The Bill of Wrongs: One Nation Under God('s Jackboot)

In 1996, one Miss Laura Schubert Pearson of Cooley, Texas was made the victim of violent abuse while being held captive by an organized group of individuals attempting to promote a ludicrous social agenda. She, being age 17, was held against her will and without the permission or consent of her parents (who were out of town), during which time she was pinned down and restrained by members of the accused group, pummeled and beaten repeatedly, and intimidated by chants and songs which were designed to produce in her feelings of fear, guilt, and submission. During this grotesque ordeal she pleaded to be released. Finally, after two days of this violation, the group wearied of their efforts and released her.

No police charges were pressed and every member of this group not only remains free, but has never suffered any lawful punishment for their actions at all.

In the years following the ordeal, Laura suffered from what can unmistakably be identified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; she developed agoraphobia and became housebound due to overwhelming feelings of anxiety, dropped out of school, and began mutilating herself, all of this after she had been perfectly healthy prior to her captivity and had shown no signs of any sort of psychological illness. Her parents, in an attempt to seek justice for their little girl, proceeded to sue the perverse and sadistic group that assaulted their daughter, claiming false imprisonment, assault, and physical, emotional, and mental abuse. The case was finally presented to a jury in 2002 and Laura was awarded the meager restitution of $300,000 for damages, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and medical expenses. The 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth later reduced the verdict to $188,000. While this paltry sum can hardly be taken as an adequate extension of justice to these depraved individuals, at that point it could at least be said that Laura's abuse was not to go completely unavenged.

However, this isn't the end of Laura's story. Now, after six years of appeals of the lower courts' verdicts, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has thrown the case out entirely, claiming that any attempt by the courts to punish those that kidnapped, physically assaulted, and emotionally intimidated Laura would violate the First Amendment of our Constitution.

You see, the members of the group that perpetrated these deplorable crimes were part of a church's congregation attempting to perform an exorcism on Laura against her will.

(Source 1, Source 2)

It is in situations such as these, friends, that our Bill of Rights is transformed into the Bill of Wrongs by those who would exploit them through malicious sophistry and intentional misunderstanding. Indeed, if any of the six justices-- whose job it is to interpret our Constitution based on the words written right in front of them-- that voted in favor of sanctioning the depraved zealotry of the vile members of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church has ever so much as given a passing glance to our founding document, they should be immediately removed from their capacity in the courts due to either the inability to perform their duties due to outside bias, or their obvious and disqualifying ignorance and inability to read and understand plain English.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Thus reads our First Amendment. It is composed of a scant, but revolutionary, 45 words, the most important of which, in the case of Laura, is the word “exercise.” As can be deduced by context and through even the most rudimentary understanding of the English language, the word “exercise” in this case can be said to fall under all of the following definitions:

1. to put (one's faculties, rights, etc.) into action, practice, or use. Ex: to exercise freedom of speech.

2. to use or display in one's action or procedure. Ex: to exercise judgment.

3. to make use of (one's privileges, powers, etc.). Ex: to exercise one's constitutional rights.

Now, for those of you that, contrary to the apparent abilities of six Texas Supreme Court justices, have even a tenuous grasp of the form of English as a language, the implication of the above definitions is apparent and unmistakable-- to “exercise” in the sense that the word is used in our First Amendment refers to a singular individual choosing to make use of personal faculties, rights, and beliefs. This is all well and good, and you will find no debate from me or from any other champions of liberty concerning this reading-- the ability to exercise influence and choice over one's own life without outside interference is the very backbone of freedom. However, once an individual's choice to “exercise” any belief or right has infringed upon the the beliefs or rights of a secondary individual (in this case, Laura's right to believe, quite correctly, that exorcism is a sickening relic from the sado-masochistic origins of a foolish system of beliefs built upon the detestable notions of fear, unworthiness, and the contradictory interplay of conceit and self pity), it is the secondary party whom has had their First Amendment rights violated, not the other way around, leaving the primary party's actions unconstitutional and, as a consequence, deserving neither the protection nor the succor of our Bill of Rights. To read this situation in any other manner can only be viewed as intentional distortion of constitutional law or, perhaps worse, gross negligence on the part of men and women too ignorant, servile, and slavish to superstition to hold any public office at all, let alone the office of justice on a state's Supreme Court.

If you are as yet unconvinced, let us simply apply this line of thinking to a similar set of circumstances and see if they hold up any sort of notion concerning liberty and justice. Using this ruling as a basis, it is not at all a reach for one to declare that Timothy McVeigh was well within his constitutional rights by claiming the lives of 168 men, women, and children when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma. He was simply exercising his right to free speech by way of inflicting his beliefs on those he saw as part of the “problem” and not the “solution” as revenge for the government's actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge. The fact that the rights of those innocents were infringed upon is, according to two-thirds of the Texas Supreme Court, irrelevant. By their standard, any attempt to punish McVeigh, whom has since been executed for his crimes, would be an assault on his First Amendment rights.

But then again, we were speaking of freedom of religion, not free speech, weren't we? Well, this is all the better, as we've an even more expansive pool of examples from which to draw. Let us say nothing of the tortures of the Holy Inquisition, the blind and generational bloodletting of The Troubles and the “Long War”, the mass genocides of the Kosovo War, or even the unavoidable parallels to be found in the events of September, 2001. Instead, let's keep our discourse strictly confined to fundamentalist, American protestants. Again, applying the constitutional interpretation of two-thirds of the Texas Supreme Court, to say that the lynchings of black Christians and other ethnicities by the Ku Klux Klan members that chose to follow Christian Reconstructionism as a religious ideology were deplorable and worthy of the swiftest retribution would be out of line. Any call to punish such actions or to even attempt to prevent further instances of them occurring would be to undercut the constitutional protections afford by the First Amendment.

At this point, this horse, if not beaten to the point of death, is at the very least in mortal danger of becoming so. I shall not belabor the point any further.

It remains baffling as to how such easily recognized and understandable situations can have their obvious resolutions so skirted by our judicial system. John F. Kennedy once said, in referencing an event in which forty-nine Nobel Prize winners were invited to the White House:

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House — with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Thomas Jefferson was, of course, the primary and most influential author of our founding documents. Is it so far out of the question for those that are charged with the interpretation of our Constitution to acknowledge that the unconstitutional status and treatment of any “exercising” of rights that in itself infringes upon the rights and protections of other unwilling individuals is the sine qua non on which Jefferson and others built the foundation of our free nation? Is it just barely possible that the reason words such as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or allowing for the exercise thereof to unduly infringe upon the liberty or physical well being of unwilling participants;” do not appear in full in our First Amendment is because it is a basic requirement so essential that its omission would render the entire document useless, and therefore it need not be written? And, is it marginally plausible that intentional misreadings and misunderstandings of our Constitution have as their motivation the furthering of the agenda of the religious superstition which our lawmakers blindly follow, going so far as to refer to themselves and their peers as “sheep” in a “flock” with pride instead of disgrace? It is in the case of the latter most query and its implications that the true intention of our First Amendment can be found if only one has the strength of intellect and personal character to read and understand plain English, and to shuck off the hobnailed boot that so many would have placed upon our necks in the name of God.

Small Minds and Big Oil: The Truth Concerning Prices at the Pump and America's Energy Crisis - Part 1

Living in an age such as our own has quite a many advantages. The most complete compendium of the world's knowledge is quite literally at our fingertips thanks to the ever present Internet, a double dozen twenty-four hour news stations inhabit our televisions to beam breaking news and “hard hitting political analysis” into our living rooms within moments of an event occurring, and there exists a veritable deluge of talk and opinion programming that inhabits all forms of media, providing nearly everyone with some sort of a megaphone through which their own philosophies, political or not, have the ability to be voiced, amplified, and trumped for all that care to hear them. For all of this, though, we live in an age that is hemorrhaging internally due to one particular flaw: bad information and its consequent ill informed opinions spread just as quickly (and often with more associated fervor) as accurate information, giving rise to a sort of authoritative ignorance that tends to satiate the less informed masses with a feeling of “Oh, I know ALL about that!” when they've only fallen prey to inaccurate information or twisted half truth. It is onto this wound of our otherwise grand and astounding information age that I intend to, in my own fashion, apply a bandage in the form of this article.

Despite the importance of issues surrounding fuel costs, alternative technologies, et cetera, and no doubt as a corollary to the empty headed hot air being spewed from both sides of the political spectrum, there exists an immense amount of misconception and ignorance concerning the topics at hand. In this lays the intent and hopeful accomplishment of the purpose of this writing. I wish to address and either dispel or confirm the major points of contention concerning these issues, and to combat the tide of ignorance that is so hampering the efforts to find viable solutions.

ASSERTION: WE ARE BEING ROBBED AT THE PUMP BECAUSE “BIG OIL” IS GREEDY, CORRUPT, AND IN CONGRESS WITH THE DEVIL

You'll have to excuse the title a bit... since I first heard the phrase in my youth, I've always wanted to incorporate the phrase “In congress with the devil” into an intellectual discussion. Deus volent, this shan't be the last time. But moving on...

I have chosen to place this myth at the top of the list not only because it seems to have become a general consensus, but because of it's utter, unblinking stupidity.

To begin, let's take a look at the profit margins (or the percentage of the total sale price of a given commodity-- in this case, a barrel of oil-- that is pocketed by the producing entity as profit) of some given businesses:

Health care facilities: 48%

Publishing, periodicals, and magazines: 34%

Information delivery services: 23%

Application software industry: 22%

Tobacco products: 19%

Drug manufacturers: 17%

Insurance brokers: 16%

Long distance carriers: 15.8%

Beverages, wineries, distilleries: 15%

Hotel/motels: 10.6%

Asset management: 10.5%

Resorts and casinos: 10.5%

With the publishing industry making 34 cents on every dollar that they invest in their products and distilleries that require only yeast, sugar, some sort of grain or corn, and a heating apparatus running at half that figure, one would imagine that a complex and international entity such as BIG OIL must be running somewhere around 85%, right?

Try one tenth of that.

BIG OIL operates, on average, at an 8.5% profit margin. For balance, I include below the margins of some of the most profitable BIG OIL companies, as “on average” can sometimes be a deceiving statement. However, I doubt that the highest figure involved will make anyone blink when they realize it's only one cent above the profit margin of your local Motel 6:

(Figures as of 2007)

Exxon Mobile: 11.65%

Chevron: 9.49%

Total SA: 8.87%

BP: 8.09%

While I feel as if little argument is left following such figures, I cannot resist the temptation, given the prevalence of this nonsense, to press the issue further. Below I am going to demonstrate some math that proves these figures, so as to assure that any such fool that cries “right wing propaganda” will be doing so in the face of figures that cannot be fooled. This is an accounting of the “anatomy” of a gallon of gasoline, in that it dissects how much money and/or cost is related to the final price at the pump and outlines where that money goes:

(Figures taken from CNNMoney.com, calculated when oil was $110 per barrel and the price at the pump was $3.27 per gallon of gasoline on average. All figures rounded to the national average where applicable, or the industry average.)

Producers of Crude Oil: $2.07

Refiners: $.26 cents

Transportation: $.24 cents

State and Government Taxes: $.40 cents

Gas Station Profit: $.10

------------------------------------------------

Total Cost: $3.07

Oil Company Profit: $.20

Profit Margin (Profit divided by Cost of Commodity, or .20/3.27 ): 06%

Well, at the very least we can conclusively say that this particular gallon of gasoline was not purchased from Exxon, Chevron, Total SA, or BP.

Mathematics is amazing, nyet?

Before departing this issue for good, I wish to address one other fact that seems to slip under the rug when discussing the apparent evil of BIG OIL... income taxes.

In 2006, ExxonMobile's EBT (earnings before tax) was approximately 67.4 billion. Of that figure, Exxon paid out $27.9 billion, or around 41% of their total income for the year. No, your eyes aren't deceiving you. Very nearly half of ExxonMobile's total income was paid out in taxes. But of course, it's the evil corporation that's in congress with the devil (I told you it wouldn't be the last time!) that are gouging us at the pump.

If you wish to see the largest drop in gas prices in the history of petroleum, simply write to your congressman and ask him to repeal all taxes on gasoline. Next, you may as well ask that he persuade the tides to roll back at his behest, as one is about as likely as the other.

At this, I shall rest. I can only hope that for those reading these words, the myth of BIG OIL being the source of all of our woes is finally dispelled.

But let us endure with the topic of taxes...

ASSERTION: WE SHOULD TAX “BIG OIL” TO PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR GREED

This entry, in contrast to that which precedes it, shall be short, as both falsehoods in the statement have already been properly identified and disproved.

BIG OIL is not greedy, or at least no more so than the owner of your average hotel chain. As seen above in two languages (English and mathematics) taxes will not only do nothing to lower the price at the pump, it will raise that price higher than it would be otherwise, as the effect of any ancillary taxes will be passed on to the consumer, not absorbed by the corporations. The only way that this sort of narrow minded foolishness could possibly work would be to tax BIG OIL so heavily that the price at the pump reached towards the $20-$30 per gallon range, forcing the public to buy bicycles or use public transportation and effectively making gasoline and other petroleum a commodity too expensive to be used and exploited by any but the super rich and therefore essentially unprofitable. I refuse to extrapolate all of the negative effects that this course of action could have, and utterly refuse to discuss why this would be a death nail for our country and our economy. If you, Dear Reader, need such things explained to you, then you're beyond my ability to help you.

ASSERTION: SPECULATORS ARE AS GREEDY AS BIG OIL AND THE CAUSE OF HIGH PRICES AT THE PUMP

Let us begin with as concise a definition of speculation as can be made: speculation, essentially, is the act of buying amounts of a given commodity (in this case, oil) at the “today” price with the sole intention of turning around and selling it for a profit at a later date. In other words, if I suspected that cheese (remember the cheese, it'll be important later) was going to suddenly become scarce, I would buy cheese today at, say, $2 a pound, then, if my “speculation” was correct, the price of cheese would go up-- say, to $3 a pound-- and I would sell it off to a buyer, netting a profit of $1 for every pound of cheese. As simple as this definition sounds, the whole process can become extremely complicated (such as the distinction between buying “futures” as opposed to buying the actual product, but we'll get to that in a moment), but for the purposes of this writing it shall suffice.

The above definition, when applied to oil, leads to the common misconception (common not just among Joe Consumer, but among most on Capitol Hill) that oil speculators are creating artificial demand-- read: driving up oil prices-- through their speculation, in that it would appear that they're buying up massive amounts of oil at today's prices and therefore making it unavailable for consumers. Sadly, and most importantly, nothing could be further from the truth. You see, speculators are not buying up actual oil. Oh, no. Rarely if ever will a speculator take a delivery of a single shipment of oil.

What they are doing is known as engaging in “futures trading,” an oil future being an agreement between a buyer (Mr. John Q. Speculator) and a seller (BIG OIL) to deliver a set amount of oil at a specific price on a specific date. Contrary to common knowledge, however, the value of that contract can rise or fall all the way up until the delivery. For example, if John Speculator were to sign a contract today (Monday, July 14th) to receive 1,000 barrels of oil priced at $170 a barrel from BIG OIL on December 5th, 2008, he would be bound by the contract even if the price per barrel world wide had dipped down to $150 per barrel by the time the contract was due. In other words, it's a gamble on the part of the speculator as to if the price at which he has agreed to purchase the commodity in his “future” will have risen or fallen. Now, if a whole slew of speculators get together and make a run on the oil market all at once, buying up massive amounts of the commodity, IN THEORY, the price of oil will spike due to the fact that the supply will have suddenly decreased without the market having had time to react on the demand side of the economic equation, causing as a consequence a huge rise in price. This is the accusation that so many have leveled at speculators, which has resulted in the huge outcry as to their blame in our high prices at the pump. Unfortunately for those looking for a scapegoat, this outcry is utterly unmerited.

You see, as stated previously, speculators rarely if ever actually receive the oil on which they have made their “bet.” It is a rare instance indeed that any speculator even has the ability to house such a commodity were they to take such a delivery. Instead, they tend to sell off their oil futures to a third party (commonly other corporate entities that consume vast amounts of fuel, such as airlines or shipping institutions) a few days before it comes due. An understanding of this fact is absolutely essential in understanding the falsity in the statement that speculators are creating artificial demand, in that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any entity to create an artificial demand for a commodity WITHOUT taking it off the market. But you don't have to take my word for it. Instead I offer to you the words of energy markets expert and finance professor at the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business, Craig Pirrong:

“For speculators to be propping up the price of oil, they somehow have to be taking physical oil off the market.”

Professor Pirrong also goes on to analogize the government's attempt to bolster the price of cheese (I told you to remember the cheese) in the 1970's to the current situation. At that time, the government did so by purchasing massive warehouses full of cheese and intentionally keeping them off the market. In reference to the idiotic assertion that today's oil speculation is similar to this instance of creating artificial demand, he says:

“Well, where's the cheese now? Where's all the oil that the speculators have held off the market?”

It doesn't exist, Friend, nor does any real amount of blame to lay upon the well clothed shoulders of speculators.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE TO PART TWO OF THIS ARTICLE

Small Minds and Big Oil: The Truth Concerning Prices at the Pump and America's Energy Crisis - Part 2

ASSERTION: DRILLING FOR NEW OIL NOW WILL DO NOTHING TO HELP FUEL COSTS FOR AT LEAST 5-7 YEARS

This assertion, contrary to those before it, does indeed hold a not insubstantial grain of truth, which is that, while any action aimed at the expanding of America's oil enterprises will have a small but measurable effect on the commodity's market, the idea that new drilling will solve all of our problems is utterly fanciful. However, the importance of that truth is dwarfed by the importance of a larger truth: there exists absolutely no policy or course of action that can or will have a dramatic, immediate (immediate in terms of the next 6 months) impact on the price at the pump in the foreseeable future.

There seems to be three schools of thought concerning the question of if we should expand oil drilling operations: the (A) “Hell, if we just get the damn oil going it'll fix itself” crowd, the (B) “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout” crowd, and the (C) “It took us a while to dig this hole, it'll take a while to fill it back up” crowd.

Group A operates on the assumption that our current high cost of fuel is a direct and exclusive result of a weakening supply of oil, and that any sort of action to further increase oil supplies will have immediate and dramatic effects on the supply side of energy economics, driving down the cost. This, I'm sad to say, is simple hope wishing-- more than hope wishing, it is false at its core; there exists no shortage of oil in our country, or across the world. While any sort of action that shows an intent of expanding the U.S.'s domestic oil supply will cause some amount of stir among foreign suppliers and speculators, such a stir will be negligible at best. (As an aside to the inclusion of the role of speculation in this argument, one can't help but find it particularly amusing that many of those who make the same contention as I have stated above, concerning the minimal role of speculators in driving up the cost of fuel, have a tendency to ignore this in their next breath, exaggerating the role that speculators would play in driving DOWN the cost of fuel. In both cases, speculation is a factor, but one that is merely deserving of minute consideration, not deserving of zealous blame or messianic praise.)

Group A, however, is correct in their calls for more drilling in spite of the fact that they are correct for an entirely different reason than they suspect. It took many years of poor decisions and mismanagement for us to find ourselves in our present situation, and those that would demand or indeed expect an immediate resolution are living in the sort of dreamworld inhabited by those whom believe that passing legislation to make pi equal to 3.0 would be enough to make it true, or that a law against hatred is enough to put an end to prejudice. It will take much effort and many changes of policy before we can expect to see a dramatic and lasting effect on our fuel prices, and a big part of that course of action must inevitably include breaking or, at the very least, reducing by a large magnitude our dependence on foreign oil. The most effective way of accomplishing this, as one might imagine, is to expand domestic oil supplies by opening up new operations.

Group B, on the other hand, seems hell bent on shunning and ignoring the oil problem at any cost, letting the the issue fester and rot like an open wound, and simply focusing on courses of action that leave oil and other fossil fuels out of the equation entirely. While one must applaud any sort of forward thinking in terms of focusing on allowing future technologies to create a simpler and more efficient world, this is hope wishing of the same sort as seen in Group A, save that it runs in the opposite direction. For better or worse, the growth and success of our nation and of all other industrialized nations of the world are unavoidably tied to oil. While one can hope and endeavor for a world in which this isn't a truth, this state of affairs is currently inexorable and not up for debate. Beyond this, while innovations of all sorts can certainly have immediate positive impacts, the sort of technology that would allow for a massive shifting of the energy paradigm on a global scale, as moving away from oil being humanity's most prolific fuel source would be, is decades, if not generations away. Improving fuel efficiency, developing alternative fuels and/or more effective ways of harnessing them, and all other sorts of forward thinking modes of progress should certainly be at the forefront of our efforts, but to imagine that such steps forward will completely solve our current problems is to put the cart before the horse. Advances in technology and the advent of new fuels will certainly help to ease the burden, but they will not do so within the next few years, and in the mean time, grocery trucks still have to roll, employees still must travel, and people still need to get to work. Which brings us to Group C...

Group C, as you will imagine, embodies the voice of those who believe that a marriage of the better parts of each group is the correct way to tackle the issue. It is a mistake to assume that an answer to these issues can be had in short order, just as it is a mistake to believe that a future devoid of serious advances in the craft and technology of procuring and using our fuel sources will be a desirable one. It did indeed take us quite a while to dig ourselves this hole, and it will take a while to fill it back up, but, if I may permitted a cliché from the musings of Confucius, “The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.” America's dependence on foreign oil is a travesty that must be corrected, and lucky for us, there exists many large organizations that are willing to spend their own money to fix the problem for us... we know them as Exxon, BP, et cetera. The private sector will also play a role in developing the technology that will enable us (or more likely, our children and grandchildren) the chance to live in a world in which oil is not the prime mover and shaker so far as energy is concerned, and that role can be augmented by bolstering private researchers with grants driven towards the desired goal. If we wish to bequeath such a world to future generations and, if we're lucky, to ourselves a decade or two down the road, we must focus on that future without hindering ourselves today, and that means greatly expanded drilling across all American lands while giving as much assistance to the geniuses inhabiting our universities and laboratories as is humanly possible.

ASSERTION: BIG OIL HAS CLAIM TO VAST AMOUNTS OF LAND THAT THEY AREN'T DRILLING, SO OPENING UP NEW RESERVES FOR THEM IS JUST FEEDING THEIR GREED

Here again exists a myth that is founded on telling just enough of the truth, then stopping when the purpose is served.

BIG OIL does indeed have lease on huge tracts of land that they are not currently drilling. However, the idea that they're refraining from drilling because they're greedy and attempting to drive up the price of oil is a farce, as is the implication that opening up ANWAR and our coasts for drilling would be feeding that nonexistent greed.

Much, if not all, of the land that this myth concerns is land that either has not been surveyed as to if it holds any oil at all, or has been surveyed but holds insubstantial amounts of oil or oil that would be cost prohibitive to drill. The thought that supposedly evil and greed driven BIG OIL would leave oil in the ground during an era that is personified by the biggest bubble in the history of the production of energy is laughable at best, misleading at worst, and ludicrous in fact. The difference between these untapped areas and areas such as ANWAR or the sites just off of our coasts lays in the fact that it is a quantifiable fact that oil is there to be had, and to be taken out in an efficient and cost effective manner. This is why oil companies are practically on their knees and begging for the chance to drill such areas as opposed to other areas-- the resources and the ability to extract them are both known variables, as opposed to other areas that could lead to millions of dollars wasted and nothing to show for it.

This is, as most of these myths tend to be, an attempt to vilify BIG OIL instead of loading the responsibility on those that deserve it, namely our politicians and ourselves. But sticking with ANWAR and our coasts...

ASSERTION: DRILLING IN ANWAR OR JUST OFF OF OUR COASTS WILL HAVE A SEVERE IMPACT ON TOURISM AND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

This we shall take in two separate parts, effects on tourism and effects on ecological systems.

In short, the idea that big, ugly oil rigs off the coasts of Florida and elsewhere would ruin the view and ruin tourism is simply absurd. To the best of my knowledge, all of the proposed coastal drilling sites are fifty miles or more away from any beach. At that distance even the use of binoculars would not put the platforms in view. This is simply an argument that is voiced by those who are against drilling for purely political reasons as opposed to valid reasons, and deserves a quick dismissal.

Concerning the ecological effect, the largest claim that is heard is that of the inevitable damage that some sort of spill or accident will incur, causing the sort of mess viewed by the world when the infamous Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef and dumped 10.8 million gallons of crude into the water. Only a fool would downplay how awful the aforementioned event happened to be, but it takes both a coward and a fool to base all future decisions on an example of a disaster that could have been prevented and has no reason to repeat itself. The Valdez spill is not something to be expected on a regular basis, as evidenced by the fact that, at least concerning American oil operations, nothing even near the same order of magnitude of the Valdez disaster has occurred. Safeguards exist, but human stupidity and negligence will at times lead to terrible events. However, this is no reason to assume that such things will happen in every circumstance, and if such thinking had been prevalent in our ancestors we would all still be cooking our food outdoors, not daring to risk that our dwelling should catch fire due to a malfunctioning stove.

ANWAR deserves special consideration on the ecological side, if for no other reason than it is a wildlife reserve. However, the extent of the effects an oil operation would have on ANWAR is one of the biggest exaggerations in the history of politics. To demonstrate this, I ask you to please open a magazine, or find a printed memo, or anything else of similar dimensions with words printed on it. In the case of a standard piece of printer paper being a representation of the total size of ANWAR, one period (.) printed on it in 12 point Times New Roman font is a fairly accurate representation of the size of ANWAR that would be used for drilling. In this case, as in the others, the myth has its roots in attempting to exaggerate the evil of BIG OIL to no identifiable end, save to endeavor to advance a nonsensical political or social agenda.

ASSERTION: WE ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWER IN THE FORM OF ETHANOL, BUT BIG OIL, REPUBLICANS, AND OTHER LOBBYISTS ARE HOLDING IT BACK

This myth goes beyond simply falsehood and crosses into the territory of blatant, malicious manipulation.

You see, contrary to popular belief, ethanol not only isn't helping the situation, it's making it exponentially worse. As of this writing, it costs approximately $1.25 to produce every $1 worth of ethanol fuel. This occurs because (1) all of the machinery used to plant, grow, and harvest products used to produce ethanol run on oil, (2) those products, before being distilled into ethanol, must be shipped, usually on trucks that burn oil, and (3) ethanol, for all of its clean burning goodness, just isn't that efficient of a fuel. All of this would be well and good (let people waste their own money any way they please) if it weren't for two factors: there are government mandates in place that force us to use ethanol as a petroleum additive, meaning that this silly product can't just fail in the way that any other cost prohibitive substance would, and, most importantly, the substances used to produce ethanol (most notably corn) are being taken away from our food market and being put into a failing energy market, causing the price of our food supply to rise.

Corn in and of itself is a staple product, but its use goes far beyond being covered in butter and devoured at cookouts. It is used as the primary source of feed for all livestock and poultry, meaning that as its price increases, the price of nearly every other product we find in a supermarket, from meat to eggs to dairy products, increases.

Again, beyond simply being a non-solution, the belief that ethanol is our savior and that its market and use should be expanded is a solution that's worse than the problem.

CONCLUSION:

Sadly, our fuel and energy crisis has become yet another platform on which politicians stand and beat their chests and point their fingers, worried more about who takes the blame for the crisis as opposed to dealing with it at all. In this, we, the consuming public, are at fault. We continue to wring the same tired trash through our political system, yet are surprised when we get the same old nonsense as before. Thankfully, there is an answer to be found, and it lays in refusing to play the blame game, or to hide behind authoritative ignorance when it comes time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. The key to this exists in taking the time to understand an issue in its entirety as opposed to just trying to understand the sides of an issue that pertain to preconceived notions. It is in this that I hope this article has served some good.

To protect and to serve whom? Certainly not the citizenry.

Today I, your friendly and neighborly iconoclast, bring you yet another example our dubiously indulged, overly praised police departments betraying their true values and their lacking sense of responsibility in dealing with the public that writes their checks:

Sarasota Police Storm McDonald's To Catch Drug Suspect
By ANTHONY CORMIER

Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Published: July 12, 2008

SARASOTA — Undercover police officers stormed a McDonald's restaurant and ordered diners and employees to the ground as they tried to catch a suspected cocaine dealer Thursday.

The Sarasota police officers were dressed in black, carried rifles and wore masks when they ran into the restaurant on the corner of Beneva and Fruitville roads. They burst through the door at dinner time, yelled for patrons to hide under tables and chased a 24-year-old man who hid in a bathroom.

It was a drug sting that went bad because of a milkshake.

Police say the arrest would have gone smoother if the suspect, Juan T. Dixon, had not stopped at the door of the restaurant to go back and grab his shake from the counter.

...With the squad cars zooming into the parking lot, Dixon turned around to get his drink from the counter.

When he got back to the door, he saw the cars waiting for him and, realizing he was about to be arrested, he ran for the bathroom.

(Click here for the full, original story)

After fighting back the urge to chuckle at the image of a drug trafficker bolting for a bathroom with a Big Mac and Triple Thick Shake in tow (as well as an ounce of cocaine and 100 pills of Ecstasy that he had agreed to purchase from an undercover narcotics officer in the McDonald's), one cannot help but wonder what sort of dire potential for violence or otherwise foreboding circumstances could have possibly led to a drug sting being organized and set in a public place full of innocent people, ultimately leading to a Hollywood-esque standoff composed of masked, rifle carrying police officers bursting into a public restaurant and screaming for all present to “Get down!” in true Point Break style.

The answer is much simpler, and much more dreadful, than one would think. The police had planned it that way for their own safety:

[Sarasota Police Chief Peter] Abbott said it is common for undercover detectives to conduct stings and drug surveillance in public places because they do not want to raise a suspect's suspicions and place officers in greater jeopardy by requesting more remote locations.

Oh, gee golly, Mr. Chief of Police, I understand. It only makes sense to endanger the lives and well being of innocent citizens trying to enjoy a meal as opposed to ensuring that those that make a profession of police work and are, as a consequence, armed with rifles and body armor are the only people in danger.

If this is nobility, then a rapist is a simple romantic.

One should hardly find it surprising that, as stated in the full article, the department was unwilling to stipulate as to whom-- the department or the suspect-- determined that a McDonald's was the optimum meeting place for this debacle. The more cynical of us find this to be an answer in itself, and to speak volumes as to all those involved knowing that this sort of practice is not only selfish and deplorable, but unethical to the extreme.

I am consistently the first to point out the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled (twice in fact) that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect us, which leaves the tired slogan of “To protect and to serve” null and void in any case. But if law enforcement officers insist on this illusion (and they do), is it too much to ask that, if they're under no obligation to protect us from anything, they at the very least avoid endangering us?

What if, as all citizens should, one or two of the patrons in the restaurant had been carrying weapons to protect themselves?

A customer, a woman who did not want her name used, ducked under a table and worried that the masked men were robbers, not police.

"I thought it was a gang," she said. "I mean, they had masks and guns and I never heard anyone say, 'police.' I thought these guys were coming to rob us."

Imagine, if you will, you and your family-- your children, if you have any-- munching away at tasty victuals in your local McDonald's, when masked men clad in black kick in the door and scream for everyone to get down, and do nothing to identify themselves as police officers. Again, we cannot rely on the police for protection, so if you're in any way a responsible citizen with an interest in the protection of one's self and one's family, you're armed. What is your response?

I feel I do not need to belabor the point, other to say that my own personal reaction would lead, at the best, to one dead police officer and me rotting in a jail cell for the remainder of my life for the crime of protecting my family from men in masks.

Friends, if ever there has been an example of exactly how much value law enforcement places on your lives and well being, it lays before you.

To protect and serve... and to fail on both points.

A Letter to One Mr. Jay Rockefeller

As is no news to anyone possessing any form of media, today marks a day when yet another nail in the coffin that holds our Constitution was driven in with maniacal glee by those whom value an illusion of safety above a dangerous, uncertain, yet LIBERATED reality. With FISA passing in a disconcertingly one sided vote, we as Americans find ourselves facing the real threat of seeing our liberty legislated away from us-- which is infinitely more frightening than having it ripped from us physically, as the form that this disease is taking means that not only are we gradually being disenfranchised, it's being done all legal and proper, with the patience and calculation of a murderer whom carries out his ends over the course of months, if not years, as opposed to committing a crime on a whim.

In the face of such issues, I find myself almost unable to write concerning them-- most of what I can say in a broad sweeping stroke can and has already been said thousands if not millions of times all over the Internet and other forms of media. All I would be doing is assembling the arguments in a slightly different order. However, what I can share with you is a letter I've just recently finished to one Mr. Jay Rockefeller. When looking at the vote tallies (which anyone can do by simply visiting the Senate's website) I found that only one of my home state of West Virginia's elected officials had disgraced himself by yelling "Yea" when his time came to vote. While I have, admittedly, been too lazy to look into how many WV natives in the House had voted for this bill, it is the Senate much more than the House that I trust to be the "last rampart" that keeps the barbarians at bay. In finding that one of my own had assigned himself to supporting this awful legislation, I did something I have never done before... I wrote my congressman. Below is, in full, my letter to Mr. Rockefeller. Fellow West Virginians, I urge you, if you are as outraged as I am that one of our own would willingly comply with the systematic destruction of our Bill of Rights, write him as well. While one letter is unlikely to make a difference, a mountain of them, which to him will be viewed as a mountain of lost votes come this November, may well be enough to, if nothing else, force him to realize that such actions will not go unpunished, even if the punishment comes only at the polling booths as opposed to the hands of justice.

---

Mr. Rockefeller:

Salutations, sir. My name is Aaron Chambers and I am a 23 year old native son of West Virginia. Such introductions can be redundant, I know only too well, and in this case, they're fairly unnecessary. You see, we once had the mutual pleasure of sharing our company in a setting in which the unity and solidarity of West Virginia's native sons and daughters was paramount. It was during the memorial event for the deceased miners of Aracoma in my home town of Logan that I had the pleasure of making your acquaintance. That you would remember me is a possibility I do not indulge, and I mention our encounter only to address the duress under which I write this correspondence.

You see, despite the fact that, politically, neither you nor your colleague Mr. Byrd are in any way particularly in line with my own set of thoughts and philosophies, my encounters-- both privately, as in Logan, and through your discourse in the public forum-- have always left me with the honest impression that, despite whatever differences we may hold as to our politics on certain issues, you and Mr. Byrd, at the very least, hold the well being of the citizens of our state and country as your highest concern. In an uncertain world that is rotted with weakness of both character and intellect, and rife with charlatans willing to exploit this rot, that was quite enough reason for me to lend both of you my support, and though I was too young (by a mere matter of months) to lend you my vote in the 2002 election, I actively spoke out for you at the time, and until today, had been intending to lend you my vote this coming November.

What a difference a day can make.

Sir, I possess neither the arrogance nor the audacity to make the assumption that, concerning H.R. 6304 (FISA), you lack facts, perspective, or adequate intellect, which would otherwise explain your voting "Yea" for a bill that undermines that which is most sacred in our nation-- the guarantee that no man or woman, without do cause and process (both of which would be bound by the chains of utter accountability), shall have their lives invaded by any authority, be it public or private. In lending your stamp to this nonsense, you have quite markedly placed your name amongst the myriad of other cowards that will gladly relinquish the ideologies on which our nation was founded and dance upon the graves of patriots who were willing to soak American soil and the soil of innumerable foreign lands with their own blood in order to serve and protect the rights of the American citizenry.

To believe that wiretaps and other such spying and invasions of privacy have not or would not occur without such poisonous legislation is a stipulation that I shall leave to the more naive of my compatriots. However, at the very least and in the face of the knowledge that such clandestine and unconstitutional offenses can and will always occur, it was at least a comfort to know that, should such villainy be discovered, it would bare the full brunt of accountability and thus the accountable would be punished. Now, however, you have given credence to a measure that, while not the worst of such legislation, does much in its own right to crumble our Constitution and our way of life. You have essentially provided immunity to those who would comply to such dastardly ends, and have given a free license to all who would see any attempts at corrupting the foundation of America in the name of fear and of ignorance much room to see their ends come to fruition.

Mr. Rockefeller, I doubt very seriously that you will read this, and I doubt even more fully that if you should happen to read it, you will make it this far. But if you have, let me again reiterate the fact that, in my past experience with you, I found you to be nothing but humble, kind, and compassionate. Perhaps this is why your supporting this debacle, this treasonous attack on American values, has caught me so square. I, and many other West Virginians, have trusted you with the responsibility of safeguarding us from the greatest threat a citizenry can face: their governing body. And now, it is plain for us to see that our trust has been misplaced. You have failed us, Senator. Every time you're willing to shuck off such objections as you hear from me now, every time you're willing to simply wave away those who would call to task you and the rest of the government for forgetting that your job as a politician is to protect our LIBERTY as well as our physical well being, and every muttered defense you produce for this bill and for other like minded policies is a sign of your capitulation to ignorance, as well as your ineptness at maintaining the seat of power you now hold.

It is an unavoidable truth that the political system of our nation has been hijacked in the name of partisan politics, in the name of special interest, in the name of half measures and half truths, and especially in the name of small concessions to disinterested Americans who would rather bend the knee to a tyrant, be he foreign or (more likely) of our own making, than assume the full weight of the responsibility that accompanies freedom. Such men and women, Mr. Rockefeller, are neither my equals nor my compatriots. And now, to my great regret, I find that you have thrown in with them in throwing away that which is most important. For this, you should be ashamed.

-Aaron Chambers

Freedoms Nibbled to Death by Ducks

For those that have either no interest or no knowledge of the impending decision that will presumably be handed down from the high court of the land today, I'm sure that this morning holds no personal or emotional significance... though I would contend that the significance of today is as far reaching as is imaginable in the scope of Americans and our liberty. For those that are, like me, attempting to relax and rely on the “better judgment” of those individuals that have been entrusted to dissect our Bill of Rights concerning the second amendment, however, this morning remains one that has many of us pouring a second cup of coffee while our first is still full and ice cold, lighting cigarettes that burn down to the filter after just one puff, and paying perhaps a bit more attention to the idiot box than is normal, acceptable, or healthy.

The case in question this morning-- District of Columbia v. Heller-- is one that has, by and large, received only a fraction of the attention it has deserved. One could attribute this to the fact that the case-- which concerns the District of Columbia's overreaching, offensive, and wishful-thinking-of-the-worst-sort gun control legislation-- was argued nearly four months ago, forcing it into the undesirable position of having to compete for air time with what has been perhaps the nastiest primary cycle since the political schism that resulted in the Bull Moose Party. One could also attribute this to the fact that we have as a matter of public record several similar cases and Supreme Court decisions stretching across decades that seem to give a fairly reliable premonition as to what sort of mealy mouthed yet correct ruling that we can expect today.

However, I believe these two factors play a secondary role in this ruling being obscured by lapel pins and Hulk Hogan's son surprising us all with the knowledge that prison does indeed, to our collective shock and awe, suck right out loud. I believe the factor that has kept this issue comparatively far away from the majority's public eye is exactly the factor that has resulted in our nation becoming so bass-ackwards in every other facet of our values, decisions, and administration that we can't sneeze without wetting the backs of our knees. I refer to caustic, corrosive apathy-- an utter lack of concern for our own well being that grows out of an unwillingness to accept that the responsibility for determining our own destiny cannot be lifted from our own backs and shouldered upon a government, no matter how much the weaklings of our nation may wish to do so. The sort of apathy that rots deep down at the center of a person in the manner that rancid meat will swell and explode in a shower of it's own filth.

For most of us, this infectious disease of apathy is one that has become an unwelcome part of our life-- a distant and shunned family member that shows up unannounced and periodically avails himself of our couch. This detestable corruption of character is precisely what has plunged us muzzle first into the muck and mire of a welfare state that arbitrarily picks our pockets to subsidize the failure of others, and it is this same corruption that may or may not strike down the most fundamental and necessary liberty we, as Americans, possess.

No, you did not misread me, nor did I misspeak-- I say again, the right of every individual to keep and bear arms is more important than the right to free speech. Why? Because a society composed of a citizenry that is incapable of protecting itself from the tyranny of its own officials is, by unavoidable logic, unable to ensure that their speech will remain free, and, consequently, will find that “free speech” comes to mean “free” in the “comma but” fashion-- “You're free to say whatever you like(comma) but, you can't criticize the leader, you can't say anything that might offend someone...” et cetera.

I ask you, which is more important: the diamonds found on a desert island, or the rescue ship that ferries one home where one can sell those diamonds? Your riches, sitting unattended in a field, or the safe that houses those riches, guaranteeing that you may enrich your life and the life of others through them?

Friends, without the ability to defend our freedoms they will not be a part of our lives for very long, nor should we expect them to be-- even a passing glance at a history book makes this quite obvious. Yet there exists a depressingly large number of Americans whom are willing to not only acquiesce their own liberty, but the liberties of everyone else as well. Even more distressing is the fact that, while any and every opinion or belief ranging from table tapping to dowsing for water is bound to be believed by at least someone, this nauseating nonsense has managed to find its home in our Congress, our high court, and if a certain leftist candidate manages to win in November, our White House. Despite this, an unhealthy majority of our citizenry takes refuge in apathy and ignorance... just like every other issue, it's someone else's problem to fix. Because of this, it remains up to us, those that are not content to simply hand over control of our lives and liberty, to combat this ignorance and apathy at every turn, and to never, not for a moment, allow decisions such as that which we can expect today to simply fly under the radar and go unnoticed, even if it can be rather inconvenient to tear ourselves away from America's Got Talent to ensure that America's Got Freedom.

A wrecking ball can tear down a house as easily as termites, but it's the termites that leave families living in a home that's ready to collapse because they never took the time to inspect the damage. It is this danger that we find ourselves facing now on a daily basis. Though all indications and oral statements at this time seem to point to a ruling that will leave the more freedom loving of us relieved, we must face the real possibility that this ruling could go in the other direction. If it should, it's not as if police are going to show up in the next week to confiscate our weapons... but in the years that follow, all bets are off. Nations are rarely toppled by singular acts, instead it is the quintessential “being nibbled to death by ducks” that causes even the greatest societies to implode in on themselves. At this point, the nibbling has been taking place at an accelerated rate due to the ineptness of our officials and our own ineptness as a citizenry that is unwilling to fight for our freedoms and take the power back from the government that we've allowed to swell to the point of critical mass. And this morning, our highest court is in a position to do some very heavy nibbling. If this should happen, the greatest disservice we can do to ourselves is to simply shrug our shoulders and hope for the best. If this should happen, we must take it upon ourselves to not only make it known far and wide that citizens of America will not bend the knee to any tyrant or weakling that's willing to cast aside our most important right, be he a bum on the street or a gray haired statesman clothed in flowing robes. We must not be content to breath in the virus of apathy. Instead, we must speak out and not allow the parasites any more leeway, lest our house fall down around our ears because we were too lazy to get down in the dirt and inspect our foundation.

Language and Learning

Ever heard of Fark.com? If not, go look at it now. No, seriously... right now. I'll wait.

Back? Good. Assuming most anyone who manages to find me amidst the damp and dusky labyrinth known as the Interwebs is fairly tech and net savvy, very few are going to be unfamiliar with Fark. Personally, it's the only message board type of site that I can enjoy. You get funny news, good discussion, and a whole lot of belly laugh inducing nonsense without all the drama and needless post count pomp that comes with other boards. Because of this, I've become quite a patron of Mr. Curtis and his little corner of cyberspace, and I post my opinions quite frequently. Recently, my posting led to an unexpected result-- a sponsorship to TotalFark, Fark's pay only subscription service. A fine man or woman (I'm betting woman) going by the moniker of Kteela paid five bucks-- or roughly a gallon of gas, if you're keep score at home-- to subscribe me to TotalFark based solely on one of my posts in a thread concerning the devolution of the English language due to the internet generation beginning to use "LOL," "U," ":)" and other such grammatical atrocities in academic papers.

In short, this is my public thank you to Kteela and my invitation to any and all to give Fark a look. Also, I will be reposting the message that earned me the TotalFark subscription below this text. I figure if it was worth five dollars to one person, it may well be worth at least five MINUTES to you. Enjoy!

(Original Thread)

Person to Whom I Was Responding:
Is it really an issue of intelligence? Or more the evolution of language? As we become an increasingly written-based communication society, isn't it natural that abbreviations and other means of shortening communication will become more popular?

My Post:
You can't be serious.

As it stands, English as a language is already becoming watered down to the point that its laughable, and we are NOT becoming an increasingly written based society, as the problem stems from the Interwebs Generation (my generation) refining ALL of their communication to reflect the way they SPEAK to each other, even if more and more of that communication is being read instead of heard. While it is expedient and acceptable for our common speech patterns to use a limited vocabulary and vernacular due to the relatively small need for complex ideas to be expressed during the "small talk" that tends to constitute our common exchanges throughout our day, it as another issue entirely when we as a people start limiting our ENTIRE vocabulary to the sort of bare bones words that we use during inconsequential discussion. It is precisely that watering down of our vocabulary that is taking place and, as a corollary, our children are beginning to lack the basic knowledge of our language necessary to form or understand complex ideas.

English, reading comprehension, and writing skills are not just subjects to study in school, they're essentially the key to all learning. The only way the human brain can accurately process and assimilate information is through the elaborate symbol system we've created and dubbed language. The more thoroughly a language is understood and the easier one can wield it, the easier one's mind will be able to understand and conquer new and difficult subjects or ideas. In short, the brain cannot think with words it doesn't understand.

Example:

Hreuthasad equals Ashterda over Yrutart. Understand? Of course not. Hreuthasad, Ashterda, and Yrutart have zero meaning to anyone but me. In this case I've arbitrarily decided that Hreuthasad means Velocity, Ashterda means Speed, and Yrutart means Time. Now you certainly understand. A rather cheap and weak example, perhaps, but its gets the point across-- without being equipped with the proper vocabulary, even the most basic of ideas cannot be grasped.

Should every person strive to use perfect grammar and punctuation in their online correspondence, while simultaneously going out of their way to use more accurate and less common words in order to flex their vocabulary? In my opinion, yes... if nothing else, it's good practice. But that's me, and it's up to the individual. But once that sort of nonchalant attitude begins to creep into academic and professional writing, and worst of all, to be expected and accepted by our educators, we should all be alarmed. For better or worse, the population of sites like Fark tend to be composed of intellectuals and fairly learned individuals, at least to the point of being able to grasp complex ideas. Therefore it's easy for us to assume that even the goofiest and most "Interweb" of our culture still have the tools to wield intelligence even if they're more likely to use acronyms instead of complex sentences to communicate. But pick a high school senior in your neighborhood at random and ask them what words like "Sardonic," "Innocuous," and "Bucolic" mean. Chances are you'll get a response of "Hell, I ain't no nerd or nothing." None of those are million dollar words. The point is driven even further home if you ask them about words that are common but rarely really understood, like "Empirical," "Systemic," or "Chronic." Such words are used and appear in papers, but scratch just beneath the surface and you'll find that an alarming number of our youth only repeat or plagiarize what they hear and see without fully understanding anything at all.

The English language has grown to this point due to the fact that it was left relatively unchecked in its infancy and allowed to expand. The idea that now, when the internet allows for information to be truly universally accessible, we should begin to accept a narrowing and reconfiguration of our language is as tragically comical as a high school student believing that a sideways smiley face has its place in academia.

Yea, boy!

April 13, 2008
Republicans talk about Iraq, Obama at N. Ky. dinner
(from Pol Watchers)

Republican U.S. Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning laid out their case for Republicans keeping control of the White House in the 2008 election during Northern Kentucky's 4th Congressional District Lincoln Day Dinner Saturday night.

...U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a "snake oil salesman."

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

Dearest Reader, might I ask, as you read through the above quotation, if you happen to see anything offensive, off color, or derogatory? I'm not asking if you agreed with the statement, as I'm sure quite a many of you did not. I'm asking if, regardless of your opinion on Mr. Obama's ability to lead our nation, something struck you as out of line concerning representative Davis's comments as to his opinion concerning the presidential hopeful?

To the (I trust) healthy majority of you who, like me, read the statement without skipping a beat, move to the head of the class. To the (distressingly high) number of you who reached for the ugly racism punch card in their back pocket, please see me after class.

To the majority of you still looking for what the minority (Blatant double entendre? I plead the fifth.) could possible find offensive, you aren't alone; I would never have noticed it if it weren't for the fact that what caught my attention was the first public mentioning I've ever heard of national security simulations, but we'll get to that later. That statement, having fondled and violated my curiosity quite intimately, set me about exhausting the cornucopia of resources at the disposal of my research team (yep, Google) in order to find more information concerning these simulations. A search conducted using the representative's exact words-- “highly classified national security simulation”-- however, turned up results with some rather unexpected headlines:

GOP Congressman Apologizes for Calling Obama 'Boy'

NKY.Com - Davis sorry for 'boy' remark

GOP Bigot Eruptions archive » Oliver Willis

Davis Apologizes For Calling Obama "Boy" – Horserace

They go on and on, but here's the idea... somehow, the word “boy” has become a slur. Oh, no one comes right out and says it that plainly; every commentator I've read mealy mouths their way around it by saying it's a Freudian slip, so on and so forth. But no matter how nice a silk hat they slip on the pig, it isn't going to sing in any other tune; “boy” has now taken on a racial connotation, and this damn foolishness is now legitimized by the fact that representative Davis has publicly apologized for his use of the word, stating ostensibly that he is guilty of wrongdoing.

Well, the NAACP and Reverend Jackson must be licking their chops. Did you ever see Sling Blade? Brilliant film, but the poor sods who were part of it had better brace for millions of dollars of litigation, as, given this precedent, it's now become the single most racist film ever produced. Why, it's a wonder we haven't started rounding up every copy of the movie in preparation for a public marshmallow roast given that it's rife with such offensive language as:

“You ought not talk that way. You just a boy.”

“I told you I ain't got no boy, now why don't you get on outta here and let me be. You ain't no kin to me.”

“Don't reckon you have to go with women to be a good daddy to a boy.”

and what may be the single most offensive piece of rhetoric ever uttered in the English language:

“Hey, Scooter, did I tell you the one about the two ol' boys pissing off a bridge? ...Well, there were these two ol' boys and they hung their peckers off a bridge to piss. One ol' boy from California, the other from Arkansas. The ol' boy from California says, "Boy, this water's cold", and the ol' boy from Arkansas says, "Yeah, and it's deep too". Get it?”

Sarcasm is the last refuge of the witless mind... I know, I know. But honestly, how can this be addressed without a tongue firmly in cheek and our contempt hidden behind a mirthful grin? To do it any other way makes one want to reach for their own “kaiser blade” and start hacking away at the paper walls we're putting up around us.

I come from redneck country-- Southern West Virginia, the birthing place of the term redneck, the home of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, et cetera ad nauseum. Also, the only state to have seceded from the South in order to fight against slavery during the American Civil War. Keep that in mind.

Around these here parts, it's not uncommon for someone, when addressed with a question or with their name, to say, “Yea, boy!” It's a cultural thing that's been around for as long as half the mountains, though certainly not just a West Virginia thing. For proof of this in pop culture, refer to the Hanks and Spielberg mini-series Band of Brothers, in which a soldier from Huntington, West Virgina by the name of Carwood Lipton uses the reply consistently. In all the 23 years I've been hearing and using the term-- to people of all colors, might I add-- never once has it been misconstrued to be a racial slur. Call me crazy, but I'm more inclined to believe that this has more to do with people having sense as opposed to everyone I know being so racially intolerant that the term has lost its meaning. It is with this in mind that I repeat a statement that can't be made enough-- if one looks hard enough, offense and racial connotation can be found in anything, from words like “snowflake” and “cornflake” to terms like “tar baby” and “black eye.” That sort of stupidity is fine by me, as at it tends to agitate people of all colors that I find to be neither my social or intellectual equal. However, when this stupidity is given credence and attention, it tends to agitate me, someone I think of quite fondly and wish nothing but peace and harmony.

Honestly, how far have we slipped when “boy” is yet another watch-word to keep under padlock when minorities are part of the conversation? Oh, make no mistake, “boy” is a word one uses when they feel they're addressing a lesser individual, but to assume that “lesser” automatically means lesser because of race is to make too much stew from one oyster. The entire fundamental basis of our political system rests on the fact that some of us are less qualified and capable to make decisions than those around us, and, to this point and despite its nearly innumerable faults, America seems to have done fairly well on that basis. Davis also refers to Obama as a snake-oil salesman, which, to my chagrin, is left out of the follow-up conversation entirely. Personally, I believe Obama is a snake-oil salesman, though one not quite as shifty and clueless as his opponent, Hilldog. In both cases, they're selling a lot of pretty words and ideas, promises and prophecies that they can't possibly hope to see put into action without financially and ethically crippling our nation... and it's winning them votes and support. But that and other truly political assertions are left out of the conversation, as there simply isn't time to report on the feasibility of their announced policies and to lynch (don't worry, I used it in reference to a white man, so it isn't offensive) Davis for using a word that every child learns by the age of five. But then again, that's the point, isn't it? So long as the dog and pony show keeps the audience looking at the corner of the stage, that audience is less likely to notice that they're running a circus without elephants.

Now, to more serious matters. Given Davis's statement about Obama's poor performance during a highly classified national security simulation, why in the HELL have I never heard of this before, and why, especially now, during an election cycle, are reviews and ratings of simulations not made public? I know they're “highly classified,” but I'm not talking about telling the world when and where they take place and their exact protocol of operation. What I do want to know is how well Obama and other politicians fair in these simulations, how well they handle the pressure, and the simulated results of their actions. For once it would give us voters a chance to look at something tangible on which to base our decision as to who is going to control (at least for now) the fate of the free world.

Is that too much to ask, or should we all just keep swallowing the snake oil these boys and girls are shilling?

Bigots Betrayed by Language

Commissioner warns of homosexual "social and sexual agenda"

(from www.tampabays10.com)

Tampa, Florida - Hillsborough County Commissioner Brian Blair is warning parents about the "Day of Silence."

The "Day of Silence" is an annual event created by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to bring attention to name-calling, bullying and harassment of gay students. On April 25th some students will wear buttons or t-shirts to to observe the day. Others may even put tape over their mouths.

In an e-mail from the District 6 Commissioner, Blair encourages parents to contact the Hillsborough County School District to object.

...Here are excerpts from the Brian Blair e-mail:

"I have always believed that all citizens are equal and should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, no group of citizens should be given government sanction and support to promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children."

"Considering the fact that the same school system does not want to allow just one Minute of Silence in the classroom for God, this is preposterous."

"Can you imagine asking for a 'Day of Cheer for Heterosexuality?' If no action is taken to change this policy, then perhaps it is time for another surgical strike from the majority; 'A Day of Abstention' from school participation might be considered."

Given that this year is an election year and the Lesser of Three Evils circus-like campaign juggernaut is currently running full steam ahead, it takes one hell of an effort to do or say anything more ignorant, pompous, or hypocritical than the never ending stream of miss-speaks and carved from their context sound bytes we're needle-fed every time we turn on a television. But we're in luck, friend. At least one man-- a fool named Brian Blair-- was courageous enough to pick up the gauntlet and betray his bigotry and blind, prejudiced fear out loud and proud where anyone with even an inkling of logic or decency rattling around in the dustbin they call a soul can see what a monomaniac he happens to be.

What is infinitely more disturbing is how many people believe that this sort of nonsense is not only understandable, but a victory for all “right thinking” and “God fearing” peoples in our country who happen to want to protect their children from the “disease” and “abomination” that is homosexuality. Not that they hate fudgepack... er, homosexuals or anything-- they don't have hate in their hearts!-- they're just trying to protect the common moral values as they were instilled in early America while protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Right. And every time I avoid walking down dark streets in bad neighborhoods in the middle of the night I'm just expressing my purely aesthetic preference for well lighted pavement over shadowed pavement and helping to protect America's fine traditions of illuminated sidewalks. It certainly has nothing to do with fear, believe you me!

Truthfully, I don't even know where to begin in addressing this... it puts me in mind of so many cross, star, and crescent shaped blades cutting deep into my sense of American pride and dignity-- which does one attempt to remove first? How about we begin with a simple question: when was the last time you, in passing, referred to something uncomfortable, unfair, or not to your taste or liking with a slang use of a word referring to homosexuals or homosexual practices? C'mon, be honest... it's not as if someone is being gay and watching over your shoulder to see what you're reading or hear what you say... or if they are, tell them to get lost and quit being such a fag about it.

Do you see my point? Unless you're a particularly lucky individual who has become immune to what is now a part of our cultural vernacular I doubt very seriously that the last sentence in the above paragraph struck you as offensive or out of the ordinary. A bit crass, perhaps, and poorly written most certainly (consider the source), but not any more offensive than someone yelling “CRAP!” or “HELLFIRE!” when they stub their toe or spill a glass of Rum and Coke Zero. It's become so deeply ingrained into our culture-- especially into my generation and the generations beneath me-- to refer to anything or anyone we consider to be wrong or out of place as “gay” that it's no longer a conscious thought and the two have simply become interchangeable in our lexicon. Now for the unpleasant fact so many of us like to ignore; if X is labeled Y, Y is therefore defined by X. No matter how many speeches about hope and diversity our elected scape goats offer up, no matter how many private conversations we have with acquaintances about our own feelings and “tolerance” towards homosexuality (“Why, my 5^th cousin on my aunt's side is a fa... er, homosexual, and my daughter brought her gay guy pal home to dinner the last time she was visiting from college! Of course I'M not gay, but...”), and no matter how many times we tune in to watch gay men attempt to make ugly men beautiful or teach walking oafs like myself how to dance without causing irreversible physiological damage to our partners, we're no more tolerant than our hate mongering ancestors. We simply allow our patterns of speech to betray our real “tolerance” right under our noses and belittle every homosexual in the process.

This draws me to the most astringent comment made by Mr. Blair:

"I have always believed that all citizens are equal and should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, no group of citizens should be given government sanction and support to promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children."

What in the name of the three Furies does Mr. Blair (and the rest of the bigots in our country-- fundamentalists, evangelicals, fear and hate mongers, and the just plain ignorant for that matter) call forcing a Judeo-Christian viewpoint onto youth by attempting to canalize into them the idea that there is only ONE proper code of conduct in terms of personal sexuality and by forbidding them the opportunity to express their disgust over the denigration of homosexuals that has become almost irreversibly engendered into our language OTHER than a government sanctioned attempt to “promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children?” I'm sure if called to task for this blatant double standard the charlatan Blair would simply hide behind the “sanctity of marriage” and “inherent American values” argument until the trumpets blew and it was time for the “roll call up yonder.”

What only compounds this garbage is the man simultaneously played the they-took-God-out-of-our-schools card amidst his other nonsense:

"Considering the fact that the same school system does not want to allow just one Minute of Silence in the classroom for God, this is preposterous.”

If any credit is due to this pharisee it is earned by the fact that he certainly knows from what base his support will come-- white light will invariably flow straight out of ministries and tabernacles all across the land and ring his head with a shiny little halo. All the while, the children in his charge are hearing his message loud and clear-- neither he nor God will tolerate the gay community any more than they're forced to, nor will they even APPEAR to defend such abominable lifestyles as just as acceptable as “right thinking” American sexual protocol... so stop being a queer-bait who wants to stand up for fags!

I am not any more immune to this social sickness than my contemporaries-- I still catch myself using the word “gay” for no good reason when I'm addressing a situation I find unacceptable. But I have chosen to remain immune to the common knowledge that such behavior is acceptable and I attempt to change it every day I remain breathing. I am not a parent, nor, though I have some very limited experience in the challenges of rearing and teaching young children about values and ethics, can I claim to have an even semi-comprehensive understanding of the multitude of challenges and threats a parent must face in caring for a child. However, I know one thing-- if I'm lucky enough to become a parent or a personal mentor to a young child, my child or charge will not be taught to denigrate ANY sexual orientation for any reason or in any context, and if I ever receive an email that even remotely resembles Mr. Blair's, I'll certainly pay attention to a small portion of it; the portion about contacting the local school district... though I have serious doubts that any other Brian Blair's in this world will much like what I have to say about their blatant attempt to “promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children,” as “pharisee” and “bigot” will be among the kindest words I will use.

--

On a happier note that, I can only hope, will help sop up the anger this entry is hemorrhaging out onto your desk or lap, I've run across a story that is the polar opposite of the one cited above:

South principal defends teacher's sexuality remarks
Some parents contend talk to students went too far
(from www.leadertelegram.com)

By Christena T. O'Brien
Leader-Telegram staff

Throughout her tenure as a South Middle School health teacher, Stephanie Rowe has faced repeated questions from students about her sexual orientation during study of the human growth and development portion of her class.

Year after year, Rowe chose not to answer the question, but last week she decided to tell about 125 students she was gay.

"One of the things she promotes with her students is honesty ... and she felt that she should model that for them and respectfully so," said Principal John Wallace, who spoke to Rowe before she revealed her sexual orientation to students on April 2.

"Rather than wait for the question she decided she'd announce it so her students knew and they could move on," Wallace said Tuesday. "Knowing her as I do, I knew she'd handle it well."

Given all that I've already written on the subject, I feel no need to elaborate as to why this story turns my frown upside down, nor do I feel a need to comment as to why the subtitle-- Some parents contend talk to students went too far-- is just as ridiculous as Brian Blair's damnfoolishness. This story speaks for itself, so I'll make no attempt to try and scream over it.

However, I will offer up my unconditional applause to the courageous educator in question, Stephanie Rowe, and to South Middle School Principal, John Wallace. I can only hope that you'll do the same.