000-05:00

So the other day I came across an article which ran last week in The Wall Street Journal, featuring the theories of Russian political analyst Igor Panarin. Panarin, a “U.S. expert” and former KGB agent, has been predicting for the past decade that the United States will dissolve and cease to exist as we know it in the year 2010. From the article:

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar.

Moreover, he predicts that the end result of this will be the splitting of the U.S. into six territories. The west cost, basically from Utah on over, will be the California Republic, and likely be controlled by or under the influence of China. The midwestern states north of Oklahoma will be absorbed by Canada. The northern east coast will constitute Atlantic America, which he says will likely join the European Union. The southern states from New Mexico on east will form the Texas Republic, and be controlled by Mexico. Hawaii will be independent with heavy ties to Japan, and, of course, Alaska will run back into the waiting arms of Mother Russia.

Obviously, the specifics of this split are inherently flawed. In fact, they’re comically flawed. Mr. Panarin does appear to have a somewhat deficient understanding of demographics, and is certainly pig ignorant of the socio-political demographics of America. Utah under Chinese rule? Idaho? Please. Mexico takes over the southeast? Those states can pool more resources, money and manpower than all of Mexico combined. If anything, they might extend their southern border all the way to Guatemala. The northeast join the EU? The EU wouldn’t have them, and even if they would, the EU is in and of itself highly disorganized and its member states can’t seem to agree on anything. Besides, anyone who’s ever met a native Kentuckian or Virginian knows there’s not much chance of them becoming part of European society. As for Canada controlling the northern midwest, the states in question hold a population which exceeds Canada’s by nearly twenty million. Pretty tough to absorb that.

Even all of this notwithstanding, the real fault lines of dissent in America are not tied to geographic regions, as is more common in Europe. Rather, they fall primarily along the lines of race, socio-economic status, and ideology.

But while Panarin’s predictions for the future map of the continent may be based on some very faulty thinking, the idea of serious internal conflict, or even dissolution of the union as we know it, is far from impossible. At least I think as much. And Panarin’s ascribed reasons are pretty much spot on.

Riddle me this: what do you assume would happen if a society were to allow, willingly, unchecked masses of people from another society to move in on their turf? Moreover, let’s assume the newcomers’ society has a vastly different culture than that of the hosts’. One which has different values; has historically performed very poorly in the sciences, arts, and everything else; has never been able to create or maintain an economy beyond that of the third world; brings with it a great degree of criminality; and for a number of reasons both real and imaginary (but mostly imaginary), holds a deep seated resentment and even hostility toward the host society. To sauce things up even more, let’s assume a language barrier keeps most members of the two groups from communicating with each other.

What comes next? Do you suppose the two groups will learn to love each other and all get together and buy the world a Coke and sing Kumbaya and just become one big happy family? Or are you not an abject retard?

Obviously, the host society in this scenario is signing its own death warrant. Equally, and painfully, obvious is that America - and Europe, for that matter - is doing exactly this. Face it folks, our immigration situation is a problem (if any of you are wondering: yes, this is where Whiskey the eeeeevil racist rears his ugly head). We are importing Mexicans, Central/South Americans, and more to the tune of millions every year, and make no mistake about it, we’re not getting the cream of the crop.

”But Whiskey!” perhaps you gasp in self righteous disgust, “We’re a nation of immigrants! If it weren’t for this same kind of immigration from Europe, there wouldn’t even be an America!”

All true. Ask an Indian just how well that one worked out.

They key difference here is that despite the various quirks and misgivings between the Irish, Polish, English, Italians, or whatever, they all came from comparatively similar cultures, had similar values, and ultimately assimilated well into America’s European-based society. The mestizos flowing in from the south are not doing so, or at least not at a sufficient rate. More often than not, their loyalties lie with their country of birth, instead of their new chosen home. The cultures clash. The net result is balkanization, the necessary first step toward conflict.

Panarin next cites economic decline as the next ingredient in America’s suicide cocktail. Not hard to figure that one out. Piss poor countries where the people have little to lose are always more prone to violent civil wars and revolutions, usually of questionable wisdom. The same could hold true of Americans. If we were to find ourselves in a sufficiently shite situation, we may resort to truly radical and/or desperate measures. But the fact that we still have more to lose by doing so is, methinks, the primary reason we haven’t had any real civil wars or secessions during the last century or so (and likely won’t between now and 2010). The American economy has it’s ups and downs, as do all economies. People are freaking out about this little hiccup we’re experiencing right now, but this country has seen much worse, and will again. As of yet, Americans have always found a way to pull themselves back up. This, I believe, is where the distinctly American “Fuck you, I’ll do it myself” attitude truly shines at it brightest. When left to their own devices, people of sufficient will, vision and intellect will find a way to improve their lot in life. Comparatively, America has these types of people in droves. When interacting with each other, in pursuit of their own self interests, the invariable result is economy. Of course, that’s when they’re left to their own devices. Throw in an outside factor which offsets productivity (by devaluing currency, confiscating profits, etc.) and the whole landscape changes. Most commonly, these outside factors are called “government.” Look to places like Zimbabwe for a good example of what happens in this scenario.

But the real crux of the matter is the last item on Panarin’s list. Moral degradation. This is where the water gets muddy, since people have different ideas of exactly what moral degradation and even morality itself actually are, or at least we pretend we do.

But I guess a safe and universal way to put it would be this: Americans like to behave badly. It’s one trait we do share with the rest of the world. We like to drive in ways that endanger everyone around us. We like to hurt people of whom we disapprove. We like to fornicate without paying any mind to the children we beget as a result. We like to buy things we know we can’t afford, with money we don’t have. The list goes on.

In short, we like to pursue immediate gratification with no regard for the consequences. But sooner or later those consequences have to be faced, the piper must be paid. And when the check bounces, bad things follow. A great example would be the housing and credit market crunches we’re seeing right now. A whole litany of people from high risk home buyers to unscrupulous lenders to crooked politicians to Wall street traders saw a get-rich-quick scheme in the field of bad mortgages, and when they didn’t get paid all hell broke loose.

The American Voter, and why he Sucks

2010-02-10T19:05:00.000-05:00

Voting. It’s the most basic, fundamental right of each and every American citizen, and no one, no matter what, should ever be denied that right. To do so would be a travesty, under any circumstances. This is what I have been told, over and over again, by teachers, activists, and countless talking heads on the boobtube. In response, I offer to them this immortal quote from General A.C. McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge:

”Nuts!”

I for one (and maybe only one), truly believe that what this nation really needs is fewer voters. Our electoral system, and indeed our very democratic republic, are plagued by unqualified fools who genuinely have no business exerting any influence whatsoever on the governmental goings-on in this country. Allowing the shiftless, the criminal, and above all the stupid to vote for anything more than dog catcher is not a sign of how enlightened a society we are. Just the opposite: it shows that we are actually backward enough to let the inmates run the asylum.

I think we seriously need to raise the bar of qualifications for voting rights. In the early days of this country, voting was limited to land-owning white males. I’m not suggesting we take it that far, but simply managing to breathe for eighteen uninterrupted years just doesn’t cut it. And so, I, being one who believes in providing solutions to the problems about which I complain, offer you now my three point list of (what should be) qualifications for voting.

1) Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.

In the days when only white land-owners could vote, it was done that way because those were the only people thought to have a genuine stake in the outcome of elections. This of course was demonstrably false. Female and non-white land owners were still prohibited from voting, and people who owned no land still have some stake in how the land on which they lived was controlled.

But even though the execution was massively flawed, the basic premise was still accurate: only those who have an actual stake in the political process should have any say in its workings. Transposed to the modern day, this means taxpayers. Their pockets are picked incessantly by their federal, state and local governments. The money taken is redistributed and spent at the whim of any number of politicians and bureaucrats, with precious little say left to those from whom it was confiscated. Not only do we have almost no say in how our tax money is spent, we don’t even have much in how much is taken in the first place. The confiscating party determines the rate at which we are taxed, which means they effectively have total control of our money (btw, ever hear a politician say shit like “we can’t afford a tax cut!”? Notice they never ask whether you or I can afford an increase?)

But all that’s a problem of who we’re voting for. The problem where the voter himself comes in is that far too many of them aren’t actually paying any taxes, and are even on the receiving end of the money being lifted from our paychecks. Think I’m over exaggerating? We heard a whole screaming lot over the last few years about how G.W. Bush’s tax cuts gave the largest breaks to the richest 1% of Americans. Naturally, we envision fat CEOs in three-piece suits laughing at us while they light Cuban cigars with hundred-dollar bills. But here’s what they didn’t mention: that 1%, pays nearly 40% of the nation’s tax burden. What else didn’t they mention? That 1% is anyone making $388,806 and up. Don’t get me wrong, $400 grand is hardly a sum I’d turn down, but it’s far from the filthy rich jet set we’re left to imagine.

As for the rest of the pie, anyone making $65,000 or more is in the top 25%, and anyone making more than $31,988 is in the top 50%, which pays 97% of all income taxes in this country. For those of you who flunked basic math, that means that an entire half of all wage earners are chipping in a measly 3% of all that money flowing into Washington. And let’s not forget those who are paying no taxes at all (welfare recipients come to mind). Yet this bottom half are the largest recipients of federal social and entitlement spending, which, like everything else, comes out of your pocket and mine. That these have the same vote that their taxpaying benefactors do is more than just wrong, it’s dumb. The reasons should be self evident. Alexander Tytler put it best:

”A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

2) Citizens of other countries have no business voting in the United States.

Sounds pretty obvious, right? I mean hell, if I were to say that I, a Pennsylvanian, had any right to vote for the governership of Indiana, folks would look at me like I was nuts. And it would be even more ridiculous of me to claim any rightful say in the presidential elections of Mexico or El Salvador, right? Of course it would. These are all sovereign entities, and the course of their governance should be determined by their citizens alone. The same holds true for the United States.

But still there is a massive push to register illegal aliens to vote here. The usual suspects are to blame: parts of the Agriculture industry, labor unions (who are selling out their fool members by doing this), Democrats, some Republicans, and race-hustler groups such as La Raza. Basically, anyone who thinks they can benefit from an unrestricted flow of third worlders into this country; and the rest of us be damned.

Now I’m not fixing to get into the immigration debate in depth here today. Those of you who know me already know my stance on it, and the rest of you can probably guess. My only point here and now is that these are citizens of Mexico, or Nicaragua, or Ecuador, or wherethehellever, and they should be working to shape and better their own governments to their liking, not interfering with ours. Moreover, I am one who firmly believes that it is the individuals that make the society, not the other way around. A nation is, for better or for worse, what its citizens make of it. If a nation is a third world hellhole, it is that way because its people, whether by design or incompetence, made it that way, or at least allowed it. So why would we want those shaping ours?

3) Stupid people shouldn’t vote.

Now this of course is a tough one, because more than the other two combined, this one has the potential to wipe out huge swaths of the voting public (part of the reason I like it). I think that some sort of standard should be applied to make sure that the people who are shaping our political landscape have at least some basic idea of what it is they are shaping (or what the hell they are doing). I’m not suggesting we give out an IQ test at the polls. It would be pointless. I’ve known people with amazing IQs and analytical abilities who are nonetheless dumber than rocks. But I reckon a simple questionnaire, designed to demonstrate a basic knowledge of U.S. history, government, and constitution would be appropriate.

Questions of minutia will not be necessary. Things like “The Alien & Sedition Acts were signed by which president?” or “What is meant by the term bicameral legislature?” would not be on my exam*. No, just a few simple points designed to weed out the truly clueless. I’d even make it multiple choice. Here are a few ideas:

The top position in the Executive branch is
a)President b)Majority Whip c)Chief Justice d)Head Muthafucka In Charge, biotch!

The legislature is comprised of the Senate and the
a)Circuit Court b)Congress c) The House of Representatives d) Da House of Representin’!

The words “We hold these truths to be self-evident” are found in what part of the U.S. Constitution?
a)The Preamble b)The Bill Of Rights c)Article 1 Section A d)That’s the Declaration of Independence, dumbass!

The last four (4) words of the U.S. National Anthem are
Land of the Free b)Home of the Brave c)O Say, can you See? d)Gentlemen, start your engines!

See? Simple shit.

Seriously though, stupid or uninformed people in voting booths are possibly the single greatest threat to our democratic Republic. And they have the power to cancel your vote.

*PS-
For those of you who don’t know, the answers are ”John Adams”, and “legislature of two houses”, respectively.

Breakdown of tax burden vs. income, via Kiplinger.com

A Day of Firsts, Part 2

2010-02-10T19:03:00.002-05:00

My current happiness for my fellow Americans in DC, in the wake of today's reversal of the District's thirty-year-old, unconstitutional gun ban, is dampened somewhat by my disappointment on behalf of my fellow Americans in Louisiana, ala another decision of the Supreme Court, which was rendered yesterday. Apparently believing themselves to be a super-sovereign legislative council, the court ruled that the state of Louisiana has no right to enact or execute its own laws regarding the sentencing of violent criminals if the high court doesn't approve of them.

The specific case in question was that of a New Orleans monster named Patrick Kennedy. In 2002, he brutally raped an eight-year-old girl (his stepdaughter, no less). A 300 pound ogre, Kennedy caused extensive internal injuries to the little girl: emergency surgery had to be performed to keep her from bleeding out.

He's not a murderer (by the grace of God and the skill of good doctors), but in Louisiana, people who rape children under the age of twelve can be sentenced to death. This sentence was handed down unanimously by the jury (not arbitrarily by a judge), and upheld on appeal by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The appeal then went to the SCOTUS, where by a 5-4 vote the law was deemed unconstitutional, as a violation of the eighth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

Now I personally don't think it's excessive or cruel to execute inhuman animals who brutalize innocent defenseless children in this way. Neither did the legislature of Louisiana who passed the law. Neither did the governor who signed it. Neither did the jury who handed down the sentence. Neither, I suspect, do a majority of Louisianans (in the parts of Louisiana I've been to, which are considerable, you'd be hard pressed to find many who do). In all likelyhood, neither do you: put your own daughter, or niece, or neighbor's kid, in the shoes of this poor little girl and then tell me that "cruel" and "unusual" wouldn't be the very nicest words usable to describe the way you would make this worthless mongrel die.

But apparently, all of that means nothing if Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy hold a different opinion. Their basis for this ruling is nothing more than their personal opinion that the convicted rapist's crime just wasn't serious enough. They have no solid basis in the constitution to make this decision, or determine policy, for the sovereign state of Louisiana.

Governor Bobby Jindal agrees. He has vowed to "nullify" the Supreme Court's decision. That's some pretty ballsy talk, but I believe it is exactly the kind of talk we need (followed, of course, by action). The federal government as a whole, and the SCOTUS in particular, have been marching steadily down the road toward totalitarianism for a long time now, and the pace has quickened in recent years. Laws are passed and rulings made with little or no attention to the constitution upon which they are supposed to be based. This has been allowed both by a growing ignorance of the constitution among the public (I suggest you read it for yourself, link posted below) and by a generally weak and defeatist attitude; a simple acceptance of the falsehood that we are powerless subjects of an unassailable government. I for one, submit that this is bullshit. You can quote me on this:

The Supreme Court of the United States must be openly defied on this matter.

Jindal's plan is to push for new legislation which will alter the paradigm of the case and render the ruling moot. I could be wrong, but I can't see how this would ever work. The crime is what it is, and nothing will change that. Any new law will just be struck down again.

But that's only as long as the court's ruling is willfully observed. Ultimately, if Jindal wants to nullify this unlawful ruling, I think there is only one real course: execute Patrick Kennedy. If a date has been set, abide by it. If not, set one, and carry out the sentence in accordance with Louisiana law. Then, Bobby, face the Supreme Court, and extend your middle finger. This would doubtlessly cause repercussions, possibly including the use of force by the feds (not to mention nauseating amounts of televised melodrama). Hell if it comes to that, I might drive down to Baton Rouge and stand in front of the capitol to block them, hopefully in the company of many, many other like-minded fools.

Perhaps one of them would be Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama. In an unexpected fit of sense today, Obama, while being generally critical of the death penalty, opined:

"I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

And from his book, The Audacity of Hope (there's that damned buzzword again):

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment,"

Republican nominee John McCain also stepped his IQ up just enough to agree with me:

"[The Supreme Court's] ruling is an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."

And finally, Bobby Jindal's assertion:

"One thing is clear, the five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same standards of decency as the people of Louisiana."

All too true. Decency has never been the concern of despots.

Louisiana Vows to Nullify Child-Rape Ruling, via Washington Times
What Patrick Kennedy actually did to this 8 year-old girl, via Michelle Malkin.com
Obama and McCain agree with Big Whiskey, via MSNBC
The Constitution of the United States of America, via Cornell University

A Day of Firsts, Part 1

2010-02-10T19:03:00.001-05:00

It is a day of firsts, to be sure. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the constitution immediately on the heels of sodomizing it; a state governor has vowed to nullify their decision; and, perhaps strangest of all, Barack Obama and Big Whiskey Sam agree on something.

Mark your calendar, because I doubt that will happen often.

On the upside of things, the SCOTUS ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, aka the DC Gun Ban case, came down today. As anyone who's carried on a conversation with me at all in the past year already knows, I've been following this one with great interest.

In 1976, the DC city council enacted a total (and totally unconstitutional) ban on all handgun ownership in the District, as well as draconian regulations on rifles and shotguns (must be kept unloaded, disassembled, and cannot be transported, even between rooms in the home). The net effect is a total gun ban in DC. The net result has been that decent, law-abiding citizens of the District have been left disarmed, defenseless and at the mercy of the most wretched, foul and subhuman filth among their criminal class. A group which, of course, remains heavily armed.

DC is one of the roughest cities in America, and possibly the world. Anyone who doubts this is welcome to take a tour of the Anacostia neighborhood any night they want. I don't recommend it, but you can. Violent crime is rampant, and the ban has done nothing to stem this. In fact, DC's violent crime rates have more than tripled since the ban took effect, rising even when national trends were showing a decline. The city's murder rate is extraordinary: it was the highest in the nation for fourteen of fifteen consecutive years (I believe of the last seventeen, but I can't remember the last year it was), and is six times the national average.

Obviously, this ban has had no deterring effect on crime in DC, and no effect whatsoever in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Excuses for this from ban supporters are varied, but invariably lame. "Too many guns are coming in from Virginia, because their gun laws are too lax" (yet while DC had 186 murders in 2006, Alexandria VA, which immediately borders it, had all of 7), "the gun lobby is keeping us from passing strong enough laws" (a total ban in effect for thirty-two years. How much stronger do you want?), etc. etc.. The real reason of course, is that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. That includes gun control laws. Only the good people of the city are harmed by this ban. The thugs aren't even inconvenienced.

So as you may imagine, I was happy as a pig in slop when I heard a few months back that that the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC had stated the obvious truth that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of the second amendment, and struck it down. Today, when I heard that the Supreme Court had upheld that ruling, I let out a triumphant "Fuck yeah!" and punched a dent in the roof of my truck (my hand still hurts).

Now understand, this ruling does not immediately overturn all gun control laws everywhere in the country. Indeed, most will remain in tact, though the case will be used by groups such as the National Rifle Association (of which I am a member) as a basis on which to challenge other gun control laws in court. I'm not sure how these suits will pan out, as they will be challenging the laws of the individual sovereign states. DC on the other hand, is a federal territory. This does raise one question in my mind: while the court's decision effectively kills the handgun ban and the restrictions on rifles/shotguns, it leaves DC's requirement of licensing weapons in tact. Since DC is a territory, and the constitution specifically gives legislative power over it to congress (Article I, section VIII), and since there is no provision for gun licensing in the constitution, I fail to see how that part could stand. For that matter, I can't see how a DC city council even exists or is in any way legitimate.

Perhaps my inability to understand that is merely evidence of the very limited nature of my intellect. But if that is the case, at least I can take comfort in the fact that at least one member of the Supreme Court still makes me look like a freakin' genius by comparison. In writing the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens offered this little gem of pure ignorance, claiming that Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and majority opinion author Scalia:

"...would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Yes John, that's exactly what they did (you fucking dolt). Not only the second amendment, but the entire constitution is designed to limit the power of elected officials, most specifically congress, to regulate the lives of the citizenry. The whole document is a litany of restrictions on governmental power, as well as a detailed and narrow listing of the authorities and duties charged to the three branches thereof.

He went on to say that such evidence "is nowhere to be found." Really? What part of "...shall not be infringed" is beyond your ability to comprehend, John? These statements couldn't have been more ridiculous if he had said of the first amendment that no evidence existed that the Framers meant to limit the ability of elected officials who wish to regulate civilian speech.

But John's idiocy put aside, I'm very happy for my fellow Americans in Washington DC, especially those who place the safety of their homes and families above the edicts of a few morons and a crackhead, and have been secretly keeping private arms in their homes for self defense anyway. They need no longer fear reprisal from their elected officials (most of whom are afforded armed police protection). I harbor no delusions that the District will become a nice place to live any time soon, but it's always good to see a wrong of this nature righted, especially after all of this time.

Supreme Court Shoots Down DC Gun Ban, via CBS News

In All Fairness, this Doctrine Sucks

2009-06-27T19:49:00.003-04:00

You may or may not like Rush Limbaugh. Frankly, I don't care ( I find him reasonably entertaining, but for my noon-to-three listening, I'm partial to The Wilkow Majority,, on Sirius). It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you like his program, or any other talk radio program, or whether you're a confirmed "dittohead" or a liberal drone or a Hell-fire-and-brimstone religious nut or a rabid-&-foaming-at-the-mouth leftist. The recent whisperings from D.C. about governmental restrictions being placed in talk radio (conservative talk radio, specifically) should have every hair on your corpse standing on edge and be raising every red flag you can think of. Freedom of speech, and especially political discourse, is something everyone has a stake in and needs to take seriously (as obviously you do: if you dug deep enough into the internet to find this page, you must take it really seriously).

In particular, there are two areas that should be of great interest to everyone who values their freedom to run their mouth: recent statements from the White House and Senate Republicans concerning opposition to the new amnesty...uh...er...I mean "comprehensive immigration bill" being run, as I write this, through the US Senate for the second time (it failed narrowly on the first). The other being calls both expressed and implied for a revival of an old set of FCC regulations known as the "Fairness Doctrine."

On the first matter:

For those of you who are reclusive shut-ins who have absolutely no contact whatsoever with the outside world, we here in the good ol' US of A seem to have a bit of a problem controlling our southern border. The problem is real simple: we don't. Not "we can't," we simply don't. Or perhaps more accurately, an alarmingly large segment of the US government seems absolutely hellbent on not doing so, and on making sure no one else does either. This problem is far from new, but public outcry over it has grown substantially over the last few years, and especially in the now nearly six years since the 11th. The reasons for this outcry are as varied as the people it comes from. I could spend days listing and writing columns about them, and likely will, since it is certainly one of my hot-button issues. But I doubt I would tell you anything you haven't already heard or just figured out for yourself. For the sake of brevity, I'll skip that part and keep going.

Anyway, President Bush sponsored what he called an immigration bill that sent the base of the Republican party into an uproar. While he went to great lengths to insist that the bill did not extend amnesty to any and all of the 12-20 million illegal aliens currently in the US, it did, for all practical purposes, just that. It was an overall lousy bill (again, we'll get into that next time). Senators were overwhelmed by the amount of negative feed back they received from their constituents. Enough Senators to bring about the bill's defeat. This was due, in no small part, to bloggers on the internet, and the myriad of voices, mostly conservative, on talk radio. These brought to light many specifics of this bill, such as its lenient and ultimately toothless requirement for IAs to pay a fine (but with no real method in place to enforce it), and return home, then come back legally (which as I understand is the law right now, and they're not enforcing it, either), among other things.

The Republican party in D.C. finally found something over which Rush Limbaugh would get right in their faces. Along with Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Andrew Wilkow, and virtually everyone else on the right-wing side of your AM dial. To make matters worse for them, there was the blogosphere, populated in part by people who actually have enough time on their hands to actually read and analyze the entire 400 page bill, then post what they found where everyone from Glenn Beck to Joe Sixpack could find it.

Now on a normal day, Bush is a pantywaist (or perhaps a waste of panties?) who lacks the spine to actually stand up to Congress and fight for anything. But this of all bills has inspired him to push ever on. The bill is again before the Senate, and it's backers on both sides of the aisle have had some interesting words for those whom they perceive to have caused their prior defeat.

It started with Bush making false characterizations about conservative opponents to the bill, saying we were "trying to frighten people into opposing the bill." This is a tried and true page out of the liberal/Democrat playbook: when your position is indefensible, impugn the motives and/or character of your opponent in order to deflect attention from it. It raised eyebrows, and ire, among conservatives, who are after all the reason this putz is in office in the first place.

It got worse about a week ago, when one of the bill's proponents, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) stated in a television interview that the bill went down to defeat because "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."

A red flag rises.

He also went on to say: "I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don't even know what's in the bill" and claimed in a later interview with Fox News's Mike Wallace that during a radio interview on a local station in Mississippi, the host asked him to name four things in this bill that you think are significantly better than the current law. Lott responded:

"So I ticked them off. He said, 'That's in there?' I said, "Yeah.""

I for one find it interesting that he neglected to mention exactly which station that was on, which host issued him that challenge, and just exactly what those four things were. Hmmm.

And that brings us to matter number two. The Wallace interview also featured Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) who after several minutes of Lott vainly trying to spin his previous comments as something they weren't, took it one step further and talked about reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

For the better part of the twentieth century, The FD was a part of FCC regulations. It was repealed by the commission in a unanimous vote in 1987. In a nutshell, it required that anytime a given viewpoint on a controversial subject was aired over broadcast media, that the opposing viewpoint must be given immediate equal time. Sounds nice and fuzzy on paper, but causes a few problems when put into practice. A broadcast station is a business, not a community service project. In the case of AM radio, the entire listening base is a mixture of niche markets that have to catered to individually in order to maintain ratings and profitability. The Howard Stern audience is not the Dennis Prager audience is not the Art Bell audience is not the NPR audience. If the Fairness doctrine were applied fairly (which I doubt is now or ever was the idea), anytime a shock jock made a statement about politics or abortion or any other controversial issue, the station would have to give equal time to a Bible thumper or alike so he could say the exact opposite. The shock jock's audience would likely lose interest and tune out. The same goes in reverse. This would make it difficult and unprofitable for a station to take on hosts or programs which deal in controversial issues at all. And that would be the death of political talk radio.

On the left side of the dial, it really wouldn't matter much. To date, liberal talk radio on a national scale has been at best marginally successful. More often it's been an abysmal failure. Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and various other would be "Limbaughs of the left" washed out as quickly as they started, and that's despite being given heaps of free publicity and glowing commentary from major left-leaning publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Air America flopped so quick that most people don't know it's still around, and that's if you can find someone who ever heard of it in the first place. But on the right, where the economic success of the industry has been thus far, the effects would be drastic. Ultimately the FD could, and likely would, be used to make the medium unprofitable, and thereby coerce stations into dropping political programs, effectively stifling discussion of said topics.

Gee, you don't suppose that could be the whole point do you? You don't suppose that our elected officials would ever stoop to using government force to silence public debate about the very things they're doing in that big gleaming building at the corner of Capitol and Capitol, do you? Especially on matters where they seem to be at odds with the interests of most of the nation?

"But Whiskey!" you might protest, "I don't give a rat's furry ass about conservative radio! I think you, and all of your right wing ilk are nothing but a bunch of facist, hatemongering bigots, and probably eat puppies! Talk radio is completely one sided! Why shouldn't the government make them tell my side of the story?"

Glad you asked.

First, please note that the first ammendment to the US constitution guarantees us all the freedom of speech. More accurately, it specifically prohibits congress from passing any laws restricting it, and makes the exact same provision for the public media (freedom of the press). Forcing someone to say or give voice to something they do not wish to is every bit as much a violation of this freedom as preventing someone from saying or giving voice to something they do. Thereby, this "doctrine" flies right in the face of our cherished first amendment.

Second, make no mistake: if the government can do this to the likes of Michael Savage or Bill Bennett, they can do it to you. This could be really handy for them, for instance the next time we get into an unpopular war in some funny little country you've never heard of. Remember that the Vietnam war was started, and escalated for five years by two Democrat presidents, each with a Democrat congress backing them up. This game ain't just for W., folks.

Third, there's really nothing that says this has to stop at the radio. Right now, you and I are engaging in the very political discourse which is at stake here, only we're doing it online instead of over the airwaves. Bloggers and the internet are playing an ever increasing role in shaping the viewpoints of the voting public, both right and left, and it's only going to get bigger. This could potentially be a greater threat to incumbancy than cum stains on a blue dress. There is of course no way I could feasibly present a viewpoint other than my own on my own blog, but a hefty fine from Uncle Sam for not doing so might cause me to reconsider just how important these columns are (which I guess would be very much, if someone were actually to go to those lengths to shut them down). Ever since the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which is to date the biggest infringement of political speech tolerated by the American people since the civil war, there have been people in our government calling for extending the CFRA's TV and radio advertising and endorsement regulations to bloggers and internet based media as well. This would prevent us from writing about candidates during election seasons, urging people to for or against any particular candidate, etc..

Lastly, while the first amendment does guarantee your right to free speech, it does not guarantee you an audience. You have to acquire that on your own. Conservative talk radio is where it is today because there is a market for it, plain and simple. If there is a market for liberal talk radio, no one's figured out where it is or devised the business model and show format that will attract it yet. If someone does, more power to them. They'll be prosperous in the industry, and with my sincerest congratulations. Probably Limbaugh's as well.

The Fairness Doctrine at Wikpedia
Transcript of Mike Wallace's interview with Sen.'s Lott and Feinstein, Sunday June 24th on Fox News Channel

What the Hell Happened to White People? (Part Two)

2007-03-15T15:30:00.000-04:00

I suppose it was inevitable. It only makes sense that sooner or later, the wrist-gnawing madness that defines all things race related in this country would produce idiocy of the level reached this week in, of all places, rural Texas.

In Brazoria, a small gulf coast town south of Houston, mayor Ken Corley has put forth a proposal to outlaw the use of the word "nigger" in public discourse. Under the proposed ordinance, people caught using said word would be subject to a $500 fine.

"I would like to, if possible, ban all racial slurs," Corley told FOXNews.com. "We chose this word because it's the most controversial issue throughout the United States today."

Really? I thought that war we're tied up in over in one of those funny little Moslem countries fit that bill. But that's for another day.

Maybe it's just because I'm a white guy, and a country boy, and racist and oppressive and lacking in cultural sensitivity and just all around no damned good, but I weary of this unending national obsession with racists, and particularly of white peoples' obsession with proving they're not. Endless are the examples of white people, particularly those in the public eye, wringing their hands, mincing their words, and in general making damned fools of themselves all in a frantic effort to make sure everyone knows that they are most definitely not racists. Not now, not then, not ever, no way no how no sir! Even the most straight shooting hardline right wingers on talk radio will employ transparent euphemisms like "urban" and "lower income" when they are obviously referring to blacks and the problems of the black population. So ingrained is the fear of being called that eeeevil "R" word (I believe I have now reached the legal limit for use of italics in a single paragraph).

It has been said that in the modern political landscape of America, black power is directly proportionate to white guilt (Thomas Sowell, if I'm not mistaken). Even though on its face this seems perfectly accurate, I do see one flaw in the theory: if it's true, then black people ought to be running the whole damned country with an iron fist by now. There's more than enough white guilt going around like a flu bug to cover it. Incessantly we are reminded by the witless talking boobs on the headtube, that the predominate white European culture that has defined America and made it thrive in ways and to levels unprecedented in all of human history, is evil and horrible and never should have existed because once upon a time slavery was an institution within it. One must never openly extol the virtues and accomplishments of white America, and indeed should be quietly ashamed of it. One may be "proud" of one's ethnic ancestry on purely superficial grounds, but never one's national heritage based on anything more substantial. For instance one may be boisterously proud of one's Irish ancestry because Ireland has the best ales, stouts and drunks in the world, or one's German ancestry because Germany has the best Lagers and second best drunks in the world, but never of simply being a white European/American because precious few marvels of modern technology, medicine, economics, mathematics, lattice theory, classical mechanics, engineering, chemistry and things with moving parts have ever been discovered or invented by anyone else (though Asians and Jews are fast changing that). One must never under any circumstances criticize any minority or member of any minority, save for in some cases Jews and Asians (interesting how that works, isn't it?), and anyone who does so publicly, regardless of his intentions or accuracy, will be met with all the self righteous bloviating bloviable by the guilt ridden, the oh-so-sensitive, the people who want to show how they really, really, really care, and the people who want to prove that they are definitely not racists, which is all of the above in a nutshell.

It is worth noting, by the way, that all of this insistence that whites and Euro-American society are evil and that white people should be ashamed of themselves is hoisted on the population not by blacks or any other minorities, but by other whites. Wrist-gnawing madness...

Of course, not all of this stupidity is rooted in guilt at all. PR is a big thing in this day and age of instant communications, especially in the worlds of business and politics. A business which employs in its advertising anything, that might in any way offend even slightly members of any racial or ethnic minority (as almost anything does), especially blacks, will suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of all the worst press imaginable. They will be roundly vilified by sanctimonious turds (mostly white) and called everything except a child of God. You may recall, for instance the case of Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker, who remarked to a sports reporter a few years ago that he hated going to New York City because he was annoyed by the abundance if people who can't speak English and depressed by the constant sight of teenage girls living on welfare with multiple children they are too young to properly care for. Rocker was excoriated in the press by everyone from Katie Couric to Bill O'Reilly. Words like redneck, bubba and hayseed received new life in the print and broadcast media. I never heard anyone question the accuracy of Rocker's observations however, or even offer a defense of the people about whom he made them. He just wasn't supposed to say them out loud, and to agree with him would be absolutely forbidden.

That's one of the things I like about unreconstructed southerners: they don't much keep up to date on what thoughts they are and are not allowed to think. I'm also reminded of a story of a grocery store owner in either the south or midwest who decided that in honor of Black History Month he was going to sell watermelons and fried chicken at a discount for the entire month of February. No bullshit, some dolt actually thought that was a good idea.

But back to the point: exactly whose purpose is served in all this? Certainly not the minorities that the guilty white folks are supposed to care oh-so-much about. Sacred cows like affirmative action in the workplace, social promotion and lowered testing standards in schools, and the endless promotion of the most degenerate portions of black America as being "authentic" black culture, have resulted in much more harm than good to black America. This seems to be lost on guilty whites. Frankly, I don't think they've ever thought that much about it, or care to. The idea seems to be to make themselves feel better about themselves than to actually help blacks and other minorities elevate themselves out of the shitty overall state they're in now. Oh, look at me, I'm so compassionate and sensitive and just look how I care about these poor ignorant primitives who obviously aren't smart or civilized enough to manage their own lives! The focus is always on themselves.

Brad Dourif, in his crowning role as Dr. Amos Cochran on the HBO series Deadwood but it best, I think, when he said "I see as much misery from them looking to justify themselves as from them that set out to do harm in the first place." Goddamn, I think he nailed it. Somehow, I don't think things like outlawing speech are going to produce the kinds of results that folks like Mayor Corley are looking for. More likely, they'll merely exacerbate the already tenuous and abysmal state of race relations in this country as they stand now. We've already seen, to a certain degree, the heightened resentment from whites who don't have teeth marks below their palms that has come as a result of rules and regulations, particularly in the workplace, aimed at punishing those who so much as notice the shortcomings of a member of some protected Group or other. Singling them out for more of it in their personal lives isn't likely to make it go away. BTW, there is a loophole in the Brazoria ordinance that would allow the use of "nigger," (or "nigga," which is both more common and less literate) as a "term of endearment." Translation: only white people will be subject to citation for using the word.

Maybe white people need to take a deep breath (after removing their wrists from their mouths), and relax. Let it go. Maybe there are worse things in the world than racists. Maybe guilty white do-gooders are among them.

The Whiskey goes Smoke Free! Big Whiskey's Cravings Return.

2007-03-15T15:20:00.000-04:00

I recently marked my first full year without a cigarette. Prior to that I put away one to three packs a day for fourteen years. I quit of my own valition and cold turkey. It was a pain in the ass but apparently it has worked.

It was my choice. I believe it was the right one. But I never could get in with those who believe that it's their place or right to make that decision for anyone else. I especially can't stand people who want to use government to punish those who choose to do otherwise, or to meddle in the business of restaurants, bars and clubs who cater to a smoking clientele. The simple fact is this: smoking is a choice. You don't have to do it. You don't have to be around it. If a restaurant owner allows smoking in his establishment and you don't like it, you don't have to eat there. If your place of employment allows smoking and you don't like it, you don't have to work there. If you don't like the smell of smoke in bars, you don't have to drink there.

This whole anti-smoking movement particularly bothers me when aimed at bars and clubs. The whole point of going to these places is to engage in unhealthy living. Alcohol, tobacco, bad food, and hooking up with strangers for sex are the primary draws of American nitelife. Unfortunately, some do-gooders just can't mind their own damned business and leave others to theirs, even in the bar industry.

Posted below are a MySpace bulletin originally posted by The Whiskey 1803 niteclub in Annapolis MD. Below that is my response, which I did send to them before posting it here. Please note that my primary objection to the self imposed ban on smoking in the club was not the fact that they made the decision, but the obvious attitude behind it, and their support for laws aimed at using local government to prohibit other club owners from making decisions on this matter other than their own.

Both appear as they were originally written, but I do need to note two corrections to my response, both of which concern the Firestation 8 Bar & Grill, which is owned by an acquaintence of mine.

FS8 has 8 regulation size pool tables, not 4.

Fs8's former policy of no-cover shows has changed under its new management. A cover is now charged after a certain time of night, but I'm not sure what time.

Both of these facts were brought to my attention bythe club's owner, after I wrote the original email to the Whiskey.

Original bulletin posted by The Whiskey 1803 on MySpace.com:

"The Whiskey BOLDLY goes NO SMOKING!!

As of January 19th, 2007 the Whiskey 1803 will be a smoke free environment to enjoy your favorite bands. There has been much talk in the last few years about a smoking ban for bars/clubs in Anne Arundel County but this bill has been quickly dismissed. We at The Whiskey 1803 hope to spearhead a campaign of smoke free entertainment, to not only show that it can be done effectively, but in hopes that other establishments will follow suit. Non-smokers are sick of waiting for law makers to get off their butts, no pun intended.
We do not intend to exclude smokers by any means. There will still be smoking available in the downstairs bar of BF Biggins, and on our spacious outside deck adjacent to The Whiskey 1803. You can step out, have a smoke, and step right back in. This is so we can cater to smokers and non-smokers, and not alienate either group.
Please spread the word and tell other establishments to do the same. The time has come, we just wanted to be the first to do it.

Dave"

Big Whiskey Sam's Reply:

"First off, let me say that as a bonafide free-marketeer and former niteclub manager, I fully support the right of businessmen to make whatever decisions they deem best for their establishments, even decisions that are demonstrably stupid.

Speaking as a Baltimore/DC area band member (who has been smoke free for a little over a year now), I think this is an assinine policy. It's a killer for bands playing on your stage. It goes like this: you take the stage on a night with a decent crowd, but the majority of that crowd is outside or in another room while you are playing. Most of them, as you will clearly see once your self imposed ban takes effect, are smokers. A sizeable portion of the nonsmokers in attendance are friends with smokers, and spend the whole night outside socializing with their buddies who are busy puffing away.

The only people in front of the stage wind up being the people that came out specifically for your band (your friends, in other words), and they're not the ones you're playing for. It's the other bands' crowds, the ones who haven't heard you a million times, that you are trying to impress and take into your fanbase and sell your merch to. This is made all the more difficult when the patrons, who came out to a bar specifically to enjoy deliberately partaking in unhealthy living, have to leave the room in order to do so. When faced with the choice of "leave the room and have a smoke/hang with my friends while they smoke" or "stay here and jones/all alone and catch this band I've never heard of," most will choose the former.

For evidence of this, one need look no further than Firestation 8 in Gaithersburg (where the smoking ban you lament missing in AA county is in full effect). It's a very nice club, and maintains a strong regular patronage by offering decent food, a very wide range of drinks, several big screen TVs with couches to watch them from, 4 regulation size pool tables free of charge, and a strict no-cover-anytime policy. There is a large patio area outside where people can smoke, and it is always packed to the gills, even in the winter, while the club inside remains sparsely populated. Even bands with strong local followings wind up losing watchers as their set goes on.

Now, let's suppose Montgomery county lifted it's smoking ban, but FS8 decided to keep its restrictions in place even as neighboring bars and clubs did away with theirs. Where do you suppose that oversized crowd on the patio would go? Note that in AA county, you do not have the luxury of the government keeping others from offering what you don't.

Equally idiotic is your apparent motivation behind this new policy. To judge from your bulletin, this decision is based not in any professional judgement, but rather in a desire to thumb your nose at people who have the unmittigated gall to make decisions concerning their own lives and lungs that you don't approve of. You also seem to forget that these are the people who buy your drinks and pay your bills.

Your statement that "Non-smokers are sick of waiting for law makers to get off their butts" is demonstrably false. Obviously it's not that big a deal to them, or else they would not be patronizing bars that permit smoking. Nobody forces them to, and they can always go somewhere or do something else. The time obviously has not "come," as you so overdramatically put it.

Those to whom it is that big a deal, don't. However I sincerely doubt there are any nonsmokers out there reading your bulletin and thinking "Oh thank God! I've always wanted to hang out at the Whiskey 1803 but I couldn't because of the smoke!" The nonsmoking clientele you have will likely remain pretty much the same, though you will lose some of your smoking clientele. How much will depend on the competition in your area.

I understand that Annapolis is and has always been a haven for tender minded types who mistakenly believe that their politics (which is exactly what all this is about) make them somehow morally superior to those who disagree, and that this superiority gives them the right to make other peoples' decisions for them. Your support for a county wide smoking ban shows that this is obviously your mindset. Otherwise, you'd simply have banned smoking in your club from the beginning and left everyone else to do as they will. But no, you want the government to prohibit others from making a choice you don't approve of.

Ultimately though, it is your call to make, and your consequences to reap. I simply get irritated when I read ignorant tripe like the bulletin you posted. And, thanks to the modern marvel that is the internet, I get to let you know exactly why.

-Whiskey
Dreams in Fear
Motel Hell Entertainment"

Emo

2007-03-15T15:16:00.000-04:00

To borrow the vernacular of the venerable Alan Walden:

I've been pondering emo.

It's not easy pondering. Even more, I'm pondering the strange near-obsession with emo that one finds in so much of the punk/metal/hXc scenes in cities all across the nation, and even the world.

Now, to ponder emo, one must first understand just what emo is. I don't. The whole thing is as clear as Alabama mud to me. Those who hate it tell me it's nothing more than a fashion scene. These people usually come from those camps listed in the last paragraph, which of course are extremely fashion-centric in and of themselves. Think I'm wrong? Then how come you never see kids at Dying Fetus shows wearing Sarah Maclachlan shirts? It's just a shirt, right? Metal's not about what you wear, right? You get the idea. All in all though, I'd say they're right about it being a fashion scene. Like its contemporaries, emo is yet another fashion scene to spring from a genre of music.

The question then becomes, what music? This is where it gets tricky, but I think I've got it narrowed down to three possible answers:

1) Music of a depressing or melancholy tone, played on basic rock & roll instruments, simple in structure, uncomplicated in technique, and charachterized by unaggressive whiney vocals or unintelligible screams/growls delivered by a twenty-something white male. Lyrical content tends to be melodramatic, often to the point of annoying sappiness.

2) Music of any genre or style delivered by any band whose members wear black clothing, eyeliner, and strange haircuts that usually cover most or all of the face.

3) Any music of any genre delivered by anybody who any particular punk, metal or hXc kid doesn't like.

Number 1 seems unlikely. I remember the emo movement of the late eighties and early nineties, charachterized by the likes of Rites of Spring, Husker Du and others who melded punk and pop into ungodly abominations. It fit that bill fairly well. That breed of emo is most certainly dead, even more so than punk.

Number 2 is the most accurate as far as I can tell. Go to any emo based forum page or MySpace group, and you'll find lot's of threads on the various facets of the emo fashion scene (which apparently includes ritual homosex for the amusement of others), and plenty of kids telling you all the bands that emo is not, but little on what emo actually is. There doesn't seem to be much consistency among bands who refer to themselves as emo either. Some sound like punk, some sound like really weak hXc. But nothing I've heard so far in any way stands out so much as to warrant distinguishing it with it's own label of genre. The only constant, among both bands and fans, seems to be the look.

Number 3 is obviously rhetorical. Punk, metal and hXc kids have traditionally wrapped way too much of their identities up in the music they listen to and the fashions that come with the scenes. It's almost tribalistic. And of course those who adhere themselves to a Group (which we all do) have to have an Enemy. Emo seems to fill this void well. I just don't really know why. Nobody else I've talked to seems to either. It's kind of like how Vanilla Ice is the most hated musician of all time, but nobody's ever really given any thought as to why they hate him so much. They just do.

I'll grant that his music sucks, and I'll grant that every self described emo band I've ever heard sucks. But I can't understand how this in and of itself is cause for so much animosity. In my not-so-humble opinion, the aforementioned Dying Fetus sucks. I never could stand their so-called music, which sounds to me more like a simple collection of pointless noise completely lacking in originality/catchiness and topped off with vocals that might as well be performed by the Cookie Monster, just like every single other death metal band in existence. Not only is this my opinion of their music, they know it is, or at least did once upon a time. They're from the same area as I am, and work in the same scene. We have a few friends in common, and periodically wind up in the same room. I've had discussions about music with Sean and Vinny (who I believe has since left the band), and theese conversations have been perfectly civil and even pleasent, despite my low opinion of their music. In fact, they've put me on the guest list each time I've seen them on stage (admittedly few), and back when I ran live shows for a club in Baltimore, most of which were metal shows, their members were always guests at my shows when they came out. I don't know if any of them have heard my current band, but I'll bet they wouldn't like it much. So what? There's no call for bad blood or death threats over it. It's no big deal.

So you can see why I'm slightly confused by the venom and vitriol aimed at emo bands and fans (and to a lesser extent, back from them). One doesn't see this between metalheads and country fans, or between hXc kids and hip-hoppers (in fact, the hXc kids seem more than happy to poorly mimic the whole hip-hop ghetto "street" scene these days), so what's the deal with emo? If emo fans were going to metal shows with five gallon bags of sugar and distributing it int peoples' gas tanks, I might understand the rather pointed dislike. But just because they make crappy music and look like fags?

And there again, it comes back to the look. The look is the only real defining characteristic of emo, and seems to be the focus of almost all dislike of it. It doesn't even matter if a band actually is emo or not: just "looking" emo is enough. For instance, there was a band out of PG county MD, who I believe has packed up and set sail for LA, called Summer's End. Great musicians, and one of my favorite metal bands. Their music style is a sort of Iron Maiden meets Fear Factory sound, with zombie movie lyrics, ala The Misfits. Now, to look at one of their more recent band photos almost provokes laughter: black button down shirts, eyeliner and yes, those stupid I-can't-make-a-devilock-that-works haircuts. Back here on the east coast, I've heard them bashed by former colleagues and fans as having "gone emo." How do you figure? Yes, they look like queers, at least in the photo I'm speaking of, but the music remains as it's always been. Isn't it the music that determines a band's genre? If not, when did it change? Why wasn't I informed?

But actually, it almost makes sense, at least to the extent that basic human behavior ever does. People by nature want to divide themselves into groups and fight. A quick look at politics, religion, and humanity's war-riddled history confirms this quickly. The easiest fault line along which to divide and classify ourselves is how we look. In the case of conflicting music scenes, it's a very basic and immature tendency that does not surprise me in high-school age children. It does, however, creep me out a bit coming from grown men who should be above the playground games of boyhood.

Worst Hard Rock Videos of All Time

2007-03-15T15:08:00.000-04:00

This goes out to Johnny, Un, and Dave, who will probably appreciate it more than anyone else.

I'll say it right up front: I fucking hate music videos. They are the crassest of marketing tools, and probably the most insulting to their audience's intelligence (not that the MTV/VH1 crowd really posess an abundence thereof). It has been said that the birth of the music video was the death of rock & roll (and if it hasn't been, I'll say it). Sounds pretty accurate to me. The music video has given rise to the now abominable world of hip-hop, ushered in boy bands & girl groups, and hoisted the MTV VMAs on us all. Thanks to the music video, we now have a music industry where musical talent is secondary, almost irrelevant. Image trumps all. Think about it: Faith No More and Big Country were one-hit-wonders, the Spice Girls were a multi-platinum global sensation.

But as that guy said in that movie that one time, "Them's the fuckin' breaks, kid." For all of it's faults, the music video does have one cardinal virtue: it works. As advertising methods go, few have been as successful. The truth is, music alone played over the radio just does not have the same potency as music attached, in some synchronization, to an appealing image. INXS on the radio in Australia gains a few fans and sells a few records; Michael Hutchence swaggering around the screen in the I Need You Tonight video prompts millions of teenage girls to clear the "I" section at the local record store. The words "radio air play" and "Slayer" are rarely found in the same sentence, but throw in some black & white footage of them thrashing away to the sounds of War Ensemble, looking just like the types of hard-asses all young metalheads would like to imagine themselves to be, and the next thing you know they're headlining arenas on both sides of the Atlantic.

Face it folks, the music video is here to stay. It is an essential of the modern music world. That's why things like these happen.

Just because an artist is great, does not make him photogenic, pretty, or a good actor. This goes double for makers of heavy music. It goes quadruple for makers of heavy music back in the day.

And so, we wind up with otherwise great songs and bands which will be forever linked to some of the most God-awful pieces of crap ever to hit the small screen. Without further ado, I give you the cream of the crap.

10) Ozzy Osbourne- A Shot in the Dark

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

Here we see the Great and Powerful Ozz in his pudgy-drunk phase (as opposed to his skinny-smackhead phase or his gay-reality-show phase). The sequined outfit, bare feet, teased hair and troll-like shuffling around the stage would alomost be enough to put this video on the list without any further assistance, but the Ozzman takes it one step further: some poor girl in the audience undergoes an eeerie metamorphosis into the chick from the album cover. Well, actually, into a giant mannequin with a swiveling head and glowing red plastic eyes. Yup. Even a cameo by what appears to be Eddie the Antichrist couldn't save this one.

9) Megadeth- No More Mr. Nice Guy

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

Normally, I can't stand movie clips being injected into a video, but the scenes from Wes Craven's Shocker provide a nice distraction from the rest of this video. The brief tribute shot of Alice Cooper is a nice touch too. The niceness ends there. Someone really should have told Dave Mustaine that he just isn't close-up material, no matter how big he makes his hair. Childhood film footage wasn't a great idea either. But the real kicker is this: notice how Dave's lips are out of sync with the song? Word is, he was so fucked up during shooting that that was the best they could get. All shots of him playing guitar had to be shot seperate.

8)Sepultura- Inner Self

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

Quite possibly the quintessential example of that first video that every great band wishes they could go back in time and erase. I'll let the vid speak for itself. I could probably do that with all of these vids, but what fun would that be?

7)Metallica- Nothing Else Matters

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

The once mighty kings of all that was metal take their first stab at a soft sweet little ballad. The fact that the song even exists is bad enough (I love it, but it was a clear signal of the impending demise of the great Metallica). But who the fuck came up with this video?! "Hey dude, I've got anidea! Let's waste this otherwise beautiful and powerful song on a video so cheap and irrelevent that Sum 41 would cringe!"

6)Grim Reaper- See you in Hell

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

Beavis and Butthead was a double edged sword. Without them there would be no Rob Zombie, but most of us would be blissfully ignorant of this video. The song, while awful, does have a certain catchiness I find hard to explain. Kind of like Buffy the Vampire Slayer reruns. The video though, has no such redeeming value. They're obviously playing for an imaginary crowd, and even they walked out.

5)Pantera- Cemetery Gates

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

The graveside service, the dorky teenager in the James Dean jacket, the twenty-something skinhead priest, and the guitar reflections in the tombstones (kind of ominous, when you think about it). At least after this one, Phil never tried to strike anymore "power ballad" poses in his videos.

4)Anthrax- Black Lodge

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

Mark Pellington was catapaulted into fame for directing Pearl Jam's Jeremy video. I don't know why. It sucked. But not as bad as his effort here. Somebody should have told him his job was to promote an album, not some abstract "artistic" vision. He later went on to direct feature films, which were just as bad (remember Arlington Road and The Mothman Prophecies?). The addition of Jenna Elfman was a nice touch though. A poster on Youtube put it best: "They should have just let Jenna dance naked in a cage."

3)Megadeth- Peace Sells

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

Three words, friends: HUGE FUCKING LIPS!

The only band to make this list twice, Megadeth showed their cinematic cluelessness early on with this 1986 classic. Arguably one of metal's greatest songs, by one of it's greatest bands. Undeniably one of it's worst videos.

2)Iron Maiden- Holy Smoke

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

Iron Maiden, smiling like glam fags in the studio, while Bruce Dickinson sings in a field of yellow flowers to a bunch of preachers with bad teeth. Forget all these damned shock-rock videos, this is the most disturbing shit I've ever seen. And not a trace of Eddie anywhere to be seen.

And finally, the worst video in hard rock history:

1)Judas Priest- Breaking the Law

.. width="425" height="350">

..>

It takes alot to beat the other videos on this list, and only Priest has ever managed to do it. They rob a bank with their instruments, including a fully assembled drum kit. Guys, if you want to break the law, you should put your guitars down first. The security guard at the end was playing a cardboard cutout of what was supposed to be a Flying V guitar, but whatever gimp actually assembled it put it together upside down. And nobody noticed until all the shooting was done and the video premiered on TV!!! On top of all that, Rob Halford appears clean shaven and with a full head of red hair. Even back in 1980, you could tell their was a gay leather clad biker in there just itching to come out.

That's about it. I'm sure there are lots of more recent terrible videos that I'm blissfully ignorant of. Truth is, the last time I watched a music video, Ricky Rachtman introduced it. But these will always be the defining examples of why music videos are a bad idea.

Fred Phelps: "The Amish children...are in Hell". Big Whiskey Suspects NAMBLA Affiliation.

2006-10-18T16:30:00.000-04:00

So the other day I ran an early delivery to Norristown PA. I decided to take the scenic route to get there. It runs along US routes 30, 202 and 422 across southern PA, from York to Norristown. It also runs just a couple of miles north of Nickel Mines PA, where last week a seriously batshit-crazy wacko named Charles Roberts went into a small, one-room Amish schoolhouse, and murdered five Amish girls, ages 7 through 13. The day I made this run was the day of the girls' funerals.

I did not see the processions taking place. In fact, few did. Most of the roads leading to the Nickel Mines area were closed to traffic. Even the press was kept out by PA State Police, and a no-fly zone was enforced in the airspace over the area. This was primarily done to respect the privacy of the Amish community, and keep the local and national press from making a circus out of these peoples' grief and mourning (left to their own devices, the media are a shameless bunch and would have descended like jackals on the otherwise quiet town). But it was also done to prevent controversial "protests" that may well have led to violence. At the heart of this matter, was the infamous Fred Phelps.

If you don't know who Fred Phelps is...well, you're lucky. But your luck just ran out. Fred Phelps (his official title is pastor, but as a Christian man I refuse to sully the term by associating it with this cocksucker) is the head of Westboro Baptist "Church" (again, I hate to dirty the word) in Topeka Kansas. You may have heard of him and some of his followers going around the country "protesting" at the funerals of American servicemen killed in action in the middle east. They scream obscenities at the family of the dead, hold up signs which say things like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11" and all other manner of reasonably sickening shit. It is their firmly held belief that God hates America. The reason? Well let me put it this way: their websites are God Hates Fags.com, and its offshoot God Hates America.com.

Yes, I realize I just gave them free publicity by posting links to their sites. I also happen to believe that the readers of this column (both of you) are intelligent and independent minded enough to read their tripe and see it for exactly what it is.

Yup. That's about the sum total of it. Apparently, since we don't execute queers in this country, God hates us and has "cursed this nation." Funny, because the last time I looked, this was the biggest, strongest, richest and most powerful nation in the history of planet Earth. We're so awash in wealth and opportunity that people from all over the world break their balls and risk their lives to get here. Our political and economic systems have been the most stable and resounding success stories in human history, and have become so in a comparatively miniscule amount of time. The number one health problem among our so-called poor is obesity. Damn, that's some lame-assed, downright pathetic cursing, right there. One could mistake a curse like that for untold blessing.

The Phelps clan are absolutely obsessed with fags. According to them, every last little thing that goes wrong in this great land is a direct act of God aimed at smiting this nation for its tolerance of homosexuality, or more accurately, the continued breathing of homosexuals. Earthquakes, tornados and hurricane Katrina? All because of fags. Dead soldiers in Iraq? God struck them down because "the American army is a fag army" (yes, that's a direct quote). The Shuttle Columbia, the West Virginia coal mine collapse, September 11th, you name it. All because we allow queers to exist.

Honestly, with an obsession this potent, I have to wonder whether Phelps's indignance is born of anger and rage, or of shame and self-loathing. You know what I mean.

Anyway, apparently it is the Phelps clan's position that the massacre at the Amish school was yet another act of God's great wrath against America. They spoke publicly of plans to travel to PA and stage one of their tasteless demonstrations at the funerals of these little girls. I don't know exactly what the signs for that one would have read, but on their GHA site they write:

"Face it, They're in Hell! The Amish children from Pennsylvania are even now in hell. Stop spreading the lie that they were innocent. They were just as degenerate and deserving of hell as the pervert who killed them."

I reckon that would have been the gist of it.

Fortunately, it didn't happen. Fox News Channel contributor Mike Gallagher struck deal with Phelps: Phelps and his clan stayed away from the funerals, and Gallagher gave Phelps a full hour of his nationally syndicated radio talk show to rant and rave and make as big an asshole out of himself as he wanted. Gallagher has taken a bit of flack for this, from people on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Personally, I don't see what the problem is. Yes, Gallagher gave this sick pillowbiter a forum to spew his hate and bile. But his words fell on the ears of an intelligent and hostile audience who are usually well informed and not easily swayed by the screaming of seething freaks. Gallagher, like me, figured his audience was smart enough to see Phelps for the disturbed, confused, closet fanny-bandit he is (or maybe just fantasizes about being). One might also consider how small an audience Gallagher has, and how much more exposure Phelps would have gotten had there been a scene at the funerals, and the insatiable exploiters of misery in the TV news racket had been there to put it on the air (which you know they would have).

But most importantly, the girls were laid to rest, in ceremonies both peaceful and dignified. I reckon that's probably how God prefers to receive His children.

Truck drivers, on the other hand, are a different story. As I rolled back east along 30, the CB was crackling with the voices of drivers heading the same way (30 makes a great toll and scale free alternative to parts of the PA turnpike), talking about the event, the funerals, the Amish, and the Fred Phelps Society for Closet Butt-Pirates. A group of about a dozen or so had determined they would hold up at a few spots in Lancaster county, near the funeral routes, and use their trucks (as well as, likely, their fists, breaker bars, chains, etc.) to contain the protesters if needed (read: "if given any remote chance to do so"). It sounded like a great idea to me. I doubt the PA State Police would have agreed. Generally, drivers will defer to cops. But make no mistake: truck drivers are crazy. Especiallythe OTR dogs who haven't seen home in months. Give them a dramatic enough Cause, anything from stuff like this to a car fire on the side of the freeway, and you will find drivers exiting their trucks and jumping right into the middle of it like damned fools. Not all of them, but more than enough. Never get on the bad sides of people who live in boxes, shower at gas staions, and carry sledgehammers.

Above, shots from a Phelps clan protest of The Laramie Project performance in Durham NC. The carpet muncher up top is Phelps's granddaughter, Sarah. The sore-assed fellow in the red poncho is Phelps's son, Jonathan, who reportedly was actually yelling "Save the Gerbils!" at that very protest. Below, Fred Phelps describing to reporters how he gets a chubby watching Harry Potter movies (ok, I made that one up).

Pope Survives Meeting with Muslims. Big Whiskey Loses Bet.

2006-10-18T16:27:00.000-04:00

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuell II Paleologus, Emporer Rome pars Orientis

I see today that Pope Benedict XVI survived his meeting with numerous delegates and ambassadors of Islam from practically everwhere. I was thinking of going down to St. Joe's, and seeing if I could get a pool going with the local clergy as too whether or not they would assasinate the supreme pontiff. If you really think about it, it's a made-for-Vegas scenario. Who will do it? What country will he be from? Will it be a Shiite, a Sunni, a Palestinian or a Wahabbi? Will he use a knife, gun, or just detonate himself? The possibilities are endless.

Actually, any attempt on the Pope's life would likely be just that - a failed attempt. Those Swiss Guards may wear some stupid looking uniforms, but they are genuine badasses culled from the army of Switzerland, and are not to be screwed with.

But either way, as it stands the Pope survived the meeting. No one made any attempt on his life whatsoever. The wake-up call if they had may very well have better served the Holy Catholic Church.

OK, for those of you who spent last week in a cave, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech in Germany, during which he quoted a few bits by Emporer Manuel II, of the Byzantine (East-Roman) empire, including the line that began this essay. With all the shockingness of a western sunset, Musilms all over the world became indignant at the idea that someone might think of them as violent, and began calling for the death of the Pope for saying it. Equally predictable was the Vatican's pitiful and limp-wristed response, which basically amounted to oh-please-don't-get-angry-isms and a bit of shameless ass-kissing. The Pope couldn't stress enough that Manuell II's words did not "express [his] personal convictions," and stated his "total and profound respect for all Musilms."

What a load of shit.

First off, as a lifelong Catholic of the Irish persuasion, it is my belief that a Pope should never be afraid to piss people off. If I can do it, then so can the captain of Christianity's flagship. So long as what he says is truthful and accurate, then screw it. If the truth hurts, tough shit. The Pope is a servant of God, arguably the one with the most responsibility leveled on him in that capacity. He cannot shy away from the truth, or from angering those who don't like it. He cannot be all things to all people. I expect better of my pontiff than I do of my politicians.

Of course, an apology would indeed be in order had he said anything that was inaccurate. But did he? Nope, methinks not. For one, he was quoting someone as part of a lecture, only part of which dealt with Islam. The quote was accurate, so far as I know. Furthermore, Islam's love of the sword has been well documented throughout its roughly 1400 year history. The Moores in Spain, the Ottoman Empire across northern Africa and as far into Europe as Austria, not to mention the domination of nearly the entire middle east. Even Mecca, the holiest city of Islam, only became that way after Mohammed and the followers he had amassed in Medina forcibly conquered it (the process took close to a decade). To this day, we see endless examples of Muslim violence and bloodshed aimed at infidels of all stripes and, quite often, each other. Hindus in Kashmir, Christians in Indonesia, Jews in Isreal, riots and violent demonstrations in Paris, London, Denmark, and Amsterdam.

Thus far, I'm having trouble seeing where indignant Muslims have a leg to stand on.

"But Whiskey!" you might say, "none of this is unique to Islam! All sorts of people have been conquering other people for centuries! Even your own beloved Catholic Church has a pretty bloody, sordid history!"

All true. I am well aware of this. As a Catholic boy growing up surrounded by fundementalist Mennonite freaks, I was hardly afforded an opportunity to forget it. Many of the church's medieval exploits are every bit as aggregious as those of Muslims. However, allow me to point out a couple of differences:

1) When the Catholics (or the Anglicans, or the Puritans, etc.) did their horrid deeds, they knowingly did so in direct violation of any Christian scripture that ever existed. They defied their Lord with their deeds, and blasphemed Him by doing them in His name. Muslims, on the other hand, honor their god in this way. The Quaran repeatedly states that unbelievers should be fought and killed (9:5 and 9:29 are my favorites), as do various Hadith passages.

2) All those awful things the Catholics et. al. did happened several hundred years ago! It's over, folks. The entire notion of Christian "holy" war is long since dead. The notion of Muslim jihad however, is very much alive and well. For examples of this, go back a couple of paragraphs.

But despite all of this, Pope Benedict both apologizes and insists these aren't his "personal convictions." So what? Let's say they were his own convictions. If so they would be merely words, spoken by a man who has no military (those 100 Swiss guys may be badasses, but they won't be mounting any invasions anytime soon), no real political power anywhere, and poses no plausible threat to anyone. I'd like to think Muslims could leave it at "Jeez, what an asshole!", maybe argue about it with friends over coffee or beer, and forget about it. But no, they do what unruly children always do: throw a temper tantrum. You could mistake them for American college students. Personally, I'd be embarrassed.

What his eminence should do is offer one brief public statement, roughly to the effect of "Grow up and deal with it." Of course, that would probably result in even worse behavior. So instead, he talks about his "total and profound respect for all Muslims." I don't know the Pope personally and I can't read his mind, but something about this line sets off my bullshitometer.

However, the best line from this whole mess comes not from the pontiff, but from one of the rabble rousers. Indonesian Muslim Heri Budianto, who organized and anti-pope rally outside the Palestinian embassy in Jakarta, opines:

"Of course as we know the meaning of jihad can only be understood by Muslims...Only Muslims can understand what jihad is. It is impossible that jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."

I'm willing to bet parishoners of two Catholic churches in the West Bank which were firebombed by angry Muslims after the Pope's speech might disagree. So might Sister Leonella Sgorbati, a missionary nun from Italy who was murdered in Mogadishu, also by Muslims demonstrating against the Pope. It is rumored that she audibly forgave her killers before she died. This prompted what may be the only worth while words spoken By Pope Benedict XVI during this whole sorry affair:

"This nun, who for many years served the poor and the children in Somalia, died pronouncing the word 'pardon'...This is the most authentic Christian testimony, a peaceful sign of contradiction which shows the victory of love over hate and evil."

Original story, CNN.com
Vatican's statement
Meeting with Muslim delegates, CNN.com
Pope Praises Sister Leonella

The Death of the Pen... the Keyboard Hasn't Fared too Well Either

2006-09-06T23:00:00.000-04:00

On the radio the other day, I once again heard someone claim that if you stick a bunch of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, given enough time they will write the great American novel. Personally, I reckon this is probably apeshit. All the laws of averages are against it, no matter how much time is given (the typewriter itself would likely only last until the first monkey got mad and flung poo at it). In all likelyhood, you could give a hundred monkeys a thousand years and maybe you would get "see spot run". Not the childrens' book, just those words; and they'd probably be spelled along the lines of "c spot rn."

Then suddenly, it occured to me: if indeed that's what the monkeys came up with, they would be about on par with the average Young American in terms of their mastery of the written English word.

Seriously, I don't get it. Daily I read emails and blog postings all over the web, written by grown men and women, which seem as though they were written by twelve-year-olds. Actually, it's worse than that. By age twelve, one should have at least the concept of complete sentences mastered. Today most, or at least far too many, college students don't.

By the time one is out of high school, grammatical errors should be reserved for only the trickiest minutia of the language. Spelling and punctuation errors should amount to nothing more than simple typing mistakes. More and more I'm finding that people are ignorant of most rules of grammar, and of the very existence of punctuation (those little symbols on your keyboard were not put there for the purpose of making winking, sideways smiley faces). The word "were" is used when "we're" is meant, alongside "cant", "wont" and "dont". Of all the punctuation marks, I think the apostrophe has been taken the hardest hit. Spelling seems to be done by "sounding out" words, the way we did in first grade. Capitalization is becoming a lost art.

Spelling has collapsed under the weight of ignorance and laziness. People don't know what words mean, or what words belong where, and they just can't be bothered to find out, or even to type a few extra letters when they do know better. The letter "u" is not a word. Neither is "ur", and it is not interchangable with "your" or "you're", which are not interchangable with each other. Seriously, would it kill you to type two to five extra charachters? Is it so difficult to check a dictionary or thesaurus when needed (there are many good ones online)? I suppose this must be too much to ask. Illiteracy is so much easier.

When you come down to it, the ability to write is nothing more than the ability to think on paper. A person who writes on a fourth grade level is indicates to his or her reader a deficit of intelligence. Some people think this is unfair. Tough shit. If you form a written thought the way a mongoloid forms a verbal one, expect to be presumed stupid. This goes double if you're writing in a business capacity. In my booking business, I'm always wary of band members, promoters and especially club owners who write as though they are barely lettered. I assume that if they won't show enough professionalism to write a proper letter, they probably wont show much in any other area either. This is the default assumption of a great many businessmen. We're usually proven right.

I neither speak nor write The King's English, but I know most basic rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation. This is through no great talent or intellect of my own (those who know me already know I really don't have much of either), but because I was taught them when I was young. Thing is, I learned them at the same shitty public schools that everyone else in my hometown attended, which are no better or worse than most schools in Maryland, so what the hell happened to everyone else?

I think Rex Harrison, in his crowning stage and screen portrayal of Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady put it best when he said:

"One should rightfully be hung, for the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue."*

One might also do well avenge the fatal neglect of the pen.

*He also said of the language "...in America they haven't used it for years." Score two for Hank.

Capt. Piccard is a Pinko Fag (Capt. Kirk is Just a Pinko)

2006-08-16T13:40:00.001-04:00

Gene Roddenberry once summed up his vision of 23rd century humanity, upon which he based Star Trek, simply as this:

"In the future, there will be no hunger, and no greed."

Gene Roddenberry was a blithering idiot. He did, however, have a great talent for writing science fiction.

I'll admit it: I'm a Trekkie. Have been ever since I can remember. I've seen every episode of the original series, and every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, at least twice. I don't speak Klingon, but I can name most of the major ones, right down to the two clans warring for the seat of Supreme High Chancellor (the house of Durass eventually lost out to Galron). I know that Mark Lenard, the actor who played Sarek (Cmdr. Spock's father), first played the original Romulan on the show (who died in his first appearence). I know every alien race in Star Trek mythology, as well as all the traits that make them morally inferior to humans.

It was in a discussion I had with a fellow Trekkie over this last point, that it finally dawned on me:

Holy SHIT! Star Trek is nothing but pure communist propaganda! The crew of the Enterprise are a bunch of fucking pinkos!

Let us examine this, and you'll see what I mean.

Humans
Humans are depicted in all five Star Trek series, particularly the first two, as being a benevolent, homogenous, selfless hodgepodge of all around goodness and intellectual enlightenment. Everybody agrees on practically everything. Divisions along the lines of color, origin, politics, and class are nonexistent.

Indeed, class in and of itself is nonexistent, as the notions of commerce and economics seem to have been thrown out the window entirely. In the 23rd century, no one gets paid. Nobody desires money, or possesions, or any other pursuit of individual self-interests. Everyone works together for the betterment of the human race as a whole. Everyone contributes equally and has the same interests and evenly shares the fruits of all labors in this futuristic, utopian fantasyland. Yawn.

I suppose this is in perfect keeping with Roddenberry's "no hunger/no greed" idea. Never mind that it flies in the face of some of the most basic and unalterable tennants of human nature. It's Roddenberry's feel-good vision of what we all should be.

Like I said, Roddenberry was a blithering idiot.

Klingons
Assholes, for the most part. A violent, warrior race. In the original series, they were the sworn enemies of the Federation. Later, they become allies and a few even serve as Starfleet officers, enduring the jeers and scorn of most of their peers.

Even more than a warrior race, the Kilngons are protrayed as a primitive race. They value things like honor, courage, valor and strength, and these values are often used to illustrate what an unenlightened bunch of savages and rubes they are (note the strange bloodletting rituals in TNG, or the near riotous crowd screaming for the death of Kirk and Bones reminiscent of the roman colusium in the sixth movie). They are also the only religious peoples in the story, idiotically awaiting the unlikely return of Kaeless, a sort of Klingon messiah. Compare this to the enlightened humans, who are secular and humanistic to a fault. I'm no mindreader, but if ol' Gene wasn't trying to say something there, he sure had a strange way of being neutral.

While they have great loyalty to their homeland, Klingons are definitely individualists. The Individual is the number one enemy of communism. The values that Klingons espouse are all a part of that.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]

Religion is enemy number two. In communist propaganda, religionists are always portrayed as mindless rubes, bloodthirsty killers, or both (as in this case). The fact that Roddenberry speciffically chose to mirror tennents of Christianity is telling. No faith is as reviled by the godless as that which is placed in Jesus.

Ferengi
Nowhere is Star Trek's socialist bent better illustrated than in its depiction of the Ferengi. Not only are they the show's only capitalists, they're the only race that seems to have any kind of economy whatsoever. They're depicted as squatty, sleazy, small, grotesquely deformed little imps. The same sort of imagery has been applied to businessmen, successful ones in particular, since the invention of money.

While definitely a force to be reckoned with, the Ferengi pursuit of individual financial interest is used to depict them as cowardly misers and self centered backstabbers. This conduct is of course endlessly frowned upon by the oh-so-enlightened humans who of course only care about the good of society.

The Borg
Here we see the one and only race of creatures which are completely superior to humans. Why? Because these freaks follow Marxism right to it's logical conclusion. Individualism is not a problem. There are no individuals. Only the collective. Everyone does exactly as he is instructed. The party line is touted with no room given for question or retort. All who are not like them are to be conquered and made slaves of the collective.

Truly a dictatorship of the proletariet if there ever was one. Which, of course, there wasn't.

The Borg are unfailingly, ruthlessly efficient. Just as with the Soviet Union and Red China, they justify their conquests under the guise of "improving life for all species."

"But Whiskey, the Borg were bad guys! They were monsters and everyone was afraid of them!"

True. Perhaps even twits like Roddenberry can recognize the evils of a collectivist mentality. More likely, they're just to stupid to realize that that's what they really espouse.

Anyway, this essay is getting long and I've got to go. My DS9 and TNG reruns are coming on shortly, and I've still got to run out for beer.

Bastard City

2006-08-16T12:57:00.000-04:00

From the Merriam-Webster online Dictionary:

Bastard

Main Entry: 1bas·tard
Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
1 : an illegitimate child

I read today, from Philadelphia writer John Baer, that the rate of illegitimate births in America's fifth largest city is now on the high side of 50%. 62%, to be more specific. Think about this: over the 15 years upon which Baer based his research, of every ten children born in Philly, more than six were born to unwed parents. I don't have stats in front of me as I write this, but based on what I have seen personally in cities all over America, I'd be surprised if the stats weren't very similar in every major city in this great land. I'd be very surprised if the rates of illegitimate births in Detroit, Baltimore, DC, Miami, Newark and New Orleans are not even higher.

Bastardy was once considered shameful. Then it was just unfortunate. Now, it's a common way of life. The effects of this have been felt for a long time now, and they ain't pretty. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Now don't get me wrong: I fully understand that just because two people have a child or a family without first getting the go-ahead from some preacher or magistrate does not neccesarily make them bad parents. Nor does the mere obtaining of the church's blessing or the state's license make them good ones. All of us know people raising good, loving families despite not being joined by faith or law. But let's be realistic: that's not what we're dealing with in the inner cities. What we're talking about here are children who are growing up without the basic family unit, and its framework of support and instruction that is absolutley crucial in rearing boys and girls to become men and women.

Depending on who you talk to, this is the fault of feminism, or secularism, or Hollywood, or drugs, or welfare, or sluts. All of these are very real problems, and not to be ignored, but when it comes to rampant bastardy, it's been my experience that the biggest share of the blame lies, quite simply, with men.

In his basic role in society, a man is charged with many responsibilities. But his number one responsibility, above all others, is this: to teach his son how to be a man. It's a father's most important job. A woman can't do it, not even a boy's mother. Too many men now are failing to rise to this task. Worse, many of those failing, are doing so simply because they don't care. Particularly in the cities, far too many men are making babies without any concern for their offspring's well being. Their interest ends at the point of orgasm. After that, who cares?

The reasons for this are many and varied, but I for one reckon it all boils down to a simple lack of true manhood. Manhood is more than the simple possesion of a dick. In fact, the mere ability to insert that dick into anything that moves doesn't even figure into the equation. Animals rut with abandon. It doesn't make them men. In fact, it serves to illuminate the exact opposite condition. True manhood is a combination of strength, character, judgement and love which serves to guide men in all of their choices. Men who make babies they have no intention to care for, with women who are no more to them than orgasm donors, have none of these things.

I don't know quite when it happened, but somewhere along the line the masses got it into their heads that sex was somehow so damned important as to be above all expectations of judgement, restraint, and just plain simple common sense. In many circles, any suggestion that people should treat sex with a certain amount of reserved carefulness or- God forbid- forego having sex when one is unprepared to accept the consequences that might arise thereof, is greeted with a hissing denouncement resemblent of vampires watching the sunrise. Anyone who says sex is more than just a recreational activity and needs to be treated as such is labeled a prude, a theocrat, a right-wing zealot, and possibly a Baptist. I hate to tell you this, folks, but even a broken watch is right twice a day, and a Baptist can occasionally hit the mark too (not often, but it happens). Sex has a powerful biological function, and it does not care whether or not you want that function to operate. Tempt fate enough times, and it surely will. The result is babies. Small, fragile, helpless human beings with no capacity to care for themselves or sustain their own existence. They are entirely dependent on others for everything they need to survive and grow, and all they've got are their mom & dad.

In the cities now, we're seeing the fruits of several generations of children who have grown up without families. Most specifically, without fathers. The results have been tragic. Boys and girls growing into adulthood, having never been instilled with such basic things as common sense, a work ethic, and a moral compass. This is not surprising, since they were born to people who themselves had none to instill. The absence of fathers leaves an unmistakable and unfillable void. Boys become men having no idea how to be one, and girls become women with no idea what to look for in or expect from a man. Again, not surprising, since the man who was supposed to serve as the example for both was at best non-existant, at worst, degenerate.

And then we wonder why those boys grow up to be exactly the same way, do the same things, and the girls wind up popping out their babies, who are about to begin the whole cycle anew.

Sez me, this will only get worse until people learn to respect human sexuality for the powerful and priceless wonder that it is. Or at least to love their children more than they love orgasms.

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

2006-07-26T16:25:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T20:15:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T20:12:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T20:10:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T20:08:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T20:03:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T19:59:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-07-25T19:54:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-07-25T19:48:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T19:41:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-25T19:32:00.000-04:00

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."

Baseball, Apple Pie, and a .45 ACP.

2006-07-25T19:29:00.000-04:00

Back in my days working in the often slimey underbelly that is the Baltimore nightclub world, I was afforded many opportunities to argue with liberals. Liberals, especially idealistic college-aged liberals, are my favorite people to argue with. For the most part, I find arguing with political conservatives to be fairly boring (their religeous counterparts on the other hand, can be a different story). In my experience, they tend to be more confident in their socio-political beliefs, and more accepting (if not approving) of the basic fact that not everyone agrees with them or ever will. As such they tend to be more reserved, less willing to submit to their emotions and get all riled up. And as soon as they do, the conversation is over.

Not liberals, though. They feed on their emotions. They think with their emotions. What they say, and whether or not it has anything to do with reality, is secondary to how it makes them feel. They're like religeous conservatives in this regard. I suppose this makes sense, since their politics indeed are their religeon. An indignant liberal ranting on about pretty much anything is about as natural and expected as an indignant Jerry Fallwell ranting on about gays.

Occasionally, the subject of guns-&-gun-control comes up. My favorite. As you may have already deduced, I'm a big pro-second ammendment type. While gun control is not as clean cut of a right vs. left issue as things like taxes, unions and affirmative action, it is still most common that liberal = pro gun control and conservative = anti gun control. For the purposes of this essay, we'll assume this is a given.

When I argue about guns with a liberal, certain rhetorical questions almost always come up:

"Well, do you think people should be allowed to have assault weapons?!

To which I respond:

"Define assault weapon. I reckon this beer bottle would be an assault weapon if I broke it open and assaulted you with its shards. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to have beer?"

OK, I should have left that question alone, but bear with me. The Great 10 Cent Question always comes next:

"Well, well, do you think people should be allowed to own an AK-47?!!"

I call it The Great 10 Cent Question because if I had a dime for everytime some liberal jackass asked me it I'd be rich. AK-47. It's always the AK-47. It's never the M-5, or a Bushmaster post-ban AR-15 with a tactical scope and bipod, or even an Uzi. I doubt most of these dweebs could tell you what ammo the AK-47 fires, or name three countries that produce them (hint: they don't come "straight outta Compton"), or pick one out of a lineup alongside a Mini-14, a pump action 12 guage and a golden retriever. But Dr. Dre used to rap about them, so I guess these liberal kids, ever in touch with "the street", must be experts on the matter.

Rich though I may be, I'd still give every dime back for the look on their faces when I inform them:

"I own and AK-47."

I got it at a gun show in MD, for a good price. It's not the finest weapon I own, but the ammo is relatively cheap and it's fun to take to the plinking range.

But I'm getting off point. The fact is that guns, while not foolproof, are still the most effective weapons of self defense available, when used properly by a knowledgeable and safety-minded person. Guns are the cancellation of Darwin. A .38 snub levels the playng field between a 5' 4" woman and a 6' 6" rapist, and that's if they're both armed. If only she is, then the rapist better get the fuck out of Dodge. A shotgun can enable an 80 year old man to defend his home against intruders a quarter of his age. The list goes on.

"But Whiskey," you might say, "what about all the people murdered with guns? If there were no guns, wouldn't have been murdered with guns!"

True. They wouldn't have been murdered with guns. But there are other ways. I sincerely doubt that 5' 4" woman is particularly relieved when that 6' 6" rapist beats her to death, or stabs her, or cuts her throat, or chokes her instead of shooting her. The end result is pretty much the same. I'd reckon however, that women all over the city where said rapist does his crimes are mighty relieved when they pick up the newspaper and read that he finally fucked with the wrong bitch and the loaded handgun in her purse or pocket. A dead rapist is always the best kind. Dead muggers, home invaders and murderers are nice too.

But regardless, all of this "if we didn't have guns" talk is moot anyway: we do have guns. They exist. We couldn't un-invent them even if it was a good idea. As long as there are people who know how to make them, they will be among us.

So will criminals, and criminals will always be able to acquire guns. Make all the gun control laws you want. Criminals won't obey them. The law abiding will, however, and that puts the good guys (you and me) at a distinct disadvantage under the bad guys. For the results of this, one need look no further than my neighbor to the south, our nations's capital, Washington DC.

Gun ownership is almost completely outlawed in DC. Handguns are banned altogether. Rifles and shotguns must be kept not only under lock and key (as in a safe), but disassembled as well. Pretty fucking useless if someone breaks into your home, which is not an uncommon crime in DC. That's why all the windows have bars on them. Despite these draconian and unconstitutional restrictions, DC has held the highest murder rate in America fourteen of the last fifteen years (Detroit took the bottom prize in 2001). The criminal element in DC is brazen beyond belief. They know the citizenry hasn't the firepower to oppose them. Chicago has a similar gun ban in place, and has the greatest raw number of murders commited most years (Chi-town's per capita murder rate is still lower than DC's, but DC has less than 600,000 people in it, while Chicago has nearly 3 million). San Francisco just enacted a gun ban that went into effect about three weeks ago. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the crime and murder rates in the City of Brotherly Intercourse.

"But Whiskey, defending yourself with a gun is vigilanteism! You should call the police if you're attacked!"

For what? So they can show up after my attacker is gone and outline my corpse with their little chalk? I'll call them, sure. After I've successfully defended my own life and well being. Maybe by that time my attacker has gotten away. Maybe he got spooked at the site ( or sound) of Chuck, my Chas. Daly 1911 model .45 ACP (yes, I named my favorite gun). Or maybe he's dead, or seriously injured. The important part is, I'm not. Lois Cannaday of Durham NC called the police. She was already dead when the police showed up, only four minutes later. The national average for response times to 911 calls is about 5 minutes. The average for DC is 8.

I have nothing against law abiding people being vigilant. I do not fear good people carrying guns.

What the Hell Happened to White People?

2006-07-25T19:23:00.000-04:00

True story. I shit you not.

A little while back I was in a convenience store in Taneytown MD. There was a pimply, high school aged white kid behind the counter. This is not at all uncommon in small, rural communities. Taneytown is one of the few small towns in central Maryland that has thus far managed to resist being conquered and steamrolled by the ever expanding suburbia spreading from Baltimore and DC like so much fungus.

So anyway, I'm browsing the magazine rack and three more pimply, high school aged white kids come strolling in. All were decked out in hoodies and long shorts which hung down around their asses, and walked with an absolutely ridiculous strut which poorly resembled the inner city black kids in all those "growing up in the hood" movies.

In short, they were wiggers. These too, are not (or at least, no longer) rare in small rural communities. Stupid white kids who think it's "cool" to emulate black culture, or at least its piss-poor televised representation. Not that American youth have ever really noticed the way entertainment media and reality have precious little in common. It's just that right now, black culture is what's in, so that's what the kids mindlessly conform to.

Actually, it's worse than that. You see, it's not black culture on the whole that is glorified in TV, music and movies. No, just it's absolute worst parts. Drug use & abuse, sensless violence, irresponsible sex, illiteracy and all other manner of idiotic bullshit are somehow touted at the cardinal fucking virtues of the "black community", which is the P/C term for "ghetto". Blacks who are violent, or pomiscuous, or stupid, or degenerate (pieces of shit, in other words) are hailed as being more authentic or more black than those who are not. 50 Cent talks like he has the mind of a child and raps like he has a mouth full of turds. Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls got their brains blown out fueding over who lives next to the better ocean. Tookie Williams murdered four people, including an entire family, in cold blood and founded a notorious street gang that terrorizes Los Angeles to this day. All of these have been depicted in the media as being authentic black men worthy of the automatic respect of everyone. Bill Clinton has even been referred to by a black author (her name escapes me just now) as "America's first black president", because he's been in trouble with the law and cheats on his wife.

Is this really what being black is all about? If so, why on God's green earth would any self respecting white kid with the slightest hint of sense want anything to do with it? If anything, they should be thanking the Good Lord for delivering them at birth into surroundings where they don't have to worry about getting shot on their way to school. Where education is available, opportunity is plentiful and most of them do know their fathers. Instead they think it's cooler to mimic the bottom rung of the underclass. Granted, I've never heard anyone accuse white kids of having sense or self respect.

It should be noted that these same honkey larvae would likey shit in their pants if one was to take them down to the city, drop them off at the corner of Charles and 23rd streets (where I used to live), then drive off and leave them there after dark.

It should also be noted that these qualifications for black "authenticity" are really not so much set by inner city blacks as by white businessmen in New York and LA. Behind every black celebrity (and every other celebrity), there's a small army of suit and tie wearing Wonderbread types who carefully craft and market their public personna. The low opinion, indeed the outright contempt, they hold for black people is self evident. These too, would need new pants if they ever had to get out of their car in Anacostia or Cherry Hill.

But as ass-backwards as all this is, nothing could have prepared me for what happened next:

As I thumbed through a magazine, the three wigger kids who had just entered the store looked over and appearently recognized their schoolyard buddy behind the counter.

"Hey, whassup my cracka?" one of them yelled.

"Hey crackaz, whassup?" the clerk replied.

They were dead serious. I was fucking shocked. My jaw hit the floor. That issue of Fat Chicks slid right out of my hands.

Instead of buying a soda like I'd planned, I went down the street and bought half a case of Sam Adams. A real beer, for real honkeys.

Offending People is a Good Thing

2006-07-25T19:19:00.000-04:00

Truth be told, I'm really not good at very many things. I'm an alright guitar player; a better bass player. I'm definitely an above average singer, but you'd never know it unless you installed a hidden microphone in a vehicle I was driving. For that matter, I'm a well-above-average driver (as most professional truck drivers are). But my truest of talents, honed relentlessly for the past 27 years and counting, is pissing people off. Anyone who's known me for more than five minutes has been in at least one argument with me, often resulting in elevated voice levels, occasionally resulting in flying fists. I've had liberals fly into spats of rage, frustrated Mennonites to the point of tears, made employers lose it in front of the entire staff, and had an "atheist" yell at me for insulting his faith. If I could get an audience with Benedict XVI, then the whole world would find out if I really have what it takes to "piss off the pope". My dad would put money on me.

So, after my last blog piece, it occurred to me that I wasn't playing to my strengths. No comments have been posted up to now, and the only feedback I've gotten was one glowing review from a bar owner in Gaithersburg MD. Clearly, I'm doing something wrong.

I don't know how many (if any) other people have actually read that piece, but I was really hoping to get one or two responses from band members telling me I was an asshole, that I'm a shitty promoter and my shows all suck ass, and spew other delicious bits of vitriol at me. They'd do this because they'd know I was talking about them, and they'd know I was right.

I'd smile. A smirk of haughty satisfaction. Then I'd take another swig of the ever-present pint of Guinness in front of me, which is quick becoming the reason for the rambling nature of this essay. I should get to the goddamned point.

Point is this: offending people gets way too bad a rap in modern American society. So much hemming, hawwing and hand-wringing takes place over the very notion that someone might not like what someone else says, you'd think it was something new (or important). Worse still, regulation and litigation abound in a feeble effort to stop it.

A few bits to mull over:

-In February of 2006, California's supreme court heard arguments in the case of Lyle v. Warner Brothers. In 1999, Amaani Lyle was working as a writer's assistant on the TV show Friends. Her primary job was to sit in on "creative meetings" and take copius notes of jokes and plot ideas posed by the writers. After four months she was fired, the writers claiming she didn't type fast enough. Soon after she filed a sexual harrassment lawsuit, claiming that the writers frequently made inappropriate remarks and jokes that created a hostile working environment. The CA supreme court will decide whether the case will go to trial.

So let me get this straight: Ms. Lyle goes to work on a show which consists mostly of immature humor (dick & fart jokes dumbed down for primetime TV) which frequently revolves around sex, and discovers that the dweebs who write this shit are themselves immature, potty-mouthed types who make raunchy jokes. I'm fucking shocked.

Now it may well be that the working environment there was too hostile for the likes of Amaani Lyle. One of the great things about life in these united states is that if you don't like one job, you can leave it and go to another. Notice that she never did that, and that her lawsuit only came forward after she was fired for matters related to her job performance. It may also well be that the writers in question are complete assholes, but if all they did was offend her (as opposed to assault her, defraud her, etc.), then the government has no place sticking it's nose in it. Her lawsuit is born of vindictiveness and opportunism, plain and simple.

-Harvard University president Lawrence Summers caused quite a stir at the prestigious college back in February. Speaking before a conference of professors, he cited research which posed the thought that men and women may not have the same innate abilities (or intrest) in the fields of math and hard sciences. He noted that boys tend to test at the top of these areas, with girls averaging slightly lower (boys also test at the very bottom of these areas; the girls' scores tend to have less varience). He also noted that certain differences in situation, such as child rearing, may also contribute to the underrepresentation of women in the sciences. His real heresy though, was when he said that the low number of women in the sciences could possibly be attributed to more than just discrimination. All shit hit the fan. Female professors were outraged. Wimpy male professors feigned outrage with them. The National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) called for his resignation, and they got it. Summers will be stepping down as of June 30th, 2006.

I't's worth noting that the organizer of the event had specifically asked Summers to touch on controversial topics. It's also worth noting that Summers is by no means the kind of right-wing-boogeyman usually associated (usually falsely) with mysogany and gender discrimination. Such people don't become president of Harvard. Indeed, Summers served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

Regardless, he said something that some Group didn't like. The way I see it, if N.O.W. or anyone else didn't like the research Summers quoted, then all they have to do is offer evidence to the contrary. There's plenty of it out there. But no, instead they do the lazy thing: demand his resignation; punish him for offending them.

It's been my experience that reactions like this to statements like those of Lawrence Summers are almost always rooted in one thing: fear that it might be true.

The fact is this: being offended is a part of life. Deal with it. If you can't handle that, crawl up in a hole somewhere and wait to die. Please.

So, while the thin-skinned, the intellectually lazy, and the cowardly search for new ways to rid the world of things they don't want to see and hear, I'll keep extolling the virtues of offensiveness. Don't like it? Offended? Say so. Piss me off. I'm looking forward to it.

Larry Summers story, Boston Globe
Larry Summers' Speech
Amaani Lyle Story, San Diego Union-Tribune
An article that pissed some people off, and the responses of the pissed off people

If the Scene Sucks, it's Probably Your Fault

2006-07-25T18:49:00.000-04:00

I've been listening for years now to the incessant pissing bitching and moaning, mostly from band members, about how the Baltimore/DC live music scene just sucks worse than anything has ever sucked before. They like to bitch, but if the music scene sucks, it's usually a a safe bet that its musicians are to blame. They'd rather complain than take any steps to fix the problem.

#1
Support local music, not just your own band.
I can't count how many bands I've heard bitch about how they just can't get any of their friends in the many other bands they know to come out and support them at their shows. But they themselves never go out to any shows that they aren't playing! Maybe they don't understand the need to engender goodwill with other bands. Good relations with other bands come in handy sooner or later; in the form of gigs, contacts or even just reciprocal support from those same bands. It doesn't always work, and you'll always have those assholes who never reciprocate any support or aid anyone gives them. However, being one of those assholes never does any good for anyone. So if you're not playing out on a given night, and it's remotely feasible, go out and catch one of your fellow Baltimore/DC bands on stage, and bring a friend or two if you can.

Also, leaving the club as soon as your set is finished and not sticking around for any of the other bands, is a great way to display for the whole world just what a self centered prick you are.

#2
Fuck art. This is a business.
And it only works if you treat it as such. A certain degree of professionalism is appreciated, and expected. I'm not talking about anything complicated here, folks. For the most part it boils down to two things: Show up and don't do anything stupid.

Show up for your gigs. Nothing infuriates club owners and promoters more than no-shows and last minute cancellations. It's a good way to shorten the list of places you can play. If you confirm a gig, and are advertised on a bill for a month, then short of hospitalization there ain't a whole lot of acceptable excuses for cancelling less than a week before the show. Much less the day of the show itself. Each person who shows up to see you and then turns around and leaves when the doorman tells them you cancelled, is lost revenue that the promoter could have remedied ahead of time if he knew you weren't serious. It's also kind of shitty to your fans, who made the effort to come out and catch your set just to find out you flaked.

Beyond just showing up, try to do so on time and with all your ducks in a row. Having all your instruments is a big help. Sound silly? You'd be amazed how many bands show up at a club minus an amp, kick pedals, even guitars, and then act shocked when the club doesn't have one just sitting around that they can use.

Don't try to get your underage friends or relatives in. If it was up to club owners and promoters, all shows would be all ages shows. We're not too keen on the thought of turning away potential customers. The 21 age limits on these clubs are a matter of local law, and the penalties brought down on a club owner for violating them are harsh. It's not worth getting fined or even shut down just to accomodate your drummer's 19 year old girlfriend. This goes for band members too. If you know the club has a 21 limit, and you know you have an underage band member, then don't confirm the gig!

Above all, don't be a dick. Copping an attitude, starting fights, breaking or vandalizing club property does nothing but make it harder for bands in that area to land gigs and play out. This is particularly true for hXc bands, who have a bad enough (if somewhat undeseved) reputation on the east coast as it is.

#3
Don't kid yourself: you ain't a rockstar.
There are too many dorks out there who seem to think that their oh-so-wonderful tunes and self perceived abundance of talent somehow entitles them to some special treatment. When pondering how much talent is actually worth in and of itself, it helps to remember this: Faith No More, Gravity Kills and Big Country were all one-hit-wonders; the Spice Girls were an international sensation.

No matter how good you think you are, no matter how good you actually are, you're not getting any more money than you generate for the club. Clubs cannot and will not operate at a loss. There are some folks out there, like Motel Hell Entertainment or Kenny Lee at Mad Mac's, who do this more as a hobby and are satisfied with minimal profits, but even we won't lose money on you. If only five people come out to see you, don't act insulted when your pay for the night sucks.

#4
This isn't the high school lunch room
Sure, it's always nice to play a show with bands you know well and are fiends with. But in the end, you signed on to perform at an event, not to hang out at a social. Don't confirm gigs just because your buddies are on the bill. Don't cancel just because they do. In fact, playing with different bands can prove useful. Playing with different bands usually means playing in front of different fans, which (for all the geniuses out there) is how you expand your fanbase. If you want to hang with your buddies, invite them over for a beer.

That's it for now. I'll write more the next time something irritates the shit out of me.