Mexican stamp offends blacks? I wonder why?

What do you think?



Mexico has a little growing up to do, I guess. We went through the Little Black Sambo phase in the 50's and 60's, and have expunged many of the most offensive images of blacks from the past. Poor ole Sambo is pretty hard to find north of the border anymore.

While objecting to offensive black images from the past, it seems elements in the black community aren't loathe to generate new ones, such as kids with baseball caps worn in various akilter ways and oversize pants down around their ass. This sort of image hardly tells the world "We can be brain surgeons, rocket scientists, and even The President someday."

We probably have shifted our stereotyping in the US from blacks to hispanics, since it seems most of the crooks, hoods, killers, and gang members on TV and in the movies are cast as Mexican-Americans.

But don't think stereotyping is limited to the downtrodden: In the staple evening sitcoms, white males are almost always depicted as halfwitted boy-men who are clueless when it comes to understanding their wives and children, and who are always making stupid decisions that others have to pick up after. Sadly, this phenomenon dates back to at least The Honeymooners show of the 1950's.

A short little essay on religion and mystery

"You atheists want to take all of the mystery out of the Universe" is an accusation with which atheists are quite familiar. This is typical religious bullshit.

An atheist believes what science believes, which is that the universe simply exploded into being. This is now what most of the more intelligent and aware religious people believe as well, except that they add that there must be an explanation for this and that this explanation is that God made the universe.

By contrast, the atheist embraces the mystery and leaves it as is, an event without known explanation.

You religious people want to take all of the mystery out of the universe!

WTF is it with us and Cuba?

In the past, our approach to helping Communist countries become free capitalist societies was through open trade. We figured exposure to western culture and ideals would be contageous, and to a very great extent the plan worked!

It worked on the USSR and is clearly working on China and Vietnam.

So, why have we lost faith with this concept when it comes to Cuba?

Okay, we remember that at one time Cuba was ready to let the USSR house ballistic missiles on the island and that President Castro has had few kind words for the USA over the years.

I also know that there is a very large community of Cuban expatriots in Florida who hate Castro, but I think they are a mix of political refugees who couldn't abide living under Communist oppression and economic refugees who used to be rich and privileged.

Either way, it's time to tell these folk that "Enough is enough already! The best way to bring democracy back to Cuba is through trade and cultural exchange, not through continuing a pointless embargo."

A big government lie re: stopping child porn

Our idiot legislators have paswed some extremely restrictive and most likely unconstitutional restrictions on adult webmasters, of which I am one.

Very stringent records-keeping duties, publishing the identity of the person who puts an adult site up and the identity of the photographer/videographer is all packed into a law called a "Child Protection Act," and our legislators who voted for it can now go back to their districts and brag that they are tough on child pornography.

Well, let me tell you something: Aside from the very rare case of a model foisting extremely good false ID on a webmasters, most of us don't want to shoot underage girls, and we take pains to avoid doing so.

Real kiddie pornsters operate in a quasi-secret subculture. True, you can bump into underage models on the Internet, but most of those sites come from what we used to call the Eastern Bloc countries, mainly the new countries that used to comprise the USSR. They are beyond the reach of the FBI and The Justice Department, so this law does absolutely nothing to close those sites down.

Instead, this law is a sneaky way of pressing forward with an anti-porn campaign championed by the Religious Right all done under a cloak of protecting the children from child pornographers.

Not only are the documentation requirements this law requires complicated and difficult to understand, but if convicted of not meeting the provisions perfectly as interpreted by the Justice Department, an adult webmaster could face 5 years in a Federal prison.

Apparently, our Federal government thinks we don't have enough people in prison yet and as usual, the Religious Right and the Republican's solution to everything is to throw more people in jail.

Let's hope the courts have more sense than our Federal legislators and that the voters have more sense the next time we have a Presidential election.

Thoughts on the Michael Jackson verdict

I think Michael Jackson molests children. Even if he doesn't, he has sole custody of his children and it's really hardly fair to raise children in the environment he creates. If he got struck by a bolt of lightning, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it, much less shed any tears.

I find that people who both love and hate Michael misinterpret the trial. Those who are Jackson fans think that the verdict means he didn't abuse children. Those who hate him for whatever reason feel an injustice was done.

I think we need to remember that a "not guilty" verdict means that the State didn't prove it's case. It does not mean that Michael Jackson didn't molest children. It does not mean that we need to try to change our beliefs about him. It just means that the state's case didn't rise, in the minds of the jurors, to a level that met or exceeded the standard of guilt for the crime.

To those who declare that "the verdict means that Michael Jackson doesn't molest little boys," I ask, "What is your belief about O.J. Simpson? Do you also think he's innocent because the prosecution couldn't convince a particularly dense jury of his guilt? I even believe that most black people think he probably did it, but they were happy to give the shaft to the Los Angeles police and justice system.

Some believe that celebrity played a role in this trial, and Im sure it did, but exactly what role it played is hard to say. I actually think many of us would love to see a celebrity get the shaft. Robert Blake comes to mind (didn't murder his wife? come on!). What celebrities do have is money, though.

People cite the press for distorting a celebrity case. However, while hearing the case, Michael Jackson's jury was insulated from the press. And one might have the impression that the press had convicted Jackson anyway. Well, if the press was trying to do him in, they failed miserably.

This case may have been lost due to a variety of prosecution errors and misjudgments, including putting the accuser's mother on trial and attempting to prove a conspiracy charge that most legal experts say didn't even pass the snicker test.

But the main thing to come away from this piece with is the notion that a "not guilty" verdict really means "not proven." It doesn't mean you or I have to change our minds about him.

Some thoughts on marijuana prompted by today's Supreme Court decision

Today the Supreme Court affirmed that the Feds can arrest and prosecute people who are using marijuana for medical purposes. This is nuts! I'm not criticizing the Supremes: all they can do is interpret the law as it is. I'm criticizing the other two branches of government for propounding laws that are virtually a blow job for the tobacco industry at a devastating cost to people suffering from various illnesses.

We all know (including our representatives in Washington, D.C.) that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug. Totally harmless, no, but certainly if everyone who currently smokes tobacco were to switch to marijuana overnight, the country would be far better off. A habit of frequent marijuana smoking is certainly less harmful than being addicted to tobacco or alcohol or McDonald's cheeseburgers, for that matter.

The argument that it's a "gateway drug" leading to cocaine, heroin, et al doesn't even pass the snicker test. The gateway drugs are alcohol and tobacco, not marijuana.

People possessing relatively small amounts of marijuana can receive mandatory sentences much higher than those commonly meted out to murderers and rapists.

Does this make sense?

Laws against marijuana fly in the face of the common practices of an entire generation of young people. Sure, this same group (as well as older people) may commonly flout speed limit laws as well, and this is no argument for not having speed limits. But laws against excessive speed make much more sense and the penalties generally fall into the misdemeanor area, and are not felonies with mandatory long-term sentences.

Does this make sense?

No, none of it makes sense and it's time the public rose up and demanded a logical and ethically supportable drug policy.

More stupid people: UFO believers

If UFO's exist, why is it that in Mexico, UFO contacts tend to be almost all telepathic in nature, but north of the border in the US, most of the contacts are "alien abductions"? The answer is obvious: UFO reports are culture-bound and have different traditions of lying or delusion in order to get attention.

I mean, can you imagine some aliens in their spacecraft saying, "Let's abduct this guy out in the field. How about it captain?" "No, remember we're over Mexico now, so we'll contact him telepathically."

True believers have a particular way of thinking. It goes like this: TB (the true believer) wants to believe in something (UFO's, ghosts, astral projection, religious miracles, etc.). After reasonable explanations are offered, the TB attempts to refute them. If, to TB's mind, he has refuted all the other explanations, then he has, to his mind, proven his preferred explanation.

Let's imagine for example that you have a pain in your leg You go to a doctor who runs some tests. After the tests, he says, "Well I see nothing wrong with your leg. Your nerves look okay as does your brain." "What can it be, then, doc?" "It's got to be caused by demons because we've eliminated all the other possible causes we can think of."

Looking at this medical example, I hope you can see the faulty reasoning. Well, this is basically the reasoning used by UFO proponents: "It apparently isn't reasonable explanations A, B, or C, so it must be (particular UFO hypothesis)." In science, including medical science, once you have eliminated A, B, or C, you keep looking for other reasonable explanations D, E, F, and so on.

Then, of course, there is the practical matter that it's very, very unlikely we will ever directly encounter aliens due to the incredibly vast distances involved as well as the risks of space travel coming from radiation, collisions with objects floating in space, and the deterioration over time of your spacecraft and its operating gear.

We may someday intercept a signal that most likely comes from an intelligent source (generated many hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago), but it's highly unlikely we'll ever see an alien face to face.

This is not your typical cell phone rant!

I've grown used to people complaining about cell phone rudeness. People whose phones go off during concerts, plays, or movies, for example. And the way people yell at their cell phones as if they don't realize that their cell phone can amplify their voice and is probably actively reducing the volume if they speak too loudly.

No, my complaint is against many of the complainers who don't seem to realize what a boon to life it is to be able to be contacted away from home, not to have to run home or to a pay phone to ask someone "What was it again you wanted me to bring for the salad?" or "Where are you? I've been waiting for a half hour!"

I find that many of the cell phone complainers are the same die-hards who still don't have a computer and never watch television, as though having a computer or a TV automatically means that you're wasting your life searching for Internet porn or watching Judge Judy reruns.

Yes, people misuse cell phones and are sometimes unconscionably rude, but overall life is better with a cell phone and those of you complain shouldn't complain until you have one and see how much easier it can make your life.

I recently went wireless. I gave up my land line and now the only way to reach my telephonically is by cell phone. That's about $45-$50/mo I can now spend on something else, and it easily pays for my Internet connection and cable bills combined.

Now, the next thing will be to find a cheaper way to get broadband and TV!

So, now we know who "Deep Throat" was

There are a few things the current crop of 20- and 30-somethings will never really understand. One is how Watergate affected the country and the other is how Beatlemania affected the world.

In reverse order, you may think that, for example, the world revolved around Kurt Cobain and his shotgun, but believe me there were plenty of people who when Curt's demise flashed across their screen or appeared on the front page of their newspaper said, "Who the FUCK is Kurt Cobain?"

By the time The Beatles came to the U.S. only people coming out of comas (or recently deceased) had no idea who The Beatles were. Wherever they went, here or elsewhere, throngs of teen girls with moist panties were there to greet them. These girls would have pulled a train consisting of the entire band if they could, but each one had a favorite depending upon her own personal needs and perceived shortcomings (e.g., the less attractive girls would invariably be in love with Ringo, the homely one, and the underappreciated creative ones would go for George Harrison).

No, there's been nothing even approaching Beatlemania since then.

As for Watergate, you can't imagine how it dominated the news. You may remember the O.J. Simpson hubbub. Well, Watergate dominated our daily lives ten times more than the O.J. trial, because (I would imagine) much more was at stake: the Presidency itself.

Watergate happened due to a series of stories written by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein for the Washington Post with the assistance of an unnamed Washington and Whitehouse insider referred to by the code name "Deep Throat" (the title of a notorious porno movie of the time).

We just found out that Deep Throat was Mark Felt, an Assistant Director of the FBI at the time, deeply involved in the FBI's investigation. So, indeed, he was a very knowledgeable insider.