Sunday, December 31, 2006

Amen...

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, journalists sought someone to blame. They, predictably, found President George Bush was the best scapegoat. But in lashing out, yet again, at their favorite source of all discontent, they missed a bigger target. If anyone “out there” is to be blamed, it is the large, remote, centralized federal government which has become a surrogate father to so many millions of Americans.

Over the decades, we have ceded power, authority and responsibility to the federal government far beyond anything envisioned or desired by our founders. As a result, instead relying on our own intelligence, resources and ability to work with others in our communities to solve problems, we have turned to Washington D.C..

This is not a matter of ‘blaming the victim’, because the victim has become so immersed in this twisted view of human life that he cannot see what has happened. The federal government’s dehumanizing effect has torn up neighborhoods, torn apart families and turned brave, capable people into compliant recipients of redistributed wealth.

The problem is that the morsels of that wealth never provide enough to do anything other than keep folks in a perpetual state of dependence upon the State. Even if those morsels became chunks big enough to choke a horse, the dependency would remain. The federal government has become not only the safety net, it is everything from the crib blanket to the casket lining.

The danger of centralized government control is not that it robs a few dollars from rich people and gives them to the poor. It’s not even that such a bureaucratic behemoth spawns the waste of billions of dollars. After all, it’s just money.

No, the threat of this system is that it strips a man of what makes him a man, and turns him away from his inner resources, or the inclination to partner with neighbors to solve problems. It humiliates him, blinds him and ultimately cripples him.

Of course, when a government-built levee bursts, and a government-subsidized house is immersed, the natural, reasonable reaction of the displaced person is to turn to the government; both to blame for the disaster and to petition for relief. Many of the homes that were destroyed belonged to middle- and upper-class citizens as well, and yet still somehow even some of those people turned toward Washington to vent anger and cry out for restoration.

Sadly, the story that rarely gets told are the daily acts of bravery, fortitude and cooperation in dozens of communities where people — often through the agency of local churches — have pulled together in reliance upon each other and in a shared dependence upon superintending grace. Work crews that report to no one in Washington have poured into the region to cart off debris and help lay the foundations for a better future. Against all odds, many of the washed-out residents have worked long hours, endured separation from family and almost-overwhelming hardship in order to rebuild what the waters ravaged. These people are beyond number, and below the media radar.

Journalists, by habit, prefer stories they can receive from the tip of a spoon held by an “expert” or official. They, too, have turned to big government and have become dependent upon her for their sustenance. What most Americans know of the situation in the hurricane zone is only what TV or other news sources tell them. Most of that information comes from “authorities” in the government. The reporters have told us that the real story is all about the government’s response. They have largely ignored the responsible activities of thousands of unseen hands restoring towns, parks, homes and lives.

Success stories are buried. Tragedy is blared from the housetops. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that further deepens dependence upon the government, and further strips the dignity of the person.

The victims of Katrina are not really the victims of Katrina herself. The tragedy began long before the hurricane hit.

Natural disasters have always happened and always will. While, mercifully, they don’t occur every day in every place, they are common enough that we ought to have an expectation that bad things can and will happen. We need to cultivate the inner resources in ourselves, our children and our neighborhoods to cope with the inevitable. When we cede that power and responsibility to the federal government, we surrender a part of what makes us human and leave ourselves more vulnerable to the tempest.

Whether you believe in God or not, you have surely experienced how the human soul sings when we gather in chorus to accomplish a great purpose in the midst of tragedy. It’s as if we were designed to work together with our family, friends and neighbors. There is a blessing in it that exceeds the penalty of the curse.

When my own community was hit by flooding some years ago, people stepped off their porches, shouldered sandbags, delivered meals, took in the homeless, wielded shovels against the muck, and generally helped each other in the task of restoration. As awful as that flood was, I will always remember it fondly, not for the harm it did to us and to our property, but for the good it did in us and in our community.

Our state-run schools and spoon-fed media have conditioned us to look to government. They’ve also trained us to take offense at any expression of love that doesn’t result in government intervention and redistribution of taxpayer dollars. ‘Compassion’ has been redefined as ‘entitlement’ and thus stripped of its power and utility.

The devastating impact of this mindset is the apparent withering of the individual spirit and of community cooperation which have been the hallmarks of this great nation.

But all is not yet lost, and perhaps not so much is lost as we have been led to believe.

Since what we know about America flows mostly from the media, we can be certain that most of what we know is just plain wrong, or at least atypical. My old journalism professor used to say, ‘News is coups, earthquakes and three-legged chickens.’

In other words, Walter Cronkite was exactly wrong to say ‘That’s the way it is.’ Journalists don’t report the truth about life. They are carnival barkers selling the unusual, the atypical, the freaks. And we continue to reward them for doing so.

The actual truth about life in our great Republic is quite different from the daily portrayals in the media.

Everywhere in this God-blessed America covert radicals roam, committing seemingly-random acts of kindness — unmonitored, untallied, uncontrolled, unshackled from the federal government. It is, in effect, a shadow government that we have set up for ourselves to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

This decentralized movement of men and women accomplishes most of the great work of charity, compassion and community building. Their individual efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of government largess, but in the aggregate and ultimate their service far exceeds anything that government can deliver.

In fact, the vast majority of Americans behave as if the federal government did not exist in their day-to-day lives. This underground movement is entirely healthy and necessary for the maintenance of our Republic and for our pursuit of happiness.

We don’t have time to blame anyone for our misfortunes. We’re too busy working to overcome them. We don’t have faith in some distant bureaucrat, rather we turn to the resources that God has placed near at hand. We lean on our brothers. Many of us call on our Father in our time of need, and He sends our neighbors who love us more than we love ourselves. Later, we will turn to our helpers when they need us and repay the debt, only to learn that no debt existed because acts of compassion shower blessings on giver and receiver alike.

We find these local (and spiritual) solutions not only adequate, but invigorating and inspiring because it is only when we are pressed hard by life that we discover there is more life in us, among us and beyond us than we had imagined in carefree hours.

Scott Ott, editor

Saturday, December 02, 2006

You hear that?

It's the sound of silence regarding the recent attacks by the French military (an oxymoron) on rebels in the quiet, quaint little village of Ouadda in Central African Republic. How do we really know only "rebels" were killed?

Could the rebels be "freedom-fighters"?

An occupation?
France recently added 100 troops to its 200 soldiers in Central African Republic to aid the government in countering the rebellion and to help secure borders with Chad and Sudan, both wracked by internal conflict.
I don't recall the French passing this action by the UN Security Council because, after all, Central African Republic is a sovereign country.

Not a big deal to me really, just mocking the hypocrisy. You see France can kick around the small guys, but they're not stepping up in Lebanon, Afghanistan (yeah I know they're "there" but they're not really engaged in the hot zone) or Sudan where they could really use some firepower to take down the thugs that are raping, killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of folks just trying to live.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Reno Gambles

Feeling like she's been out of the limelight for too long, Civil Rights violator and US Constitution trampler, Janet Reno, has decided to take on the US Government. Having squashed, murdered and intimidated families in Idaho, religious groups in Texas and small children (a particular Cuban refugee comes to mind) in Florida, Reno has set her sights on non-Americans--giving them rights she never gave the folks in Idaho, Texas and Florida -- a fair hearing/trial.

Suddenly, courageously, Ms Reno has decided that the rights of NON-AMERICANS/alleged terrorists are supreme. There's a few Americans (mothers, children, fathers) lying in graves that may take issue with her supposed new-found concern for the Constitution.

Let's hope the gov't doesn't come out like the others who have been in Reno's crosshairs.

What It Is Ain't Exactly Clear....

The media has an interesting double standard, which in fact, points out their bias and probably underlying racism or at the very least elitism.

When news items relating to men on planes "acting strangely", removed and questioned, they have no problem stating the origin or ethnicity of the men involved --Middle Eastern-- which is code for Arab.

But when a black or Hispanic (not Asian) is possibly involved in an alleged incident or crime, the media go out of their way to avoid ANY reference to race or ethnicity. When a few houses were broken into in a nearby neighborhood, the Evening News told us everything about the man (5'7, brown hair) but the detail that would be helpful--are we looking for a brown, black or Asian looking person? He obviously wasn't a Caucasoid: I've noticed they don't have an issue pointing out the race of white perpetrators.

It seems to me that the News folks don't see other races as people, equal --they deny the existence of race by not looking at it-- "we must not point out their racial makeup" because in doing so, we are being racist. But by not, aren't they in fact being what they think they are not--pretending to not see the obvious and going out of the way to avoid it?

Messed up.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Liberated?

BOO!

Update: Women are Just Meat...and That's the Problem...

The leader of 2000 rapes in Sydney’s southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years’ jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said:

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?”

“The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The sheik then said:

“If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.

“It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa).”

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Liberated Women?


My 2 year old neice was at Disneyland/Epcot Center a few months ago and encountered a veiled woman. How my neice knew it was a woman, I do not know. But she was intrigued and kept staring at her, gigling. Finally she said "she's hiding" as though my neice was "in" on the game. I agree, any woman who veils in this manner IS hiding. PERIOD. They are not free to be human, but are only specters of the Islamic male ego and a reflection of his weakness.


Friday, September 15, 2006

RIP: Oriana Fallaci

One of my favorites has passed. Freedom fighter. Rebel. Truth-seeker. Truth-sayer. Non-believer. Believer. Passionate. Passionate. Passionate.
"People like me who have passion are derided: 'Ha ha ha! She's hysterical!' 'She's very passionate!' Listen how the Americans speak about me: 'A very passionate Italian.'"


"There are moments in Life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking an obligation. A civic duty, a moral challenge, a categorical imperative from which we cannot escape."
She could not be silenced. Will not be silent. Even in death.

Update: In memorium. A friend remembers.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

That's RICH, I've gotta tell ya...

Truly. Madly. Despicable.
"Yesterday, Slate posted this piece criticizing Frank Rich's New York Times column about the 9/11 photo shown here. The picture was taken by Magnum photographer Thomas Hoepker on the afternoon of 9/11. Calling the image "shocking," Rich suggested that the five New Yorkers were "relaxing" and were already "mov[ing] on" from the attacks..."

Read the letter from one of the individuals actually IN the image: http://www.slate.com/id/2149578/

Update: Hitchens takes down Rich in another article: http://www.slate.com/id/2149377/?nav=tap3

Monday, September 11, 2006

Friday, September 08, 2006

Path to Idiocy?

I'm frightened. Really I am. The Dem leaders are railing against the as-yet-to-be-aired Path to 9-11 film that few have seen (at this writing, it's still in editing) and asking for it to be removed. They've started a hostile counter campaign to the film's promotion and have created fake websites to capture eyes interested in the film and to exert their denouncement of Path to 9-11 on the inquisitive visitor. (case in point: www.pathto911.com)

It's o.k. to complain. That's not what I take issue with. It's that if the Dems are complaining about something that someone else told them is bad, what does that say about their governing? Someone says "hey, this makes you look bad, I've 'heard' it's inaccurate, etc" and they go off half-cocked w/o pausing to review, research and investigate the facts FIRST...

This does not bode well for the loyal opposition. It's actually quite frightening--it also explains a lot of their Iraq complaints since 2003--bascially that they were duped and/or didn't READ/INVESTIGATE pre-war assessments, rather they went forward with what someone else told them and that was good enough for them, for the country.

So basically, they're completely stupid because someone pulled the wool over their eyes (Bushco) or they're completely incompetant because they don't bother to research the facts for themselves.

Geez. Shouldn't we get more out of our leaders than this? Shouldn't they be serving the public in a much more meaningful way?

What's more, they seem to think we're not grown up enough to discern the "truth" and now want to censor...in the name of what?
9-11 reset the clock for me and many others-- we grew up and certainly I started paying much more attention. We've already bared witness to the horrible events of 9-11, I think we can handle a little made-up drama.

Doesn't this frighten you? It should.


POSTSCRIPT: If the Dems or Repubs for that matter don't like the docudrama they can go out and spend money and creative resources and make their own.

POSTSCRIPT 2: Comparisons to the Reagan docudrama brouhaha don't hold water --that was a drama about people, the Reagans. The Path to 9-11 is about events leading up to the attack based on the 9-11 Commission Report--it's not about Clinton, it's not about Albright, it's not about Bush --though I suspect that there'd be not a whimper if it was...

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
- Robert Francis Kennedy

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

STAR 69 Selected for Los Angeles International Short Film Festival

STAR 69

When a man receives a disturbing call from a woman in trouble, his attempts to reconnect lead to a surreal conversation with someone else entirely, the tragic figure at the heart of the trouble.

Director / Producer / Writer: Victor Bornia

Film will premiere Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 8:00p.m. See you there!

CHECK OUT THE FILM HERE

ORDER TIX HERE

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

It Takes a Village

Ever notice the war reporting language from the BBC, CNN and Fox re: Hezbollah/Israel? E.g. when Israel was bombed by Katyusha rockets it was "town or city hit" (insert name of town) but when Lebanon/Hezbollah was hit they are "villages".

When Israelis are victims they say "Israeli soldier or Israeli woman or Israeli casualities", but when Lebanon has victims they're all "civilians" and "all women and children" -- where are all the men? All the soldiers and who is firing the rockets?

When you get the visual on the destruction, you see rubble, everywhere in southern Lebanon and see little in Israel. Israel sends its citizens into bunkers and Hezbollah sends their citizens...well, they're compatriots to...buildings.

I get the feeling one side wants to be viewed as victim and victor simultaneously and the other just wants to be left alone, to live.


Monday, July 24, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth About An Inconvenient Truth

Box office sales slump, studio cutbacks in staff and number of films produced each year, high tix costs for moviegoers --all due in great part to a decrease in movie-going, and yet...

If things are so dire with the environment as touted in the film and all the promotion surrounding it (according to the film, we only have 10 years left), why did they release the film theatrically? If the environment really needs help and we the citizens must act, why not buy some broadcast time on network TV (not cable) and inform the public in a much larger way --in a way that doesn't require the public to dish out $10+ a person to view how we're all doomed and killing the planet in the process.

And, why not make the film available on-line for free--now? If the world is in deep do-do, why not do everything possible to get the word out so people can do something? Doesn't Al Gore have an Internet/Cable channel?
"With wit, smarts and hope, An Inconvenient Truth ultimately brings home Gore’s persuasive argument that we can no longer afford to view global warming as a political issue – rather, it is the biggest moral challenge facing our global civilization."
Why make, what is touted, the most important issue of our time a THEATRICAL event and charge people to see it? If it is the biggest "moral challenge facing our global civ", why is it that morality is left on the doorstep as soon as profits and awards come into play? It makes you wonder if they think we're either too far gone and there's really no need or it's all a big show.

[Here's some inconvenient facts to ponder if you're so inclined: www.iceagenow.com and an interesting article from 1974 Time mag article: http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html]

Friday, July 21, 2006

This is Going to Hurt Me More Than it Will Hurt You

Proclaimed my dad just prior to him doling out a whoopin'. The statement was blatantly absurd in my estimation, but it was meant to convey to me the sense of conscious that my dad had regarding the situation i.e. punishment is not easy or pleasant for the giver or the receiver, but it is necessary in order to achieve a desired future outcome of acceptable behavior.

It’s a concept I don’t think a good friend of mine has encountered or pondered. An Adjunct Professor of Law at a university in northern Cal, my lawyer friend recently discussed his grading system for his students’ final exam. The students’ grades ranged from As to Ds, but he proudly pronounced “I did not give anyone a ‘D’ and passed everyone.” I asked him why and to this he answered “I can’t fail a student.” I repeated his words back to him “You can’t fail a student? YOU didn’t ‘fail’ the student, the student failed.” He said that to him, it just wasn’t right to fail a student.

So, I asked him what the client of the failing students’ law services will receive when they need his "expertise" or worse, have a lawsuit. Rather than getting a passing student, they’ll get a student who shouldn’t have passed, but because the professor doesn’t believe in failing students the client and ultimately, society suffers and fails. He understood, but to him it was a matter of principle.

What if this was the standard for professors of medical students? What if it is?

I understand now, and have for many years, the right-ness of my dad’s “this will hurt me more…” statements. Because it really does. It’s not easy being the guy who must adhere to and uphold standards and proffer punishment when it would be much easier to give a pass or passing grade.

But whom does this ultimately help? In my case, having me and my ol’ man suffer in the short term benefited me in the long run. In the law students’ case the pass doesn’t help him/her, doesn’t help his clients, doesn’t help society and diminshes the standard of civilization to its lowest common denominator.

All because the Professor has decided his principled decision is based on him not wanting to feel bad.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Only for Others, Not for Thee




















Photo by D.K.

"What about the Americans?!!!"

Screamed the Israeli/Lebanese victims as rockets and bombs exploded all around them...

NOT!

While interviewing a soon-to-be-evacuee about the situation, the reporter was so frustrated that the evacuee had little to say and thus created no news. You could feel the reporter trying to puuuuuuull the feelings out of the man as he asked “How do you feel? What do you think of the evacuation plan? Are you frustrated? You’re scared, right?” Basically, give me something!!! Complain!!!

And there were complaints from evacuees that were safely ashore after a 16-hour sea crossing. Happy they were out of the war zone? You wouldn’t know it from the press conference given by the evacuees. Yes. A press conference in which one of the patriarchs (isn’t there always a group spokesman?) complained about the length of the trip:

“It should have only taken 5 hours but instead took 16 and there were no conveniences! No services! We had to sleep on the floor like freight!"

Heaven forbid! I say, get your arse back to Lebanon then you SOB and see how lack of services and sleeping on the floor works out for you there.

Geez. Humans. It makes you want the big guy in the sky to smack ‘em down sometimes.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

I'll Have a White Russian


Says Russian diplomat today in response to Israeli/Hezbollah/Hamas gettin' it on: "It's not appropriate to kill civilians while rescuing hostages." Cue the civilians in the Russian Theatre and the civilian children screaming in Beslan...

Just dripping with condescension...

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Capital Crime

Big crime in DC. Homocides increasing. Tourists robbed at gunpoint. Rapes on the rise. WHAAAAT???? They stripped DC residents of their Constitutional right to bear arms (2nd Amendment folks) and yet... people are getting killed and robbed with forbidden weapons? No. Can't be.

What's the dealio DC?

Standard Deviation

Much ado about the Geneva Convention(s) being applied to the Gitmo guys as though these "sanctified conventions" reflect a moral standard that exceeds that of the U.S.

This entire obsession with so-called (alleged) torture (let's be real about this) at Gitmo is a reflection of a much reclined, soft, self-absorbed, wealthy peoples who have way too much time on their hands and not enough real life experience and encounters with not-so-nice people to know what torture is. (And doesn't it really come down to what "is" is?)

In America, you can be slapped and slandered with sexual harassment charges if you put your hand on the shoulder of a female/male employee or merely touch their arm. Most likely, there's nothing sexual or harassing about it, but NO TOUCHING ALLOWED (let's not EVEN broach the subject of "verbal abuse/harassment"). Now, does that reflect the "truth" of the matter-- real harassment? Likely not. But that's where we are now. A standard in which all degrees become a baseline zero sum.

UN STANDARD
Same is true with the "United" Nations as though the standard of morality, fairness, legality, humanity and so forth emanates from this hallowed body.

Sure... Few words for ya: Rwanda, Zimbabwe, China (Tibet), Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Pakistan, Israel (Palestine), Congo, East Timor, Iraq and on and on and on. Does the US want these countries to determine a moral "standard" that all should follow and should the US be obliged to adhere?

The UN serves a purpose, but let's get serious about what that purpose is and how ineffective they really are as a world "body" in matters that require a serious approach, action and follow-through, not a bunch of hollow threats in the form of strongly worded memos, declarations and "resolutions" that don't "resolve" anything.

It's so much easier to point the finger at good ol' USA for a number of reasons:
1: We're an easy, soft target and have tremendous achievers-guilt/shame PLUS we think we're better than everyone and therefore should be held to different standards than the dictators and fascists that make up a healthy % of the world body
2: If the US obliges the UN body, which it often does, it reflects well on the UN--they feel powerful and effective--they've slapped down the Giant, it seems like they're actually accomplishing something and worth the $billions poured into the UN each year
3: No repercussions for criticizing the US; the US wants the love, needs the approval (the US a country of sycophants)
4: Focus on the easy trumped-up issues; making them the central problem diverts attention from really dire situations that require fast, efficient action and results (Congo, Rwanda, Sudan)
Fixating on America is like fixating on celebrity. It's shallow and superficial and accomplishes nothing, especially when there are much more important issues at hand. America has its problems, no doubt. But putting so much focus on America's shortcomings shortchanges those countries and the people therein that really need some attention and action paid to them.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

"LIVING" TAX?

Former prez Clinton recently said:
Clinton said it is "unconscionable" that the United States has not toughened car emission standards, and he objected to the president's efforts to permanently repeal the estate tax. An estate tax on the richest one percent of Americans could raise $25 million to $40 million a year, enough to wipeout extreme poverty around the globe in a decade. [ME: not if the gov't has a hand in it AND this is a bold-face LIE designed to make you feel good about being taxed.]

Clinton noted he is one of those rich Americans and that taxes are in some respect a duty.

"I think it's the price of civilization," Clinton said.
What's wrong with that? This: e.g. Billions poured in to Katrina aide and BILLIONS were squandered. The gov't is LOUSY at managing and accounting for citizen's money. And, it IS our money, no matter what the tax-believers-nanny-staters think.

Warren Buffett gives the bulk of his wealth to Bill Gates' non-profit foundation. The U.S. gov't has MANY many programs designed to help people in the areas that Gates' foundation focuses on such as education and health (medical research), yet instead of giving the dough to the feds, he gave it to the head of one of the world's most profitable, well-run/organized, accountable, forward-thinking, industry-leading companies.

Apparently, Buffett and Gates think THEY can do more with THEIR money to help civilization than the gov't can. I agree. Let's see what Clinton does with HIS estate.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Quiz: Where you at?

NO matter how many times I take a "QUIZ" to determine my political leanings, I always come out a Libertarian. I sure wish the Libs had good candidates.

When I was in college one of the pins affixed to my backpack was "Question Authority" (I still have the pin, though rusted and worn). I wonder who is the "authority" now?

Friday, May 26, 2006

My Kind of Progressives

[Excerpted] We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11 2001 were America's deserved comeuppance, or 'understandable' in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted – rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi 'insurgency'. The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.

Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. 'Anti-Zionism' has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other 'polite' and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics - remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry.

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of 'rendition', must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.

Read it all...

Friday, April 28, 2006

Do You...YOU...Feel Like I Do...

Pete Frampton. 70s. "must'uv been a dream, I don't believe where I've been...c'mon lets do it again..."

My cousin Bonnie (who looked like the daughter of Rachel Welch and Faye Dunaway -- a complete knockout, who looks now like she's been knocked-out a few times) was a Pete Frampton fan. In fact, it was her Frampton Comes Alive album that I played over and over again on my record player. She brought the album with her when she stayed with us one summer. She left and the album became mine, along with Alice Cooper's "Welcome to My Nightmare". My favorite: Cold Ethel. I
later learned that Cold Ethel was about, well, necrophilia. But what did I know? I was a kid. Same thing with "Puff the Magic Dragon" one of my favorites as a child, only to learn as an adult that it was a tribute to weed. All I know is that I liked dragons. They were neat. They could fly, had talons and blew fire. Pretty cool. I knew nothing of "weed", only that it "is a plant whose virtue has not yet been discovered" (so says Emerson).

But lately, I wonder if I'm alone in how I feel...are folks tired of the anger, having to choose sides, trying to figure out what's right, what's wrong, what's not, what is? And I think back on simpler times, at least they were simple for me, as a kid, growing up in the 70s. And even though there was a war raging on the other side of the world, all I knew was music and friends and family and kickball and long summers and cool nights that seemed to last forever and life seemed, well, quite clear...

Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

-Bob Dylan

IF...

If we rushed to war in Iraq (18 months), did we rush to war in Afghanistan (1 month)?

If there is genocide in Sudan (blacks, Christians), was there genocide in Iraq (Kurds, Shiite)?

If it is o.k. to do something i.e. exert force in Sudan to stop genocide, was it o.k. to stop genocide in Iraq (Kurds, Shiite)?

If it was o.k. to stop the killing and mass graves in Kosovo, was it o.k. to stop the killing and mass graves in Iraq?

If it was o.k. to go to Afghanistan with no threat of WMD should we not go into Iraq with a threat of WMD?

If there are too many troops dying in Iraq, what is the acceptable amount of troop causalities while engaged in conflict?

If the coalition, especially U.S., troops leave Iraq, will the killing stop?

If we should withdrawal troops from Iraq (150,000), should we withdrawal troops from Kosovo (1,500), Japan (35,000), Korea (33,000), Europe (100,000) and other places around the globe?

If colonialism in Africa was/ is bad and oppressive, what is civil war, despotism, genocide, famine, disease, mass rapes, etc?

If American imperialism is bad, is American money and aide good?

CAMERA IN HAND, READY TO “ACT”

The past 6 years feels like one big long whine-- a lot of wind pushing dirt around and not going anywhere. One event after another seems to fill the sky with dust clouds, resulting in inaction and an inability to see clearly.

Now, George Clooney and dad are promoting the Darfur situation as is Angelina Jolie et al. And yet, we've had the knowledge that genocide was occuring in Sudan for years, only to twiddle our thumbs and sit by idly expecting OTHERS to step in and do something while we complain about how BAD things are here in good ‘ol USA-- griping about the war, WMDs, George Bush, Karl Rove, DeLay, Hillara, Leaks, Dems, Repubs, etc. A tremendous amount of energy put to waste instead of to good use.

Something about George walking around with a mike and camera just put me off. His tourist approach to the situation made my stomach churn—it felt too smug, too comfortable, too much like “I’m DOING something. Let ME inform YOU because I’ll sure be the better for it…” (It's unclear how Darfur will be the better for it.)

Will Darfur get better now that we SEE, thanks to George and company? Will we, after years of mass killing, look back via first-hand survivor accounts, books, documentaries and films (money-making enterprises) on the tragedy of it all and say “we should have done something” like we did with Rwanda? Is this our way of appeasing and congratulating ourselves at the same time for NOTICING even though we refuse to speak the truth of what action must be taken?

Would George Clooney go to a car wreck with mike and camera in hand asking the victims what they thought, how they felt, etc? I should hope not. One would hope he’d call for help, maybe administer first aide, put out the fire, etc. Darfur is a burning car with men, women and children inside and bringing attention will not save those people, DOING something will.

I'm not picking on George. He appears to be sincere. But how many deaths must occur before we stop talking and start doing? Time for action. Do what was not done in Rwanda. Put down the cameras. Bring in the troops.
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Clean Air Calabasas: A smoke-free, family-friendly atmosphere of moralistic intolerance

An article on more busy-bodies working to eliminate our freedoms. Excerpt:

The city council, which unanimously approved the ordinance last month and has started calling the Los Angeles suburb "Clean Air Calabasas, a Smoke-Free City," predicts the state government (which already prohibits smoking in indoor workplaces) will follow its example. If so, judging from the history of smoking bans, Calabasas-style restrictions eventually will move from California to the rest of the country. Before that happens, Americans should consider whether they really want to embrace the Calabasas spirit of moralistic intolerance masquerading as "public health."

Tellingly, a provision that would have permitted outdoor smoking in the presence of nonsmokers with their consent was removed from the final version of the Calabasas ban. So if you're in some deserted part of the city in the middle of the night with a friend who smokes, he is allowed to light up only if you do too.

If he lights up and you don't like it, you can file a complaint with the city, which can charge your friend with a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to six months. You also can sue him, seeking compensation for injuries inflicted by his tobacco smoke or statutory damages of $250 for each violation, plus attorneys' fees and court costs.

If you can show your friend was guilty of "oppression, fraud, malice, or conscious disregard for the public health and safety," you can recover punitive damages too. By that point, of course, he might not be your friend anymore.

. . .

Which is why they decided to resolve the minor annoyance of drifting outdoor tobacco smoke through criminal charges and lawsuits—instead of, say, public stoning. Presumably the city council members also had the minimization of punitiveness and disruption in mind when they chose to criminalize not only unauthorized smoking but "allowing, aiding or abetting" it by looking the other way or putting out ashtrays.

. . .

The logic of forcing people to set a good example for the kids—which also would justify banning fat people and motorcyclists from public places—reduces adults to the level of children whenever they venture out of their homes.

No Action "Hero"?

Lately, Governor Schwarzenegger has been sounding like a big baby. Now, I don’t know if he’s being positioned this way because many of the reports have paraphrased his so-called statements, but he’s been using a lot of un-leader-like words:

Schwarzenegger: Feds should be worried about California levees

"They are spending $100 billion in New Orleans right now because they were not acting fast enough. And here is the time for them to redeem themselves, to go and say, 'We made a mistake before; let's not ever make that mistake again.' And again they are missing the boat."

"We must let the president know that we need help," the governor said. "We want to put the pressure on the federal government, because they already have made a big mistake with New Orleans. Here is a chance for them to do really good."

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's going to complain to President Bush tomorrow about government inaction on his requests for help in repairing the state's antiquated levees. [notice it's “government” inaction as though there are no State responsibilities]

There are a lot of hands held out for Federal $$. What ever happened to STATES standing up and DOING the work for their citizens and not waiting for the Feds to save them? Why does everything get directed and shifted to the Federal Gov’t to DO something? Where’s the State’s self-reliance? Waiting for the Feds means nothing gets done.

Schwarzenegger has fallen into victim-hood mentality; his language is that of a loser rather than winner. He sounds like he’s whining instead of DOING. He should be saying “we can not wait for the Federal gov’t to respond, WE must act. Here is a chance for US to not make mistakes and to take care of our citizens, our state.”

He needs a better script with a hero’s dialogue and lots of action.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Who's Keeping an Eye on the FREE Press?

I’m for a Free Press. I don’t have much confidence or trust in government, no matter who’s in the WH and the Press can provide balance, perspective, insight and truth as it informs us citizens. However, I find the recent broohaha regarding the CIA leaks/Pulitzers/NSA Wiretappings, etc. rather perplexing, hugely irritating and extremely hypocritical.

It seems the Press (i.e. old media) has the right to expose government programs such as the NSA wiretappings and the “secret” CIA prisons, but don’t have to mention their sources or provide perspective—that their right to protect sources usurps the gov't responsibility to preserve & protect, our rights as citizens to be protected or even to have a SAY in what is released. O.K. Fine.

Well, no, it’s not fine…

Who are their sources for these stories? How are they verified? Did someone, other than the “source” SEE the prisons? Did someone, other than the “source”, witness the wiretappings? Who has come forward that has been wiretapped? Where are their stories? There is so much missing and I feel cheated—I want the whole story, not just the part they choose to tell. The Press is acting like a 5th Column and giving us citizens the 3rd Finger.

The Press has engaged in the very thing it accuses the Administration of: stonewalling, secrecy, corruption, manipulation and down-right lying.

Why is there one set of rules for government and a different set of rules for the Press? The Press has placed themselves in a position of superiority—serving up their own interests with We the People having NO say. At least with government, you can vote the culprits out of office (except in the case of leaking CIA rats et al fat cat Bureaucrats).

What can we do about this old media “FREE” Press? Give ‘em the boot I say. Stop reading their crap and watching their celebrity reporters on talk shows. Read multiple blogs and free news sites, get different perspectives from the right, left and center. Take it all in and leave the Free Press really free…free of readers.

New Orleans Chooses No Change

Well, the “citizens” of N.O. (notice the acronym for New Orleans is "NO") have chosen Nagin and Landreau as mayoral candidates beating out several interesting and probably more earnest, though less polished, contenders.

Since N.O. has absorbed billions in federal funds and will continue to soak up more to “rebuild” and federal funds come from federal tax dollars paid by American citizens in large part, shouldn’t WE have a say in how the city is governed? I mean, shouldn’t we have some input in our investment? When I buy stocks, I become a stockholder and therefore have some input in who manages the company and how the company performs, etc. (I VOTE for board members, acquisitions, etc.)

How are my interests and the interests of other Americans served in New Orleans? How do we know our investment will not go down the drain as it has for years with little or nothing to show for it?

As a taxpayer, I have no rights, no say, no vote and this seems not only unfair, but much like taxation without representation.

Tea anyone?

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Mr. Mahoney Speaks...Out of Hiding...Unafraid

There's a saying in the Bible: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Cardinal of Sin, Mahoney, recently conducted an interview:
What has happened in the last few years is that we as bishops have had opportunities to have a public voice and role, but have been very hesitant, and just kind of sat out a number of these things. I’m thinking of local things -- for example, police abuse and overreactions in certain communities. We’ve had a lot of that across the United States. I think bishops normally would have said something, saying police are overreacting and categorizing people in ethnic groups, but in many cases they just remained silent. The gap, the chasm, between the wealthy and the middle class … the fact there’s almost no middle class left. The minimum wage, affordable housing, we just kind of sat it out, because we were afraid to appear above the sandbags. We were hiding. … Had this come up two years ago, three years ago, I don’t know what the reality would have been then. I just know that in our archdiocese, this issue is so important that even during these years I always spoke up. [emphasis added]
No mention of the molestation and rape of boys and the suicides committed because of pediphile priests. Disgusting.

The immoral Mahoney and his ilk have blood and more on their hands and are the reason for the continued demise of the Catholic Church.
This issue is important because it means MORE MONEY for the church. The Catholic Church seems to be returning to its roots of corruption, greed and social injustice at the expense of its soul.

I'd like to help Mr. Mahoney remove that plank...and then hit him over the head with it.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Follow the Money

Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles and his Catholic Cardinal cronies have stepped into the political arena "willing to take the heat" and fight illegal immigration bills presented by the House and the Senate.

A cynical view: Mahoney couches his position in "treating people humanely", yet I do not recall the same fervent stance against pedophile Priests under his domain who routinely treated young boys inhumanely—raping and molesting them and robbing them of their innocence. No, Mr. Mahoney was inhumanely quiet on this issue.

Losing billions of dollars through lawsuits directed at the church’s immoral cover-ups, the LA church can't turn off the tithes spigot they receive from their largest constituents: Hispanics. So, they turn on the rhetoric and shameless pandering to illegal people (Hispanics mostly) entering the U.S.

They had their chance to do the right thing and didn’t. Mahoney and the rest of his gang are morally empty but hoping for a full coffer come Sunday Mass.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

"Karl Rove is an Evil Bastard"

Was the pronouncement of my former boss, head of a successful 25-year old video game company, Harvard MBA, former Dubai Ad agency owner, dad & husband and generally good natured, down-to-earth chap.

But these days, his nature is foul. What’s striking about that statement is that it sprung forth from a conversation not the least bit fertile for a discussion of politics or governing or international affairs. At least not to me. But, it needed to be said. Like a child that just has to let loose his thoughts. Bam. Karl Rove is an evil bastard.

So, I masterfully changed the subject as I don’t know Karl Rove and though he is credited with satanic abilities and mass mind-control, I really can’t speak on the subject of Mr. Rove. I don’t know Karl Rove.

But I do know my former boss…

A few days later I was sitting in the office of this former boss pitching my services to him for an upcoming project. I was ready to get down to business (basically how much are you going to pay me), when he said, “I’m glad to see more and more people are coming around to my way of thinking. The President’s poll numbers are bad and most people think the war is wrong.”

O.K. Gulp. My internal self speaks to self: Are we going to get into this? Geez. Do I tread lightly or let it rip? He obviously needs to “talk” about this. So, I said, “Well, it’s like a company, if you hear the media and so-called industry experts griping and complaining and saying bad things about the company and/or it’s leaders, then it seems likely the stock will go down and the brand will be diminished and that’s not good for all the people that work for that company. (He’s a company-man, he’ll appreciate the analogy--he's been there when the heat is on and the press and the industry hate you.)

“And that’s what I take umbrage with, not dissent because I’m one of the most anti-authoritarian people around (he smiles, knowing this all too well) and suspect of power—the ‘America bad’, ‘Bush bad’ emotional and irrational diatribes that go on and on ad nauseum instead of critiquing policy...”

He smiles…yes, he has drawn me into what is sure to be a lively debate and clasps his hands just above his lap—ahhh—the relaxed confident posture of a practiced debater. Very good. I’m amused.

Boss: But Bush sees everything in black and white, good vs. evil and the rest of the world doesn’t see it that way. (Posits his premise while trying to add credibility to his assertion.)

Me: The “rest of the world”? Actually, the rest of the world DOES see it that way—good vs. evil.

Boss: Not so.

Me: Is too (not really). Yes, they do. With the exception of …

Boss & Me in Unison: Europe

Me: Yes, but Europe is not the rest of the world in fact, Europe is just a small part of it. Take India for example…

And I continue for a few moments about India and other parts of the world that have an alternative view of his America.

Finally, I countered my former boss’s assertion that the world does not exist in absolutes that no right thinking and enlightened person would divide the world in moralist terms of good vs. evil and said: “I do think there are evil people in this world and reject the notion that those that kill artists, homosexuals and castrate and stone women are not evil. They are evil.”

But, I was struck. I like my former boss. He and I have sparred often and we both enjoy the clash of steel and the gentle stabs to deflate the air in inadequate or inane arguments. As an insider, I know that this private company has not taken care of its employees, that the owner /CEO considers them to be as close to servants as the law allows and has denied them vacations, raises and bonuses while he has taken month-long vacations, siphoned money from the company that could be re-invested or paid to employees, bought his 2nd Malibu home and a new Ferrari in addition to the Bentley and all this in just one year.

While his staff struggles to meet their bills, he’s flying high and suffers no compunction. To many in the company (both present and former associates/employees) this man is considered evil and I think my former boss (his partner) knows it, yet has sold his soul in some way to keep his cushy high-paying position and stature and keep his wife in art classes, designer apparel and on the guest list of the influential, upper crust of Los Angeles society.

Just days before he was declaring Karl Rove an evil bastard and now he is ridiculing Bush for similar declarations.

The funny thing is, Bush’s enemies can and have killed Americans. I’m not sure you can say the same about Rove. But the bourgeois, in their languished lives, need to kibitz—it’s as old as the human race.

Tsk tsk. Hypocrite? Yes, I do believe that rises to the standard.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

S.F. supervisors ask lawmakers to impeach Bush

Have you been to San Fran lately? Crime is rampant, gangs own the city and this is what the city's Sups spend their time on? It's clear that diverting attention from what you should be doing works in politics. They say "all politics is local", but shouldn't these sups be doing something about cleaning up their locale?

San Francisco's supervisors jumped into national politics Tuesday, passing a resolution asking the city's Democratic congressional delegation to seek the impeachment of President Bush for failing to perform his duties by leading the country into war in Iraq, eroding civil liberties and engaging in other activities the board sees as transgressions.

Ever notice how it's always the people that aren't doing their work griping about the people that are? It doesn't matter whether it's politics or companies--people are the same wherever you go. There are those that DO and those that DON'T.

San Fran could be the West Coast version of NYC--cosmopolitan, open to EVERYONE, clean, proud and safe for residents and visitors alike.

Hey San Fran Sups...GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF DOING SOMETHING!!! It was wrong when they did it to Clinton (impeached) and it's wrong now. At least the Mayor of San Fran is doing some thinking and trying to act on behalf of bettering his city. geez.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Rape Victim Sentenced to Death

An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.
The uproar over this brings tears to my eyes.

Oh wait... Amnesty Int'l weighs in:
Iran: Amnesty International calls for end to death penalty for child offenders. Amnesty International is calling on the Iranian authorities to take immediate steps to end the use of the death penalty for child offenders. Two new cases have been reported in which child offenders – persons under 18 at the time of the crime – have been sentenced to death by Iranian courts, in breach of Iran’s obligations under international human rights law.
Nevermind...

Power Grab

When will the US media "speak truth to power" for REAL? Show the cartoons!

Monday, February 06, 2006

Shhhh...

IslamoFacsist may be listening/watching...


And then, they might riot...


or kill...

Catholic Priest Shot to Death in Turkey
ANKARA, Turkey -- A teenage boy shot and killed the Italian Roman Catholic priest of a church in the Black Sea port city of Trabzon on Sunday, shouting "God is great" as he escaped, according to police and witnesses.


Understand us! America: Look at your foreign policy and how it has corrupted and destroyed the nations and peoples of the world. Look at how your support of Israel has brought this upon you. Understand us by submitting.





Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Some US troops question Woodruff coverage


"The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks," a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.

"It's just a bit frustrating to see something so dramatized that happens every day to some 20-year-old American -- or worse to 10, 30-year-old Iraqi soldiers or cops alongside us. Some of the stories don't even mention the Iraqi casualties in this attack, as if they're meaningless," wrote the officer in Baqubah.

That leaves the uncomfortable question about how much the media, or the American public, cares about the injured who are less well known, but in just as dire straits.

"Or the American public" (bullocks!)-- we didn't have a say, they blasted the news with Woodruff reports all through the weekend and into this week. This is clearly a case of "we're more concerned with the well-being of our own and because we own the media mechanism, we're going to focus on our own interests."

Monday, January 30, 2006

Did He Really SAY That?


“What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished died.”
Ted Kennedy on Hurricane Katrina

“Ditto”
Mary Jo Kopechne

Mirror Mirror on the Wall

ABC news anchor, Bob Woodruff, and his cameraman were seriously injured by an IED last week as they drove through the streets of Iraq. In other non-news, several unnamed and unmentioned American soldiers were either killed or injured last week by IEDs in the same country, Iraq.

I find this interesting because the media is overly concerned about their “own” and will continue to report on the anchor's condition throughout the day and night regardless of any interest (or lack of) conveyed by the viewer.

Americans are often criticized for being self-centered—for not knowing much about the world beyond their borders and for not doing more for the folks beyond those borders suffering for various reasons be it famine, disease, war, economics, etc. Our lack of knowledge dooms others because, I’m supposing, the power we hold as Americans is omnipotent.

I assert that the perpetrators of self-centered-ness are in fact the Media or MSM. They bring us ad nauseam one so-called and so-created scandal after another: the NSA “spying on good Americans” scandal, the Valerie “Jane Blonde” Plame scandal, WMD lies, Iraq/Afghanistan quagmires, etc etc etc.

They go on and on about Bush -–plainly most American (and European for that matter) MSM and many others (actors, writers, playwrights, philosophers, etc) are obsessed with the man. Is there nothing else??? Honestly, I would really like to know the progress or lack of in the Sudan or Sierra Leone or the Congo or Tibet or Indonesia and on and on.

The media supposedly reflects the world around us, clearly they reflect their world—selfish, self-interested and just plain ugly.

Monday, January 23, 2006

BUSY-BODY ALERT!

Tata too much time on her hands... I fear for her safety if residents do "withdrawal" from caffeine.
(I-Newswire) - City of Shaker Heights, OHIO - ( Jan 17, 2006) Following a health trend that appears to be brewing up all over the nation, Mayor Judith Rawson has signed a proclamation for the City of Shaker Heights that addresses the issues regarding caffeine intoxication and dependency.

In the proclamation the Mayor is "calling upon all Shaker Heights citizens, public and private institutions, business and schools to increase awareness and understanding of the consequences of caffeine consumption."

The proclamation also spells out many dangers of caffeine abuse such as heart disease, pancreas and bladder cancer, hypoglycemia, and central nervous system disorders. By getting the word out about the serious dangers of caffeine, Mayor Rawson hopes to prevent a substance that can "pose a significant hazard to health and longevity."

City of Shaker Heights is one of several cities across the country recognizing this annual event. This will be the third year for this event which is sponsored by the Caffeine Awareness Alliance, a non-profit organization. Marina Kushner, founder, states, "Each year more and more people are waking up to the real truth about the dangers of this ubiquitous drug. We are delighted that the mayor has recognized that this is not a laughing matter." Prior years have seen ways of celebrating this event ranging from educational events in school to even picketing outside coffee houses.

"During this month, we hope to reach out to educate business and consumers about the risk associated with caffeine dependency and to raise awareness about the impact it has on our society" says Kushner.

Kushner is an authority on the subject. She delves into both the physical and psychological dangers that caffeine can cause in her new book called "The Truth About Caffeine". In addition to the book, she has developed a line of caffeine-free coffee replacements called Soyfee, made from 100% organic soybeans. Soy has been shown to help lower cholesterol, fight heart disease and promote strong bones. For further information on the popular product please visit www.soycoffee.com.
But how does it jive with this:
Coffee: The New Health Food? Plenty of health benefits are brewing in America's beloved beverage.

I suspect someone wants to sell books and make money off aggitating.

Friday, January 20, 2006

More Tyranny from the Busy-Bodies and Looking to Get Rich on the Way

Forget parents, it's the job of the busybody to patrol what kids eat--what parents do or don't allow their children to consume is not the problem, it's companies that manufacture & market their wares--evil evil companies:
An advocacy group wants companies to stop marketing junk food to children. They're targeting two titans in a multi-million dollar lawsuit. They're going after the companies behind Tony the Tiger and Spongebob Squarepants: Kellogg foods and Viacom, owner of Nickelodeon TV.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest says junk food is making American kids unhealthy, and is threatening to sue for a billion dollars if they won't tone down ads aimed at kids.