Anarchy In Long Beach
Why A Rich Kid Must Die

The rich-kid hippie anarchist compulsion to F--k S--t Up must be hitting a new high, or maybe that's a low. On May first, May Day to all you comrades and comradettes, 200 future corporate sellouts clashed with riot police in Long Beach, a mile or so from my studio chalet above a nail salon. Long Beach?! Why Long Beach, I implored Mr. Plunger as I sat on the can reading the morning news. And why May Day? Do these spoiled, double-major, allowance-leeching junior intellectuals, who've never applied any of their book theories to the real world, even pretend any more to operate under the pretext of a world trade meeting or something? Pretty soon they'll be lobbing bags of feces because it's two for one coupon day at Ralph's Supermarket.

Part of me wants to brush off these kids with a laugh. In these pre-post-post modern times they combine the naive politics of hopeful youth with the nihilistic amorality of scumbag youth. Another part of me grits my teeth and cheers when future SUV ownesr gets their teeth knocked out by a police baton after they throw a brick through a store window. What really needs to happen in order to wake up this generation is for one of these detached, violent children of privilege to die. Their head should explode in a beautiful display of color after being shotgunned by a small business owner whose store has just been attacked for the crime of existing. I'd laugh and laugh and laugh.

I don't know why inner city people riot. I don't live their lives and don't pretend to know. Liberating stores of televisions and hard liquor will always be theft to me, but as a middle class white guy I've never experienced the world was an aggressively uncaring place. I leave it open as to what I'd do in that situation.  I do know all about the anarchist movement, and it's a crock of crap that's funny when it's not sad or dangerous.

Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, lefty American punks promoted socialism as a viable alternative to evil capitalism. When even the communists stopped calling themselves communist the toilet was filled with the weirdest fringe of socialist theory, anarchy, where everything operates on the honor system. It's a belief that laws create crime, and that institutions by their very existence inhibit cooperation. At least socialism looks good on paper. Anarchy is at best naive and at worst a mental disorder. The Chinese model was not as appealing to American commies because, to be honest, they're not white like the Russians.

Peace anarchists think they can create a perfect society by re-educating the masses. In camps maybe? Others think they must physically destroy government to achieve their enlightened state. Well, yes, if everyone’s dead then there will be peace and quiet.

I have no pity for them when they destroy because it's cool, and they think they’re entitled to get away with it. All my sympathy goes to working people who actually work. When a Starbucks is vandalized by anarchists, the people who work there can’t work and don’t get paid. They may not get money from mommy and daddy like the pricks in black who screw with their livelihoods.

I read news reports about the protests in Seattle. The anarchists were mostly posers obsessed with fashion and meaning. A few others were diehard psychopaths who care no more about humanity than do nazis. It's all about breaking things for fun. Protests and arrests were choreographed so rich kids could have their say, have their fun, and be able to tell their kids they fought The System like their parents in the ‘60s. Protesters expressed shock, actual shock, when police attacked their attackers. I laughed and I laughed and I laughed.

Rich hippie kids think it's a game, and that's why one of them has to die. To A cop can’t do it because they're supposed to humor the brats until they mature into something more than a diaper-load. Anyway, rich parents of anarchists would raise a stink. A store owner needs to blow a rich kid's head off with a shotgun. He'd be a hero and no jury would convict. The parents would go on television and say their son or daughter only tossed a garbage can through a store window. Is that worth killing for? The answer would be a loud "hell yeah!!!!" And I'd laugh and I'd laugh and I'd laugh.

George W. Bush And The Meltdown Of
The Figurehead Presidency (Pt. 1)

 (2007 update: I wrote this around 2000, when I was a big Al Gore supporter. After 9-11 my worldview changed and I became a big supporter of Bush because he didn’t cower in the face of mass-murderers. This reflects who I was, not who I am. People can change and events can change people. I also now thing anything Reagan did to defeat communism was a gift to the world. I could write like real moonbat back then. That’s funny.)

As George Dubya Bush's popularity inches down in the polls, and the agenda he so poorly champions slowly dies a death of a thousand cuts from liberals and conservatives alike, the worst-case scenario of The Figurehead Presidency is being played out in real time, and there's little that can be done to stop it. George Bush will be a single term president and even he has hinted at that inevitability. Either the Republicans will select a different candidate at their next national convention, or he will be defeated in the general election by a public angered and humiliated by the man's incompetence and inability to rise to the occasion.

The lasting legacy of Dubya's presidency will be an abject lesson for the Republican Party on how not to pick a president. That such a hapless nimrod won the election at all should be a lesson to Democrats that the American people are ignoramuses who choose their presidents under the same criteria they do a high school Homecoming King. The Democratic party loves to tee up policy wonks almost as much as the electorate likes to whack them into the woods. The GOP demands Manchurian Candidates. In Bush Jr. they found a compliant, nearly illiterate puppy whose incompetence is constantly on display in his many odd and involuntary facial expressions. They picked the wrong guy and they know it. The sad fact is that they also don't care.

Political parties exist to represent the wishes of their constituencies, and the goal is to appeal to a wide enough coalition of constituencies to outnumber the other parties' coalition in a popular election. In general terms, Democrats represent the Left and Republicans represent the Right. The divisions between the two have been defined in terms of Labor vs. Capital, Poor vs. Rich, Secular vs. Religious, and anything else that makes Liberals and Conservatives dislike each other.

Presidents are beholden to their constituencies and the money men who bankroll their campaigns, which is for better or worse how it goes in our democracy. Still, most presidents have not been figureheads. I know little about most 19th century chief executives, but the history of the American Presidency is filled with shining examples of what is called the Great Man Theory. These are individuals who promote compelling visions for a better future, inspire people to look beyond their own interests and have the courage to work through any obstacle for the greater good. John Kennedy was our last Great Man president. Nixon could have been a Great Man if he wasn't evil and creepy. Gerald Ford - caretaker. Jimmy Carter - hick in the big city. Ronald Reagan - figurehead. George H. Bush - read my lips, no new taxes. Bill Clinton - Great Man sabotaged by the voices from between his legs. George W. Bush - the dumbest, laziest, most incoherent, inept and shallow figurehead puppet this country will ever see. He’s the bottom where there's no place but up.

Ronald Reagan and Dubya are shining examples of figurehead presidents. Ronald Reagan was senile before his time, and corny in a Norman Rockwell fashion. His vision of what America was and could be again was a daydream, but at least he believed it was true and could sincerely express his hokum. Jimmy Carter, combining horrid PR with unpleasant honesty, may or may not have coined the term "Misery Index" (the rate of unemployment added to the rate of inflation) during his 1976 campaign. This came to bite him on his peanutty ass as the economy flushed itself down the toilet. Reagan was a father figure, an optimist and a great speech giver with a clear vision - exactly what the country wanted and needed. Yeah, I know he might have made a deal with the Iranians to get the hostages back after the election, and yes, he only garnered 50.8% of the popular vote in 1980, but he gave the people what they wanted and was re-elected in a landslide.

Reagan was an actor and pitch man for GE. His political career was orchestrated by rich and powerful individuals known as his "Kitchen Cabinet". In certain ways he was Chauncey Gardener in Being There. As president his function was spokesman for the agenda of his party and backers. He couldn't remember names and recounted scenes from films as factual events. In speeches he repeated false anecdotes and wild statistics told to him as gossip. He called his own wife Mommy! He was a figurehead, but at least he was a noble man who honestly believed he was doing the right things. Dubya, on the other hand, is as incompetent as his backers are bluntly selfish. Ronnie knew how to give a speech. Bush don't talk good. Reagan had a positive vision of what the US is and could be in the world. Bush don't know and don't care to know. That's Dick Cheney's job anyway. Reagan was presidential in how he carried himself and took seriously his actor's role of president. Bush is a lost, scared, lazy and stupid Alfred E. Newman monkey frat rich boy. Reagan was a figurehead for a conservative "revolution". Bush is a stick figure in a Texas oil man's rabid money grab, and he's not fooling anyone.

The following e-mail is from John Foster, the man with the plan and some time on his hands. All I can say is that while all this might be and probably is true, the "great man" theory has to do with leadership skills, not personal virtue:

I gotta say, John F.  Kennedy being a great President is one of the biggest myths of the 20th. century.

- his crooked daddy stole the election for him (closest election since Bush/Gore, read about the bought votes in West Virginia that put Kennedy over the  top)
- unlike Clinton he had a wife who actually loved him, and flaunted his habitual infidelity in her face
 - he was a drug addict (ever heard of "Dr.  Feelgood?" - he used to regularly shoot Kennedy up with
   methedrine - it's all in the history books if you wanna read)
 - he decided to DROP the voter rights act (giving  blacks the votes) cause it was close to election time, and he was scared he'd lose Dem votes in the south. Kennedy always gets credit for civil rights, but it was JOHNSON who pushed the voter rights act through, and, flawed though it
 might have been, the "Great Society" legislation that was a REAL attempt to better the lives of
 blacks in this country.
 - last, but definitely not least, Kennedy almost  blew up the fuggin world with his idiocy over the Cuban missile crisis.  About ten Americans actually understand this deal.  Here's the scoop: the U.S. had put  nuclear missiles on the TURKISH BORDER WITH THE  U.S.S.R., about 5 miles  away from Russia.  Kruschev THEN decided to put missiles in Cuba, FIFTY miles from the Florida keys, and well over one hundred miles from the U.S. mainland. Sound fair enough? Kennedy came within a hair's breadth of launching an all-out nuclear war over this.  Some of his advisors actually
 pleaded with him to launch a first strike.  The nukes of the 60's were far larger (because they were less accurate) and far dirtier (more fallout) than current day nukes (I've studied nukes at Oak
 Ridge National Laboratories). The result would have been the annihilation of the human race (and a lot of other life forms too - prolly the cockroaches would have done O.K.)
 -  Kennedy sucked more than Monica!

George W. Bush And The Meltdown Of
The Figurehead Presidency (Pt. 2)

What do I have against George W. Bush? I'm sure he's a swell fellow who loves his kids and does the best he can to keep Dick Cheney from constantly smacking him on the back of the head and yelling he's a idiot. Policies aside, and I don't disagree with everything he's tried to accomplish, he's simply in way over his head and can't even be trained to fake it. I grimace in embarrassment when I hear his voice on radio and TV. That such a lightweight was nominated by the GOP was a cynical and self-serving move on the part of rich oil men from Texas. That he was elected proved their cynicism was correct. Dubya's election was an all-around sad statement on how and why Americans choose our leaders. We can do better - or maybe we can't. That's what's so sad. An elected president represents the will and character of a nation. The world, when not concerned over Bush's lack of, well, everything, laughs at the hapless little man and the "great nation" who, by electing a dimwit, can't be taken seriously either. I really couldn't care less what other countries think of the US, but after you've mocked France and Libya into dirt for daring to think they're on higher ground,  you still have to admit to yourself that, in the case of GW Bush, they might be right.

Bush's face is a kaleidoscope of unpresidential images: fear, panic, bewilderment and helplessness. It's been said you need to be a psychopath to lead a nation or large organization. That you need a certain kind of mental disconnection to force a vision onto a nation and make it work. Fear of failure in the face of awesome responsibility disqualifies most people from assuming leadership roles. Bush is no psychopath, and that's part of the reason why he's a failure as president. He has no vision, no drive, and no ability to grasp and control an agenda. Part of it is that he's intellectually lazy and none too bright to begin with. He's also not the simple, hard working honest Abe Lincoln type Americans aspire to. He's the son of a rich, well connected father who saw to it his rudderless little boy avoided military service, got in and out of good schools, and sat in the comfy chairs of large companies while other people did the heavy lifting. He's not a bad person, he just doesn't have what it takes.

How did GW become president? The short answer is that the focus of conservative power in the GOP moved from California to Texas, and with it nuance and substance. The state that gave us Nixon and Reagan is now a Democratic stronghold. Texas is where they shoot first from grassy knolls and then eat big steaks instead of asking questions later. Texas conservatism is blunt, unapologetic and results oriented. Oil men wanted a president that will keep them rich, so they chose their patsy governor to be their patsy president. Reagan was a spokesman for an agenda, but he did have personal convictions. His wife Nancy, a cunning shrew in the great Shakespeare tradition, got into wacky yet benevolent astrology and pulled Ronnie away from direct control of his handlers. GW presents no such problems. He does what he's told and is fully aware that he has no grasp of the issues or control over his own life. That's why his brother Jeb wasn't nominated. Jeb has a brain.

GW didn't win the election because of his qualifications. Conservatives vote conservative and he was the conservative candidate. His only other appeal was to idiots whose only criteria for choosing a president is "Who would I rather have a few beers with?" Gore is a nerd. Bush knows how to party. The lesson here for Democrats is that their candidates also have to appeal to people whose emphatic indifference should disqualify them from voting. Clinton knew how to party, and that's what kept his poll numbers up no matter what he did.

Dick Cheney is in charge and he's one mean screw. Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks Dubya doesn't take his orders directly from Dick, who runs the White House and the country as Shadow President. If Cheney's heart gives out, expect Bush to crap his pants in public. And if Bush passes away, expect a Cheney presidency to be anarchy in the form of a money grab.

I don't expect Bush to write his own speeches or manage a national agenda by himself, but it would be nice if he made an effort to understand the issues and the workings of government. It's funny when he mangles the language, but it's sad that he has no choice but to joke about his own lack of smarts. Instead of putting in the hours to learn the job and perform the job, he sits in a comfy chair while the real people in power do the work, all the while his handlers praising his ability to delegate. He's a puppet who hangs limp on his strings, and the poor sap looks helpless and alone. Reagan was senile before his time and a number of his quirks could be attributed to that if need be. Bush just doesn't have what it takes. I doubt we've ever had a president who appears to be constantly looking around the room for help, and because of GW Bush I hope we never will again. If you're going to fake it at least have someone who knows how to fake it. So many other Republicans were better qualified to win the election and lead the nation effectively, yet they were not chosen. Why? The answer to that can be found in Bush's lack of personal and professional qualifications, not because of them. The Texas oil men who put Bush into office really didn't care about who they picked, as long as they had four years to earn back many times over their original investment. Bush is the worst-case scenario of the figurehead presidency, and while it can never get any lower than this, I hope it at least inches up to some level of believability.

Timmy, Are You Dead Yet?

I only have a few minutes to write this but Timothy McVeigh doesn't deserve much consideration. I'm so happy he's going to die today. He shrugged off the death of children as collateral damage.  There's nothing that can be learned from keeping him in jail for the rest of his life. The cost of federal room and board will be free to house a homeless family, pave a highway or just burn in a pile - anything but to keep this turdpile alive. Will he become a martyr? Who cares. Fanatics aren't passive. No excuse, any excuse, it's all the same. Some causes need as many casualties as possible, and Tim is the most obvious example in recent memory of someone who deserves to exit stage left. Some call his execution "State Sponsored Violence". I call it putting him out of our misery. We don't have to prove we're better than McVeigh by not executing him. By not personally planning and executing the death of scores of innocent lives, we're off the hook here. We didn't make Timmy a monster, and society didn't make Timmy a monster either - his life turned him into a monster. There are thousands of Timothy McVeighs out there, and in the real world it's more important to stop them than it is to understand their pain. Killing children is not a cry for help, it’s a disease of the mind. He's not insane. You don't have to be crazy to do what he did, just cold-hearted. I believe in justice and I believe in revenge. I hope the last words McVeigh hears is the whisper of "f--k You" into his ear by a relative of one of the innocents he murdered. I don't see how taping his death will help show the death penalty is cruel and unusual. He deserves to die slowly and painfully, not in his sleep. Die, Timmy, die, and I hope there is a hell because zeros like you deserve to go there to burn forever. Bye!

 (2007 update: Another I wrote around 2000 when I voted democrat most of the time. Now I thank Nader for keeping Gore out of the White House. Gore would have apologized to terrorists each time they killed Americans, becoming another Jimmy Carter, our worst ex-president and current left-fascist apologist.)

 A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR BUSH

Digging Your Own Grave

Is the goal of a presidential election to win or to prove a point? Do you understand the consequences of allowing people you hate to take power? Apparently not, if you plan on voting for Ralph Nader, or not at all. It's nice to have principles and to stick to them, but only an asshole would allow G.W. Bush's right-wing backers to take control of The Supreme Court in some name of principle. Only an asshole would allow Congress to destroy their rights because Al Gore isn't liberal enough. Are you an asshole?

No matter what Nader says, The Republicans and Democrats are not the same party by any means. To varying degrees one represents the Right and the other the Left. Maybe the problem is that you’re a daydreaming ideologue who couldn't organize a bake sale or keep a goldfish alive. Clinton, by necessity, moved his party toward the center. That Gore isn't an anarchist hippie isn't the Democrats' fault, it's yours for thinking a far lefty could get elected or even govern once in. America has its share of self-serving hypocrisy, so as a nation we vote more liberal locally and more conservatively on the national level. Swing-voters who determine national elections are centrists who lean toward the rarely practiced "responsible libertarianism". Still, they expect strength and conviction from their president, and Republicans present that face better than Democrats. To swing voters Nader is that consumer safety guy who needs a haircut, and his old suit probably smells like mothballs and soup.

Ralph Nader is the Left's answer to Patrick Buchanan, who believes the problem with the Republican Party is that they aren’t like him, a smiling neo-neo-nazi. He, like Ralph, thinks pure ideology, no matter how extreme and unbending, is what voters really want. Buchanan peddles hatred to fascists and white poor trash who blame all their problems on others. Nader's followers work on the level of the envies and hatreds of have-nots for the haves. Green Party has no exclusive claim on the idea of fairness, just as Buchanan has no claim to morality. Behind Nader stand an assortment of left-wing fanatics itching to punish success and "re-educate" America. Behind Buchanan I see the klan and the nazis, itching to punish in general.

The presence of Buchanan and Perot eight years ago may have lost the election for George Bush. Now Nader is poised to spoil Gore's chances in 2000. The race is tight, and Nader's 4% polling, all subtracted from Democratic voters, could make he difference in who wins the election. An ever-growing and alarmed group of his own backers are trying to convince Ralph to bow out. Nader refuses, talking about taking a stand and building for the future. If Gore loses because of Nader he will be responsible for the overturning of Roe V. Wade. If the tobacco and gun industries are allowed to write all laws that apply to them, you can thank Mr. Nader. If you think a few years of right-wing demagoguery will energize voters to sweep in a Green Party candidate the next time around, you are not only wrong but painfully selfish.

I know you love to complain and say how right you were all along, and nothing breeds that more than having your enemies in power, but you can have it both ways by voting for Gore and telling your comrades at the co-op you voted Green. Your life is one big dramatic middle-class act anyway, so why not do something smart that will have an impact on your daily life. In a close election like this a vote for Nader really is a vote for Bush. In battleground states the Republican Leadership Council has paid for pro-Nader ads attacking Gore. They know something you are either too dumb or stubborn to see. 

 Death To The Republicrats, Long Live The Confederate Pansexual Worker's Party !!
or

Throw Away Your Vote For Me !!

Yessiree, Bob, it's the presidential election season, right up there with the Olympics and going to the dentist as things I dread contemplating every four years. This time the choice is between Democrat Al Gore, a man who may lack charisma but is qualified to lead this country, and Republican George W. Bush, a deeply dumb man with more connections than AT&T on Mother's Day. I don't think any Republican expects Dubya to actually use his brain if elected, and the power brokers behind him probably prefer their man to be as shallow and compliant as possible. Ronald Reagan was a near perfect spokesman for the rich who guided and bankrolled his career, his conniving wife Nancy nearly ruining it at the end with her puppet-master control over Ron's quickly evaporating grip on reality and her own descent into paranoia and psychic readings.

In the US we have what's known as the Two Party System, meaning the Conservative (Republican) and Liberal (Democrat) parties. They make for a relatively balanced ying/ yang which allows for an easy to digest frame of reference, and therefore an easy set of choices to pick from. Both parties are required to kiss the asses of their core constituencies, the ideological loons who give money and work for free for the cause, while at the same time reaching out to the vast middle of Americans who could care less if Martians were in charge, as long as they still get to watch football and vacation at the beach. My left testicle has a longer attention span than most voters, and it, like most Americans, is swayed by flashy commercials and vague promises of security, strength and fairness.

I applaud the recent trend of both parties moving towards a moderate center. This pisses off ideologues on both sides who see politics as a holy war between opposing forces. The left fantasize a socialist utopia built on genocides while the right wouldn’t mind a class- based theocracy. In the kangaroo court of my mind I have a bit of empathy for the naivete that drives the left, and none for the meanness that can drive the right, but at the extremes they're two sides of a coin. Stalin and Hitler roast on the same spit in hell. It doesn't make a difference if power is held by a few rich guys or a few comrades, it's all the same in the end. Years ago the Soviet government pretended their homeless didn't exist, a lie enforced by bureaucracy. Ideology makes hypocrites of anyone who looks the other way or makes exceptions.

I don't know who coined the term, but "Republicrat" has been getting a lot of mileage lately by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, the Noam Chomsky of consumer economics. My Pulitzer came from thinking up "Resmuglicans". I admire Ralphy Boy’s laser-focus but he has no chance. Comic book character Howard The Duck ran a stronger campaign in 1976. The Green Party is being torn apart, like The kooky Reform Party, by battling factions. The Green Party can't decide if it wants to be simply left-leaning or militantly communist. Extremists tend to win. The Reform Party can't decide if it wants to be Pat Buchanan's platform for neo-fascist populism, or more Libertarian with no chance of ever coming to a consensus.

Do you throw away your vote when you vote for a third party candidate? Of course you do. You don't teach either party a lesson when you vote for Pat Paulsen (R.I.P), just like a piss in the ocean doesn’t prolong high tide..

At this point I was going to write about fringe political parties, but most are fairly predictable and not entertaining. They manage to come up with substantial mission statements and use code language to let their constituencies know what they really stand for. They bunch up at both ends of the political spectrum, with Libertarian parties somewhere in the middle yet off in another dimension. Libertarians aren't moderates because their views are extreme and mollify/piss off the left and right in equal fits and starts. Libertarians get invited to the party but get tossed out for never going along wit the program.

Here's an example of how third party rhetoric works. The Natural Law Party, which boasts a fifty point action plan (!), start off with a generic platform that reads "Government should be based on what works -- not what is politically expedient or bought and paid for by special interest groups. There are simple, humane, cost-effective, scientifically proven solutions to all of America’s problems. The Natural Law Party was founded to implement these solutions immediately in government. Our plan includes proven programs for education; job, technical, and management training; crime prevention; drug rehabilitation; urban revitalization; social welfare; economic development; and the development of a stronger sense of community." The punchline that follows is "To reduce stress, the Natural Law Party supports the establishment of coherence-creating groups practicing the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program."
On a lighter (in the loafers) note, the Pansexual Peace Party  has a web site that proclaims in large type "Sex is Good! Sex is Great! Yea, Sex!" Besides promoting transvestism as a lifestyle alternative to be taught at all levels of education, they believe in jury nullification and certain forms of terrorism. Not that they're actually for terrorism, but "it simply means that we do not believe such measures (anti-terrorist initiatives) are necessary or even effective." I have no idea how that wound up there, considering the PPP seems more like an excuse to party than a real political party.

On a "The South's gonna do it again -- LOSE!" note, I present the Southern Party, separationsists who don't run candidates because they hate the gov-mint. I suspect Southern Party members are dum(b) in a Dukes Of Hazard way, where pump-kin is what you do, not what you eat. Here’s some of their poop: "For the past four decades the people of the South have been the target of an insidious and incrementalist campaign of cultural cleansing aided and abetted by the reigning forces of liberalism that seeks to replace the rule of men for the rule of law in America. Even more disturbing, this campaign has accelerated in the past 15 years, resulting in a cultural and political crisis that grows increasingly intolerable as the prospects for national reform grow ever dimmer. This menacing trend has convinced legions of Southerners that the current union is gravely imperiled. Indeed, many have concluded that Dixie must regain genuine sovereignty, and perhaps even outright independence, in order to preserve her venerable political, social, economic and cultural institutions." 

(2007 update: In the 80s I read  a lot of books on Reagan written by people who hated him. Always being anti-communist I’ve never held that against Ronnie. Today I feel anything Reagan did to fight communism was a gift to the world. He may have been a bit senile and corny but he was a great president.)

Ronnie Ray-Gun

It was reported recently that Ronald Reagan is close to death. The Reagan legacy was dredged up like a tired obituary. Then, JFK Jr.'s plane belly-flopped in the waters off Martha's Vineyard. The media jumped on the Death Of Camelot theme and beat it senseless. The right always resented JFK Sr.'s good looks, charisma and speaking ability. They feared John John would one day run for president. Ronald Reagan, former actor and GE spokesman, was the conservative answer to the Kennedys, and it's long been a mission of conservatives to tear down Kennedy and install Reagan as the most influential political figure in modern American history. I guess anything is possible (some take Holocaust Revisionism seriously) but the more you know about Reagan the more you realize both the right and left paint an incomplete picture of our fortieth president.

Ronald Reagan the politician was thea nominal figurehead of the conservative movement. He could deliver a grandfatherly speech and zing like a pro with scripted one-liners, but otherwise Ron had the cognitive skills of a man twice his age. Reagan the person was idealistic to ultra-corny proportions and a soft-touch in contradiction to the words put into his mouth by others. If you watch the movie Being There you'll get an idea how this absent-minded former B-movie actor and corporate spokesman became the most powerful man in the world. Nancy wielded power in a manner even Shakespeare would envy, but that's another story. "Say No To Drugs" was a PR campaign chosen for her to counter her cold, rich bitch image.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote in 1983, “This president is treated by both the press and foreign leaders as if he were a child. He earns praise for the ordinary, for what used to be expected. His occasional ability to retain facts is cited as a triumph when it should, in fact, be a routine occurrence…” John Sears, who ran Reagan’s failed 1976 presidential campaign, said of Reagan, “There is a generation gap between what Reagan thinks and knows about the world and the reality. Reagan has all these old phonograph records in his head and a lot of them are full of misinformation. We used to talk about getting into his ‘record library’ and throwing some of them out.”

In the ‘80s we all hooted over Reagan quotes like "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Pound for pound Dan Quayle has said more dumb things but he doesn't have the excuse of feebleness to fall back on. What was really weird about Reagan's sense of reality is that muchof it came from movies, anecdotes and faulty recollections of facts and history. When he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's you couldn't hack through the irony with a machete.

What was Reagan's appeal? He gave good speech and backed it up with a confidence that's purely American. He sold optimism to a country sick of Jimmy Carter's resigned sense of failure. Carter was a wimp. The Iranian hostage situation and the gas crisis also helped sink Carter's chances, but America likes to think of itself as the greatest country in the world (which it is) and Reagan was a strong father figure who spoke of a nation that could do no wrong. One of my favorite Reagan quotes is, “I am eternally optimistic, and I happen to believe that we’ve made great progress from the days when I was young and this country didn’t even know it had a racial problem."

The hardcore punk movement owes its lunch money to Reagan. Before Ron, American punk had little to do with national and world politics, maybe because Carter was liberal and didn't inspire lefty songs of protest. Nothing unifies politically like a common enemy, and if Ronnie Ray-Gun didn't exist the hippie punks would have had to make him up themselves.

Here's random facts and thoughts on Ronald Reagan: His father was a poor, alcoholic shoe salesman whose livelihood was saved by securing a job distributing New Deal funds. The rampant government spending Reagan was against had saved his own family..... As president of the Screen Actor's Guild he was also a government informant..... Reagan always talked about fighting in WWII but he only made movies for the war department and never left the country. In his mind acting and fighting became the same thing..... He was fond of telling his famous "Turret Gunner" story, and no matter how many times he was told it was a scene from a Hollywood movie he insisted it happened. He claimed to have even seen the medal of honor awarded to this brave soldier..... Nancy was three months pregnant when she married Ronnie...... When he once broke ranks on a conservative issue, a major Republican fundraiser called Reagan a "Usefull Idiot"..... David Stockman, Reagan's economic advisor, could never get Reagan to focus on economic issues and had no sense of what Reagan's priorities might be, so he made up a simple multiple choice test for Reagan to fill out. The results would have resulted in a budget even higher than what liberals were asking for..... Reagan carried the banner of the religious right-wing but he rarely attended religious services.

 A Short Ramble On Voting and Politics

No matter what children and anarchists want you to believe, government and politics are necessary evils. Law and police are the only things keeping lunatics of all political persuasions from pressing nuclear buttons and slaughtering a neighbor or two before catching the 7:45 to work. All political issues revolve around two ideas - Freedom and Control. At their worst, liberals push Freedom at the expense of responsibility. Conservatives exercise control to retain holds on money and power. As it always is with fanaticism, how can you believe in something only a little bit, so the path of political and religious logic tilts toward radical belief and an abandonment of courtesy and propriety.

Politics is a lose-lose situation for anyone trying to approach it with a modicum of restraint and good intention. There's no organized moderate party and efforts to change the present system only lead to disillusionment. This is where fuggwad anarchists scream "destroy the system" as they vandalize other people's property. There's a certain peace in being insane but I don't recommend it to the general population. Others will say, "Well, you at least have to try", which is better than apathy I guess, but don't bet the farm you'll be able to make a dent in the steel mountain of the political establishment.

Politics affect us all whether we want it to or not, so it's important to keep up with the issues and vote both early and often. You don't want to wake up one day and find Pat Robertson in the White House issuing executive orders establishing America as a religious police state...... do you? What? You didn't even register? Dude!

 Burning The American Flag

Like a cold sore, House Resmuglicans once again voted to add an amendment to the American Constitution that makes burning the flag a federal crime. It still needs to pass the Senate, which it never has, and then be ratified by two-thirds of the states. Lordy do I hate this amendment, not because I believe in flag burning but because it's a cheap ploy to rile up support for the Republican Party.

Few flags are burned each year in protest, but if you want that number to zoom then make it illegal to do so. The day flag burning is illegal you'll see the stock of flag companies double. I can just imagine the sanctimonious assholes who'll burn flags in protest and write endless letters to fanzines declaring themselves warriors in the continuing struggle for the right to burn the American flag. On the other side I can see every redneck and right-wing zealot aching for the chance to trounce flag burning hippies. I’m no fan of the far right ,but if you look for trouble by burning a flag and find it, don't expect any pity from me. Die for your cause all you want but flag burning isn't worth a broken neck.

The proposed amendment will go anywhere. The House of Representatives is Junior High compared to the Senate. Senate members are experienced politicians who take their role as protectors of the Constitution more seriously. The House is where you'll find ideological political novices from small local districts. The American flag is a potent symbol and I don't want to see it burned. Making it illegal to do so is just asking for trouble -- but I suspect that's what both sides want anyway - another reason to fight and hate. I hope they kill each other off.

 Our Pals China And Russia

There are three superpowers - China, the former Soviet Union and the United States. Much of this century's history revolved around ideological and military battles between the forces of communism and the forces of capitalism. Capitalism won. Communism in practice was ten times worse than capitalism in paranoid theory when it came to the abusive exploitation of human and natural resources. Communist bureaucracies are brutally dictatorial and the worker's paradise propaganda proved to be lies wrapped around more lies. Orwell's 1984 is held up by leftists as an example of what could happen in this country, but it was a literal reading of life in the Soviet Union.

When the Russians boasted they had no homeless you didn't know whether to laugh or cry. China never said much because they don’t care what anyone thinks about them. Their line is that what they do is a matter of internal politics and none of our business. Americans have an affinity for Russians because we see them as an extension of European culture – as if the U.S.S.R. is the Alaska of Europe. It also helps that many Russians love American culture and products.

Pick a year, any year. If the US and the USSR were next to each other and the borders were opened for a week, 90% of Russians would have crossed over and asked for a pair of Levis and a Beatles album. The 10% who stayed would been those who made a good living administering the "people's" government and a core of ideologues who would kill their own children in the name of the Motherland. If the US and China were next to each other the westernized Chinese would have crossed along with peasants aware of the opportunity. The majority are oblivious to much beyond their meager living conditions and endless toil.

I believe Chinese communists view their own population as meaningless worker ants. Mao wiped out much of the educated class during the Cultural Revolution to create an agrarian society of peasants too poor, uneducated, large and spread out to be effectively managed. Hell, tiny Japan swam over periodically to take control whenever they felt like it. Feudal warlords still control many parts of China. Remember that kooky Tienneman Square misunderstanding? What hung in the balance was the loyalty of the warlords, not the government or the students. Warlords control their own "government" troops, and if they decided it was to their benefit to topple the sitting communist regime they would have done so. Their loyalty was not known until the last moment, and they crushed the students like bugs. Oh yeah, that wasn't any of our business because it was an "internal matter".

I think about China and Russia because of their involvement in the Kosovo crisis. The communists are against US involvement mostly because they resent seeing us exert influence on the world stage. When we bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake they organized and bused students to protest at the US embassy. The sadly ironic part is that the students, propaganda puppets to begin with, were then explicitly warned not to think they could protest anything else, like maybe their own crappy lives under Chinese communism. They also cut off "Human Rights" talks with the US. Human rights in China - that's a punchline to a joke somewhere. China has nuclear weapons (and a gazillion troops the government couldn’t care less about) so we take them seriously.

Then there's Russia. No strangers to ethnic cleansing, during WWII they deported eight entire nationalities from their lands, totaling 1.5 million, into Central Asia. 500,000 perished during the move or soon thereafter. I hope they can keep the mafia, their alcoholism and a predilection for self-defeat at bay long enough to make the conversion to some form of democracy. Otherwise fascists will take over and we'll pine for the days of Nikita Krushchev banging his fist screaming "We will bury you!" We allow Russia to think they're still a world power because they are a large potential market for consumer goods, and they also have a large stockpile of rusting nuclear arms that could fall into the hands of terrorists for the right combination of cash and vodka. Here's a joke I just made up - Q: What do you call a Russian soldier with all the buttons still on his uniform? A: General.

Since the peace agreement, Russia has flexed its international muscle by taking over the Kosovo airport. NATO is working around them like they don't exist. Gennady N. Oreshkin, a former colonel in the Russian Interior Ministry, summed it up best when he said "As long as Russia possesses nuclear warheads, it is allowed to pretend it is a superpower. Russia's tough and uncompromising stance on the Kosovo conflict is nothing but a face-saving measure designed to help Russia avoid complete humiliation."

Since the fall of communism (China makes it's money through capitalism), the American left has fallen in love with anarchy, the honor system run by nihilists. At least communism looked good on paper if you only glanced it from a distance. To believe that the existence of laws themselves create crime is a delusion, and to think that people can peacefully co-exist without laws and enforcement is a psychoses. As I always like to point out, Gnome Crapsky is an intellectual coward and a stalinist stooge.

Let's Have A War

Destroy Milosevic

I have a lot of points to make and I don't want this to go on forever, so this will ramble on as a stream of consciousness. F--k Milosevic. He's Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. He's committing genocide on ethnic Albanians. Mass murders, forced expulsions, rape campaigns and the destruction of birth records and land deeds. If he won't stop, bomb him into the Stone Age. Oh, really, it's ok for him to systematically destroy an entire race of people in his own country but we can't touch him? It's none of our business? Destroying Hitlers wherever they are is and should be our business.

Spare me the "America is a Hitler too" line. It shows how blind you are to world history and your ability to look past what you know is true in order to make anti-American statements. And f--k all the "peace" punks. You're either naive or genocidal hypocrites. Stalinist Gnome Crapsky should choke on his own vomit. Peace punks hate America, so when they say we can't send our boys off to fight because they might get hurt I smirk knowing they’re being disingenuous out the wazoo.

NPR interviewed numbnuts who shared idiocies like: "I was all for it until three American soldiers were captured. Now I don't think it was a good idea". War is heck, lady. Then there’s my favorite peace-punk brand of idiocy, "Yeah, like I know there's a lot of horrible things going on over there, but dropping bombs never solves anything". F--k you. F--k your rich lifestyle and childish view of the world. People like you accomplish nothing. Your anarchy is a daydream and means nothing. You scare and impress nobody. You're not a threat to anything. It's a big joke to you, isn't it? You know, coward, that if you pulled any of your pranks in one of the countries you love simply because they're against the US, they'd feed your carcass to the dogs. It's safe to moan, bitch and protest in America where you DO have rights. Coward.

Scum like Milosevic can methodically rape, torture and commit ethnic cleansing and you'll do NOTHING to stop him. And that you call that peace. What a joke. Peaceful protest only works in countries that acknowledge human rights. Where genocide is policy your peaceful non-resistance just makes it easier for them to destroy you. Your readings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King have led to the wrong conclusions. Butchers don't have a soul. They don't care about peace. If you want to stand there doing nothing but offering flowers and singing folk songs while your family is being raped and murdered, that's your neuroses.

Most martial arts are based on the belief peace and non-violence are the ultimate goals. They stress that force should only be used as a last resort, but, once you do fight you do so to win. Martial arts teaches peace and it teaches brutal violence. If you believe non-violence stops violence because of good karma, you're a fool. If you're pretending the Albanians aren't being eliminated so you can complain how the US is solely responsible for all aggressions, you're an asshole. If you hate America that much, leave. Go where you'll be happy, like China or Iraq.

There's a great movie from 1984 called "The Guardian", starring Martin Sheen and Lou Gossett Jr. Gossett is hired by the working-class tenants of a co-op building to protect the tenants from criminals in their worsening neighborhood. Liberal Sheen discovers Gossett uses violence to inform the scum not to mess with his people. Sheen tries to get Gossett fired. Then, while walking in his neighborhood, Sheen is surrounded by a gang with pipes, knives and chains who let him know he's about to be killed slowly and painfully. Sheen is slumped against a car, crying, pleading for his life to vermin only feeding off his fear. Out of the blue Gossett swoops down and beats the crap out of the gang while Sheen looks on through tears crying "kill them, kill them....". The movie ends with Gossett politely opening the door for his appreciative tenants while they go about their business the next day. Sheen comes out and the look on his face is great. It's a combination of gratitude, fear, and a realization that life isn't as pretty and simple as he'd like it to be.

(2007 update: I don’t have a problem with liberals as long as they reject all trappings of Marxist theory. The democratic party today is in the side pocket of marxist and stalinist front groups with funny names that hide their agendas under code words like Peace and Justice. I wrote this years ago when I felt liberalism was a word and idea worth protecting. I loathe the UN as it is today. Hey, I seem to have proved 1990’s Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”)

Taking Back The "L" Word

Conservatives somehow managed to turn the "L" Word (Liberal - sshhhh, don't say it too loud - real Americans might hear you!) into a hateful slur. Liberals made it easy by not accepting the fact that simple rhetoric is powerful and best countered with equally simple rhetoric. When a conservative spits out the "L" word like it's a disgusting bodily function, it's a code word intended to bring to mind communists, socialists, hippies, drug dealers, and the pushy homeless guy on the corner who smells like moldy cardboard. It's a word that's supposed to represent, in the mind of all god-fearing Americans, images of Fidel Castro, flag burning, satanism, sex in the streets and those bastards at the United Nations.

How have liberals defended themselves against having their philosophy associated with every boogie man? They make long-winded speeches explaining the validity of their positions and the inequity of conservative policy. In the marketplace of ideas liberals have gotten their asses kicked and all they can do is issue thesaurus-warping position papers. When Michael Dukakis was asked in a presidential debate what he'd do if a man broke into his home and attacked his family, instead of saying he'd grab the first available object and carve the prick a new asshole like any of us would, he monotoned a boring statement about the nature of crime. No wonder he lost the election.

Here's what liberals have to do to reclaim their word: play the same game that's been used against them. Equate in people's minds the word Conservative with Hitler, the Klan, survivalist groups in Idaho, abortion clinic bombers and every disgruntled lunatic who thinks owning a gun and a bible gives him the right to kill others as a gift to God on his birthday. Literally use the word Conservative in the same sentence as Adolf Hitler and David Duke. Word association can very easily add new connotation to any concept. Politics is a process played as a game and fought like a war. To be effective you must be good at both. 

 (2007 update: Another example of my moonbat rantings from before 9-11, when I became Mr. Neocon in the flesh. Thankfully for the history of my conscience I’ve always hated communists as much I have Nazis.)

Post Election Roundup

Not since the 1930s has an American political party out of presidential power (in this case the Republicans) not gained congressional seats in an off-year election. Republicans still control both houses, but not having gained in the wake of Clinton's adultery and impending impeachment proceedings is a staggering psychological blow to the GOP. Whatever momentum they were trying to build from their endless pursuit of Slick Willie's private affairs has fizzled like a day old glass of beer. Newt Gingrich, the biggest hypocrite in Washington, stepped down as Majority Speaker before he had his bags packed for him by members of his own party.

Republican in-fighting is tearing the party apart and moderates forces are fighting an uphill battle against the rabid conservatives who will lie, cheat and steal to have it their way. If you hate right-wing demagoguery like I do, you should encourage the Republicans to move as far to the right as they can. You should encourage them to take dictatorial stances against everyone and everything. Don't work against Pat Buchanan getting on the ballot for president, encourage it! This way they'll lose their control of congress in the next election. Moderates are finally coming into their own as the preferred choice for a voting public sick and tired of partisan bickering and lack of legislative accomplishment.

While Resmuglicans relied solely on pointing (middle) fingers at Clinton's sexual history, Democrats moved to the political middle and focused on issues like Social Security and the global economy. If the economy was in the toilet voters would be angry with Clinton and the Democrats, but thankfully for them the Republicans' righteous indignation wasn't backed by solid ideas and workable solutions. Lessons are rarely learned or remembered in politics, but I'm hoping both the Democrats and Republicans come away from this with the realization that future elections are best won through bridge building and moderation instead of ideological fascism.

Now there's a battle brewing in the Republican party between right-wing religious loons and the more pragmatic fiscal conservatives who don't want abortion and gay rights attached to their party platform like an anchor every four years. Steve Forbes, pre-senile in his own way like Reagan was, is yelling for sharper ideological attacks on the Democrats as a way to win elections. Pat Buchanan, former thug and future death camp administrator, is always good for simple-minded rhetoric in this regard. Dan Quail, the Boy Wonder of Country Club Republicanism, stands on a crate to increase his stature and makes poorly structured grand pronouncements about absolutely nothing until his mommy calls him into the house for supper. If you want to see the Republicans lose the next election, hope one of these assholes wins the presidential nomination.

For too many years punk's "thinkers" have been so far to the political left anarchy/chaos theory is their only solution to the world's problems. Nihilistic sociopaths should not be allowed to express opinions as fact. With the fall of communism (and I think people just got tired of the unrelenting dogma), punk politics is not as exclusively left-wing as it was in the Reagan ‘80s when MRR still mattered. Pre-hardcore American bands of the mid ‘70s were notoriously non-political. The Clash was a political band but their presentation was more style than substance, at least to me. Punk politics as we know it today really didn't come into its own until Britain's Crass and San Francisco's Dead Kennedys came on the scene with their old fashioned hippie protest presented as guerrilla theatre. What was once a punk global political perspective has reverted back to more of a teenager's personal bitch and moan list. I prefer it when politics is left out of punk music because more times than not it's just the same old same old dressed in a ripped t-shirt and bright red mohawk.

I'll bet you didn't vote anyway, so your opinion means nothing. 

 A Town Hall Meeting

I had a bad ‘80s flashback when I heard about the raucous Town Meeting last week in Columbus Ohio. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other administration officials followed the Clinton example by holding an open forum on the impending military confrontation with Iraq. The speakers were repeatedly heckled by protesters chanting "1,2,3,4, we don't want your racist war!" In later news reports these protesters were called peace activists. For all I know they were, but as a long-time follower of punk politics I bet these folks are for peace like rapists are for foreplay.

Leftist punk politics, so eloquently expressed by the scumbag Gnome Crapsky, focuses exclusively on the crimes of capitalism and the United States. Every action is a plot and all intentions are evil. This same treatment is not given foreign countries under communist influence. Crapsky defends Pol Pot like he was his brother. The whole point is a blind hatred of the United States passed off as dissent. These assholes aren't against war - they're against this country. They hate was but love struggle – a leftist codeword for war. They want American soldiers to die. Vietnam vets hate Jane Fonda for a reason. During that war she sided with the enemy - not for peace- she wanted us to lose. During Operation Desert Storm, American leftist punks openly wanted our soldiers to die in order to shock the nation.

I stopped reading MRR when Timmy Yo made it editorial policy to promote Holocaust Revisionism, so I'm not 100% current on punk politics. It's the same old thing all over again. Hatred of America as a goal in itself. Looking the other way when nations like Libya, Iran or any so-called socialist country commits shocking acts of terror on their own people. For decades, displaced Palestinians were kept in camps by their Arab "brothers", kept separate as a political football against Israel. When conditions got too bad and the Palestinians rebelled, thousands were wiped out at a time. Where were American punks then? Looking the other way, pointing at Israel. In the long war between Iran and Iraq, Iranian children were given fake rifles and a plastic key which was their in to heaven. Then they were sent running into enemy territory to blow up mines. When the carnage got to be too much they gave the kids cheap rugs to roll themselves in through the mines – for easier cleanup. Where was Crapsky then?

Back to the Town Hall Meeting, the protesters made Saddam Hussein crap his pants with laughter. You can't do that kind of thing in Iraq without being executed. Saddam systematically killed off the native Kurd population for years. He's profited nicely off the embargo while his people starve. He doesn't care about his own people. He doesn't care about rights. His crazier son rapes women on their wedding days!!!!! Saddam has an American fan base just because he's an enemy of the United States.

There's two things in these pages I always implore people to do: 1) If you're a goth punk, either work to make you're life better or just kill yourself, and 2) If you hate this country so much -- MOVE! Go somewhere you can be happy, like Iran where women get beaten if they show too much skin, or Cuba where the standard of living is s--t while Castro eats caviar for breakfast. It's hysterically hypocritical to stay in a place you hate it so much. Rights and freedoms are not always equal in this country, but what freedoms are there in Libya? College kids living off the Daddy dole heckle the Secretary of State. Good for them. Campus police drag them off. Oh, wow, THE STATE oppressing free speech. What's the worst that happened? Held overnight in jail? Mommy and Daddy get a call in the middle of the night? Do that to your hero Saddam and hopefully they'll kill you right away instead of taking their sweet frigging time cutting off body parts.

I have no love of war. It would be nice if we could all just get along, but don't be an idiot. Nutjobs like Saddam aren't bullies looking for a hug. He routinely kills off layers of his security staff to prevent overthrow. He executed members of his own family and gassed thousands of innocent Kurdish men, women and children in his own country. He doesn't want peace. Saddam laughs at peace. I'm sure he only has contempt for naive politics turned into blind self-hatred. Who wouldn’t

If you defend him because he's an enemy of this country, you don't want peace either. If you don't think there's freedom here, visit the hecklers who disrupted the Town Meeting. Right now they're back at the food co-op getting high fives from every unwashed hippie in town for their brave actions taking it to the man! In Iraq, right now they'd be rotting in an open grave.

 Execute Nichols

A Rambling Rant That Begins And Ends With The Terry Nichols Verdict

On December third the jury deliberating the Terry Nichols trial came back with a mixed verdict of guilty on one count of conspiracy and eight counts of involuntary manslaughter in the horrific truck bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. Nichols was acquitted on charges of using a weapon of mass destruction and of setting off the bomb that killed 168 people, including children in a day-care center. He may still get the death penalty, and I say fry his Nazi ass until his head explodes like Jiffy-Pop. As for his family and friends, like the old punk song says, "Boo f--king Hoo, Boo f--king Hoo".

We shouldn't waste another second or penny on a sick monster who helped build and deliver a bomb intended for mass murder. The money for incarcerating this zed for life would be better spent housing the homeless and feeding the poor. What, we can afford to give free room and board to these parasites and solve all our social problems? By what, taxing everyone to death and redistributing wealth until everyone has $12.43 to their name? After that we can ask every gun owner to turn in their weapons. Get a life, comrade! The country's financial resources are not limitless. One punk site posted an article on what we can buy as a country if we stopped all military expenditures. Without a military we’d be invaded by every crackpot despot in the world who does have one. In hippie logic armies create tension by their sheer existence. Bulls--t! We have armies because the world is filled with genocidal dictators who do whatever it takes to gain and keep power. If you don't know this you're either stupid or chair of the local asshole council.

In a DIY anarchy rag I once read, "If there were no laws, there would be no criminals". By wiping out laws people would stop raping, murdering and stealing? Since laws create criminals, let's empty the prisons. Then the mental institutions. Nine out of ten anarchists should be under some kind of forced supervision.

Why do we have to prove we're better than murderers by not executing them? By the sheer fact that we haven't tortured a child to death, that we haven't raped and cut up a woman into little pieces, that we haven't built and detonated a bomb in a public building - these prove up front we're better than anyone who does. Let's say Terry Nichols didn't detonate the bomb himself. Who cares? He built the bomb to kill whoever was in the Murrah building that day. The more the merrier. Kids? Sure, why not?! Nichols, McVeigh and the rest of them are American nazis. They call themselves Patriots, Freedom Fighters and Militias – all variants on nazis. The klan is the American version of nazis. They deserve no rights or consideration from a society they would love to enslave and murder.

Does Capital Punishment deter crime? We can argue that forever, but I will say they won't ever do it again. Should we keep these menaces in jail for life for $50,000 a year each? The money’s better spent elsewhere – or just burned in a pile. Is the justice system racist? Sometimes maybe. We should incarcerate and execute more guilty whites. Give long prison sentences to white collar criminals who steal millions from stockholders. Force phone solicitors who rob the elderly to dig ditches until they're too old to pick up a phone again. There's a world of difference between a starving person stealing a loaf of bread and the guy who breaks into cars for a living.

Here's what I don't get - why is there a difference between murder and attempted murder? Or any crime successful or unsuccessful. Let's say McVeigh wheels his fertilizer bomb in front of the federal building, sets the timer, runs away, and it doesn't explode. Why shouldn't he be charged with the intended murder of 168 people and executed as if the bomb did go off? Why should he be given anything less? Because nobody died? He wanted them to die. He spent months planning it. He thought he too might be killed that day. Why should he be treated as anything less than a murderer?

I'd like to see the prison system change. Do whatever it takes to stop prison rape. Build only single person cells. Supervise prisoners every minute of the day when not alone so there are no gangs and no violence. Offer drug counseling, vocational training, reading or religious events as the only options aside from sitting in cells doing pretty much nothing. Prison should be boring and educational. Take gym equipment out of prisons. Prisoners should be fed, housed and given the opportunity to reform themselves in a violence-free environment. We as citizens have the right to demand such institutions.

I have a lot of pity for those who sincerely need our help: unwed mothers, displaced workers, orphans, the disabled, the elderly, the sick, the hungry and true victims of racism and violence. I hate victim culture. I have none for users, abusers, amoral scum, psychopaths, nazis, rapists, thieves, nihilists and murderers. I have no sympathy for assholes like McVeigh and Nichols, and the sooner they're wiped off the face of the earth the sooner we'll be able to focus on more important issues, like what's for lunch.

Subsidizing Charity Or Promoting Religion?

The secular community is concerned about the Bush administration's new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which wants to give government money directly to religious organizations. The religious community's take on this runs from salivating greed to insistence on staying independent of government oversight. The atheist community is considering bathing over the issue. I don't have a problem with the initiative as long as these groups are accountable via audit for the funds, adhere to federal anti-discrimination and employees standards, and do not proselytize. Religion, atheism and secularity are fairly neutral in themselves. It's how they’re practiced that makes them good or bad.

Mother Teresa tended to the Hindu poor of Calcutta from 1947 to her death in 1997. She saw that as her mission and God's plan. She didn't demand conversion to Catholicism in exchange for care. The world could use a million more like Mother Teresa. It's an old joke how the hungry have to endure a prayer session at the Salvation Army before meals are served. Big deal. The food's free and often they're the only game in town. The religious community is and always has been a major part of society's safety net, and many of them presently receive government funds.

To think or want otherwise is at best naïve and at worst childish and unreasonable, but you'd be insane not to demand strict oversight and accountability. The first Amendment to the Bill Of Rights states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." A number of churches hide behind the vagueness of this wording to exempt themselves from the licensing and performance standards applied to all secular providers of education and social services. If they're not accountable, what's to stop The Screaming Church Of The Epileptic Jesus from buying a new Caddy-Lack for Pastor Buford, then printing 10,000 copies of the Christian Identity Bible with a Confederate Flag on the cover? Basically, don't give any funds to a religious groups not willing to open their books on demand. Sadly, many feel that Freedom Of Religion means the freedom to shove their religion down everyone's throats. I hate proselytizing of any kind.. It’s condescending.

I'm an agnostic. I couldn't tell you either way if there's a God. I'd like to think my niece is in a better place. I imagine Hell, if it does exist, is crowded to the rafters. I hope there's extra suffering for those who suppress, hate and kill in the name of God. My only fear is reincarnation. I'd hate to have to go through this again. I have nothing against religious people. I trust them more at face value than I do atheists. Atheists tend to be angy scumbags. I like all people as long as they're nice and decent. Atheism is a religion based on science. Atheists preach anti-religion, but man don't they ever shut up? That atheism seemingly exists to refute all spirituality is spiteful. Believing in something is better than believing in nothing. Nothing is empty and by extension hopeless. Not that you should believe in something stupid as opposed to nothing. Use common sense. Believing in yourself is healthy, since low self-esteem is self-destructive, but don’t be an egotistical prick.

Faith-based charities have and always will receive government funds. This will increase under Bush, and in itself that's not bad. Just make sure the money doesn't wind up in Pat Robertson's back pocket.

(2007 update: Another example of my moonbat rantings from before 9-11, when I became Mr. Neocon in the flesh. Thankfully for the history of my conscience I’ve always hated communists as much I have Nazis.)

Back To Home PageTo Next Page