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.

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).”

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.

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.

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

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...

"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

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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...

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.

"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.

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?