EGOLOGY UPDATE

I apologize to my adoring fans for not checking in for so long. I have been working on a larger writing project and taking care of some personal issues which, if I were a 28-year old girl writing a blog, you would already know about. My current interregnum has been stymied by my ego (I love a thesaurus!)... and the following YAHOO! "news" article: Mighty oil-eating microbes help clean up the Gulf.

I don't know how long that article will remain readable in the webworld, so I will provide appropriate clips, acknowledging that I did not write it and giving all such credit to YAHOO! for its money and environmental writer John Carey (not to be confused with Bill Carey of Ogden Edsl fame, or John Kerry of The Addams Family fame) for his typing. I'm not taking a shot at Carey; please don't think that. I believe he has made a brilliant analysis of the situation. After all, he came to the same conclusions as I did 9 weeks ago. For this study of my considerable talents and ego, I must also direct your attention to my piece from May 28th of this year, I'll Have Seconds on the Buffet, specifically, the section entitled The Oily Worm Gets The Bird.

Now that the emotional fervor is starting to subside, let's take another look at what I had to say about the Deepwater Horizon spill and compare it to what is hitting the media today:

Me Then: Gee, do you think maybe the earth can handle what effectively is a small bruise?

Them Now: Where is all the oil?

Me Then: ...the oil leak will be plugged - we humans are pretty good at fixing things...

Them Now: Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history...

Me Then: ...the gulf will become clean again, through the money of BP and the American taxpayer, the efforts of conservationists, a few photo ops of hippies wiping a seagull with Dawn...

Them Now: And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames... the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast... So where did the oil go?

Me Then: ...but mostly the natural cycles of the planet (ain't crude oil a naturally occurring substance?...)

Them Now: "Some of the oil evaporates..." High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process. (I thought hurricanes were the global warming equivalent of The Death Star?) ...the oil has been devoured by microbes... Although there were more than 4,000 boats involved in the skimming operations, those cleanup crews may have only picked up a small percentage of the oil so far. That’s not unusual; in previous oil spills, crews could only scoop up a small amount of oil. "It’s very unusual to get more than 1 or 2 percent..."

Wow! Do you mean to tell me that we have spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to clean up 1 or 2 percent of the spill??!! Let's see:

Only 49 of 253 beach portions in Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida have been affected by the spill, which gave Texas a miss altogether

11 men were killed when the Deepwater Horizon rig blew (but let's still not talk about them)

We've decimated the Gulf Coast region by putting a moratorium on drilling, the very move most economists and residents of the region say is the wrong thing to do

We demand that BP fire their CEO AFTER getting the well capped because he didn't say sensitive enough things about the devastation of our Gulf - Hello! Pansy Corner; meanwhile, our president goes on The View (remember what I said about that? "Barack Obama will take credit for cleaning up his 'Katrina' and blame BP for all that was done wrong")

And in the end it turns out that nature has done almost all of the clean up work... for free.

It all kinda tugs at your purse heart strings, don't it?

I Was Wrong...

Hope I didn't make you choke on your coffee... spit takes are so passé. My wife gets downright giddy when she hears me use that phrase: I was wrong. Granted, it's very rare and, quite frankly, I think I've dwelt upon it long enough.

What I really wanted to write about today is the World Cup. You may have heard something about this going on in the news lately. I heard about it for a while before I realized they were talking about a soccer game. I'm from the South and I know that down here we have a tendency to over explain just for the sake of throwing extra syllables into everything, but didn't you think: "World Cup? World Cup what? World Cup of Hockey? World Cup of Dancing? World Cup of Hot Wings?" As uppity as the rest of the world claims Americans to be, I think it's downright conceited not to finish the name of your little tournament.

Turns out, though, that it's kind of popular. In fact, it's the most watched sporting event in the world, over NASCAR and Baywatch. According to Wikipedia 715.1 million people will watch it this year. I'm guessing that ".1" is the portion in the United States. Now, I don't consider myself an expert on the game of soccer (though my little brother did play one season of little league, so...), but I thought I might take a few minutes to explain the game to you, good reader, just a bit.

WHAT SOCCER IS

Soccer is a game played on a field the size of a Walmart parking lot, with 22 waif-like men sporting Don Johnson beards, two grumpy coaches who can't be understood... even in their own language, one ball - which apparently can be a little too round, and two jibberish-shrieking announcers who could fain excitement at a Stutterers Anonymous funeral. The object of the game is to kick the ball around the field until one of the teams runs out of penalties or the stands erupt in flames of violence. The players are not allowed to use their hands for anything other than slapping and adjusting crotches.

Except the two goalies. Their job is possibly the most important on the field. When the ball has spent too much time being knocked about at one end of the field, the goalie is supposed to pick up the ball, place it carefully on the ground, then kick it clear to the other end so the fans sitting down there can watch some of the "action" for a while. Sometimes the ball will accidentally roll into the net when the goalie is trying to pick it up. In those instances they just put the ball back in the middle to give the centerline folks a show for a bit.

I don't think there are any cheerleaders in soccer, but quite frankly, I don't think I want there to be. Let's face it: most of these countries aren't known for their beautiful people, with the exception of the Netherlands, whose women were ironically arrested and kicked out of the World Cup stadium. I'm not sure about any mascots either, outside of Posh Spice. And I can only guess that there are a multitude of sponsors associated with soccer, because we only catch the occasional commercial that Kevin Nealon shares with us on one of his stupid banned commercials shows.

WHY SOCCER SUCKS

Besides the absence of hot cheerleaders, I think there are several other specific reasons that soccer is not particularly popular in the U.S., though, like socialism, it seems to be catching on of late. To start, it's the name. Now, everywhere else in the world this game is called football. Of course, we already have a game called football, so we can't call it that. Plus, although that descriptive term probably fits the foreign game a little more accurately, the confusion would be an insult to Dick Butkus, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

The Brits are especially bad about looking down their noses at we Yanks for our misnomenclature. That's a turn-off right there from the start. But let's take a look at where "soccer" came from. Back in Jolly Old England times the folks playing this brand of football wanted to differentiate it from Rugby Football, so they started calling it Association Football (due to official organizations and ministers and elves and wizards and all those other sort of titles they have in England). As any fan of The Young Ones (one of the greatest shows of all time - hint, hint for Christmas) knows, the Brits love to create shortened nicknames for everything:

television = tele
French fries = chips
John, Paul, Ringo, & George = John & Paul
Association Football = Soccer

So, the next time the Queen of England calls you a barbarian for referring to it as soccer, tell her, "Takes one to know one, Betty!"

Another reason we don't like soccer is the lack of action. Part of the problem is the size of the field: it's enormous! These guys are spread so far apart that the ball has to travel 14.6 miles (or 6,312 kilometers for you soccer fans) between kicks. That's where those ridiculous announcers come in. Here's a typical spastic reaction by an announcer old enough to be hanging around outside a Miley Cyrus concert looking for dates:

Good God, what a reaction from a man that old. Jeez, get a life. It's not like Dale, Jr. took the checkered flag or something.

If they'd make the field a little smaller, and the action a little faster, we Americans might get into it. But I just don't see this happening. One of the primary tactics of the soccer man is called flopping. The idea here is to get the other team penalized. You know how punters and place kickers will act like they've been plowed into when a rusher gets close? Multiply that by ten Liston-Ali factors and you've got any typical soccer player coming within ten yards of another. They flail about and writhe on the ground until the referee points at a random billionaire in shorts and orders him out of the game. It's so silly even the American team's coach in the World Cup doesn't like it. But it's such an integral part of the game many say the U.S. will never be taken seriously in the world of soccer until it learns to embrace this tomfoolery. Should we recruit Vince McMahon to coach the team?

This garbage gives the game a very un-manly reputation in a country where girls' softball results in broken bones and stitches. Soccer is so wimpy that a headbutt to the chest four years ago is still infamous. I was 20 yards up the stands when Quentin Coryatt delivered this shot on Kyle McPherson:

Had that occurred in a soccer game, Coryatt would be rotting away in jail today... with 36 Dutch models.

As much as the wimpiness and lack of action gives me the yawnies, it's the fact that ties are celebrated in soccer that turns Americans off the most. (I know hockey has 'em, but fights, man, fights!) I'm not saying a tie should never be allowed to happen: sometimes offenses suck so badly that there really is no point in going into quintuple overtime. But ties should never be celebrated. They may not exactly be a losses, but they sure as hell ain't wins!

Of course, I reckon soccer is great for countries like Italy who - not counting four World Cup titles - haven't had any kind of real victory since Emperor Claudius conquered Britannia. And France and England certainly have had their share of ties, coming from the same families and all. (Funny, they each have one World Cup title, as well.) Americans just don't like ties. We didn't tie the eight year American Revolution... we won it! When Europe was mired down in WWI and WWII, we went in and broke through. We're used to being the tie breaker. Hey, that's a great idea!

When any World Cup game looks like it's going to end in a tie, why not send the Super Bowl Champs from that year in and break up the tie? Now I'd watch that!

I WAS WRONG

You probably thought I'd forgotten about my opening... I didn't. When this World Cup 2010 started I said there was no way I could care less about it. Turns out I was wrong: the Americans lost and now I actually care a little less about what occurs from here on out. Spain vs. the Netherlands - hopefully it won't last 80 years this time. Yawn.

A Bunch of Bull

I've been away for quite some time, but now I am back for you, dear reader. Plus, I've been digging a hole and want to take a moment to cool off before I go to the store to buy a post. I'm going to try to cover some of the things I almost care about briefly.

By now you have read all about the attempted bombing in New York. A few highlights:

A terrorist scumbag and all around moron set up an SUV in Times Square outside a showing of the Lion King stage production
Said SUV was filled with gasoline containers, propane tanks, alarm clocks, fireworks, and non-volatile fertilizer
Smoke but no boom
Owner tracked down through one of many hidden VIN's on the vehicle
Said he sold SUV to brown guy with accent
Said brown guy put on no fly list
Same brown guy got a ticket for Pakistan and boarded the plane several hours later
Brown guy arrested before plane took off

There is now talk of a dry-run several days before this incident, suggestions that he was disappointed in life here, made disparaging remarks about George Bush to his realtor, blah, blah, blah. You will hear a lot of this between now and when Britney Spears comes out of the closet to try to save her career. Here are some points of interest I find... well, interesting.

1. Wanna-be mad bomber Faisal Shahzad will go down in history as being the most inept terrorist of all time. Fire crackers, gasoline, and cow manure: an 8 year-old with an iPhone could build a better bomb through an internet search. He claims to have attended bomb-making classes in Pakistan. Is the Taliban resorting to ITT remote classes? It's good to see that this economy is affecting terrorist organizations. You just can't find good help anywhere.

2. Attorney General and Number One Racist Eric Holder stated that this individual had not been on any terror watch lists; however, I read an article (which I can't seem to find anywhere now) that stated investigators identified him through the previous owner who was able to pick his picture out of a line-up. With no previous record, how did they have a photo? Granted, it may have been in among the stuff in the vehicle, like his keys, but I don't remember reading about a wallet being left behind. Could it be that this individual - this moron - had been on a watch list... and we lost him?

3. This SUV was parked on Times Square, in a busy area, and near the Lion King performance. This also places it very close to the Viacom building. Viacom, and its subsidiary Comedy Central, recently censored the show South Park (again) for its portrayal of former thief and known pedophile Muhammad. Way to go, Comedy Central. Bowing down to terrorists always works. Didn't Bill Clinton prove that? You made it to The Pansy Corner.

4. Abu Talhah al-Amrikee of Revolution Muslim, "a radical Islamic group based in Queens," posted the threat that caused Viacom to fold. His real name? Zachary Adam Chesser. Let all of that sink in. A radical Islamic group in Queens? Really? Zachary is a Muslim terrorist? Boy, Mr. and Mrs. Chesser have got to be proud. Folks, turns out there's something worse your son can become than a Democrat... barely worse.

5. Faisal Shahzad was a U.S. citizen. Yep, naturalized because he learned a tech skill and passed a citizenship test. People talk about how hard that test is: Who was the 8th U.S. President? Name the three branches of government. Which arm can raise taxes? Coke or Pepsi? People say most adults that were born here couldn't pass that test, and I bet that's true. Which shows how wrong and ineffective it is. When our test to get into this country would deny natural American but allow would-be terrorists, we've got a problem. Joe Public doesn't know that Martin Van Buren wasn't on American Idol last season, but he isn't going to raise a stink about it. Here in America he is free to be ignorant, drink beer, and watch American Gladiators every night. It's a sweet deal. You can't do that in other countries: you don't know who Kim Jong-il is in North Korea, a cop can shoot you in the street. Joe doesn't even have to know who his mayor is, and he likes it that way. Let's get rid of the ones who know too much. During a time of war the test should read:
1. Are you brown?
2. Do you talk funny?
DENIED
I know that sounds horrible, but desperate times call for prejudiced measures!

6. "This incident is another sobering reminder of the times in which we live. At home and around the world there are those who would attack our citizens and would slaughter innocent men, women and children in pursuit of their murderous agenda." - Barack Obama
Muderous agenda, Mr. President? I believe they like to refer to it as Islam. Don't think your membership card keeps you safe. Just ask Viacom.

PEARL HARBORING TERRORISTS?

It's busy day for us here in the Land of the (soon to be not-so) Free. It's December 7th, and that can mean only one thing here in the U.S. of A.:

Today we recognize the vital importance of the men and women of our armed forces by arraigning four members of our most elite fighting force on charges of punching a known and successful terrorist scumbucket.

I know there are allegations of falsifying reports and impeding investigations and etc...  But for God's sake!  Am I the only one that can see the big picture here?  Am I the only one that sees the damage that will be done by prosecuting Navy SEALs in front of the entire world in deference to a godless sociopath!!??  What are we going to do next, start bowing before other national leaders?

Did Matthew McCabe punch this guy?  I don't know, and I don't really care.  Did he cover the fact up with the help of his buddies?  I don't know, but realize the military must find out.  But I also know that if they did collude in covering it up they did so in reaction to the mamby-pamby, social-experimenting, equal opportunity, progressive state the U.S. Military is in today!  Which is what has landed it in The Pansy Corner in the first place!

Here's the test on this case: WWPS?

Who Would Patton Slap?  Would George S. Patton, Jr. (can anyone argue against his effectiveness and understanding of war?) slap these Navy SEALs or would he slap Robert Gates and anyone else not coming to their defense and putting an end to this circus?

WWPS?

"Back from 'who ate us'?" "No, hiatus."

OBAMA'S WAR

President Barack Obama's long anticipated "Afghaniplan" is scheduled to be announced this very evening, with a troop increase of 30-35,000 expected, which is a tad less than the 140,000 his commanding General recommended for success. Our little candidate is growing up. It seems like just yesterday he was saying things like, "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war."  Of course, that quote was directed toward the War in Iraq. 

After eight years there, Afghanistan is clearly a different story... just ask the Russians. But fear not: Obama is not growing weary, even if his party is. He plans for U.S. troops to be there for at least three more years, beating the Soviets by a year and a half. He states that we will not leave before the job is done. By the way: does anyone know what the job is?

Due to its mountainous terrain (among other factors) there has never been an effective, centralized government in Afghanistan, with the possible exception of the East India Company. The area is nothing more than a barren pile of minerals, a line of demarcation between warring ethnic factions. If Obama really thinks Bin Laden is still hiding in the hills there, don't send more U.S. soldiers into harm's way to look for him; send mining companies. Within a few years of strip mining, there won't be anywhere left for the b*stard to hide.

SEALing THEIR FATE

Four U.S. SEALs have been accused of the mistreatment of another poor Islamic prisoner, one Ahmed Hashim Abed. This fella claims he was punched in the mouth during his detainment by the members of SEAL Team 10. One of the soldiers, Matthew McCabe, has been charged with assault. You probably have never heard of McCabe, but you might remember Abed from a 2004 incident during which four U.S. contractors were murdered, burned, dragged, and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River under his orders. The SEALs have given our mamby-pamby, Obama-era military the finger and demanded Courts-Martial (facing criminal charges and possible jail time) rather than administrative discipline.  And get this: they are to be arraigned on DECEMBER 7th! Good for them for standing up! If these SEALs don't win their case against the Obama Administration's witness - fellow Muslim Ahmed Hashim Abed, we all need to march to Washington and defend the men at home who are defending us abroad!  And I mean march armed to the teeth.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

This despicable treatment of our soldiers comes from the post-Abu Ghraib, we're so sorry for being Americans attitude that has only intensified under the current administration. ('W'-ers out there rest assured that the previous administration was guilty of this, too - just to a lesser extent.) Don't humiliate the enemy, they tell us. You will just make them angrier. Don't humiliate them? You mean like this?

This administration tells us we no longer can waterboard because it is cruel and inhumane.  Besides, they tell us, it is not an effective way to get information and could suggest to people we are not compassionate.  You mean like this?

I'm going to address waterboarding for just a moment. I saw Mancow do a little bit on it. He apparently (I don't listen to his show) was a big fan of it until he tried it himself in-studio:

So Mancow admits that waterboarding is torture.  Well, he forgot to ask these 4 questions:

1. Yeah?
2. And?
3. So?
4. What?*

Why in the Hell would I care? Is waterboarding torture? Possibly. I don't really know the definition. I can tell you this: Waterboarding by no means looks like a pleasant experience. In fact, it is so bad that it is probably among the top 5 reasons that I'm not a scumbag, Hell-bound, militant, Islamic terrorist today. I say the only way you do waterboarding wrong is if the piece of garbage terrorist gets up afterward. It is my understanding that we actually only waterboarded one individual (a bunch of times, grant you) and it worked... remarkably well. It worked so well that we only had to threaten one other individual with it before he started singing about terrorist cells and info. If waterboarding some Muslim dink saves just one person from a fate like this...

...bring me an ironing board and a pitcher of water! I have compassion. It makes me passionate. And maybe it makes a SEAL passionate from time to time.

To all other SEALs out there: In the future, you take the future "Objective Ambers" out there, cut off their toes or noses or whatever to get information - or not - then put a bullet in their head... followed by another. We need you protecting us, not wasting your time in disciplinary hearings or Courts-Martial. Oh, and "Thank You" to all of you from all of us.

*And thanks to Bill Hicks for not objecting to me stealing from his joke.


HIGHER A-SPIRE-ATIONS

Remember the Chicago Spire? This massive, 2000-feet high skyscraper was to be the third tallest building in the world, and tallest residential structure ever. The project's financing collapsed with the current economic downturn, with little hope of it ever becoming a reality. Until now...

The AFL-CIO is now looking at raising more than $100 million to get the project going. Why? Because some of their union members are facing 30% unemployment rates. This project would provide over one million man-hours of labor at a time when it is greatly needed. The work, that is, if not the building.

At a time when people are losing their homes because they are overextended, is it wise to build a luxury residential high-rise, a monument to fiscal irresponsibility?  A Cortlandt Homes Project for the 2000's?  I think not, so I have a better suggestion. Why not build a wall like we have been talking about in this country for the last ten years?

This will be something practical, something useful, something with purpose.  It will get these union guys working again... they will like that. It will protect the citizens of this country from a horrible enemy. And it will help insure the economic integrity of the U.S. for generations to come.

I'm not talking about a wall to keep gardeners and meat packers south of the boarder.  And I'm not talking about a wall to keep emergency room visitors and weekend gamblers to the north.  I'm talking about a massive wall, some 50 feet high, made of concrete, steal, and whatever else that can be scrounged, impervious to human efforts to blast through, cross over, or tunnel under, email and phone signal-proof, sealed, and left forever. Something that will make the Great Wall of China look like a Christo and Jeanne-Claude installation.  I'm talking about building a wall around Washington, D.C.

Now, that's construction that would help this country.

THE PANSY CORNER

Congratulations to the Christina (Delaware) School Board, which has been backed into The Pansy Corner this week by a student who was on his way to a 45-day suspension to the alternative school but for a last minute reprieve.

Here's what happened: In the quiet, early morning hours of September 29th, Zachary Christie got off his school bus wielding a knife. A teacher asked him what he had in his hand and he brandished the weapon, claiming he was going to use it to eat his lunch. Acting swiftly before literally dozens of students could be stabbed to death, the teacher turned the knife over to the school principal, who decisively suspended Christie for 45-days, pending a school board hearing. A tragedy, much like the one at Columbine, was once again narrowly avoided by the quick thinking of an alert teacher and a school district's zero tolerance policy.

By October 12th it became clear to members of the school board that not only was Zachary Christie a 1st grader, he was also a new and proud Cub Scout, which is why he brought the spoon-fork-knife utensil to school. Additionally, he was active in school, participating in the talent show, excelling in math and reading, and winning first place in a statewide art contest. Further complicating the school's case was the fact that both of Christie's parents and his step-father are active in the school. His mother is co-President of the PTA and homeroom mother for Zachary's class. And, as it turns out, quite adept at creating websites, like this one.

On October 13th the school board decided to give Zachary another chance in his school. To get around the zero-tolerance regulations, the members unanimously voted to reduce the punishment for kindergartners and 1st graders who carry weapons to school or commit violent acts to a suspension of 3 to 5 days, wisely continuing to protect students and faculty from homicidal 2nd graders.

If you follow the link above you will see that there was a bittersweet ending to this situation. While Zachary is back in school, his parents are concerned that other students may be swept up in similar hysteria, and for good reason. This school board made The Pansy Corner for exactly how they handled this situation. I'm not going into the argument about zero-tolerance here (it is a long debate... at least on the side of common sense). What I want to point out is that these chicken-livered administrators were helpless to make a decision without changing a ridiculous rule. Why not stand up and say:

It is clear that this rule is not set in place for a student of this caliber or a situation like this. Zachary Christie will return to class, his record will be cleared of this incident, and the principal will report to my office for a paddling.

Why? The bottom line is that the school board is scared. All of them across the country are. And no matter what Michael Moore might say, it has nothing to do with safety. It's all about security - job security. The policies put in place since Columbine have done little to nothing to protect children in MOST school districts. (There are some school districts that ought to hand out straight jackets at the door, but that's for another post... on another blog.) These intrusive policies have gone a long way to teaching your children there is no such thing as a right to privacy or personal property, even to the extent of having the school dole out medication. (Gee, I wonder how future generations will vote on health care reform?) But they have increased job security for school administrators.

Zero tolerance means no discretioin at the local level. No discretion means no decisions. No decisions means no responsibility. No responsibility means no accountability. No accountability means no need to evolve into a rational, reasoning, vertebrate. And that's exactly what we have filling the offices and teachers' lounges of our schools: mindless, spineless bureaucrats.

In this case the fear was not that Zachary Christie would attack another student, but that some child might get hurt. A cut. A poke. An abrasion. Bruised feelings. And what happens then? No one wanted to say it, every single administrator associated with this case avoided it, and in story after story of this ilk across the country you won't find it mentioned: LAWSUIT. The easy way to face it is by burying one's head in the rules.

Lawsuits, all across the land, have scared these people into inaction. Zachary's mother got 29,000 signatures of support, which left the school board little choice but to let him off. But they did it in the most spineless way possible. It was truly the least they could do. Why not take the momentum of the signatures and use them to fight back against lawsuits and ridiculous policies? CHARGE!!!!!

Why indeed. Look, I'd love to blame all this on the lawyers. The civil legal system exists so that rational parties who disagree over an issue have access to an impartial resolution. Attorneys are a vital part of the process of making sure justice is served and injured parties are properly and reasonably compensated. The truth is that some lawyers step way outside this role and go looking for any excuse to sue or extort money from someone... anyone. But I'm afraid - and this pains me to say - that lawyers are not the whole problem here...

How many of you nodded your head when I damned the lawyers?

How many of you would be reaching for the yellow pages the second your child broke an arm jumping off the monkey bars at school? Payday, right?

Congratulations, Zachary. I wish you the best in your future educational experiences.

HOLLYWOODLAND

Hollywood is all aTwitter over the Swiss arrest of French director Roman Polanski at the Zurich Film Festival. It seems that many of his peers feel it unjust that an "international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend" the 76-year old admitted child molester. That little gem came from the petition SACD (a French artist and film industry association) produced with the goal of winning his release on bail. Like nearly every other French-led attempt to affect the behavior of another country over the last 100 years, the effort has failed miserably.

Before I go any further into this issue, allow me to give you a little background. In 1977, Polanski accepted a plea bargain and pled guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. After a 42-day psychiatric evaluation, Polanski feared that the judge in the case would renege on an agreed probation, so on the eve of his sentencing hearing he fled to France by way of London. He has been gone ever since, suffering through a life of freedom, financial success, professional accolades, and an Oscar.

Being the intrepid blogger that I am, I did a little research on the issue. It seems the minor that Polanski engaged in "unlawful sexual intercourse" with was one 13-year old Samantha Gailey. Polanski's grand jury, after hearing Miss Gailey's testimony, indicted him on five charges:

1. 
   
   Rape by use of drugs
   
   
   
2. 
   
   Perversion
   
   
   
3. 
   
   Sodomy
   
   
   
4. 
   
   Lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14
   
   
   
5. 
   
   Furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor
   
   
   

I reviewed 36 pages of Miss Gailey's testimony (what did you do for lunch?). You can find them at The Smoking Gun - just click on the image to the right. Pay special attention to the end of page 17 and beyond. Keep in mind that at the time this rape occurred this girl was 13-years old and Polanski was 44-years old. That's a difference of 31 years for those keeping score.

"Rape?" you ask. "The charges didn't say anything about rape. And isn't a person innocent until proven guilty?" Read the transcript, and remember that it was so damning that Polanski pled guilty. Sure, they were lesser charges - that's why it's called a plea bargain. Polanski got the bargain; little Miss Gailey got raped. If there is any question in your mind about whether he did wrong by this girl, why don't you ask your 13-year old daughter what she thinks?

There's your background. Back to the petition. Just based upon what I already knew about the case from a lifetime of hearing about it I couldn't understand why anyone would sign a petition in this creep's defense... even cowardly Hollywood-types. Notice that I didn't say it surprised me, just that I couldn't understand it. Perhaps you are having a difficult time, too. Let's explore it together.

The SACD wants to point out that it is conspicuously not talking about the charges against Polanski, just that he was arrested at a film festival. Here is the first element of this moral failure: these people clearly think they and what they do are above the rest of society. Their film industry celebration carries with it protection from the retribution for crimes committed against your daughters. What if the Vatican were to protest that a priest was in church and therefore could not be arrested for raping altar boys? What would you think if a drunk driver tried to escape arrest on manslaughter charges by hiding at an A.A. meeting? Am I immune to legal prosecution as long as I am attending a... I don't know where bloggers gather... as long as I am at Starbucks? Of course not! But the Hollywood elite are not your normal rapists.

Having said that, superiority alone doesn't account for everything in this case. How can a group of people dedicated to ending human trafficking in the third world, rape in the Congo, and the selling of little brown children on the black market (except to fellow Hollywood elitists) defend a man who provided alcohol and drugs to, molested, raped and sodomized a 13-year old girl? Okay, in Woody Allen's case it may not be THAT big a stretch, but what about the 700+ other signatories? It's a matter of philosophy.

The other day my son and I were on a road trip so, having him trapped in the cab of the truck with me, I instructed him on the importance of establishing principles in one's life... and staying true to them. We talked about the apparent difference between embezzling money from someone's retirement plan versus seeing a jerk drop a $20 bill and not mentioning it to him and picking it up after he leaves. One is plainly wrong while the other... well, might be tempting. This is a common problem for many people, and it is the result of learning about right and wrong actions rather than right and wrong philosophies. If you only accept that some actions are wrong, you will likely hesitate, balk, or just fail in the face of a challenging situation. But if, early on, you establish philosophical stances, you will more clearly understand what is right and what is wrong in any situation.

I likened it to a scantron sheet. These are the sheets that have the little bubbles labeled A, B, C, D, and E. You fill in the corresponding bubble for each question asked. If each of these represented the situations you face in your life and you are only armed with the knowledge of right and wrong actions, it can be a daunting task to check each of your answers. Now picture your set of philosophical stances, let's call them principles, as a scantron answer key where each correct answer lines up with "A." By placing the key on top of the scantron sheet one can quickly and clearly identify the "right" actions.

The people who have signed this Polanski petition never went through this process in their life. They never sought the answers. They never accepted truth. And they have no principles. This is why their actions can so often be contradictory. It is why Rosie O'Donnell can work to make handguns illegal for you while her bodyguards carry them. It is why Congress can push Health Care Reform for you, but leave themselves out of it. Hollywood-Washington. They've got you surrounded, America.

I don't know how all of this mess with Polanski will end up. There is talk of misconduct of one of the D.A.'s in the case. The mother of Gailey seems to have been complacent with her accompanying Polanski - there certainly seems to be some hero-worship going on. Some point out that the victim of the crime now wants Polanski forgiven so that all of this would be over - of course, would we really care what Sharon Tate has to say? It's about punishment and stopping future crimes. And folks, if a 44-year old man is capable of drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year old girl once, I'll bet you he's done it before, since, and a hundred different ways.

Although I don't know how the case will end up I can assure you of this: Had Samantha Gailey been my daughter there would not have been a Roman Polanski-directed film after 1977. Hell, there wouldn't have been a Roman Polanski after 1977. And I defy any man who reads that transcript to suggest otherwise.

CHOICES: Mice or Men

I do not believe in fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in fate that falls on them unless they act. - GK Chesterton

The other day I sat down in a local eatery for what promised to be a pleasant lunch of enchiladas, refried beans, and rice. I was dining alone at my table due to several factors, including the fact that I have no friends. There were several other occupied tables in the restaurant: two pairs of women, an assortment of men, a couple in their 60's, and a young fella of undetermined age. This last was actually sitting with his back to me at the adjoining booth. I noted he had long, stringy hair, was wearing a "Louisiana" hat indoors and at the table, and was listening to an iPod or some such device.

Shortly after my food arrived his phone rang. This fella proceeded to talk on the phone while eating. And he talked loudly, his hearing no doubt affected by the earbud still plugged into the hole on the other side of his head. Now, this combination of behaviors was enough to annoy me, but I'm a live-and-let-live type of guy. But then the language turned south. At first it was just an a-s here, or a sh*t there, but then it rapidly escalated. F-bombs were being dropped at a rate that would make The Dude blush, hurled across the room at unsuspecting diners, propelled by this Bayou Bum's awesome level of tactlessness.

I watched the wait staff: perhaps out of fear of a tipless reprisal, or because of a tenuous grasp of English profanity, they did nothing to stop him. I watched the man eating with his wife: he was in his 60's but a pretty large guy. He did nothing but look offended for his wife. I didn't look to the other men in the room to do anything because I was as capable as they; my pause was out of deference to the wait staff and the man dining with his wife. Having heard more than I'd wanted I got up and walked over to the public offender, interrupted his phone call, and said, "Hey, there are ladies present in this room... would you cut out the profanity." While technically a question, the intonation made it clear this was a command. He understood, apologized, and cleaned up his act (the language, anyway... I doubt the hair had been cleaned in days).

Why do I tell you this? To look like the hero? No. I most certainly wasn't a hero; I merely requested that another guy show some respect to the women in the room. I wasn't looking to get into a fight either. I'm at the age where I don't even want to fight. It's not that I can't or won't. I've won and lost many in my life. I've forcefully taken swinging bats away from people. I've gotten into a fight (flanked by my brother and former brother-in-law) against 30 people... while dressed up as an M&M (the green one, right Philip?). I've bloodied and been bloodied. Fun and games back in the day. Recently, though, I had an experience that convinced me those days are gone.

Earlier this year, as I did some ring mastering for mixed martial arts fights, I realized just what is walking the streets out there. It wasn't that these fighters were any stronger or tougher than me. I don't even think most of them were that much better at fighting. But what I came to accept is that there are a heckuva lot of people out there who care far less about their own bodies than I care about mine. These guys were getting the fluids beat out of them for a chance to win less than I was making just talking. Of course, those guys are young and can heal while I'm at the age that blowing my nose wrong could result in a stress fracture.

Anyway, back to the restaurant. What astounded me was that not one other man in the restaurant - not even the employees - would do anything about this guy's behavior. I felt a stunned silence fall over the dining room as I confronted the foul-mouthed magpie. Why? Is it that shocking when a man stands up and does what a man should do? Evidently - and sadly - it is: the magpie did as instructed. I certainly didn't mind doing it, but why did the other men refuse? Especially the employees whose job it is to provide a pleasant atmosphere for their customers?

I experienced a similar incident when I was working at McDonald's back in college. A woman and her teenaged daughter came in, followed by two rather drunk 20-something nothings. One of the two drunk men stood right behind (no more than an inch between them) the teenaged girl and proceeded to make lewd comments about her to his friend. The woman and her daughter were scared to death, as evidenced by the looks on their faces. I came out from behind the griddle and informed these two dunderheads that they were going to apologize to the young lady and then leave, thus avoiding a very embarrassing beating in a fast food restaurant. (I was not bluffing as it would not be the first time I'd fought in a restaurant... or even the second. I was a bit wild in those days.) Short story long, they apologized, the two women shot out of the restaurant, and the two drunks wandered out, figuring I meant what I had said and could back it up.

The manager then pulled me to the back, told me to go home, and informed me that I would likely be fired unless I apologized to the drunks. I put the likelihood of that happening in terms of snowballs in hell and his growing of huevos. Alas, my job was spared on my way out when both mother and daughter ran into the restaurant, wrapped their arms around me, and thanked me profusely for standing up for them when no one else (including said manager) would.

Again, I don't bring this up to claim to be a hero. In both incidents I merely did what any man should, so it has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement. And this piece isn't about the deplorable state of American eateries, their employees, or patrons. My whole point is that we have become such a feminized society that men don't stand up in the face of even the simplest of circumstances. Could there have been trouble from the swearing TexMex customer? Unlikely. The two fast food drunks? More likely, but they were both drunk and I was young, sober, and disaffected. I'm sure you see these failures every day: Men ignoring rude behavior. Doors closed in women's faces. Thank you's going unsaid. These are but little issues of civility, yet we as men seemingly can't stand up and demand them. What does that mean for the future?

We needn't wait for the future - the results are all around us. We have a government that is spending us into a $12 trillion national debt that our kids and grandkids will have to pay. While between several thousand and several million (depending upon your news source) people marched on Washington, DC in opposition to this, it's still just an empty gesture. The current administration knows all about symbolic actions, empty gestures, and escalated threats. They mean nothing; therefore, they garner no respect from those in charge. At some point someone must stand up, say, "Enough is enough," and do something about it. Aren't you glad George Washington did? What if he'd said to himself, "Well, it all might cause an ugly scene?"

This manless state of ours is resulting in far worse and immediate dangers for us. Take the current situation with Iran. For quite some time the Iranians have refused to allow international inspectors to examine their uranium enrichment program in order to evaluate whether the rogue state is trying develop nuclear energy capabilities or nuclear weapons. There have been clandestine programs put in place by the Israelis and the U.S. to sabotage Iranian enrichment efforts, but none have been given the green light to act. It is likely the U.S. program has been dismantled, though I have no substantiated information either way (please feel free to comment). On September 20 of this year, Iranian President Mahmoud "Members Only" Ahmadinejad stated that U.S. officials know they are wrong about claims that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, while Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expounded by saying:

The U.S. officials who talk about Iranian missiles and their danger while saying Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb, they know these words are wrong.

Our response was to invite Iran to "dialogue" about its nuclear program. Five days later Iran revealed the existence of a secret underground uranium enrichment plant near Qom. This time the Western world's words were tougher. At the G-20 Barack Obama himself pointed out that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow." England and France joined the U.S. in demanding Iran disclose its nuclear ambitions "or be held accountable" to an impatient world community. Just three days later, in what was a surprise to these same leaders, Iran announced the testing of a missile that could reach any perceived threat to Iran, including Israel, parts of Europe, and U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The U.S. reaction has been a sort of stunned silence.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised the empty gestures and hollow threats haven't been more numerous, given that it was just last month that the Russian cargo ship Arctic Sea went on its bizarre tour of the terrorist world, likely delivering nuclear and/or missile materials to Iran. Of course, this policy of downplaying the importance of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of dangerous, fanatical extremists is quite consistent with how the administration has dealt with North Korea.

If I had asked you a year ago to name the two most dangerous and downright unstable national leaders in the world, what percentage of you would have replied with Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Well, guess what? These two mad men now (or very soon will) have nuclear material and viable ways to deliver them across a wide arc... unless we do something right now.

But then, if we as men can't stand up to a four-letter word like F*CK, how are we ever to face one like NUKE?

Not Just Another Pretty Face

It’s been a while since I’ve written here and I know I promised another part to the Healthcare Reform series. I promise it is forthcoming – I will explain that the objective of health care reform is to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and that the only way to fix the health care ills in this country is through a single-payer system. But for now, something lighter because I’ve been rather ill over the last several weeks, undoubtedly caused by Joe Wilson’s blatant racism.

A few weeks ago a friend informed me that he had been enjoying the healthcare series and that he wasn’t offended by what I said about mechanics in Part 2 because he used to be a mechanic. I’m glad he wasn’t offended because the last thing in the world I’d want to do is offend someone, especially a fellow former mechanic. But it seems no matter how hard I try to stay on people’s good side I usually find a way to offend.

Take, for instance, the email I sent out announcing the posting of Part 2. I inadvertently sent it to a couple of MENSA members whose addresses were in my contact list, and the responses I got were quite rude. It was an accident that they even got the notice in the first place because I am careful to send my writings to the only conservative MENSAN I know: Maryann. You see, most MENSANS gravitate toward liberalism… and chocolate… and nudism. These do not go together well. I hate to pick on them that way, but truth is truth. In fact, I’ve noticed that nudism and liberalism in general are not complimentary isms. They should not be mixed. You may not have noticed this phenomenon yourself, so let me provide you with some examples.

On the left I’ve placed photos of famously liberal individuals, and on the right, well, good looking conservatives. Again, my intention is not to offend, just observe. Decide for yourself:

Yeah, I'm still going with the one on the right.

I think you can clearly see from this list that it's tough for us conservatives: people tend to think we're just beautiful people with nothing else to offer. But that's just not true. We're not just another pretty face... we're conservatives.

If you feel like one of us, show your colors in a nice, new T-shirt. What a great gift for yourself or a loved one. Christmas is just right around the corner.

http://edwardgroberts.shirtcity.com/