Opportunity Knocks

So ... Andrea Yates, who drowned her children one-by-one to save them from an imaginary boogieman (i.e. "the devil"), has been acquitted of murder and will instead be indefinitely stuck in a Texas loony bin at taxpayer expense. Never underestimate the hallowed position of superstition in this country.

Since, however, this is the USA -- the most litigious country in the world -- I see a potential lawsuit here that I'd file in a heartbeat if I knew how to do it. If there's a motivated lawyer out there, here's your chance to get famous.

Back in 1990, in the case of Berhanu vs. Metzger, a jury awarded $12.5 million to the family of an Ethiopian student killed by skinhead members of Tom Metzger's racist group White Aryan Resistance (WAR). Despite the fact that neither Metzger nor his son actually had any direct role in the killing, the Southern Poverty Law Center successfully convinced the jury that Metzger, who ran WAR and "trained" the skinheads in white supremacist thinking, was as responsible for the killings as the skinheads who actually committed the murder.

Now -- regardless of whether or not you accept the reasoning in this case, it has indeed established a legal precedent, and I propose that this precedent be extended to the case of Andrea Yates. She obviously didn't get this notion in her head that "Satan" was on the loose out of thin air. I'd bet everything I own that some individual or group of individuals in some whack-job fundamentalist church were responsible for brainwashing her to live in her own personal demon- and spirit-haunted world. I strongly suggest that based upon Berhanu vs. Metzger, these superstitious bozos ought to be hauled into court and forced to pay for their folly. At the very least they should pay court costs and whatever it costs to keep this whacko locked up.

Where's the SPLC or ACLU when we need them??

Ours Good - Theirs Bad

Did any of you see this little tidbit today? Seems with all the weighty problems in the world today, the House of Representatives couldn't find anything better to do than pass a bill that would, if passed by the Senate and upheld by the courts, "protect" the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance¹. Now, anyone who's been paying attention is probably aware that this is just another case of congressional wingnuts pandering to their christo-fascist base. However, I'm confused by something else.

These wingnuts are the same people who are so supportive of the "war" against Islamic extremism. They are willing to sacrifice many American lives and billions of stolen taxpayer dollars to fight an enemy made up of wild-eyed religious fanatics who will go to any lengths to spread their particular religious convictions around the world -- by any means necessary. This single-minded extremism is allegedly both evil and dangerous.

Yet, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) is quoted as saying:

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage, ... It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

Am I the only one who could just as easily picture some local mullah in Iraq or Afghanistan (we'll call him Ayatollah Assahola) saying the exact same thing to rally his mujahadeen??!!

Take a look at the people of the Middle East. They mostly speak Semitic languages. They all look pretty much alike. Their food is fairly similar. They all eschew pork, lop pieces off of their sons' willies with great fanfare, and prefer a form of music that sounds a whole lot like donkey opera to me. The main thing driving them to kill each other is ... drum roll please ... RELIGION.

The next time you're worried about dangerous religious fanatics in the Middle East, I hope you also remember that we have the same creatures running loose in the halls of power in Washington. They're just fanatical about a different "god".


1 - In case you didn't know, the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by an act of Congress. Supporters of the addition argued at the time that this declaration of religious conviction was necessary to differentiate us from the "atheistic communists". I'll bet you they didn't add "under God" to refer to Buddha or Shiva or Baal. They were referring to their Judeo-Christian, monotheistic magic man in the sky. Sounds like an endorsement of religion to me.

Now I Get It!

This could be one of the most insightful reviews of our taxpayer supported, government controlled school system that I've read in a long time.

It also goes a long way to explaining the frustration expressed in my last post. Enjoy.

What's Wrong With America

So old Shrub said "shit" to Tony Blair at lunch. This is newsworthy ??!!

Some days I'm convinced this country has its head so far up its ass that it'd take a good-sized crane to pull it out. Talk about having your priorities in order.

Shit ....

A Case For Non-Interventionism

In light of Israel's recent "offensive" against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinians, and anyone else they don't like, and in light of the above-mentioned organizations' endless war against Israel, I'd like to touch on two questions that keep popping up in my mind:

a. If a group of people move into your neighborhood and carve out a part your land, refuse to leave, and are so well-armed that you can't remove them, would you be angry?

b. If the offending group was continually funded and supported by an even richer and stronger group from across the state, would you be really angry?

These are questions I often think about because, as a Floridian, I've watched my beloved home state be raped and regulated by endless streams of damnyankees (yes, it's one word) over the course of my life. But at least there are Constitutional limits on what the damnyankees can do, and some of them even come to realize that turning Florida into Brooklyn-South really isn't the best course of action. Compared to the Israelis, the damnyankees are pikers.

Unfortunately, it seems to go against the grain of American thought to consider history when attempting to understand the present. So when you hear someone in the government or on talk radio defending Israel, keep a few historical facts in mind.

1. Before 1948, there was no Israel. Moreover, there hadn't been an Israel since well before the common era commenced.

2. Since a huge amount of time had elapsed between the end of the kingdoms of Israel and Juda and the birth of the modern state, a lot of non-Jewish people had moved into the lands of the former kingdoms, and they'd been there for a really long time.

3. Up until the Zionist movement started actively trying to export, smuggle and sneak Jews into British Palestine in the 20's, 30's & 40's, the Jewish population of Palestine was rather small (Don't believe me? Get yourself a copy of Golda Meir's My Life (1975)). In other words, there was a deliberate policy on the part of the Zionists to move as many Jews as possible to Palestine in order to outnumber the resident Palestinians and legitimize claims to a Jewish state.

4. The United States government, mostly due to political pressures at home, has always treated Israel as though it were the 51st state, which has certainly contributed to Arab resentment and hostility toward the US.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way saying that the situation in the Middle East is a simple black-and-white scenario, or that Israel is always wrong and the Arabs are always right. Unfortunately, the Arab world these days means the Islamic world, and Islam, coming from the same pot as Christianity, is a highly irrational, inherently violent religion. Any religion that claims to have all the answers plus a holy stamp of approval to evangelize is inherently violent. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is, and if that offends your Christian sensibilities I invite you to study the long and violent history of Christianity. But getting back to the point, It is understandable why the Arab world hates us, and it is understandable why our support of Israel has contributed to that hatred. I'm not saying that blowing up buildings and committing endless acts of terrorism are justifiable, but given the current situation I do understand where these fanatics are coming from. In other words, if the US hadn't been meddling in Middle Eastern politics for the past 60+ years, I suspect that while they may still find us morally offensive to their Islamic sensibilities, I doubt they'd be giving their lives to blow us up. Call it a hunch.

But my real point here is that I fail to see how the United States benefits from getting involved in these sorts of conflicts. In fact, I found myself re-reading Washington's Farewell Address to Congress in 1796, and I was particularly taken in by the following statement:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

If you take the time to read this in context, the argument he makes is that we, as the United States, must consider the preservation of our own liberties above the best interests of other nations. Hence, while there may be a reason to construct temporary alliances with other nations, as a general rule we should avoid long-term, entangling alliances that serve the interest of others better than our own.

The modern extension of this mindset is known as "non-interventionism". Not practical in this day and age, I hear you ask? Just for giggles, take a look at this 2001 article from Charles Peña. While it's often easy to play Monday morning quarterback, it's also fun (at least for me) to see how thoughtful people can often predict the future of government policy based upon history. What's sad is that the overwhelming majority of policymakers fail to learn this skill, or assume that this time things will be different.

Just in case you're wondering who I'm pulling for to "win" in the seemingly endless Israeli-Arab conflict, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't care. I don't see any significant moral superiority between a Jewish-Socialist state and a collection of Islamofascist states. Their values and systems are anathema to the American Constitution and system of government. I am convinced, however, that the only way for the US to "win" in the Middle East is to disengage itself politically and financially from the region.

As Thomas Jefferson, my all-time favorite democrat (who would be doing 8000 rpm in his grave if he could see what the modern Democratic Party has become) said in his first inaugural address:

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..."

It may not result in world peace (as if anything would do that), but it sure as hell would keep more dollars in American citizens' pockets, and it would keep American soldiers at home.

You Gotta Wonder

Welcome to today's episode of:

What F#$&*%! Planet Is This Person On???

I really like the folks at EvolveFISH.com. They sell a wide range of humanist stuff, including some really cool bumper stickers, pins and t-shirts that really send the christo-fascists into a first-class, eyeball-popping, rectum-contracting tizzy. Even much of their anti-Bush, anti-capitalist stuff is amusing. But while looking through new products last night, I found this description of a bumper sticker praising Venezuela's soon-to-be president-for-life, Hugo Chavez:

Viva Chavez! Viva Venezuela! sticker.
With 10 landslide election victories behind him, President Hugo Chavez is using Venezuela's oil revenues to liberate the poor - building schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure, housing and food programs. No wonder Dick Cheney is planning another attempt to assassinate him....Premium quality, political anti-Bush liberal sticker¹.

It's not so much the fact that whomever wrote this likes what old Hugo is doing: they're certainly entitled to their opinion, and as far as I can tell Venezuela wouldn't stop them from going on down and joining the "revolution". I'll even, for the sake of brevity, grant the author the claim that Chavez has 10 legitimate landslide victories to his credit (although I find that a hard one to swallow -- it's virtually impossible in any truly free electoral system to be elected leader of your country 10 times in a row). But what really got to me was the phrase "liberate the poor". I may be the last of a dying breed, but this quasi-moralistic assertion that socialism is somehow noble because of it's concern for the poor (and also immune to critique for its heavy-handed, oppressive methods) really must be challenged.

I say this for a simple reason: redistributing income NEVER ends poverty. If it did, the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, a whole host of African countries, India, and our very own United States of America would be bursting at the seams with people who had lost the ability to comprehend the meaning of "poor". It may temporarily alleviate the poverty of certain individuals at the expense of other individuals, but it's not a viable long term solution, because at some point there just isn't enough wealth to confiscate and redistribute (we won't even get into internal corruption). Moreover, if I'm a wealthy person and can read the handwriting on the wall, I do have the means to split -- and take my means with me. Venezuela's oil wealth may mask the problem for a while, but unless Chavez has a sound, wealth-producing economy to loot, the party will be over sooner or later. History is replete with examples of socialism failing - again and again - precisely because you can't redistribute wealth that doesn't exist. Whether it's a complete and total economic collapse or just a slow death like Germany is going through lately, socialism only works if there's a productive, wealth-producing group of people who can be continually bled to support the parasites. Too many parasites kill a host.

But what really blows my mind is that there is a hard-core group of Marxists (or neo-Marxists) out there who are just completely blind to at least 100 years of evidence showing this to be true time and again. It's almost as though their hatred of capitalism, achievement and markets (or their inability to succeed in free society) compels them to advocate economic policies that most harm the group they claim to care so much about (i.e. "the poor".)

Now if you really care about the poor, what you want them to have the following:

1. A governmental system where the rule of law is established and upheld
2. Private ownership and control of capital
3. Individual ownership of the fruits of one's labor
4. Free and open markets
5. The incentive of accumulated wealth to drive people to succeed

This has also been shown to work time and again. Look at how capitalism and markets have economically invigorated Asia. Nowadays, even Communist China is lifting people out of poverty, and it's not by government decree. Granted, everyone isn't getting rich at the same rate, but it's a hell of an improvement over the pre-WWII conditions in those countries where virtually everyone was equally destitute.

In other words, while no economic system is without its inherent problems, capitalism has a far better track record of creating more wealth for more individuals (and that includes formerly poor people moving up into the middle class and beyond) than ANY other system in human history.

I'd much rather be liberated from an oppressive government and take my chances on my own in a free-market economy than rely on my president to save me. And quite honestly, that applies to George Bush as much as it does to Hugo Chavez .....

Viva libertad! Viva capitalismo!

(1) Footnote: I always hear demopublicans accusing the republicrats of being "mean spirited". While I find the whole debate about "meanness" more suitable to a Sunday school class than politics, I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that even old Shotgun Dickey would organize the assassination of a foreign head of state for "building schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure, housing and food programs". In fact, it strikes me as a rather "mean", ad hominem attack.

Random Thoughts about the World Cup

Now that we're down to the last 2 games this weekend, I feel the need to share a few random thoughts about the World Cup.

* I'm sick of hearing Americans complain that soccer is low-scoring, especially if they like baseball. At least soccer players have to run for 90 minutes (i.e. they are athletes, not "players"), the ball is always in motion, and there's always some sort of action taking place on the field. Granted you may argue that watching a pitcher scratch his nuts and spit is action too .... but the other guys on the field are just standing around, and the whole rest of the batting team is sitting on the bench. Plus, ragging on soccer for being low-scoring is really just a confession that your attention span is too short to appreciate a game that ebbs and flows. This is why I prefer watching the post game show on one of the Mexican channels. They show good plays, close calls, good tries, etc. The American post-game show only replays the ball going into the net, then immediately cuts back to the collection of has-been lobotomies they have sitting in the studio for commentary.

* While I'm glad that ABC/ESPN have broadcast the games live, I can't watch them with the sound on. Why do American announcers have to constantly try to add human drama to everything? Can't we just watch the friggin' game? I don't give a rat's rear end why a player has a scar on his cheek, or how much a team manager weighed before his sex change, or what the streets of Rome will look like if Italy wins the title. Mostly though, I hate these melodramatic, rhetorical questions like "Will this be the last game for Zidane, or will Portugal score in the last two minutes?"

* Speaking of annoying announcers, what mental giant at ABC/ESPN decided to make Brent Musberger the anchor-twit for the World Cup broadcasts??!! Aside from being able to dredge up sports homilies ad nauseam, this guy is a moron. I especially liked it yesterday when he said that the Berlin Wall was still standing when Germany won its first World Cup in 1954. News flash, skeeziks! The Berlin Wall was built in 1961. You're now officially proven that you're not only an annoying sports commentator, but also ignorant of history.

* Pop-ups. I hate'm on the net, and I hate'm when I'm watching soccer. ABC is really bad about this. A player takes off down the wing on the attack, and suddenly I can't see the action because we have to put up a graphic telling us how to vote for the man of the match or what the next game will be. The same goes for in-game replays. Save this crap for after the game.

* Am I the only one who finds the need to put a spinning globe graphic up on the screen, highlight the country, and then give five fast facts about it a sad testimonial to American geographical ignorance?

* And speaking of ignorance, what is so friggin' hard about using the adjectival form of a country's name? It's bad enough that sports announcers make up silly-sounding words that never used to exist (like "audibilize" for "to call an audible"), and I can almost (but not quite) get used to the fact that these junior high dropouts can't be bothered to use adverbs ("he fell really awkward on his shoulder"), but saying that "... this Ghana team is the darling of the tournament ..." is too much. Earth to retards!! It's just not that hard: Ghana - Ghanaian, Italy - Italian, Japan - Japanese. Jesus tapdancing christ!

* I am really enjoying watching the DFB eat crow. After all the crap they threw at Klinsmann leading up to this Cup, it was really gratifying listening to them last night singing praises to his name and beseeching him to come back for Euro 2008. I wish Germany would have won the Cup just so he could have brought them back to total glory. Then, at his post-game news conference, he could have greeted the press and the DFB with Helmut Schmidt's famous quote from '82: "Baut Euere Scheiße selber!" I will be happy if he sticks around, however.

* Message to FIFA: if you're going to hand out cards every time a player so much as sneezes wrong, do something about this "2 accumulated yellow cards and you miss the next game" nonsense. We watch the Cup because we want to see the players decide the game, not the refs.

* Message to the divers: your odds of scoring increase significantly if you spend more time on your feet trying to propel the ball into the net and less time flopping around on the turf like a spastic trout.

* Message to the US Soccer Federation: we ain't there yet! Moreover, we'll never get there playing the kind of disorganized kickball we played in Germany. We need to hire a new national team coach -- preferably a Dutch tactician like Dick Advokaat or Guus Hiddinck -- to teach our guys how to play a smart, controlled, disciplined game. Unfortunately, those are qualities that most Americans resent ....

* My prediction for Sunday: Italy 2, France 0. My fondest hope: Italy 6, France 0. As my hero Al Bundy proclaimed as he came down from the mountain after meeting Ironhead Haynes: "It is wrong to be French!"