Sam Adams continues to show he is an idiot

This world is full of people who ain't too bright.

A surprisingly large number of them are in public office. Portland, not satisfied with the embarrassments that were people like Bud Clark...the mayor perhaps best remembered for his "brilliant" phrase to commemorate Portland Trailblazer on-court success...

It was so brilliant you have probably (fortunately) forgotten it until I take the ice pick to your skull by repeating it..."Whoop! Hoop!"

Sadly, I dream for the days when the Penny Harrington-firing buffoon was in office now that we are subjected to the even more banal orchestrations of sodomite tax-stealing Sam Adams.

Now, on the one hand, Adams has nothing to do with the attempted bombing of Pioneer Courthouse Square at the tree lighting ceremony.

On the other, his quote about it is something I find so offensive, reprehensible, abusive, and flat out incorrect...wrong...an outright lie...that I feel compelled to bring it up.


"Otherwise, as the biggest racial group in Portland, we European-Americans would be in deep trouble."


Quick, by show of hands...how many of us were born in Europe?

Lets take it back a step; How many of us had grandparents born in Europe? Great Grandparents? Great-great....well, you get the point.

I can trace my genealogy back on both sides several generations without coming across anyone not born in...wait for it...the United States.

I have no British or German or French or Austrian or Latvian heritage.

Not that there is not some of that blood in the line at various points. Irish, Norwegian are the most prominent...though a couple generations removed and via people NOT from those countries.

No, Mr. Adams, the vast majority of us are, in fact, not "European" in any way, shape or form.

Studying a culture does not make us into that thing...if it did I would be Chiricahua, Nez Perce, with bits of Spanish, Canadian, Mexican, Irish, Italian, Scottish...the list could go on for pages.

Have skin pigmentation does not make us into some broad continental association...an association, by the way, that is not always clear. Is Russia part of Europe? Not even Russia knows...sometimes they have been, sometimes not.

Adams continues to show his pandering in his perpetration of a lie spread by the oft-cited "establishment"...the school system, government, the talking heads in psychological fields, the people who keep forcing racism on non-racists by creating definitions and then insisting they are true despite all evidence to the contrary.

They could be evolutionists if they tried a little less.

Citing a falsehood does not make it true, Adams. Joining the cries of political correctness might make you popular with the sheeple who follow the loudest bleatings...and who are occasionally even correct...but you need to do some thinking on your own.

I think that is what irks me even more than his ignorant, racist, hate speech is that I could have almost predicted what non-sensical bit of psycho-babble drivel he would spew.

Enough already. I think he did the impossible...got me looking forward to the next election so I can vote against him (again).

Highlighting a golddigger who is brainless to boot

So many fine candidates for this one...the Worlds Ugliest Trophy Wives (aka the Kardashians...wow, talk about some mirror crackers!), the Worlds Most Vacuous Hotel Heiress (Aka French City Hilton...take that how you like), Congress, etc.


But ultimately we come to a person who may have a point...to start with...but quickly degenerates into someone who makes Octomom look like a raging intellectual on par with Albert Einstein.

I speak, of course, of Curtis's female progenitor.

Short version: she alleges her child was slapped by a teacher.

If true...and there is not much debate of the validity...but if true, this is the sort of unacceptable behavior that should be dealt with swiftly with no mincing words. Slapping is not discipline, nor is it within the realm of being justifiable, particularly in a teacher-student relationship.

Teacher-boyfriend role play may be a different story...again, I leave that to you, gentle reader, in the privacy of your home.

But in a teacher-pupil relationship...an absolute and total no-no.

Unfortunately, the demands the mother then sets forth strain the bands of credulity. Check out the letter here.


I love some of them...the 21 day all expenses, 5-star hotel tour of Africa. The concert tickets, new car of her choice, orchestra and lessons for each, having all her utilities paid for the next 9 years, job consulting for 15K a month...for those of you with poor math skills, 180,000/year...

Later, it turns out for anyone to talk to her about it requires a 3k/half hour "appearance fee" for her, and the same for her husband, who must be present...and this fee, PLUS 1K/page apply for written correspondence.

No, I did not type that with a straight face.

Not only that, her trademarked son's name, her name, and her fathers name require a fee to be used in court documents.

By page 28 she is openly demonstrating her own racism that combines with her greed to create one of the most hilarious and simultaneously pathetic documents in recent history.

But page 31 might have the kicker:

"No H.A.A.R.P signal towards KMCO school district neighborhoods and schools to make us confused, crazy, stupid or otherwise alter our brainwaves - ever."

Uh, open memo to the author of that letter...too late.

Things like this put me in a quandary. There are entirely too many people creating racism out of nothing. Like LeBron James claiming the reason people dislike him leaving the Cavaliers for the Heat is because he is not white.

Open memo to LeBron; the reason some of us hate the move is because A) Cleveland has suffered a long time and it would be nice to see a winner, B) you are on tape swearing to bring a Championship to Cleveland before you left, C) the self-centered drivel that was your "The Decision" prime time special was clueless, classless, and dirty, and D) the WAY you left Cleveland, hanging them out to dry, announcing it to everyone else before them...classless and dirty.

William Rhoden, even the TITLE of your book, Forty Million Dollar Slaves, is offensive.

Jesse Jackson has become a punch line because of how out there he has gotten.

Oh, and lest we forget...Barry Bonds, the reason some people dislike you having the home run record has nothing to do with the quantity of melanin your body contains and a lot to do with your antisocial behavior and cheating.

So the female elder of Curtis managed to do something I did not think possible...appreciate the intelligence of Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, the Kardashians, Tila Tequila, Bret Michaels, Al Franken, Palin, Biden, Bush, Jesse Ventura, and a host of others I have long considered the epitome of bad jokes.

Thanks for nothing.

War memories

Odd as it seems, this post is directly related to the previous one...though how I got HERE from THERE is something I shall leave to your imagination.

Since I moved to the apartment, I pretty regularly have the idiot box/boob tube/brain degenerative device or whatever you want to call the tv going quite often when not listening to Pandora.

Not that I don't love Pandora...but they cannot get it through their electronic skull that loving Gold City =/= loving the Gaither Trio...

Anyhow, I found a "new" station playing the A-Team, so I set it up to DVR and have watched/listened to several episodes.

For both people on the planet not familiar with the A-Team, the premise was simple; wrongly accused commando unit from the Vietnam War was on the run from the government helping every day citizens whom the government was unwilling or impotent to help.

Some of the paradigms surrounding the show are very interesting. Government officials are generally dishonest/untrustworthy, including government officials, cops of various branches, and the army.

The A-Team would be despised except their actions kept showing the revulsion America in the early 80s felt for anyone having to do with Vietnam was overcome by A) the good deeds the A-Team performed for the people in that episode and B) Murdock.

Howling Mad Murdock was driven insane, presumably by the horrors he saw and experienced in Vietnam. Yet he was portrayed as funny, charming, deeply caring, sympathetic and empathetic.

The show of course reflected much of the public thought of the time. Anyone who had taken part in the war was looked on with suspicion at best and outright hostility or worse at other times. Our soldiers had failed us in two ways.

First, they had taken part in a war that had come to be identified as being part of Imperialism in general and American expansionism in particular.

Second, and arguably more important in the degeneration of respect for them, they failed to win. America loves a winner and has no time for a loser...even if that loser is them self.

It did not help that many...not all, but a significant and noticeable percentage...of the soldiers in that war were under-educated young men unprepared either to research the right and wrong of the war...or their actions in it...or for the American social response to their participation in what became a deeply unpopular war.


So when anything relating to the Vietnam War was portrayed in books, movies, radio, news, or television, the slant was almost universally negative. Had the A-Team been war heroes instead of "wrongfully convicted" men fighting against the government, which was identified in the American mind with the government that had leftover cachet of being involved in the War, it is probable the show would have been rejected.

The only way to portray Vietnam vets in a positive light therefore was as rebels against either the War itself in some way, portraying soldiers becoming inhuman through their experiences (Platoon, Full metal Jacket), or the country having portrayed their men by a corrupt government knowingly leaving behind prisoners of war (Rambo, First Blood).

Positive portrayals were unknown and unmake able for decades.

This has changed as reexaminations of things have taken place. To be sure, heroes are still hard to portray in Vietnam, but various means have been attempted (We Were Soldiers, Rescue Dawn) with varying success.

Okay, so all of this does not exactly break new ground.

But what if the A-Team were re-made today? This time they would, of course, be falsely convicted of a crime they...did/did not commit in Afghanistan/Iraq/Cuba/Venezuela.

How would they be portrayed? Enemies of the government? Stooges? Victims? Pawns? Heroes for supporting the government or heroes for opposing it?

Would public officials be almost universally portrayed in a positive light...or as villains?

Instead of Hannibal Smith, master-planner paragon of virtue who kept his men alive and patriotic through an unpopular war, we would have what?

Instead of scheming, con-artist ladies man Templeton Peck we would have....what?

Instead of a war-torn mind keeping a tenuous group on reality through association with his friends and "war buddy family", how would Murdock be portrayed?

And what about over-strong, weak-minded gold wearing follower B.A? Go back and watch the show...you will see what I mean. A good-hearted man always protecting the weak and willing to do so for no money...but incapable of thought outside, "What's the plan, Hannibal?"

And what of guys like Decker, the good/bad General Stockwell, etc.?

In other words, how does society at large perceive the soldiers in the Middle East, the government that sent and keeps them there, and the returnees from the war?

What would a show that accurately captured the mood of the country look like? How will that change?

Note that this is a different question than how SHOULD the mood look.

It is an interesting question into the public, national psyche how the war will be remembered.

Who controls the language controls the thoughts

As a general rule I avoid the crap dispensed by Slate magazine.


The writers are twisted, slanted, and frankly, I find their drivel to be some combination of the following; bigoted, ignorant, uninformed, outright dishonest, deliberately inflammatory...in fact, the main things I do NOT find in their pieces generally are intelligent, honest, well-thought out material.

Every so often, though, usually at the behest of someone, I waste a few minutes of my life on some article or other.

This time I was pointed to a piece attacking the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is an easy target. Few and far between are the people, either for or against, who actually bother to research what it is all about. Kind of like the Black Panther movement (how many of the social programs they pioneered and oversaw can you name? How many militant incidents can you name?)

Yet even there the moronic authors of Slate cannot hit it. I refuse to link to the piece because it was one of the most over the top, ignorant pieces of yellow journalism I have ever seen. If it was a paper turned in at University and did not receive an "F" the professor should be fired on the spot.

One example is really more than sufficient to demonstrate my point. The writer spent a great deal of electronic ink discussing how horrible it was that the Tea Party mis-uses and abuses the word tyranny and the way they do it is an insult to the people who suffered under the tyranny of Hitler.

His point is the Tea Party is falsifying history.

In so doing, he clearly displays his own ignorance. Even the most cursory study of United States history shows that the "Founding Fathers" were rebelling against...wait for it...tyranny. The tyranny of what they believed to be unjust taxation.

See, a basic mathematical truth is that for the government to give a dollar to me they have to take it from someone else. Sometimes this is right and justified...other times it is not.

So if the foundation of his article is "...the ignorant misuse, of words such as tyranny,..." and he is wrong about what the historical use of that very word in the history of the country, in the sources claimed by the Tea Party for their use of the word, does he have any credibility left?

Sadly, yes. Many people trumpet the "wisdom" his piece demonstrates. The sheeple too lazy to think for themselves just praise his work and move on, convinced that anyone who does not agree with them is an uninformed idiot.

When, in truth, people who bother to do even the most cursory research realize who exactly it is that is uninformed.

The ironic thing here is that by choosing to create his own definition of a word, in this case tyranny, Ron SOUNDS like he builds a strong argument.

It is a fallacy that is easy to fall into.

Take, for example, the highly controversial topic of abortion.

There is a bumper sticker I regularly see that says, "Don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one."

Clever, right? Plainly tells you that if you think something is wrong, you simply should not participate in it. The insinuation is that if you think it is wrong, just keep your mouth shut because they think it is right.

However, lets' read that bumper sticker the way say...I, for example, hear it.

"Don't believe in murder? Then don't commit one."

Because "murder" is the word I actually hear when you say "abortion". It is not a "gray area" or a debatable moral point to me. It is not something I am flexible on, that I find to be a debatable point. Plain and simple, to me, abortion = murder.

So the person who has the bumper sticker with the statement "Don't believe in abortion? Then Don't have one" seems to indicate they have effectively "settled the issue if you will only listen to me with the live and let live" (poor choice of words) philosophy where nobody imposes their morality on anyone else"...when in truth, they are imposing their morality on me.

Something I find ethically and morally reprehensible is now a trite phrase, a bumper sticker...or bs for short...slogan. What I know to be true is irrelevant because they think the meaning of the word abortion has changed when for me it means the same thing it always has...my source for it being the Bible.

That is how much of the political landscape of today operates. People come up with their own definitions of words, thoughts, or ideas that ignore what the people who hold those beliefs actually mean.

If you can designate what you want people to think someone believes by changing the "historical truth" surrounding a word such as tyranny...and if the sheeple sucker for your "spin" then you win.

George Orwell was really on to something with Animal Farm. In many ways, he who controls the language controls the world. Just something to think about.

Here is a real question

Students are measured based on performance. Better students (generally) receive better grades whereas indifferent or poor students (generally) receive inferior grades.

As a hard-working, rather intense student who worked hard for his grades, I have to admit I felt more than a little resentment towards classes where students who seldom or never attended classes or cracked books were allowed to cake-walk through with Bs or even, in some classes, As because the professors wanted to be popular.

Conversely, I long resented the class where the instructor told us our grades were entirely based on the final paper...which he further said was completely subjective, that there was no right or wrong answer...and I read some of the papers he gave a "C" to. Well constructed, good grammar and punctuation...and a C? Huh?

Occasional exceptions aside, however, I have to admit, I like that schools reward or punish effort + intellect more or less pretty well with grades.

Yes, there are exceptions...no, it isn't perfect...but it is a system that works decently to let students know how their efforts will move them along in the world.

After all, most jobs have similar systems. People who do a good job and show up regularly generally receive rewards in the form of recognition, occasional pitiful pay raises, and more vacation days. People who do poor jobs or do not bother to show up generally get no pay raise and/or get fired.


What I do not understand is why every time someone proposes putting teachers in a real world environment where the results of their work have some sort of impact on their pay, there is a big kick back.

Why?

This is not a sarcastic question, it is a legitimate question.

Take the Florida situation for example...are they just objecting because it is Republicant dominated? Would the same objections be raised if it was Destructocrats instead?

I genuinely do not understand the objection. I have had teachers of all sorts of qualities...from the one who took me aside and asked me to help a classmate stop picking his nose (demonstrating real care for his students) to the one who, in Junior High, not only did not bother to take attendance, when someone said they did not want to dissect a frog, allowed them to do homework for other classes instead...but still gave them an A for the class.

Why should the second one get rewarded just for being there another year? That is not a good teacher and does not deserve the same reward as Mr. Withers. Or Mr. Howell.

So please, I really, really, really want to know...why is performance basing such a bad thing?

Of strippers and respectability

Okay, lets lay some groundwork here. I grew up in...how do you say a very conservative household?

For much of my life, we had no television. Our reading lists were left to us to select with the assumption and understanding we would reject material laced with profanity or salacious scenes or that would in other ways glorify the things we were taught were immodest, indecent, or otherwise unacceptable.

Yet as we moved into more public spheres, it could not help but be noticed that the mores of society may not have been identical to our own.

For example, in my teen years, there was something that we were taught was a huge negative that the guys at school all seemed to think of as a positive.

For example, any guy in high school who claimed to be dating a stripper was thought to have hit the jackpot. Here was a girl who would get nekkid while moving suggestively to music and, by inference, participate in frequent and wild sex, probably with that other holy grail of many male fantasies, a threesome.*

Ah, yes...beware the oft-cited plight of the stripper...every guy wants to date her, none wants to marry her. (You could probably replace the word "date" with another four letter word, but that one shares not a single letter with date. It does, however, sometimes produce unwanted children...)

Of course, society being what it is, the stripper has always occupied that uncomfortable yet crowded dark corner of society wherein someone is highly sought after and prized, but only in secret...in public they are shunned and scorned as low-life dregs.

Putting "stripper" down as occupation has long been a resume killer, a shame-inducing moment that leads to instant rejection. Who really wants to take a stripper home to mama? maybe Rick James...but no human.

But recently, that has been changing.

Learn to strip to lose weight. Have a pole installed in your home. It can be your dirty little semi-secret. That is the line of thinking in a fairly well-advertised ad campaign. As long as it is between lovers, it is a cool thing now.

Well, maybe. So much for the background. Now on to the meat of the post.

Tonight the NBA had its All-Star game. This is a major media event. Over 100,000 people attended live. Millions upon millions of people watched it on television.

The NBA works hard to maintain a "family-friendly" atmosphere. It has been a long, public, often bitter fight against the "hip-hop gangster culture" of many of the players.

And perhaps there is some merit to it. On the one hand, I am a white middle aged heavy set balding American male from a conservative background. I am the epitome of the person they fear will be offended by the cornrows, trash-talking, inked up hip hop players.

I am the one expected to prefer hearing Rolling Stones, the Who, and Bruce Springsteen at half time to hearing Usher, Alicia Keys, Fifty Cent, etc.

Maybe. Maybe not. I know I prefer NOT to hear Usher, but that has more to do with that giant sucking his music does than to any particular rejection of his hip hop credentials.

I actually like some of Alicia Keys early stuff quite a bit. I will certainly pass on hearing anything new from The Who and anything at all from Bruce Springsteen or the Rolling Stoners.

Tonight, in a nod to the actual reality of who plays in the NBA, the halftime show included Usher and Alicia Keys.

Now, remember, this is a league so dedicated to maintaining a "family-friendly" image that they threatened a lock-out in order to get a dress code instilled on the players...at times when only a select few hard-core fans would see the players.

When Keys came on stage, it was in about as classy a way as you could imagine. Scantily clad in...what, a bunny body suit? I don't even know what to call it.

But better yet, she was in what even I recognize as a stripper cage, and proceeded to perform a stripper routine including grinding on the poles as if she was...uh..."dating" them.

In fact, if you look at the moves she performed while singing (lip syncing, more likely...either that or they faded the sound a couple beats but not the video)..and not just her, but her back-up dancers, and those of Usher...well, you probably felt like dropping a doller or three on the stage.

Because it was, beginning to end, a stripper fueled, stripper inspired, stripper performance.

Now, I could be like dozens of organizations will be tomorrow, and be all over the NBA, the choreographers and performers for being strippers who forgot to rip their clothes off, but I think there is a much deeper point here.

Namely, we as a society have reached the point where it is no longer dating the stripper that is the holy grail of aspirations...it is BEING the stripper.

Look at the choreography to the music of many of the popular female singers of today. Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Beyonce, etc. Their videos are not too hard to find...a quick You tube search should find you dozens of examples.

It is no longer the hoofers in the background for Sir Mix-a-Lot who are doing the soft-core porn dances...it is the stars.

Remember when Britney came out and did the snake dance at some major awards show? Tame stuff just a few years later.

Look at the moves Beyonce uses in what was referred to as "the greatest video of all time", Put a Ring on It, and if you are not blushing a few seconds in then you have spent way too much time at strip clubs yourself.

And it sells. It sells big.

I should point out a few things. Beyonce, whatever else you may think of her, is a phenomenally talented singer. She has an excellent voice, a real feel for how to inject energy and catchiness into a song.

She should be able to sell, and sell well, without the stripper routines.

But today, it is a point of pride to perform that way. That is the elevated level of art singers aspire to, to put out that next, sexier, hotter, more stripper-like video.

the bar has been set, and it is lower than a Tim Storms record attempt. But that will not stop people from trying to get under it.

Quick little tid-bit. One of my good friends, a frequent reader and oft contributor to this very blog, was someone I met after they responded to an anonymous post I left a few years ago on Craigslist questioning if I grew up in the wrong time. In that, I pointed out that growing up, people were embarrassed if their underwear was shown. It was inspired by a Victorias Secret commercial and the then-popular maneuver of wearing jeans so low your thing/boxers/etc. were sticking out.

Wow, those were much more innocent times...


*I should point out that I have never really understood the whole threesome angle. Perhaps I am just not imaginative or something, but sure seems to me like someone would be left out. But that is neither here nor there.

well...then I guess we might as well get it right

Back in 1994 the Republicans swept into power largely based (it seemed to me) on their rather dynamic Contract With America, a promise to put legislation to a vote on several key issues in a set amount of time.

After they swept into office, one disgruntled Democrat analyst was being interviewed by a major radio host who called it the "Contract FOR America" at which point the Democrat interjected rather snidely, "Well, we might as well get it right now. It is the Contract WITH America, not For."

Since I am going off a 15 year old memory, the exact quote may not be correct...but it is close enough for my purposes.

See, I agree with part of his objection. If you are going to do an interview, write a book/column/opinion piece on a major event, it really matters not what the purpose is, you had best be sure you have the details correct (are you listening, Mr. Giuliani? I know 9-11 is easy to forget...but try to remember, eh?)

Case in point; I do not claim to know much about David Brooks, nor am I overly interested in learning more. I hear more than enough political conversations to the point where I have even asked at least one family member to hold off on discussing politics in the short time we have together.

Nevertheless, Mr. Brooks does, however, have a large platform, and in it he elected to discuss the movie Avatar as a continuation of "the Messiah Complex". Feel free to read his piece here.

So how did we get from Contract With America to here? In the following sentence portion:


"Avid moviegoers will remember “A Man Called Horse,” which began to establish the pattern,..."


Now, I try to keep my criticisms within reason. If someone is writing an article on why the Blazers will win a title within the next three years and inadvertently quotes Will Rogers and attributes it to Alexander de Toqueville...no big deal. The focus and area of expertise is not on Will Rogers quotes. It is on an NBA franchise.

Conversely, if a person is a religious leader and mis-quotes or mis-applies a passage of Scripture, I will be much more harsh in my response. That is supposed to be his area of expertise. (see my various writings on Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, etc. for numerous, numerous examples)

And if you are writing a high-profile piece on The Messiah Complex, it might behoove you to know a little bit about it first.

For example, saying it started with A Man Called Horse (1970) misses a much more commonly accepted date for starting it by...oh, about 177 years. Some of you may have heard of The Leatherstocking tales, of which the most famous might be The Last of the Mohicans (1826).

But let us give Mr. Brooks the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he means cinematically it started about that point.

By the way, the earliest recorded movie to show The Last of the Mohicans was in 1911.

Many people have credited James Fenimore Cooper and his Natty Bumppoe character with creating the "Indian who becomes a better Indian than the Indians and saves them from destruction"* narrative.

Even here, the idea is flawed as Roman literature has several examples of Romans "becoming barbarian", co-opting their ways and becoming more adept at it than the Romans themselves. However, you have to me far more versed in literature history to be aware of those.

The Leatherstocking Tales, however, are hardly unheard of. The Last of the Mohicans is an oft-filmed story, having been broadcast on tv or in film at least 14 separate times alone...to say nothing of the countless readings and allusions to it.

It might be a minor point, because over all he actually has a pretty good article. But for whatever reason...that egregious error really caught my attention...and irritated me.

If you are going to have a centerpiece opinion...make sure you know what you are talking about first.


* With apologies to Riot Kitty who rightfully prefers the more accepted modern terminology of Native American; I use the word "Indian" because I am almost exactly quoting several different authors I have found in my research. Otherwise, I too would use Native American.

Seriously?

Lets get a few "full disclosure" statements out there before we get into the heart of this post.

1) I often enjoy a good football game. At times that includes college football. It entertains me.

2) I think the bowl system is a joke when it comes to determining a National Champion. I do believe a playoff would be a positive step. And the money would probably get even bigger.

3) When it comes to the Constitution, I am pretty close to a strict constructionist. I find many things done by our Federal Government over the last 200+ years to be actions that are themselves unconstitutional as well as being immoral, intrusive, expensive, and downright wrong.

Okay, so now time to draw it all together.

We have a nation in lots of trouble. Just this morning I read news stories on "the need to outlaw child abuse in schools", yet another obamanible addition to the out of control regression....err, stimulus package, the danger of Facebook privacy settings allowing your info to be shared with people you do not want to have it, yet another breach of the ridiculous "Homeland security" screening procedures, and scariest of all, some idiot wondering why we have not heard from Paris Hilton lately.

Open memo to that writer; let sleeping dogs lie. The world is a much better place without constant "news" stories of some spoiled brats' adventures in wearing massively oversize sunglasses and carrying some poor dog in a purse.

I would argue that many of these things need dealt with.

Child abuse is a sensitive issue that people really have no clue about. Frankly, from what I have seen, the real abuse of kids is never teaching them discipline and self-control which then results in tragic situations like the one the California rep who wrote the piece had as their centerpiece.

There is no doubt kids are out of control these days, and the majority of the reason is the new age thought process that says you teach kids by reasoning with them, as if they had adult faculties and sensibilities.

The stimulus package has proven every bit as destructive as his idol, FDR's programs have continued to be. For example, the "Cash for Clunkers" program actually cost the buyers money as the tax they paid on it actually cost them more than the fuel savings! Yet we still have to be taxed to pay for it. And don't get me started on the appliances version of it, nor many other pork portions of the disastrous bill. Expanding it? Please do not. Enough damage has been done already.

Privacy is a huge problem online already and Facebook is really bad for it. If you do not understand that, you probably also answer spam e-mails with your bank information and pretty much deserve the destruction of your bank account and credit rating that follows immediately.

The Homeland Security airport screening procedures are a joke anyway. They are nothing more than a panacea to convince weak-minded sheeple they are protected. I once read several articles about a guy who wanted to demonstrate how bad they were, so he managed to fly cross country with alternatively fake and no identification, with a prohibited liquid. He made it with no problems.

That was a reporter. Imagine a sophisticated moron intent on destruction. His superior resources and motivation will easily allow him to circumvent the rather modest "security" measures of planting a bunch of people around and having them take off their shoes and belts.

With all these problems going on in the world today, and more...the Arab/Palestinian/Jewish thing, the North Koreans, Iranians, Americans, and other war-mongers running around making it dangerous for everyone, battles over global warming;myth, over-rated, or a genuine need for conservation irrespective of the validity of the claims, and so forth, what does Congress have time for?

It shames me to share the last name with Joe, because his idea that Congress needs to declare that college football needs a playoff is somewhere between ridiculous and so beyond the pale that even giving it credibility by mentioning it is a sad moment in my life.

You read that right. He wants to legislate a college football playoff.

And people ask why I virtually never vote for any member of either major party. Several reasons.

1) they are more suspect morally, legally, and intellectually than any other class of people in this nation. That includes the people already in prisons, many of whom are less deserving of being there than the clowns in our Congress.

2) On those rare occasions when you find that one representative who is different, who actually is honest, full of integrity, and working for the people instead of against them, either A) he has not been caught yet or B) he was never elected in the first place or C) you are reading a fictional book.

I think it was Will Rogers who said something along the lines of "If "con" is against then is Congress the opposite of Progress?"

So thanks, Joe Barton, thanks for wasting our time, resources and energy.

Although it sounds sarcastic, I am actually serious. If you were not wasting time on stuff the Federal Government has neither the responsibility nor the right to interfere in, you would be busy making our life worse with other pointless laws that vastly exceed the authority granted to the Federal governments.

In a sense, the worst President in U.S. history was Abraham Lincoln, who illegally forced states to maintain forced membership in something they entered voluntarily. And now look how we suffer.

On the bright side, if we can keep Congress seeking legislation of college football or playing golf or screwing their aides they will have less time to screw the rest of us.

The many or the few?

Let us preface this by saying...Italy and the European Union are not the United States, nor do things that apply here have the same force as there and vice versa.

At the same time, there are certain principles that apply to both.

Here is an interesting news story.

Obviously, I have a few prejudices. One of them is anti-Catholic in the extreme.

Just as obviously, all of us have prejudices, and we do not always take into account the views of other people.

But this is a case I find singularly ridiculous. Certainly the woman is highly unlikely to be the only person there who feels that way.

Just as certainly, there are a great number of people who choose otherwise. Just as she wants to raise her kids without seeing the crucifix on the wall, they want to raise their kids WITH seeing it.

And it is hardly a new thing in Italy. That is the center and heart of the Catholic religion.

What I have never quite understood is why the "I wants" of the minority are somehow given more precedence and importance than the "I wants" of the majority in a legal sense.

Just as those who believe religion in some form of religion have not just the right but I would argue the responsibility to train their children to discern right from wrong, so do those who disbelieve.

I, for example, strongly believe the Bible is right...and that the religious jewelry is borderline blasphemous.

If you truly want to "celebrate the cross", get out an un-sanded piece of wood, cover it in blood and wear that. A gold cross is to the cross of Jesus what Hitler is to responsible leadership.

At the same time, if I had kids, did not want to see a cross on the wall but my kids were being educated there, instead of disallowing the choice most people made that put it there, I would show my kids why I believed it was erroneous.

For that matter, the long-disproved "evolutionary ladder", not believed by even the vast majority of the leading evolutionists, which still hangs on many school walls is for me what the crucifix is for her.

I find it nonsensical, bad science, and something that I wish wasn't there.

So is my best approach to go to court to try and force the schools to remove it...or to sit down with my (non-existent) kid, show them what things like Darwin's Black Box or a host of other books have done to show that it is an error-filled document with no credibility?

Most people are not going to A) do the research and/or B) believe what I believe.

So why should I, in the minority, be allowed to force what I want on everyone else?

I am not a huge Berlusconi fan, but on this, at least, I must say...kudos to you. Well done, hold your ground.

"You Lie!"

I have been somewhat fascinated by the response to Joe Wilson and his soon to be legendary, "You lie!" outburst.

The appropriateness of his actions should be clear to anyone with even the most basic understanding of common courtesy; it was extremely classless and rude. Of course, it also fit very well in a society where people pride themselves on being classy and rude, where shows like Jackass have been big hits specifically because they show people being classless and rude, where irreverence is considered a high calling.

If anything, those things indicate even his worst detractors should hail Wilson as a hero, if nothing else for his sheer irreverence. He has advanced the cause of irreverence to Parliamentary levels. Expect to see more such interruptions now that the precedent has been set in recent times.

Even more backing up the point that the response has been wrong, he was right...the President does, in fact lie.

But the response is what fascinates me. It has been ridiculous. Let me help you out by explaining what the response should have been. Hint: it consists of one 3 letter word.

The immediate and total response to an accusation that any President lies should simply be, "And?"

Name the last President that didn't lie. No, he did...remember WMD? No, him too...remember "it depends on what the definition of 'is'is"...no, he did too, remember "Read my lips, no new taxes"? No, him too...remember Iran-Contra?

Keep going. Lets skip a few generations. Nope, now you are in Teapot Dome, keep going. Nope, now you have Jackson telling the Cherokees he loved them and was trying to save them as he sent them on the Trail of Tears, keep going...Jefferson admitted the Louisiana Purchase was a violation of the Constitution which he swore to uphold, keep going...

Get the point? Presidents lie. We the people accept it and continue to vote for people who will push our agendas instead of voting for men of integrity who will do what they believe best for the country rather than following a party political agenda (yes, I do realize that Jefferson made the purchase because he believed it best for the country).

It is pretty well understood and accepted that campaign promises is a euphemism for "things I have no chance of accomplishing and not much more intent to even try in the first place but makes you feel better about voting for me than the other guy."
Wilson's outburst has been changed from a breech of protocol into a martyr which could propel him to the White House if the Destructocrats keep pushing. Don't believe me? Who is the Vice President right now?

Joe "Read my lips: I stold this from somebody else" the plagiarizer Biden.

Wow, those censures sure are effective. Totally wrecked his career. (insert sarcasm font for previous two sentences)

Anyone who has ever used the response, "And?" knows how powerful it can be. Suddenly all assumptions that the next response is known are shot down. The person must come up with something else. For example...

Wilson: "You lie!"
Destructocrats: "And?"
Republican'ts: "Well...he lied!"
D: "And?"


Behold, the power of putting the onus back on the person making a broad, open ended statement.

"I'm hungry."
"And?"

Obama has done a lot worse things than lie. The ridiculous Cash for Clunkers*. The idea that in depressed times, negative savings aside, we need to help out people who are affluent enough TO BUY A NEW CAR is so patently ridiculous that I should not even be discussing it. Surely there are better things we could be doing?

See above comments for the home buying program.

And that is just in the financial realm.

Obama is well on his way to exceeding FDR by a wide margin in race for "worst President in US history as he does long-lasting damage to the financial system.

But lying? That is so far down the list of his problems it should not even raise an eyebrow.

So go ahead, Wilson. Make yourself look like the jerk you are with your shout while the Dems do the same with their response that exceeds the correct, "And?"








* A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average "Cash for Clunkers" transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $70/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
How good a deal was that ???

Not that we needed it, but here is one more reason public schools suck

As a general rule, speeches are hard to watch for me. They are long, dull, and the key points often sweep by so fast that the impact is hard to catch on the spot. A lot of things are missed. I much prefer to go back and read the text. 

(Which, by the way, is one reason I continue to point out that Obama is the most destructive President in history financially speaking: His stimulus package will cost our Grandchildren's grandchildren. What a disaster.

 Good to see he learned from the mistakes of his idol, FDR and the morass he plunged us into that is still expanding.)

At times, it is hard to find the text. Wonder why the NEA has not made public a text of his hate-filled, horrific closing speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqn1rvv7Fis&feature=related

His assertion that the teachers unions should not be about the teaching profession but should push a political agenda is revealing. 

"It is not because of creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our position, it is not because we care about children, it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power and we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees."

But he was not done with his brutal admissions.

Chanin said, “Why are conservative and right wing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? It is the price we pay for success. NEA and its affiliates have been singled out because they are the most effective unions in the United States and they are the nation’s leading advocates for public education and for the type of liberal social and economic agenda and social agenda that these (conservative) groups find unacceptable. NEA will continue to be attacked as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education for education employees and for human and civil rights.”

Time for a reality check. No, you are singled out because you are not doing your job. As you admit, you are advocates for things it is not your job: an agenda that is humanist, not education related, and frankly, many of your social agenda platforms are immoral and in direct opposition to the very most cherished beliefs and values of your victims. 

A lot of it goes back to Charles Francis Potter who famously said, "Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

Is it likely that Chanin is aware of the Potter quote? Irrelevant. The point is, many of us realize the goals of the schools is not to educate accurately, or even even-handedly but rather to take certain social agendas and push them as hard as possible. 

Many of us refuse to accept falsehoods taught as truth and thus are apparently "right wing bastards" as so called by the "loving" extremist leftists. 

I have never considered my self to be right wing, left wing, or any other wing. But I note that the rhetoric is getting more and more stiff. Anyone who does not bow to the agendas put forth by anti-moral forces is called "hateful" by only the kindest of our enemies and called much worse names by most.

Well done, resorting to name-calling when you push agendas that have no basis in authority other than your own think-so. People like you, Chanin, are why people like me push hard for charter schools, home school options, reforms of the schools, and so forth.

It is interesting to note where the interests of your supporters are. Reading the comments in favor of him was quite illuminating. There were many thanks for him keeping merit based stuff away from teachers. After all, why would we want to reward the good when we can just make it more important to hang in there for a paycheck regardless of ability?

Chanin is the type of person who is steering this country towards the looming disaster. Stepping down? Thank you. Good riddance. Isn't it just highly unfortunate that the idea you will be replaced by someone with an interest in improving education is unlikely to replace you? 

In defense of class

In the opening scene of Gran Torino, it is the funeral for the wife of Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood). As he looks on in disgruntlement his grandchildren arrive. One is wearing a Detroit Lions football jersey. The granddaughter wears a skanky, revealing dress and a second grandson mocks the self-crossing portion of he ceremony with some blasphemous words.

Hopefully, when you read that paragraph, you thought, "Very inappropriate". That is exactly what the modes of dress and attitudes were, and deliberately so as one of the themes of the movie is the disconnect between generations.

One of those disconnects is society wide. People have lost their sense of respect. "Irreverence" has become a panacea and a justification for anything someone wants to do that is morally or socially reprehensible.

There is a time and place for irreverence. But there are times for reverence, too.

People have lost that so much that they no longer are able to differentiate between bad and worse. One easy example would be language.

The other night at the Blazer game, the guys in the seats beside ours and the guys behind them both received verbal warnings for their excessive F-bombs after several complaints were registered, particularly in light of the large number of kids sitting nearby.

Yet they used "damn", "shit", "oh my God", "hell" and so forth far louder and with far greater frequency. 

I would key in on the third. I find the casual abuse of the name of God far more offensive than all the others combined yet it is so acceptable in today's society, so much a part of the national lexicon, that it even became a catch phrase for a major supporting player on the show Friends and is regularly used in commercials for television shows, movies, etc.

People no longer recognize the difference between the Holy and the propane and, in fact, scoff at the Holy and any who would distinguish between the two. And take pride in that.

Those of us who recognize better standards, who show respect for those around us and/or for the situation are "Puritanical" or "right-wing" etc. 

Uh, sure. How about "have common decency and an awareness of how my actions might offend offend others"?

I would equate it to something like a bar. There are designated places for people to drink to excess; those who wish to avoid that have the possibility. Smoking has designated places where it is acceptable and places where it is not. When it bleeds into places it is not acceptable, there are complaints.

Maybe it is time for those of us greatly bothered by the loss of the ability to show reverence to start making our voices heard. 

On Martin Luther King

I have posted on MLK day before and my feelings are not hard to discern. I think he was a hugely influential figure who sadly is still quite polarizing. I am not sure why anyone would be against a man who stood for non-violence, who sought a positive, needed change and did as much if not more than any single person to move the issue of equal opportunity for non-white people to the forefront.

Contrast him with someone like Malcolm X who rejected socially acceptable naming conventions and was militant, advocating physical action that would have (and often did) lead to death, not often of the guilty.

You  might take note of a discrepancy between my verbiage above, however, and the verbiage most often used. I specifically and very intentionally said equal opportunity rather than equality.

The harsh, unpopular truth is all people are not equal. Some people are more talented than others. Some people work harder than others. And yes, some people are even luckier than others. Some people have more ambition.

I do not believe equalizing all people is a good thing. I am not for equal income. In fact, it really gets my goat when I see people who are unabashedly lazy that are taking money from my pocket to give them a better standard of living than I have. That isn't right.

I have worked with people like that in the past. They slough off work, and slack when at work. They are unproductive.

It is no accident that there is exactly one person I will recommend for any job, any time, any place, whether he knows how to do the job or not. That is because I have worked with him in the past and I know his work ethic. He will never leave something for others to do if he doesn't have to. He arrives early, stays late, and gets more stuff done day in and day out than other people in similar jobs.

No, I don't think it right that people who show up as close to punch-the-clock time as possible, take extra long breaks, leave early with regularity, call in sick often, and so forth are worth as much as he is, financially speaking. 

At the same time, I don't think people should be rejected from having a chance because they have different levels of skin pigment. I believe we should strive to admit that people are people. There are good people and bad people of all colors and it is way past time to move past that nonsensical, immoral discrimination based on color.

And that is true for everyone. You will note i do not use terms like "African American" any more than I use "Irish American". 

Pick one. Are you Scottish or are you American? Setting yourself apart as different and then complaining when you are treated different is illogical, untenable, and problematic on many, many levels. 

I do not use any ancestry in conjunction with American. I find it to be divisive and offensive and will not participate in that. Lets move past the need to label and move past where we seek out extra reasons to be offended regardless of the intent of the speaker. 

Let's stop equating opportunity with results, also. Not all of us will have the same results with the same opportunity. Just sayin'. I guess it had been a while since I said something controversial...like, I don't know, one day? Let the hate mail start.

Because it is MY team, that's why

How are politics like sports? I think I finally figured out the connection and it worries me. It is a sign of a huge flaw with democracy and republicanism (the political definition, not the party).

While I would not classify myself as a fanatic by any stretch of the imagination, I will admit I do enjoy a good deal of sports. I like to watch Monday Night Football if any of my myriad of teams I "like" is playing, will watch Thursday night or Saturday college ball if a game intrigues me, like to watch baseball and hockey during the playoffs, and basketball just about anytime.

One thing you quickly find out about sports is a lot of people have the WWI soldier's ideal; "Right or wrong, My country" only in this case it is "right or wrong, my team". Their players can do no wrong. If the opposing receiver goes out of bounds, takes three steps, and then gets blasted full speed they will complain about the penalty. If their favorite player picks off a rebound, goes the length of the floor on one dribble and dunks, they will complain if traveling is called. Conversely, if the opposition blasts their QB while he is looking down field they just know it was a late hit. And so forth.

In short, no matter how stupid, inane, or unreasonable the actions on the field or court, they will back their team because it is their team, not because they want to see the correct outcome.

Politics have become the same way. There are people who will back their party regardless of whether it is the right move or not. I must credit Mark Evanier for putting it in a form that crystallized what was bothering me.

Why on earth would anyone ever just punch the party ticket? Do they care that little about who represents them or the outcome?

This forthcoming election is a crucial one. We have two horrific choices; we can go with McCain who has become the new face of shifting positions and has not built any moral base to stand on or we can go with Obama who will do to health care what FDR did to welfare. Can this country withstand that level of stupidity and destruction?

But the problem lies not with this election but rather with the decades of people who have mindlessly punched the party ticket not because it was a wise choice or represented them but rather because, "I am a Destructocrat" or "I am a Republicant". What a stupid-*** reason to **** up this country and leave us a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Find any supporter of either Obama or McCain and ask them, "What are the top 10 issues where he is a good choice?" Not, "Why is he better than his opponent" but rather a positive, "My guy is good because".

It is easy to tear down. Putting noted plagiarist Joe Biden, a guy who said Obama was not a good choice, on his ticket is enough to disqualify Obama if you want to tear down, at least for me it is. You will never see me vote for someone who has demonstrated that level of moral turpitude.. Flipping multiple times on an issue such as abortion is enough to disqualify McCain. No need to look any further. If I wanted, I could find a dozen reasons to vote against either of them. But it is much harder to find a dozen reasons to vote FOR either of them.

So why do we not have legitimately good, across the board, POSITIVE choices? Because there are so many voters who throw away their votes by either "voting for the lesser of two evils" (while claiming someone voting FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone is the one "wasting" their vote) or by mindlessly punching the party ticket because "they are my team. Right or wrong, my party."

Voting that way has got us where we are today; a body of lawmakers with a higher percentage of scofflaws and financially inept people than any other institution in the country outside of prisons. *

So stop voting the party ticket. Use your brain when you go to the polls. Don't vote the lesser of two evils. Find someone worth voting for, no matter how "unelectable" someone is. Vote for good, not for evil. Because you might perceive of it as "voting for the lesser of two evils" but the message politicos hear is, "I am what they want".









* From an oft-passed e-mail that I have not bothered to vet, mostly because I suspect it understates the case:

36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71,repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?Give up yet? . .
The 435 Members of the Congress
********
If their math is correct, that is 380 of 435, over 87% who are certainly not worthy to be making laws.

Apropos of...well, nothing, really

Been reading a bit about a case where a kid took a school to court because they would not let him wear a Confederate Flag belt buckle. And sadly, I really come down on both sides of this issue.

On the one hand, the flag is a symbol of a lot of things I don't agree with...the Antebellum South was not exactly heaven on earth and slavery was just one of the symptoms. On the other hand, the rights of states were seriously impinged upon and a once voluntary union is now a forced one...sort of state slavery I guess...and has led to the current state of affairs where the Federal government is deeply involved in a lot of private things and I don't much care for that, either.

With that said, ultimately the case seems to boil down to whether freedom of speech as expressed through symbolic expression in choice of clothing is a higher right than freedom from being offended.

I saw one ridiculous statement made by an involved school official where he said something along the lines of, "If even one person is offended then I would rather have censorship." Those are not the exact words but it is the exact meaning.

The problem is manifold, but here is one of the most prominent; you are not going to be able to keep everyone from being offended and selectively choosing who not to offend is a real dark path to head down.

Let's say I believe the War in Iraq is a good thing; is he going to keep anti-war t-shirts out of the school? If I believe it is a bad thing, is he going to keep pro-war shirts away? Of course, that is sort of a straw man, of course political t-shirts will be thrown out...

but what about something like a shirt saying, "Global Warming is a Myth" or one with the Darwinian Fish or one saying Hooters or even someone who likes Clinton Portis and wants to wear his jersey...which not only has his name, "Portis" on the back but also the team name..."Redskins". Are those banned?

It quickly gets muddled as to what is okay and what isn't. Is a wrestling t-shirt declaring, "Foley is God" acceptable? Why or why not?

And no, I do not think these things are a stretch. There are people who have poor taste and people who have beliefs I disagree with. They are going to wear things I find offensive...and things others find offensive. Whose taste for what is offensive gets used?

Some people find current styles of low-slung pants that show boxers offensive. Others find mini-skirts and halter tops offensive. Still others find bandannas or do-rags offensive. Where does it stop? With uniforms? People already find those offensive.

But do we have a right to not be offended? That is a more interesting question to me. I of course come down with a resounding, "No". People do not think the same or act the same and things are going to be done and said to offend all of us at some point. Tough. Deal with it. And realize you are offending someone else.

I should also point out using censorship to protect people from being offended was a powerful tool in George Orwell's 1984. Read it. Think about it. And if we can't find something more important to censor than a belt buckle...well, maybe he was closer to truth than we think.

Should the kid wear it? no. Is it in poor taste? yes. Does he have the right to have bad taste? Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie have spawned a bunch of bubble headed wanna-be clones wearing ridiculous, stupid-looking over-sized sunglasses and carrying dogs in purses and nobody has stopped them yet. Think about it.

If I could be serious for a moment...

I have been transferring some files from hand-written pages to hard disk to make sorting easier if and when I ever write Dreamcatchers on the Rearview Mirror. Along the way I have noticed certain...well...key events that certainly seem to back up my premise for the tome...err, excellent bit of reading that will result. *

One thing really caught my attention. I mean, obviously it first caught my attention when I watched Black Indians:An American Story (2001) or I would not have made a note of it. But it did not catch my attention enough to really side mark it like I have done with certain topics that needed further research. It is a comment made almost off-hand, yet it really cuts to the heart of my research. In a discussion on race and why people would select various boxes, the following comment was made.

"Right now it is very much in vogue to be Indian." which is closely followed by, "Indian is a cultural question."

That is a very interesting and controversial statement. First off, the term itself is questionable; is the name "Indian" acceptable in 2008 or should it exclusively be "Native American", "American Indian", or should it be yet something else?

Second, who gets to decide what does or does not constitute being Native American? One drop of blood? Being a 16th? a 1/4? 1/2? This is an important question. Entire tribes are brought into existence...or wiped out...over the very question, and unfortunately the question all too often has little to do with cultural heritage and a great deal to do with can they build a casino?***

An amazing number of people want the name of Native American and it is amazing how many people claim descent from a Cherokee princess...never mind the fact the Cherokee never had royalty and thus could not have princesses, these people know she is in their lineage. Good luck with that, let me know how it turns out.

Sadly, the genuine articles, people who have suffered for their heritage as the government went through attempt after attempt after attempt to settle "the Indian question"...and doesn't that reference send chills down your spine...with things ranging from the generally well-regarded attempts of John Collier in the 1930s through the era of Termination and back to the surprisingly positive steps taken by oft-maligned Richard Nixon. During all these attempts and even since then the question of who is and who is not Native American has raged.

Their traditions have been co-opted, their religious ceremonies altered, recreated, desecrated, and blasphemed, their wants have been chosen for them and a lot of people seem to think simply taking on the trappings of "Indianhood" makes them more qualified to speak for Native Americans that being Wilma Mankiller** does.

The next time you see some hippie advertising a sweat-lodge ceremony on Craigslist...and yes, they do that regularly, even here in Portland...realize this is not a "great spiritual experience you can have", it is a subversion of a once-treasured, sacred ceremony with deep meaning within the context of a highly evolved society and was part of not "just" their religion or "just" their culture but a very real part of their identity. You are being defrauded if you take part in it and you are simultaneously insulting millions of people. Ignorance is not much of a defense.

So here is today's question: what does it mean to be "Native American", "American Indian", or "Indian" to you? Why? I am actively seeking feedback here. Not scholarly feedback found in a library...I have that. Not round table discussion in an academic forum...I have that. I want it from the people I know....and here is a nice bit of trivia: I happen to know 2 of my closest friends who are deeply impacted by this issue since they are both indisputably Native American. One has been a friend for I think 26 or 27 years, the other for just 3 or 4 but I value them both and it has nothing to do with whether they are or are not Native American, it has to do with who they are as people. Just thought I would roll that out there. I love you both.


* This is a reference to a Pop Culture/anthropological studies/history project. I am researching a book that examines how Native Americans have been viewed in the popular consciousness. In 1900 there were a lot of people who saw them as "savages who live to steal, torture and kill" and by 2000 you almost could not drive a mile without seeing a Dream Catcher hanging from a rear view mirror in a vehicle driven by someone who would have harsh words, and rightfully so, for anyone who used terms like "savage" for Native Americans or who was so blind as to hold the old stereotypes. How did they shift from hated and feared to held in reverence and people seeking to emulate them?

** Wilma Mankiller is the first female to be elected leader of any major North American tribe.

*** No kidding. People were killed over the issue in New York, a tribe was reconstituted and built a highly successful casino. Lawsuits are still being conducted to see who is part of the tribe, who controls the money, and how much land they own.

Abraham Lincoln

When talking about the greatest Presidents of all time, President Abraham Lincoln is virtually always mentioned in the top 5...usually in the top 2 along with George Washington, perhaps the only 2 Presidents almost universally loved.



The reasons are obvious. Take this quote, for example:



Abraham Lincoln is commonly listed by historians as one of America's greatest presidents—often as the greatest of all. Part of the reason is that he provided strong leadership, set a clear course, and articulated a moral vision to guide the nation through very difficult times. Franklin Roosevelt, also recognized as one of America's best chief executives, once said that, "All our great presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified." And it was Lincoln's singular accomplishment that he clarified the goals of "union and freedom" for his time and for the ages, according to historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.





Schlesinger is more or less a pretty respected historian and he is hardly committing career suicide with that assessment. You have to look quite a while before finding a reputable historian who does not agree. And I freely admit I think he was a pretty phenomenal President. Regardless of what his motivations for doing it were, the fact remains he ended slavery in the South (it was still legal in the States that did not secede). He did hold together an increasingly fractious Union and kept France and England from interceding on behalf of the South. But was he actually the leader we all have attributed him to be?



He had serious issues with his Commander in Chief Generals. When the war started he essentially fired Gen. Winfield Scott. There were some pretty solid reasons for this...Scott was well past his prime, was essentially immobile, and there was some internal dissension indicating unity under Scott might not be achieved. With that said...it WAS Scott who proposed a war strategy that, in the end, was the one used by Grant to split the South.



Gen. McClellan did not last long. Neither did Halleck. Or Meade. Or Hooker. Or McClellan again. Grant did last quite a while...but he was the 7th (SEVENTH) General Lincoln had in that post. In a war that lasted less than 5 years.

Furthermore, he had massive internal problems. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton usurped authority in ways that were pretty near treason. He also had the eternal struggle with Congress and public opinion. Harsh as it is to say this, after the successful (?) conclusion of the Civil War, Booth murdering him in some ways could be considered a mercy killing.

Lincoln presided over the bloodiest war in U.S. history. The Union dissolved and was unconstitutionally restored by force. He faced dissension and opposition from even those who were his closest supporters during the war over his rather generous terms for Reconstruction.

On the other hand, had he lived and been able to enforce his terms, it is very likely we would have never heard of Martin Luther King Jr. or Medgar Evers or Malcolm X...those questions quite possibly would have been settled and the country truly integrated under his leadership.

So that is a pretty strong counter argument to the things stated above.


Ultimately, there is a reason legend and myth grows around some people. Though I still despise the moral and financial harm FDR did to the country there is no denying the benefit he had on the SPIRIT of the people up to and during WWII. Lincoln may not have been as strong a guide as is sometimes presented...but he DID provide the glue to hold together the States, legal or not, and did push and sign the Emancipation Proclamation. So while there might be legitimate questions about individual aspects of his leadership and effectiveness...let the legend stand. He was a great leader and someone who should be looked up to. At least, that is my two cents...

Today I am angry

If you are stopping by for a laugh, which I normally try to provide, you have stopped by on the wrong day. Unlike the jokes about making Dad into a tea pot or restaurants themed like coffins, this one is NOT designed to garner laughs. I wrote this somewhat in anger. I had to wait a couple days before writing this reply, a reply, by the way, that I hit "reply to all" on in the email I took it from. So first...here is the email that was sent to me:stop by on the other side for my response.
********************************************************************************

OFIR members and supporters:
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, (FAIR), is going to organize another, 'Hold their feet to the fire' rally and lobbying effort September 8 - 11 in Washington DC. OFIR has sent representatives to previous events.

You may recall that the Hold their feet to fire rally is an event in which talk show hosts from around the U.S. do their programs live. Victoria Taft and Lars Larson attended previous ones. There are usually about 8 talk show hosts who do their shows live at the meeting headquarters. If you attend you will have the opportunity to meet them personally. Lou Dobbs will be at this year’s rally.

This would be a wonderful opportunity for American citizens to go to Washington DC and lobby their U.S. Senators and Representative about the impact of illegal immigration. FAIR will organize the rallies and lobbying efforts. When I attended I had the opportunity to talk directly to many Congressmen including Representatives Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and members of the Oregon delegation.

Lee Vasché, co-founder of the OFIR PAC, will represent OFIR at the Washington DC event this year.

We encourage OFIR members to attend. If you are interested please let us know and we will get the program information to you. You can e-mail OFIR at o4ir@excite.com or call the office at (503) 435-0141.

Jim Ludwick

Wonderful late news today!!!! – Notorious amnesty supporter and Open Borders fanatic, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) has been ousted from Congress! Jason Chaffetz routed the La Raza Republican by over twenty points in the Utah primary yesterday. Chaffetz was strongly supported in his campaign by Team America PAC for his Tancredo-like immigration positions. He was outspent by Cannon by $600,000 but still won!

*********************************************************************
And below is my reply; read all the way to the end because it does not end the way it starts.
*********************************************************************
This absolutely seems like something everyone should support. I mean, it can do nothing but show our care for our neighbors. It reminds me of Manny and Julie and the difference these policies have made in their lives. With their baby boy they were literally starving to death. Desperate, they did not know where to turn. But some family helped them out and they were able to move to where the economy was not so horrific that there were literally no jobs...not just not life wage jobs, there were no jobs plain and simple.

With help from their family they were able to put a roof over their heads...to be sure, it relied on the generosity of their family but at least they got a roof. And Manny found a job. It was several miles away and the only way he had to get to and from work was to ride his bike on dark roads but at least he had a job. Sure, it did not pay a lot...certainly nowhere near enough for he and Julie to have a place of their own with their kid but they have a place. So off he goes to work, literally risking his life should a car no see him and accidentally swerve onto the shoulder. At least they had food and a roof over their head.

We should be proud that our efforts allowed this success story. Except the fight is not over and neither is the story of Manny and Julie.

Because through our efforts his job situation has changed. You see, because of our constant efforts to show our love for our fellow man, Manny was unable to renew his papers. Julie's are still good for a while...but Manny's ran out. Yeah, he was a legal immigrant with a temporary visa.

But since his papers ran out he was fired from his job. He now must find a way to pay his way home which is a return to the poverty stricken state that put him in the place where they were starving to death. Julie and their boy can either stay here until her visa runs out while Manuel returns home to starve to death...or she can go back now and start starving to death early. What a great choice that we, the most loving people on earth, have directly and actively made possible. I wish to thank each and every one of us.

You see, our hysterics and hatred towards the illegal immigrants have made it where once they return to Mexico it will be 10 - 15 years before their case will be reviewed. We have made our country safe once more so some high school kid can rake in enough money to ensure herself a nicer prom and the hard working guy who tried to feed his family is back where he belongs.

After all, Manuel is just the kind of guy we don't want in this country. He works hard, studied to improve his English, took care of his family in extremely difficult circumstances and for a brief time it seemed he would be able to make a life.

But we stopped it. And if we keep working we can keep on stopping stuff like this with our over the top, blind hatred and unreasoning, borderline non-sensical fear.

Yeah, the tone here is pretty sharp, bitter and biting, largely because Manuel, Yuli and their kid are both friends and relations to me and my immediate family. And seeing the direct result of the idiotic policies we as a country are adopting, including but not limited to the billion dollar wall being built, are not the sort of attitudes and behaviors I have any desire to be associated with. Quite the opposite.

For the first time in a long time I feel moved to action. As a general rule I stay out of politics. But when they get into the realm of immorality, as this one seems to be doing, then it is time we the good people of this country make a stand.

So I encourage everyone to stand up and do what we can to ensure that the policies we work for are not the policies that lead to the destruction of lives to sate our hatred and make sure we can buy 2 televisions instead of one.

I for one cannot take the hatred any longer, though. Yes, the system is broken. The right way to fix it is not the way we are trying.

Drew

********************************************************************************
As a general rule I try not to be strident and angry. There are times when, frankly, it hits to close to home. If you were Manuel, what would you do? Would you legally pack your bags and head back to a hopeless situation? Or would you illegally stay in the country, do whatever you could to stay under the radar to care for your family? Would you start working "under the table" and take your chances? To me...pretty much a rhetorical question. I know what I would do.


There is a reason many of us...and in the interest of full disclosure, I will tell you here I am a registered Republican though I have never, not even once, voted the party ticket and very seldom indeed voted for any candidate from either major party...but there is a reason many of us from both parties favor some sort of amnesty.

Are there bad people that come across the border? Unquestionably yes. And yes, it drives me nuts when I see people flying the Mexican flag here, I have no interest in speaking French or Chinese when I go to order a smurfing Big Mac...but I also am not so spiteful and hateful that I want to sentence people to death to satisfy my own sense of seemingly righteous indignation.

I am very angry about this and not writing clearly at the moment so I am going to give it a rest. But expect a return to this issue in the near future.

Distinguishing between right and wrong

My first car was an Isuzu I-mark. It ran on diesel, got about 40 miles to the gallon, and had a "racing stripe" along the side that is a hilarious story in and of itself. As the years went on I upgraded from time to time...including a Toyota Celica, a Mitsubishi Eclipse, and then a 40th Anniversary Mustang. That car was so much nicer than anything else I had ever been in that it was unreal. Now, of course, I have the Blue Mustang...newer, nicer, better in about every way. The comfort level of that car as compared to the comfort even of the previous Mustang is so much higher it is like moving to the Isuzu from a bicycle with no seat....you just don't realize how much more comfort you could have until you get it.



But even when I had the Isuzu I knew the difference between the comfort level between that bumpy ride and the comfort of someone rolling the luxury sled with the leather interior, the working shocks, etc. For that matter, way back when my ride was a hand me down bicycle with handlebars that could not be tightened so they were always flipping over the front, I knew the difference between that transportation and say...a Ferrari.



I was also easily able to distinguish between the over the top "violence" of the Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons and the guy who started sniping from the hotel overlooking I-5. I could tell the difference when I was 7.



Sadly, not everyone can. Take, for example, a man who is much smarter than I, I assume, since he has a PHD and I do not. However, he cannot distinguish between different types of violence.

Take, for example, this quote. The second of many ironies was that an elitist foreign-born governor who made his fortune by promoting violence in his films denied Williams clemency.

Let's deconstruct this argument. Nobody questions that Schwarzenegger is foreign born. Elitist? More in the eyes of the beholder. He has a very checkered past (allegations of gropings set against his fairly successful run as part of the physical fitness drive, impolitic and unacceptable racial comments against progressive policies)...but elitist? I think that is a fairly questionable charge.

But let's take a look at the violence Schwarzenegger has promoted:

A) Fictional.
Quick, name the top 5 "based on a true story" Schwarzenegger flicks...

B) Almost universally in the cause of "justice"
I can think, off the top of my head, of 2 movies where Schwarzenegger played the bad guy...the hysterically bad Batman and Robin (1997) which, admittedly, was seen by over a dozen people, and The Terminator (1984). Otherwise, he has consistently played the good guy standing up for truth, justice, and the human way.

In other words, in his violent movies...admittedly the preponderance of his work....the good guys win and the bad guys are punished, usually violently and frequently gruesomely. So the lesson learned from his violent movies is that good will prevail over evil and evil will, in the end, be punished.

Yet our friend Reese equates the legal, state-sanctioned execution of a murderer who admits he was responsible for a lot of death, mayhem and destruction with the defense of the helpless (a common theme in Schwarzenegger movies), search for vindication of the wrongfully accused, actions of law enforcement and/or military officials performing their job, and so forth.

He even goes so far as to say that Tookie Williams was a far, far better man than he was:
King and Williams were both worthy of being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Tookie was nominated for the prestigious award on multiple occasions.

Again, at times you need to actually exercise your mind a little bit. King was nominated by a completely different class of people than Williams was. Do some research into who nominated Williams...which has a lot to do with why the Nobel crew never took that nomination seriously nor did they pursue it as a legitimate nomination...which it wasn't. The nomination process is not particularly difficult... and it was a member of the Swiss Parliament who nominated him.

Frankly, what I personally saw of Williams work qualified him for the Nobel Peace Prize about as much as the redemptive work of Tammy Faye Bakker does for her...

But for Reese these things mean nothing. For him, violence is violence, there is no difference between selfish, evil violence as performed by criminals and violence that is fictional and/or legal and retributive in the pursuit of, if not a just society, then at least one that is structured for the safety of people who are not into carrying guns and clubs and bats to defend themselves against the outrages of people like Tookie and his Crips. Perhaps it is a legit argument that killing a man for killing four men is not just 19 years after the fact...though every year I come to believe in it more every year.

Of course, a lot of this trails back to where a great deal of society has moved. We, as a society, have thrown out the concept not only of a God but of absolute right and wrong. No longer is there right and wrong, now there are "choices". Whatever "rights and wrongs" exist are governed by who is deciding it...that is why we have more and more ridiculous statements like, "He made some comments that might be racist." People don't even know if it is right or wrong until enough people have said so...and even then it is debatable! Society is in deep, deep trouble.

The court of public opinion is a terrible way to decide what is right and what is wrong. It is times when right and wrong are determined by public opinion that you get screwed up paradigms where King Jr. is a bad guy and Tookie Williams is a good guy.

I see Reese working...I just could not disagree with him...or, for that matter, the society producing people like him...any more strongly than I do.

Weighting history

Just a warning...whereas more often than not, when you start out reading a serious post on here, it is just the set-up for a joke about cutting off the husband's hand or a penis museum, this is a legitimately serious post. It is inspired by some material I read in the auto-biography of Gary Sheffield, Inside Power , New York, 2007.

Sheffield is an angry man, always looking to see if he is being disrespected in any way, shape, or form. And if he isn't then he will find a way to prove he has been. One of his complaints, however, is one we often hear...about how history is a "white-bread version". And there may be some legitimacy to it.

However, the example he uses to show distortion is questionable at best. He talks about how German prisoners of war in Alabama in World War II were better treated than black share-croppers. I would not be surprised to learn this is true. To be honest, I did not even know Alabama housed German POWs. However, knowing the nature of the times, I would not be surprised to learn that such a thing happened. Let us never forget the brutal mistreatment suffered by Americans of Asian descent during the war. The "relocation camps" are a travesty and stain on our nation's history, as is slavery and the lynchings...and yes, the civil rights struggle...

But let us not forget these are not the first, last, or only examples of racism. Take a look at how the Native Indians were (and, in many cases, ARE) mistreated...and how for years NO immigration of "celestials" was allowed...and how the Irish were subjected to racism...and how "Okies" and "Arkies" were denied jobs and housing and were beaten, stabbed and shot for their horrible "crime" of being Okies and Arkies in California.

But wait a second...aren't Okies and Arkies....white? How can that be racism? Oh, but it existed...my own Grandparents happen to be among the flood of Okies and Arkies who went to California during the Great Depression and have those Grapes of Wrath type stories to tell.

But here is the thing...except for the occasional classic bit of literature/cinema etc., these things do not get into "mainstream" history. In the average Elementary, Junior High, or Senior High School history class, little of this will come up. At best you get a broad Western Civilization 101 type of sweeping overview. Here, I will give you almost as much of this history as the typically educated student receives.

"Early American history was rife with prejudice. The Indians, Blacks and Chinese were regarded with suspicion and mistrust. As a result of these attitudes they often were excluded from jobs and housing. Often they were victimized with beatings and even murder. It was not until the Civil Rights battles of the mid to late 20th Century that these attitudes started to change. Even today racism is an ongoing problem."

In a few exceptional cases you might delve more deeply into the fits and starts that represented major moving points; the moralist crusaders who led to the Civil War, the Underground Railroad, perhaps the Pullman case, then right up to Brown v. Board of Education.

I would wager I have, as both history aficionado in my own private readings and as award winning and Phi Theta Alpha history student at PSU, engaged in far more study of these things than the average person. I have written about racism involving little known groups. I have read innumerable books regarding racism during the war such as War Without Mercy: The Pacific War, by John Dower, in which he powerfully argues the battle against Japan was a near-genocidal race war and that is what led to the killing of every Japanese soldier on island after island. I have studied the Buffalo soldiers, the Tuskegee Airmen, the black regiments in the Civil War, the studies of black soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the use of Indian scouts in the Indian Wars, and more. I know the history of Andrew Jackson and his betrayal of the Constitution and the "American Ideal"...and how that ideal was also betrayed by the people demanding the removal of the 5 Civilized Nations.

In other words, I am educated in these matters far beyond the average person in this country. By no means am I the most educated...not even close. There are people whose knowledge of this dwarfs mine...but they are relatively speaking few and far between. And even I have not heard of a great number of the stories of racial discrimination and injustice.

Does that mean they are unimportant? Absolutely not. Educating ourselves about our past helps us prepare to improve our future. However...at some point we have to realize that nearly every History Class in America is at best covering the highest of the high points. Far and few between are the classes that cover the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire. Fewer still are the classes that delve deeper into the early 20th century phenomenon of wealthy young ladies moving into the slums to work hands-on for reform.

And that is a matter of time. If every event that should be covered was...well, there would be no time for math or science or physical education or anything of that matter.

So how do you decide what goes IN the history books used to educate our kids and what gets left out? Some moments are "in" because they are so iconic...Washington crossing the Delaware, for instance. But it is not just iconic, it is significant...that might be the difference between the existence of the United States of America and the existence of a few British colonies, part of the Empire. That night in Trenton restored the morale of the rebelling colonies, altered our standing in the eyes of France and the international community, and kept the struggle alive. What under-reported aspect of "non-white" life would you put in instead of that?

The Civil War coverage typically hits the high points...the Emancipation Proclamation, the causes leading up to it, the Gettysburg Address, maybe the Valley campaign, and Appomattox surrender, maybe a touch on the Underground Railroad and Reconstruction...and then we are done.

World War I teaches us about trench warfare, the harsh terms of the treaty, and then we are done.

In other words, yes...there is very little about blacks or reds or yellows or greens or blues. I bet you did not know the U.S. invaded Russia after World War I, either. But it happened. And it was a disaster. But that did not make it into the history books...because A) there isn't time and B) it did not alter the direction of world history.

There is a growing awareness of how things such as the backroom power struggles ended Reconstruction and litigation cemented the rollbacks. George Washington Carver is held in higher regard than ever before. The Tuskegee Airmen have received a lot of media exposure recently. People are more aware than ever of the heinous tale of the taking of the land from the Indians and their plight today.

But does that mean the history being taught is "white bread"? Or only from the point of view of the whites? It kind of goes back to "what is history". Is history the tale of the rich and powerful? Is it the tale of the faceless masses? Is it the tale of nations? Classes? Races? Individuals?

To be sure, that is a legitimate question...but it is not something that should be changed because some individual or group of individuals feels disrespected. The history as presented is accurate in general terms. The events that shaped the world as we know it are covered and the subtexts are there for anyone who wants to research them.

It is perhaps an unfortunate truth but a truth nonetheless that until now in Western European history the movers and shakers have, with few exceptions, been white and male. Where an anomaly has occurred...Susan B. Anthony, George Washington Carver, Crazy Horse, Fidel Castro, Harriet Tubman, Mary Lincoln Todd...they are covered. Future history books will be different.

Names like Jackie Robinson, Benjamin Nighthorse Campbell, Hillary Clinton, Vine Deloria Jr., Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, and so forth will make more and more appearances as their impact becomes more and more relevant to the path of nations instead of to niche areas of interest.

No doubt some people will be very offended by that reference...but when the facts are faced, for major, history altering events the majority of U.S. history is fairly accurately presented.

As more and more specialized fields open up this will change. When I entered my final year at PSU there was no such field available...were I starting now I could specialize in Native American history. If I want to study more closely that field, I now have a better opportunity. But for those claiming American history is presented "only from the white point of view"...well...please try your call again later. History is presented and, overwhelmingly, happens to mostly be about white people. But it is changing. Recognize that and realize...sometimes the time and place for information to be disseminated varies. This is one of those times.