Legal Disclaimer...
After reading this article via FreeRepublic, I feel I must protect myself, since I do say some very nasty things from time to time:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1552346/posts

Anyone who pays attention to such things will note that I have changed my banner up top to make it absolutely clear that I am NOT a news page or organization, but an Opinion page.

It's a sad day in America when a concerned citizen of Minnesota cannot speak his mind, but Nancy Pelosi can't be shut up.

Of Hands and Cookie Jars...
Re: Jack Abramoff and the Congressional 'lobbying' scandal.

The Capital today is awash in a flood of reform legislation. John McCain is at it again, that Lone Ranger of 'reformers' that the press loves so much. We're about to be assailed by yet another wave of 'reform' for a system that's 'hopelessly broke' and 'out of control', and that we, 'the American people' deserve a 'system that's transparent' and 'untainted by the stench of illegal payoffs'.

Don't believe a fucking word.

McCain, for everyone who has forgotten, is the one who brought us 'tenure for politicians' (i.e. Campaign Finance Reform) which does very little to modify or reform the previous system except to make it impossible for an incumbant to be challenged by someone outside of the 'reformed' system. Now he's pushing Lobbying reform, which will basically enable the same people to bribe the same politicians, only this time they'll have to register in two places (instead of the present one) , file more paperwork and perhaps sacrifice a goat to Thor, God of Thunder. The devil will be in the details, but I'd bet (based on McCain's track record) that what smells like reform will simply be the continuation of the status quo with a 527-sized loophole in it.

Of course, the guiltiest scumbag on Capital Hill, Conrad Burns (R-Montana) nearly slipped in his self-created puddle of drool in his zeal to be the first to support McCain. Who is Conrad Burns, you ask? Until I found out he was a senator, I thought he was Homer Simpson's boss. Naturally, the other poster boy for shenanigans, Tom Delay, was front and foremost in this cesspit as well. Makes me proud to be a republican (smell the sarcasm?).

Anyway, the word is that Abramoff is singing like the proverbial birds, and that upwards of 60 (count 'em) Congresscritters (in both the House and Senate, including many a 2008 hopeful, ex-First Lady) may be besmirched by association, or at least, for taking a check with his name on it. Ideally, this kind of thing would be of benefit to the nation at large; we're finding out who the crooks are and if there's wrongdoing, they'll be indicted and jailed. On the other hand, what would that leave us with vis-a-vis the people in Congress?

Why, the ones who weren't even WORTH attempting to bribe.

What a conondrum! You know, the more stuff like this happens, the more you begin to realize that it takes more money to run for Senate or the House than it does to run the average schoolhouse for a year. Priorties are seriously screwed up with regards to our Congressgrubbers, if they continue to believe that their needs are above those of the country as a whole. Because at the end of the day, that's what this entire scandal is abouot: these guys need to constantly raise cash for re-election. If there's a choice for me, Matt Q. Public, between seeing Senator Dumbass re-elected and having an ndian casino somewhere nearby (it's three hours to Atlantic City from here, for Christ's sakes!), then I'm all for the casino. The senator is not necessarily required.

How to fix this mess? Well, I have ideas, of course;

1. Repeal the 17th amendment. That's the one that changed how senators get their jobs. Senators used to be assigned by the governor of each state, now they are elected like every other useless mouth...errr...Honorable Membner of Congress. The rationale behind the 17th amendment was corruption (i.e. governors packed the Senate with their cronies). That's convenient, because I'm citing corruption (Jack Abramoff) as a reason for repealing the sucker.

2. Chuck Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold). Let incumbants get assialed by interest groups from all sides, 24/7/365. Why should the actions of our Congressional thieves be hidden from the light of day? Let them deal with this crap all the time. Let them defend their records all the time. The rationale behind McCain-Feingold was all those nasty "issue-oriented attack ads" that used to air the day before an election that a candidate didn't have time to defend against. All CFR has done is to ensure that those nasty "issue-oriented attack ads" have merely one source: George Soros.

3. Place a spending limit on campaigns. I know, I know, there are those that will complain that restricting the amount of money a candidate can spend is a restriction of free speech. Well, I'd rather put a set price tag on a seat in the House than have the Jack Abramoff-types set it for me. It would also ensure that a candidate could only raise and spend a strict limit and therefore, wouldn't have to spend every second or third day of his life whoring him or herself.

In Need of Help...For a Worthy Cause...
If there's anyone out here who actually reads this, I willrequire suggestions and perhaps a little help, on how to start a charity.

My idea (such as it is) came to me recently in a local library when I began to think about people who don't have access to a public library. Liek shut-ins. The elderly. The victims of Hurricane's Katrina and Rita.

I wish to start something I have tentatively called 'Lectric Library. The aim will be to put together a truck, some form of electronic reader, and a bunch of CD's that can be handed out in old-folks homes or in places where normal library service is lacking or out of service due to some emergency.

If there's anyone out there with experience in charity work, fundraising, electronics, publishing and the legal rigamarole necessary to get such a venture off the ground, please drop me a line.

Whore-aldo...
Re: the gratuitous use of footage, taken in the wake of the would-be rescue of 13 trapped miners in West Virginia, and Fox News: was it really necessary to show that footage (by my count) seven times in two-plus hours?

As to who is responsible for the false rumors and slipshod reporting, we could yack all day about how we live in a 24-hour news cycle, the instantaneous-ness (if that's a word) of modern communications (and their subsequent contributions to spreading disinformation), the need for politicians to grandstand, etc. My beef was that we had a community that was suffering, it was cruelly (if unintentionally) given false information that reinforced their most fervent hopes, and then had the inevitible crash "reported" live for the entire world to see.

I really hadn't given a hoot in hell for trapped miners; after all, mining is a dangerous job and those who engage in it do so in the full knowledge that accidents happen, very often with catastrophic results.

I do give a great deal of credit to the belief that reporters, in their zeal to catch a story or in the name of presenting us with "entertainment", do go way too far when instead of doing the right thing (i.e. keeping the grief and the devestation private, as a personal matter for those affected, giving them dignity in their time of grief) opt to turn such a tragedy into drama in the name of ratings and news.

Which is why Geraldo Rivera, and Fox News, should be ashamed of theirselves. I have no expectation that such is the case, but this incident rubbed me the wrong way. Those people needed privacy and respect. What they got was exploitation of their tragedy.

Another thing that bothers me about the whole miner affair is the way in which media that DON'T have a need for immediacy (i.e. newspapers) managed to continue to spread disinformation even after the original information (all miners found safe) was disproven. I find that inexcusable.

Still, what's even more difficult to explain and excuse is how it is that Americans have become a nation of rubberneckers, all of us totally riveted by the train wreck in progress, salivating over the minutest detail or morsel of speculation from "reporters" and "experts". We all need to get lives, apparently.

As for the miners and thier loved ones, I offer condolences (such as they are) and the hope that you all find some peace, somehow. May God be with you.

I Don't Get College Sports...
Something that is sort of relevant at this time of year is all of the college "Bowl" games that take place. I must admit, that I do not see either the point, nor the allure, of college athletics to the general public.

I have done a little (read: very little, mostly just asking around) research into the huge phenomenon of colege sports. What makes them so popular? Why are vast sums of money being spent on athletics when it should be used on education? How is it that colleges can, with a straight face, claim that these guys are "scholar/atheletes", when most of them are inarticulate punks (doubt it? Watch the pre- and post-game interviews)?

Well, I got some interesting answers.

The first reason it's so popular, I'm told, is that there are some places in this country that just don't have access to professional sports, of any kind, or at least, of the more popular kind (football, basketball, baseball). True, I thought -- there's not much in the way of pro sports to be found in Boise, Anchorage or Missoula, for sure. So, yes, I can see where college sports might have appeal in these entertainment-starved markets. That, however, doesn't explain the popularity of these games in markets that are literally drenched in professional sports teams(read: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago).

Which leads to the second biggest reason; it's a chance to see tomorrow's pro superstars today.
To which I add: so what? You could do that at any minor league level (although, admittedly, it's not as if all sports actually have a minor league. Like the NBA, for instance) if you're really that interested. And by the way, minor leagues ARE pro in every way except the paychecks. Minor leaguers do get paid to play. The excitement of watching an athlete advance by stages seems lost on me.

So, what's left? Why, betting, of course.

Wagering of all types takes place at all hours of the day, and when your pro team is not worth betting on or perhaps not even playing, why there's always college sports. College sports takes in more betting, per annum, than professional sports. With the vast number of teams out there, you can always find a bet. Even Division III sports have a line on them. In this regard, college sports is merely another outlet for the degenerate gambler. The annual Bacchanalia known as "March Madness" probably generates more gambling revenue than the Super Bowl and World Series combined. I can't prove that, of course, but you don't see all that many office pools for the ALCS, do you?

So, having figured out that college sports are a) for people who don't have other means of entertainment, b) for people who just can't get enough sports, even those played at lesser level, c) degenerate gamblers and d) those who look at young athletes not as people but as livestock, I have decided that I will remain aloof and not give a turd.

In the meantime, someone try to figure out how it is that Patrick Ewing got a degree in Art History (from Georgetown!), how legitimate is it, and get back to me on it.

On Hiatus...
Apologies for the long absence. My life, such as it is, has been unduly complicated for the last few years and from time to time, such complications make themselves felt in very real ways. Like when I don't have the time or inclination to post a rant or two. Or, when I get bored with the whole, sordid thing and just say "Fuck it! I've got re-runs of Law & Order to watch!", and do nary a thing vis-a-vis a diseased diatribe in this space.

As if this will make it all better, I do kinda-sorta promise to make more of an effort in the future.

I Rest My Case...
Reports of a rape trial in Australia involving a Pakistani perp, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541118/posts

Which, of course, lends creedence to my assertion of two days ago that the recent Aussie "race" riots have more to do with Muslims and their behavior than they do with Aussie sensibilities. Or lack, thereof.

I especially like the part about the perp being alowed to swear on the Koran in the courtroom and his expectation that what passes for justice in his home shithole would be valid in a foreign, Western court.

France Down-Under...
Been reading and hearing a lot about race riots in Australia.

The news reports are somewhat confusing and misleading in these parts (New York), but from what I can gather, the situation can be summed up thusly:

1. Roving bands of Australian "youths" are attacking Muslims with whatever comes to hand.
2. The "youths" seem to have no justification for doing so.
3. Lot's of surfers and beach-bunnies seem to be involved.

Of course, that's just the take of the liberal media around these parts. Reading between the lines, I come to the following conclusions:

1. Australians are sick to death of Muslims, particularly in recent days, when an Australian citizen is awaiting execution in Indonesia on a drug charge. This has been a hot-button item with the Australian people, who despite the fact that the man engaged in illegal activity, still don't want to see him killed for it. Especially not by brutal Sharia executioners.
2. There's always a reason for riots, but perhaps the media here don't want us to know why. They'd rather portray these events as white racism against poor, third-world refugees because doing so advances their own agenda: keeping Americans stupid enough to elect a Democrat come 2008.
3. Being the self-appointed arbiters of what is right and correct in society, the news folks can pretty much do anything they want, and have the ability to do so: they have the sattelite feeds, video tape and broadcasting capabilities. According to their code of political correctness, Muslims are victims of other people's violence, never the instigators.
4. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of Muslim "victims" were actually a roving rape gang, oggling or fondling beach-bunnies, who managed to run afoul of some non-politically-correct Aussie surfer boys who decided to take the law into their own hands, and the phenomenon just merely spread. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a wide-spread belief that Muslims come to Australian beaches simply to oggle and potentially rape the Aussie beach belles. They do so everywhere else, it seems, so that the action taken by white Aussie males, put into this context, can be explained as Aussie men doing what they're supposed to do: protecting the wimmenfolk from rapacious marauders.

Of course, my view of Islam and the walking filth that practices it, is skewed; I hate 'em. I understand them (all too well), but I still hate 'em.

I saulte the Aussie surfer, who seems to have more in the testicle department than his cheese-eating cousins.

Rethinking the Rethinking...
Read an article today about the "rethinking of the role of manufacturing in Michigan's economy" (sorry, no link --- bad at bookmarking sometimes). The thrust of the article as that since Michigan has lost 172,000 manufacturing jobs in recent years, an effort must be made to remodel the state's economy to more realistically reflect current economic trends.

A propos of nothing at all, I was reminded of something I once wrote in this space regarding Wal-Mart. Take a jaunt through your local Wal-mart and you'l find very little, besides snack foods, cigarettes and soft drinks, that is manufactured here in he United States. Just about everything else has a little tag or sticker on it reading "Made in China". Or Pakistan. Or Mexico. So on and so forth. Industrial capacity in this country seems to be limited to a few, exclusive fields, where there is heavy profit, but little direct consumer demand amongst the greatest number of people. There are exceptions, of course. Automakers do, in fact, serve the gretest number of American citizens, (as possible) even with competition from foreign imports (it wasn't all that long ago that GM was reporting record SUV sales and profits. This month, GM filed for bankruptcy protection. Go figure.), but they are a small portion of the overall economy.

Steel, another commodity in which Americans used to excel, is also taking an economic hit from foreign competition. American steel is simply too expensive to use in large-scale construction projects.

About the only heavily profitable industries still in America that I can think of are aircraft manufacturing, and anything having to do with war. I do not consider anything related to the health care industry as "manufacturing", per se.

Which, naturally, lead me to start thinking about (who else?) George Orwell, which wouldn't make any sense except for the beginnings of a train of thought that was one of those moments. When one slaps palm to forehead and yells "Dunce!" in a moment of self-disgust. How perfectly obtuse of me to have missed the connection.

Orwell was one of a long line of 19th and 20th century authors, political commentators and such, that foresaw some of these events, although in a roundabout way. Begining, I guess, with Marx (in an infantile way) there was a train of economic and social thought that once believed that with the coming of the machine economy and the expected advances in industrial technique, back-breaking labor and material dearth would be a thing of the past. That once industrialization had reached the four corners of the earth, everyone would have enough of everything and there would never be war, disease, poverty, etc.

Of course, there were always those that would fight against such things ("counter-revolutionaries", "Capitalists", etc) because once material wealth became a commonplace, they would lose their status in society. The "reactionaries", in other words, would fight against the advance of mankind in order to maintain their petty privledges. Others refined this idea further, one of them being James Burnham who believed that instead of encouraging open revolt against this "New World Order" ,or material plenty for all, those who were formerly in control would merely co-opt it, becoming the new version of the robber barons: the managerial class. The Managerial Class would be composed of society's elite: technocrats, educators, highly-trained specialists, etc, and would control and direct that which they would formerly, merely "own". By applying such methods of control, the Managerial Class would, in fact, "own" everything without actually being seen as owning anything. Power would replace visible wealth as the currency of status.

Orwell took this one step further, and borrowing freely from Marx, Burnham, H.G. Wells, and using his direct experience of Fascism, Socialism and World War II, put forward an old idea in a new package: the Hierarchal Society of "1984". In "1984", there is, for all intents and purposes, no industry in Oceania which is not concerned with war, surveilance or terror. Oceania, if it produces anything, merely does so as long as it allows the "party" a pretext for staying in power.
What consumer economy there is, is stocked entirely by slave labor -- the "proles" or the peoples of India and Africa who are constantly fought over and enslaved. It made no sense for Oceania to produce anything, from bootlaces to razor blades, when it could do so easily, if it meant distributing them with the intent of improving people's lives. Improving their lives in any material sense would only threaten the hold of the "Party" (i.e. the managerial class) over the people. So they were kept in a constant state of deprivation while slaves labored elsewhere to produce resources and items that would be used up in constant warfare.

And here's the connection: The United States no longer produces much in the way of consumer goods. It is easier and cheaper to farm that kind of antiquated, labor- and capital-intensive operation to places like India,China or Indonesia, because while the money pumped into these regions vastly improves certain conditions for the workers, it does little to affect the overall wealth of these regions and individuals, and preserves the status of those here who direct the whole enterprise. Outsourcing garment jobs to Mexico or ElSalvador is justified by explaining the benefit to stockholders (lower operating expenses means bigger returns on investment) and to consumers (lower prices means you can buy more for less money), while ignoring the harm it does to Americans (the loss of jobs). The harm, according to the managerial class, is merely short-term, because they assume that those who lose their job assembling bicycles, for example, will somehow find their way into another field (usually defined as "the service sector", which doesn't pay as well, but which is still employment).

What is required is not the "rethinking of Michigan's economic foundation" but a "rethinking of how we continue to let these greedy slobs in corner offices get away with this shit". An American worker can just as easily asemble computers and circuit boards as a Chinese. The difference is the standard of living which each is expected to put up with. A Chinese worker expects no freedom, political or personal, and doesn't (for now) expect to live in mansion. American workers expect both, and thus, have priced themselves out of the market. The apparatus which is supposed to guarentee their rights and standard of living (government, labor unions, etc) has itself been invaded and corrupted by the Managerial Class, and thus, no help is to be expected from either quarter. Which makes this all incredibly funny (funny strange, not funny ha-ha) is that the STATE of Michigan, which has aided and abetted (and helped to accelerate) the loss of 172,000 jobs, has the audacity to announce that it will be working on a solution. It's merely the same cabal working in the same old fashion. Industry will be replaced by low-cost high-tech, which when it becomes expensive or unfprofitable, will be shipped to Taiwan.

I do not call for some sort of proletarian's revolution, because such is not possible in the United States and because such is merely the swapping of one group of ill-intentioned idiots for another. Communism is not my bag, man. But I do call for some sort of awareness on the part of the people who have lost their livelihoods as to whom is responsible, and ask them to hold those people accountable.

In the meantime, I'll go to Wal-Mart and place "Orwell was right" stickers over evrything that reads "Made in China".

The More The Merrier?
A French government minister is now blaming the practice of polygamy for at least a portion of the social unrest in France. Here is a story from the Financial Times of London:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6f1fe0a-5615-11da-b04f-00000e25118c.html

I found some of the minster's explanations and excuses to be somewhat interesting from the standpoint of how the French government collectively thinks. o begin with, there's this:

"Gérard Larcher said multiple marriages among immigrants was one reason for the racial discrimination which ethnic minorities faced in the job market. Overly large polygamous families sometimes led to anti-social behaviour among youths who lacked a father figure, making employers wary of hiring ethnic minorities, he explained."

A liberal making a conservative argument? Who woulda thunk it? Somehow the traditional nuclear family, which has been pooh-poohed in Europe and the United States for some time now, might be a solution to some of France's internal problems? Why, that's bold and original thinking (note: sarcasm)! Could it be that in the face of a demographic time bomb, with a lit fuse, the "secular" hedonists of Europe have finally begun to admit that they might have been wrong?
Traditional families and values leading to domestic tranquility; somehow a novel concept in Europe, now to be rediscovered.

"Polygamy is a taboo subject for most mainstream French politicians. Far-right groups, however, have seized on it to argue that immigrants abuse the French social security system by collecting state benefits for several wives."

Well, when you give people a way to game the system, they will usually take advantage of it. They'll certainly take advantage of it when you don't want to be seen as insensitive in applying the law equally. The refusal to apply one standard of behavior or one set of rules in favor of being "culturally sensitive" always has consequences. In this case, the consequence is that you encourage fraud and illegal immigration. There's a lesson here for America.

"But Mr Larcher said France was so traumatised by the Vichy government’s expulsion of French Jews to German concentration camps during the second world war that it still found it unpalatable to allow information to be collected on people’s ethnic origins."

Yep, nothing like invoking the Nazi experience. France is still a victim of the Germans: we're so "traumatized" that we don't even take a census. This is not exactly the same situation. French Muslims and North Africans are not being shipped to gas chambers, nor is that prospect looming on the horizon. The French government merely neglected one of the first duties all governments have: finding out who is in the country and where they are. The French did not do so, probably because, again, political correctness intervened.

"He acknowledged that the unemployment rate among young people in France was twice the national average, but said other European countries faced similar problems. He also pointed the finger at the US, where he said the unemployment rate among blacks aged 16-19 was twice that of their white counterparts. "

Attempted moral equivalency? How dare you, Monseuir Cheese-Eater! There's a major difference: our unemployed youth could have jobs, if they wanted them. All they'd have to do is seek out the nearest fast-food restaurant or shopping center, where minimum wage jobs abound. Granted, they are not the best jobs o nthe planet, but there are not many 16 year olds who have mortgages to pay and children in Ivy League schools. French youth, on the other hand, particularly if they are not of the ruling race (i.e. White) couldn't get a job selling their vital organs due to the racism, bureaucratic red tape and depressed economy under which they must live. Much of the blame for creating these conditions rests squarely on the shoulders of the French governing elite.

France must undergo change. And much of it will be painful and heart-wrenching. The decisions that will need to be made will be enormously difficult. They will not be made any easier when you continue to avoid the truth. The truth, in this case, is that France (and much of Europe) has imported a major problem that it is afraid to deal with because of the obvious risks inhereant in the solutions; one risk is that of racial civil war, the other is of concilliation with those that will eventually outnumber you and assume control of your institutions, legally and from within.

I'm beginning to suspect that the French people, at least, are beginning to tilt towards solution number one, while the French government tries frantically to avoid it.