The Vortex

Truth

2008-07-31T13:57:00.000-04:00

Recently I’ve been mulling over the concept of “Truth,” and how it is viewed and taken in society. Perhaps this is due to some recent findings that have come to light in mainstream media (e.g. exoneration of JonBenet Ramsey’s parents), or perhaps due to some occurrences in my personal life. Whatever the cause of my contemplation, it is perfectly clear to me that our desire and (seemingly necessary) quest for instantaneous responses to everything has a profound effect on our willingness to accept the complexity of Truth.

Succinctly said, people seem more willing to believe something that is false as long as it is simple to grasp rather than to believe something that is complex no matter how true.

We live in an era of instant potatoes and instant messages. Instead of giving an in-depth take on a speech by a political candidate, many news outlets dumb-down the contents of the speech and release (often-misleading) 5 second sound-bytes. In our personal lives, if a text message is not responded to within 60 seconds we are often frustrated and sometimes angry at the person we sent the message to.

It used to be that a good journalist could shorten a candidate’s speech, and (contextually) relay its message without sucking out all of its necessary juices (content). Now it seems that many times all we are left with is the immediate image of the outer shell of the candidate’s intent, with no fruitful substance to partake of. And on a similar note, some text message questions/conversations can’t simply be responded to in 120 characters of a text response. Understanding an issue, and getting to the truth(s) behind it often takes far more time than we are willing to give it.

The complexity of Truth necessitates that many factors be understood, including factors like context and perspective; indeed it takes context and perspective to understand most things, and these things take time (i.e. one doesn’t just wake up with a perspective, it is developed over time…likewise, background information needs to be gathered to be given context). But instead of actually taking the time to understand the complexity of a given story, situation or issue, we too often take in the headline without delving into its background.

I won’t belabor the point, but I will just ask of anyone reading this, do more than just accept the subject line of an issue as the Truth. Ask the follow-up question (or questions, as the case may be). Consider the source, question the relevance, determine the potential ramifications. Compare these parameters with the realities you have faced. Finally, make a calculated assessment as to whether something is likely true or not.

Because in this day of instant “this” and instant “that,” it is way too easy to believe things that are false as a result of their simplicity, and equally as easy to count something that is true to be false due to its complexity.

Think about it!

-Maelstrom

Political Comments Response (part 2)

2008-06-18T10:32:00.001-04:00

I know that the Democratic Nomination Race is over, so most of what I say in this post is now “post-relevant,” but I promised a response to comments posted about my post “Tell the Truth,” so here it is!

“Everybody except Kucinich and Clinton pulled their name off the Michigan ballot…In Florida pulling your name off the ballot is not possible…Obama when he pulled his name…just followed the rules.”

To start, Clinton and Kucinich were joined on the ballot by Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and “Uncommitted.” Biden, Richardson, Edwards and Obama took their names off. By the way, there was a very vigorous campaign to have people vote Uncommitted, and it was promoted in 2 ways: 1. as a vote against Hillary Clinton, and 2. a vote for someone whose name wasn’t on the ballot (e.g. Obama or Edwards). Finally, “Uncommitted” is a Constitutionally recognized voting status, as pointed out by DNC member Harold Ickes.

Your other point here is perhaps the biggest (largely Obama supporter) myth. Obama could’ve pulled his name off the Florida ballot the same day he pulled his name off the Michigan ballot (Oct 9, 2007). In fact, he could’ve pulled his name off the ballot for 3 weeks after he pulled his name off the Michigan ballot. The argument that people make, falsely, is that if a candidate pulls his/her name off the ballot, they can’t be on the ballot during the general election should they win their Party’s nomination. NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE. The candidates are only penalized for pulling their name off the ballot once the ballot has been certified by the State of Florida. The date that the ballot was due to the Secretary of State was October 31st, with the certification on November 6th. Obama had ample time to pull his name off the ballot. This reality begs the question, why did he pull his name off of Michigan’s ballot and not Florida’s? For me, there’s a simple answer, he was playing politics.

You can find this is Florida’s Federal Election Qualifying Handbook for 2008, as well as in chapter 103, section 101 of Title IX in the 2007 Florida Statutes.

See 2007 Florida Statutes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0103/SEC101.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0103-%3ESection%20101#0103.101

For a more in depth summary, see:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/112416/694

You rightly stated, however, that the impossibility of pulling names off the Florida ballot is “what the media reported at the time.” A reality that lends credence to the notion that the media was favorable to Obama.

“If Obama would be on the ballot…he might have done pretty well (in Michigan)…significant African American Community, neighboring state of IL…”

Fair point, but the opposite, if you go based off your premises, could be said of Clinton in Florida; one of the largest (if not the largest) number of elderly people in the country, a large Jewish population, and a so-called “Big State.” Those are all demographics that Obama has trouble with and Clinton does well with. This is why I think that once we arrived at the month of May, there was no fair way of doing things.

That said, I know quite a lot about Michigan, being from there, and I don’t think it would have been as easy as you suggest. Here’s why: Both a very popular former Democrat Governor, Jim Blanchard, and the current Governor Jennifer Granholm are staunch Clinton supporters, and carry great weight with State Democrats. Although Obama, based on how he did in other similar large cities, would have likely carried many of the counties in the Detroit area, the only other Metropolitan area of note, Grand Rapids, is vastly Republican. Furthermore, other highly visible Democrats had endorsed Clinton, including Senator Debbie Stabenow, Rep John Dingell and DNC member Joel Ferguson (The only major Obama backers were Rep John Conyers and DNC member Virgie Rollins). Based on these realities, I think Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot with the knowledge that it would be tough to beat her there, coupled with the reality that the votes would not (at that time) count. Again, I think Obama was doing what people seem to think he is incapable of, and that is he played “politics” with Michigan and Florida. But that’s my opinion, and we’ll never know.

“Disenfranchised voters…many people stayed home knowing that their votes were not counted…”

You are absolutely right. I know that my best friend is one of the people that did just that. I also know that there were people who voted “Uncommitted” not because they were for Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson, but because they were protesting the fact names weren’t on the ballot, felt a duty to vote but were upset that the vote wouldn’t count, as well as some people who were just unclear/confused about the ballot. For instance, I have a family member who voted Uncommitted in Michigan even though they did not want to vote for Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson, they wanted to vote for Kucinich, who was on the ballot. So, it is unfair to assume that the entire Uncommitted vote was for the 4 candidates who pulled their names from the ballot; I know for a fact this was not the case. And the notion that the 40% Uncommitted vote was a vote for Obama is incredibly off base. The primary was held on January 15th, when Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all very strong, and Richardson still relevant. Finally, if you want to take the side that everyone was clear that the vote wouldn’t count in Michigan (which Jim Blanchard pointed out at the DNC meeting May 31st was not the case), I think it’s striking that so many people still turned out to vote for Clinton, despite the vigorous “vote Uncommitted” campaign.

“Why am I for Obama…”

I have no problem with the reasons you’ve stated for your support of Obama. However, perhaps I’m a little too semantic, but none of your reasons get deep on the issues. I say this because, on the surface, Obama and Clinton have a virtually identical set of goals and ideologies. However, having listened to hundreds of hours of press coverage, read dozens of print articles, read both Candidates websites, considered their public statements as well as voting records since Obama joined the Senate, spoken to members of both Candidates campaigns, and personally attended rallies by both Clinton and Obama, it is clear to me that once you get below the surface, Clinton has the most forward reaching, progressive, feasible (especially monetarily) and implementable ideas. And for me, that’s important for a Candidate to be clear about; have they really taken a look at this country, the state we’re in, and based their plans on how they think they can get us out of the problems we have. But I am certain many people voted for Obama, and hold angry views of Clinton without even considering what she and her platform are all about (or what Obama’s platform is all about for that matter either).

This is not to say that Obama doesn’t have forward looking plans, but if he has, we wouldn’t know it because he certainly hasn’t gotten too deep in articulating his position on the issues, except perhaps race. I say this having asked several people, including those working on the Obama campaign, what his views are on the Economy, the Iraq War, Health Care, Social Security, Michigan/Florida, etc., and it always turns out that I know more than they do (and in my opinion what he’s presented is leaps and bounds less comprehensive than what Clinton presented).

Finally, Hillary staying in the race absolutely did not disenfranchise voters. At no point during the last 3 months was Obama convincingly ahead of Clinton in popular vote or delegates. Even since the DNC meeting, if you look at the numbers, they are still incredibly close. And in years past, people have taken their case to the Democratic National Convention with only a tenth of the delegates of the leading candidate. She has perhaps the most compelling case of anyone in history.

The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, the race should go to the Convention because neither candidate got the number of Pledged Delegates needed to wrap up the nomination. The media did a good job of conflating Pledged and Super Delegates, but the fact of the matter is, Super Delegates have the right to switch their vote at any time until the Convention. Therefore, if you want to go by the rules, Clinton had it within her rights to take her case to the Convention. I think she has done the prudent thing in suspending her campaign, but I’m bothered by many in the Media (along with the chorus of Obama supporters) who make it seem like she’s committed some crime, or violated the rules by continuing on. Many made it seem like she had no chance to beat him as far back as early March; a casual outside observer would’ve thought that she was behind by 1,000 delegates if they listened to many of the Media pundits. However, it became apparent to me that she had a slight, but very legitimate, chance to pull off the victory well into May. And what about Democracy? I think it was only Democratic for all the Primary races to run their course, especially in a year with 2 Candidates that were so close in delegate counts.

And I must point out that once you get to the facts, you’ll find that Obama has made as many misstatements, missteps, mischaracterizations and mistakes as Clinton during this campaign (AND I MEAN THAT…I was prepared to post a laundry list of comparisons of things Clinton has been grilled about that Obama also committed, but was given a pass on—including 2 statements Obama made that are as false as Hillary’s Bosnia statement that I’m sure most people reading this have NEVER heard about (thanks to the Obama friendly Media)...but since the nomination season is over, I’ll let it go).

I do give Obama credit for 2 things over Clinton: He is a more unifying figure than she is. I don’t think this is really her fault; I think it dates back to Republican characterizations of Clinton in the 90’s when she was fighting for Universal Health Care. I think it was those attacks on her that made people today HATE Hillary for no particular reason (I have contended for years that people hate her and can’t even give a reason why…I know because I’ve asked people why they hate her for years). The other thing Obama has done is run a much smoother campaign that even got young people to not just be excited, but to actually go out and vote. The Unity issue in Obama’s favor is what I think rivals Clinton’s forward thinking plans and platform, and what ultimately pushed this blogger to indecision on these 2 candidates until the last day before my State’s primary.

So to conclude, my basic point in my “Tell the Truth” post was simply that people should be fair, honest, truthful, learn to call a spade a spade and make their decisions from there. What’s right for one candidate is right for the other, what’s wrong for one candidate is wrong for the other. And ultimately, I think Obama supporters have done him a great disservice by not “vetting” him much harder. I don’t think people have been too hard on Clinton (especially considering that this is for the Presidency of the USA), but I certainly think there hasn’t been enough critiquing of Obama as a whole. By not holding him to the same standards they held her to, it only makes it that much easier for people (like Clinton supporters) to say “see, I told you so…you should’ve voted for Hillary” if Obama makes the slightest misstep in the future.

-Maelstrom

Horse and Pony Show

2008-05-31T13:44:00.002-04:00

Today the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules executives are holding hearings concerning seating delegates in Michigan and Florida at the DNC Convention in August. I think this is just a puppet exercise that holds no weight, and ultimately demonstrates nothing. I don’t think either of the Candidates, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, truly cares about the voters in those States. And I think there are 4 levels of people to blame for this huge foul-up. Ultimately, no matter what is decided today, what has taken place already will render this nominating process unfair because the voters in these States have been inexplicably mistreated, and there is no fair way to include them.

I think the 4 groups to blame are Howard Dean and the DNC, the States of Michigan and Florida, all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates from Clinton and Obama to Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and finally I blame Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama specifically.

1^st, Howard Dean and the DNC have really screwed this process up. Several States were threatening to move their contests up. Iowa and New Hampshire had threatened to move their contests into December of 2007. Given that, I understand the DNC wanting to put in place as harsh a penalty as possible for States that violated the rules. But what was lost in their ruling decision was the voters. The voters didn’t violate the rules, the voters are who are most important in November, and the voters in Michigan and Florida (two States threatening to move up their contests) have carried very heavy weight in the last several Presidential Campaigns. Ignoring the voters on the basis of party principle is the absolute opposite of democracy.

The DNC should have done what the Republican Party did in Florida. That is to say that they should have punished the Delegates in Michigan and Florida by only awarding them half of their Delegates, but allowing the votes to count. This way the Parties in those States are punished, while not disenfranchising the voters.

2^nd, the States are to blame for violating the rules. This is more of a Michigan problem than it is a Florida problem. That is because the State Legislature in Florida is heavily Republican, and so the DNC in Florida couldn’t do much to affect the date that their primary was held. However, Michigan has a Democratic Governor and many Democrats in the Legislature. They should’ve known better.

This gets to a larger problem with our so-called Democratic process. Michigan and Florida (and several other States) wanted their primaries to have heavy influence over who was nominated. This is done by having your primary early. It shouldn’t be like this, and in the future I hope we move toward having regional primary dates instead of this “Iowa always first” mentality which renders most States voiceless in nominating a particular candidate. But that is another blog-post for another day.

3^rd, the Candidate’s that signed the agreement to not count Michigan and Florida are guilty. They should’ve objected on the basis that the voters in those States that violated the rules would be disenfranchised. Of the 8 Candidates, no one could muster enough steam to object to this silly ruling by the DNC?

4^th and finally, Clinton and Obama are to blame.

Although I think she is on the right side of the argument now (count the votes, somehow), Clinton is only on this side of the argument now because it would help her out in her bid for the nomination. She is now famously quoted as saying that the Michigan Primary isn’t going to count for anything (New Hampshire Public Radio, 10/11/07), but now she cares about those voters? Yeah right. I think those votes should count somehow, and I know many of those voters are frustrated, but if she really cared about them, she should’ve spoken up about 9 months ago about it, not now when it’s politically advantageous.

And if there is any doubt that Obama is a politician, then look no further than his relative silence on the issue of Michigan and Florida votes counting. I am frankly pissed that no one has called Obama out on his silence. Clinton offered to have a re-vote in Michigan (which is lawful under DNC rules). She even offered up the money and the workers to do it, but Obama (who has raised infinitely more money than she) said and did nothing. He only offered to concede some Delegates to Clinton from those States when it appeared he had sown up the nomination. That is akin to a basketball game in which the team ahead by 8 points with 7 seconds left in the game gives the other team 2 points; you can have these points because it is inconceivable that we will lose to you even after lending you a few points this late in the game.

I know there are a lot of Obama supporters who don’t see it that way, but ask yourself, why wouldn’t he be for a re-vote in Michigan if he has the money and the staff, and his opponent offers the money and staff? Let me help you out: he figured that once he took the Delegate lead, he didn’t have to deal with that issue because he could effectively run out the clock in the race (as he has done) without having to do so (based on the polling and the media coverage). Counting Michigan and Florida would increase Clinton’s totals which would be a detriment to him.

In case you’re wondering, yes I know there were more factors in play than money as it pertains to re-votes, and I’m well versed in them. But as far as I can tell, in Michigan a re-vote could have been worked out. Florida had one significant kink (and it’s not paper ballots) that would be a hassle, but it too could have been worked through had the candidates (mainly Obama in this instance) demonstrated leadership in seeing that the voters in these States mattered. But far-be-it for me to think that politicians ever have the concerns of their constituents at heart.

Here’s my solution for Florida and Michigan as of today, May 31^st. I would approach this the same way a Math Professor would for a student who had to miss an exam. In Florida, I would count the votes as is, since both candidates were in the same situation. In Michigan, I would count Hillary’s votes as is, and I would pro-rate Obama’s votes (along with Edwards’, Richardson’s and Biden’s votes) based on the 2 contest before and after the Michigan primary, and allow him to have the percentage based on that pro-rated average, and make the total average of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden equal to 40% (the percentage that voted uncommitted).

But just like a Professor can’t know what a student would have gotten had they actually taken the exam, we can’t know what Obama (and the other candidates) would’ve gotten had his name been on the ballot. Furthermore, we can’t know if Clinton would have won by those large margins in Michigan or Florida since the voters in both States knew their vote wouldn’t count and many stayed home as a result.

I know that people write off Clinton’s votes in these States because many people didn’t vote at all, knowing that their votes wouldn’t count. But that is the same reason why I think it’s important that Clinton received as many votes as she did. Despite knowing their votes wouldn’t count, millions of people still went to the polls to vote for her. And to just give all the uncommitted vote in Michigan to Obama wouldn’t be fair either. I know America suffers from short term memory loss, but Edwards, Richardson and Biden were also still in the race at that time, and I’m certain that many of that 40% uncommitted also included a strong percentage of votes for those 3 candidates (especially Edwards and Richardson).

On the flipside of the coin, there were likely tens or hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters that stayed home. How can Clinton claim that she deserves all those votes that counted for her if people weren’t even voting because their candidate’s name wasn’t on the ballot? She can’t.

I have a lot more to say about changing perceptions over time based on prior primaries, and a whole lot of other things, but I’ll stop. In short, much like the Iraq war having no “win-win” exit strategy, there is no way to include these States fairly.

No matter how well the Democrats fare in this election season, Howard Dean and his entire staff should resign their posts as leaders of the DNC…they really messed this process up. And although I know I'll be sucked into watching some of the proceedings today, in my opinion it only amounts to a Horse and Pony Show.

-Maelstrom

Political Comments Response (part 1)

2008-05-31T13:27:00.002-04:00

Yes, Yes, Yes! I’m really glad to have an open discussion concerning the comments I received on my last two posts. I will address the comments on “Racism vs. Sexism” first, followed by the comments from “Tell the Truth.” I will go through each of your points and offer my point of view on them based on the facts I’ve gathered. I will address each of your comments with care and respect. Thank you for reading “The Vortex!”

“Discrimination due to race and sexism is not the same, obviously…discrimination against race stays in a society for generations, discrimination against sex CAN be gone within a generation.”

I’m not sure if I’m fully grasping the distinction you’re making here. I read this as saying “because of the racist conditions of society, racism lingers for generations. But a female baby doesn’t have pre-determined conditions of discrimination awaiting her upon birth.” I would have to disagree based on everything I’ve witnessed, read and studied. If a set of boy and girl twins, born to the same parents, garnering the same level of education, and holding the same career post/title/position were to run life’s course, the research shows that the girl will end up being paid less and perhaps overlooked for further positions of advancement in comparison with the boy. So I would contend that women historically (from generation to generation) certainly are discriminated against. Within a generation, any exoneration of discrimination “CAN” appear to have disappeared for an individual, but not for the group as a whole.

As you (and I) both noted, racism and sexism aren’t the same, but I was keen to point out that there is incredible overlap between the two, and the opinions I expressed in that post were concerning that overlap. But once again, to demonstrate that women are “generationally” discriminated against, all you have to do is look at where women are today and consider they’re place in society historically. As I pointed out, Shirley Chisholm’s 1969 speech could be considered prescient with respect to society today. Susan B. Anthony’s struggles are still present today. Finally, the notion of female inferiority is as old as Biblical times. 1 Peter 3:7-9 makes reference to women as the “weaker vessel.” If that doesn’t demonstrate discrimination against women from generation to generation, I don’t know what does.

“Sexism and racism works both ways…”

Totally agree, and that is a point that I made in my “Tell the Truth” post. In many primaries, Clinton garnered roughly 60-70% of the female vote, while Obama has accrued roughly 90% of the vote of African American in the last 4 months of primaries. Now I don’t know if your reasoning as to why more women vote than men, or even if that’s true, but that wouldn’t shock me, especially since there are statistically more women in this country than men. But both realities trouble me greatly. I hardly doubt that 70% of the female population has truly looked at the platforms of all the candidates and come to conclusion that Clinton is their candidate. And Black people, seriously, are a monolithic voting block in my opinion (despite decrying this notion for years). It is inconceivable that a single demographic could look at all the candidates equally and come out with the same opinion unless the other candidate had done something insidiously wrong to them. The Clinton’s have been advocates for Black people in many ways for dozens of years, so much so that it has been a running joke within the Black community for over 10 years that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. So 90% for Obama whom many still don’t know much about? Really?

“No host in any show would make a racist or sexist remark…the best policewomen on the sexist side are the wives…men might be leading the nation (publicly), at home women are”

Absolutely, positively disagree. I can roll out a laundry list of commentators who have made both racist and/or sexist remarks in print, on TV and on the radio over the years (and could easily start with Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus). But in this campaign alone, there have been countless overt sexist statements aimed at Clinton, as well as many that could easily be construed as such even if they weren’t intended to be sexist. Many of the statements seem to come from one of the news outlet I watch the most—from many of the commentators I’ve admired over the last several years—MSNBC. I reported on one such statement at this site a couple months back in my post “David Shuster and MSNBC” (please note that my angle was not only about the sexist remark, but was asking if there was perhaps validity to the assertion made by Shuster). Here are a few other examples:

Every time Hillary comes on t/v “I instinctively cross my legs”

–Tucker Carlson, MSNBC

Hillary is “a patriarch with a vagina”

–Jane Fonda, Actress

“How do we beat the Bitch”

–old lady at McCain campaign rally in reference to Hillary Clinton

“She morphed into a scolding mother, talking down to a child”

–Jack Cafferty, CNN

“When she reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside of Probate Court.”

–Mike Barnicle, MSNBC contributor on Hardball with Chris Matthews

“Men won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she reminds them of their nagging wives.”

–Neil Cavuto, Fox News, during a segment about Clinton and Nagging Wives

“And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘take out the garbage’.”

–Man during Cavuto’s segment about Nagging Wives on Fox News

Male high profile politicians that were endorsing Hillary Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.”

–Chris Matthews, MSNBC

And if there are indeed a comparable number of “sexism police” and “racism police” out there, why didn’t we hear from any of them about such comments (by the way, can you name 1 such sexism policeman, I still can’t…certainly not 1 with as a high a profile as those on the racism side). On the flipside of the coin, even when race may/could be a lesser factor amongst a field of other more significant factors in any situation, you get someone crying foul on the basis of race (as I pointed out in my post concerning the New Hampshire primary).

Finally, I think the notion that the wives police the husbands who have commentator jobs only points to further sexism and so-called traditional roles for women in relationships/society. I find such a comment inherently sexist.

So on your comments we agree on a couple points, but overall, I tend to disagree. But like I said in the post, you don’t have to take my word for it. Examine the evidence I’ve presented, look toward those who have lived the life (like the Black Female Politician Shirley Chisholm), and call a spade a spade based on that.

-Maelstrom

PS: I should also say that I agree, Hillary coming out now and “pulling the sexism card” does make her look weak, no matter how true. However, I would caution against telling her to quit talking about sexism because there are tens of millions of women who are outraged at how she’s been treated in the media (whether they are correct or not). So it’s not just Hillary talking about sexism now, it’s a lot of women who are leading that charge on her behalf.

Racism vs. Sexism

2008-05-26T13:05:00.003-04:00

I am kickin’ myself in the pants for not posting this a couple months back, because now it is the major talking point of every news outlet. Several weeks ago I had begun a post about two issues that severely affect the potential for equality in this country; sexism and racism. Since it is the talk of the news these days, I’ll give my synopsis of how I view it from a political perspective, in light of the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

There is a long history between fighting discrimination against minorities (largely led by Black people) and Women in this country. I’ll start by pointing towards two very famous Americans, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony. We all know Douglass as that great Black abolitionist and thinker who sported a signature hair-style. Likewise, we know Anthony as the lady who raised the issue of inequality towards Women, which ultimately earned her a spot on a piece of American currency. Many of us, however, are unaware that Douglass and Anthony were close friends and viewed their struggles for equality as one-in-the-same. Indeed, in many of her early writings, Susan B. Anthony made it clear that both Women and “the Negro” were being inhumanely treated, under-represented, and unlawfully disenfranchised by America.

A huge shift in their relationship occurred in 1869 when the 15th Amendment was debated, and supported Black Men’s right to equality, but not Women (incidentally, several States still haven’t ratified this Amendment…how shameful). Douglass was in support of the Amendment, but Anthony took offense to it. Thereafter, she largely spoke only on the behalf of Women since men, even Black men and her friend Douglass, seemed not to care for Women’s rights to equality.

It is well known that Women did not “earn” the right to vote until 1920 (with the passing of the 19th Amendment), and Black people until 1965 (despite the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the 15th Amendment of 1869).

Today it is also well known that Women earn roughly 0.75 cents to every dollar that a man makes for doing the same job. Likewise, Blacks and other racial minorities are significantly encumbered by a system of social inequality (though not the only factor, but in my opinion the major factor) that punishes them longer for crimes that the majority population is also guilty of, often limits how high in the ranks one can climb at the job, and has left many behind with respect to education (among myriad other things).

“So who is more discriminated against?” many are now asking as a result of the race between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nod. What I once thought was an incredibly great thing, a Black person and a Woman truly being considered for the nation’s highest office, has now turned my glee into disappointment. I suppose the only good thing is that this race has pulled the sheets off of some very ugly social realities we have in this country, and hopefully it will elicit action to truly resolve them.

I first had the idea to write on this topic back in January when Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary over Obama, whom many thought would win the Primary by double digits. The day after, I was watching Chris Mathews show, Hardball, on MSNBC. He had a guest on the show that I hold in the highest esteem for his incredible intellect and understanding, Michael Eric Dyson. Because Clinton won despite all the polling, Mathews and Dyson were vehemently trying to make the case that Obama lost because people are racist (or vote on racial lines), but wouldn’t dare admit their racial bias to a pollster. Now as often as I agree with Dyson, I recall thinking that he was totally off-base this time. There were numerous factors that could’ve caused the incongruence between the polls and the actual vote. In fact, it is my opinion that age was the greatest factor, with youths favoring Obama heavily. It just so happened that the NH primary occurred during the Winter break for many of the college students, so I imagine that had enough of an effect to give Clinton the victory (the same in other States, like Texas, where spring break may have played a role).

The case that Mathews and Dyson made that day became symbolic of how the remainder of the contest was going to play out in this sense; at any turn that race could be injected as a possible reason for opposition to Obama’s candidacy, it would be injected. It was at that time, back in January, that I began to point out to many people in my circle that there are many well known “race-police” (Jackson, Sharpton, Dyson, etc), but not many “gender/sexism-police” (can you even name one…I can’t).

I think it’s great that we’ve moved into an era where someone can’t just make racist remarks without backlash. Indeed I am certainly one who could be classified as a race-policeman. When someone makes a statement that is racist, or unnecessarily racially charged, I will call them out. But it cuts both ways for me racially, whether that’s for or against racial minorities. Furthermore, it cuts all ways for me: what’s wrong to say about racial minorities is wrong to say about Women; unfair treatment toward minorities is unfair treatment for Women too, in cases that are congruent (have to put that caveat on there so people don’t accuse me of saying that issues that face minorities are the same as issues that face Women or the Disabled or whatever…there is much overlap, and I’m referring to issues within the overlap).

Specifically speaking, there are people who have racial problems, and who have and will continue to be against Obama because of his skin color. Likewise, there are people who are against Clinton because she’s a Woman.

So we’ve moved from racism being the accepted reality, to it being lawfully unacceptable but publicly and privately accepted, and finally to it being lawfully and publicly unacceptable, while being privately practiced. There’s still work to be done on that last front, but there has been progress. Unfortunately Women are still one step behind. This primary season has made it clear to me that it is still publicly acceptable to be sexist against Women.

I always thought that we’d see a White Woman be President before we’d see a Black man be President. Of course I don’t know how this race will turn out, but I am rethinking that notion now. I have made the point countless times how sad it is that women are maligned in society, even here at this site, but I didn’t realize how accepted it was for Women to be so publicly discriminated against…I thought it was mostly private and institutionalized, not public and overt. I was wrong.

Many would still contend that race is the greater of the two evils. I would contend that depending on the arena, one or the other may be more explicit. Having done my research and looked through History, I would contend that Politically, Women may have it harder than Blacks. But you don’t have to take my word for it…

...the great Black Woman politician who ran for the Democratic Nomination for President of the USA in 1972, Shirley Chisholm, said the following in a 1969 speech before the House of Representatives:

“As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.

Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as "for men only."

By the way, I would recommend reading her entire speech. She makes numerous valid points about inequality toward women that are, sadly, largely true today even though she made the speech almost 40 years ago. (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/equal/)

I guess my point is that many in the media have indeed discriminated against Clinton, for whatever reason, but have been enabled by our lack of concern for the tone we take toward Women. The same types of statements made regarding her would rarely, if ever, be accepted if leveled at a Black person like Obama. And even now that she points out the incongruent treatment, many in the media are saying that she’s “just crying” because she’s losing instead of considering the wealth of evidence out there that is consistent with her point.

As a reader of this blog, don’t you join the chorus of media personalities that dismisses her point as her just being a cry-baby. Sexism is real too, and we’ve seen far too much of it in this campaign for it just to be overlooked.

-Maelstrom

Just look at how Clinton has been portrayed in all areas of our society during this race

DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER:

I absolutely DO NOT endorse the anti-Obama rhetoric or the comments posted for these videos. I just want you to consider some of the media comments within the videos that demonstrate the points I've made above!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QUmbjoEp2lU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bacxWGk88L0&NR=1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vjG-jdybbIg

Tell The Truth

2008-05-02T12:51:00.003-04:00

During this very exciting race for the office of President, I have found it very funny what non-truths people are willing to hide behind in order to support the candidate they like. Likewise, I find it interesting how the candidates paint these less-than-realistic images of themselves in order to become “one of us.” I think it’s time for everyone to finally keep it real, speak up, and tell the truth.

To that end, let me help all of you out! Candidates first...

Senator Clinton, tell the truth, you certainly have a wealth of foreign policy experience, but you were no consistent peace-broker, war-mediator, or Under-Secretary of State. You could easily stand on your record without embellishments: Yes, you did play a role in bringing a level of peace in Ireland, yes you were listed as the US Ambassador/Delegate to some conferences, and no doubt you were on-hand for some of the most important foreign events in recent world history. So just say that! Instead you’ve chosen to overstate your experience and it has gotten you in trouble. Hopefully you’ve learned your lesson now and you will just tell the truth about your foreign policy experience.

Senator Clinton, tell the truth. You are rich. Far richer than most people could ever dream. Now to those of us who pay attention, we know that recently Bill O’Reilly of Fox News actually got you to admit that you are indeed rich, but still Senator, quit trying to tout your gun-toting prowess to demonstrate that you are one of us. You don’t need to throw back a couple shots of Vodka to make me feel like you are as destitute as I. I know you live a lifestyle that I can only imagine.

On that note, Senators Clinton and McCain, quit trying to paint Senator Obama as some kind of elitist who is super-rich and can’t possibly relate to the average person. The fact is that you are richer than he is.

And on that note, Senator Obama, you’re rich too. I know that now you keep trying to remind people that you grew up without a father and that you were raised by your grandmother and that you had a rougher upbringing than McCain or Clinton, but the reality is that you currently have more money in the bank at the age of 47 than most Americans will have in the bank after 50 years in the work force.

All 3 of you are rich and the lifestyles that you have lived for years, McCain and Clinton longer than Obama, are so far out of the mainstream of America that I do doubt that any of you can truly relate to the current struggles that many of “us” are going through these days; especially since the economy is in a much worse state today than when you were “one of us.” So stop playing these games, and just tell us the truth.

Here’s one that I know will shock everyone: Senator Obama, you are a politician. I know you’ve made everyone to feel like they can just sit down and talk to you. Yes, you can even play basketball with a few of us. But make no mistake about it, you are a politician. Now like everyone else, I hope that you are not just another politician, but with each passing week you’re sure lookin’ like it.

A brief aside…

I’m currently situated in a state that has been bombarded by campaign ads from both Dems in the race. In one of Obama’s TV ads he opens by prominently stating that “I don’t take money from oil companies,” with the implication that McCain and Clinton do. Well, he’s telling the truth…but not really. As the Associated Press pointed out, he hasn’t taken money from the oil companies, but neither have McCain or Clinton because (here’s what he left out) it’s against the rules for the Candidates to take money from the oil companies. They can, however, take money from the wives of the oil executives and other people connected to the oil companies.

So, has Obama taken money from people connected to oil companies you ask? Absolutely, to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars (Clinton had taken some 300 thousand at the time the AP ran their spot, by comparison). To that I say “Senator Obama, if you’re going to tell the truth, tell me the whole truth.”

I could point to his silence about the disenfranchised voters of Michigan and Florida, the fact he left his name on the ballot in Florida but not in Michigan (which I think was a political calculation), his wavering position on the pullout of troops from Iraq (google “Samantha Power US Combat brigades”) or NAFTA (google “Austan Goolsbee NAFTA”) as other examples too. Just be clear, he too is a politician. And remarkably, he’s much more of a politician today than he was just 6 months ago.

…so dear Senator Obama, tell the truth, you’re a politician!

American people, tell the truth!!!

You aren’t voting for the remaining candidates because of the issues and their platform positions. You are voting for these candidates because of “stuff you’ve heard” but not investigated yourself, because of past perceptions, or because of emotional issues that frankly have very little to do with your everyday life. Many still think Obama is Muslim (he’s not), that Clinton has run an overwhelmingly negative campaign (many of whom likely unjustifiably hated Hillary long before this campaign began), and that McCain is old and incapable (ok, he is old).

The fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is a good enough candidate that Women who were going to vote for her simply because she is a Woman can say that they support her because “she has the experience.” Millions of Black folks are voting for Senator Obama because he’s Black, but he is qualified enough that they can exclaim that he is the best candidate for the job. Droves of military servicemen and Veterans are voting for Senator McCain because he’s a Vet, not because they believe in the many (and often changing) positions he takes.

I know this is the factual reality because when I challenge most people on their Candidate’s positions, most can’t even articulate a single solitary position that their candidate has taken, and how it is better or even different than that of the other Candidate’s. This let’s me know that this election is likened unto every other election, where people vote on things that are emotional rather than the platforms the Candidate’s are pushing.

I must remind myself that this is politics, and politics is simply a game of psychology in which truths can be bent or largely ignored. Asking for truth in politics is like asking for eggs from a rooster...you ain’t gonna get it unless you look elsewhere. That said (and to keep with the analogy), American people and politicians alike, I know better than to ignore the hens, and I’m gonna find my golden eggs of truth, so quit trying to give me the once over; I know better.

To be fair, some people do tell the truth, and unfortunately it is laced with all kinds of unfounded rationales. Many people won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a Woman and, as I’ve heard several men say, other countries don’t even respect Women (this despite numerous countries having had Women leaders; India, Chile, Great Britain, Germany to name a few). Some 19% of Pennsylvania voters indicated that race played a factor in how they voted in their recent primary; most of whom voted for Clinton (I can only imagine how many more people were too ashamed to admit they wouldn’t vote for a Black person). And everyone has a problem with McCain’s age, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has several Justices over the age of 80, but apparently they’re virile enough to make precedent setting laws for everyone.

Although I disagree with many of the reasons people who actually tell the truth give, I’d rather have that than people delivering untruths veiled in a blanket of positivity or unsubstantiated basis.

So please, if you see me in the streets and you’re trying to push your pick for President, unless you can tell me about their positions, why those positions matter to you, and how your Candidate’s positions are different than the other Candidate’s, spare your breath, save me the time and just tell the truth.

-Maelstrom

The Relevance in 2008

2008-03-01T20:25:00.003-05:00

Black History Month began as the brainchild of Carter G. Woodson in 1926. It actually began as Negro History Week, and coincided with the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. For several decades the Month of February held great importance amongst American citizens. It was perhaps the only time that Americans paused to take note of the contributions of African-Americans to the United States of America, with perhaps the exception of MLK Day in January since 1981. However, in this new millennium it seems to me that the significance of Black History Month has diminished to the general public. So I pose the question to myself, “what is the relevance of Black History Month in 2008?”

To demonstrate my point, just ask yourself how many forums, discussions, or Black History Month events you participated in last month. My point exactly!

It’s likely that many factors contribute to my perceived loss of importance of Black History Month. To begin, as a result of observances like Black History Month (BHM), MLK Day, the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s, etc., the level of awareness about Black people and their contributions to history has been increased (although it’s not what it should be, in my opinion). Likewise, the overt racism of decades past has been greatly diminished. Without a doubt these realities have given the impression to some that BHM is no longer necessary.

But there are other factors, namely the emergence of awareness about other minority groups like Native Americans and Latino Americans, each with their own space on the calendar set aside to honor their peoples, cultures and contributions. Furthermore, time, dates and months have been set aside for causes like Breast Cancer Awareness in October. In fact, it is practically impossible to keep up with all the “days” that represent a group of people or causes on the calendar. Like, did you know that April 23^rd of this year is “Administrative Professionals Day?”

Finally, I think the fact that Black people as a collective have lost their position as the largest racial minority in America to Latinos plays a role. Although the Civil Rights’ Movement, as Martin Luther King Jr. saw it, was for everyone who was disenfranchised, the Black community was the focus of it for myriad factors, but also because they represented the largest minority group at the time. With the emergence of the growing Latino population, as well as the steady growth of several others, the need for awareness about those groups amongst the general population is more apparent now. Therefore, the focus on BHM specifically has been parsed.

And I should say that I’m totally for raising awareness about all groups.

So I guess I’m left with the question about what the point of BHM should be in the years ahead. I don’t think that the focus of BHM should be about how brutal and cruel previous generations of (White) people were to Black people, but it should be about understanding the origins of how ignorance and blind hatred of a person/people could lead to such inhumane behavior.

In conjunction, I think BHM should focus on dispelling many of the age old misconceptions about Black people. Not all Black people are criminals, violent, academically inferior, or economically incompetent (I feel so silly mentioning such things, but believe it or not, a lot of people still hold such sentiments).

Lastly, I think BHM should continue pointing out the many areas where Black people have contributed mightily to this country. When I was in grade school, the only time the contributions of Black people to America were highlighted was during BHM. That should not be the case. Black people (as well as Women, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, Homosexuals, etc.) have made essential, undeniable contributions to this nation, and the history that we are taught should reflect this reality.

In short, reflection, understanding, awareness, and a positive future outlook should be the foundation of Black History Month and all other months wishing to honor groups that have otherwise been left out of the history of the USA.

-Maelstrom

David Shuster and MSNBC

2008-02-12T16:32:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday, while serving as a guest host for Tucker Carlson, MSNBC Political Correspondent David Shuster made a very regrettable statement. While discussing with a guest on the show the solicitation of superdelegates by Chelsea Clinton, he asked the question, doesn’t it seem she’s being “pimped out” in some weird sort of way by her parents. As a result, he has been temporarily canned by the entire network, and NBC has come under considerable criticism in the aftermath. To me, some of the criticism is fair, but much of it is inconsistent. As for Shuster, I have watched him for years and regard him as a very tough, but fact-based correspondent. He is one of my favorites because he always asks the hard questions of our political leaders. His choice of words was poor, but I don’t think his choice of words should cloud the point he was trying to make.

Let me address the criticisms first.

Shuster often appears as a correspondent on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews as well as on “Tucker” with Tucker Carlson and “Countdown” with Keith Olberman. One of the criticisms I’ve heard in the aftermath is that MSNBC is a very sexist station and that Matthews leads a “frat-boy” mentality on the station that includes Shuster, Carlson and Olberman. Although I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that Matthews has some inherent sexist positions, to paint Shuster, Carlson, Olberman, and the entire station in the same way is totally unfair. I did not find, and have not noticed a consistent pattern of sexist behavior with the other show-hosts that one could easily find with Matthews.

Furthermore, many of the faces you see on MSNBC during the day (including the primetime hours) are those of women. Among them are NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, and senior political correspondent Nora O’Donnell (who often fills in for Matthews and Carlson as well). Furthermore, there is a plethora of female panelists who are regulars on the station, especially on Hardball, including salon.com editor Joan Walsh, journalists Karen Tumulty and Anne Kornblut, and political analyst Kate O’Beirne. Although I must say, it would be nice to see a full-time female, as well as a full-time minority Host to one of MSNBC’s primetime shows.

Right-wing pundits, like Bill O’Reilly, claim that Matthews and Shuster are on the far Left side of the political spectrum. I find this claim interesting because to me Matthews is pretty centrist on many issues. Despite my centrist view of Matthews, mediamatters.com has found him to be Right leaning for several years now. As for Shuster, he worked for the same Right leaning station that O’Reilly works for, Fox News (1996-2002), so I don’t know what his stake in saying such a thing is, but he’s obviously got an agenda. In any case, I think this criticism is unfounded as well.

But as it pertains to Shuster, “pimped out,” and Chelsea Clinton, I think Shuster made a terrible error in using the phrase. However, the fact is that he may have been making a very valid point. Moreover, by Bill and Hillary Clinton crying foul over the whole incident, criticisms about the tactics that they’re using to solicit superdelegates will likely be squelched; at least for a while.

Hillary Clinton has threatened to not participate in any more debates sponsored by MSNBC as a result of Shuster’s comments (there was a debate scheduled for February 26th). By raising such a fuss, I believe the news media will be less likely to scrutinize her campaign’s efforts to sway superdelegates to her side. One might ask if Hillary would use this opportunity to get such scrutiny off her back. My response is a resounding yes. The Clinton’s are the savviest of savvy politicians. They are smart enough to know that they can keep reporters at bay on the issue of superdelegate solicitation by making the issue Shuster’s “pimped out” statement, diverting attention to the point he was making.

You see, from my vantage point, I don’t think Shuster was using the phrase in the “back-alley” sense. I think he was using it in the vernacular, pop-culture sense; you know, the “pimp-my-ride” sense. The phrase is a colloquial, common slang phrase that has nothing to do with selling your body (or goods) and giving what you earned to a pimp who vows to protect you.

But let’s say that he meant it in the most sinister of ways. Let’s say he meant that the Clinton’s were using their young, attractive, 27-year-old daughter to do the work of political solicitation in order to court the endorsement of high-ranking democratic superdelegates; the majority of whom are probably men. Why isn’t that a fair question to ask?

To me it would seem that a political advisor, like Marc Penn, or a former President, like Bill Clinton, should be the one doing such a job. Not that Chelsea shouldn’t, but lets be real (seriously, lose the women’s lib, politically correct mindset and see reality), the reason that Men’s Clothing Stores often have young women out front mingling with the male customers is because the men are more likely to make a purchase with the young lady there than if a young man was the solicitor. It’s no surprise that, although you can’t touch ‘em, Clubs employ female dancers to dance solo all night. Even in the news media, young, attractive women are often the anchors during prime news hours, and rarely ever do you see a female newscaster that is overweight (even though the men can be old and overweight).

It is in that same “Men’s Clothing Store” sense that I think the question David Shuster raised is a fair and valid question. I do not think the Clinton’s consciously said, “let’s pimp Chelsea out for votes,” but perhaps in the recesses of their minds, or in the sub-consciousness of their psyche they thought that these superdelegates would be more amenable to the plea of Chelsea’s voice over the voice of a rigid male politician.

Now I know I’ve overlooked a few factors. People have noted that Chelsea has probably known most of these people all her life, so it’s not a shock that she would call them. But I’d argue that if this is true, then why would the Clinton’s need to contact these people at all? I also recognize that Chelsea is an independent adult who doesn’t need her parents to think for her. But to that I’d say, then why the vociferous defense by her parents, especially since they’ve brought her into the political sphere. And as an addendum to that last point, I think it’s a little hypocritical of the Clinton’s to cry foul because they’re protecting their daughter; as far as I’m concerned, once the Clinton’s brought her into the political forefront, she became fair game (she’s not just the daughter of the President now, she’s actually “stumping” with her mom). The Clinton’s can’t have it both ways.

In closing, I’d just say that I absolutely think the Clinton’s are defending their daughter against unwarranted attacks, as any parent would. However, I also think they are taking advantage of the situation and using it as an opportunity to stifle questions about their solicitation of superdelegate votes. On the other side of the coin, I wouldn’t doubt that David Shuster has some inherent sexist views, as many people do. I’d also say that I believe NBC made the right move by temporarily suspending him. But, I think that it is important to consider not just what he said, but also the issue he was trying to address.

And that seems to be what’s been lost in the controversy.

-Maelstrom

Everything Else...in Sports

2008-02-08T18:44:00.000-05:00

Since the sports world and sports media has been grossly preoccupied with the Super Bowl (and will likely continue to be inordinately concerned with football and the NFL until late July…just in time for the start of training camp) I’ll report on a couple sports occurrences that I found entertaining.

To start, I have to applaud the performances of numerous tennis players in the year’s first Slam event, the Australian Open. It was incredibly entertaining to watch. I found myself waking up at 3:00am, 4am, and 5 o’clock in the morning to catch a glimpse of the action throughout the fortnight. And boy was it competitive. With the exception of #5 seed Maria Sharapova on the Women’s side, the finalists on both the Men and Women’s sides were virtually unknowns.

One name everyone better get used to is Novak Djokovic. He dominated and beat the seemingly unstoppable Roger Federer—in straight sets too! Not to be outdone as far as upsets are concerned, the gentleman that Djokovic beat in the finals, Tsonga, made light work of world #2 Rafael Nadal. On the Women’s side, both Williams’ sisters were put out in the quarterfinals along with the very powerful world #1 Justine Henin. And what’s in the water in Serbia? Jelena Jankovic made the Women’s semifinals while Men’s finalist Djokovic and Women’s finalist Ana Ivanovic all hail from Serbia. In fact, virtual unknown Serb Tipsarevic pushed Federer to 5 sets in the 3^rd round. It looks like this year in pro tennis will be hotly contested…and who knows, there may be a changing of the guard on both the men’s and women’s sides by year’s end.

What a surprise the New Orleans Hornets have been in the NBA! In a year that was supposed to be all about the Boston Celtics super trifecta of Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, the Hornets are the real story in the league. Coming from out of nowhere, the team that was moved from Charlotte, North Carolina to New Orleans (and then displaced from New Orleans to Oklahoma City following Hurricane Katrina to only resurface in New Orleans again this season) has dazzled and dominated for the first half of this NBA campaign. And straight up, Chris Paul is a beast! If he continues to play this way, he deserves to be the league MVP, hands down, bar-none!

Yo, since I’m on the topic of the National Basketball Association, I’m amazed at all these trades that have gone down this past week. Shaq to Phoenix, Gasol to the Lakers, and Webber to Golden State. I think that the Gasol trade might be the best of the bunch, but I’m not sleepin on Shaq.

Video has surfaced of New York Mets star pitcher Pedro Martinez attending a cockfight in his native Dominican Republic. On the heels of the Michael Vick story, I want to know where all the people are that were incensed that Vick was attending and bankrolling dogfights. True, there are a few factors that differ: 1. we don’t know if Martinez actually bet on or funded the cockfight, 2. we don’t know if this is a pattern of behavior, and 3. this happened in a nation where cockfighting is legal. However, if the sentiments of those outraged Vick protesters were complete and thorough, they would be calling for Martinez to be on the chopping block in NY. If something is wrong, like fighting animals happens to be, then it’s wrong no matter where it occurs (e.g. murder is murder, and animal cruelty is animal cruelty, whether in the USA or in the Dominican Republic). So I’m just asking for a little consistency from the supposed outraged public. I guess I was just disturbed by the fact that people seemed only SO upset about Vick because he was fighting dogs. I thoroughly doubt that if Vick had been cockfighting, or fighting snakes or cats, that we would’ve seen the nationwide outrage that we did. At least PETA is consistent…they want Pedro’s head on a platter.

And this just in, Tiger Woods is unreal! This guy seems poised to dominate for another year on the PGA tour. He is still on a roll, which extends back to last year. He’s started this year off with 2 convincing wins, with the second being a show of just sheer resilience. Tiger trailed Ernie Els by 4 strokes heading into the final round of the Dubai Desert Classic last week, but surged ahead to take home the trophy on Sunday. Is there any competition out there for this guy?

Ok I’ll stop…I think I watch sports too much!

-Maelstrom

Everything Else

2008-02-07T23:14:00.000-05:00

Since the media world seems to be inordinately preoccupied with the race for the presidential nomination, I’ve decided to illuminate several recent occurrences, both here and abroad, that I found interesting.

The obvious immediate news focuses on several storms that ripped through the south of the country on “Fat Tuesday.” Some 50 plus people from several states perished as a result of the storms. Hopefully federal aid and support will be swift in getting to the victims.

This January Genarlow Wilson started college. You might recall that this is the young man from Georgia who was sent to prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old classmate when he was 17. You might also recall that the law that put Wilson behind bars was an old one that actually forbade oral sex, even between married adults at one time. Even though the law was overturned as a result of his case, Wilson was kept behind bars at the behest of some very cruel state prosecutors. I’m glad that the young man can actually move on with his life now, and I wish him all the best in the years ahead. For a full account of Wilson’s dilemma, see the July 2007 post “A Grave Miscarriage of Justice” here at the Vortex.

On the economic front, the stock market continues to be on a super roller coaster ride. Unfortunately the ride headed down a steep hill this week. The Dow Jones Industrial average lost some 370 points on Super Tuesday and the trend continued downward the next day with the Dow losing over 60 points. The Nasdaq isn’t doing well either; it has lost some 13% of its volume since the start of the year. The unstable market, along with housing market troubles, credit woes, and a very weak US dollar are fueling fears that our economy is headed for an economic recession. Indeed, some critics think we’re already there…sadly.

Briefly, on the foreign front there continues to be unrest in Kenya following a disputed and unpopular election late last year. And although the violence briefly assuaged, tensions remain high and hostility persists. Where is the international community on this one?

On a positive note, I was pleased to see that when the newly elected parliament of Australia opens their first session next week, they will do something quite admirable: The government will offer a formal apology to the Aborigine population of Australia. The Aborigine’s are the indigenous people to Australia; they also happen to be the poorest member’s of Australian society. Strain between the Aborigine population and the general population has persisted for centuries. The apology is not only a kind gesture, but is seen as a huge step in mending tensions and righting injustices exacted on Aborigine’s. A formal government apology…now there’s a novel idea!

Till next time!

-Maelstrom

The Republican Nomination Race

2008-01-25T00:04:00.000-05:00

The current race for the nomination for President of the United States has been among the most lively and interesting that we’ve seen since perhaps the 1991-92 election season. It is the first time in decades that both parties have a full complement of candidates vying for their party’s nomination since the outgoing (Republican) incumbent Vice President isn’t seeking the nomination and the current President has reached his term limit.

The field has shrunk on both sides at this point, but we’re a long way from determining who will win the nod for either the Democrats or Republicans. And then there’s always the threat of a 3^rd party candidate throwing their hat in the race, with a buzz circling NYC Mayor and Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and even whispers of CNN Primetime anchor Lou Dobbs potentially running.

So here’s the race as I currently see it…Republicans first:

It is a free-for-all on the Right side of the aisle, as the first three major stops along the road to the nomination have yielded three different victors; Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (Iowa), Arizona Senator John McCain (New Hampshire) and Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (Michigan). And all this before Rudy Giuliani even makes a major campaign attempt at the nomination. And don’t forget about the 6 million dollars in campaign donations in a day guy, Texas Senator Ron Paul.

I’ll start with the guy who “cleaned up New York,” Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani’s strategy has been to watch the first few political showdowns from the sidelines and then ramp up his campaign in the larger states. He has done this in large part because he is seen as about as far Left as you can be and still call yourself a Republican; at least socially. With three different winners on the Republican side in the first three major contests, it appears that Giuliani’s strategy may pay off. The race is still wide-open which means Giuliani could very well win one of the next few major Primaries and be just as likely to win the nomination as Huckabee, McCain or Romney. However, recent polling in Florida shows him trailing despite his heavy campaigning there. Time shall tell if his strategy is successful.

Michigan native son Mitt Romney finally traded in his “silver’s” for gold as he won the Primary in Michigan last week. Unfortunately for Romney, his competitors are simply writing off this victory in Michigan as one of sentimentality and familiarity from the Michigan populace (similarly, his victory in Nevada has also been downplayed due to the large Morman presence there). It will be interesting to see if the business-minded Romney can win other states that have strong Unions like Michigan does (e.g. states like Pennsylvania).

Vietnam vet and former POW John McCain has thrown a little bit of a wrench into the race. Early in the campaign season it appeared that his bid for the nomination was becoming irreparably unraveled. Somehow he weathered the shake-ups in his campaign (and the lack of large financial stores) and parlayed his perseverance into a victory at the New Hampshire primary and a very strong showing in Michigan. He also seems to be a favorite of Independent voters, along with Obama on the Democratic side. With his ship righted, he will definitely be a major player in the Primaries to come.

A virtual unknown this time last year, Mike Huckabee has become a formidable presence at each stop along the nomination path. He is perhaps best liked among social and Christian conservatives. As a result, he registered a stunning victory at the Iowa Caucus, despite being outspent tremendously by the second place finisher Mitt Romney. He didn’t fare nearly as well in New Hampshire or Michigan, and at times he hasn’t looked like he’s ready for the big stage. On more than one occasion he has been caught off guard and unaware of major foreign events and occurrences. His challenge is to be more appealing to fiscal conservatives (who have attacked his record of tax increases while he was Arkansas Governor), as well as to be more aware of world affairs.

Finally, there’s the non-conventional Texas Senator Ron Paul. Although I think some of Paul’s ideas are impractical, I do take offense to the cavalier and snide rebuttals toward Paul (at the New Hampshire debate) from Giuliani and Romney when Paul suggested that “they” (the terrorists) attacked us in part because we have a strong military presence in many of their (holy) lands. Paul is partly right on this issue, and his sentiments are echoed by many others, including Conservative MSNBC Political Commentator Pat Buchanan (who has spent several years studying the Middle East) as well as Osama Bin Laden himself (and a whole host of others that I won’t bother naming, including high-ranking military personnel and the like). But whether one disagrees with him or not on the issue, it bothered me that there was no rational consideration of his point-of-view, just terse dismissal. In any case, I don’t think he will win the race (despite his ability to raise millions and millions of dollars seemingly at will), and so I’m curious to whom his votes will go; perhaps the Independent favorite McCain?

Having mulled over the multivarious parameters that voters may consider on the Right side of the political spectrum, my guess is that Romney will eventually win the Republican nomination with John McCain being his biggest challenge. I think Giuliani’s strategy has cost him valuable national face time, and so he won’t grab the nomination. However, how he fares on “Super Tuesday” (Feb 5^th) should clear things up on the Republican side.

Best Bet to win the Republican Nomination: Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney

Potential Spoilers: Arizona Senator John McCain and Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani

-Maelstrom

Be A Man About It

2007-12-05T20:09:00.000-05:00

Yesterday a 19 year old man ran through a shopping mall in Nebraska and gunned down 8 people before turning the gun on himself. He apparently left a suicide note in which he said that he was “going out in style.” Now I’m sure that I don’t have to explain how disturbed I am at hearing such a horrific story, but as I grow older such events seem evermore prevalent.

I’d argue that the young man failed in his attempt to die with style points. So I have a suggestion for anyone who ever gets the notion that they’d like to follow in his footsteps: instead of turning the gun on yourself after committing your dirty deed of destruction, be a man about it and face the consequences of your actions in someone else’s court instead of your own. By committing suicide you are merely going out as the biggest loser and a coward, not with style points.

Such acts of "terrorism," if you will, really bother me because they are completely and totally senseless. To take anyone’s life is disgusting, but to go out and indiscriminately murder innocent people because you can’t deal with your own personal demons makes me even more upset.

Who gave you that right?!!!

But if you’re going to take it upon yourself to play God and kill who you will whenever you will, how bout actually stepping up to the plate and facing the consequences. I mean these people, often young men, walk around and mow down people with guns and assault rifles like they’re big and tough, but they don’t even have the balls to go down in a good old fashioned gun fight with law enforcement.

If you’re so big and bad, why don’t you match wits with people who can actually fend for themselves, people who know where you are and when you’re coming, people who know as much about a gun as you do? How 'bout really demonstrating your manhood by fighting fair, because shooting unaware, innocent bystanders isn’t going out in style by any means, it only demonstrates cowardice.

Better yet, how about trying the criminal justice on for size? Yes...go to court, be convicted, and then share a prison cell with some of your diabolical equals. Oh, that’s right, you’ve probably heard what happens to some cowards when they get to prison; maybe that’s why you forego that option and go right for suicide.

Ok, I think I’ve got it now…the ultimate solution: Instead of trying to add inches to what’s in between your legs by picking up a big bad gun (pardon the metaphor), how about exorcizing your demons before taking the valuable lives of others. Think about what those lives mean to the potential victims as well as the people that love them. You obviously don’t value your life, but the least you can do is consider the value of the lives of others.

I guess what I’m getting at here is personal responsibility and accountability. And clearly these people who commit murder-suicides are trying to dodge both. So all I’m asking of anyone who one day "loses it" and thinks the best thing to do is to “go out in style,” you’d gain infinitely more “style” points if you’d just handle your problems in house, and take no lives, including your own.

-Maelstrom

Some Things Aren’t Worth Protesting

2007-12-04T22:43:00.000-05:00

Ever wonder why 50 Cent had beef with Ja Rule, and then The Game? What about Jay-Z and Nas? Better yet, why do you think Michael Moore makes his films so edgy and names them things like “Fahrenheit 911?” How about all those starlets who just happen to always end up in front of the camera during a meltdown? Well let me help you out, its either because of money or because of attention, and often the latter leads to the former.

So I don’t understand why it is that some people, groups and institutions even give certain issues that they disagree with a moment of their media attention. You think these groups would know better since the ire that followed the release of “The Passion of the Christ,” or at least by the release of “The Da Vinci Code.”

If I can make a mildly disparaging comment before continuing: In my high and mighty opinion most Americans are either largely socially unaware, or are at least largely apathetic. So by having a group speak out against an issue, that same “ignorant” populace only pays more attention to the issue when they wouldn’t normally pay attention to or understand it in the first place. In short, such boisterous objection only has the opposite effect from the desired effect a group wishes.

More specifically, there is a movie that is purported to be anti-God coming to a theatre near you. Of course religious groups are coming out of the woodwork to protest the movie. That is to say that these groups are doing exactly what the movie promoters want; promoting the movie for free. So effectively the religious groups are helping the movie get all the publicity it needs to spread the message that they are so afraid of getting out.

So what good does it do to protest in this fashion? And I should point out that I’m not one who is against protest. I have even participated in a few in my short years on Earth. But certainly I’ve learned that some things are best just left alone and some things are better left unsaid; they do not become significant until someone makes them significant. And I believe that is often the case with the attention-craving Hollywood stars, the platinum-album-seeking rappers, and certainly is the case with this movie “The Golden Compass.”

Approaching this topic from a different angle, as I understand it one of the major arguments in the movie made against God and organized religion is that it is controlling and does not allow one to think independently. Well, by protesting the movie without ever watching it, doesn’t that demonstrate exactly what the movie is saying? How ironic that these religious groups and leaders are becoming the embodiment of everything negative that the movie is saying about them.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if there is indeed a God, that entity needs no human substantiation. And if God is who many believe Him to be, wouldn’t he want each individual to watch such a movie and make up their own mind about the implications of it?

You know what I think? I think anyone who likes the previews and finds them interesting should go out and watch the movie. I mean, how else are you going to know what you’re protesting against? You may find out that you actually agree with the movie, or that you just enjoy it whether or not you agree with its contents.

So everyone, hear me loud and clear when I say this: When in disagreement choose your battles wisely because seriously, some things just aren’t worth protesting.

-Maelstrom

Am I Drunk or Am I Seeing Stars

2007-11-08T15:40:00.000-05:00

In an epidemic that seems just outright silly yet amazing to me, the latest in a string of celebrities, athletes and politicians to be arrested for suspicion of DUI is Rebecca De Mornay. You might remember her as the hot temptress that played opposite Tom Cruise in his breakout film “Risky Business,” or as the evil babysitter in “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle.” I personally remember her for being the really sexy lady in “And God Created Woman,” but that’s neither here nor there.

In any case, I am just astounded that this list keeps getting longer. De Mornay now joins “24” star Kiefer Sutherland, young pop singer and actress Lindsay Lohan, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, NFL player Chris Henry, and a whole host of other rich, well-off, famous people who have been charged with driving under the influence.

There are too many angles with which to consider this topic, so I’ll just keep it simple.

What disturbs me most is that these people, above everyone else, have the ability to do what many others could only dream of; they could call not just a cab, but a limo and a chauffeur to drive them to and from an occasion where alcohol will be present. In fact, they could call and have the party come to their location so that they don’t even have to drive anywhere, thus avoiding the potential for DUI.

It further bothers me that these people are not only being personally foolish, but they are also being selfish and inconsiderate. It’s not enough that they are endangering their own lives, but they are also putting at jeopardy the lives of those traveling the roadways with them.

Finally, I guess that the loose laws that govern these cases are the other factor that trouble me. Time and time again a celebrity gets caught for DUI; maybe they have to go to court. And after receiving a warning from the judge, they go to this fairytale place called “rehab,” which obviously has nothing to do with rehabilitation. After they return from “la la land rehab” they’re free to wreak havoc on the roadways once again.

And unfortunately they often do just that…continue to endanger theirs and others lives by drinking and driving again.

Perhaps if athletic organizations had tougher, consistent policies about not drinking and driving, St. Louis Cardinals’ pitcher Josh Hancock would still be alive. Maybe if Hollywood Studios would write clauses into contracts that warned of substantial loss of money in the instance of DUI, stars like part-time actress Paris Hilton wouldn’t be prone to getting behind the wheel intoxicated. Maybe if our lawmakers would actually abide by the traffic laws they help pass, and suffered severe punishment for breaking them, it would set some form of a societal standard.

But it seems that such sanctions are too much to ask.

In any case, I’m tired of the recklessness and lack of personal responsibility of the stars. And I’m even more tired of the weak law enforcement response. And undoubtedly, it seems like some of these already famous individuals, like Britney Spears, bask in the glow of their recklessness. If that indeed is the case as I suppose it to be, maybe the media could do us all a favor by not covering these stories and continuing to glorify the stupidity of these indigents.

Basically everyone just needs to follow that adage that seems as old as time, “Don’t Drink and Drive!”

-Maelstrom

Why Marion, Why?

2007-10-06T16:14:00.000-04:00

For several years there has been widespread suspicion of many athletes from various sports implicated in using performance enhancing drugs like steroids and human growth hormone (HGH). The range goes from pro-wrestlers to baseball players, boxers to gymnasts, and from biking to swimming. Now there are even whispers that athletes in more “gentlemanly” sports like golf and tennis are using steroids. But perhaps the sporting event with the most extensive history of illegal drug use is the Olympics, including many heralded Track and Field events.

From the East German swim team in the ’76 Olympic Games to Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson in the ’88 Olympics, steroid use has been a major problem. The East German women won all but 2 gold medals in those games, while Ben Johnson annihilated a then-world record time of 9.93 seconds, clocking a time of 9.79 seconds in the 100 meter dash more than 11 years before that number was matched again.

With the advancement of technology, as in all sports, the use of performance enhancing drugs has become more widespread and prolific in Track and Field. Many Track and Field athletes from multitudinous disciplines have been caught using steroids. Names like shot-putter CJ Holder and sprinter Tim Montgomery come to mind.

But one lady sprinter has been suspected, but never caught. That lady is Marion Jones.

Over the years, Jones has vehemently denied any use of illegal performance enhancing drugs. She spoke many times, often defiantly and adamantly, to the press expressing her frustration at even the suggestion that she wasn’t a “clean” athlete. And because she was so candid in her denial, coupled with the lack of a positive test, we believed her…at least I did.

But I should’ve known better, she had smoke all around her. And I’m learning that with steroids, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. She was once married to the aforementioned Holder, and Montgomery is one of her baby’s daddies. Her trainer Trevor Graham was implicated in the federal investigation of the steroids producing company BALCO. Seven other athletes trained by Graham had tested positive for or admitted steroid use. Victor Conte, Founder/President of the BALCO Company, named Marion Jones as one of the athletes that he distributed illegal substances to. She even had to be defended by famed attorney Johnny Cochran while in high school to be cleared of doping charges. And the list of reasons to doubt her innocence could go on.

Yet I believed in her.

But now I question if ANY of her accomplishments on the track are legitimate—from her high school days until now.

And I don’t know why she’s admitting things now; perhaps she is truly remorseful and wanted to come clean. However, I suspect that she watched what happened to Michael Vick, and figured that it was wisest to come clean now and get a good plea deal than to continue denying and be forced to plead guilty later.

What her admission demonstrates to me is that I can’t trust these athletes anymore. Not even when they consistently test negative for steroid use. The fact that Jones denied so consistently, and had eluded a positive A and B sample test, is a very scary reality from a sports fan’s perspective.

What her accomplishments (as well as Johnson’s in ’88, and the East Germans in ’72, and Floyd Landis’ Tour de France victory last year) tell me is that these performance enhancers definitely make a major difference. Clearly these drugs give one an edge over the competition, sometimes years and years before “clean” athletes can match their “dirty” counterparts’ feats.

With Jones’ admission, I pretty much think that an athlete is dirty if their name comes up in steroid suspicions. I recently heard that Alex Rodriguez is on steroids (implicated by admitted user Jose Canseco), so to me, he’s guilty. Sammy Sosa, culpable; Bill Romanowski, a user; Barry Bonds…is there any question?!!

But here’s the worse thing, I am now skeptical of people who have gone down in the annals of history with records that stood for decades or still stand today. The late Florence Griffith Joyner still owns the world record in the 100 meter dash for women (she still owns the 200 m record too, by a huge margin). She set it almost 20 years ago and her time of 10.49 seconds is 0.24 seconds faster than the next best, non-Marion Jones time (Jones fastest time was 10.65 seconds). So to me, she might have been ahead of her time in not only speed, but also in masking her use of performance enhancers. Current 200 meters world record holder Michael Johnson broke the former record by 0.40 seconds back in 1996. How did he do that (he holds the 400m record too)? Heck, Bob Beamon held the world record in the long jump for over 20 years. He might’ve been “juiced.”

Still worse, people who break records that have never been under suspicion are suspect to me. Current men’s 100 meter world record holder, Jamaica’s Asafa Powell (who recently clocked an unreal time of 9.74 seconds) is suspect to me. He is the only person to ever clock times less than 9.80 seconds 5 times, and the only other person to clock a time of 9.77 seconds, American Justin Gatlin, recently tested positive for steroid use.

So the allure to watching athletes has greatly diminished for me. Especially in events where actual skill is not as required as power, strength and speed to be successful. And I don’t know where we can go from here except to just allow all performance enhancing drugs. That way if people want to stay clean that’s their prerogative, but everyone has the option to use steroids, therefore leveling the playing field.

Since that won’t happen, I can’t believe what I’m seeing, and the only thing that I know is that what I’m seeing ain’t real.

-Maelstrom

Congress' Education Proposals

2007-07-30T19:26:00.000-04:00

Like most of America, I typically don’t have much praise for Congress. However, in the last several days Congress may actually be getting something correct on the domestic front. Both the House and the Senate have set in motion Bills that will aid thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans seeking higher education.

According to the Associated Press, over the last 10 years, interest rates on student loans have risen considerably. And just within the last 2 years, interest rates on student loans have increased so dramatically that the amount that some borrowers will (eventually) have to pay back has doubled. In short, the gift of education has become increasingly less affordable for many across the country.

The major focus of the House Bill is to cap the monthly payments for low income borrowers; a practice that has been adopted in other industrialized nations like Great Britain. Hopefully this will also ebb the number of people who don’t pursue degrees due to the fear of high monthly payments, a reality that has been cited as a cause for the loss of interest in low paying (but necessary) service jobs.

The Senate Bill, which was approved unanimously (95-0), targets the actual student loan industry. The Bill bans gifts by loan companies, like Sallie Mae, to public institutions; a move that should prevent specific loan companies from getting preferential treatment on lender lists. That move should help keep the focus on the best interests of each individual student as opposed to focusing on the financial benefit to a school from a particular lender. Also, the Senate Bill aims to make the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) clearer and concise, hopefully leading to fewer costly student mistakes on the application.

During the last few Congresses, and certainly during this current President’s administration, there has been far too little emphasis on domestic issues such as Education, Health Care, Housing and Urban Development. So it is nice to finally see a very significant Bill be brought to the table that actually benefits those of us who live here in this country—a concept that seems to have been lost since the start of our “global war on terror.”

I will have to do further research to better understand the specifics of these proposed legislative moves and all of their ramifications, but I am least glad to see that the legislative branch of our government actually remembered us for a change.

This legislation, along with a recent bolster to the Pell Grant, are certainly positive steps toward helping many people attain that great and powerful gift of education.

-Maelstrom

Vick Indictment

2007-07-20T19:18:00.000-04:00

For several months now a storm has been brewing over the head of Atlanta Falcons Quarterback Michael Vick. The storm of allegations, which included hosting, participating and promoting dog fights on property he owns, seemed to die down. But the storm dramatically worsened this week when he was indicted by federal investigators on those allegations.

And the details in those charges are absolutely horrendous:

Reports of killing dogs that lost prize fights—which likely translates to losses of tens of thousands of dollars—by wetting down a dog and then electrocuting it, slamming another dog on the concrete to kill it, hanging another, and several other unthinkably inhumane dog killings. Investigators even uncovered a “rape stand,” used to hold unwilling female dogs in place to mate with males.

I mean, this ain’t lookin good!

The indictment of Vick comes at a very interesting time in the history of the National Football League (NFL), the league that Vick plays in. The new Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, has been on a mission to clean up the image of the league. He recently took the very drastic step to suspend 2 players for off-the-field activities. Pacman Jones of the Tennessee Titans—suspended for the season, and Tank Johnson of the Chicago Bears—suspended for part of the season, got the attention of the media for skirmishes with the law, but neither was indicted for their actions. In the case of Tank Johnson, he was not only suspended by the league for part of next season, but was also released from his team only to have all criminal charges brought against him dropped.

So the question is, with such a low standard for league suspension (i.e. no indictment, just repeated bad behavior can lead to suspension), how can the Commissioner not suspend Michael Vick now that a Federal Indictment has been leveled against him?

And don’t be fooled by many of the sports reporters that keep saying that Vick is a “first time offender,” and that the league’s zero tolerance posture is meant for repeat offenders (which is oxymoronical in nature). This is not Vick’s first run-in with the law; he has a checkered past, going back several years. His most recent skirmish with the law came earlier this year when he was caught with marijuana in a decoy water bottle at an airport.

As for Vick and potential prison time specifically, if the Feds have taken the time to indict him, and indeed have all the corroborating evidence and eye-witness testimony that it sounds like they have, I think he could actually serve time in the slammer; the most significant charge being brought against him being a Conspiracy charge. That charge means that even if Vick wasn’t present for any of the activities or didn’t participate in any of the activities, he could still serve time for merely agreeing to hide evidence or carry out these activities (etc.).

I hope the allegations aren’t true, because they are outrageously unthinkable. However, whether Vick is convicted or not, I don’t see how he can avoid being suspended for at least a portion of the upcoming NFL season.

-Maelstrom

"A Grave Miscarriage of Justice"

2007-07-11T16:46:00.000-04:00

A couple weeks ago, a further injustice was perpetrated against a young prison inmate by the Georgia State judicial system. Genarlow Wilson was convicted of child molestation for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl at a New Year’s Eve party 3 years ago. Under Georgia state law, Wilson, 17 years old at the time, was committing a crime since the girl was not the legal age of consent, 16. He has been in prison serving a 10 year minimum sentence ever since.

As many people have pointed out, including some of the jurors that actually found Wilson guilty but have since expressed their regret, the law was never intended to be imputed in this fashion. The law was designed to protect children from adult sexual predators; not to jail teenagers for engaging in sexual activities. Since the ruling against Wilson, the law has actually be rewritten so that incidents like the one involving him won’t happen again.

But Wilson remains in prison.

Why?

Because a very cruel State Attorney General (Thurbert Baker) disagrees with the Judge who recently said, “The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice.”

So here’s just how silly this ruling against Wilson is: In the state of Georgia, until this case, it was a misdemeanor for a 17 year old to have intercourse with a 15 year old (with a maximum 1 year jail sentence and no sex offender status ascribed). But the same 17 year old (as Wilson was) can be convicted of felony aggravated assault for performing oral sex with a 15 year old (10 year minimum prison sentence, 1 year probation and required sex offender registration). In fact, until 1998, it was a felony for husband and wife to engage in oral sex in Georgia, punishable with up to 20 years in prison.

And this is how unbelievably heartless the State Attorney General and the Prosecuting Attorney (Eddie Barker) are: The crime that Wilson committed, which has landed him in prison for 10 years, would now only be a misdemeanor with a maximum 1-year sentence and no sex offender registry. But even though the state law has been changed, these to characters think that Genarlow needs to serve out his sentence, or plead guilty.

I should point out that the young lady involved in this case has repeatedly stated that the sex acts committed were totally consensual. But again the law steps in and fogs the situation. Since she was only 15 at the time, she couldn’t consent to have sex, legally.

It is in instances like these that I believe jurors, prosecutors and state attorneys should use responsible, reasonable discretion and consider the actual case over the law (i.e. uphold the spirit of the law, not the letter, since Mr. Baker has derogatorily claimed to have the duty to “uphold state law”). And assertions that by making an exception in this case, the flood gate of appeals will open for others with similar cases is a moot point at best. This instance is egregious, obvious, and I’d imagine that it is highly unlikely many other cases like this exist; and if they do, they should really be re-evaluated.

It is time for Baker and Barker to get off their high horses and do the right thing. Release Genarlow Wilson from prison, no strings attached.

That, Mr Baker, would be upholding the spirit of the law. That would be justice!

-Maelstrom

PS: There is a July 20 hearing for this case...this time I hope they get it right!

Pumping Gas on May 15th

2007-05-09T13:12:00.000-04:00

Around this time every year I get a multitude of email (facebook, friendster, instant messenger) messages telling me not to pump gas on a particular date. This year the date is May 15^th, and supposedly if enough people don’t pump gas on that day, it will cost the oil companies billions of dollars. This is all done in an attempt to get oil companies to lower the price of gasoline.

Well I hate to burst the bubble of millions of Americans, but it ain’t gonna work!

Here’s why: If people top off their gas tanks on May 14^th in anticipation of boycotting May 15^th, or if people fill up on May 16^th, the amount of gas consumed won’t change. The only thing that changes is the amount of gas consumed on a particular day, not the overall amount of gas consumed. Since the amount of gas consumed would be the same overall, there would be no penalty to the gas companies, and hence no reason to change the cost of gas.

But fret not, there are possibilities that exist. Perhaps a similar plan of action could be mildly successful if we were all willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

One method that would be helpful would be to actually take public transportation (carpooling could also work). Most cities, even the small ones, have some form of mass transit that is reasonable with respect to cost (perhaps $1 per ride). Doing this would mean that less people would need to fill their personal vehicles, therefore causing a decrease in consumption at the pump. However, to make a significant dent in the pocketbooks of the oil companies I think such a gas station boycott would have to be sustained for more than a mere day; perhaps a week would suffice.

Unfortunately, in this present nation, the most of us want to be able to go where we want to go, when we want to go. We want the autonomy, and so it is much more convenient to just drive our own cars. Also, not all mass transit functions the hours necessary to sustain people who perhaps work late-night/early-morning shifts.

My final point is one that many will take issue with, but I think its worth thinking about. I recently purchased gas at $3.19 a gallon, and it cost me $47 to fill up my tank (yes, that’s a record for me). Of course I’m not happy with the cost of gas these days, especially since it is seemingly unnecessary given that the oil companies are making an exorbitant amount of money (literally breaking records in revenue during the last year and a half). But the fact of the matter is that we are blessed to only be paying $3 a gallon considering that in many nations gas cost double that, and sometimes more.

We are largely to blame as a nation because we don’t take the opportunities to use mass transit, we unnecessarily buy SUV’s, Minivans and Trucks, we ignored the call to manufacture hybrid vehicles until recently (unlike countries like Japan), and we didn’t take the lead on finding alternative sources of fuel energy (as countries like Brazil did).

So I personally tend not to complain too much about the cost of gas since I know we could be much worse off. And no, I haven’t ignored the reality that we have more motor vehicles in this nation than in others, and that the car industry has been a vital industry in this country since the beginning of last century. But those realities are fast becoming untrue and whether they remain the truth or not, we will still be faced with major problems like destruction of the ozone, global warming, high gas prices, and a need to find alternate sources of fuel.

My ultimate plea to you is instead of not pumping gas on May 15^th this year, try public/mass transit for 3 days. It will actually make a difference, and perhaps you’ll discover that it isn’t as bad as it may sound.

-Maelstrom

Topsy-Turvy

2007-05-02T16:17:00.000-04:00

Throughout the course of the last week, I’ve been watching with great amazement as several teams in the NBA have really turned the tables on the so-called favorites. (Yes, this is a sports posting, so if you were looking for something social or political, check back in a couple of days.) I actually can’t believe some of the things I’ve witnessed, so I’ll give my mid-first round NBA playoffs perspective.

How bout them Bulls? I sat and watched with my mouth wide open as the Chicago Bulls took an insurmountable 3 games to none lead over the defending NBA Champion Miami Heat, eventually sweeping them like dust under a rug. Honestly, I thought the Bulls would win the series in 6 games, but a sweep was not on my radar at all. Wow!

As for wow, I can’t remember the last time there were 3 opening round sweeps. I certainly can’t remember the last time there were 3 opening round sweeps in one conference. But, that’s what happened this past weekend in the Eastern Conference. The #1 Pistons and #2 Cavaliers cleaned house against the Orlando Magic and the Washington Wizards, respectively. Reminds me of the good ole’ days, when the top seeds did what you expected them to; make light-work of their opening round opponents. I think these sweeps must be part of an NBA conspiracy to make me not believe that the league is rigged.

The only series that is competitive in the East is the Toronto Raptors vs. the New Jersey Nets. I thought that Toronto would win that series in 6 games, but now that they’re down 3-2, it appears I may be wrong. Honestly, they looked as young as they are, and the Nets look like the veteran squad they are.

On to the West…

It would be accurate to invoke the cliché “wild, wild west.” Seriously, when the Denver Nuggets and the Golden State Warriors opened up series’ against the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks with wins, my eye brows were raised. Everyone suspected that Denver might pose a problem for the Spurs with Carmello and A.I. leading the Nuggets’ charge, but did anyone really expect to see the Warriors play like champs versus the Mavs?

I know I didn’t.

And of course I knew that Golden State beat Dallas each time they played this year. Yes, I knew that Don Nelson was coaching Golden State against the Dallas team that he largely cultivated, and against a coach (Avery Johnson) that he was mentor for. But I just knew that all the pre-postseason (if I can call it that) talk about how the Warriors gave the Mavs trouble all year long was going to be the fuel to push the Mavericks to dominate the Warriors. Honestly, I picked Dallas to win the series in 4 games; maybe 5.

Boy was I wrong! And seriously, Dallas is lucky to still be playing in the postseason. Golden State should have put them away Tuesday night. Maybe Dallas will pull out the series in 7, but if they do, it won’t be easy.

So here’s how I see the playoffs finishing. In the West I expect Houston to close out Utah in game 6, San Antonio to put Denver to rest in game 5, and Phoenix to put Kobe and the Lakers out of their misery in 5 (maybe 6). And yes, I’m jumpin’ ship and saying that Golden State will end the Dallas Mavericks great season. My only fear is that the Warriors are too tired to keep up their game play, since they are functioning with a short 8 man rotation. But I think they’re tenacious enough to do it. With Dallas out (should they lose), I totally expect the Spurs to win the Western Conference, barring injury, because they are the most effective team at keeping the Phoenix Suns’ Steve Nash out of the paint. If you keep Nash out of the paint, you prevent him from dominating the game. If you stop Nash, you stop the Suns (hint to all teams playing against teams with dominant guards; keep them out of the paint).

In the East, I think the Pistons will have their hands full with the upstart “Baby Bulls.” The Bulls play with a passion and an intensity that maybe only Golden State is playing with in this season’s postseason. They play like they have something to prove while the Pistons play like they’ve already won the game just by stepping on the court. I don’t think the Bulls are a better team than the Pistons, but they play with enough heart to beat them at times. That said, I still think the Pistons will win the series in 6, maybe 7 games, and end up playing the New Jersey Nets in the Eastern Conference Finals. To get there, I think the Nets will take 7 games in disposing of Lebron and the Cleveland Cavs, because the Cavs are a weak #2 seed in my opinion.

Ultimately I think we’ll see a repeat of the 2005 NBA finals with the Spurs beating the Pistons in 6. Yes, to those that know me this may seem like sacrilege, but even though I am a die-hard Pistons’ fan, I think they are a much softer team with Flip Saunders as coach than they were with Larry Brown or Rick Carlisle. The Spurs are just as tough today as they were 2 years ago.

I must say that with the topsy-turvy nature of these playoffs, this may be the best NBA postseason I’ve seen in a decade, and I can’t wait to see how it plays out!

-Maelstrom

Is There Any Humanity?

2007-04-20T09:17:00.000-04:00

In the wake of the tragedy that occurred this week at Virginia Tech, several questions have arisen. First it was “who did this,” then it was “who died,” and the ubiquitous question of “why,” served as a major backdrop throughout the events. By Tuesday we found out who did this and we found out who died. On Wednesday the story took a drastic turn when it was discovered that the killer had delivered a package to NBC news. The package contained self-made video footage, photographs, and an 1800 word manifesto from the killer that law enforcement officials had hoped that would answer that ominous question of why?

Although the package gave an insightful look at a very troubled individual, it didn’t answer the great question of why.

Aside from the completely unnecessary and unwarranted murder of so many individuals, another aspect of the story that troubles me is the media coverage of the now infamous package of information. As in other recent cases the media has, in my opinion, gone too far in its explicit disclosure of all the contents of the information that the killer sent to NBC.

Imagine if you were one of the victims’ family members; would you want to relive the last moments of your childs’ life through images released to the media? Even worse, if you were one of the victims that was shot or saw classmates shot, would you really want to hear this man rail against the victims as if he knew them all?

I don’t think so.

And since the latest news cycle has past, I know that I’m no longer thinking in a speculative manner, as many of the victims and their families have expressed disappointment in the media’s decision to release the killer’s photos and videos.

Ultimately, I think the media is acting as an enabler to the sick purposes that the killer intended this package for. Obviously the killer knew that his image and his words would be heard if he sent this package to NBC. Essentially he knew that he would be glorified and immortalized by doing this, and now the media has done exactly that.

Too much emphasis has been placed on the killer and not enough attention has been paid to the people who lost their lives in such a senseless way. Fortunately the media has wised up a little in the last day, and begun expressing praise for the lives that the victims led. I think the media would be better served by continuing in that direction and the nation would be better served if the killer (his actions, intent, purpose, behavioral patterns, etc.) was thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and psychological professionals, not the media. And should any significant findings come of these investigations (findings that affect us all), then make that information part of the news coverage.

I know that in this day and age of 24 news coverage, home-made videos, full-disclosure social networking and youtube.com, we have become accustomed to seeing everything about everything. In fact, if people use any level of discretion, even if it’s to protect their family, it’s frowned upon.

Perhaps the only “normal” thing that I’ve witnessed from Tom Cruise in recent years was his refusal to allow the media to take pictures of he and Katie Holmes’ baby. But when this occurred, the media jumped on it and made a big hoopla about this lack of disclosure, and connected it to his Scientologist beliefs, and pretty much wrote it off as crazy. Honestly, I don’t see what’s wrong with protecting your baby from the media mob. I think the people who are crazy are the ones who hide out in bushes with cameras for weeks, trying to take one photo of the baby.

When Saddam Hussein was hanged, it wasn’t enough that the tv media showed everything up to the point just before his body was dropped through the floor, people wanted to see the whole thing. So millions of people signed on to youtube.com to watch the unadulterated, unedited version of the hanging.

For literally a split second, Janet Jackson’s boob was on display at the 2004 Superbowl Halftime show. Of those that were actually watching, many had no idea what they had seen. On top of that tens of millions of people would have never known or seen the “wardrobe malfunction” if it weren’t for the news. For several days the world became acquainted with Janet’s pastie, as the clip was on constant loop, making a big issue out of something that was an absolute non-issue.

We witnessed a similar occurrence later in 2004 in the aftermath of the “basketbrawl” involving the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers. ESPN ran the entire brawl on a 20 minute repeat throughout the course of the night. And it’s no conincidence to me that the following day there was a huge fight on the field between opposing college football teams (see 11.22.04 posting "The Media Again...").

The media is making a habit of unnecessarily divulging visual information that could easily be explained verbally. I think these visual images do unnecessary damage and amplify instances that don’t need to be amplified. If it was so reprehensible to see Janet’s breast, then why repeat it in slow motion on the news. In my opinion showing the basketbrawl led to other brawls in the immediate aftermath. In the current instance surrounding Virginia Tech, I suspect that we’ll see copycats in the future because the media has, in a sense, glorified him by displaying these images.

The only instance where discretion seems to have been at play is the sad story of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin being killed by a stingray last labor day. There was video footage of it, but those who were close to Irwin committed to not releasing the footage to the media even though I know there are many people who wanted to see it for themselves.

I’m glad they didn’t air the footage, and I just wish that the media would take that example and use it as a model. The story of his death was verbally told, and each of us can imagine what the scene might have looked like for ourselves. But nothing, from a news perspective, was lost by the decision to not air the footage.

Discretion can still be a good thing!

Out of respect for the victims of Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech, I just wish that the media would demonstrate some level of humanity, and desist from glorifying the killer, focus on what we can learn from the situation, and honor the lives of those that were lost.

-Maelstrom

Where Were Al and Jesse When…

2007-04-17T16:42:00.000-04:00

In the aftermath of the Imus debacle, I was astounded to hear the slew of criticisms of Civil Rights’ leaders, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. Critics from all sides kept saying that Jackson and Sharpton don’t have the “moral authority” to criticize Imus. I also heard that they aren’t Black leaders and there were many implications that they both are irrelevant and unnecessary. I also kept hearing that its time for new leadership in the Black community. Finally, I keep hearing “where are they (Jackson and Sharpton) when Black rappers denigrate Black women with their hip hop music?”

The only one of those criticisms I’ll agree with is that it’s time for new leadership in the Black community. But I don’t agree because Jackson and Sharpton are illegitimate leaders, rather because it is time for a new generation of leaders to stand up and carry on the work that Jackson and Sharpton have been carrying on since their predecessors passed the torch to them following the Civil Rights’ movement of the 50’s and 60’s.

In comparing Imus with Jackson and Sharpton, the media has dredged up 1 (Jackson) or 2 (Sharpton) statements that could be construed as racist, therefore maintaining that if Imus was wrong for making racists statements, Jackson and Sharpton aren’t the people to tell him so.

I disagree!

If Jackson and Sharpton did make racist statements, that makes Imus’ statements no less racist. Furthermore, Jackson and Sharpton are recognized as defenders for those who otherwise can’t defend themselves, therefore affording them the kind of clout that can bring light to a situation that deserves such attention. Acting in that capacity, despite purported past transgressions, they were certainly qualified to criticize Imus’ attack on the ladies of Rutgers. And I’m not typically into comparing levels of wrong-doing, but I think the media’s comparison of 1 or 2 politically incorrect sound bytes by Jackson and Sharpton is vastly different than a weekly barrage of bigoted, sexist and racist tirades over the last thirty years by Imus.

Above all the criticisms of the duo that bothered me over the last few days, the assertion that Jackson and Sharpton haven’t criticized Black rappers for using vile, derogatory and destructive language has just astonished me the most. I keep hearing “where are they” when rappers are using the same kind of language that got Imus canned. I submit to you that the question isn’t “where were Jackson and Sharpton when rappers used this kind of language,” but rather, “where was the media when Jackson and Sharpton were criticizing this era of rappers for using such language?”

I’m astounded that this criticism even exists given some of the events that Jackson and Sharpton have been involved with over the last 3 years.

As it pertains to Sharpton not speaking out about rappers and their violence and misogyny, I challenge anyone to do one thing: go to google.com and type these three words “sharpton rap violence.” A quick click on any of the hits that return should indicate to you that Rev. Al Sharpton has been fighting the war on violence and misogyny in rap music for several years. He’s even written editorials about it (see one in the New York Daily News archives: March 7, 2005). Sharpton even called for a 90 day ban and boycott on rap music that used such language and imagery; a boycott that got support from esteemed Princeton Professor Cornel West as well as Jesse Jackson. So, where was the media when Sharpton was attacking the rappers as he has done Imus? There is no inconsistency in his attack on Imus, it follows the same pattern he first established with rappers.

As for Jackson, due to his common last name a google search is a little harder to do, but we are on the heels of at least two major instances in which he called out Black artists for saying denigrating things. Following Michael Richards’ (of Seinfeld) racist tirade during a comedy act last year, Jackson brought Michael Richards and Paul Mooney on his radio show and convinced them both to quit using the “N” word, and Mooney committed to not using the “B” word anymore as well (in case you don’t know, Mooney is a Black comedian who is often credited with proliferating the use of the “N” word in comedy). Jackson didn’t have to bring Mooney on the show along with Richards, but he did because both men clearly had a problem using vile language in their professions. No distinction of Black or White was made at all. Where was the nationwide media at then?

Many have become well acquainted with Bill Cosby’s very loud disapproval of rap music and the way that Black parents are raising their children in this new millennium. Well one of the first prominent people to stand up alongside Cosby was none other than the Rev. Jesse Jackson. So to say that he hasn’t been around and hasn’t criticized black rappers for all these years, but is now scapegoating Imus, is completely false.

I will stop there for now, but I could opine about how both men are not “self-appointed leaders of the Black community” as several Black journalists have stated in the last week; they are leaders of the Black community by virtue of the body of work they have put together over the last 50 plus years (which include 3 very profoundly run Presidential campaigns as well as countless diplomatic acts here and abroad).

I’ll just finish by emphasizing that, with respect to Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson as it pertains to violence and misogyny in America today, THERE IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD!!! They have been consistent on these issues across the board! The media that keeps spouting these falsities should get back to journalistic integrity and dig up some files that will confirm what I’ve written in this post today.

The question isn’t “where were Al and Jesse when…,” it remains “where was the media when Al and Jesse were raising the issue before!”

-Maelstrom (a very frustrated, disturbed and disappointed Maelstrom)

PS: Sharpton certainly did apologize for his now infamous “white interlopers” comment!

Introducing Mr. Imus

2007-04-13T16:28:00.000-04:00

Over the course of the last week many people became familiar with a man by the name of Don Imus. In case you still aren’t aware of who he is, let me fill you in. Don Imus was a CBS nationally syndicated radio talk show host who also had a television simulcast on MSNBC. He is often credited as being the original “shock jock” (that is to say that he was the first Howard Stern). Over the years he had taken on a much more intellectual and political radio persona, however he maintained many of the elements in his radio show that made him a shock jock.

He is currently in the news because last week, following the NCAA women’s basketball championship game, he made gender-cruel and racially incendiary comments toward the Rutgers women’s basketball team. The phrase that is most notably quoted from his near-minute tirade is “nappy headed hoes,” in reference to the predominantly black Rutgers team.

There are plenty of viewpoints that I could attack this issue from (including the implications of a phrase such as nappy-headed, to the issue of the lee-way money and influence can offer someone in his position), but I will try to be as targeted and focused as possible. I will direct most of this post toward explaining why I think Imus was well deserving of being fired, and briefly why comparisons of Imus to Hip-hop artists are misguided and ill-informed to a large extent.

In fact, let me start with that latter point.

Criticisms of hip-hop artists have become a major part of the conversation since this story gained nationwide attention. I’d like to say that for years rappers have been the topic of criticism by countless black leaders and commentators (including Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). The verbal disrespect and the visual denigration they have propagated toward women, black women in particular, cannot be overstated. The negative nature of much (not all) of the culture is indeed reprehensible. However, the only similarity between Imus’ comments last week and the kinds of lyrics that we’ve become accustomed to hearing from rappers is the word ‘ho.’ And perhaps that is why the phrase “nappy-headed ho” is the only one the mass media, which is certainly dominated by white men, is the only one that we keep hearing about from Imus’ rant.

I would like to point out that Imus (and the guest on the show that day) went on to make very racially charged insinuations and gender/racial comparisons between the Tennessee and Rutgers women’s basketball teams. He even went so far as to compare watching the teams play each other to watching the Jigaboo’s playing the Wannabe’s (a reference to ‘School Daze,’ one of Spike Lee’s earlier films addressing the nature of classism amongst black people). The point I’m trying to make is that people who are upset that Imus got fired because “black rappers talk like this all the time” are looking only at a three word phrase that was apart of a much longer, more inflammatory discourse than the media is focusing on (seriously, dig up the entire tirade, I’m sure its somewhere on the internet, and you’ll understand what I’m talking about).

Imus has made racists statements totally unrelated to the kinds of misogynistic statements that (black) rappers have made over the years. Among some of his more recent racist statements are characterizations of Barack Obama as “that colored fellow,” referring to black female PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill as “the cleaning lady,” and discussing black female tennis players Venus and Serena Williams as savages that belonged in National Geographic instead of in Playboy magazine; AND THE LIST GOES ON, SERIOUSLY (a short list is included in the wikipedia.org entry about Imus)!

Certainly rappers aren’t saying such things. The two are not the same and I wish people would quit with the comparisons. Rappers are a different kind of evil which I have addressed in the past (see my 6/23/04 post ‘What’s a Tip Drill’), and will likely address in the future.

As for Imus being fired, people keep saying that “he is a good person and that it is wrong to fire him over this instance,” and “why didn’t they fire him before (when he made adverse statements) if he was so wrong this time,” and that “you have to take the man as a whole instead of just looking at one statement.” And the one that is frustrating me the most, “we have Free Speech, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants.”

Well, let me clear all of those arguments up by simply pointing out that any number of “good people” have been fired from various kinds of jobs for carrying on in behavior that their employer deemed detrimental to the company. Imus is a person who worked for large corporations, and they reserve the right to fire him for such behavior (I’m sure it was in his contract somewhere).

To briefly address the issue of Free Speech, I’d like to point out that Free Speech was totally exercised in this instance and not hampered at all. Imus exercised his right to Free Speech by saying what he said, the community and community leaders (including the very eloquent Rutgers Team) exercised their Free Speech by expressing their disdain for his comments, Imus’ corporate sponsors freely spoke by pulling their sponsorship from his shows, and his employers spoke by pulling him from their programming. Free speech was indeed exercised and not encumbered at all.

I hate it when people cower behind “free speech, free speech” when these types of situations come up. What you have to understand is the context under which you have free speech. There are regulations on virtually everything because virtually everyone has to answer to someone. We also have the “right to bear arms” as part of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can get a gun and that you can use it whenever, where ever and however you feel. So for the people crying “free speech,” are you also crying that a criminal has the “right to bear arms” when a masked fellow sticks up the local grocery store with a gun?

Free speech comes with many benefits, but can also come with consequences.

One thing that I find very interesting in watching countless hours of news coverage on this topic is that many of the people who are defending Imus by crying Free Speech were on board with the FCC for fining MTV and CBS and other stations during the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, and were upset that Bono (of U2) said the “F” word during a live telecast. So you want to regulate the F-word and a split second of a breast that most of the world didn’t see until after the news kept replaying it in slow motion, but you don’t want to censor a man who spews vile, hateful things ad nauseam everyday. I think there’s something seriously backwards with this.

On to my next point…

I know plenty of people that have been axed from their job for far less egregious offenses (like being consistently late) despite the good work they do or the good people that they are. So on this point, isn’t it fair that someone who has consistently engaged in detrimental behavior also be fired from his position. Sounds like the American way to me.

In my opinion, the great good that could easily come out of the Don Imus controversy is that now the hip-hop community may actually have to adjust the very low standards that the lyrics of the music and the imagery of the videos have set…

…And that is a great thing.

Till next time,

Maelstrom

America No You Didn't

2006-11-17T20:25:00.000-05:00

I know the title may be a little misleading, but this is a serious issue to me! It’s not often that I give in to watching TV’s most annoying genre “Reality TV,” which is often the farthest thing from reality. However, one show has captured my attention for the last two full seasons, and part of the first. That show, “Dancing with the Stars,” just completed its latest season, and I must report that I have an incredible disdain for all those that voted for its eventual champion. In the final episode, former Dallas Cowboys’ running back Emmitt Smith beat former Saved by the Bell star Mario Lopez.

So anybody with far less than 20/20 vision could easily see that Mario Lopez is a far better dancer than Emmitt Smith. Not only is he a better dancer, but each of his performances, week by week, was nearly flawless. Yet and still the judges, who seemed determined to turn the competition into a farce by giving Smith a better score than Lopez when both danced Samba routines to the same song—even though Lopez literally gave a performance that obliterated Smith’s. So the day after the horrible ending to the season, I watched all the news shows, read all the comments, and visited all the message boards about the show. Unfortunately I read a litany of flawed arguments supporting the ultimate outcome. So let me just clearly lay out all of my counter arguments, and then I’ll be through.

To start, I suppose I’ll have to argue my points from a variety of different show definitions since there are several floating around now. I’ll start with the simplest definition: The winner of the show should be the best dancer by the end of the competition. Of course that’s not what happened here, so that argument is done.

The next argument is that the show is about taking a star that is not a dancer by trade, and turning them into a (ballroom) dancer. To justify the horrendous show results, people keep saying that Mario “already knew how to dance” and Emmitt didn’t. Now certainly it appears that Mario spends much time at the club breakin’ it down on the dance floor. However, I critically doubt that while bouncing through all the hottest Hollywood hotspots Mario Lopez was dancing the Paso Doble, the Jive, the Samba, the Mambo, the Tango or the Waltz. I don’t know why, but that’s just a crazy thought that crossed my mind when considering this argument, and clearly that reasoning doesn’t permeate the greater portion of show viewers. But who knows, maybe you can catch Mr. Lopez at “Peanuts” in L.A. Waltzing the night away. BUT, with this argument in mind, I’d like to point out that for years I’ve heard football players (mostly wide receivers and running backs…like Smith) tout dancing (mostly ballet) as a way for them to learn better balance and control while playing football. Perhaps Smith had such training? If so, wouldn’t he, not Lopez, have an unfair advantage?

One argument that I truly disdain is this notion that Mario was as good at the last episode as he was at the beginning, but Emmitt got better throughout the show. HOLD UP…did these people watch the whole season. I did, and Emmitt absolutely did NOT get appreciably better throughout the course of the show. He progressed about as much as a tortoise running the 100-meter dash. The fact of the matter is very few of the shows final participants progressed tremendously from week 1 to the end. The one exception being Monique Coleman, who should’ve been in the final with Mario in my opinion (and I admit that despite the fact that I’m totally in love with Edyta, Joey Lawrence’s partner, and loved every episode that she graced—half-naked with those long sexy legs of hers).

I also keep hearing that Mario was “cocky,” and I read that Mario “knew he had it in the bag.” NO, NO, NO!!!! Those are characteristics that we, as human beings, assign to people (often wrongly) who are confident and good at what they do. At no point during the show did I get the impression that Lopez was a cocky S-O-B. In fact, do you recall the episode where there were behavioral analyses of the show’s contestants? The finding of the behavior analyst was that Mario had the classic look of someone that was subservient when the judges were handing down their judgments. Does that sound like someone who’s cocky? And on the flipside of the coin, how many times did Emmitt Smith refer to “not wanting to lose,” and “being a champion?” Such comments by Smith saturated the final 4 episodes. Sound like someone who’s not cocky?

Smith seemed bent on winning and being the champion, which seems cocky to me. But Mario has been assigned the cocky label. Smith’s dancing didn’t markedly improve over the course of the show. But we recall that Mario looked good in both the 1^st and last episodes, so we say he didn’t get better and Emmitt did. We say that Smith won over the crowd and that’s why he won, even though almost all of Mario’s performances elicited standing ovations.

So here’s the deal, the results of the show demonstrate human nature. When someone is confident and good at something (like Lopez), we tend to call them cocky even when they aren’t. And when someone is an underdog (like Smith), we tend to root for them, often overlooking their shortcomings in the process. For example, many of the things that people now criticize Lopez for could easily be leveled at Smith. But we only remember who the underdog was, and I suppose that’s something that the majority of the population can identify with, therefore we vote accordingly.

But it wasn’t just the viewing audience that was guilty of demonstrating human nature. Even the judges were guilty…BIG TIME!!! I still can’t see how they justify giving Emmitt a perfect 30 for his Samba during the last episode, but only giving Mario a 29 when they danced the same dance to the same music. Mario was better than Emmitt by leaps and bounds. Then again the judges are only human, and that was evident in their comments. Carrie Ann Inaba, one of the three judges, once exclaimed that because she perceived Mario to be a good dancer that she was going to be more critical about his performances. HOW IS THAT FAIR???!!!!!

I really appreciated the American public when they finally voted Jerry Springer off; even if it was an episode too late (Willa Ford should not have gotten voted off before Jerry…she had mad potential). But in the finale they got it all wrong, and for all the wrong (very flawed) reasons.

I pretty much avoid Reality TV with a passion, but being the amateur dancer that I am this one has caught my eye each time. I just wish that the American public would give up on this “root for the underdog” mentality and just let the underdog fight for itself (unless you’re referring to the University of Michigan this weekend vs. the Ohio State University).

Once again America, you have disappointed me. Mario “A.C. Slater” Lopez should’ve won hands down.

America, no you didn’t!!!

-Maelstrom

Back From Retirement?

2006-08-29T21:34:00.000-04:00

Ok, I really shouldn’t be doing this because I have plenty to work on, but I had to take 15 minutes to return from retirement because I’m pretty livid about the news.

Yes, that’s right, JonBenet Ramsey has brought me out of retirement; at least momentarily!

Can someone explain to me how JonBenet EVER became national news? Do you know how many young little girls are (sadly and disgustingly) murdered each year? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the case made huge headlines last decade, a whole 10 years after the story was national news, this “not national news story” was exhumed and made national news because some creep (WHO OBVIOUSLY WASN’T THE KILLER!) claimed he loved JonBenet and accidentally killed her.

To be fair, I certainly think that the little girl's death was tragic, and I don’t want to diminish it at all, but I do want to call attention to the fact that this WAS NEVER NATIONAL NEWS.

So you already know what I think…this was just another instance proving that America’s worst nightmare isn’t Terrorism, Budget Deficits, The Axis of Evil, Cuts in Education Funding, Social Security, or Health Care: America’s worst nightmare is the murder or kidnapping of Blonde Hair, Blue-Eyed White Women…well at least the murder or kidnapping of a White Woman (White Girls included).

And even the most reputable, in my opinion, of News Reporters’ fell victim to reporting on this case. I was incredibly disheartened when even Anderson Cooper, whom I really respect, had this JonBenet garbage as his lead story for several nights over the course of the last couple of weeks on CNN.

So I’m calling on the media in this country to be responsible and to think. I knew this guy wasn’t the killer when his ex-wife (who actually hates him) said that he was with her and the kids every Christmas during their marriage, including the Christmas that JonBenet was killed. Furthermore, there was never any record of this man ever being in Colorado. I mean, seriously, there was not a shred of credibility to any of his claims, and yet the dumb Boulder, Colorado District Attorney tried to make a case out of this, and the media slurped it up like it was a bowl of hot chili in Antarctica.

Meanwhile, there are very serious issues going on in this country as well as around the world that actually matter and should actually be reported on. Notice how JonBenet trumped the War in Lebanon, Iran, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, an unstable stock market, and even Hurricane Katrina’s 1-year anniversary coverage.

How ironic that last year I wrote (October 25, 2005) about how I was angry that the lead story on Fox News, the Thursday after Katrina hit, was about Natallee Holloway while Tens of Thousands of people were suffering through a lack of governmental response in New Orleans and the Gulf States. Different girl, but with the same “paint-job,” eliciting the same stupid-media response. That is no coincidence, but it is a shame.

I still think there is something foul in the water in the State of Colorado (see my blog from March 8, 2005), and I still think the media is failing in their duty to report on stories of importance to the populace (see my blogs from May 1, 2006, March 30, 2005 and Jan 1, 2006).

Ok, my 15 minutes are up, have a nice day!

-Maelstrom

The Hiatus

2006-07-06T18:59:00.000-04:00

Ok, I hope you have 10 minutes of free time because this is going to take a lil’ while to read!

I really hate to do what I’m about to do, but I think it is necessary for several reasons. I have been officially blogging for over 2 years now and I think it’s time for a break. This is difficult for me to do, mostly because writing is one of my 3 biggest passions in life. But I don’t want to write unless it’s good, and I don’t know if I have the time to write reputable posts here at The Vortex these days.

When I first began blogging I wanted everything I wrote to be as if I’d written it for The New York Times’ or Washington Posts’ Editorial Page. I wanted to become “Syndicated Columnist Maelstrom” to my readers. And though I have a handful of short posts here, the majority of my 130+ posts over the last 2 years have indeed been full length, in-depth “articles” that could land in a reputable newspaper column somewhere, with a little polishing of course. I also intended to post 2 new topics each week. And though I came out the gates charging ahead with almost 4 new posts each week, I’ve since slowed to less than 1 a week, which I deem unacceptable.

Initially I was inspired by a love interest that I wanted to impress at all costs. So even though The Vortex was bound to exist because writing and sharing my opinions with others have always been on my “to do” list, it certainly helped me to think that I was impressing her. Once that particular impetus to write left me several months after I began, I then relied on a “something to prove” mentality to motivate me to write. And through it all, I have survived off the comments I’ve received on my site; the anonymous comments posted at the bottom of my posts, the verbal reinforcement, the IM convo’s that I’ve had with many of you. These things have kept me going because I didn’t want to disappoint my reading audience.

Through much of my life, writing has been there for me. It is an elixir of sorts for me. When I would argue and dispute with my siblings till I could argue no more, I’d go to my room and write down all my frustrations. When I felt inspired by nature, I’d write down what I thought was beautiful poetry. When death surrounded me, I could console my aching heart by writing down my thoughts. The remedying benefits of writing haven’t left me and never will. Indeed, writing here at The Vortex has helped me through the absolute most difficult time in my life.

Despite the desire I have to keep this site up, other current obligations will supercede it for at least the next 2 months. After those 2 months are up, I will decide if I can continue.

And though you may not be able to tell it from the last several months of posts here, I have written on almost every topic worthy of a post. I just haven’t posted the vast majority of them because I didn’t have the time to proofread, polish, or even finish what I’d written.

I want to write about Intelligent Design and how silly the debate over it is to me. But maybe not in the way you think I think. I mean, those who are truly God-believing people shouldn’t try to disguise their belief with man-made science. God needs no scientific validation. Is your faith in God so weak that you have to justify His existence through earthly, man-made devices???

I want to write about the loud political rhetoric coming from the Right wing of our government in the aftermath of al-Zarqawi’s death. Gay marriage and flag burning are just 2 of the major rabbits that they have once again pulled out of the hat (they do this every election year). Hopefully no one will be fooled by this silliness, but I know people are often tricked into voting on these issues as opposed to issues that are genuinely affecting their every day life.

I want to write about how there is NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OR RELIGION in this country, and that this is no mistake. Therefore, it is completely plausible that in the next 40 years this could be a predominantly Spanish speaking country with Buddhists beliefs. And that would, to me, represent the essence of what the Founding Fathers wanted given the deliberate nature of their beliefs by leaving those 2 points of contention out of the Constitution. So sing the national anthem in Spanish, Swahili or Cantonese, as long as it is out of respect for this nation. And respect all religions as long as you expect yours to be respected.

I want to write about Kobe vs. Shaq and how people who are all-of-a-sudden Miami Heat fans are really just Kobe haters in disguise. People that hate Kobe love Miami because Shaq plays for them. Likewise, people that hate Miami love Kobe, and by proxy love the Lakers. NO YOU DIDN’T LIKE MIAMI 2 YEARS AGO, AND PROBABLY COULDN’T FIND IT ON A MAP, you just hate Kobe! Keep it thorough!!!

I want to write about the Shooting Stars I’ve been seeing over the past week, and the approach of an asteroid toward Earth’s orbit, and the appearance of several planets. Why? Because I’m a stargazer…I can’t help it!

I want to write about my belief that setting a timetable to leave Iraq is the absolute right thing to do, and how at some point we will have to anyhow, if for no other reason than the fact that our Armed Services are overextended worldwide. And once again consider that nothing has happened in Iraq without a deadline. The turnover of the Iraqi government, the many elections, and the filling of their cabinet all had to happen on a time schedule. Funny thing is, when there was no “bloodbath” following these deadlines the President and his administration praised the Iraqi people, and criticized people who said that the deadline would bring insurgents out of the wood-work and give rise to a bloodbath. BUT NOW, a deadline to bring our troops home would be sending the wrong message to the Iraqi people and would allow the insurgents to just lie in wait to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people??? Which one is it Mr. President, you can’t straddle the fence, you can’t have it both ways, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

As an addendum to the last paragraph, I want to write about how pathetic I think Congress is, especially after they spent a week debating over a pull-out of our troops from Iraq. During this debate 2 Democratic bills were on the table that outlined a pull-out of our Troops from Iraq. The Republicans called these bills “cut and run,” but then the President’s own Commander in Iraq came out a few days later and outlined a plan to pull-out of Iraq that sounded eerily similar to the Democratic Reed-Levin proposal. Go figure!

As an addendum to that paragraph, I’d like to write about how the Republicans are great at giving everyone 2 options (e.g. “It’s either America or al-Qaeda” or “are we gonna cut and run or stay the course”) when there are a plethora of options on almost any topic. There are only a few things that are as black and white as the Republicans would have you believe. I mean, you’re only pregnant or you’re not, and you’re either dead or you’re alive. Some people even debate those.

I’d also like to write about how pathetic the Democrats are. They have virtually every political argument in their favor right now and they still can’t capitalize.

I want to write about the many contradictions in what is said by this administration and what is actually happening. For instance, if we want to find Bin laden, why are we pulling troops out of Afghanistan and allowing NATO to take over there when we believe that we could’ve caught him before when we first invaded over there, but made the mistake of turning over the responsibility to Afghan soldiers? Shouldn’t we be “staying the course” in Afghanistan if Bin Laden is the guy we’re after? If we are safer now than before, why is it just as easy to get illegal objects on airplanes and into our nations’ ports now as it was “before?” Why isn’t there border security to our north or to our south? WHY DON’T I FEEL SAFER?!!!

I want to write about how Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States in 2003 after doing nothing, but how now North Korea is not a threat after they shot off 7 missiles the other day, 1 of which was capable of reaching US soil. Another glaring contradiction that further amazes me because we know that they have a Nuclear Weapons program, and may already have between 6 and 8 Nuclear warheads. Iraq, as you might recall, had none!

I want to write about Women, because I like them and I want them to like me too! Especially Jessica Alba!

I want to write about Watch ads (yes, that timepiece on your wrist) and how they always have the Watch set to 10:10 in magazine ads.

I want to write about Music from Jazz to Hip Hop, Salsa to Gospel.

I want to write about how I STILL think BET is the worst channel on TV and they should just let me run it.

I really, really, really want to write about how I think that if you watch Maury Povich’s Talk Show, that you are complicit in the degradation of America. What a waste of time, life, and brain cells!!! He is not helping those people or those children, and he knows it. And if you watch, you are only contributing to the delinquency of those ignorant acting people on his show.

I want to write about how to make Grey’s Anatomy much better. I mean, I enjoy the show, but the plotlines could be more in-depth and as of now, the writing is only 1 level better than that of the incredibly in-depth Desperate Housewives.

So, as you can see, I have a lot to say, and a lot to write about. But duties lie before me that I cannot ignore, and they take much time to get through. Hopefully I’ll be able to resume posting here by the end of August, but for now I don’t know. So for now, I’ll just refer to this prose hibernation as The Hiatus!

Thank you to everyone that has read this page. Thank you to everyone that has passed this site on to friends. A special thank you to those who discuss serious issues with me which often spark trains of thought in my head which then end up on this site. A special thanks to a gentleman who has spread the word all over my current campus about this site, and has been one of only a few people in my new world that I can carry on an elevated conversation with (Lester, you know I’m talkin’ about you man).

You all don’t know how much the last 2 years of writing here at The Vortex have meant to me. Honestly, it has been a blessing of sorts for me. I truly want to say Thank You!!!

I’ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes:

“People don’t change when they’re told they need to, people change when they realize they must” -Thomas Friedman

Gracias!
-Maelstrom

PS: Much of what I’ve written over the last 2 years is still relevant. Indeed, some of the issues I addressed exactly 1 year ago are finally being debated nationwide. Point is, The Vortex is still a viable resource for out of the box thinking…so just peruse some of my old posts. You won’t be disappointed!

Let's Talk Sports

2006-05-31T23:20:00.000-04:00

Serious stuff today, fun stuff later!

Over last weekend, in a show of solidarity with the Men’s Lacrosse Team, Duke University’s Womens Lacrosse team wore arm bracelets with the numbers of the 3 indicted Men's Lacrosse players on them during their tournament game. My first response was “what?!!!” I actually couldn’t believe the act. And I’ll echo the sentiments of Sports Reporter John Saunders of ESPN, who was thinking the same thing I was, in explaining my surprise.

Although we don’t know if the rape allegations against the men are true at this point, we do know that the Men’s Lacrosse team paid for strippers to entertain them at an off-campus party. And at least one of the Men’s players wrote a very cryptic, violent email, threatening to commit murder in his angst over the rape allegations.

Given these realities, I’m puzzled as to how self respecting women that have even a shred of understanding of the gravitas of the situation at hand, can so brazenly cast their lots in favor of support of these men. Either ignorance abounds, or peer pressure is a beast…maybe both.

Here's a thought for the Duke's Women's Lacrosse team: If they want to support someone so bad, maybe they could look around their locker room. Here are some quick, startling stats and a statement that I am borrowing from John Saunders because he’s totally correct: Between 14 and 20 percent of all women will be sexually assaulted their lives. Over half of all women in college will be sexually assaulted in some form during their time there. And this is just disgusting, but a recent study pointed out that 15% of men in college ADMIT to sexually assaulting a woman. Now, given that many women don’t report rape (and I’m sure that many men never own up to their sick criminal act), imagine that those percentages are certainly underestimates.

And with those stats, I’ll simply echo Saunders sentiments in saying that if the Women’s Lacrosse team wants to stick their necks out and support someone then they should look around their locker room, because it is highly likely that one of their teammates, as a result of sexual assault, could use their support.

Keeping with the women in sports theme, also over last weekend Indy Car fanatics crowded into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to watch the famed Indianapolis 500 race. In the field of drivers was 2nd year driver Danica Patrick; the only female in the pack. Since Danica has hit the IndyCar circuit, the profile of the institution has risen to levels that it hasn’t been at in decades. Unfortunately for Danica, she can’t buy a break simply because she’s a woman.

Last Sunday’s Indy 500 was only her 20th start, and sports writers and critics from all over were calling for Danica to win or else they will don her “the next Anna Kournikova.” “If she doesn’t win, the hype is unwarranted,” they'll say. Well look, here’s a lil fact for ya, the average number of starts before winning a single race was 34 for this years Indy 500 field. She actually led for a few laps at last years Indy 500 (en route to a 4th place finish) and she finished in the top 10 again this year. She is actually pretty phenomenal.

In any case, I have to wonder, why so much scrutiny for this one person who is doing more than holding her own. Would we even be talking about how she needs to win to validate herself if she weren’t a woman? On the other hand, would we be paying attention to her if she weren’t attractive and didn’t appear in a handful of magazines in sexy poses?

What a dilemma!!!

Women in sports are in a precarious position. In order to get any acclaim they have to be portrayed as sexy, but at the same time if they aren’t “good” (as defined by the male-dominated media’s criteria) then they get criticized because “she’s only famous because she’s sexy.”

Having said that, I’d like to point out that even Anna Kournikova was a pretty darn good Tennis player. She was ranked number 1 in the world in Doubles Tennis, and was ranked as high as 7th in the WTA Singles standings. And I know she’s criticized for having never won a tournament, but there are literally hundreds of male and female Tennis players out there that have never won and never reached the top 25. In fact, only a few dozen have more than 1 Singles title, and significantly fewer have ever won a Grand Slam.

So, true Kournikova was famous because her looks (though it didn’t start out that way), but that’s because women seemingly have to play the sexy role in order to gain the kind of acclaim that notable male losers get easily. I can reel off a huge list of NBA players, for example, that have never won despite their fame, but are considered great (Malone, Ewing, Baylor, Stockton, A.I., Payton, etc…and the same is true in a wide array of sports, including individual sports like Tennis).

And to get back to Danica, I think the men in the IndyCar field know that she’s good and that they’re gonna get beat by a girl one of these days real soon. So they come out of the woodwork with all these pre-emptive excuses (like Robby Gordon’s comment that she only weighs 100 pounds so she has an advantage over the 160+ pound guys). Even the old racing men have come out of nowhere to take swipes at her (Racing great Richard Petty said just prior to the Indy 500 that women shouldn’t be on the race track).

Let ‘em talk Danica…then you show ‘em how ladies do it!

-Maelstrom

Straight Talk on Illegal Immigration

2006-05-21T19:40:00.000-04:00

With further recent revelations surrounding our governments Domestic Spying program through the NSA, I must begin by reminding you of some very important facts. Number 1, neither the NSA spying program nor the Patriot Act would have been necessary to prevent the attacks of 9/11 (as reported by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report). Furthermore Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and all the reasons that we went to War with Iraq have proven to be false and unfounded (including the falsely suspected link between Iraq and al-Qaeda). Finally, we (American citizens) don’t have to choose between security and freedom (that’s the foolish choice that the political Right keeps trying to make us decide on as a reason for Spying on its citizens). No person/country in the history of the planet has ever had either, there was only the illusion.

Now, to the topic at hand…

If you haven’t heard the grand noise surrounding illegal immigration over the last several weeks, then you must’ve been in a coma. I’ll admit that it is a topic that is hard to tackle for several reasons, but is one that must be dealt with. To begin, I’ll just point out a few key terms that deserve to be distinguished:

• Illegal Immigration
• (Border) Security
• Rights
• Laws

To be sure, nothing significant has changed this year or last year with respect to illegal immigrants. Millions enter this country every year from a wide array of demographic, racial and social backgrounds (this is not a Mexican problem as some might think), and this has been going on for decades. So why is illegal immigration a major news issue these days, one might ask?

Well, the answer is simple: illegal immigrants want rights largely on par with US citizens. Many people have pointed out that illegal immigrants do jobs that US citizens don’t do. Some, including Mexican President Vicente Fox, claim that illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do. And indeed it is true that you often find illegal immigrants working in incredibly dangerous situations where many would not want to. So if and when those illegal immigrants harm themselves at one of these jobs, they want the right to have health care coverage, for example, just like a legal co-worker would. Some go much further and want driver’s licenses and photo ID, etc. Essentially, they want many, if not all, of the rights and privileges of being an American Citizen while maintaining their loyalty to their country of origin.

The United States’ border is also a major issue in this post-9/11 world. And in case you don’t know, when we talk “border security,” we really mean Mexican border security, because apparently no one ever crosses the Canadian border, serial killers included. On the Mexican border, thousands upon thousands of people cross into the United States illegally each year. In fact, at one point I heard that 3,000 people are caught trying to cross the border each day. Largely as a result of crossing the Mexican border, it is estimated that between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants live in the USA today. Recent proposals to prevent border crossing have included putting up a wall along the border, as well as sending National Guardsmen to enforce the border.

Lastly, there is the issue of Rights vs. Laws. Semantically speaking, Laws give you Rights; therefore you don’t have Rights if those Rights aren’t within the parameters of the Law. For example, you have the Right to health care/leave of absence/financial compensation if you are injured while performing your job (provided you were abiding by company regulations). But you only have that Right if you are lawfully employed by the company you are working for, and such coverage was part of your contract with the company. So the question becomes, if an Illegal Immigrant is injured on a job, do they have such Rights? Sounds like an easy question to answer, but consider that they were working for the company (which benefits the company), and consider that there are Human Rights obligations in existence.

Now I suppose that Laws can also take away some Rights in a myriad of ways, but that’s a different subject for another time.

Here’s what I think…

Unlike the Civil Rights’ marchers of the 50’s and 60’s, I think many of the people marching in the “immigration” parades recently have 1 thing all wrong. If you want the same rights as US Citizens, it’s not a wise idea to “rep your city” (i.e. don’t flaunt your flag from another country). Nothing is more likely to infuriate people on Capitol Hill (as well as the general US population) than “lawbreakers that want our rights while being loyal to their foreign country.” It’s just not wise.

Plus, if your country is so great then why are you trying to work/live here? With respect to Mexico, why is your President Vicente Fox bantering to force the USA to give citizen’s rights to the illegal Mexican immigrants in this country? And how can he do such things when Mexico’s penalties for crossing into Mexico and working/living illegally there are at least as strict as the United States’ policies. Could it be a mixture of money, politics and economics? I think so.

On the issue of Border security, I think EVERY one of the proposals I’ve heard is completely mindless. You can’t put up a fence that runs the length of the Mexico-USA border (I think it’s roughly 2,000 miles long), and there’s no better way to further fuel animosity between neighbors than by doing so (just ask Israel and Palestine or East and West Berlin, Germany). Another proposal I heard consisted of putting up a fence along portions of the border, which is silly for the aforementioned reasons and because people will just find places where there is no fence and try to cross there. Then there’s the big issue of money, time and manpower that it would take to put up a fence of that magnitude. Now if the government is willing to contract out a company for Billions of dollars to get the job done like they did Halliburton in Iraq, then maybe they should go for it; but only if the same care is taken at the much longer Canadian Border too. I mean, this is about security, right??? And if not, then please shut that noise up.

So, I don’t think that illegal immigration would be much of a problem if the Laws, which are already on the books, were being enforced. Employers who surreptitiously hire Illegal Immigrants should be jailed, then there would be no place for the Illegal Immigrants to work, then Illegal Immigrants would have much less of a reason for crossing the border. The problem is that companies, as well as the government, benefit from Illegal Immigration financially. I have never believed that Illegal Immigrants do jobs that American’s aren’t willing to do; Illegal Immigrants can just be paid slavery wages to do jobs that would require an employer to pay a citizen much more. And in a capitalistic, selfish society like the United States of America, of course many of these Billion-dollar-a-year companies will employ cheaper labor, even if it’s illegal.

Also, there may be those instances where Americans wouldn’t perform a job because the wage for that job is unrighteously low considering the work load. Imagine working in the hot Arizona sun all day, risking serious injury but working for an hourly rate near minimum wage (which is $5.75 an hour and hasn’t been raised in 10 years) while the heads of the company spend their “hard day at work” making thousands of dollars an hour for breathing while swinging their golf club at the city’s local clubhouse. In the richest country in the world, Americans shouldn’t have to do any job of that ilk at a wage that they can’t survive on.

It can’t be overlooked that there are legal ways of obtaining citizenship in this country (albeit sometimes unfairly distributed in my opinion). You can migrate here, work and pay taxes for a specific number of years, then pass your naturalization tests. You can come over on a work-Visa or College Fellowship, “fall in love,” and marry an American citizen. Heck, you can even come over here for a space of time, get pregnant and have a child (which would then be an American citizen), and that process would open certain doors that may make it easier for you to become a citizen. Whatever the method, there are legal ways to do it (including a random citizenship lottery), and it is unfair that many people have attempted those legal routes and been denied, but those who are clearly illegal want to “step in front of the line.”

• Yes, illegal immigration is a problem.
• No, I don’t think it will be fixed anytime soon.
• Yes, it is being used as a political tool by both the Left and Right in this election year.
• No, there is not an easy solution to the problem.
• Yes, the USA should enforce the already existing Laws.
• No, those Laws can’t be truly enforced without first enforcing the Borders.
• Yes, Physicians should treat illegal immigrants that have been injured (as a part of the Hippocratic Oath).
• No, I don’t think Illegal Immigrants should be given Health Benefits…but maybe.
• Yes, employers of Illegal Immigrants should be prosecuted.
• No, amnesty is not the answer to the problem.
• Yes, President Bush’s proposal IS amnesty.
• No, sending 6,000 unarmed (internationally strained) National Guards to help enforce the border is not a benefit AT ALL!!!
• Yes, sending 6,000 unarmed (internationally strained) National Guards to help enforce the border is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard come out of this debate.
• No, deportation of millions of Illegal Immigrants is not plausible.
• Yes, I’m confused about the notion of giving Illegal Immigrants photo ID’s and Driver’s Licenses…isn’t that backwards on both sides of the argument?

And NO, Illegal Immigrants should not be given the same rights and privileges as American citizens, no matter if they’re working in this country. Otherwise, what would be the value of being an American citizen, and what about the millions upon millions of poor, disadvantaged and disenfranchised citizens and immigrants that already live in this country? Isn’t it the duty of the United States’ government to take care of them first?

I know that there are many angles that I haven’t addressed or touched on. This topic is too big to be contained in just one posting. That being said, here are the things that I think would help the problem:
1. Enforce the borders and secure the ports (which seems to be a no-brainer to me after 9/11, especially since the President keeps claiming we’re safer now than we were then).
2. Enforce the existing laws and prosecute employers that employ illegal immigrants.
3. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage for people 18 and older.

And I’ll leave you with this thought:

Laws are what make countries manageable, and Borders are what define a country. If Laws and Borders aren’t enforced, then what do you have? Seriously, consider that.

-Maelstrom

I think...

2006-05-01T18:45:00.000-04:00

I think that there should be a word for that sensation you feel when you think you’re going to sneeze but nothing comes out. So, I’ve come up with one. I think it should be called an Imsnozter, as in a sneeze that’s an imposter or an imposter sneeze that occurs at your snoz.

I think that if you buy a Veinte cup of White Mocha at Starbucks more than once a week, you don’t have the right to complain about the cost of a gallon of gas.

I think that some of the writers of Disney movies might be a lil bit racist. How come every time there’s a movie with an African theme the characters are depicted by animals, like The Lion King and Madagascar?!!!

I think groups on thefacebook.com are hilarious because the group isn’t a real group until one particular swear word is amended to the end of the group name (e.g. It’s Pop B*tch, Not Soda or I Went to Detroit Public Schools and Still got into College B*tch! or I’ve been Starting and Maintaining Groups since Before you were Born B*tch or D*mn right I Drive a Hoopty, my Mama wasn’t Rich B*tch!)

I think if your boyfriend doesn’t buy you flowers because (he says) “they (the flowers) are gonna die in a few days” or “its cliché to buy flowers” or he “doesn’t need to do such things to express his love for you”…I think he’s cheap and I think that you should dump him!

I think that if you have bought into the idea that your boyfriend doesn’t have to get you flowers every now and then, you should re-evaluate your own view of your self-worth.

I think that if you bought your 2007 model luxury vehicle in March of 2006 you got gypped.

I think R. Kelly should be behind bars.

I think R. Kelly should continue recording.

I think R. Kelly should continue recording behind bars.

I think that TiVo was the evolutionary precursor to homo sapien

I think that you should go to jail if you walk across the street while talking on your Cellphone, Bluetooth, or Blackberry.

I think Pat Sajak has a big head

I think Don Cheadle is the world’s greatest actor, followed by Tom Hanks!

I think that Long Hair is a sign of genius. However, in those rare cases where genius and long hair don’t amalgamate, I think that Long Hair wins championships. And sometimes Long Hair does bof (yup…bof)!

I think that the three biggest causes of today’s problems on earth were the birth of Jesus, the birth of Mohammed, and the invention of the car. And in that regard, I don’t think the three are unrelated.

I think you should continue reading all of the “I thinks” written in this particular post because, well, I think you should!

I think, as it pertains to relationships, that it’s the presence and not the presents!

I think it’s funny how 12 years ago if you met someone over the internet you were considered weird and risky, but now it’s an extremely common and acceptable practice.

I think that in sports, stats don’t lie, but they don’t always tell the truth.

I think that it is incredibly sad when a major news story 4 days after Hurricane Katrina hit is Natalee Holloway (thank you Fox News).

I think it is sadder still that Natalee Holloway is a major news story at all almost a year after she went missing.

I think Natalee Holloway is a major news story because she is a missing (blonde) white woman. In fact, stuff (I want to use another “s” word, but I’ll be nice) like this MAKES ME SO MAD that if you’re reading this blog I want you to visit this website (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-15-missing-minorities_x.htm). That might help you to understand my outrage!

I think that this whole Iran Nuclear weapons thing is a farce and a sham. There is no way the US is going to risk nuclear war with Iran, and seriously, who is really paying attention to the Iranian President’s rhetoric.

I think my mother is hilarious. No seriously, the lady is a riot!

I think I wanna marry a lady newscaster…they’re so hot; especially the ones that appear during primetime news hours. I’ve even got a top 10 for CNN!

I think that the term “passive-aggressive” is an oxymoron and doesn’t prove or say anything at all.

I think there’s something seriously backwards about someone making a whole television series based around their criminal activity just prior to their incarceration (meaningful stare in the direction of Lil Kim). There’s also something wrong with a channel that would support such silliness by producing the show (angry glance at BET).

I think that if you STILL believe that going into war with Iraq was the right decision then you need to read the 9/11 Commission Report while recalling the reasons given for going to war with Iraq (Imminent Threat, WMD’s, ties to al Qaeda). I also think you need to go to jail, not be allowed to vote in the next two elections, and should talk to my first cousin who was stationed in Baghdad.

I think it's worth noting that the three most recognizable figures in the terrorist organization al Qaeda (OBL, Zawahiri, Zarqawi) made tapes and recordings public within one week last week. I also think it is a little bit too coincidental.

I think that the world is going to oblivion on June 6th of this year (ie 06/06/06, as in 666)…just kidding!

I think I think a lot.

I think sometimes I think too much.

I think I’ll stop now!

-Maelstrom

United 93

2006-04-27T13:59:00.000-04:00

This coming Friday a new movie will be released that focuses on the events of 9/11. More specifically, the movie focuses on United Airlines Flight 93, which was brought down by passengers that heroically fought to regain control of the hijacked plane. Since the movie’s trailer was released a few weeks back, there has been controversy over whether the movie has been made too soon after the tragic events of that day.

Believe it or not, each family that lost a loved one in that plane signed off on its making and they stand behind the directors, producers and studio for making the film. Also, 10% of the grosses made from the films first 3 day box office campaign will go to The Flight 93 National Memorial.

As I’m sure you are aware, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. All evidence uncovered indicates that the hijacked plane was to be flown into the Capitol building in Washington DC on the same morning that 3 other flights brought down the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center and crashed into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the plane was crashed by the hijackers after the 40 passengers onboard revolted.

The National Memorial for the Flight will be erected, and is slated to cover hundreds of acres of land; however, one Congressman is adamantly against the size of it. He is afraid that the total cost of the memorial will be shouldered by the government (the families of the victims pledged to raise 50% of the money necessary to erect it, but are far from that goal to date). So red tape and bureaucracy still seem to rule, even when the situation is of this magnitude and importance.

Back to the issue at hand…

…why make a movie about this tragedy now?

In my opinion, the writers/producers/directors of this movie are exploiting the tragedy for monetary gain. I could be totally wrong, and they could be making this movie for pristine purposes, but I highly doubt it, and here’s why:

If the makers of the film meant to only portray the events of the day, and to only cause us to “never forget” the lives lost, then why not give ALL of the profits of the movie to The Flight 93 National Memorial? Though the 10% is a kind gesture, it is but a pittance if your intentions are truly magnanimous. And at that, the studio (Universal) is only giving 10% of its first 3 day weekend grosses to the Memorial.

How cheap?!!!

If you understand how movies work, the 1st weekend buzz will often generate more and more people to come out and see the movie in the coming weeks. Therefore the theatre is only giving a small portion of cash to the Memorial in comparison to what they could be giving if the 10% were given throughout the movie’s theatre run.

As for the families of the victims, the sentiment that I keep hearing them echo is that everyone needs to remember. My response to such a sentiment is “has anyone forgotten?” Seriously, anyone in their mid-teens, I’m sure, vividly remembers the events of that day. In order for people to remember they would’ve had to have forgotten, and trust me September 11th doesn’t only live with the victims’ families everyday, it lives with all of us everyday.

Speaking as someone that has lost many loved ones, I know that the concept of “remembering” is very important. But the simple fact is that no one has forgotten the sacrifices made on that day (although I must admit that the Trade Centers get much more attention than the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93).

That brings me to my major point, which is simply that there is no reason for this movie to be made right now. If, as the families say, we need to remember, then certainly the movie could’ve been postponed for another 10 or 15 years. No one I know has forgotten the events of 9/11. And if the goal of the Studio isn’t money driven, then give ALL of the profits to the Memorial.

In 10 or 15 years this movie would actually make much more sense, given the reasoning of the family. It could serve as an educational tool as well as a moment to recall the sacrifices made on that day. It could act in the same way that Malcolm X and Titanic did in the mid-nineties; give people a chance to see and understand a part of history that they didn’t have the chance to witness for themselves; spur interests in the events of that day.

Doing it now, in my opinion, only amplifies and conjures up not-so-old wounds that haven’t healed for many of the other families who directly lost people on that day, not to mention the American public. 2,300 other families lost loved ones on the morning of September 11th, and millions of American citizens were terribly (emotionally, socially, some physically) wounded by 9/11, not just the 40 families directly affected by Flight 93’s crash.

Will the movie do well at the box office? I think so. Will I go see the movie? Probably. Do the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 need and deserve to be remembered? Absolutely! Is this film too much too soon? Without a doubt!

-Maelstrom

Debra Lafave

2006-04-20T23:37:00.000-04:00

So my anger has been smoldering for a couple of weeks now, and I can’t let it go. Please allow me the opportunity to diffuse my utter frustration with the criminal justice system in this country with respect to a particular topic.

A couple weeks back a confessed child rapist got off the hook. This time, in my opinion, it isn’t because of their race (the perpetrator is white), or status (they worked as a school teacher), or because of their looks (although some say the criminal is extremely pretty). The reason the assailant got off the hook is because the rapist is a woman.

Before I get going with this post I’d like to make it absolutely clear that I understand women are societal targets and men are the agents. I am keenly aware of the fact that men are the recipients of privilege in society and not nearly enough men have been punished for the evil sexual abuse that they have perpetrated against women worldwide.

That being said, women sometimes get away with committing the same wicked acts as their male counterparts, and enjoy much kinder judicial treatment, and that’s not right!

Back to the case at hand.

A married, 24-year-old female school teacher from Florida plead guilty to having sex with her 14-year-old male student. The teacher, Debra Lafave, began a relationship with the boy in 2004, and had several sexual encounters with boy soon after they met. One instance included her having sex with the boy while his 15-year-old cousin drove them around in her vehicle. The case actually never went to trial, and Lafave got 3 years house arrest and seven years of probation as part of a plea deal.

Can you believe that? Have you EVER heard of a man in a similar situation getting the same kind of treatment?

So as I listened to every argument about this case, and heard about several other similar cases, many things heavily troubled me. So let me just lay it out for you real plain: If you are an adult and you’re having sex with a minor without parental permission through marriage (as is legal in many States), then you are a Sex Offender and you need to go to jail. Furthermore, if you are a 24-year-old, married, schoolteacher (as was Debra Lafave), and you’re having sex with your 14-year-old student (like Lafave did), then you are a Sexual Predator.

I cannot believe that this lady got off the hook at all. What she has done violates the law, morality, her marriage, common sense. I am outraged.

BUT, I heard people making sympathetic statements that would seem to justify such behavior, largely because it was a boy who was being violated by an older woman and not a girl being violated by an older man.

The following several sentiments expressed in cases where these female teachers sexually assault their male students seriously bother me:
• These women are not sexual predators like men who do the same thing
• The female (ADULT!!!) teacher is seduced by these boys
• 14-17 year old boys look like men, and so it’s not like they (the women) are having sex with a little boy
• Young boys want to have sex with their older, often “hot,” teacher
• Boys are touted as heroes by their male peers when they have sex with an adult female
• It wasn’t rape, there was a real love and passion between the two of them

There is a problem with all of these assertions, and they simply derive from the societal notion that a boy CANNOT be raped or sexually violated by a woman once he reaches adolescence. A concept that is totally false and wrong if for no other reason than the fact that EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS UNIQUE and feels differently about any number of things; including sex.

What frustrates me (almost more than the fact that these women often get off the hook) is that people in the media and apparently in the Courthouse allow arguments like the ones I listed above to fly without challenging their inherent flaws. Everytime I hear these arguments being made on the news, without opposition, I just wanna jump through the TV screen and yell at the top of my lungs YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.

But since that never works (I’ve tried), I’ll use this site to annihilate all such arguments and leave no doubt in the minds of the reading audience that when a female teacher has sex with one of her male students under the age of 18, they should lose their job and also serve jail time just like any man engaged in the same sickening activity.

A predator, according to Webster.com, is one that preys, destroys or devours. Societally, we call anyone a sexual predator as long as they prey on children; whether that’s a first time offense, or the seventh. BUT, that only seems to apply if the perpetrator is a male. When it’s a woman, we shy away from calling the destroyer a predator. I even hear people say about women like Lafave “I don’t think she’s a predator.” But if a predator is truly one that destroys, as the definition points out, then I think she certainly falls in that category. Do you think the boy that she sexually violated can live out a normal childhood or even adulthood? I doubt it; childhood destroyed.

The female teacher is the Adult, and the student is the Child. There’s NO WAY THE BOY CHILD SEDUCED THE TEACHER. Any crushes that the boys in her class have on her can easily be squelched by the ADULT teacher not indulging the boys in their fantasies. For a sexual relationship to occur means that the female teacher was seeking a relationship with the boy, further validating my point that the female teacher is a sexual predator. Predators have to seek out and hunt for something, just like Lafave did with her male student.

Of all the things I’ve heard on this topic, the concept that “these boys look or carry themselves like men” is the silliest. Is that supposed to be a legitimate defense? If that argument works for women (which it absolutely SHOULD NOT), then shouldn’t it also work for men. Let me remind you that women develop years earlier than most boys their age. I personally know 12-year-old girls who are far more physically voluptuous than some of my 25 and 30-year-old friends. To let you know just how developed some of them are, a 12-year-old classmate of mine (who was quite shapely and physically developed) got pregnant and had a baby when we were only in 7th grade. Point being, if the physical allure of these boys is so adult that it can be confusing to the female teacher (who has a class list and sees the children in her class everyday and knows that the boys are in fact boys), then male teachers who have sex with their 14-17 year old female students should be allowed the same excuse. Of course I think that the teachers are at fault here, be they male or female.

Boys often have just as many insecurities about their sexuality as girls do. So the concept that young boys want to have sex with their attractive adult teacher is also silly. Some of them might, but I’d bet my next 37 paychecks that many of them also do not.

That being said, the idea that boys who have sex with their teacher are celebrated by their peers as heroes isn’t necessarily true either. As easy as it would be for one’s peers to celebrate their sexual involvement with a teacher, the likelihood of one’s peers teasing them about it also exists. I could see that reputation and stigma following a boy all the way through the remainder of his grade school education.

AND WHO CARES IF HIS PEERS CHEER HIM! That doesn’t change the fact that the teacher had no business, as an adult, engaging her student in a sexual relationship.

Finally, the concept of “Love” between the teacher and student is never an argument made when a 25-year-old man has sex with his adolescent female student; even though it is equally as likely to be the case. No matter though, because an adult knows that they are an adult, and they know that it is illegal and criminal to have sex with an underage child.

Now, I must be clear and point out that I think that the sexual brutality is different when a man forcibly rapes a girl. However, there are many instances where the male adult uses his influence to exploit a young student, and has sex with his female student (at which time he may argue that it was consensual). It is instances like the latter that I believe are identical to Lafave’s case. And no matter if it’s sexually brutal, or influentially consensual, a man RARELY gets a break (and I don’t think he should, I’m just making the point). Women, however OFTEN do get a break and also should not.

Let me clarify. Men almost always get a minimum of 3 years jail time for cases like these. Women almost never get more than 2 years of jail time and often only receive probation. That’s not right. These women ARE sexual traitors and exploiters of their young male victims. These women need to serve legitimate jail sentences like their sick male-counterparts. These women do (although I haven’t made the case for this point here) cause their boy victims emotional damage and societal ridicule that follows them for years if not forever.

Call a spade a spade, and treat an animal like an animal. Women teachers that engage in sexual relationships with their boy students are sexual predators and need to be put behind bars.

-Maelstrom

PS: If you think the Lafave case is rare, just look into several other cases that have come to the attention of the media (e.g. Pamela Rogers-Turner, Mary Kay Letourneau…go ahead, “google” their names and note how the criminal justice system has let them off the hook and how they re-offended the law). It is a more prolific problem than you think.

Duke's Lacrosse Team

2006-04-06T08:33:00.000-04:00

At the behest of a former roommate, I will address the growing story surrounding alleged rape allegations against Duke University’s Lacrosse team. I’ll start by saying that it is way too early to really speculate about what happened; whether the allegations are false and frivolous, or whether the University could’ve done something different to prevent the incident if it turns out to be true. Be that as it may, I’ve been watching extensive coverage of the case over the last few days, and I (of course) have some opinions based on all I’ve seen and heard.

So here’s the skinny: A college student that works part-time as an exotic dancer (i.e. stripper) was performing at a house party that several Duke University Lacrosse players attended. Sometime during the night she claims to have been taken to a bathroom by a handful of the players and sexually assaulted there.

Tragic as this situation is, whether the allegations are true or false, what has really caught the attention of the media with this case is our good old friend, Race. After the incident came to light, the police obtained DNA from all but one player on the team. The one player that wasn’t tested was not tested because he is the only Black player on the team, and the victim said that her assailants were White. So, I won’t get into the allegations, but I will discuss some of the racial things I’ve heard since the story first broke.

If you’ve never been to the South of the USA, you might not know that there is yet much racial tension that exists in many areas. Durham, North Carolina is certainly one of those places. So much so that Duke University is sometimes referred to as “the Plantation.” Many affluent and opulent (largely White) college students feed their money into the private institution, which serves to bolster Duke’s image. Yet the city that houses Duke is home to many who cannot afford to attend Duke, but needs Duke in order to function. And of course, many of the Durham residents that cannot take advantage of the education that Duke has to offer are Black.

That causes problems…racial problems!

As an avid news junkie, I caught an argument made by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams (a lawyer that I have a great deal of respect for, and often agree with). Abrams was calling the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to task because there hasn’t been an outcry by the organization over the blanket DNA testing of the White Lacrosse Players.

The ACLU often raises a big stink about police departments and Courthouses that screen accused groups of people because such screenings are often only based on race, and the race of people screened is determined by the person who (sometimes falsely) made the accusation. Essentially, many innocent people are hassled by law enforcement officials because of their race and a false accusation.

Why does the ACLU care? Because the racial targets of such screenings have historically been minorities; primarily Black people.

Abrams point is that if the ACLU has a problem with blanket DNA testing based on race, then why don’t they cause a fuss over the Duke players being tested, minus the one Black player. Idealistically, I agree with him. Unfortunately we don’t live in an idealistic world, and the idealistic view ignores hundreds of years of history.

Anyone that watched Michael Moore’s (the leftist film director) movie Bowling for Columbine may remember that he did a section on America’s guilty group of people; Black men. He cited several examples in 1990’s America. I myself can immediately think of 2 examples where White women falsely made claims that Black men committed crimes against them.

One instance, from 1920’s Rosewood, Florida, led to the lynchings of dozens (some reports hundreds) of Black people in less than a week’s time because a White lady claimed she’d been raped by a Black man (to explain away bruises on her body) when she had really been cheating on her husband with another White man. The other instance that comes to mind was in the mid-1990’s when a white lady named Susan Smith drowned her children by strapping them into their seats in her car, and then driving the car into a lake. She falsely claimed that a Black man made her do it in a carjacking attempt. (A notion that I just laugh at because clearly she planned to kill her kids, and that’s the best alibi she could come up with. Unfortunately America believed her in the initial moments after she made the claim, until she confessed to killing them.)

These days I often don’t agree with the cases that the ACLU takes on. And in this instance I think Abrams has a good point. However, I don’t think he’s fully considered the breadth and depth of history that might afford the ACLU a pass because the tables have been turned (accused White assailants, Black victim).

To finish, I’d just like to point out that the Lacrosse team played 2 games after the allegations were made. The school President finally banned the team from playing anymore games while the investigation was ongoing, yet the team still held regular practices for weeks until yesterday. Yesterday the Lacrosse coach resigned and the team was suspended for the rest of the year; weeks after the sexual assault claims were made. And the DNA results haven’t been made public yet.

We’ll see how things pan out.

-Maelstrom

PS: here’s a website with an article about Susan Smith:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/06/smith.yates/

Bush is Right

2006-03-19T21:43:00.000-05:00

Ok, so did a snowball survive in Hell or something? I mean, seriously, I think I actually agree with President Bush.

In the last few weeks it was announced that a foreign company would take over management of several major United States ports. The company, Dubai Ports, got the gig from a British owned company. Unfortunately, for Dubai Ports, a major political firestorm ensued. Why? Because the foreign company is based in an Arab country, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Both Democrats and Republicans, as well as many of the major media outlets, condemned the deal and said that it was a threat to our national security. They often spoke in code by saying that “foreign companies shouldn’t be allowed to run ports into the United States.” What they really meant was that Muslim nations shouldn’t run our ports.

But watch out, Mr. “we’re gonna fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” Bush stood firm against both political parties and brazenly stated that he would veto any Congress backed legislation that would block the Dubai company from taking over the port management (it would be his first veto since being President). The whole concept of Bush pushing for the deal to go through is kinda ironic since the “them” he wanted to fight over “there” are terrorists, and the 9/11 terrorists attacks that Bush built his strong image on was largely intertwined with the UAE. Two of the hijackers from 9/11 were from the UAE, and large quantities of money that helped fund the attacks was wired through the UAE.

And just like that, when Congress was going to pass legislation to block the deal (basically forcing Bush to put his money where his mouth is), Dubai Ports pulled out of the deal and promised to turn the ports over to a United States’ run company. And can I tell you, I was greatly disappointed, ‘cause I wanted to see this whole thing play out in the government.

So let me just dispel a lot of the stupidity I’ve been hearing coming out of the mouths of much of Congress and reading in the paper and watching on the news.

•Although the vast majority of Arabs are Muslim, they are not the same thing. Arab does not mean Muslim, Muslim does not mean Arab. In fact, the nation with the largest Muslim population isn’t even Arab, the southeast asian country Indonesia is home to the most Muslims.
•All Muslims are not terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims. (see “The Vortex” Sept. 9th and 18th of 2004 posts)
•Statements like “foreign countries/companies shouldn’t run our ports” are ludicrous because over 80% of USA ports are currently run by foreign companies. Furthermore, there simply aren’t enough USA companies to run all of the ports
•Yes the UAE is one of three countries to support the Taliban, but how easily have we forgotten that the USA largely created the Taliban and trained them in the 80’s when we were still engaged in the Cold War with Russia. So the monster that the UAE supported was a USA production.
•Islam is a religion, not a country. So even if we espoused the silly logic that all Muslims are terrorists, then no matter who is running the ports (USA included) we are increasing the risk of a terrorist attack simply by having the ports to begin with.

On top of the obvious misconceptions, prejudices and downright sillinesses of those who were against an Arab nation running the ports, Bush is right about this one for several other reasons. One of my biggest complaints about the Bush Administration is that we have alienated ourselves from the rest of the world, and we certainly haven’t been the best at making friends in the Arab world. It is true that a hand-full of countries are our allies in the War on Terror (eg Saudi Arabia and Jordan), however that is largely only at the upper levels of those governments. But by treating Arab nations like the UAE in the same way that we treat other foreign nations (like the British who ran the ports before Dubai), it would help foster better relationships between the USA and Arab nations.

And let’s just be real here, we need oil, and the UAE has a lot of it. And I’m sure Bush is well aware of that.

So now I wonder what’s going to happen with these ports that Dubai is turning over since they specifically stated that they were going turn them over to an American company. As I pointed out before, there aren’t enough American companies to even cover 20% of these ports, so who is going to take over the ports now?

Maybe, just maybe they (Dubai Ports) are pointing out the fact that we don’t have the capacity to do so, and are essentially calling our bluff (i.e. “if you want American companies to run these ports, then go find the companies to do it”).

Bottom line is that this prejudice against Muslims has to stop. It’s silly and it’s only creating a deeper rift between us and people of a religion that we should be trying to better understand instead of blindly condemn. And as with all things, we have to remember that people are people, no matter the race, religion, gender, etc. So, we should respect all people the same.

-Maelstrom

Crash and the Academy Awards

2006-03-14T01:30:00.000-05:00

Thanks for the comments about my last post (which was like a month and a half ago). Anyhow, the most recent comment posted questions the validity of Crash as an insightful movie. So I will go along with the comment, which was posed in devil’s advocate form, and address it.

For starters, if you don’t think that OVERT racism exist today, then you need to walk in my shoes and experience what I frequently experience; as well as listen to the racist things I hear people say all the time. And trust me, I can’t believe that in the year 2006 people still say and do some of the things they say and do, purely based on race.

Secondarily, if the only points about race, that you recognized in Crash, were the overt points, then you need to go watch the movie ‘bout 2, 3, 7 more times. I haven’t seen the film in months, but I can instantly think of 3 occurrences in the movie where the racial issue addressed wasn’t clearly apparent (or OVERT) , and took the inference of the viewing audience to decipher (thus exposing that we all hold on to some racial notions in our head…which is the point of the movie).

The quickest (to explain) example I can give occurs towards the end of the movie with Larenz Tate’s and Ryan Phillipe’s characters in the car. There was nothing OVERT about Phillipe’s actions. The viewing audience had to assume what he was thinking about during the exchange with Tate’s character after he had already pulled the trigger.

Totally Covert.

Point being, the movie was excellent because it addressed both the overt as well as the covert. The things that I’m shocked people do 35+ years after the Civil Rights movement (the overt), as well as the things that keep the prisons full of black men who make up less than a 5th of the population or keep minorities from being President/VP/Congressmen/etc (the covert).

Excellent movie…go see it ‘bout 2, 3, 7 more times!

Here’s what I wrote the day after the Academy Awards (see, I’ve been writing, just haven’t posted the many things I’ve written).

I’m glad that the Academy got it right this year. Yup, in case you missed it, Crash won the Oscar for Best Picture Sunday night during the 78th Academy Awards. Of course I was delighted since I think that the movie certainly warranted the award. It was quite a shock as evidenced by the reactions of the Academy when Jack Nicholson announced the winner. But yeah, I’m glad.

Unlike most years, I actually found the courage within myself to sit through the entire show; and boy am I glad that I did…I needed to see 3-6 Mafia win that Oscar for the Best Original Song in a Movie, It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp. There’s absolutely nothing like them performing the very, uh, moving song, and then winning the Oscar. Their acceptance speech had to be the greatest acceptance speech in the 78 year history of the event. Neither the Academy nor the American public was ready for that.

I must say that I enjoyed Jon Stewart as host. He was funny, charming, and had several creative ideas as host. I also enjoyed George Clooney’s acceptance speech. It was well stated and the essence of his speech was put into good context. But dude, what was up with that silly acceptance speech music that the orchestra played in the background of everyone’s speeches. How annoying?!!!

Finally, I can’t write a silly post about the Oscar’s without mentioning the showstoppers. There were 2 really hot Latinas that really sizzled on the red carpet. Jessica Alba looked like a goddess, and Salma Hayek was absolutely stunning. Seriously, just one word to describe them both: WOW!

-Maelstrom

The Oscars

2006-01-31T10:56:00.000-05:00

So now that the movie awards season is upon us, I’d like to weigh in with my opinion on the best movie of 2005.

Crash was by far the best movie of 2005. The social issues addressed in that film, the way it was put together, the use of each actor/actress (whether A-list or not) was phenomenal. And the point(s) made were incredible. Honestly, if you have saw it and left the theatre without having your eyes opened to many social realities or you left without feeling that several social disparities were highlighted and well represented, then you suck as a human being. And I mean that. You should have your living soul card revoked.

And once again, these Awards shows have overlooked the best of the pack in favor of several movies that most people hadn’t seen until after Hollywood hyped them up for some Hollywood contrived reason. For example, Brokeback Mountain and Capote. Now I’ll admit it, I haven’t seen either, but I also know that most people hadn’t seen either until after the Golden Globes last week (based on the ticket sales numbers). So my question is, how are these movies even nominated for these awards without the public seeing them, much less winning these awards?

Finally, I must say that I really disdain the Academy Awards (which largely mirror the aforementioned Golden Globes). Most of the movies that I’ve seen because they won an Oscar, have been “alright” at best. I saw Lost in Translation, American Beauty, Sideways, and I even saw Traffic on opening night. Although none of these movies was bad, I am at a loss when it comes to explaining how they received the acclaim that they did. And it is unthinkable that these movies can even get double digit nominations for Oscars (as Traffic and American Beauty did, if I'm not mistaken).

I sat through “Translation,” Sideways and Traffic waiting for something to happen, and nothing materialized. And I don’t think the subject matter covered in American Beauty had a major bearing on the large cross-section of American lives. All I saw was a movie about screwed up suburbia that ended with Kevin Spacey dreaming about trees, while his head lay in a pool of blood, sporting a bittersweet smile.

Unlike American Beauty, the issues raised in Crash affect us all. And they even addressed them from a plethora of angles; law enforcement, public servant, language, immigrant, rich and privileged, poor and disenfranchised, political, and all sorts of race/ethnicity angles.

And I’m not just touting this movie because my absolute favorite actor (Don Cheadle) is in it. Honestly, each roll fit well with every other roll. Cheadle doesn’t deserve an Oscar any more than Jennifer Esposito; Sandra Bullock doesn’t deserve an Oscar any more than Ludacris. It was that well done. I’m not asking for individual accolades this time, as far as the actors are concerned. I am asking for Best Screenplay or Script. I am asking for Best Cast or Ensemble in a movie. I am asking for Best Director. And certainly I’m asking for Best Film of 2005…from all the various Awards Committees.

Point in case, I think these Awards shows are getting it all wrong again (except the Screen Actors Guild which awarded Crash with its Best Cast award) if they overlook Crash. The best movie of 2005 was indeed Crash, and if you haven’t seen it by now, you oughtta be ashamed of yourself.

So go to Blockbuster tonight, and get Crash. Don’t just rent it, buy it. Watch it once, and then watch it 3 more times. I guarantee that you’ll learn something new from it each time you see it!

Cop the album!

-Maelstrom

NSA Spying

2006-01-24T20:06:00.000-05:00

In recent weeks President Bush has made several speeches proudly touting his NSA Domestic Spying Program as if he’s within the parameters of the Law. He speaks as if he is truly protecting US Citizens by spying on them. So once again I will clearly walk all who are willing to go with me through the rhetoric.

To reiterate, the National Security Agency (NSA) was given the ok by President Bush to spy on US Citizens that have been in contact with known al-Qaeda operatives. The only phone calls that can be tapped are ones that are to or from overseas. Only 8 members in Congress were ever notified about these wiretaps and they were sworn to secrecy concerning them. The Courts were completely disregarded. And the wiretaps are ongoing. That’s all we know about the wiretaps at this point.

If these wiretaps are legitimate because they are only occurring on lines of people who have KNOWN connections to al-Qaeda, then the administration needs to answer these questions:

How do they know these people are connected to al-Qaeda without having previously tapped their lines (ie “fishing” through citizens phone calls in an attempt to connect citizens to terrorists or vice versa)?
Why not get the warrant from the courts to legally wiretap these people (such provisions do exist and have been used in the past)?
Why not arrest these people and/or interrogate them for information since there is a certainty of their al-Qaeda connection?
Where is the proof that these wiretaps (or the Patriot Act for that matter) have been effective (and I mean specifics, not inference)?
Where is the proof that innocent people have not been unknowingly spied on (because I know they got records)?

If they Bush Administration is going to bold-facedly defend this policy, then they have the obligation to answer these questions and they have the burden of proof to show that the wiretapping is worth keeping. And hiding behind the shadow of potential 9/11-type terrorists attacks is not legitimate at all.

See make no mistake about it, these wiretaps do not help us in the War on Terror (and if they do, the administration has provided no evidence or instances of how it helps. I say that emphatically because I do not want anyone to forget the 9/11 Commission Report. The Report clearly indicated that there was ample information to halt the 9/11 attacks prior to them occurring. That means that neither ILLEGAL wiretaps nor the Patriot Act were necessary to stop the attacks. All that needed to happen was coordination between the nation’s intelligence agencies.

On that point, I submit this clear stream of logic:

How do you find a needle in a haystack?

You get rid of the hay!

It is my opinion that all this extra information that the government is compiling from both the ILLEGAL wiretaps and the Patriot Act are only adding more hay to the stack, thus making it harder to detect potential terrorist.

Finally, how can we know if the government is not spying on us all? How can we know? For these people who get in front of the microphone and say that “if you’re in California and calling your daughter in college in Kentucky, this program is not tapping that call,” I just want to know this one simple thing: How do you know???

There was no public knowledge of these wiretaps until someone that knew about them had the balls to actually leak the info to the public. There has been no indication that the ILLEGAL wiretaps have ceased since the news was first reported. And if Bush can bypass the Court, then what ever happened to the Constitutionally ordained notion of checks and balances. Where is the Rule of Law?

Do you realize that Bill Clinton was impeached because of a personal matter that had nothing to do with national security or mismanagement of the government. And the girl that he participated in his immoral act with was a willing adult. But he was impeached and made an embarrassment over it. And do you know what the hypocritical (cause after Clinton was caught, they all confessed to the same thing he did) Republican reasoning was: The Rule of Law.

So where is the Rule of Law now?

And what amazes me is that this President (Bush) has no qualms about admitting that he has ordered wiretaps without Court ordered warrants (which are easily attainable, and have been given thousands of times with respect to terror).

AND PEOPLE HAVE THE NERVE TO DEFEND HIM.

This isn’t about terrorism anymore, this is about freedom and civil rights. To borrow a cliché, this is indeed the height of hypocrisy. We say that we are fighting for Iraqi freedom, but “we the people” don’t even have the freedom to know who’s being spied on or why (Patriot Act included). We say that we rid Iraq of Saddam because he was a tyrant, but isn’t one man (and his cronies) violating the privacy of 300 million people for some unknown reason at least mildly tyrannical to some degree.

Are we not Americans? Are we not still citizens? Where are our rights? How can we trust this government?

-Maelstrom

Move the Holiday

2006-01-17T02:07:00.000-05:00

The year 2000 was the first year that all 50 states honored the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with a Holiday by name (yes, only a few years ago). And for the first time since its inception, this year every county in the country now honors the Holiday (yup, 1 county in a southern state had been holding out all this time). And though I’m glad that the holiday is largely celebrated nationwide (despite the fact that many of the currently serving lawmakers on Capitol Hill voted against the MLK Holiday in Congress in the 80’s), I think that way too many people take the Holiday for granted. Way too many people just see the day as an extension to their weekend, a day off from school, or just an opportunity to laze around. If that’s you, then you’re totally missing the point.

Ok, I’ll admit it; I was once like that too. I recall (and now regret) missing 4 major Keynote speakers (Actor Edward James Olmos, Professor Cornell West, Dr. Grace Lee Boggs, Dr. Ben Carson) during the MLK symposium at my undergraduate institution. In each case I was either at my dorm sleepin’ in or away from campus taking advantage of my 3 day weekend. I did, in all those years, participate in other MLK day events, but it was pure apathy that led me to miss out on those speakers.

And that’s the problem; apathy.

I don’t fault people for missing events when they must work, or when they can’t make it out for illness or other such reasons. But when you sit on your “duff,” or sleep in just because you can, or when you plan a short vacation over the MLK day weekend, that troubles me. Considering the magnitude of what Martin Luther King Jr. did for not only Black people in America, but for all citizens of this nation, no one should apathetically disregard this holiday.

When I first began to write this post, I was going to say that maybe there shouldn’t be a “King” holiday. My reasoning was that people put so much impetus on just this one day (with respect to racial injustice and inequality) while spending much of the year not living the standards of racial justice that MLK stood for. In fact, it sometimes seems as though King is only in our consciousness on his holiday or during Black History Month.

That’s just not good enough.

“The Dream” should live with us all the time and at any moment leap to the forefront of our conscious thinking any day of the year.

However, in present day (yet-racist and prejudiced) America, I know that if there were no holiday at all, King and all he stood for would be largely lost or forgotten in the era that was the Civil Rights movement. So I’ve got a better idea.

After much ruminating and weighing the effects, I’ve decided that the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday should be moved from Monday to Wednesday. That way people couldn’t abuse the holiday by taking a weekend vacation. Travel would be difficult to execute because the Holiday would be sandwiched in the middle of the work week. Then people would have to be reminded about why they have the day off. Attendance at symposium events, like the ones I ignored in my youthful apathy, would be up. Ultimately the purpose of the Holiday would be better fulfilled because people would be forced, by default, to pay attention to it.

Apathy bugs me in general. But apathy surrounding a holiday that affects us all; apathy around a man who literally gave his life doing what many today could never even imagine; apathy around a holiday that is the purest representation of Justice (in a time when injustice is ever-rampant) the Federal Government recognizes. Disregarding the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday is simply unacceptable (and I mean you actually need to get up and do something to honor it).

I certainly do hope that you, the reader, participated in a forum, service, or community event surrounding Martin Luther King Jr. Day. If not, I do hope that as you go through this year, what he worked for lives on in the forefront of your mind. I also hope that you would give yourself over to the concept of community, servitude, and equality. And in the King Holidays to come, please make the effort to participate in events in Dr. King’s honor. We all owe it to him to do so.

-Maelstrom

…15 years…and not a day goes by…the pain diminishes, but it never goes away…you are truly missed…

New Year's Resolutions

2006-01-01T21:40:00.000-05:00

The New Year has come and I’ve decided that this nation needs to implement some resolutions for its own good. And for 2006's Resolutions I’ll steal a page from political pundit/comedian Bill Maher and list a few new rules.

So prepare your mind for these adjustments and enjoy!

New Rule: There shall be no natural disasters for the duration of the year. I’ve decided that they’re too costly both in money and in lives. For real, the natural disasters of ’05 were just shy of apocalyptic; the likes of which the living populous has never seen before. And we’re no where near recovering from the devastation these monster events have caused us. Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Wildfires, and a host of other odd meteorological occurrences. As a result, Mother Nature must be kind this year.

New Rule: Latin Pop Singer Marc Anthony will release Jennifer Lopez (his current wife) from the prison of their home. When the year 2005 began, I had grand designs on Jennifer Lopez (my future wife) putting her past behind her (including her rolodex of ex’s; David Cruz, Ojani Noa, P. Diddy…my bad…Diddy, Cris Judd, and Ben Affleck) so that we could move on with our (mine and Jennifer’s) lives together. I was also heavily anticipating all the great music videos that she was going to make to accompany her latest album and callipygous body. Well clearly Marc Anthony has gotten between she and I, as well as all my dreams. JLo only dropped 3 videos off that album, and all before March. In fact, has anyone even seen her since she and that guy (Anthony) sang that filthy duet at the Grammy’s last February?

New Rule: In the year 2006, Christmas will be moved from December 25^th to April 32^nd. That way I won’t have to suffer through another “Christmas” season hearing the fruitless debate about the phrase “Merry Christmas” vs. “Happy Holidays” or “Holiday Tree” vs. “Christmas Tree.” I guess the issue is that this is a Democracy full of a plethora of Holidays, often tied to various non-Christian religions, that some Christians apparently see as a threat. But for those of us who celebrate the religious essence of Christmas, the chronological presence of other holidays doesn’t take away from its meaning. Be that as it may, my proposal will allow Christmas to have its own season to itself, and all the mindless nuts that want an exclusive Christmas Holiday can just have it and leave the rest of us alone.

New Rule: The Bird Flu is required to kill us all. I know it sounds a bit morbid, but I just hate it when something doesn’t live up to the hype. And the last few years in medicine have been at the heart of my disappointment. First SARS was gonna take us all out, and then it was the West Nile Virus. Since both of those cataclysmic illnesses never took flight I am counting on this Bird Flu to do the trick. I mean the Bird Flu has a duty and obligation to decimate at least half the planet by the end of the year considering all the fear it has propagated and all the press coverage it has received.

New Rule: George W. Bush will fire himself. Yes, that’s right, after miraculously attaining a shred of common sense, Bush realizes that statements like “if I knew then what I know today, I would’ve still gone into War with Iraq,” and “the USA didn’t decide to go to war…Saddam did,” are completely stupid, he takes the opportunity to repent of his stupidity and resigns.

New Rule: People who voted for George W. Bush will go to jail. Yup, if you voted for him you should have to suffer the same fate (or even a more crucial fate) as a felonious thief. Your stupidity, coupled with Bush’s stupid statements, has stolen American lives, money, etc., and made America 90% dumber. Your penalty is 4 years in the slammer, that way you can’t screw up another Presidential election. And while you’re there, you get to listen to recordings of all Bush’s stupid statements throughout his Presidency as further punishment.

New Rule: All people that watch movies and walk out of them and recite these words: “the book was so much better than the movie,” will be banished to a land of movielessness. Uh huh, I’m totally tired of people who read a novel, and then rush to the theater to denounce the representative movie. Of course the movie is going to leave things out. Of course there are many, many details that can’t comfortably fit on the big screen within the time limits of the human attention span. What would you prefer? A ten hour Jurassic Park? An 18-hour Lord of the Rings experience? A three day Harry Potter marathon??? Books will always be more detailed…therefore I suppose they will always be better than the movies…Get Over It!!!

New Rule: Beginning in the 2006-2007 NBA season, all players will be required to not only enter the arena in Business Attire, but they must play in it too. Since David Stern wants the players to dress in attire that is representative of his $3 Billion dollar business, why not go all the way? I’m talkin’ Seattle Supersonics players wearing Lime Green Stacey Adams’ shoes with Lime Green and Canary Yellow Suits to match. I’m talkin’ Detroit Pistons’ wearing Blue Suede shoes for Home games and Red Alligator Penny Loafers for Away games. I’m talkin’ the Spurs sporting silver cufflinks, neckties and buttons to go along with their Black and White w/Silver Lapel Sports Jackets. And as an addendum, all teams are allowed to wear hats…as long as the color of the feather in it matches the belt.

New Rule: This year, R. Kelly will go to jail. And c’mon “ara,” make it easy on us…just turn yourself in. We all know it was you in those scandalous videos. And hiding behind that mask in a variety of subsequent videos (e.g. Step in the Name of Love) was certainly better camouflage than in the infamous (grimey) tapes, but we knew that was you too. Yes, we do all enjoy your music; it is nothing less than genius. Which is why we encourage you to continue recording…just do it behind bars.

And Finally, New Rule: In the year 2006, all white women will go missing. Yes sir. All white women will go missing in the year 2006. Now hopefully they won’t go missing because of brutal abuse or abductions, but whatever the means, this occurrence will give every news station in the country the story that they want to cover the most…the unbelievable disappearance of more white women. Every other news story will take a backseat to “missing white women” coverage. Even if the Earth fell off its axis, no longer orbited the Sun, and average temperatures on Earth decreased to three below zero; the reporting surrounding the search for all the missing white women will supercede any such occurrence. I know this isn’t really a New Rule, in fact it seems to be quite the norm, but I guess we’ll just amplify it for the New Year! How ‘bout that?!!!

Happy New Year…

…May God Bless you all in 2006

Sincerely,
Maelstrom

Let the Patriot Act Expire

2005-12-29T10:59:00.000-05:00

On December 31^st, most of the provisions signed into law under the Patriot Act were due to expire. Many Congressional Republicans wanted to extend the law for several years (so does our dear President), saying that the Patriot Act has saved the country from terrorists attacks in the days since it was signed, following 9/11. Then they run this “fear-trip” on everyone by saying that if we want to be safe, then the Patriot Act should be renewed. Unfortunately many Congressional Democrats have fallen underneath this spell and only want to modify the Patriot Act instead of letting it expire. Gladly though, the Patriot was held up in one of the Houses of Congress and only received a 1 month extension.

And can you believe that yours truly, Maelstrom, actually started listening to those fear-mongers on Capitol Hill too?!! I started thinking, yeah, don’t get rid of the thing, just modify it, I don’t want to be unprotected. Fortunately I got my mind right, and remembered that the Patriot Act is a huge farce. That’s right, the Patriot Act is a sham, and is only another way for the government (this Administration in particular) to intrude on the privacy of its citizens.

My evidence you ask?

Look, name one terrorists attack that was thwarted by the Patriot Act. Go ‘head, name it.

See, can’t name one can you? The reason why is because there hasn’t been one. If this administration wants to keep hiding behind the guise of “this Act has prevented terrorists attacks,” then prove it. If they’re going to make the case for the Act, then they have the burden of proof.

And the fact that there hasn’t been a major terrorists attack here in the States since 9/11 is invalid for several reasons.

First off, it takes several years for major terrorists attacks to occur. Especially the ones that al-Qaeda administers. The previous al-Qaeda attack (before 9/11) on American soil was at the World Trade Centers in 1993. That’s 8 years, and we’re only 4 years removed from the last one. Secondarily, if terrorists wanted to attack us, they certainly could through the many unprotected ports and broken borders that exist in the USA. Finally, where are the perpetrators? In Madrid after the Train Bombings, in London after the Bus Bombings, and in Jordan after the Hotel bombings, there were people arrested, body parts found, something.

And if you want to argue that nothing was found in the USA because the catastrophe was prevented, then what about when the second round of London bombings were thwarted? And don’t you think that if the Patriot Act was specifically responsible for halting a terrorists attack that the Bush Administration would be loudly singing its praises? No way would that be a silent victory!

My point is simply this, whenever a terror threat has been averted, there have been arrest, and this knowledge wasn’t “in-house” or even local, it’s been worldwide. So again, ask yourself, where is the proof that another terrorist attack has even been attempted on the mainland since 9/11.

NO TERRORIST ATTACK HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED HERE SINCE 9/11!

But here’s what has worked to this administration’s advantage, and has caused many people (who were initially against the Patriot Act) to sharply soften their opposition: Time and Fear. So I’m writing just to remind you of this simple fact: The Patriot Act is not necessary, and it certainly does infringe upon our Constitutional Civil Rights.

The Patriot Act was not necessary, and would not have been necessary to prevent the events of 9/11. All the information needed to stop 9/11 was present at the time, according the 9/11 Commission Report. The only thing that needed to happen was for the CIA to talk to the FBI and the other investigational services. The needle was in the haystack, and could’ve been found, but the information that would’ve caused it to be found wasn’t being put together.

This is what the Patriot Act has accomplished, in my opinion: The Patriot Act has added more hay to the stack, so now if we are ever to find the proverbial needle, we will have to dig longer and deeper. And while adding more superfluous hay to the stack, it has been surreptitiously taking away our Civil Rights. The government can monitor the people, but the ability of the citizens to counter-check the government has been diminished. For example, if you check out a book at your local Public Library, the government can pull up those records (for whatever the reason…maybe the book you checked out is a book “only terrorists” would check out). Now, if you want to know that the government has been checking your library records, you CANNOT find out as a direct result of the Patriot Act.

So now a government that was designed “by the people and for the people” is now a people existing at the mercy of the government. And maybe not completely at the mercy of the government as of yet, but we’re swiftly heading there (as apparent by our President’s assertion that he has the right to wiretap American citizens without a court order).

My plea to you, please don’t be blinded by the fear-driven rhetoric. We are no safer today than before 9/11, and fighting “them” over “there” so we don’t have to fight them here is silly too, and won’t work (didn’t work for Spain, or even our number 1 ally Britain, so why would it work for us?).

We don’t need the Patriot Act!

-Maelstrom

The Sidebar

If someone says the word “bomb” on an airplane, then they don’t have one!

The other week someone on a USA flight overheard a passenger say the word bomb more than once, and so the flight was halted.

Now look, anyone with a bomb knows they have one, and the absolute last word they’re gonna say is “bomb.”

I would be more worried about someone repeating the word “doughnut” over and over again.

And then I’d ask them how many they have and if they’re strawberry filled or chocolate glazed, and can i have one.

Just a lil word to the wise brought to you by Maelstrom.

The Hypocrisy

2005-12-23T12:51:00.000-05:00

A couple months back the number of US casualties in Iraq reached 2000. Several Democrats on Capitol Hill marked the event and noted its significance. Meanwhile, I heard several Republicans criticizing the Democrats for marking the 2000^th death, saying that it was a “false milestone” and that the Democrats were using the 2000 deaths to further politicize the war.

Now, I do indeed hope that the Democrats were sincere in marking the number, and not attempting to use the ominous number as a political device. Though I do suspect that at least some of them were. And they were wrong for doing so.

However, I was completely and totally incensed at the very notion that 2000 deaths in this war could be called a “false milestone.” How dare the Republicans assert such a criminal statement. The nerve of those “life-loving,” “criticizing the war is not supporting the troops,” “either you’re with us or against us,” Republicans. If they truly love life, then every single death in the war is a significant milestone. If they truly want to call themselves supporters of the troops, then death number one-thousand five-hundred and sixty-three is a significant milestone. If the safety of our armed forces is truly the focus, then death number ninety-one was a significant milestone.

I was appalled and disgusted at each statement that even suggested that 2000 deaths was a “false” milestone. The nerve. And they want to say that criticizing the war is not supporting the troops. Well I guess the families of the 1,999 fallen soldiers (since death number 1000 was marked and apparently considered a legitimate milestone) are glad to know that their loved ones died in vain, and that their deaths aren’t considered significant to some of the most powerful leaders on the Right side of the political spectrum.

It’s bad enough that this administration refuses to honor their fallen sons and daughters by not showing their flag-draped coffins as they are deployed back here on the homefront. But now, just in case that disrespectful action isn’t enough, your loved one’s death is insignificant too.

I wonder what number will have to roll around for the death to be considered “not-false” by those treasonous politicians; 5000? 10,000? Maybe seven-thousand five-hundred!

Shame on all of them!

-Maelstrom

Exit Strategy Revisited

2005-12-15T01:02:00.000-05:00

July 2^nd, 2005, I wrote a post here that stated the USA should set a specific date to leave Iraq. I’d like to take this opportunity to agree with myself 5 months later, especially since several Congressmen and Political pundits have since joined me in my opinion (thanks to Congressman Jack Murtha, who has certainly changed the game by being so outspoken about his disagreements concerning the War in recent weeks). Just remember, you heard it here first.

So please allow me to restate my case and my reasoning. June 2004, the USA turned over control of Iraq’s government to the Iraqi’s. January 2005, the first round of elections took place in Iraq. October 2005, a referendum was passed in Iraq.

The common link? Specific dates set for each.

The common outcome? Each process was successful and garnered no major violent uprising from the terrorists or insurgents.

The June 2004 turnover took place (a day early) with little drama. The expected bloodbath that even I predicted in January never materialized. And the October referendum didn’t even make much noise on the news when it occurred a couple of months back.

So why wouldn’t a specific pull-out date work in the same fashion (go ahead, tell me why, I’m open to criticism…but make sure you back it up with evidence).

You see, this false and silly doctrine of “staying the course” is fundamentally flawed to begin with simply because when we went into Iraq, we had no course to stay. Beyond toppling Saddam’s regime (which was absolutely NOT an imminent threat) we had no plans for keeping the country of Iraq together. We thought we’d be hailed as heroes and that there’d be dancing in the streets. We weren’t and there wasn’t. We thought that the war would pay for itself because of the huge repositories of oil in Iraq. It hasn’t and Congress will probably end up passing another major supplementary (or series of them) in the coming months. And need I remind you that ALL the reasons that the Bush Administration used to urge the country into war turned out to be false and unfounded. No connection to 9/11, no imminent threat, no Weapons of Mass Destruction; ALL FALSE!

So to “stay the course” would be to follow a path of fallacies.

I bring this topic up because today the citizens of Iraq will be once again going to the polls; this time for much higher stakes than the last 2 times. But as in January and October, I expect that this election procedure will also go on without major disruption or interference.

I guess the big question for the American public should be, how can we trust the Bush administration when they say we need to stay the course and that setting a date to leave Iraq would “send the wrong message to the terrorists.”

And can I just be myself for a minute and express to you how ABSOLUTELY STUPID I THINK THAT STATEMENT IS? How can you send a wrong message to terrorists? By definition, aren’t terrorists irrational? Don’t terrorists contort or twist any message they receive to fit the means of their tyranny? And who cares about messages sent to terrorists when the majority of Iraq’s citizens aren’t terrorists, but are certainly nationalists tired of seeing the vast American presence there. ISN’T STAYING THE COURSE SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE IRAQI CITIZENS? You know, sending the wrong message to the individuals that we’re claiming we’re trying to benefit! In fact, not only is it sending the wrong message to the Iraqi citizens who’d like to govern themselves, it’s sending a horrendous message to the rest of the world, especially other Middle Eastern nations.

To the rest of the world it looks like the USA is there to occupy the land in order to benefit from Iraqi oil or to have a strategic location of military bases in the Middle East (presumably to protect Israel). To many Muslims it looks like the USA is trying to spread its idea of Democracy, and make Christian proselytes of the Iraqi people in an area of the world where Theocracy (in varying degrees) and Islam (in various forms) are the order of the day. And I’d suspect that many of the Iraqi’s feel as though they are strangers in their own land. Imagine how that would make you feel.

And finally, what have we gained by “STAYING THE COURSE?” I mean, it doesn’t appear to be working out that well for us. It’s certainly not going like Bush said it would. By this time we were supposed to be out of Iraq, leaving behind only a trace number of military servicemen. Instead we find ourselves increasing the number of troops in Iraq, having never squelched the insurgency or terrorism that exists there, with not even a tentative idea of when we’re going to leave.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!! And my list of substantiated criticisms could go on. But back to the topic at hand…Exit Strategy!

So Bush has been saying that “as the Iraqi’s stand up, (we) will stand down.” But that doctrine hasn’t been working either. It requires us to train the Iraqi National Army, and to train enough of them that they can defend themselves. And over 2 years into that process, only a few thousand Iraqi soldiers are up to the task. We need to attack this problem another way. I say let them know we’re leaving and they’ll soon get their butts in gear.

Now, I am in no wise suggesting that we leave the country without training the Iraqi National Army. Neither am I suggesting that we don’t leave behind some troops and/or safeguards. I am emphatically saying, however, that we need to set a specific date for leaving Iraq because unless we do, none of these benchmarks for turning this war over to the Iraqi’s will ever be achieved.

Let me give you a (simplified) example of what I’m talking about. If you are reading this and you’ve ever had a term paper, research project, or book report to do for any class in your lifetime, I’d be willing to bet my next 3 paychecks that you’ve experienced the “last minute” phenomenon. Your teacher told you the due date, but you didn’t really begin working on your paper until you realized the deadline was fast approaching, and if you wanted to do well you had a lot of work to do as the deadline drew near. If you initially had a month to do the project, you probably covered more ground in completing it during the last 4 days before it was due than you did in the previous 26. And if it required you to pull an all-nighter the night before the paper was due, you’d somehow pull it off.

Why???

Because you had to.

Gee-whiz…even a mother bird eventually kicks her nestlings out of the nest when the time comes. And you know what, the baby birdies learn how to fly and fend for themselves real quick!

I submit to you, that the same thing would occur in Iraq. Maybe not so smoothly; and I certainly do believe the violence will continue with maybe even a temporary spike in violence. But the fact remains that the violence continues, with periodic spikes in violence, while the USA is there. At any rate, setting a date would force all the Iraqi’s to work towards the goal of governing and protecting themselves. Because there’s nothing like having a broken leg, but knowing that you’ll have to give up your crutches in a little while if you’re ever to walk on your own again.

Mr. President please set the date, and let’s get our troops out of there. They, the Iraqi’s, WILL stand up!

-Maelstrom

PS: I was pleased to see a Time Magazine Online article that echoed many of the sentiments I've posted in this post and my July 2nd post. They even addressed some angles that I didn't. You should read it!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1136485,00.html?cnn=yes

The Promise

2005-12-11T14:45:00.000-05:00

I am happy to report something so amazing that I am still sorting through all the many benefits. I am in a state of total amazement. The news has been reported on CNN, NPR, the internet, all over. It has set my hometown abuzz, and many institutions of higher learning in my home state have praised the proposition. I simply can’t believe it.

Ok, so here’s the deal…

…an anonymous donation was recently made to the Public Schools in my hometown (if you know me, then you know what city I speak of); a really big donation at that. For the next 13 years anyone that graduates from my city’s Public High School’s will get a Full ride scholarship to any Public College or University in my home state of Michigan.

That’s right, just graduate with a 2.0 (the graduation requirement) and you get a guaranteed Full ride Scholarship to a Public University, no questions asked.

Simply remarkable!

Here’s a lil Maelstrom Hometown history. My hometown was founded by Titus Bronson in 1830. It was initially called Bronson, Michigan, but was later changed to honor the Native Americans that previously settled the land there. Its name comes from a Potawatomi Indian term that means “boiling water”; so-named because of the river that runs through it.

Many major businesses found their home there, including the famous Checkered Cab company (that made Taxi’s for major cities such as New York), the James River paper company (which utilized the river and the vast number of trees in the area to form a major United States paper company), First of America Bank, Gilmore’s (a Department Store) and the UpJohn Company (a major Pharmaceutical Company). Also centered there or in the area were Eaton, Stryker, Perrigo (the #1 generic Pharmaceutical Company in America), and a Georgia Pacific plant, to name a few.

Unfortunately most of these companies suffered through hard times and by the 1990’s had either been bought out by companies that weren’t located in the area, or had to cut hundreds of area jobs.

The UpJohn Company was bought by a European Pharmaceutical company called Pharmacia, which was then subsequently bought by Ann Arbor, MI based Pfizer (the world’s largest Pharmaceutical Company). Many of its jobs were cut or shipped to New Jersey. First of America was taken over by Cleveland, OH based National City. And Gilmore’s, Georgia Pacific, and the James River paper company all ceased to exist. Several other local businesses closed or were forced to cut jobs as well.

After all the job losses and business buy-outs, my personal fear was that the place would end up like its northeastern Michigan neighbor Flint, or southwestern Michigan neighbor Benton Harbor. Both of these towns at one time had thriving economies and viable businesses which severely crippled the cities when they pulled out (as was documented by Michael Moore in the film “Roger and Me” for the city of Flint). And the only thing that truly kept any life in my hometown area for the last 10 years or so were the Colleges (one of which had to close) and the University.

The area needed something to revitalize it. In recent years many revitalization attempts have been made (and are ongoing), but I am 100% confident that this will do the trick. Improving the Public Schools will improve the economy for the whole region.

Why only Public School students and why only Public Colleges, one might ask! Well, Michigan once had a Governor (John Engler of the last GW Bush administration) who didn’t believe in Public education and literally destroyed it in so many ways from top to bottom. Furthermore, Public Schools are arguably the basis of a middle-class community. And undoubtedly, the Private Schools in my hometown were largely separatist and elitist at best. But now I bet that even some of those Private School students’ parents are having second thoughts about where they want to send their kids.

“But are the Public Colleges in the State even that reputable,” one might ask.

Well, Michigan isn’t just another State in the Union with respect to higher education. There are a handful of World-renown Universities including Wayne State, Western Michigan, Ferris State, Eastern Michigan, Grand Valley State (whose football team just won their 3^rd National Title in 4 years in Div. 2) and Central Michigan. And probably more significant is the presence of Michigan State University as well as the University of Michigan (which is often in the top 3 in the nation as far as student enrollment expenses are concerned).

In all there are some 15 public Colleges and Universities in the State of Michigan, and each of them is accredited and well respected. Indeed, the University of Michigan is often ranked in the top 25 overall and in the top 3 public schools in the nation for overall curriculum.

So a decree, like the one that has been handed down to my Hometown, is not just a blasé occurrence. It really means that you have an opportunity at not just a free higher education, but a free and credible education.

Now consider all the advantages. I envision a glorious snowball effect that can only mean good things for the community. Consider, now that parents realize their children will go to school for free by just graduating, they have a huge incentive to stay in the area. Some of the families that live in nearby communities (many of whom moved from my hometown to the suburbs) will now move back into town simply because of The Promise.

As a result, businesses that were once in town and ailing would benefit from the steady (and potentially increasing) adult population. Outside businesses will be more willing to invest in the area because they know that there will be a strong number of potential workers as well as a consistent consumer base. Plus, what a bargaining chip. Imagine that you were a parent of two pre-teen children and you were offered a job in a place where your kids would for sure go to college for free. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.

Plus, parents will want their children not to just get a free higher education, but would want them to be well prepared for schooling post-high school. Therefore the parents would demand an increasingly more competent group of Public School teachers, faculty and administrators. Also, parents would pay more attention to their children's attendance in school as well as their grades.

The dropout rate should decrease, the concept of community would re-ignite (ie people will be more apt to confront children who are not in school when they should be), and the list of potential benefits goes on. This commitment will not only benefit the local area, but it will indeed benefit (to some extent) the crucially ailing Michigan economy overall.

Amazing!

Knowing the number of students that graduated with me, and knowing that the High School across town has about the same amount of students, I’ve estimated that whoever is responsible for this donation must have set aside about $500 million. The question around town is “who has that kind of money?” It’s apparent that there was a joint or maybe even group effort. I suspect that maybe the Gilmore’s and the UpJohn’s teamed up with the donation. Maybe local Professional Athletes Derek Jeter and TJ Duckett were in on it. Maybe it’s some random “outsider” just trying to make a point. Who knows? One thing I do know is that whoever did this is clearly aware of the advantages, and they have a foresight that this entire nation needs to get. Education is the cornerstone of a successful nation. When you focus on education everything else falls into place.

To that end, I am grateful for the many news outlets that have reported this. I first became aware of it one evening while watching CNN. Later I heard about it on NPR. Indeed several of my friends have informed me that they heard about a great educational donation for the Public Schools in my Hometown; one friend was in Florida when he heard about it.

Everyone in the nation should know about this because many more communities than just mine can make such a commitment to education. It doesn’t have to be 2 or 3 people; it could be a whole city collectively donating their money to the cause of making Public Education better. It will, I guarantee, make the whole community a better place to live.

Now, for those of you that thought I was out of my mind for always singing the praises of my city and saying that my hometown is the center of the world (and also the greatest metropolis in history…a megalopolis…yada yada yada)…whatcha gon’ say now???

-Maelstrom

PS: I forgot to mention that November 29^th was Don Cheadle’s 42^nd Birthday. Happy Belated Birthday Don!

Boondocks

2005-12-01T00:09:00.000-05:00

Look man, people gotta start stayin’ up late on Sunday nights!

The rebel mastermind behind the tell-it-like-it-is comic strip Boondocks has turned his comic strip into a full length cartoon that airs Sunday nights on the Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim set. Aaron McGruder has delivered an outrageous, but truly insightful, look at the society we live in.

I have admired McGruder for a handful of years now. Not only for his comic strip, but for his no-nonsense, straight-talking manner. I’ve watched him speak on several occasions, and on each one he held no punches.

Look, one time I saw him on a panel of esteemed men in the Black community speaking to middle-teens. Towards the end of his speech, he’d gotten really real with the young people. He finished by saying something along this line: “Look, I’m a critic…I’m not here to tell you that you can do it, ‘cause maybe you can’t!”

I was in awe. I could not believe that he would cast doubt on all the hopes and dreams of those aspiring youths. But he was just being real.

And as I understand things, he has an incredible disdain for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Well, can you believe that he actually had to sit next to her during a speaking engagement? So what does he say when he gets to the microphone to speak (while Condi is still there)? “Yall think yall funny sittin’ me next to Condoleeza Rice?!!!”

Again, no-holds-barred!

Well his cartoon is no different!

WARNING: You will be offended WARNING: You will be offended
WARNING: You will be offended WARNING: You will be offended
WARNING: You will be offended WARNING: You will be offended
WARNING: You will be offended WARNING: You will be offended
WARNING: You will be offended WARNING: You will be offended
WARNING: You will be offended WARNING: You will be offended

He takes shots at everyone, no matter the race, religion, social class, sexual orientation, job description, shoe size, disability…no one is safe.

But here’s the great thing about it: McGruder is simply presenting an extreme satire on American Culture. And every satire he’s presented thus far, I’ve actually witnessed playing out in real life. No matter how extreme, I’ve seen each scenario. No matter how not-PC, I’ve been witness to every circumstance.

And I sit there laughing my head off while thinking the whole time, “I shouldn’t be laughing at this.” But I do, cuz it’s real, and in the foolishness of the vicissitudes of this life, we all play into many stereotypes and carry on in shameful fashion. And Boondocks cleverly (but excessively) exemplifies this.

In reading previews for the show, I learned that McGruder and comedian Dave Chappelle are decent friends. And among other things, one of the reason that Chappelle canceled his incredibly successful Comedy Central show was because people didn’t understand the complexity of his many skits. Underneath the hilarity of every parody, there were real-life (often racial) implications. And apparently it bothered Chappelle that people (primarily White-America) would just laugh at his jokes and not consider the message he was purveying.

So what! McGruder is poised to tell it like it is, and he doesn’t care if you get it. I think McGruder said of the cartoon that either it’s going to be a big hit, or it’s going to be a big failure, there’s no inbetween.

Well, in my book he’s already knocking ‘em out the ballpark!

So in the half-hour space after watching 2 hours of ABC’s Desperate Housewives and Grey’s Anatomy Sunday nights, make sure to click over to the Cartoon Network and catch Boondocks at 11pm!

-Maelstrom

The Sidebar
Being the avid Michigan fan that I am, I have a deeply engrained disdain for Notre Dame (just a little bit less than I do for Ohio State). Despite being a not-top-ten team all season (I’d argue that maybe they deserve the 10 spot now, but shouldn’t have been ranked that high previously), they somehow find themselves in a guaranteed BCS spot. I don’t think they deserve the spot anymore than Fresno State (a team that also pushed USC to its brink, but doesn’t have the good graces of voter bias in their favor like ND), and certainly not Oregon (why do the pollsters hate on the Pac-10 so much). However, that’s not even what has made me to further dislike ND this season. The administrators at the school have somehow managed to frustrate me this year.

A few weeks back Notre Dame signed first year Coach Charlie Weis to a 10 year contract, apparently worth between $30 and $40 Million bones. This contract is virtually unheard of in college athletics and is incredibly unwarranted. At the time Weis was awarded this contract, ND had a record of 4 wins and 2 losses. Did I mention this was his first year coaching?

So right now you might think that this is just a minor point, and that it does seem a little silly for ND to sign Weis so early on at ND, with only a few games (including a couple losses) under his belt. But here’s what I’m really frustrated with:

3 seasons ago Notre Dame started the season with an 8 and 0 record under then-Coach Tyrone Willingham. It was also his first season, and he had a 5 year contract. By the end of the 3rd season, after suffering through two tough seasons, Willingham wasn’t even afforded the opportunity to finish out his 5 year contract (normally ND honors the contract, no matter how bad the coaching tenure). Willingham got the axe in a very cruel fashion from ND.

What’s the obvious difference between the 2 coaches? Weis is White and Willingham is Black.

Now certainly there are other factors at play. Willingham wasn’t the first choice for coach at the time he was hired by ND. He was hired by default when a scandal arose around the original choice for coach. So he was never endeared by the ND administration. Actually he was once he started out 8-0 and took ND to its first bowl game in years, but that immediately soured once they started to lose. The other thing to note is that Weis comes in with a resume that includes being a coordinator on the thrice Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots team. So he looks to have a bright future.

But all things being equal, if Weis is such a good coach, and his NFL background is so amazing, why in the world does his ND team have 2 losses when Willingham’s had none at the same point in the season. Plus Willingham cultivated many of the players that Weis now has. That means that Willingham was winning with a less experienced team, and Weis has losses with a more experienced team.

So why the big contract extension?

Though I think there are many political reasons for it, I can’t overlook race as a factor since this is occurring at ND. Notre Dame has a history of overt and subcutaneous racism. For many years ND wouldn’t allow Black athletes to participate in sports. And recently as 1999, a major Black hometown recruit that I’m acquainted with noted that ND basically tried to scare him away by threatening him with the Calculus requirement. Essentially saying that we don’t think you can pass the class, and if you can’t pass Freshmen Calculus, then you can’t play for us.

There’s no valid justification for Weis’s contract except his potential. Unfortunately for him I think his potential will crumble once Willingham’s product that Weis is currently benefiting from, QB Brady Quinn, enters the NFL draft.

The NBA Dress Code

2005-11-25T13:00:00.000-05:00

So I guess Russell Simmons failed!

Flashback to the year 1992: Def Jam Records co-founder Russell Simmons launches the first major hip-hop clothing line, Phat Farm. Recognizing the reality that the clothing does not make the man and that there was a large demand for so-called Urban Wear, Simmons boldly went where many have since followed. His stated goal was to prove that there is room in corporate America for the garb that is often represented in a culture called “hip-hop,” and that not everyone wearing such attire is a “thug.”

It’s now a couple weeks into the 2005-06 NBA season, and if you don’t know by now, a new NBA dress code has been implemented. In accordance with the dress code, players can no longer wear large necklaces/chains/medallions on the exterior of their clothes, doo-rags/head scarves, or headphones. On the flipside of the coin, players must wear collared shirts, dress pants, and cannot wear “work boots.” These rules apply when players enter any arena, and are in effect at all times (except while they’re in their playing uniforms).

In short, I think the new dress code is heavily flawed and has been brought about because of cultural, if not racial (and incredibly foolish), stereotypes. I think that the NBA Commissioner David Stern has turned into a dictator in his attempt to clean up the image of the NBA in the post-Pistons/Pacers brawl era. And ultimately, I think this policy and his statements are so amazingly hypocritical on several levels.

I’ll begin defending my thesis by noting that Stern is taking his job too seriously. He keeps asserting that the NBA is a business, pulling in $3 Billion Dollars a year, and that its members should carry themselves (i.e. look) like businessmen. Well I have a serious problem with Stern looking at the NBA from this perspective. It is true that the NBA is a business, of sorts. It is also true that it makes a lot of money. These things I would never dispute. However Pornography, Lawn Care, and Automobile Repair are also businesses…and you know what, they dress (or don’t dress, as the case may be) in the attire that is appropriate for their job. Stern’s argument about the NBA being a business likens the NBA to Wall Street.

That is the farthest thing from reality.

The NBA is about 1 thing and 1 thing only: Entertainment. That’s right, entertainment on a similar wavelength with Hollywood. And much like Hollywood, part of the biggest appeal (you know, the part that helps make the $3 Billion in revenue) is the individuality of the players that make up the NBA. It is for certain that people are curious to see what “A.I” is going to wear in the post-game press conference. It is for sure that people find it entertaining to see Rasheed Wallace bouncing his head to the music in his headphones during a pre-game interview. The individual aspect of the game (largely what makes the game so much fun to watch), what this business truly is all about, is now being abandoned.

To piggyback on that notion, the NBA already has a dress code. When they’re on the clock, every player is wearing a jersey with their number and name on it. I’ve never seen a player playing while wearing a medallion or sporting a headscarf. And that makes sense. You see, once upon a time I worked at McDonald’s (if the NBA is a business, certainly Mickey Dee’s is), and we also had a dress code. But you know what, unless I was on the clock, working in the capacity of that business, I didn’t have to adhere to the dress code. This meant that when I exited my vehicle and entered McDonald’s, I could be dressed in mismatched shoes, a polka-dot sweater and fluorescent orange jeans. However, once I punched in, I had to have the familiar McDonald’s shirt, pants and hat on. Stern’s policy regulates the players from the moment they get into their limo, or the team airplane, until the time they leave the arena.

Isn’t that a little excessive? I think so!

Especially since it may affect the player’s performance. Anyone who works any job will attest to wanting to relax prior to work. So why are NBA players now being denied (to some extent) the same opportunity. Some NBA players listen to music to take their mind off the ensuing game. Some players, being superstitious, wear special jewelry before each game. And if you buy the argument that sports is largely psychological (and trust me athletes often think so), then it is feasible to suggests that such change in routine (which dates back to childhood for many) could have an affect on their playing.

Undoubtedly the NBA has experienced significant bad press over the course of the last few seasons. Probably the most notable occurrences are the “basketbrawl” of last season, and the fall from grace of Kobe Bryant, one of the NBA’s biggest names. However, changing the outer appearance does not change people. If players want to fight during a game, they’ll still do so, it’s been happening as far back as I can remember (and I’ve been avidly watching the NBA for nearly 20 years). Indeed, I think Allen Iverson put it best when he said, “you can put a murderer in a suit, but he’s still a murderer.”

Now back to that $3 Billion Dollars a year. Where in the world, or how in the world does the NBA think it makes that money. Well, let me tell you. The NBA capitalizes on the Hip-Hop culture that Stern and many others (primarily Phil Jackson) criticize. The NBA now uses, on a regular basis, “Throwback” Jerseys which were made popular through hip-hop. NBA exposure through hip-hop music has been present for over a decade at least. Even a handful of NBA stars have had their own hip-hop albums. In fact, arguably the NBA’s biggest star, Shaquille O’Neal, has something like (I can’t remember for sure) 4 Gold Albums and 1 Platinum Album, featuring some of Hip-Hop’s biggest stars including the late Notorious B.I.G. Some of Hip-Hop’s most successful artists, like Jay-Z and Sean Combs, now have part ownership of NBA franchises or are pursuing it.

Without a speckle of doubt, the NBA is as big as it is today specifically because of its intermingling with the hip-hop culture.

That being said, I am absolutely tired of people wearing Timberland Boots and Platinum Chain medallions being equated with gangsters and thugs. When people say that (i.e. Phil Jackson and several news reporters…even acclaimed Black film director Spike Lee) it makes me so mad I want to spit nails. For starters, when people say such things it clearly indicates to me that they are out of touch with the younger, “hip-hop” generation. The gangster era in hip-hop died, in my opinion, when Tupac was murdered (about 10 years ago). Since then we’ve gone from Jiggy to Bling-Bling to Pimp. And if you want to say that Platinum Chains and Gold encrusted Chalices are negative depictions that shouldn’t be portrayed by NBA players because it is representative of the Pimp imagery, then fine. That logic would indicate to me that the critic has a full awareness of where the music and the culture are today, and would get little rise out of me at all. However, to place all “hip-hoppers” in one basket because of their dress, and call that basket “thug” let’s me know that there are stereotypes and prejudices at play that have been engrained in the minds of hip-hop haters.

Furthermore, if hip-hop is such a bad thing, explain to me why even the gangsta era hip-hop artists have found cross-over success. Snoop Dogg is a spokesman for Chrysler and recently did a commercial with Chrysler Corporation Chairman Lee Iacocca. Ice Cube and Ice Tea have both become prominent and respectable forces in Hollywood. And that’s just to name a few. And each of those artists has dedicated time, their voices, and their skills to the NBA in some way form or fashion. And the NBA stands to gain the most from it simply because when hip-hop artists speak, the generation listens and follows.

When Snoop wears a Kobe jersey, the sales for Kobe’s jerseys goes up. When Jay-Z wears a Jason Kidd jersey, everybody rushes to the stores to see if the Kidd jersey is still in stock. And who benefits? Not Snoop, Kobe, “Hova” or Kidd…the NBA does.

And how hypocritical is it (or at least fundamentally flawed) for the NBA to solicit high school and young college talent but not allow these people to dress like their peers. Many of the leagues 30 and under players grew up in neighborhoods and areas where hip-hop was all they knew. Despite their hip-hop backgrounds, their talent is what makes them good enough to play in the NBA. But now the NBA is too good for their background???

So basically the NBA wants the talent, but not the “baggage” that goes along with it.

For arguments’ sake, I’ll buy the case that wearing Roc-a-wear sweats with a Jakob the Jeweler watch and a G-unit platinum (spinning) medallion is representative of gangsters and thugs. What does the dress code change then?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

So now they’ve gone from dressing like Gangstas on the street to dressing like Gangstas in corporate America. Because last I checked, the biggest thugs and gangsters in this country wore suits, collared shirts, neck-ties, and worked on Wall Street. I mean, what exactly is a thug? An Enron executive? A WorldCom CEO? A Tyco Board Member? A United States President? All these people wear suits and ties and don’t dress in the attire of hip-hoppers, but they are no less criminals, thieves or crooks (i.e. thugs and gangsters) because they look the part of the stereotypical law-abiding citizen.

NBA players and those that identify with the hip-hop culture should be so offended that they boycott anything hip-hop based that benefits the NBA. The handful of hip-hop artists that still wear jerseys should cease. Players shouldn’t do anymore shoe commercials that feature hip-hop music. Players shouldn’t be in anymore commercials promoting NBA teams if the commercial features a hip-hop beat. Hip-hoppers shouldn’t buy NBA player-endorsed shoes or their clothing and then wear them in music videos. NBA players should refuse to wear throwback jerseys during home games they’re supposed to wear them in. There should be absolutely no intersection between hip-hop and the NBA, and I guarantee that the 3 Billion dollars that Stern is touting would sharply diminish. Then what would his business do?

For Stern to implement such a prejudiced policy (I haven’t even gotten into the implications for players from overseas, or those that don’t dress in hip-hop clothing, but rather in other attire that’s no-longer acceptable) means that he’s missing the point, and I don’t want to miss the point.

The point is simply this, running a business is all about making money and providing a service. By Stern squelching the individuality of the players through this superfluous dress code he is doing a strong disservice to the culture that makes this business as lucrative and commercially successful as it is. There is a direct correlation between the $3 Billion Dollars the NBA makes each year and its intermingling with the Hip-Hop Culture. Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation between what Stern thinks is wrong with the NBA and Hip-Hop as well.

I’d just like to say that he’s wrong, and that the NBA is fine. Also, the problems that do exist have more to do with certain individuals, and not the apparent “Universal Dumping Ground” culture of Hip-Hop. When he learns how to deal with people on a more personable level, the pockets of trouble around the NBA will also subside. Because all he’s doing with his dictator-like stance these days is alienating not only the players, but the fans as well.

Sounds like to me that Stern needs to brush up on Business 101!
-Maelstrom

Be Grateful

2005-11-24T20:30:00.000-05:00

I know I don’t need to say much to drive this point home, but I think it’s totally appropriate to amplify it.

Today is among my favorite days on the calendar. It is my favorite Holiday and (as I sometimes quip to those who know me) the 2nd most important day in November. Thanksgiving Day is the one Holiday that we have in this country that everyone can participate in. There’s no religious affiliation, no political under-current, no person-specific glorification. Thanksgiving Day is a day when everyone actually pauses and considers the things they have to be thankful for (or at least the notion of “thankfulness” is brought to the forefront). And no matter who you are, or what condition you find yourself in, there’s something to be thankful for. Especially if you’re reading this blog, because that means that you have computer access and access to the internet (not to mention access to the greatest site on the web).

In my “old” age, I have my doubts about all the stories I’ve been taught about the origin of Thanksgiving; the Pilgrims and the “Indians” getting together happily and sharing the edible elements of their culture. No matter the origins though, I’m glad that it has turned into this very positive Holiday with a reputable purpose. Unfortunately I think it is too easily and too often glossed over by the Holidays that precede and follow it. Money-grubbing businesses and corporations, along with gift-hungry children, consumed by the decadence of Halloween and the selfishly commercialized nature of Christmas promote their madness without making mention of Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving should not be glossed over. Thanksgiving should not be about eating Turkey (though I certainly enjoy it). Thanksgiving should not be that minor thing that happens in-between Halloween and Christmas. Thanksgiving should be a day that gives you pause and causes you to consider all the many things that you have to be thankful about.

That being said, take a moment and rewind your mind to this time last year. Recall where you were at. Consider the prospects that lay before you. Now, fast forward to today and remind yourself of all the things that transpired in the last 365 days (think big picture here). Since Thanksgiving 2004 there have been several natural disasters. Many of which were unprecedented and none of us could’ve anticipated at this time last year.

The Tsunami in the Indian Ocean claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. The recent earthquake in Pakistan has claimed tens of thousands. The 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season is still taking lives well into the thousands. Tornadoes aplenty have sadly claimed their number of lives too. Several religious pilgrimages ended tragically as people were murdered at some, and stampeded at others. All-in-all, this year has been monumental with respect to natural disasters and the number of lives claimed and/or altered. And do I even need to mention the many people that have met their demise at the hands of war and fighting.

All those lives taken, all those people forever changed. And that could’ve been any one of us (as my mother often says, “but for the grace of God, there go I”). So indeed, in that very broad manner, we are blessed. But don’t forget the many things we often take for granted. Shoes on your feet, clothes on your back, a roof over your head, food on your table, money in your pocket, good health; these are all things to be thankful for. And trust me, where you live today (in your village, city or town…in your neighborhood…somewhere near you specifically…you don’t have to even think of the poor people in Africa to realize this), there are people that don’t have those things. And that is indeed something to be thankful for.

If there’s one fallacy of this wondrous holiday, it is that it lends itself to the lazy mentality. You know, it causes people to focus all their grateful energy on just this one day, then people go on living a life of selfishness and inconsiderateness. Every day you live, you have something to be thankful for. If you eat every day, you have something to be thankful for. If you have all your limbs, and all 5 senses, then you’re truly blessed.

So I suppose my “after-school-special” point of this blog is don’t just be thankful on Thanksgiving Day. Be grateful every day of your life, because no matter how impecunious your situation, you’re doing better than many, and things could certainly be worse off for you.

Happy Thanksgiving,
-Maelstrom

PS: In the last several weeks, I have learned that many more people than I thought actually read “The Vortex.” So, I am thankful that despite the (sometimes) weeks between posts, I’m able to garner a few minutes of your time. I’m certainly grateful for each and every reader and do hope that you continue to read this site.

And to Sara, who left a comment here at the end of my last post and noted that I hadn’t written her back (presumably on thefacebook), this is Maelstrom saying hello. It has indeed been a looooong time. I hope that you’re finding success in whatever it is that you’re doing, because I’m expecting great things out of you. And thank you for your many kind comments and for reading this site. I truly appreciate it. We will be in contact in the future, but for now, I hope this suffices.

You’re Too Old For Halloween!

2005-11-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

New rule: Halloween is for homo sapiens 12 years old and younger ONLY!

Over the weekend I once again witnessed the pure decadence of men and women in my surroundings and decided that some things should be for kids and kids only. Halloween, a “holiday” that has interesting roots, is an occasion that eventually morphed into an opportunity for children to dress up in “spooky” costumes while makeshift panhandling for candy. But now it has taken on a new face that has me seriously questioning my generation.

You see, there should be requirements concerning “trick or treating.” You should be under 12 years old and/or shorter than 4 feet 6 inches. At the age of 4, 7, or 9, Halloween is an innocent event that affords children the opportunity to catch up on all the candy that mommy and daddy wouldn’t let them eat throughout the year.

But after 12 years old, children should be cut off. And here’s why…

…as you enter your teen years, and your hormones begin raging, and adolescence sets in, so does deviant behavior. As we get older, we pervert innocent things like Halloween. And I’ve watched the progression. Halloween goes from dressing up in “cute” little outfits to pulling pranks on people (like egging cars and “tee-peeing” houses). I’ve even heard tell of middle teens “bag-snatching” from small children during Halloween.

But the decadence doesn’t stop there.

These illicit behaviors reach full fruition in the late teens and early twenties. All weekend long I witnessed hundreds and hundreds of young adult women dressed in, well, I’ll call it “revealing” clothing (in lieu of using a couple of other terms I can think of to describe it). It’s as if the goal is to be as trashy as possible.

Now check this out, I saw droves and droves of guys dressed up as women for their costume. And I was lookin’ like, “when did this become the standard male costume?” Dresses, pumps, wigs, jewelry, make-up carefully done, complete with boobs and bras. I mean, the guys really had the stereotypical female look down to a tee. They looked more like ladies than the women did.

I find it funny that the women are dressed in attire that is presumably supposed to be attractive to guys, while the guys are busy trying to become what women used to be.

Anyhow, all I’m trying to say is that the bawdry nature of Halloween today could be easily rectified if 13-year-olds (and above) were banned from participating.

If I should ever participate in handing out candy from my doorstep one day, I will be certain to take “roll call” before anyone gets a Snickers from me. And I don’t care if they’re dressed up like Jesus, if they’re 13 or older I’m going to slap them, and tell them to go home, and never participate again. Hopefully this will serve as a future deterrent, and spare Halloween from the debauchery that it has now become.

-Maelstrom

The Sidebar
So, like I figured, Bush nominated a new candidate for the Supreme Court before much of the country was even awake Monday. And I just have to hand it to the guys he’s got working for him; they push their corruption to the side and manage to frame everything in such a way that it’s a win-win for Bush.

I just wish that everyone would pay attention and see how often the administration champions an idea, and then jumps to the other side of the coin when the initial idea doesn’t work for them.

When Harriet Miers was first nominated, Bush glorified the fact that she didn’t have a tainted judicial past, and that she came from the second best law school in Texas as opposed to the typical Ivy League elite. Those notions were shot down by the Right, so then Bush nominates this guy Alito. Now he’s praising Alito’s 15 years on the bench (saying he has more judicial experience than any nominee in 70 years), and of course Alito comes from Stanford.

Not only does Bush do this back and forth dance, so does his party.

When John Roberts was going through the confirmation process, he essentially said “hi, I’m John Roberts, and I won’t answer any questions.” He certainly wouldn’t give his thoughts or opinions on Roe v. Wade. That decision, to essentially plead the 5th, by Roberts was praised by the Right. They said his nomination isn’t about one single issue and he shouldn’t have to answer such questions. However, when Miers was on the block, they wanted to hear her say that she would vote against Roe v. Wade. She didn’t, but to prove that she would, her minister spoke to members of the administration that tried to assure the Right that she’s “one of us,” touting her Evangelical Christian conversion (a distinction that has come to mean if you are in favor of abortion, you’re going to go to Hell 6 times and maybe a 7th for good measure).

So on this 1st Tuesday in November, I’m reminded of an election that took place 365 days ago; a time when the term “flip-flop” meant the certain loss of any chance at Presidency for Mr. John Kerry. With that in mind, I have to ask, if flip-flopping was bad for the country in the case of John Kerry (1 of 100 Senators), isn’t it even worse for the country if the person (and the party) running it is also doing the same thing?

The Game of Politics

2005-10-31T00:05:00.000-05:00

I must admit that politics is a crafty beast. I mean so much goes on in politics that unless you’re paying attention, you’ll never even notice the subtle nuances. Case in point, the tail end of last week.

For over 2 years, a special prosecutor has been investigating the case pertaining to the leaking of a covert CIA operative’s name. For anyone that’s been paying attention to the story, there are at least a few things that seem obvious (though I can’t be 100% sure of my conclusions until I hear them from the prosecutor). Clearly Robert Novak, the columnist that published the operative’s name (Valerie Plame-Wilson), must be working with the investigators; otherwise he would’ve had to spill the beans before the Grand Jury like “Time” magazine reporter Michael Cooper, or go to jail for not giving up his source, like "NY Times" columnist Judith Miller. Furthermore, I suspect that the prosecutor has known for a long time who originally leaked the name since all three of these parties have now cooperated, and since Novak has been cooperating since the beginning.

But all that is beside my point, and will play itself out in the weeks ahead (and will probably end up with VP Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, Lewis “scooter” Libby, making a plea bargain to save his former boss and the White House some political grief…just my opinion, but we’ll see).

But in the game of politics, the rules work like this:
If your political party is in power, bad press for your party is released on a Friday. The reason why is because by Friday, the weekend has come and people tend not to pay as much attention to the news (there’s partying to be done, sleep to be caught up on, family to spend time with, etc.). What’s more is that over the weekend, people tend to forget the bad news that came out on Friday, and sometimes things happen over the weekend that will trump any Friday afternoon bad news.

So it came as no surprise to me that the special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, handed down his indictment of Libby on Friday and not earlier in the week. I wholeheartedly believe that Libby could’ve been indicted by Fitzgerald at least by Wednesday, if not weeks ago. But in politics, timing is a large part of the equation, and sometimes it is everything.

Make no mistake about it…

…it is no coincidence that President Bush’s Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination on Thursday, the day before Fitzgerald’s indictment announcement. It was a pre-emptive strike, if you will. That news was so big (even though we all knew that she wasn’t going to make it through the nomination process weeks ago) that it severely diminished the heavily anticipated CIA leak indictments.

I had been telling people for weeks that I thought Miers was going to withdraw her nomination. But when I saw the timing of her announcement, I was like, those guys are so crafty.

And you know what else, I am certain that the White House spent the weekend heavily engulfed in determining who the next Supreme Court Nominee is going to be.

Why???

Because the news of a nomination (ASAP) will close the sandwich of diversion around the corruption that has taken place in the White House. So, I am fully expecting an announcement Monday afternoon, by the President, declaring his latest Supreme Court nominee. By Wednesday for sure, and if it takes longer than that, I’ll be shocked.

One thing I have to say about this White House we’re currently under is that they really know how to play the game of politics. And no matter how one frames the arguments for or against them, they always win.

-Maelstrom

The Sidebar
October is Breast Cancer awareness month, and I’d be heavily remiss if I didn’t address it at all.

Breast Cancer is the most diagnosed Cancer for women each year by far (nearly 80,000 will be diagnosed this year). And indeed, about 1500 men are diagnosed with the disease each year. A sad but true statistic is that 1 in 9 women will be diagnosed with the disease in their lifetime with the risks increasing with age. Also, it is highly likely that you will know, firsthand, someone with Breast Cancer in your lifetime. A reality that I suspect is true since I see so many people wearing pink ribbons during the month. Because for the most part people don’t become aware until they’re personally affected, and that’s often when people begin to do things like wear ribbons.

I have had the pleasure of meeting one of the rare men who is a Breast Cancer survivor. He is a writer whose story is very inspirational.

Sadly, I also knew a very close family friend that suffered from the disease and eventually succumbed. She was my babysitter for many years, and her sons are my friends. It was through her that I first learned what a mastectomy is. Unfortunately, by the time she got hers, the Cancer had already spread to her lungs.

There’s so much that one can’t understand about the psychology of the disease. And certainly, men can’t identify with what it means to have a mastectomy as a woman. And unless you’ve witnessed the incredible declining health status of someone suffering with the disease, the devastation may not compute. I remember that my babysitter would take 30 minutes to walk up one stair (just one) once the disease had taken full hold of her. It’s overwhelming to say the least.

Gladly, the numbers of Breast Cancer deaths have been on the decline since 1990. Some attribute this to mammograms; others think it’s because of the drugs used. No matter the reason, it’s a great reality. Indeed a couple weeks back, a drug (Herceptin) designed to specifically fight Breast Cancer was announced, and it has shown great promise in fighting the disease.

Hopefully everyone has heeded the advice of doctors and performs self-examinations on their breasts (and yes fellas, believe it or not, that includes you too…yeah, you’ve got breasts). Hopefully if something looks or feels wrong no one hesitates to see their doctor about it. An action that simple can save your life; all it takes is your astuteness.

Certainly we have a long way to go in the fight against Breast Cancer (and all Cancers for that matter), but I’m glad to see that progress is being made. Most importantly I’m glad to see something that we see very little of in this nation these days…

…Awareness!

Long live the Pink Ribbons!

Illegitimate Defenders, Over-represented Victims

2005-10-24T19:00:00.000-04:00

In a couple sidebar rants, I’m still pretty frustrated with racial inequality. By now, if you have any interest in the vicissitudes of America’s social status, you’ve seen the tape of a New Orleans man being “restrained” by several police officers and FBI agents about two weeks ago. In a tale as old as this nation, again we have one black man having to be “restrained” by several white law enforcement figures.

The great thing about video cameras is that they don’t lie.

Apparently the police officers' form of restraining is topped off with a few tactics employed by boxers and kick-boxers alike.

And so I listened to the White officers’ Attorney on the news the other day (of course another white man), and I was astounded to hear how he defended the actions of the police. Just to play devil’s advocate, let’s say that the Attorney’s clients are telling the truth: the man was in a drunken stupor, a threat to others in the area, and was resisting arrest.

Now even if all of that is true, does it really take 4 or 5 men to restrain 1 man? And if he is truly that drunken, how much of a fight can he really put up that it requires so many people to arrest him? I mean, the last time I checked, superhuman strength, crisp agility, and amazing dexterity aren’t exactly the hallmarks of drunken individuals. And where in the law enforcement training manual does punching several times to the head (as well as kicking for those that have seen the extended version of the tape) constitute arresting or restraining? Aren’t law enforcement agents trained on the swiftest, most effective ways to subdue someone, apart from bar-room brawling methods?

What I truly find funny is that every time an incident like this occurs, it’s always several white men beating the crap out of one “severe threat" black man (gosh...are black men really that scary). And then the people that defend them (both legally and in the news) are more white men who can clearly decipher between racial injustice and reality.

Doesn’t there seem to be something at least slightly wrong with that picture?

In my other rant, I am so frickin’ tired of missing persons’ stories on the news. Not that my heart doesn’t go out to the victims and their families, but because the stories are lopsided and incongruent racially and gender wise. If you just watch the news, you’d think that no racial minorities are ever missing anywhere in the United States. And you’d certainly never imagine that a man could possibly be missing. And no minority children are ever the victims of kidnappings, molestation and murder either.

If I see another missing white woman story, I think my head is going to explode.

Ok, so after making a statement like that, I know I’ve got to qualify it. Here’s the problem, in the year 2003, there were two thousand more missing men reported in the USA than women. In that same year less than 30% of all missing people reported in the USA were white women. Yet, on the news, white women are far and away all we hear about. EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE there’s a story involving a man or non-white female, but that is very rare.

So my issue is that most missing people stories should be carried by local or state news, not national news. And if we are going to report missing people on the national news, then we should report all kinds of missing people (black, yellow, white, purple, green, polka dot, male, female and other), not just white women.

And I know this may strike a sour chord with people to name names, but seriously, I don’t see how in October, in the midst/aftermath of a Pakistani Earthquake, Hurricanes Stan, Rita, and Katrina (with Wilma pending), the Iraqi elections (and about a dozen other serious major stories) Natallee Holloway still makes major news. She went missing in May.

I specifically remember watching one 24-hour cable news station during the 4 days after Hurricane Katrina (September mind you), and the only other story they deemed worthy of coverage was this missing blonde-haired white lady in Aruba. Of all the other stories to report on outside of the Hurricane (not to mention the sad Hurricane response), they took opportunity to report that one.

Again, my heart goes out to the victims.

But what about the missing Black lady down the street? What about the Asian man that went missing yesterday in Los Angeles? What about the Latino children that were kidnapped last week by a suspected registered sex offender? Aren’t their lives valuable too? Aren’t they victims as well? Shouldn’t we also start a nationwide search for them if we truly care about their safety?

Decades after Billie Jean King (a lady) beat a man in a tennis match, 50 years after Brown vs. the Board of Education, over 35 years after the death of Martin Luther King Jr., millennia after travel by ships allowed men of different shades and languages to see each other…and we still have all this overt, explicit and implicit gender and racial inequality.

What sad beings we truly are!

-Maelstrom

Pristine, Magnanimous, Impeccable

2005-10-20T10:00:00.000-04:00

When I first began “The Vortex” over a year ago, I always made a point of referencing all of the information that I had accumulated so that any readers would know that I wasn’t just pulling my facts from a fantasy that I’d built in my head (see some of my earlier posts from the archives). I quit doing this after a while because I knew that I was writing on a factual basis, and if anyone was truly interested in knowing if what I was saying was true, that they’d go look things up for themselves upon reading my posts.

Just because I don’t reference all of my facts anymore doesn’t mean that I don’t do my research before posting something.

The other day, after my post about Christopher Columbus, someone had the audacity to post a comment saying that I was weak on the facts concerning him. Whoever left the comment has a lot of guts saying such things, and clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about or who they’re indicting. You serve just to annoy me, and maybe in the future I won’t respond to such silliness and just delete your ignorant comments. But for today, I’ll point out where you’re wrong, and where I was right.

First, you said that I asserted Vespucci was the first person to discover America. I never said that, I simply said that the distinction had been “ascribed to” Amerigo Vespucci. I made that statement with tongue-in-cheek (you know, a little literary humor) because I think that the very notion of Columbus, Vespucci or even the Vikings “discovering” a land that was already inhabited is a misnomer and laughable at best. Europeans wanted to believe that they discovered everything, and American text books seem to want to maintain these incorrect declarations, which is the subtle point that I was trying to make with that statement. They also wanted to make the inhabitants of the “New World” out to be savages and primitive peoples when in reality they had very complex societies and trade from South America to Africa is documented and had been going on for centuries before Columbus’ arrival.

Your second point that Columbus never traded for slaves is so incredibly false that I can’t believe you even made the statement. In fact, you’re so lazy that you didn’t even “google” the concept. If you go to http://www.google.com, and type in “Columbus Slave Trade” you return 809,000 hits, with 97 of the first 100 hits specifically referring to Columbus' role in opening up the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Looks like you’ve bought into the USA elementary school educational stories concerning Columbus. You know, the ones that leave out his involvement in implementing slavery.

So, brief slave trade history lesson. Portugal is regarded as the first European nation to enslave people from Africa. The methods that they used were known to Columbus, and he used this knowledge to enslave the indigenous people (namely the Taino or Arawak people) of the Caribbean. In fact, I’ve read several accounts that all agree Columbus took between 300 and 1200 Taino slaves from the Caribbean and brought them to Spain to be sold as slaves in the same fashion that African slaves were being sold on the Iberian Peninsula in 1495. By 1502, for several reasons (including the drastic diminishing of natives in the Caribbean, as well as the natives’ prowess in hiding in the hills and mountains of their familiar lands) African slaves were then being used to work the fields and mines in the “New World.” And there’s much more to be said about it that I won’t get into, but anthropologists and historians agree Columbus both had slaves and was the catalyst in the trans-Atlantic slave trade in more ways than one.

And to point out a very critical flaw in your failed argument concerning Columbus and the slave trade: You said that “Columbus never traded for any slaves, never set up any slave trading systems, first of all he didn’t know where he was so how could he.” You also said that Columbus had come and gone from the New World 3 times (1492, 1493, and 1498). The inherent flaw in your argument is that if Columbus had come and gone those 3 times, then he certainly knew where he was going even if he didn’t know where on the globe he was. Therefore could have easily set up a slave trade.

Finally, I never said that people liked Columbus in his day, or that Columbus got rich off of the slaves or the goods he stole from the “New World.” However, that reality is exactly why he was involved in trading for slaves in the first place. The spices and things that he was supposed to bring back to Spain from India were clearly thousands of miles from his location on the map. However he did find that there was sugar cane and gold in the Caribbean. So in lieu of returning valuable spices to the Queen of Spain, he brought Taino slaves to the nation. Upon realizing that the Queen didn’t want anything to do with the slaves, Columbus began pillaging (with the aid of slaves) the Caribbean Islands for anything valuable (gold, sugar, etc.) to bring back to the Queen.

So, looks like the only thing you’ve got going for you is that you agree with me that Columbus shouldn’t have a national holiday in his honor. Outside of that, you simply suck and you really annoy me.

I guess this was a good exercise for me though. It gave me the opportunity to prove my pre-eminence as a thinker and a historian, so now when people read what I write they’ll have further confidence that what I’ve written here is based on facts.

So Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous commenter, maybe you should do your research or come up with valid peripheral arguments the next time you wanna do battle with me. Better yet, just save yourself the time, and go pester someone else because I will NEVER just post something here that isn’t based in fact if there’s factual evidence regarding a topic to be had.

On the facts, I stand pristine, magnanimous, and impeccable!

Now who’s weak on the facts?

-Maelstrom

PS: here are a few websites you might wanna read concerning your false comments. And if you don’t believe them, maybe you should go to your local Public Library and look it up.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/Taino/docs/columbus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/con_columbus.cfm
http://www.ustrek.org/odyssey/semester1/093000/093000madcolumbus.html
http://www.illinimedia.com/di/archives/1995/October/9/edit1.html
http://www.link-mail.com/44200.html
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Opinions/921.aspx
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/purcell/s_381984.html
http://www.workers.org/ww/2000/africa0302.php

Columbus Day

2005-10-16T20:00:00.000-04:00

For years and years and years, this nation has committed a day on the calendar to honor our nation’s “discoverer,” Christopher Columbus. Federal buildings, offices and operations take the day off as they do on only 8 other specific Holidays throughout the year. Since the day has recently passed, I would just like to briefly spout about how sad it is that we celebrate the memory of such a treacherous individual.

“In Fourteen-Hundred and Ninety-Two, Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue.” Certainly anyone that grew up when I did, in the USA, has heard that rhyme recited time and time again. It refers to Cristobal Colon (Christopher Columbus…let’s just call him “CC”), and how he led a mission from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) to discover the New World. Among the “facts” I was taught for several years concerning CC were that CC proved that the world wasn’t flat, CC discovered America, CC wanted to trade spices with the Indians, and a handful of other accolades.

Since I was a 4th grader, “new” facts concerning CC have come to light. Apparently he wasn’t the one to prove that the world wasn’t flat, neither was he the first to navigate from Europe to the new world (he was preceded by at least 400 years by the Vikings). Furthermore, he didn’t even discover the America’s, that distinction has been ascribed to Amerigo Vespucci. And what’s more, despite our national holiday in his honor, Columbus never even set foot on United States’ mainland soil. He drifted from island to island in the Caribbean. Oh yeah, and spice trading…looks more like spice stealing to me.

So at best we can say that Columbus succeeded in traveling from Europe westward to what is now known as the America’s. He made this voyage a reproducible anomaly. And that’s about it.

Now here’s what we should really remember Columbus for. Columbus and his men made immediate enemies of the indigenous peoples living in the Caribbean. Maybe most notable was his leading the enslavement, massacre, pilfering, and rape of the Taino people in what we now know as Puerto Rico. Oh, and I should briefly mention that he and his men brought along with them a host of diseases that the indigenous peoples had no immune system to fight off.

CC is heavily responsible for much of the slave trading that marred the America’s for centuries, and whose explicit effects ended only a few decades ago in the USA. He learned from many European nations, like Portugal, how to trade for African slaves. He then arranged for these slaves shipment to the West Indies and forced them to work the land (full of cash crops like Sugar Cane) for his own personal gain.

Can someone please remind me again why we celebrate Columbus Day, complete with parades around the nation, and a Federal day off?

It would seem to me that a person who led the extermination and enslavement of one group of people, coupled with the displacement and enslavement of another group of people, would be a point of disdain and not accolade.

For real now, did he even accomplish anything reputable? He didn’t discover the America’s, he never made it to India to trade spices, he led a 16th century genocide, he didn’t even touch the USA mainland, and this is a guy that we’re going to halt the nation for and honor?

Funny how twisted this nation is.

It took marches on Washington, rallies, and even a Stevie Wonder tune to honor the memory of a truly remarkable man, Martin Luther King Jr. Indeed, there are members of Congress and in our Nation’s Judicial system to this day that voted against the MLK Holiday, and were in total opposition to it. So I gather that leading genocide is far more praise-worthy than leading non-violent campaigns of racial, social and economic equality.

I guess that I’m just frustrated with these “elephant in the room” issues. We talk about, debate, and discuss how women are paid 30 cents less than a man doing the same job, how teachers (who help develop multi-millionaire entertainers into who they are) are paid such pitiful wages, how the purchase of large gas-guzzling vehicles is financially wasteful/foolish, and about a bazillion other things; yet we never take steps to rectify these obvious “sillinesses.”

And one of the silliest notions that I can think of, with respect to national holidays, is to shut down the government in honor of a pillaging loser like Christopher Columbus; putting his name and reputation on par with Martin Luther King Jr. in January, and this nation’s Veterans in November. There seems to be some serious inequality in that very thought.

Since I know the task of erasing a National Holiday, no matter how unmerited it is, is a virtual impossibility, I at least hope that we tell the truth about Columbus and turn the day into an educational opportunity. In no way should he be praised, and certainly the people that became victims of his greed for prominence should be remembered and their history taught and honored.

It would be nice, sometime in the near future, to receive mail (no matter how full of bills it is) on the 2nd Monday in October. That would tell me that the nation has finally awakened.

-Maelstrom

It All Starts In The Mind

2005-10-05T10:30:00.001-04:00

It all starts in the mind

As an avid fan of awareness, and the vicissitudes of this daily existence, I am increasingly amazed at what the average human being can do; both negative and positive. From the horrendous depths of criminal acts to the grand triumphs of those that have made something out of an impoverished life. This wretched, scarred, wrinkled, imperfect flesh can do virtually anything. The question is however, for what cause or purpose will we use this vessel?

In the trenches of my own mind, there exist hurtful notions as well as magnanimous ideals. There are failures that seem inevitable, and victories that seem unattainable. Yet I exist, and the struggle is to strive for the victories that seem impossible, while fighting against failures that seem certain. From there, we must decide what defines “victory” for us. What can we point at and say, “that is what I want to achieve?”

Watching the news is often a depressing and awe-injecting pastime. I watched this week as a little girl in New York City explained to police officers how she came to be alone, wandering the streets of New York in the middle of the night. Hours later it became apparent that her father had murdered her mother, and then took the girl (his own daughter) and left her on the streets in the middle of the night. After hearing the tale, all I could ask was, “who would do such a hideous thing?”

In my short few years walking this planet, I have become aware of a number of my close friends that have been raped and sexually assaulted, molested and manipulated. And I just question “who and why would someone do that?” I question “what made that sinister individual think that they could do that…who gave them the right to steal my friend’s dignity and innocence?”

And ultimately I ask the question, “What was going on in that person’s mind that told them they could commit such a heinous act? Do they have respect for another’s hopes, dreams, endeavors, future…humanity?”

The obvious, quick answer is no. However, the question is still a valid one. Nobody just wakes up and robs a bank. Even a child doesn’t just steal cookies out of the cookie jar. Certainly one doesn’t just rape another haphazardly. The rapist has an agenda, knows that they can accomplish their “mission,” and believe they can get away with it. And without knowing the numbers, I’d imagine that the vast majority of murders are premeditated to some extent too.

Before 9/11/01, we had never imagined that a group of individuals would take planes hostage, and crash the planes into buildings while taking their own lives. It was unthinkable and certainly didn’t follow the typical hostage-taking mold. There were no negotiations, no freed prisoners, no ransoms, and just utter malevolence.

The common link to all of these acts, great and small, is that it had to first be conceived of in the mind. And that alone is a scary thought. To know the treacheries that this physical existence has wrought. To think that someone could be plotting much more devastating calamities. To think that things could get worse.

But there are solutions, and one of them is you…me. Too often, I find, that we don’t take responsibility for the “messes” we make of our lives. It’s always the other guy’s fault, or, (she) made me hit her, or, I get my temper from my mama. Rarely do we look in the mirror and own up to the mistakes we made that helped to land us in the situations that we now find ourselves in.

A powerful statement that I read from Jennifer Aniston in Vanity Fair Magazine, concerning her divorce with Brad Pitt, was that even if the marriage failed 98% due to him, that 2% of the blame rested on her shoulders, and that’s the portion she has to focus on and improve.

As personal responsibility relates to the wickedness we witness on a daily basis, I whole-heartedly believe that if people counted the costs, and understood the gravitas of the actions that they have taken (or are contemplating taking), that we wouldn’t see so much heinousness. Certainly we can’t stop our mind from thinking some of the thoughts it encounters. When someone cuts you off on the highway, yes you want to go flick them off and ride them off the road (at least I know I do). But when you consider that something as minute as flipping someone the bird can (and HAS) lead to murder, then you know to handle the situation with grace and patience.

As a boy I was taught that “you can’t stop the birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from making a nest in your hair.” In other words, in this context, there are times when we have been wronged and want retribution, but we can often save ourselves a lot of heartache by not allowing that frustration fester.

And yet this mind is amazing. It is truly a beautiful device. Look at what the human mind can accomplish.

Anyone that has watched ESPN over the last two weeks has been reminded of Roger Bannister, the first person to run a mile in under 4 minutes. It was believed to be humanly impossible, but in his mind, it could be done. Now, the feat has even been accomplished by high-schoolers.

It was once thought that the earth was flat, and that if you went over the horizon, you would fall off of it until someday, someone believed in their mind that the Earth was indeed not flat and that you could travel a circumference from one side to the other. To imagine human beings flying was laughable until the Wright Brothers created the airplane. Breaking the sound barrier was a virtual impossibility, until someone came along and said “it can be done.”

Now it is conceivable that one day man will Long Jump over 30 feet. Now it is imaginable that the fastest human being on Earth will one day be a woman. Now it is plausible that there will be a manned mission to Mars. Now it is possible that a cure for AIDS will be discovered. It just takes for someone in their mind to say, “It can be done!”

So how does this apply to the “average” man?

I think the first step that many of us need to take in the morphology of our future is to look in the mirror. Stand before the mirror and say, “this is me.” “I’ve made this mistake, I made that error, I really messed these situations up, but they are what they are. I cannot change the past; I can only look toward the future.”

Then we need to define for ourselves positive goals that we would like to accomplish.

And here’s the big one: It is a hard thing to remove ourselves from comfortable situations, even if that situation is an unhealthy one for us. We are indeed creatures of comfort and habit.

I don’t know if this is an original quote, but I’ll attribute it to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. He said, “People don’t change when they’re told they need to, people change when they realize they must.”

Unfortunately I know that change is easier said than done. Plus, you have to do more than want to change, or have more than just a reason to adjust your life. It takes a lot of strength and courage. Sadly, we often don’t have the strength to change our position on our own. It often takes extreme measures or occurrences to make us adjust our lifestyles.

Many people are obese and know that they need a more active lifestyle, and that a consistently healthier diet would greatly benefit them. They try and they try to do better, shuffling through diet after diet, but many can’t seem to make that transition until it is clearly apparent to them that their life is truly threatened.

Drug habits, even cigarettes, stand as an obvious roadblock to a smoother daily existence for millions of individuals. But it’s often not until it is crystal clear to that individual that their habit will harm their relationship, cost them jail time, or maybe even cause amputation of a limb, that the person decides to put that drug away.

And do I even need to mention what many people put up with in relationships (often women) even though they know they aren’t happy in it. From physical abuse, to emotional neglect, the victim often can’t let go and is many times being pulled by emotional strings like a puppet, often leaving the decisions about their relationship’s future up to their insensitive Agent of hurt. Then, and only then, do they move on; because they have to.

See, I’m a believer that it doesn’t have to be that way. If you want to see change around you, then you’ve got to envisage it for yourself. If you want the ground to shake where ever you walk, then you’ve got to believe that it’s possible in the first place. If you want to be in shape, you’ve got to tell yourself that you will eat healthier and that you will be more active. If you know your relationship is not what you want it to be, you’ve got to have the moxy to say I deserve better, I can live without this person, I will move on.

And trust me, all these things are realistic and possible…but here’s the key…

It all starts in the mind!

-Maelstrom

PS: This marks my 100th post. Yay me!

Katrina

2005-09-05T11:00:00.000-04:00

Needless to say, my heart, thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims of Hurricane Katrina; from the coasts of Florida to the coasts of Louisiana. The suffering that these victims are enduring and will continue to endure for months (maybe years) to come is just unthinkable. And I shudder to think what will become of that great “Crescent City,” New Orleans. I count myself lucky to have had the opportunity to partake in its great culture on more than one occasion. It was truly one of the most unique cities in this nation, bar none.

This time last week, we had not conceived the realities that many are now being faced with today as a result of this mighty storm. By Thursday evening though, I was actually at a boiling point of anger and frustration at the United States government for its slothful response to the affected areas. Normally a little anger (through an argument, good discussion, or watching the news) is fuel for me to write and post another blog. This time was different though. I was actually so mad that I couldn’t write. My mind kept cycling through all that I’d witnessed on the news all night long. I couldn’t sleep well, but was at the same time physically exhausted due to the emotional duress my mind was encountering due to the things I’d seen. And as I sat in class Friday, very little knowledge seeped in because my brain couldn’t stop thinking about all this.

I’ve cooled down a little and can now communicate coherently, so I will leave you with a few of my thoughts on the whole ordeal.

For the first time in a long time, the media did its job. I think the media really stepped up to the plate and I whole-heartedly believe that they saved many lives. Throughout the week as I watched the news,I was hearing two different messages. Government officials (Michael Chertoff, Michael Brown and the like) were thanking each other on the great job that they were doing in the aftermath of the Hurricane on one side. Then I’d hear news reporters from EVERY news station expressing how they hadn’t seen any government officials, any National Guardsmen or any sign that conditions were getting better for the victims of the storm.

It was not until Thursday evening that I got the full picture, and that was because of reporters like CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and MSNBC’s David Shuster. They were livid and irate about the fact that they hadn’t even seen any help until Thursday evening, 4 days after the storm hit. I think that it was solely because of their coverage that the government finally woke up, and sent the kind of support that should’ve been there by Tuesday, on Friday.

So here’s what I think they did right:
-Evacuated the region projected to be directly in the storm path (including New Orleans)
-Mobilized the Red Cross and FEMA prior to the onset of the storm
-Set up shelters for people to stay at during the storm if they could not leave the city of New Orleans
-Called up the National Guard in the aftermath of the storm to help out in the recovery operations
-Passing the $10 Billion aid package
-Accepting UN aid

Here’s what I think they did wrong:
-Not having an effective way to evacuate poor, sick and ill people from the “bowl” that is New Orleans prior to the storm
-Not calling up enough National Guards sooner (there should’ve been 20,000 National Guards there on Tuesday, not the few hundred that they had; certainly Tuesday was the day to get them there, not Friday). This includes all locations along the coast (Mississippi and Alabama too, not just Louisiana)
-Not having a Zero Tolerance policy for “true” looting and violence (a reality that sadly led to rapes, murders and beatings)
-Not having high-ranking Government Officials on the ground by Tuesday to give an accurate account of the situation to the Government
-Not accepting aid from numerous countries that offered it (in the form of both money as well as physically on the ground) early on
-Not having sufficient supplies for people who followed directions and actually went to designated shelter areas (namely the New Orleans Convention Center)
-Not getting food and water to the victims once it was clear than many people were trapped in New Orleans

This is what I think the real deal is, which may in large part explain how this calamity could happen. This government is stretched far beyond its capabilities both monetarily and militarily. Consider that when we first went into Iraq, General Shinseki said that we needed at least 300,000 troops on the ground to accomplish the mission. He was fired for his comments, we didn’t get the troops we needed, and now everyone knows he was right. SO, if we actually had the troop capacity to do the job there at this moment in time, don’t you think that we would have the 300,000 there now so that we could finish the job (since we know that’s what we need to accomplish the mission)?

Consider the Tsunami. As I recall, when the Tsunami first hit the USA only offered a pittance of money for the relief effort ($15 Million if I’m not mistaken). It wasn’t until we were trumped by much smaller and poorer countries than us that we finally pledged a reputable amount of money. In times past we were leading the way in contributions. Maybe it is that we don’t have the money and only embarrassment served as the catalyst for us to actually sign a check that would spell more financial hardships for this country.

And now consider Katrina. Why in the world wouldn’t we respond to this disaster with the necessary aid that it warranted in a timely fashion? Chertoff was talking about sending 1,400 National Guards a day and I was thinking, “Don’t you mean 14,000 a day?” 1,400 troops a day to aid an area where Millions of people live Mr. Chertoff? Does that even make sense?

So in my opinion, either there is a horrible mathematician in the White House that needs to be fired, or we actually DO NOT have the resources to handle these problems. And I think that’s the dirty little secret that this White House doesn’t want us to know.

Do not be fooled. THIS NATION IS IN A FINANCIAL CRISIS. Make no mistake about it. This reality will become more and more clear in the coming days and months (watch not only gas prices, but also retail prices, the stock market and of course Iraq). There’s no easier way to have a nation crumble than for it to go bankrupt.

Finally, I implore everyone who reads this blog, please do what you can to help out the victims of this storm. If that’s housing victims for a space of time, or raising money to send to the Red Cross (1-800-HELP-NOW), then don’t hesitate. Even if all you can do is send $20, then do that much.

Do not just complain about the pathetic governmental response, or shed a few tears as you watch the news. Get up off your derriere, and this time actually Do Something!

-Maelstrom

My Rebuttal

2005-08-31T23:58:00.000-04:00

So I’m not typically one to rebut in an angry fashion, but whoever left the last comment is flat wrong and obviously didn’t get the point of my last post. So let me break it down to you (and you can tell yo’ momma all about it when you’re done reading).

First off, I wasn’t fear-mongering, I was fact amplifying. If you don’t think it’s possible for another major natural disaster to occur on US soil right now in the aftermath of Katrina, then obviously you haven’t been on this planet very long. Just last August/September, Florida was ravished by 4 successive hurricanes. Rumblings from volcanoes both in the US and in Mexico, as well as Earthquakes in places as random as Kentucky and Indiana, have all occurred with unusual frequency in the last 11 months. And certainly the threat of a terrorist attack is always looming (lest we forget that al-Qaeda’s number 2 man warned that 9/11 was nothing to what we are going to see just a few weeks ago).

So my “hypotheticals” are realistic possibilities, not superfluous fear tactics.

As you noted, Rumsfeld indeed is guilty of fear-mongering. But what I’ve presented is far from what Bush & Company presented in taking this nation into Iraq. If you want to talk faulty hypotheticals, then point your fingers at them, and keep them there. Don’t point them at me when I’m dropping knowledge. Arguably the most criminal “hypothetical” ever acted upon in the history of this nation was the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat, that they had WMD’s, and that they were connected to al-Qaeda (all “facts” that the 9/11 Commission Report says were false). I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve taken realities and looked ahead into a potential situation based on realities that anyone 1-year-old or older has seen.

My basic point was simply that while Bush is bantering about in Iraq so we can “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here,” our nation is far more vulnerable than before. So let me amplify the facts for you once more:

FACT: Over 40% of our troops in Iraq are National Guard Members (meant to protect these borders and help in such disasters as Hurricanes)
FACT: Senators and Governors (on both sides of the aisle) alike have expressed the concerns that I amplified concerning having so many National Guard troops in Iraq (i.e. not having enough National Guard and Federal support in times of National disasters)
FACT: An estimated 3 million illegal immigrants cross our Mexican border each year
FACT: Over 90% of the cargo that is brought into this country on ships goes unchecked
FACT: Iraq was no imminent threat
FACT: There is no exact science to aiding devastated areas in times of Natural Disaster, therefore the support necessary isn’t clear until after it happens (watch the news and note how support troops and relief levels steadily increase as the awareness of the full devastation of Katrina is revealed)

All facts from whence I extrapolate these opinions:

OPINION: The US Armed services are strained (with many overseas Troops comprised of our National Guard); especially on the homefront
OPINION: The nation is at least as vulnerable as it was when we entered Iraq, and certainly not significantly safer
OPINION: Another terrorist attack or major natural disaster would push the Federal Government, as well as the National Guard, to its limits

No “fear-mongering” there. Just sound streams of logic. And again, I point out, these are all possibilities based on things that have occurred in recent months.

So to address your foolish comment that I’m not good at fear-mongering, you are absolutely correct. Fear-mongering is what Rumsfeld did. If Bush, Rumsfeld and company had involved themselves in the kind of thinking that I displayed in my last post, maybe we wouldn’t be in the quagmire that we’re in right now in Iraq.

Maelstrom keeps it real. And I will continue to look ahead to realistic possibilities. So my advice to you is to open your eyes, evaluate the big picture, and don’t leave ignorant comments here at The Vortex while hiding behind the cloak of an “anonymous” statement.

Now go tell yo’ momma!

-Maelstrom

The Hurricane

2005-08-30T16:30:00.000-04:00

By now I’m sure everyone is aware of the devastation that Hurricane Katrina has wreaked (and continues to wreak) on the Gulf Coast and far northward. As an avid news watcher and self-proclaimed amateur meteorologist, I am impressed with the storm. The first Hurricane I remember following was Hurricane Gilbert back in 1988 (I believe), which also hit the Gulf Coast. Ever since then I’ve been hooked on observing them in all their splendor and intensity. Hugo, Andrew, Bob, Bonnie, Opal; I remember them all. I can even tell you how strong each one was, where it landed, and approximate monetary damage for many of them. My family and I even drove through the remnants of a Hurricane (Alberto) on the Gulf Coast (which was quite an experience to say the least). And of all the storms I’ve watched, Katrina has to be the most awesome one I’ve ever followed.

I remember watching this storm develop last week. It was a small and meek storm that developed near the Miami coast of Florida. I didn’t think it was going to amount to much, and when it hit Florida, it was a diminutive Category 1 Hurricane. Then it weakened to a Tropical Storm, strengthened back into a Category 1 storm, and was a Category 2 storm when I last saw the news Saturday night. Having seen many storms before, and taking into account how close Katrina was to land already, I didn’t expect the storm to get much stronger, and maybe it would hit land as a Category 3 storm. At least that’s what I thought.

Boy was I wrong!

When I woke up Sunday morning, Katrina had jumped from a Category 2 storm to an unheard of Category 5 Hurricane, with sustained winds of 160 mph. And just a few short hours later, instead of weakening (as I had expected it to), the Hurricane was even stronger with winds of 175 mph. Though amazed by the storm, I began to consider the consequences and what could be done to help people who were sure to be devastated by the coming Hurricane.

In this country, there are 3 groups that are inevitably called in to help out with disaster relief efforts. They are the Red Cross, the shadow government FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Guard. That reality got me thinking, What if there aren’t enough national guardsmen to help out with the relief effort?

As of July 2005, the National Guard comprised 41% of US forces in Iraq (roughly 55,350 Guardsmen). Now, I’m not certain what the number of Army National Guard personnel is here in the States (such information is incredibly difficult to find in Post-9/11 USA), but let’s just assume that there are more than enough in the US to handle the current situation in the Gulf. My concern then becomes what if another natural disaster occurs now (Volcanic Eruption, Earthquake, another Major Hurricane; all realistic possibilities)? And if such a horrendous thing were to occur, how much more vulnerable does that make this nation to a terrorists attack?

So here’s my frustration, our President and his cronies are constantly parading around, preaching the false doctrine of “we’re safer now than before the Iraq War/before 9-11.” My thought is that if you believe our President, then you also believe that Elvis is still alive. It is not unthinkable that we could see a serious negative domino effect with respect to security here in this country.

Let me explain.

When we invaded Iraq, we sent over tens of thousands of Army National Guard personnel (who are supposed to protect the USA borders). In doing so, many young men and women that were in the Reserves were upgraded to Full-time National Guard service. And as you might recall, all branches of the Armed Services, including the Army, are having trouble meeting yearly recruiting goals. So, when a natural disaster like Katrina hits, and the National Guard is called in to help out with security and clean-up, it puts further strain on each State’s branch of the National Guard. Now consider the possible addition of another major natural disaster occurring in the coming days (or even a terrorists attack).

How in the world would we defend ourselves with so many guardsmen and other servicemen deployed in Iraq, helping out with Katrina, and then dealing with the other (hypothetical) tragedy?

Honestly, it’s not brain surgery to consider or realize that maybe the US is at its most vulnerable when we are hit with a major natural disaster like Katrina. Militarily, we are already spread thin worldwide, and that becomes more critical in times of natural disasters. And we’ve already seen how cold and calculating “the terrorists” are. I could imagine that they too realize this vulnerability and would seek to use it to their advantage.

And I know I sound cryptic, but it makes sense to me. Furthermore, I’m not the only one with this concern. Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, expressed similar concerns about exhausting the National Guard back in July (a concern he also shared with many Governors who were worried about the number of National Guard Units they’d have at their disposal in case of Natural Disasters).

My basic point is that I believe it’s high-time that President Bush puts his money where his mouth is, and secures our borders (that’s another blog for another day right there) while making sure that this country has the military support that it needs to protect these people (US citizens) in times of extreme tragedy. Otherwise, in my opinion, we are no safer than we were the day we set foot in Iraq.

Because as my very wise mother often said to me in my youth, “How can a man take care of other things if he can’t take care of his own house?”

Mr. President, you should listen to my mom!

-Maelstrom

Bird

2005-08-29T12:00:00.000-04:00

Today marks what would be the 85th birthday of my absolute favorite Jazz Musician of all-time; Charlie “Yardbird” Parker. I still remember the first recording of him that I heard. It was on my mother’s computer, using Microsoft Encarta. The song was Perdido and it was from a 1951 recording (which was taken at Massey Hall in Toronto, Canada, and is now revered as the Greatest Jazz Concert of All-Time). I replayed it and replayed it and replayed it. In fact, when I hear the recording now, I still get nostalgic; I still feel the same sublime delight that I felt that day when I first discovered it. That was probably 8 or 9 years ago, and yet today that sound is what I strive for whenever I pick up my horn.

Who is Charlie Parker, you ask? Well, he is often considered the 2nd most influential musician in the history of this nation’s first original music art form (Jazz), after Trumpeter Louis Armstrong. In fact, the sound that most people today consider to be jazz music was concocted by Charlie Parker (along with a couple others) some 60+ years ago. His influence endures much longer than he lived.

Charlie Parker was born in Kansas City, Kansas in 1920. At a young age, he took an extreme liking to music, and actually played the Baritone in school. He later gained a great appreciation for the alto saxophone, and began woodshedding (a musicians term for practicing) his sound. In fact, it has been said that he practiced his saxophone for 15 hours a day, everyday (and if you’ve ever heard him, you totally believe that; I know I do!). At age 15 he dropped out of school to pursue a musical career, and several years later, in New York City, he’d finally hit his stride.

Well before he made his name in NYC, however, a terrible tragedy occurred. Parker was in a car accident that landed him in the hospital. While there, to ease the pain, Bird (as he was often called) was given Morphine. As a result, Bird gained an affinity for the drug, and its drug cousin, Heroine. The marriage of Charlie Parker and Heroine would begin an era of Heroine drug use in the United States (yo…no lie…I saw it on the History channel), and would be a major influence on other musicians at the time. His Heroine and Alcohol abuse would eventually lead to his very early demise.

From 1942 until his death in 1955, Bird made hundreds and hundreds of amazing 3 and 4 minute songs. His lightning fast approach, unencumbered chord attacks, and tasteful tone were unsurpassed and maybe only matched by his close friend (Trumpeter) Dizzy Gillespie. He could play any song at any tempo and in any key. Every sax player wanted to be EXACTLY like him. It was the biggest compliment in the world to be told that you were copying Bird, or that you sounded just like him.

He died at the age of 34, with his extensive substance abuse problem being the cause of death. His body was so badly misused and abused that the coroner had estimated his age at 55 years old.

Unfortunately, I think that in order for Jazz to progress, it was necessary for him to die when he did. Without his death at that time, there would’ve been no John Coltrane or Miles Davis (at least, not like we know them). Coltrane brought with him the use of the extended solo and altissimo (the ability to play shriekingly high pitched tones on the Sax). Davis, who got his start in Bird’s quintet, also revolutionized Jazz in various ways. Even Bird’s compatriot Dizzy expanded his repertoire after Parker’s death. Charlie’s stature was so large that I tend to believe that he would’ve dictated the direction of Jazz, which might’ve limited some of the events that later shaped and expanded the horizons of Jazz in the decades following his departure.

Drug user, womanizer, alcoholic, and undependable. All these terms have been used to describe Yardbird. Be that as it may, this guy is my musical hero. I can listen to 3 notes of Parker music on the radio and I’ll know exactly what song is playing. I can verbally recite dozens and dozens of his solos note for note (although I can only play a handful of them due to their complexity). I can even remember when I heard each solo for the first time. And I’ll never forget that first double cassette that my friend dubbed for me years and years ago (remember tapes and “dubbing” music, instead of CD’s and “burning” it?).

Among the most important lessons that I’ve learned from Bird is in the essence of a statement that he once made. He said that “if you don’t live the life, then the sound won’t come out of the horn.” Unfortunately, many musicians already believed it and thus began crucial Heroine habits that put many of them out of work or landed them in jail (they thought that if they did drugs like Bird, then they could play like Bird). Fortunately his death caused some musicians, like Miles Davis and Trumpeter Red Rodney, to kick the habit. And though alcohol use is still a big deal in Jazz today, I’d contend that serious drug abuse has since ebbed.

Another lesson that he taught me was in reference to the concept of music. He didn’t like the term Jazz or Bebop, as his music was called. He could be heard playing over the top of orchestras or being backed up by congas and timbales. He recorded with organists and many singers. Nothing was out of his range of musical ability. Other musicians sometimes criticized him for showing up at bars and playing Country music from Juke boxes. To him though, it was ALL music, and if it told a story, then it was beautiful.

I wish I could talk to him, meet him, listen to him in person. I wonder what kind of knowledge he would impart upon me. I wonder did he have any limitations. Was he able to play altissimo with the same proficiency as his successor John Coltrane? What would he have played and what would he have done if he had a whole album full of extended solos?

I wish I could get his sound, but maybe I can’t because I certainly don’t live the fast, tumultuous lifestyle that he lived (and I certainly don’t have the 15 hours a day to practice as he did). I wish I could at least play all the “Heads” or “Themes” that he wrote if not the solos as well. Yet when I practice, it takes forever just to get 8 counts correct. But every once in a while, I here some of his phrasings creeping out of my horn and I say to myself, “hey, I sounded like Charlie Parker!” And you know I’m happy when that happens.

One day, I hope that someone makes another Charlie Parker movie that would do him and his legacy more justice (Clint Eastwood made one in 1987 which featured Forrest Whitaker as Bird). And not only that, I wish that they'd call me in to help out with its production, because as his biggest fan, I know I deserve that much.

No matter what, I certainly hope that Bird’s music continues to fly well into this new millennium!

Happy Birthday Bird!

-Maelstrom

So What's a Chief?

2005-08-28T21:00:00.000-04:00

Agreed Oz1310 (see comments to the previous post). Your points are well taken, and I concur. And yes, I know that my emphasis on certain principles is pretty strict and harsh. However, I write in that manner because I’m tired of the nature of humanity which often allows people with seriously flawed social perceptions the chance to ignore some of the real problems that society faces. In the year 2005 racism is as prevalent as it has ever been (along with many other prejudices). So people with some serious biases and prejudices now try to hide behind the curtain of “you’re trying to be too PC.” I am the first to tell people that some things have, in my opinion, tipped over the PC scale. However, on the issue of removing Native Americans as mascots, there is nothing PC about it at all. It is simply the right thing to do!

But for good measure, here’s another harsh judgment. If you’re under 35 and you harbor such bigoted foolishness in your heart (as outlined in my previous two blogs), then you’re foolish without a cause. Your parents may have actually witnessed lynchings (yes, believe it or not), and were certainly around to see the struggle of the Civil Rights movement (in the 50’s and 60’s) if they were raised here in the USA. So maybe it’s hard for them to overcome such racist notions (I am a firm believer that the childhood a person witnesses/lives has a profound affect on the person that they become), though I don’t think that’s an excuse (but maybe a reason). However, for those of us that have grown up in integrated schools, only known of open seating on public transportation, and have only seen “Coloreds/Whites Only” restroom signs in history books, we should be able to decipher between the racisms of our parents’ day and the realities that we’ve witnessed all of our lives. It’s just that simple, and there are no excuses.

I began writing a post way back in early April concerning the use of Native Americans as mascots at Universities. It was relevant at the time because on April 4th of this year, North Carolina played the University of Illinois in Basketball for the NCAA Title. I didn’t get a chance to finish the post, but have been lying in wait like a Lion in the jungle for the right moment to address this topic. Now the time has come.

For consistent “Vortex” readers, we are all well aware that the University of Illinois has a Native American as their mascot and they call themselves the Fighting Illini. Not only do they have a Native American as a mascot, but the mascot has a name: Chief Illiniwek. Now, the name (and his likeness that parades around at sporting events-namely basketball games-and performs an “authentic Indian dance”) may not seem to be that big of a deal, but it has some very critical implications.

To be a Chief in Native American culture is to achieve the highest political/religious office to be obtained in a Native American Tribe. The position of Chief is likened unto an Ayatollah in Islam or The Pope in Catholicism. The Chief is one who has the right to determine/issue tribal laws or decrees, but who is also looked to for spiritual guidance.

Unfortunately, the U of Illinois takes this powerful image and makes a complete and total mockery of everything it represents. For instance, at basketball games, U of Illinois promises that Chief Illiniwek will perform an authentic Indian dance. Sadly, for anyone that’s ever seen it, the dance is totally NOT authentic. A college student (typically a white male) prances around in an amalgamation of canvas, leather and feathers while flailing his arms and legs about, as the audience cheers him on. It looks nothing like an authentic “Indian dance,” and many Native Americans have expressed their disgust in it. (Sidenote: If you’d like to witness authentic Native American dances, you should attend a “Pow Wow” in your area. It is quite the experience).

So here’s the crime: The University of Illinois defends its use of the mascot, and so does the surrounding community and many of its alumni. Petitions and protests have been proposed and staged. Yet, there’s been no change. Why? Of course because of monetary reasons coupled with stubborn tradition. Erase money, and the stubborn traditionalists will subside (Cash Rules Everything Around Stubbornness, to steal and modify a common rap credo).

How do we diminish the power of the almighty dollar at these insensitive Universities?

Well in the case of the University of Illinois, I think all the Big Ten schools, including my alma mater, should take after the lead of the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin and not compete against the U of Illinois until they change their degrading mascot. In fact, so should all other colleges/universities toward all other colleges using Native Americans as mascots. That will show solidarity, understanding, and it will do what these schools fear the most: hit them in the pocketbook.

Now as for the other major University that suffers from a critical cultural insensitivity problem, Florida State University, the NCAA has inexplicably left them out of the ban. Now there are reasons for this, and you know I’ve got an opinion. However, I’ll have to hit you with that one later on!

-Maelstrom