BIGGEST SPIN OF 2006; THE "PLAME AFFAIR"

First off, I don't really understand why they chose the word "Affair" to describe this twisted tale. There's no sex, violence, or even dirty words that I would normally associate with the word "Affair". I think a more fitting moniker would be the "Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson truth-juggling act, with special guests Bob Novak, Bob Woodward and Judith Miller".... O.K. maybe that's a tad long, but at least you know what your in for.

This whole saga starts way back in early 2003, during the run-up to the war. G.W. was marching his troops closer to the quagmire we now call the "Iraq War" and was using every bit of evidence he could get his hands on to justify what he wanted to do. Now, I don't really believe that he was flat out making shit up, but he certainly was demonstrating a low level of proof. One of those bit's of evidence that he had found acceptable, was intelligence that Sadam Hussein was seeking "yellow cake" uranium from Niger. This was so accepted as fact by the Bush Administration that G.W. used it in his '03 State of the Union Address. The intelligence was given to the Bush Administration by Italian Intelligence and is now being questioned as forged. I'll leave that to other bloggers though, as my connections in Italian Intelligence are a little thin right now. At any rate, The CIA (through Valerie Plame?) sent Ambassador Joe Wilson on a fact finding mission to Niger to check out the Italian info. The end result was an opinion column in the New York Times on July 6th, 2003, by Joe Wilson, blasting the intelligence as false. Slightly more than a week later, on July 14th, Robert Novak outed Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in his syndicated column. Why would he do that? Well, Bob Novak smelled a story. If Valerie Plame had used her position to send her husband on a CIA-funded partison attack on Bush, that would spin the whole thing the other way, after all, Joe Wilson's hatred of the Bush Administration was well known, so why him? Immediately Joe Wilson started his counterattack with charges that "high level senior administration officials" had "outed" his CIA operative wife, thereby putting her life in danger and possibly breaking the law. What followed after that was seemingly endless interviews with Joe Wilson on CNN, NPR, ABC and NBC blaming different members of the Bush Administration for outing his wife. Specifically they were blaming Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor, Dick Cheney, V.P., and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Bush's Chief of Staff. Story after story all through the next three years made it seem you would have to be stupid not to know these three were in on it. Comedians like Jon Stewart used it over and over, always with the same punch line. "Sure, we believe your innocent, (snicker, snicker)".

Now the strangest twist in this story revolves around Judith Miller and Bob Woodward. Bob Woodward is an Icon among the left as he helped break the Watergate story back in the early '70's, and Judith Miller is a left-leaning columnist for the New York Times. What Bob and Judith share in common is that they both were allegedly told about Valerie Plame being a CIA operative about the same time and by the same source as Bob Novak. The courts subpoena'd them both along with Matt Cooper of Time Magazine and tried to get them to reveal their sources. They all refused. Now, you must be asking yourself, "Why would they cover for the Bush Administration?" Well, here's a couple of possibilities. 1) They are so into protecting their sources it doesn't matter that they hate them. Or 2) Everyone believes that it was Cheney or Rove, so it's better to leave it that way then to let the public (you) know who it really is. Judith Miller even went so far as to do 85 days in jail for contempt of court rather than reveal her source. But Bob Woodward beat her to the punch.

On November 15, 2005, Bob Woodward finally revealed that "a government official, with no axe to grind" had leaked the info on Valerie Plame. What followed was the kind of good journalism that can only exist in today's climate. Bloggers began noticing that blacked out sections of documents had the same spacing as Richard Armitage's name and started putting the pieces together. Finally, unable to fight it off any longer, the Associated Press along with Newsweek ran articles in September, 2006 admitting that Richard Armitage was indeed the source of Valerie Plames "outing". My guess is they held off to as close to the elections as they could. In all of September I read only one story in the Detroit Free Press (AP) and the Newsweek article clearing up who had really been the source. My guess is most people went to the polls thinking Cheney and Rove did the outing. Would it have mattered? I doubt it, people were pretty upset about a lot of things that the Republicans had done, it was just one more.

So who was Richard Armitage and was he connected to the Bush Administration? Richard Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State, second in command to Condeleza Rice. So obviously he is connected to the Bush Administration. He is considered to be a moderate by all acounts and was a good personal friend of Collin Powell. He is a Decorated Vietnam Vet, and was an aid to both Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan before working with the Bush Administration. But unfortunately for the left, was also a well known gossip who was known to spread info he wasn't even sure was right. For that reason Armitage was left completely out of the loop on Administative decisions. Not the Big Fish the left had hoped for. Is it still possible that the Bush Administration was in on it? Sure, but as of right now, even the columnists that used Armitage as a source think it's unlikely.

So why pick this as the "Biggest Spin" H.C.? Because right from the word "go" every news outlet went dead after Cheney, Libby and Rove. To this date, only Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been charged with a crime and it's all to do with his testimony, not his actions to reveal Valerie Plame's CIA status. Our mainstream media spun it in every direction and made no effort to give us the truth, and then, when they could no longer ignore the facts, buried their half-hearted corrections as far back in their papers as they could. Where's the interviews with Richard Armitage? Why is this story suddenly not worth following? Because the evidence no longer points at Rove, Cheney, or Libby. The bloggers were all over this story the way any decent reporters should have been. Our mainstream media seems to put their agendas above the most important of all journalistic creeds, to bring you the truth. It's not so much them being part of an effort to deceive, as their being passive about correcting their mistake. They know most people are misinformed, and they like it better that way. That's not journalism and it's the reason this story rates as my "Biggest spin of 2006". Let's hope 2007 brings us a little more honesty, and a little less partison lies from both sides. Happy New Year everyone. H.C.

BACK IN THE SADDLE!!

The combined evil plot of Democrat and Republican operatives has officially failed, the Hippie Conservative is back and mad as hell. So they thought they could stop me from uniting Blacks and Whites, Asians and Hispanics, Christians and Secularists, and most importantly, Democrats and Republicans. Did they really think simply crashing the entire Ibogs web site would send me crying? Sure, there were some bad moments, watching my 400 hits a day reduced to 10 or 20 people I could contact personally. Realizing that half my columns were in my cruddy handwriting and would have to be typed back on one by one. Having to suffer putting them back on one or two a day while great political material passed right before my eyes. Yes, it's been a tough month, but it's over now and I am ready to get the masses back one by one. By the way, if any of you have any bright ideas on how I can link my old URL to my new one without access to Iblogs, I'm all ears. I've started a new parallel site on Myspace.com. (http://www.myspace.com/thehippieconservative) and I've linked hippieconservative.com to this site so if the government should try any more shady shit, I'm ready.

So what's been going on since I disappeared off the radar? Lots. As you know the War in Iraq has continued to fall apart, and Bush is starting to look like his legacy will be starting a new 30 Year War. I've got some thoughts on how we could still save some honor, but not much. Donald Rumfeld has been fired (quit, resigned, whatever, as long as he leaves) and we're pinning our hopes on Robert Gates now to find some kind of way to win something. The Democrats are salivating over their BIG mid term win and are probably already plotting how to make the remaining two years of Bush's term a living hell. A little known Senator from South Dakota, Timothy Johnson, suffered a type of brain aneurysm and now has the Democrat Majority-elect wondering if they can pull off their own version of "Weekend at Bernies" to hold on to their slim (51-49) majority in the U.S. Senate. The Democrats should be cautious, they have a bunch of Senators over 80 years old including both the Democrat Senators from Hawaii. The '08 elections are firing up with Barrack Obama already entering the fray. Like Christmas, the elections seem to start earlier and earlier. The Baker/Hamilton commission has released their report, and everyone seems to hates some part of it, including the Iraqis. And other than that, I'll just say the world is a crazy as it was before I disappeared. I have a long list of things I can't wait to tell you, but in the meantime, have a Happy Christmas and take care of one another. H.C.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Posted in political on September 30th, 2006
I have a friend who reads my column regularly and he asked me recently if I’m afraid of running out of ideas. I responded, “Hell no, I haven’t even covered the First Amendment completely yet, and I’ve got 26 more to go.” There are so many things I want to tell all of you about our government, society, and the rest of the world that my only fear is that I won’t live long enough to cover everything. I see all of us as comrades traveling on a journey through dark woods, searching for truths. The hard part is, someone keeps changing the direction signs and our map isn’t completely accurate. So before I get any older, let’s get at it.
The first and most important thing you need to know about “Separation of Church and State” is, that phrase DOES NOT appear ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. Not in the preamble, not in the main text, not in the Bill of Rights. No where in it, period. So you can search for it yourself I’ve connected this link for you. Every single debate I have with Secular Progressives leads to this argument. In fact, the phrase doesn’t even appear in the Federalist Papers, a collection of essays written (presumably) by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to try to sell the idea of the Constitution and published in several New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788.
So where exactly did this phrase come from? What was the reason for it being brought into our Judicial system? What was the intent of our Founding Fathers? Should we embrace it even if it’s not in the Constitution? These questions have been pondered by better minds than mine, so what I’ll attempt to do is give you the facts as I see them, so you can better make up you own mind on where you stand.
Let’s go back to very beginning, to the very first time the phrase entered our Judicial System and started the debate that still exists today. In 1946, the case Everson vs. Board of Education was argued before the Supreme Court. At issue was a New Jersey law giving reimbursement to religious schools for busing. The question was whether the state of New Jersey was violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by giving money from the state to a school the was religious in nature. The conclusion was that it did not. The busing was seen as being equivalent to police protection, or any other service paid out to help all of it’s citizens including religious ones. But in the decision Justice Hugo Black quoted a little known Letter to the Dansbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson stating that he believed there was a “wall of Separation of Church and State” granted by the First Amendment. From that point on secularists in this country have been pointing to it as proof positive of our Founding Fathers intent to keep God completely out of government. One does have to wonder though, if that was their intent, why did it take so long for it to become an issue?
I found it interesting that Justice Hugo Black, an ex- Ku Klux Klan member, was admonished during these arguments for asking people who were testifying if the were Catholic. Ku Klux Klan members have a hatred for Catholics (and lots of other people) as they are almost all Protestants. Could this have been an attempt by him to keep funds from traveling to Catholics who were seen as a threat to the primarily Protestant control of the U.S. government at the time? Hmmm.
Since that fateful ruling in Everson vs. Board of Education, we have seen a rise in attempts to remove God from every aspect of government. The trend has been towards a secular government that not only does not support any establishment of religion, but doesn’t support the idea of religion in any form. Shortly after Justice Black’s ruling, prayer in school was banned. Then religious symbols were removed from government buildings and proposals were launched to delete the word “God” from money and the Pledge of Allegiance. America, for better or worse, has become a far more secular place. And most disturbing to me, freedom of speech has suffered.
What do you mean H.C.? How can this affect freedom of speech? Let me explain it to you this way. Once upon a time in America, schools taught a curriculum of traditionism. No teachers taught the accepting of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. No one taught women that they had the right to work in jobs retained for men only. No one dissented when the government told you to go to war, or said that slavery was wrong. And no one said there might not be a God. Do we really want to go back to a time where one side decides what can be discussed in our classrooms? Is it really any different to tell our teachers, our government officials, and yes even our students that any discussions of God will not be tolerated? Keeping our government free from one religion having undo influence over another, I agree with. I also respect people’s right to chose to have no religion at all, but eliminating the right of religious people to influence their government or their schools as much as those without religion is wrong.
If I’ve only learned one thing in my life, it is this. Freedom of discussion is the bedrock of this country. Removing a point of view from any discussion is far more dangerous than any discussion we could ever have. Unchallenged, any idea can be made to seem correct. Even the genocide or slavery of other human beings. I’m not afraid of free debate and you shouldn’t be either. I’m not afraid to have a right-wing wacko speak his mind, or a racist, or a liberal. I’ll defend my view, and if I can’t, maybe it shouldn’t be my view. Allow religious people to have their place at the table as long as you have yours. Having a theocracy for a government is a bad idea, but so is having a country where only one point of view is tolerated. H.C.

THE PROBLEM WITH PACHYDERMS

Posted in political on September 22nd, 2006
O.K., mark this day down. Get your pens and pencil’s out. Today’s the day I explain why I don’t, and most likely never will, call myself a Republican. In my own, terribly analytic style, I will list once and for all the things that bother me the most about the right-side of our political spectrum. They are not necessarily in order of importance, nor are they the only complaints I have with Republicans.
*THE ENVIRONMENT*
In 1970, Richard Nixon, passed the Clean Air Act and created the E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency). It was the most important legislation regarding the environment ever passed and helped clean up our air and water more than anything the Democrats have ever done. And the Republicans have been chipping away at it ever since. The biggest problem with how the Republicans, in general, view the environment is that they see it as something to be used for profit, with little regard for public access or future generations. Since Republicans almost always fall on the side of business in any dispute over the environment, I don’t see them as good stewards over our air and National Forests. Big business, Miners and loggers can not be trusted to regulate themselves. They also encourage competition between states. This causes one state to lower it’s standards environmentally more than another in order to attract more jobs. That kind of race to the bottom can’t be good for our future. I tend to think more like the Native Americans, that the land is not something we inherit from our Fathers, but something we borrow from our grandchildren. The Democrats score higher with me on this issue, but if you’re really passionate, vote Green Party, even though I think they sometimes go overboard.
*ABORTION*
In the Republican world, which is dominated by the Christians on this issue, there can never be a good reason for an abortion. Conception, to them, starts the minute the little sperm cell enters the egg. Since God makes no mistakes, even babies born out of incest or the product of rape should not be aborted. Oddly enough, once the baby is born, Republicans generally feel you should pay for your own mistakes. If you suffer, then your an example to other young women not to be so promiscuous. That’s a little too harsh for me to advocate. While I’m no fan of abortion as a form of birth control and generally don’t even support abortion at all, illegalizing it completely is, in my opinion, going to far. With the advent of abortion by pill, I thought this issue should be over as illegalizing abortion would only create a black market for the drugs, but for Republicans, it’s a moral issue of right and wrong. I advocate keeping abortion legal, but with lots of restrictions such as parental notification, no one fits my opinion on this.
*NATIONAL DEBT*
This is one issue that gets me screaming like a monkey hit with a cattle prod. This goes back to what I was saying in the environment part of this piece. We are borrowing this country from our grandchildren, and have an obligation to give it to them DEBT FREE! We can’t just keep borrowing against their future. For those of you that don’t really understand who we’re borrowing this money from, I’ll try to explain it as simply as possible. It’s kind of like an interest-only loan. Bonds (I.O.U.’s) are sold by the U.S. to various people with the expectation that they will generate interest for them. Since only the interest on these bonds is really ever paid, that is the amount that each successive budget must fork out to keep everyone from cashing all their bonds in. The bigger the amount, the more the interest, and therefore the bigger the percentage of the budget. Since the bonds are never cashed in, the debt is pushed forward to the next generation. In other words, we’re taking out loans in our children’s names and giving them the risk of defaulting should something go horribly wrong. Republicans used to be the ones carrying the torch for fiscal responsibility, but Clinton did a better job of actually doing it. Democrats, for now, have the edge with me on this issue.
*THE POOR*
Having been poor, I have a place in my heart for those of us who know what it’s like to struggle. The Republican Party sometimes seems a little too cold hearted towards the poor for my tastes. I admit, after seeing so many people abuse the system, I developed a Republican-type attitude toward people on welfare. I honestly thought if you had two hands and two feet to walk on, your ass should be working. A year of working doing repairs for poor shut-ins cured me. I saw people who had boils all over their bodies, people with terrible skin conditions, fire victims, and things I never even thought of. I still believe you can cause some people to become overly dependent on the government to cure all their problems, but ending all help is not the answer. Better enforcement, even if more expensive in the short run, is a better answer.
*LABOR*
It’s really hard to decide who’s the worst among our two parties on this one. Democrats who want to let in anyone who wants to sneak in illegally to take millions of our jobs, or Republicans who want to lower wages and benefits to increase corporate profits. But, since I’m giving the Republicans the once over here, this is my beef with them. Republicans have never been labor supporters. Period. As I’ve said before, they encourage state to state competition for jobs. Since they generally like the idea of state control on this issue, and set standards federally that are reflective of business’ interest, it’s hard for me to see them as anything but an enemy of labor. From Reagan firing the air traffic controllers to bargaining laws that allow firing of strikers, Republicans have slowly whittled away at any power unions have. I wish I could say I’m with the Democrats on this one, but they have abandoned us in favor of advocates for gun control or gay rights. Want help getting health care? Want your unions stronger? Get active forming a labor party. I could not give Republicans lower marks on this one.
You know, this has been kind of cleansing for me. It’s made me realize I’m right where I want to be, in the middle. My dad used to tell me, “It takes a good Republican to create wealth, and a good Democrat to spread it around.” But wouldn’t it be great if we had a party that knew how to do both? I’m still hoping for that party. With 26% of Americans now saying they’re independent, the odds never looked better. I can’t wait for the day when Democrats and Republicans are blaming each other for killing the two-party system. For now, my Liberal friends, soak up a little Republican bashing, I’ll get back to you later. H.C.

IS THE WORLD BECOMING MORE ANTI-SEMITIC?

Posted in political on August 15th, 2006
Working in a university setting has it’s advantages. I can get a quick sampling of how a lot of different groups view any given issue. In some instances, I can see changes in perceptions as they happen in our culture, such as the gay movement, or the squelching of free speech by advocates. Some of these changes are slow and hard to notice right away, and others are sudden and usually a response to some current event. Lately I’ve noticed a sudden rise in anti-Semitism linked directly to the current conflict between Lebanon and Israel. Is it possible the people of the U.S. are on their way to abandoning our best ally in the Middle East?
There’s always been a certain amount of what I would call anti-Israel behavior on our campuses. I don’t know if I would call all of it “anti-Semitic”. We have to be careful here, just disagreeing with the Jewish point of view doesn’t necessarily make you anti-Semitic, (although that point of view is used by our advocates). But I do think that if you feel we should abandon Israel, or that Israel should be given to the Palestians, thus displacing over 5 million Jews, you probably do qualify as anti-Semitic. (Notice I didn’t say give it “back”, some of you people need to follow history back more than 60 years).
Lately, I’ve been hearing from our faculty and a lot of students, that Israel is the real villain in the Middle East, and that we need to get out of the business of supporting them. They sympathize with Hezbollah, and do not view them as “terrorists” at all. In fact, they feel, for the most part, that any action taken by any of the “terrorist” groups in the Middle East is justified by some past action by Israel or the West. I’m not saying Israel has completely clean hands; some of the actions taken by Israel against the Palestians are not exactly conducive to getting along. But the punishment should not be the destruction of Israel, or the genocide of Jews.
In the years prior to WWII, we saw the same ugly type of prejudice against the Jewish people that we’re now seeing fermenting in the Middle East. Jews were blamed for everything from poverty to disease. A good example of how perverse this can become is the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion“. The Protocols of Zion were used all through the beginning of the 20th Century in Europe and Asia to help ferment suspicion and hatred against the Jews. With it’s protocols listing the Jew’s plan to take over the world, it gave birth to one of the earliest, and longest lasting conspiracy theories of the last century. Supposedly, Jews would follow this book and it’s protocol, handing it down secretly from father to son in an effort to rule the world. So effective was the use of this book in revealing the Jews “secret plan” that Hitler made it required reading for all of Germany’s students. Even here in America, it is regularly handed out at white supremist meetings as well as among black Muslims. Hate and fear are very powerful emotions and the principle tools that have caused violent acts against groups throughout history. What we are seeing now with sales of this book in Iran and Syria as well as here in America is the beginning of something we have seen before, prior to WWII.
Just as Hitler used propaganda to turn Germany against Jews, a new wave of anti semitism is brewing in Europe. Attacks on Jewish synagogues are on the increase as are incidents of Jews being beaten. This is even happening in countries know for their “tolerance”. While a large percentage of these incidents are being blamed on young Muslims, enough of a rise in attacks by white supremist groups is occurring to cause all of us to wonder what’s going on. Is it possible that Muslim funded organizations are taking a page out of Mein kampf and using it to turn America and Europe against the Jews? Are we all so naive to assume if the Jews were out of the way all the problems in the Middle East would just disappear?
At this point, I should point out that I am not Jewish at all that I am aware of. The only reason this concerns me is, history has a habit of repeating itself. It’s real obvious that anti-Semitism is growing in Europe and I fear it’s growing here in the U.S. also. I understand the fear that we all have about facing down the terrorism that is growing out of Islamic extremism, but abandoning the Jewish people will NOT make it all go away. There are arguments all around about whether or not a Jewish state should have ever been created, but it has. The U.S. helped stop the genocide of the Jewish people in WWII and it has always been something that made me glad and proud to be an American. If America is going to go to war over something, I would like it to be to stop the genocide of people anywhere in the world. We should not have ignored Rwanda, we should stop the killing in Sudan, and we should never tolerate countries who call for the destruction of Israel or the genocide of Jews. H.C.

WORLD WAR III?

Posted in Uncategorized on July 31st, 2006
In the 1982 miniseries movie, World War III, the Soviet Union has invaded Alaska to disrupt the Alaskan Oil Pipeline. After attempts at diplomacy, the film ends with both the president of the United States and the president of the Soviet Union on the phone in a last ditch effort to avert all out war. They both agree to withdraw their troops and stand down their nuclear weapons, but after hanging up, both turn to their aids and call for a “first strike.” For most of us who lived through the Cold War, this is how we envisioned World War III starting, an altercation with the Soviet Union escalating beyond control. The reality of how it may actually come down though, is way different than most of us anticipated. As much as I hate to tell all of you, the wheels may well be turning towards something very few of us ever foresaw.
Since the rise of the original two-headed terrorist, Yassar Arafat, terrorist organizations around the world have discovered that America and most of the world is conflicted about how they view a minority group fighting against a controlling majority. Following Arafat’s lead, they now understand that the leftist news media (not to mention their own) will defend and justify them hiding weapons in civilian populations, beheading hostages, declaring war on the U.S., Britain, and Israel, and even killing other Muslims all because they have less power. The trick, they’ve learned, is to portray themselves as innocent victims of Imperialism to the press, while preaching destruction of Israel and the West inside their Mosques. If quoted, they claim it was out of context, if it’s proven in writing, they claim it was forged. If cornered, they claim we conspire to vilify them unjustly. The American and European masses, so prone to conspiracy theories, swallow their lies whole. They claim discrimination, and so sensitive are we to the accusation, that we bend over backwards to prove we’re not. In our effort to be the better people, we allow the mass murderers into our homes and near our children.
What’s even worse than the lies is that they hide behind a religion. With a Koran in one hand and a suicide belt in the other, they manipulate the poor, uneducated masses to do their bidding in the name of Allah. They challenge the religious tolerance of other countries while showing none whatsoever in countries they control. While demanding Mosques be built in Britain, the U.S., France, and all over the world, they burn down churches in Somalia, Sudan, and Indonesia. They have no one to answer to in the places they control, and kill anyone who dares to question them.
Their plan is a simple one. Infiltrate every country in the world, blend in with the population, and then fight a guerilla war from within, through terrorism. In the countries that support them, they get their funding through charitable organizations, or under the table from the government who then denies having anything to do with them. In unfriendly countries, the money is funneled to them through bank accounts filled from overseas. Whatever their funding, where ever they are placed, they have one completely unified goal. The destruction of Israel and the removal of western influence from Islamic people. This goal will never change, no matter what they say, or who they pretend to be.
I give people this analogy to try to help them understand what they’re up against. Think of them as ultra-right wing Christians, the ones at the far, far, right. Beyond Pat Robertson, who think it’s justifiable to blow up abortion clinics, or kill homosexuals. Now picture that there’s millions of them, and they want their beliefs to prevail over the whole earth because they don’t think they should have to suffer even seeing homosexuality, adultery, nudity or their perception of immorality. Now picture they’re completely willing to die for it. Are you still sympathizing?
By now your probably thinking,”Not all Muslims want to kill us, H.C., or force their religion on the whole world.” Well, I agree. The estimates I’ve read put the percent of Muslims that subscribe to this form of Islam at about 10%, but considering that 1.3 billion people in the world follow Islamic teachings that means that 130 million people are willing to die to destroy Israel and western influence. Also, since the majority of the remaining people would jump on the side of any Muslims if the fight were against Israel or Zionists, you could put the rest in the supporting column.
For those of us that think of war as country vs. country, the concept of fighting with an enemy that swears no allegiance to one country and hides among the populace is a little hard to fathom. Maybe that’s the reason some of the people I talk to don’t think we’re at war anywhere but Iraq or Afghanistan. Liberals, who tend to take the optimistic outlook on human nature, have a particularly hard time imagining an enemy who lives among us and still wants to destroy us. For them, they can’t imagine how someone could come to this country and not be overwhelmed by our freedom to be whoever you are. If anything, they believe people coming here would want even more freedom. The truth is they are repulsed by our freedoms. They view us as Godless and immoral, in their world, they’re doing you a favor by killing you and saving you from a life of decadence. I never could understand Liberals defending these radical religious nuts when they would be the first ones they would kill.
So, what can we do to stop WWIII? The answer to that is, unfortunately, not much. Your never going to get them to stop moving toward what they believe is their destiny. For them, a world war is only going to leave the U.S. and Israel weaker. (This, by the way, is the main reason China and Russia doesn’t support us in any of our attempts to stop it.) We also won’t have much luck killing off all the different terrorist organizations. As soon as we kill one, another appears in its place. Our attempts so far have been a disaster. All three of the “Axis of Evil” countries are now in worst shape than they were the day G.W. declared them as such, and Iran and North Korea are now supporting terrorism openly. With the new front opening up in Southern Lebanon, Israel is being drawn into the war at the timing of Hezbollah. Every day that Hezbollah kills Jews with their new weaponry, the terrorists become emboldened. The word on Arab Street is that the terrorists have succeeded in stopping the most powerful country on Earth in Iraq and that they have shown Israel that the price of war will now be paid by both sides. This can not be a good thing for us. Technology is now theirs for the grabbing with only the price of a laptop, and it is showing in all their methods. Terrorists, who once prayed for an automatic rock-thrower, are now looking at biological and even Nuclear weapons. The clock has now begun ticking, and it’s only a matter of when, not if, one will be detonated.
Our only hope is for all of us to finally understand our enemy and to be as committed as he is. Whatever our methods, we need to once and for all understand this one truth; WE ARE AT WAR, and our commitment to stopping terrorism has to be as resolved as those that seek to destroy us. H.C.
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

U.N.able

Posted in political on September 15th, 2006
The year is 1993, the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriot Front (RPF) and the Hutu-dominated Rwandan government (the Tutsi and Hutu are African tribes) have just signed a U.N. sponsored cease-fire. Unfortunately, neither side has any intention of honoring it. Both sides are hoping to gain advantage while the other is idle. The U.N. has approved resolution 872 which creates UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda), their goal was to put troops between the warring sides to give peace a chance. They committed 2,500 troops to do the job, it would not be enough.
Without solid commitments from any one country (notably the U.S.) to assure the 2,500 troops would be in place immediately, the bickering and diplomatic efforts of the U.N. took over 5 months to reach that level, it was not soon enough. In April of 1994, the president of the Rwandan government, Juvenal Habyarimana, was assassinated, sparking one of the worst genocides the world has seen. In 3 short months, between 500,000 and 1 million Tutsi and moderate Hutu were exterminated. The U.N., lacking the troops or the ability to quickly muster more, stood idly by as the carnage exploded. It was but one example of the failings of U.N.
Now fast forward to the year 2000, the fighting in and around the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been raging for 2 years. With deaths now reaching nearly a thousand people a day, the U.N. has finally decided to act by sending in a multi-national force of 11,000 people to quell the fighting. Four years later, the ineffective force has done nothing to stem the killing, and an estimated 3.8 million men, women and children have died.
That isn’t even the worst of it. Some members of the international force, shielded by U.N. law leaving them free from prosecution, started raping, and photographing Congolese children. By the time the U.N. could not ignore the problem any longer, hundreds of babies were born to underage Congolese girls impregnated by U.N. officials and troops. One of the sickest aspects of these perverse acts was that U.N. officials would use food and medicine to blackmail them into these acts.
Now let’s move on to present day. In the war torn country of Sudan, in the region of Darfur, millions of black Sudanese have been driven from their homes by the Arab-controlled Sudan government. The Janjaweeds, (government backed Arabs), have been for the last couple of years, systematically killing all the male black Sudanese they can find. And it’s easy to find them. Without any food or water, they make their way to U.N. camps where, under cover of darkness or if they wander too far, they have their arms cut off if they’re not outright killed. The U.N. has sent troops to protect them and passed several resolutions condemning the Sudanese government but to this very day the killing continues.
So why is the U.N. so utterly ineffective? Picture that you have an oganization who’s goal it is to stop drug dealing in your neighborhood, now picture that not only do you have to let the drug dealers sit in on your discussions, but they get to vote on your methods. How effective do you think you would be? There lies the problem. Nations that are being investigated for crimes against humanity or for attempting to procure weapons of mass destruction get to sit in on, and vote on, the methods used to stop them. Does that make any sense? Of course not. Now add to that the fact that these nations can turn to the “Veto Nations” (think France or Russia prior to the present Iraq war) and bribe them with oil, money, or resources to put an end to any possible action, and you have a recipe for failure.
Is the U.N. completely worthless H.C.? No, I would say they have some use as a diplomatic tool, but that’s all. We did have some success in Bosnia keeping the Serbs under control, but that was one of the rare examples where Europe stood united. Don’t expect that to happen often. I would be in favor of us starting another, more pragmatic organization of Nations that would stand up militarily against groups like the Janjaweed. But getting Europe, or anyone else, to commit troops is always going to be the problem. If we can’t find figure out a way to get the rest of the world to stand up and take a solid moral stand against groups that only want chaos in the world, it may be time for the U.S. to decide if we can handle the problems alone, or move toward isolationism. H.C.

SEPTEMBER FORGOTTEN

Posted in Uncategorized on September 11th, 2006
I don’t need to remind all of you what happened on September 11, 2006. Every one of us over 10 years old remembers the gut-awful feeling of that day. I first heard what was going on from one of our student workers. He was surfing the net when a breaking news story crawled across his screen. One of the World Trade Center towers had just been hit by a plane. Like many of you, my first thought was that an airplane had somehow lost it’s navigation or suffered some mechanical malfunction and clipped the tower. With two of my student employees in tow, we went up to a student recreation room to watch on the big screen T.V. The room was already filling up with curious people who wanted to see how bad it was. I remember being improperly casual about the whole thing, after all, this was just another example of our airline industry not taking care of it’s planes, something that unfortunately happens once in a while. When the second plane hit the other tower right before our stunned eyes I knew, as did everyone else that this was no accident.
I don’t remember what exactly I said after the second plane hit, but I do remember the gasps and the”Oh my God” whispers of my fellow employees. For better or worse, on that day we all realized that the U.S. was no longer immune from the problems of the rest of the world.
I didn’t really plan on writing about this today; I had already started working on my next piece (on the worthless U.N.). What got me all fired-up about this is the way my wonderful Big 10 University is handling the 5 year anniversary. We are recognizing the deaths of nearly 3,000 people from every corner of the U.S. and the world by ignoring it completely. I’m not kidding. No moment of silence, no new memorials, no anything. Not even an E-Mail. It’s like it never even happened. My University puts out a weekly newspaper, ( It’s mostly all agenda driven pieces), and it contained not one reference to 9/11, and it’s even dated “September 11, 2006″. It contains an event calendar that had not one single 9/11 related event. I’m now at the end of the work day and I didn’t see anything that was put out by our University. This has even got ol’ H.C. confused, and that doesn’t happen often.
Why would they do such a thing? Is it because they’re afraid to offend extremist Muslims on campus? Should we offend everyone who feels pride in this country to spare the small fraction of Muslims who think they have the God-driven right to kill us? I don’t get it. Maybe it’s because the left-leaning faculty and administration can’t stand the notion of the U.S. being the victim in any situation. Maybe they figure it’s better to say nothing at all then to for once, stand on the side of America.
Well, I have a little piece of the web and I ain’t afraid to use it. Maybe I’m overreacting a bit here, if I am let me know. But I honestly thought even this left wing breading ground would take a minute to remember the men, women, and children who died on that awful day. On this day, September 11, 2006, I am officially stating that I am embarrassed to be at this University, embarrassed that they can’t even take one day off their stupid agendas to honor people who did nothing but go to work, and died in a war they didn’t even know was coming. H.C.

WHERE'S THE HIPPIE, MR. CONSERVATIVE?

Posted in Uncategorized on July 7th, 2006
Lately I’ve been getting called out by my left-leaning friends. The truth is, I don’t have any conservative friends. Even though some of you might think I sit around all day listening to Rush Limbaugh with all my far-right, neo-conservative, religious buddies, the truth is, I’m all alone for the most part on my opinions. I do have some religious family members who do lean to the right, but I normally only see them during family functions and my wife won’t let me talk politics with them anymore. (Man, you start one little fight.) Anyway, lately people have been asking me where the “hippie” part of my persona has gone. They’ve even gone so far as to tell me I should change my name, since I only have conservative opinions anyway. “The Conservative?” that doesn’t sound like a site I would want to visit. So, in the interest of being fair, I went over my past posts just to check, and I’ve got to tell you, I don’t get where they’re coming from.
My first column, fresh out of the box, was on legalizing Marijuana. The response on that has been very good by the way; with any luck it’ll find its way to people who can support it better than I can. Definitely a Liberal piece though. The second one was an attack on a Ku Klux Klan member in the Senate. I would like to think that’s something a ”hippie” would support. Don’t hippies try to expose when the establishment is secretly supporting racism? (Or should we only expose Republicans?) The third one, on Katrina, I took a more conservative stand on, but only because I thought the whole thing was fermenting racial division, and not being reported accurately. Honesty in the media is something we should all support, especially hippies. Next I took on Roe vs. Wade, I didn’t give my personal stand on it, as it was a educational piece, but for the record, I am Pro-Choice. Next I took on the issue of bigotry against Christians in our Universities. Hippies, I thought, were always against bigotry. Apparently some of you think it’s O.K. to be bigoted against Christians, but as a hippie, I take the love your enemy point of view. Freedom vs. Security was done as I pondered how far we should all go, if you read it carefully you’ll find I didn’t even take a firm stand, left or right. The Iraq War piece was easily the one I caught the most shit on, I thought I was safe on that one, as I made it plain that I was against this war from the start, yet my friends on the left attacked me for thinking it could be won, (sigh). Every piece, every time, my friends on the left felt I was too easy on Bush, gave too much credit to the conservatives, attacked the advocates too much, and reaffirmed their belief that I was slowly drifting to the right. And now, in my darkest moment of self-reflection, they are trying to take away my hippie creds. That, I will not tolerate.
I think that it’s the definition of “hippie” that’s changed, not me (at least not completely). I’m still the guy who picks up trash along my road. I refuse to even throw a gum wrapper on the ground. I hate trash. It’s like spitting on our mother to me. I love being in nature and being part of it. That’s why I hunt and fish, I want to know everything about nature, as a participant, not as a observer. You can’t learn everything about nature from just watching. That’s pure hippie to me. I don’t trust the establishment, you know, the folks in charge, they have their own agenda and it’s usually not the same as mine. That includes both our political parties. I never saw hippies in the ’70s supporting the Democratic Party, that’s something you guys started more recently. In fact, most of us supported third parties.(I myself have voted for Ralph Nader 3 times). I’m anti-war. Isn’t everybody? I’ll only support it when it looks like not having it is worse. Some of you people on the left need to understand that not taking action can be worse than taking action. Look at what inaction did in Rwanda. I’m Pro-choice and Pro-Womens rights, but sometimes, what is being advocated by the left is not what’s best for women, women on the right represent women too. In short, I’m a rabid environmentalist; a crusader against racism (all racism, not just the fashionable advocacy of the moment), anti-war, pro-choice, and a firm believer that government has a responsibility to take care of those that CAN NOT take care of themselves. I don’t buy into the politics of hate and fear. I don’t hate Bush, as much as you’d all like me to, but I’m trying to give you the truth, and not be a tool for either side.
I’m going back down to my room in my basement now. I’ll pick up my guitar and play “All you need is love” while staring at my Pink Floyd posters under the gentle light of my lava lamp, like I do a lot when I’m reflecting. This old hippie may have changed a little while growing long-in-tooth, but I’m not ready to abandon my roots just yet. Challenge me all you want, I love debate anyway, but don’t try to take away my right to call myself a hippie, it’s still what makes me……..me. H.C.

THE MADMAN OF IRAN

Posted in political on September 6th, 2006
Standing at an estimated 5′ 4″ (no one seems to know for sure), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president of Iran, doesn’t really strike you as a threatening character. In fact, most of the pictures I’ve seen of him show him with a rather pleasant smile. He does however; remind me a bit of Marvin the Martian from the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, a short little guy from another planet who has an arsenal of giant weapons for one purpose, to destroy the Earth. So exactly where did this Islamic Napoleon come from? What are his true goals? And most importantly, should we worried about the man who once said, “Israel should be wiped off the map.” and now appears close to having a nuclear weapon?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, (pronounced mah-MOUD ah-mah-dih-nee-ZHAD) was born in the small town of Garnsar, Iran in 1956. He was the 4th son out of 7 children born to an middle class ironworker. He served in the Iran-Iraq war through the early 80’s in the Special Forces and when the war ended, went on to get his Doctorate in engineering and traffic transportation planning at the University of Science and Technology in Tehran. In early 2005 he ran for President against cleric Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on a platform of the common working man vs. the wealthy and politically-connected. On June 24, 2005, he won the election by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, becoming the first non-cleric President of Iran in 24 years. Well, once again, he doesn’t seem all that bad or threatening to me.
So what’s got everyone’s undies in a bunch over this Tiny Tyrant? Is it because he says outright what most of the Middle East says privately? No, I think to get a better understanding of Mr. Ahmadinejad, you have to look at the little things he has said or done that are less obvious.
Mr. Ahmadinejad wasn’t just in the Special Forces, he was the Iranian equivalent of a CIA spook. He was a Senior Commander of the elite Qods Force of the IRGC, who’s basic function was to assassinate enemies of the state. Far from being a Liberal, or even a moderate, Ahmadinejad was supported by the Guardian Council, a council of strict, traditionalist Muslim Clerics who are the actual power structure of Iran. The goal of the Guardian Council is to form a sort of Ideological false Democracy, who would then put a face on the presidency while controlling the government from within the Mosques. All of this is done to falsely appease Europe by making it appear to be a freely elected government, while all the time moving more and more power to the Clerics to form a theological government with Fundamentalist Islamic rule. Ahmadinejad also had the support of the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayattollah Khamenei. The Ayattollah already controlled the media in Iran, and through religion, most of its population. Now with a puppet President to do his bidding, he is poised to control foreign affairs as well.
Since Ahmadinejad was elected, he has quickly moved Iran from a near Democracy to a therocratic state. With all the clerics behind him, Ahmadinejad has made a string of changes in Iran. Men are now required to wear mustaches and beards; women have to wear the traditional hajibs. Liberal or secular professors have been banned from University campuses (the opposite of what we do here, check out my previous column Freedom of Speech Dies at Harvard). Satellites for radio or T.V. have been banned and websites deemed unsuitable by the government have been blocked. When confronted by other countries, Ahmadinejad laughs off these accusations by asking, “And you don’t have trouble with your youths?”
One thing that is very important for all of you to understand about the politics of the Middle East is that they learned a long time ago that we (meaning the U.S. and Europe) are a little naive when it comes to being lied to. If there’s a chance that peace can be brokered through diplomacy, we will risk trusting absolute liars over and over again. A great movie that shows this is “Mars Attacks“, particularly the scene where Jack Nicholson, after the invading Martians have destroyed all of Congress, is meeting with his cabinet. Looking around the room at the stunned faces before him he states, “You know, I’m starting to not trust these guys.” This is the policy that cripples us when dealing with Middle East leaders.
Ahmadinejad, for his part, is probably the most honest of all the Middle East leaders. Since G. W. has stupidly tied up all of our troups in Iraq, Ahmadinejad has wisely concluded that Bush has no real good options to stop Iran from interfearing in Iraq or getting a nuclear weapon. That leaves stopping Iran up to the United Nations, which is nothing more than a small barking dog, or Europe, which is a bigger dog afraid to even bark. So confident is Ahmadinejad of this that he laughs out loud at U.N. threats of sanctions, or Europe’s idle complaints. This leaves me with no other conclusion than to believe that we will soon be dealing with a nuclear armed Iraq.
Now, exactly how bad is this for the world? Well, once again the political cards have been shuffled and a new nuclear country has to be added. With every new country comes increased possibility of a nuclear weapon getting into the wrong hands. Is this any different than when India or Pakistan went nuclear? No. But, the odds of something bad happening are indeed getting greater, and we should all be concerned. My guess is that Iraq, like other countries before it, will be afraid of the consequences of being tied to a nuclear terrorist attack. But it only takes one nutty group to overthrow one of these governments and a bomb is theirs. That is, and should be, one of the world’s greatest fears. We should not take that threat lightly. H.C.

THE VALUE OF A LIFE

Posted in Uncategorized on June 9th, 2006
”Bonnie Elizabeth Dorland was murdered by a coward on Holbrook Ave. in Flint, Michigan on May 31, 2006.” That was the opening line of an obituary I read in the Flint Journal the other day. In it, I felt both the grief and the anger of her family. She was a friend of my kids, and a sweet, small, pixie of a girl. She was only 26. At about the same time I looked down from my desk to see a column in another paper that read, “Search for Jimmy Hoffa’s Body at Milford Farm may exceed $250,000″. My mind raced in anger, for I know that kind of effort will never be spent finding the murderer of a small town girl with no rich parents, no famous last name, and no political ties. Lot of things in this world piss me off by their utter unfairness (maybe you’ve noticed?), but this one has me asking one of the most basic questions we all should ask ourselves. Should we value some lives more than others?
Let’s take a brief walk through some of the more egregious examples I’ve come across.
Probably the best example was Emilia Earhart, the first women to cross the Atlantic solo. When Emilia disappeared somewhere in the Pacific in 1937, the most costly air & search rescue of all time took place. The end cost was 4 million dollars and years of searching that still goes on today. Apparently Emilia’s life was worth a lot.
When J.F.K. jr. crashed his private plane off the coast of Massachusetts along with his wife Carolyn and sister-in-law Lauren, a massive underwater search was orchestrated that included the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S Navy and NOAA. Also used were helicopters, planes, and $120,000 worth of sonar time. He was then buried at sea using the USS Brisco, A Navy destroyer, at the request of U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy. All this despite the fact that he was a non-military citizen who’s only claim to fame was being the son of an ex-president. Compare that to the usual loss at sea that entails one or maybe two coast guard planes doing a flyover.
Closer to home for me, Margaret Eby, a Provost at the University of Michigan-Flint was murdered on the Mott Estate grounds (very rich people and local philanthropists). Her 1986 murder investigation cost the city of Flint over 1 million dollars before Jeff Gorton was finally caught and convicted in 2002.
Now let’s compare that to my friend, Joey Arnold. Joey was a young local guitar player here in Flint for a heavy metal band. Joey also would occasionally sell marijuana to make extra money. That apparently was his undoing, as two people that he didn’t know, came to his door and forced their way in to rob him of his wares in broad daylight. In a subdivision where houses are less than 10 yards apart, the pair stabbed Joey repeatedly to death while his screams filled the neighborhood. Despite the fact that the police got good descriptions of the murderers and their car, a knife that was left behind, and even a partial license plate, 6 months later, no arrests had been made. Frustrated, Joey’s parents hired a private detective who delivered both murderers to the police in 2 weeks.
How can all this be, you ask? Well, most police and local government officials have an unofficial policy of D.S.A.F., or “Did Society A Favor”. They take it upon themselves to decide who deserves precious funds for investigations and who we’re better off without anyway. Those people, like my friend Joey, who sell pot, or are on welfare, simply don’t see the kind of funds or effort that their rich well connected counterparts do. Is that fair to their families? Is Joey’s mom’s grief any different than the grief of any other mom? Why is it we spend the most money on people who could most afford to pay for it themselves? Is justice something that should only be for the rich or well connected? Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the punishment for murder, or rape , or any other capital crime in this country is directly linked to who is killed or raped. Or who did the crime? I’m a true capitalist, but justice should not be a benefit of success.
Unfortunately, I’m also a realist. I know that there is no way to keep politics and money out of justice. Even if you could put lawyers in a pool drawn randomly, the rich could still hire legal advisors, and private detectives to tip the scales in their favor. I also know that political pressure mounts on overburdened police departments to solve high profile cases. But sometimes it feels like no one is even trying to make our system fairer.
My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and family of Bonnie Dorland. I know the odds of her killers being brought to justice are not that good. But I also know that there are people out there who may have seen something that night on Holbrook Ave, or may know something about this case or another case. To those people I plead, stand up, if we’re not going to get justice from the system, we have to create it for ourselves. Next time it may be your loved one killed, or robbed, or raped. Turn your back and someone will follow your lead and turn theirs. We all have to stick together against the madness that is consuming our neighborhoods, or we’ll all continue to suffer from it. Remember, all evil needs to prosper, is for good people to do nothing. R.I.P. Bonnie. H.C.

HEY H.C., CAN I TRUST MY MEDIA?

Posted in political on October 14th, 2006
From “Uncle Walter” Cronkite’s admission that he would have done anything to keep Barry Goldwater out of the Whitehouse to Dan Rather’s recent promoting of forged documents on G.W.’s guard service, our media has shown time and time again that it is incapable of giving us unbiased news. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for any media source to give you completely unbiased news. Just the act of deciding which stories lead or the adjectives used to describe an event can have a major impact on how you view any piece.
Visuals are another tool that can be used to sway your opinions, as they tend to stay in your mind clearer and longer than any written or spoken word. For instance, most historians credit this photo of a young Vietnamese girl during a napalm attack with turning America towards ending our involvement in Vietnam, and this photo is completely synonymous with the Abu Ghaib incident in Iraq. In this post I will try my best to help you weed out the bias and hopefully get an objective view of the world around you.
The first and most important distinction you need to be able to make is between news reporting and editorializing. News reporting (which is very rare nowadays) is an attempt to give you just the facts without injecting the reporters own opinion. Editorializing is just the opposite, the facts given to you with the writer’s opinion of those facts. People like Maureen Dowd, Helen Thomas, or Cal Thomas are opinion writers, as am I (although not of their stature). There is nothing wrong with that form of media as long as you understand what you’re getting. People like Dan Rather, Brit Hume, or Charlie Gibson are news reporters and have an obligation to you the people to be as unbiased as possible. Here lies the problem, are these people doing their job? It’s my opinion that they are not.
Clinton News Network (CNN), Faux News (Fox), Never Promote Republicans News (NPR), these are just a few of the names I have heard people use to describe news services they disagree with. The list goes on and on. Most people seem to recognize that their opponents on the other side have a strong bias, but have a hard time seeing the bias in their own media source. The best thing you can do to get a fair and balanced view of the news is to have a healthy suspicion of anything you hear.
Panel discussions are an easy source to see bias in. Questions to ask yourself whenever watching or listening to one are; Is there an equal representation of each side? Are they equally passionate? (Sometimes moderate Democrats or Republicans are used to give half-hearted opposition) Are they given equal time? Who gets to wrap up the discussion?
Even more telling is the moderator of the discussion. A common tactic I’ve seen used by all sides is to have a panel discussion with a person from both sides and use the moderator (usually the shows host) to tilt the discussion in favor of the outcome they want. An example would be to allow one side’s statements, no matter how unfair or inaccurate, to go unchallenged. They may even go so far as to validate their statement with a quick “Oh, my God,” “They didn’t,” “How could they,” or “That’s terrible.” Then when the opposing point of view is given, they challenge every point, interrupt, and dismiss their points with statements like, “Are you sure?” “Where did you get that from?” or “That doesn’t sound right.” It sounds subtle, but it is very effective, particularly if you trust the host.
Another tactic is the lop-sided discussion. The trick here is to use people who are obviously outclassed on one side. For example, you would take one person who is media savvy, esteemed in their field, and very qualified, and put them up against a less-qualified, scared newcomer. I equate this to putting a featherweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight champ. You already know the outcome and all that is left is to watch the bloodbath.
Giving one side the last word is another tactic that can’t be understated. The last comment you hear will most likely be the one you’ll be thinking about after the discussion is over. For that reason, smart moderators will be sure the discussion ends on their side’s best point. All of this can turn a panel discussion that seems “fair and balanced” into one that is anything but. You should always be aware that any “talk show host” feels no obligation to be fair. Whether it’s Rush Limbaugh or Diane Rehm, they are primarily entertainers who are trying to maintain an audience, not necessarily give you the truth. By the way, for all you younger readers, Jon Stewart is not a news source. He’s a comedian. A good comedian, (I personally find him hilarious) but not a good news source.
With partisanship and the “culture war” heating up on all fronts, it is now more important than ever that you view your media with a critical eye. I want to ask all of you to try a little exercise for me. For one day, compare your media with other media you consider to be on the “other side”. See how Fox News differs from CNN on the way they portray a given story, pay special attention to adjectives that are used. Check to see if they identify people as “conservative” or “liberal” equally. Use all the tricks to identifying bias that I gave you. Then see if your media is doing the same thing. I’ll bet you come to the same conclusion that I have, that ALL media is bias, the trick is just to recognize when they’re doing it. H.C.

THE BATTLE OVER HISPANIC VOTES

Posted in political on May 16th, 2006
My experience with Hispanic people has always been very positive. I’ve had several Hispanic friends; I worked for a while at a Spanish-speaking center, and even dated a couple of Mexican girls. I found them to be hard working, religious, family centered and loyal to their friends. Traits that I find admirable. Having said that, I have a few questions about this whole immigration debate. Tens of thousands of Hispanics have been demonstrating all over the U.S., and from what I gather, are demanding “rights” for illegal immigrants. Even after listening to several of the advocates, I’m still fuzzy on what “rights” people who broke into our country deserve or should be demanding. I say “broke into” because that’s exactly what it is. We put up fences on our border along with signs, guards, outposts, and barricades. The message to me is very clear, no one welcome except through the proper channels. The door is not open. The very fact that they go through such lengths to avoid border patrols proves to me that they are breaking in. The spin from the advocates drives me crazy. “Undocumented immigrants” is such a euphemism for what they really are, Illegal immigrants who are breaking into our country. If I broke into your home, could I then claim to be a “undocumented” family member? Could I then refuse to leave and demand food, shelter, and medical care? Would it matter to you that I’ll work but won’t pay rent (taxes)? This is such a disservice to the legal, honest, hardworking immigrants that have been the heart of this country since day one.
They even go so far as to compare their movement to the civil rights movement of blacks. Black people did not break into our country, they were drug in, and by the way, the black fight for civil rights is not the same as the gay rights movement either. I could, at the university where I work, claim tomorrow that I’m gay and there would be no way for them to refute it. I could not however, claim to be black and get away with it. But that’s a separate issue for another column.
The one part of all of this that has me pulling the hair out of my head, is that no one is being honest about what this is really centered on….votes, votes, votes.
For most of the U.S.’s history, the Hispanic vote was inconsequential. Their numbers were small and their voting record dismal. All that started to change in the mid 80’s when Mexican immigrants started pouring into the Border States looking for work. For states like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California their population swelled enough to matter to politicians. Democrats in some of these states, particularly California, started wooing Hispanics into their camps by promising them lax border enforcement, schooling for their children, and other social programs. Governors like Grey Davis (D-Cal.) soon found victory in the Hispanic vote. George W. Bush as Governor of Texas knew the value of these new voters too, and appealed to their Catholic upbringing and family values to woo them over to the Republican side and help him win. The Hispanic voters showed themselves to be a very fickle constituency willing to go to either side to get what they wanted. (Blacks and Labor, are you paying attention?) The battle for the Hispanic vote was under way.
The population of Hispanics in the U.S. really took off between 2000 and 2004 when they increased an amazing 5.7 million to capture 14.3% of the population, surpassing blacks as the “majority minority”. This caught everyone’s attention. Although Democrats nationally had enjoyed the lion’s share of those votes (Hispanics claim themselves 49% Democrat, 20% Republican, and 19% Independent), all that was about to change. While Bob Dole (R-Kan) had captured a measly 21% of the Hispanic vote in 1996, Bush proved stronger with 35% in 2000 and then over 40% in 2004. By demonstrating his knowledge of Hispanic issues, frequently speaking in Spanish, and even having a Hispanic sister-in-law, (Jeb Bush’s wife, Columba, was born in Leon-Guanajato, Mexico) G.W. stole votes away from the Dems. All this was not lost on the Dems who, more used to the blind loyalty of the blacks, found themselves suddenly having to come up with reasons for the Hispanics to stay in the fold. Hence the illegal immigrant issue you see today. Knowing that even legal Mexican immigrants have friends and family here illegally, the Dems have decided that championing their cause would put them back in favor with the voting Hispanics.
Politics is politics, and I can’t fault either side for catering to a group’s demands to gain votes, after all that’s what our whole political system is based on. But I don’t care much for catering to people who have entered this country illegally and in some cases, forged I.D.’s and stole Social Security numbers. The real problem here is that on some level, your making a mockery of the immigrants who applied legally, went through the years of waiting, took classes, learned English, and sweated tons of paperwork. The only reason they’re not publicly upset is because of the aforementioned illegal family and friends.
So, once again, what’s your answer H.C.? Well, there’s no easy answer to this one. Despite what the Democrat advocates are telling you, adding all these people to the workforce will put Americans out of jobs. Yes, most of them are doing jobs that we won’t do for that pay, but that could change once they’re legal. The jobs they’re doing now don’t care if your legal or not, but certainly once they’re legal, they will apply for jobs that do care, leaving their old jobs vacant for, guess who? Right, more smuggled illegals. Certainly a good start for any plan would be increased enforcement of our border. With terrorism looming large, we can no longer afford to look the other way as unknowns melt into our society. We have no choice but to be more vigilant. A guest worker program would help fill the gaps for farm jobs and low skilled labor, but any citizenship program has to put the people who followed the rules first. The Democrats may be drooling over the prospects of getting the close to 12 million illegals to the polls in time for the 2008 elections, but I’ll stand hard and fast behind the hardworking, honest, legal Hispanics who followed the rules getting their citizenship first. H.C.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Posted in Uncategorized on June 30th, 2006
Some columns are so easy to write. I just pick a subject that interests me, decide where I stand given everything I can find out about it, and then back up my opinion with proof. I thought this was going to be one of them. Gas prices are going through the roof and it seems pretty damn obvious what going on. We have two Big Oil men in the White House (Bush and Cheney) and they’re paying back their donators by letting them rape the consumers at will. With Big Oil posting record profits and Congress and our executive branch doing nothing about it, I was geared up for some serious Republican bashing. But a funny thing happened on the way to the lynching.
Every article I could find took the stand in one way or another that Bushie and his Boys were lining their pockets with campaign monies from Big Oil and that alone is the reason we’re all paying more at the pump. The Cincinnati Post practically accused every paper in the U.S. of covering for Bush while they ran off with our money, and the Boston Globe flat out called the Bush Administration looters. The problem is, while they did a good job of showing us how much money the Republican Party was raking in from Big Oil through campaign financing, they didn’t do anything to show me this was unique to the U.S. and therefore linked to our beloved president’s policies. Well, computer in hand, Ol’ H.C. set out to do just that. First stop, Canada, where Paul Martin (Canada’s Prime Minister up until just recently) and his left wing administration would surely show me how not bowing to the oil companies would translate into cheaper gas for the masses. First I had to do some math as Canada sells it’s gas in liters instead of gallons, (God, I hate math). After multiplying every liter price by 3.78541 (no wonder the metric system never caught on here, sheesh) something strange happened. Not only is our gas cheaper, $2.91 a gallon U.S. vs. $3.98 a gallon in Canada (all of this will be in U.S. dollars), but gas in Canada has been going up faster by percent than in the U.S.of A. From June of 2004 to June of 2006, gas in the U.S. went from $1.66 /gal to $2.91 /gal, a rise of 175%, in that same period, gas in Canada went from $2.18 /gal to $3.98 /gal, a rise of 183%. Gee, I didn’t know Paul Martin was an oilman too, those bastards are everywhere.
In fact, the price of gas throughout most of the world is not only higher than we’re paying, (just check out this list that CNN published) but has been rising faster in most countries than in the U.S.A. This doesn’t do a very good job of proving that the Bush administration is behind the high price of gas.
Well, maybe if I took a different route I could prove how Bush has been helping Big Oil rape us. Let’s look at how the price of gas has paralleled the price of a barrel of oil, maybe we can find something that proves it’s not following the trends that it should. When the price of a barrel of oil was at $35 (spring of 2004) the price of gas in the U.S. stood at $1.74, by June 2006 the price of a barrel of oil was $70 and the price of gas was again $2.91, with refinery costs being relatively stable, it’s right where it should be.
So what about the profits H.C.? Big Oil is raking in record amounts. Well, that’s true, and very frustrating, but their profit margin is based on a percentage of a dollar, as is most businesses. The products in your store are based on the same model, given that fact, your local merchant makes more money on selling something that cost $10 than he does on something that costs $5. Therefore, gas makes more money for the oil companies at $3 a gallon than it does at $1.50. This business model didn’t start under Bush, it’s always been that way. It’s also the way they do business in other countries, not just the U.S..
By now your probably getting frustrated, as am I, that there’s not an easy villain to crucify. If not our corrupt government, if not the big oil companies, if not that bastard Bush, THEN WHO’S TO BLAME!! Well, first, you have to understand that oil is a global commodity and that its supply and demand has to do with a lot of factors out of our control. China and India for instance, have been buying cars left and right (China increased car sales by 24.1% in May ‘06) and with an improving standard of living are adding oil and gas heat to their homes. This is increasing demand on a market already short in supply. Add to that the War in Iraq (one thing you can blame on Bush, but a small part of the total picture, less than 2% of the world’s supply), an unstable situation in Iran, government takeover of oil wells in Venezuela, war in Nigeria, and Katrina disrupting refineries and you have a stage set for high prices. All of this is reflective in the price of oil worldwide, not just in the U.S..
As for the U.S. we all need to face the reality, we consume too much gas. Big S.U.V.s, Two cars in every family, Boats, and recreational vehicles like jet skis and snow sleds are all contributing to the problem. We’ve all been acting like gas was a never ending fountain for us to enjoy whenever and however we wanted. The truth is, it’s coming to an end whether you admit it or not. The consumption of oil worldwide has now reached 90 million barrels a day, production, at full capacity, is only 94 million a day. Not much room for growth. If China and India and a few other countries continue to grow at their present rate we will soon find ourselves either without oil or at war for it. I know it’s hard not to want to blame someone for our situation, but unless we find some way to alleviate the world’s need, we’re going to find ourselves in a much worse way. No matter who’s in office. It’s interesting to note that even with the price of gas nearly doubling in two years; our consumption is only down 3% for May ‘06. New technology for cars will help, but it will be years before enough of them will be on the road to make a difference. The only thing that can help us now is for all of us to seriously cut back. The problem is, we’ll all think our needs are too important, and that someone else should do it. Bitch all you want, at who ever you want, but the times of never ending oil supplies are almost over, and that’s the inconvenient truth. H.C.

BLACK AND WHITE

They tried to recruit me again the other day. They are white supremacists, although they never use that term. They usually portray themselves as “white rights” groups, a counterbalance to all the advocates who, they argue, dictate to the 90% of whites who aren’t rich or in power. Using tactics ripped right out of the liberal manual, they stand on the bodies of victims to make their point. The recruiters themselves usually have some “justification” for their hatred, usually a relative who was beaten, killed or raped by someone of a different color or religion. In this case, my recruiter was using a local white girl found dead in a vacant house on the north end of Flint. Although her murderer has yet to be caught, the fact that there is hardly one white person living in that area seemed proof enough to him. He then handed me literature filled with attacks on whites by blacks unreported or underreported by the media, as more proof of how prevalent these acts are. The reason, I think, that they target me, is because of my fairly well known past with blacks. It’s fair to say I’ve had more than my fair share of bad experiences at the hands of black people, and I guess they assume that I must harbor a lot of hatred toward them. They are, as usual, wrong.
So you’ll better understand, let me tell you why they think they have a chance with me, and why they don’t.
I’ll skip right to the part where it all starts going wrong. In the 6th grade at Merrill Elementary on the north end of Flint, I was an Honor Roll student with a future so bright, as they say, I had to wear shades. I was a straight “A” student, a draftee into the Walker School for the Academically Gifted, an accomplished artist ( I’d already won a scholarship) and the youngest person ever to enter the DeWaters Art School. I had stayed home from school that day, although I don’t remember why, when my mother lept to her feet with a muttered “Oh my God!” Ann, our next door neighbor, and my one time babysitter, was walking toward her house naked, but for shreds of clothes, bleeding vaginally. I only caught a glimpse as my mom shut the drapes and demanded that I stay put. But what I saw was horrifying. She was beaten bloody and crying hysterically, her parents were rushing to her aid with a blanket. The next day I found out that she had been beaten by black girls and violated with a stick at Emerson Jr. High, the school I would be attending the following year. Her crime to have deserved such treatment? She wouldn’t go out with a black guy. Their house went up for sale the next day. I never saw Ann again.
The very word “Emerson” made my stomach clench with fear. It still does. It was the worst school in Flint. With a black population that hovered around 90%, every white kid I knew had some horror story they had heard of beatings, rapes, and teachers who either enjoyed watching white people suffer, or were afraid to speak up. Both my older brothers were already there, and from what they told me it was even worse than they had heard. They gave me advice such as; don’t use the bathrooms, hide your money in your shoes, never show fear, and always be aware. All my neighborhood friends were going to Holy Redeemer, a private Catholic school my single mom could not afford. I would be alone.
Walking into Emerson that first day was like walking through Alice’s looking glass into another world. It was way louder than my old school and every face seemed hostile. I damn near threw up. The only bright spot was that 2 black kids from my old school, Leo and Leon would be there too. Leo and Leon were 2 of 5 black kids in my whole school. I had befriended them early on, they played 1st base and catcher on my baseball team (we organized our own) and athough I hadn’t seen them since mid-summer, I was sure they would look out for me. I was wrong.
I bumped into them in the hall but they were distant and seemed mad at me, I totally didn’t understand. I had been to their house, met their family, and defended them on more than one ocassion. What the hell was going on? About the second week, a group of 10 or 12 black kids followed me out of school and began tormenting me, suddenly one of them sucker-punched me in face. I turned and ran as fast as I could with them chasing me, throwing rocks and insults. As I turned to look back, I saw Leo and Leon throwing rocks too. I was stunned. The next day I confronted Leon, he told me bitterly about how he had felt so alone in a white school, that he was with his people now, and we could no longer be friends. I didn’t understand then, and I still don’t now.
For the next 3 years I was called “honky” nearly every single day. I only used the bathroom while everyone else was in class. I hid my lunch money for which I was searched almost every day, sometimes in plain view of facualty and administration. I hung out with a dozen or so white kids that were in the same situation. We walked to and from school together for protection. I lived in fear every minute I was there and started using drugs to escape.
Two incidents stand out in my mind as being above the normal (for us) harrassment. The first one occured in gym class, which was nothing more than an hour of basketball followed by manditory community showering. Basketball was bad enough by itself, you were shoved to the floor, tripped, and sucker-punched. If a fight broke out, you were not allowed to win. If you got on top, someone would kick you off. But it was showering that we white kids feared the most. Towels were twisted and dunked in water to use as whips to snap your backside or front. By the end of showering all of us would have welts covering our bodies. Our gym teacher (who oddly enough was white but talked like he was black) saw this as good fun.
One day two white kids, who I’ll spare the embarrassment of naming, for some reason had red areas around their anus’. Soon one of the black kids noticed, and they began tormenting them as being gay. A couple of the more aggressive black kids grabbed them by their hair and drug them into a isolated part of the locker room while others stood guard. I was told to mind my own business if I didn’t want the same treatment. From my position I could hear their muffled pleas and tears. It gave me nightmares for years.
The second incident occured in my last year at Emerson. By this time I had pretty much established myself. I boxed at Berston Field House for a short time and had gotten quite good at defending myself. I had made some black friends and with my connections in the drug trade, had several customers who had an interest in keeping me safe and them supplied with weed. Life was a little better. Martin Luther King’s assassination day, April 4th, had become a day of racial tension in our school, and most white kids simply didn’t go that day rather than risk problems. This didn’t go unnoticed by our Assistant Principal for the Students, who may have been the most racist person I have ever met. He took great joy in having his white students see “what it feels like.” He would even punish us with what he called “slave for a day.” A day where we would work in his office doing his bidding, such as shining his shoes. (Usually that was the punishment for being caught with drugs, which he would keep). On the day before M.L.K.’s assassination day he called us all into his office one by one and warned us that if we missed April 4th again, we would all be repeating 9th Grade, a fate to us worse than death.
Everthing went pretty uneventful that day and I admit, I was surprised. I fully expected to be harrassed all day. After school, the white kids that showed up, all gathered for the walk home. Black kids would normally be in their own groups walking behind or in front of us. The fact that they were all males wasn’t immediately noticed by us. But, when they didn’t make their normal turn onto Detroit Street, we all knew something was up. When we got about halfway down one block, the front group suddenly turned and started back toward us, at the same time the back group started running up behind us, the noose had closed. By police accounts taken from neighbors who witnessed, there were about 30 to 40 people who decended on the 7 of us. It felt like a wave. I swung and fought valiantly, but there were simply too many of them. Sticks, feet, and fists stuck me everywhere and I fell to the ground and assumed the fetal position. I could feel my strength fading in pain. Luckily, I had fell next to a parked car, and through kicks had managed to crawl under it. This made it hard to get at me. I bit and kicked and punched at anything that touched me, but soon they changed tactics. Picking up chunks of concrete from a rock garden, they hurled their missiles under the car. One struck me in the side, taking my breath away and lowering my arms. The next one struck me in the face, after that I don’t remember anything until one of my friends, Mike, pulled me from under the car. It was over. Apparently, some of the neighbors had come out of their houses to save me, and a police cruiser had scattered my tormentors. Two of us had to be hospitalized. I still wear those scars. I never went back to Emerson after that, even my teachers felt sorry for me and gave me a barely passing grade. I was finally out of that f***ed up excuse of a school. Drug addicted and carrying a “D” average, 9th grade would be the highest grade I completed. To say I was bitter and hated black people would have been an understatement. All my friends felt the same, we blamed all black people. Several of them went on to join white supremacist groups, which is why they know about me.
The truth is, not all black people treated me badly in Emerson. The girls in particular, sympathized with my plight, and would try to keep the black guys at bay, as much as they could without being called a “honky lover”. Some black guys would also stand up for me, at great risk themselves. The more militant blacks had no problem handing out an ass-whooping if they got too sympathetic or turned them in for their misdeeds. It took a long time, but slowly, I started remembering that not all of them participated, or approved of what happened to me.
I don’t write columns to ferment hatred, to show how terrible my life has been, or get sympathy for myself. God knows there’s enough of that. I like to think that the purpose of my pieces is to learn together, debate issues, show right from wrong, and as grandiose as it may sound, to learn to live together without so much hate. This column was written specifically to make one point. After all I’ve been through, I can’t judge all black people by what a few did to me. That’s the same mindless thinking that caused what I suffered. If I blame all of them, I justify that behavior. And that I won’t do! I blame those people who treated me badly individually for their acts, not as a group.
I won’t respond to the white supremacists and their racist logic, nor will I waste my time trying to convince black activists who put white people in a group when it fits their agenda, contrary to how they want to be treated themselves. (Actually, it’s amazing how much the two sides sound alike in their rhetoric, both aware of the others privileges, but not their own.) But I do have a question for all you people who claim to justify your racism by pointing out what a race of people have done to you, instead of what some racists individuals have done. Why is it that I, after all I’ve been through, can see the injustice in your view of the world, but you, with far less to point to individually, can not? Maybe it’s just that it’s easier for you to see the world in Black and White. Too bad, all the good colors are inbetween. H.C.

RED PILL/BLUE PILL
Posted in Uncategorized on October 18th, 2006
I sort of swiped this idea from my friend Andre from “Inside Andre’s Mind” (check out his blog, this guy’s one of my favorite writers). He brought up “The Matrix Metaphor” which is the idea that we can all chose to either face life as it really is, (the red pill) or chose to live happily in an illusion (the blue pill). It occurred to me that I probably should have given you readers that choice a little earlier on. There’s an old saying, “With knowledge, comes sorrow.” If you’ve been reading my column, you know what that means.
The Iraq War, crazy tyrants, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism, all of this is enough to push even the most happy-go-lucky person to the verge of suicide. I myself mumble “Please Kim Jong Il, don’t!” in my sleep. My wife thinks I’m having an affair with an Asian girl. All of this can lead to a life of near depression. Maybe the people who sit around watching “American Idol” or playing video games have it right. You can’t do much about the world’s problems, so just ignore them. Unfortunately, that’s not me.
I have, however, found a few ways to keep myself from falling off the deep end. For example, whenever I read a newspaper, I make sure that I read the comic section last. You’d be surprised at how reading about two black kids in the comic strip ”Boondocks” finding out that they live on “Timid Deer Lane” can make you forget a significant part of the world wants to destroy us. Another way to lighten up the mood is to laugh at the silly things politicians do. “Look Honey, Bush really thinks people are going to buy that B.S.” In this case, laughter truly is the best medicine. Which is why I always try to put a little humor in my pieces. (if you haven’t noticed any, disregard that last comment.)
So I guess what I’m doing here, is giving all of you a second chance. I’ll be gone for a little while (about two weeks) taking a vacation to Colorado. I’ll be camping at about 8,ooo feet, so my chances of finding a moment or a laptop are mighty slim. But I’ll be using that time to come up with some interesting things to talk about. We have my predictions for the November elections coming up, so I’m compiling all my data. I want all of you to use that time to decide if you really want to continue to get the full view of what’s going on in this crazy world. (Even though I’d hate to lose even one of you) I have to be fair, I can’t guarantee there won’t be times that I might scare the shit out of you, or depress you a little. (My wife jokes that I should come with a warning label) But I promise I’ll always do my best to be as fair and honest as I can possibly be, and as Morpheus said, “I’ll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” H.C.