skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Oh dear, Ron Schiller.
If you thought National Public Radio screwed up in their unwarranted firing of civil rights supporter Juan Williams for daring to say what we all think, dear reader, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Schiller, NPR's vice president of development, was the recent victim of a conservative-inspired prank (commentator James O'Keefe was the perpetrator) in which he met with two men posing as members of the Muslim Brotherhood at a Washington D.C. cafe. When the fake Muslims brought up the subject of Zionists funding the media and how they wanted to donate to NPR because it was free from such influence, Schiller responded that, unlike newspapers, where the influence is "obvious," NPR was owned by no-one.
Schiller did not go off on a grotesquely anti-Semitic rant. Instead, he ranted against those racist whites in the Tea Party movement. But having accepted the slur uttered by these supposed Islamists and responding that NPR answers to no-one, it's clear that he buys into the liberal smears against those dreaded Jews controlling our media. Schiller also backed up his colleague Betsy Liley by saying that while the American Jewish World Service may be supportive of NPR, "many Jewish organizations are not."
Does Schiller actually believe that Zionists control the media or was he just taking advantage of the potential offer of $5 million from these "Muslims"? (It seems that Schiller's opinions of Muslims are none too dignified either if he was so easily fooled by their act.)
Ron Schiller resigned, while the station's CEO, Vivian Schiller (no relation), was ousted by NPR's Board of Directors.
I wish I could believe that this was the end of it, that these wingnuts won't simply be replaced by equally horrible leftists who will be more cautious with their prejudices. The fact of the matter is, NPR could easily stand for "National Palestinian Radio," and Schiller, by acting as a fundraiser for the station, doesn't appear to mind how shariaists are so often presented in a sympathetic limelight.
Here's the real catch: Schiller is gay. He has a partner by the name of Alan Fletcher.
Now then, I have no doubt that Schiller decries homophobia, but only as practiced by straight white guys in Western societies. He must know how homosexuals are dealt with under sharia law. They are executed in any number of inventive ways. But somehow, it must be alright, because this is a penalty carried out by the "religion of peace." The straight white guys in the Tea Party are the real danger! What do tortured and dead homosexuals in Afghanistan or Pakistan matter? We have far worse homophobia in America. Those Tea Party rabble-rousers all support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Oh, the horror.
Schiller reminds me of these hippies who listen to Jamaican dance hall music, thinking that certifies their liberal-left credentials, and completely unaware—or, more likely, conveniently ignoring the fact—that the accompanying lyrics are wildly anti-gay.
Honestly, I don't know which bothers me more about this latest sordid tale from NPR: The liberal kowtowing, or the blatant hypocrisy, on so many levels, behind it.
Last month, during the New York Fashion Week—not something that I make a point of following, I can assure you—Diet Pepsi unveiled their new packaging. It took the form of a "skinny" can, a taller, slimmer receptacle for the beverage.
Critics, of course, panned it, saying that it was pushing the agenda of size zero models and projecting the prejudicial message that thin is in. Whenever I see a roly-poly waddling up the street, someone I know for a fact is pushing up the cost of health premiums and placing strain on health services, God forbid that I think thin should be in. Do these fashion anti-heroes honestly have nothing better to bitch about?
These liberals, who feel that carrying 400 pounds on one's frame should count as freedom of expression, were squawking alright. One writer for Slate called the marketing "faux-empowerment" and offered the sarcastic thought, "If you're confident on the inside, you'll be skinny on the outside, or something. Huh?" Not to generalize, but I've pretty much found that to be true. Then again, I've never resembled the human equivalent of an SUV, so I suppose I couldn't say. But I would sure miss my skinny jeans, darrr-ling!
Let's get one thing straight. I'm not advocating the size zero ethos. I agree with the aim of defeating anorexia and bulimia. But doesn't it make some semblance of sense to offer a diet beverage with an admittedly subliminal message? I hate stupid gimmicks, which is exactly what this skinny can amounts to, but do we really need the fat brigade to politicize this?
Then you have the "don't tell us what to eat" crowd. I will never understand those conservatives who cry about the effort to ban transfats, presenting them as vital to our way of life. When our border control agents have to fire beanbags at narco-terrorists so we don't offend the sensibilities of Felipe Calderón, you have to wonder why Michelle Obama's healthy living campaign even appears as a blip on their radar. Mrs. Obama wants children to eat healthier and exercise more, and their parents to make better choices for them. Try as I might, I cannot see the problem with that.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Mississippi governor Haley Barbour back Mrs. Obama's campaign. So does Ted Nugent, and you don't get more right-wing than him. Sarah Palin, however, says that the choice should be left to parents. Well, that's worked brilliantly so far, hasn't it? Surely the rigid control that we are to believe the country's parents are exerting has nothing to do with the obesity crisis and why most kids couldn't run a mile if their lives depended on it?
No-one wants to munch on vegetables all the time, but could we just perhaps indulge the possibility that this is not what the First Lady is advocating? This is hardly a case of government overreach. Every First Lady has had a crusade. Why is the campaign to improve the health and wellbeing of the nation's children any more odious than the effort to increase their literacy?
This is one instance in which the pinkos' favorite expression—"it's for the children!"—is mostly believable. (It's also the only instance in which I could be persuaded to give even half an ant-sized shit about what's good for children.)
Furthermore, we are being persuaded to believe that the food industry will police itself and faze out harmful additives like the aforementioned transfats. Since when has big business ever opted for the protection of society in general over profit? Answer: Never, if you're talking about Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol—or Big Food. Transfats extend shelf life. Thusly, they extend profits. They also raise bad cholesterol while also lowering good cholesterol. They add nothing of any nutritional value whatsoever to human health. They didn't even exist before the 1930s, and didn't start appearing in junk food until the '50s. Yet somehow, in those dark pre-transfat days, Americans still enjoyed their desserts. And the great majority of them were able to move around without the aid of a motorized Wal-Mart cart. Golly gee.
Now we've got Palin (and Limbaugh and Beck) acting like McCarthyites: "Do you now support, or have you ever supported, the elimination of transfats from the nation's diet?" As they say, follow the money. And the money dictates that the disappearance of transfats from our precious junk food and microwave dinners somehow threatens our existence. America is only strong as our synthetic, shelf life-saving oils!
God bless us, everyone.
All this sensitivity over skinny cans, the right to be fat, and these supposedly excellent choices that parents are making which Mrs. Obama apparently wants to take away from them makes for very lively debate, and we've had plenty of that. Unfortunately, it's done nothing to get the nation's health back on track.
Could we please, at the very least, change the nature of the debate—that the existence of a skinny Diet Pepsi can is not advocating anyone's starvation, and that we should not discuss choices when we're at the mercy of food producers who care more about the life of a product than the person buying it? And how does it make sense to fret over anorexia or bulimia while excusing or ignoring that other eating disorder, known as EATING TOO DAMN MUCH?
You make informed choices about your food, you make time for exercise, you don't smoke and you treat alcohol with respect, and these virtues are what you pass on to your children. It really is as simple as that. Despite the shock, awe and flat-out horror that Mrs. Obama's campaign, or any subsequent minor regulation of the food industry, may provide to our lifestyle—which at the moment could adequately be summed up in three simple words: "While Rome Burned"—the choice to be a bad consumer will still be there. Hopefully, in future, very few will avail themselves of it.
Were you aware, dear reader, that breast milk ice cream was, however briefly, on sale here in Britain? I kid you not. An ice cream shop in Covent Garden entitled Icecreamists served up ice cream made from human breast milk. Not surprisingly, the restaurant in question had its supply of "Baby Gaga" confiscated by Westminster Council on the common-sense grounds that it was a "foodstuff made from another person's bodily fluids."
Now then, I'm a fairly straight guy, at least in terms of my sexual activity preference—making my deposit in the right bank, so to speak. I am an avid fan of any female form that's fit and foxy. But I have to say, I cannot, even in my wildest dreams, countenance the thought of consuming breast milk ice cream. I'm not even fond of ice cream in general; in my opinion, it's the favored indulgence of obese people who clearly plan on staying that way.
Matt O'Connor, the inventor of the ice cream which surely made the average shaven-headed, no-necked Daily Star reader drool, said the frozen concoction "challenges our preconceptions about food." Well, Mr. O'Connor, food is something for which I am quite comfortable—indeed, grateful—in not having my preconceptions challenged. I actually enjoy being able to eat sans the urge to puke. That's why there's very little that I consume which originated from something that can walk and vocalize.
O'Connor also said that if breast milk "is good enough for our children, it's good enough for the rest of us." OK, I consider myself quite youthful for a fortysomething, but honestly, let us not get carried away here.
What's next? Urine lemonade? Fecal fajitas, perhaps? Hey, we need to challenge our food preconceptions, damn it all! If coprophagia is good enough for rabbits, surely it's good enough for us!
Even Michelle Obama wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole.
And let's face it, we can't see the women who donated their milk. I'm guessing they didn't exactly all come fresh from a shift at Hooters.
Let me leave you with one final thought from this roguish entrepreneur. "No-one's done anything interesting with ice cream in the last hundred years," O'Connor opines. And yet it still sells. Go figure.
Mr. O'Connor, get thee to a supermarket or a normal ice cream shop and discover how something that ain't broke doesn't need fixing.
I generally agree with the cost-cutting that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has been engaging in. As could be expected, the British trade unions are reacting with the same infantile tantrums that have been occurring in Wisconsin; what's happening on the American stage with respect to unions, their power and their flawed defense of lavish pensions that no-one in the private sector enjoys, is being mirrored over here.
Unions are threatening to strike on the day of the royal marriage (Wills and Kate) in April, and to also disrupt services during the Olympics. It's childish and preposterous behavior on the part of the unions for making the general public pay for their grievances. If you actually care about the wedding or the Olympics, excuse me while I laugh uproariously at you—you are a sentimental dope in the case of the former or a gullible fool in the case of the latter—but you still have the right to expect a trouble-free journey in order to witness either of them.
However, I totally agree with the union Unite in their condemnation of the Government's plan to scrap the Nimrod spy planes. The Ministry of Defence plans to turn the entire fleet of newly constructed Nimrod planes, which cost £4 billion to build, into scrap metal. On its website, Unite opines that, with the loss of the Nimrods, the "defense of the nation has been compromised," while union representative John Fussey (now there's a great last name for a union rep, eh?) called it "barbaric vandalism."
The Goverment and MoD claim that surveillance can be carried out via our Type 23 frigates, and Merlin anti-submarine and Hercules C-130 helicopters. But BAE Systems will need to be reimbursed for the destruction of their product, so how exactly is this a cost-cutting measure? We're not talking about the decommissioning of the 41-year-old Harrier jump jets, the last models of which were constructed in 1997, which will be replaced by F-35 fighters. The Nimrod surveillance planes were introduced in 1969 also, but the latest models, the MRA4, were brand new—and will be replaced by ships and helicopters.
Now I'm not an expert when it comes to defense issues, and I don't blame you, dear reader, if you nodded off while reading the previous paragraph. But surely you get the gist—the government still has yet to explain how exactly this counts as either a cost-cutting measure that makes even mathematical sense or a sound defense policy procedure. Unite was well within their element to question this from a national security point of view.
I only wish trade unions would argue from a patriotic perspective more often instead of their usual platform of cushy greed which they hypocritically accuse the cost-cutters and the private sector of.
I don't think there's any sane person who can disagree that dog fights are cruel and that it's only right and proper for them to be declared illegal. I also don't think Michael Vick would second-guess that statement anymore.
Vick is a screwball. But he earned a second chance.
Before his sentencing in 2007 for leading an interstate dog fighting operation, Vick agreed with the request by federal prosecutors to open an escrow account of $1 million to care for the surviving dogs. He then served 18 months in prison and lost his salary and endorsement deals, declaring bankruptcy in 2008. In 2009, he revealed on 60 Minutes that he cares about animals and was disgusted with himself. "I encourage you to love that animal," he told schoolchildren with regard to pets. Even Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of the Humane Society, defended Vick.
If Vick had been unapologetic and stubborn about his sordid past, that would be one thing. But he accepted his fate and was pretty humble and classy about it.
It's fair to say that Vick paid a considerable price and we should be satisfied with the punishment that was dealt to him. Let's see what he does with his redemption and how he carries himself from this point forward.
And to be fair, although Americans accepted Vick's mea culpa, they still took a poke at him via a popular t-shirt that announced "Vick's an Eagle, Hide Your Beagle." A great way of letting Vick know that although we've forgiven, we won't forget.
However, there are some who won't forgive Vick, and that includes Tucker Carlson. I like Carlson because he's got an independent mind and is his own conservative—as am I. Admittedly, I'm at my wit's end over his bizarre statement, delivered on FOX News, that "personally, he should've been executed for that [killing dogs]."
Carlson then opined, "[T]he idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale."
Beyond the pale? Like suggesting that someone involved with dog fighting should be executed?
Carlson prefaced his call for Vick's execution by calling himself a Christian who "fervently" believes in second chances. Jeez, Tucker, was this satire on your part? If you're that upset by Michael Vick, arrange a meeting with him and talk this out. Listen to what the man has to say, let him explain himself. I know Carlson's upset at the Prez for personally congratulating the Eagles for making Vick their starting quarterback—Obama would not have done it had Vick been white—when there are more pressing issues at the White House.
But I think I can explain Tucker Carlson's wild pronouncement. He's the same age as me (41), and some people—guys especially—in their early 40s tend to dip back into attention-getting in order to hang on to whatever youth they have left. You calm down around the age of 35, spend five years in a relative state of placidity, then you hit forty and think, "Oh no, I've got to re-assert myself." And you go a bit off the wall.
Let's just hope Michael Vick doesn't crave notoriety once he achieves the big four-oh. Then we just may have to execute him. But, for now, let the man try to play good and entertaining football on the strength of the redemption he earned.
Well, happy new year, dear reader.
Allow me to ask some questions: Did the sky turn green? Did conifers turn red? Were humans suddenly able to sprout wings and fly? Did solar panels and wind turbines miraculously provide all the power we require?
No?
So, essentially, you celebrated a number—"2011"—at midnight on Saturday morning? Well, golly gee for you. I hope you had fun.
I'm more excited by the fact that it's the month of January, because we cannot possibly get through this miserable season known as winter until the new year is in effect. I'm counting the weeks, then the days, till I no longer have to worry about slipping on ice during a run and suffering from SAD.
So, as the entrails of that big number in the sky that doesn't exist dissipates in the cold, dry air, I wish you a happy new year. For what it's worth.
I've been taking a shellacking in the comments section for this column, dear reader, but it displays in stark manner (1) the mindsets of the "wicked local" residents of my hometown and (2) the absolute faith of those in favor of the legalization of marijuana, a faith that should be by no means rock-solid. But try telling them that. Anyway, enjoy:
(Previously published by the Watertown TAB & Press, December 26, 2010. Copyright 2010 Watertown TAB & Press / Wicked Local Watertown.)
One of the issues that keeps on re-occurring is the decriminalization, or legalization, of marijuana. Proposition 19, the California Legalization Initiative, recently suffered defeat in the Nov. 2 election. Massachusetts decriminalized marijuana via ballot question in 2008, and other states such as New Hampshire, Hawaii, Vermont and Oregon have, by referendums or State House bills, allowed possession of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes—to no avail, of course, because federal anti-drug laws will trump the initiatives, rendering them moot.
When it comes to the War on Drugs, there is no such thing as states' rights.
The libertarian impulse to legalize the herb is, from a face value point of view, noble. No government, be it municipal, state or federal, should have the right to dictate what we can or cannot do with ourselves, if it involves no harm to others. Naturally-grown cannabis is a relatively mild drug. Some of its more eager proponents assert that it's less harmful than alcohol; some would even put it on a par with caffeine in terms of both its ubiquity and non-life threatening nature.
It helps those suffering from pain that conventional medicines cannot touch. To deny these people relief is cruel. And the fact that so many jailbirds are non-violent offenders who got locked up for possession of amounts that make it clear, even to those with a brain the consistency of mashed potatoes (which rather adequately describes federal lawmakers), that they are not dealers is preposterous.
I would, as purely a matter of technicality, be perfectly willing to decriminalize marijuana. Free the dopey stoners; they are not a threat to anyone. Allow those suffering from glaucoma, asthma and multiple sclerosis access to it. Let's be honest—prohibition doesn't work. It's why alcohol was re-legalized. It's why we fight a war on drugs that is incredibly costly. Yet, drugs are still available. The black market provides, such as it always has.
Furthermore, the so-called legal highs like Salvia or K2 have been studied far less and their effects on the mind and body long-term are largely unknown. Sometimes, as with K2, they can be synthetic. There is no end to the variety of marijuana alternatives being produced, widely available over the Internet that could pose more of a danger than cannabis itself.
But if the government was to decriminalize marijuana or any other illegal drug, they would not only have to admit they were wrong, which is highly unlikely, they would have to regulate it. Do we want more tax revenue to be wasted on programs that benefit everyone except American citizens? I don't think anyone with a libertarian bent wants to place this kind of potential cash cow in the government's hands.
I previously used the phrase "naturally-grown cannabis." This is exactly what the government would legalize. There would be a scientifically determined maximum amount of THC to legal marijuana. This would not please connoisseurs of the stronger varieties, such as “skunk.” If the point were to defeat the illegal dealing of marijuana, such a measure would fail.
Furthermore, we cannot pretend that cannabis is a happy-go-lucky, hippie drug. This is disingenuous. Like any drug, it depends on how you're feeling, where you are, and who you're with when you take it. Users may be aware that a super-strong strain of marijuana is literally "one-hit s**t," but, apropos to the laws of human nature, they'll still smoke an entire joint of it in one sitting. As for the claim that marijuana is not addictive, perhaps it isn’t pharmacologically, but definitely is from a psychological perspective. There is no avoiding the fact that frequent use of cannabis affects the mind long-term.
Normally I would say that medicinal marijuana is a fine idea, to be regulated by the healthcare industry. Those who seek the pain-relieving qualities that cannabis provides would not care that it contained only government-approved levels of THC. There should be allowances for it in any competent healthcare plan.
ObamaCare, however, has largely rendered that option unworkable.
Conservatives don't like hearing about how things work in the Netherlands. But since we're likely to have death panels under ObamaCare, we might as well allow cannabis in government-sanctioned coffee shops as they do in Holland. But again, there's the ever-thorny issue of who is supplying the drugs. I've witnessed deliveries to coffee shops in Amsterdam. The suppliers didn't bother anyone; they did their job and went on their way. But they all had that ruthless "dealer" look to them. Does this make the Dutch experiment more or less laudable because they found some way around the fact that marijuana is not going away and it's better to use coffee shops as a middleman between dealer and user?
This is an issue that cannot be taken lightly. We cannot claim an absolute right to deny anyone the “Alice in Wonderland”-like existence they search for in the smoke—their bodies, and their lives. But legalizing marijuana could create an even more surreal experience for lawmakers, the judiciary and the general public. On marijuana, we must proceed cautiously or not at all.
