Watch out America: What happened in Venezuela can happen here.

If you had asked me ten years ago if I thought that the strange, unbelievable events that happened over the past decade in Venezuela could occur in the United States, I would have said it was crazy. But having watched the events in Venezuela very carefully, and watching current events in the USA, I’m becoming deeply alarmed. In particular, I’m talking about the alarming claims of rampant voter fraud that is being reported in primarily Democrat counties in Alabama.
Before I get to what’s happening in Alabama, I need to review what we know about Venezuelan President Chavez.

It is now well known that Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez led an illegal coup attempt in 1992 that resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent, unarmed Venezuelan civilians. After his coup failed, he agreed to go on the air and call for his armed co-conspirators to stop the coup, saying “we have failed—for now”. He went to jail, and eventually the Venezuelan president pardoned him for his crimes, and he embarked on a political campaign to accomplish ‘democratically’ what he had failed to accomplish by force.

Chavez embarked on a world-wide tour to gather financial resources from Cuba, middle-eastern leaders (including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Syria’s Assad), and returned to Venezuela with millions of dollars for his campaign. He won the election, and immediately started to disassemble the Venezuelan government. Within a few years, he had replaced the federal judges with sympathetic followers, dissolved the bicameral congress and replaced with a temporary body that wrote a new constitution that favored him and his party and his “Bolivarian revolution”.

He then took complete control of the electoral council (Venezuela’s electoral system is completely centralized—a model that former US President Carter has said he’d like to emulate), and in every electoral process from that point forward, there were rampant charges of electoral fraud. Opposition candidates were harassed, beaten, arrested and threatened with impunity. Chavez supporters attacked opposition rallies en masse, resulting in many injuries and even deaths.

But what is very alarming is that entire electoral mechanism was undermined in a way that permanently disadvantaged the opposition parties. Millions of dollars of state funds found their way into pro-Chavez parties, rallies, and bought support around the country. People were paid to be bused to pro-Chavez rallies and show support for him, giving the impression to the world that his support was massive and popular. Voters were paid to cast votes for him, and there were many cases of intimidation against anyone who showed a proclivity to vote against him.
Chavez made it clear that he was willing to use the ever increasing petroleum revenue to fund his personal revolution, and that a top priority for Venezuela was to achieve the election—in the USA—of a “Bolivarian president”. This notion was mocked and laughed at as the ramblings of a Latin American madman.

However, over the next few years, a frightening pattern was revealed. Socialist parties across the Americas, from Mexico to Argentina and including many countries in between, were accused by their opponents of illegally and covertly receiving large sums of money from the Venezuelan government, in order to support the leftist causes and outspend their “neo-liberal” opponents. Chavez donated millions of dollars of petroleum to Sandinista candidates in Nicaragua, so that they could provide cheap fuel to their supporters—a way of demonstrating how supporting socialists would result in handouts for the poor. Chavez built housing in the districts of socialist candidates in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Bolivia, helping increase the popularity of the socialists. This pattern repeated itself in numerous countries, while the outcry of opposition leaders was ignored.

Following this pattern, the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Argentina and Nicaragua all turned to the left. There is a life and death struggle still going on in El Salvador and Panama.
The most telling turn of events occurred in Argentina, when it was discovered that high-level Venezuelan officials had funneled large sums of money into Argentina to covertly fund the election campaign of Kristina Fernandez de Kirchner—the wife of former socialist president Nestor Kirchner. The Kirchners were very vocal supporters of Chavez. Small wonder, when one considers how Chavez single-handedly (without the approval of the Venezuelan people) decided to buy Argentina’s multi-billion dollar debt to the World Bank. No one has yet been able to demonstrate how this purchase benefitted the Venezuelan people or economy, but it was clear that it supported Chavez: the Kirchners gained temporary popularity in Argentina and in turn showed him undying loyalty, defending his “revolution” in every forum of world government.

The way the money was funneled into the various countries is extremely important to understand. Chavez has always been savvy enough to maintain “plausible deniability”. That is to say, he might outwardly say that he wants to support the leftist parties in a country, but wouldn’t outwardly give the money to them. Instead, what has been learned is that the money often came directly from the coffers of the state-controlled Petroleum of Venezuela (Pdvsa), and was delivered secretly by private individuals contracted by government officials, who carried the money into the country under the guise of business discussions about oil leases and other convenient distractions. Unfortunately for Chavez, some of those suitcases of money were captured, and the whole plot was discovered.

At other times, the Circulos Bolivarianos, or “Bolivarian Circles”, were employed to this end. The Bolivarian Circles are a loosely organized system of community groups throughout the world, which claim to support underprivileged populations and provide a number of services. But they are alleged to be deeply involved in funneling money to opposition groups, to help organize and fund protest marches, even trigger riots.

In other cases, support was given as gifts of the Venezuelan government to its favored opposition leaders. This didn’t just happen in the backwaters of Latin American countries. Chavez gave cheap heating oil to the constituents of Democrat leaders in Boston and New York. He also tried to sway Native American populations in the USA with similar tactics, by donating gas or heating oil or other support.

Over the past few years, Chavez has received many visits from any number of American leaders, not to mention socialist Hollywood elite. Various members of the African National Congress have visited him, giving the impression that they not only support Chavez, but are expecting some return of favors.

Which brings me now to the events in Alabama.

According to the investigations of the Alabama Attorney General Troy King and the US Justice Department, a number of counties, whose local governments lean heavily Democrat, have been caught in a massive voter fraud scheme. The details that are being released are somewhat meager and unsatisfying. But in an interview on Fox news, AG King explained that they have discovered a pattern of vote-buying in these counties, the voters being offered between $50 and $100 to vote Democrat. What’s more, while his investigators attempted to gather information on the case, local officials in these counties actually arrested the Alabama state investigators for “harassment” of the voters who apparently accepted the bribes. King stated that he had to go to court to get his own investigators released from jail!

The method is extremely clear: the Democrat party has been encouraging its constituents to vote early via absentee ballots. This method was promoted heavily ever since the 2000 election, in which the vote was disputed in Florida, and the Democrats tried to claim that electronic voting machines were rigged by the Republicans to throw the election. So they have instead tried to get their constituents to vote by absentee ballots because—in their words—it would provide a paper trail in case of a future, contested election.

In Alabama, a number of these counties—which apparently are also predominantly black—have suddenly revealed some disturbing irregularities that suggest that something very odd is occurring. In Perry County, for example, the average number of absentee ballots cast in previous elections was close to one percent. Now, that has grown to nearly twenty five percent.
It is too early to tell exactly what is happening, but to me it’s very frightening. Where is this money coming from? Why are local officials trying to impede the investigations? Could the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who visited Chavez on private business, be at all related to the sudden appearance of money throughout mostly black precincts throughout the South?

And, since Chavez repeatedly stated that he trying to get a socialist elected in the United States, could his have anything to do with the presidential campaign of Senator Obama? Could there be a reason why Obama was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his campaign, while none of the other candidates could come close? Could this be the reason why Obama refused to accept public financing--contracting his previous promise to do so?

It’s far from unprecedented for the Democrats to receive illegal funds from overseas—after all, this was exactly what President Clinton did when he accepted millions of dollars from the Chinese.

So, perhaps my speculations are not too hair-brained. Only time will tell.

Second Amendment barely upheld.

If you haven’t read the Supreme Court’s decision on the Second Amendment, you should.

I'm disgusted that the decision was only 5 to 4. How can there be FOUR Supreme Court Justices who DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REST OF US ALL UNDERSTAND!?

Actually, let me rephrase that. I'm sure they understand what we understand. But they have a vision for America that is different than what the founding fathers envisioned, and so they actively try to mis-interpret the constitution to fit it to their arrogant ideas.

But, anyway, I am extremely amused by the language used by Justice Antonin Scalia. It is unusual, I think, for the level of sarcasm and biting humor which appears throughout the argument. You can tell that there must have been some intense discussion between Scalia and Stevens. And it is also clear that Scalia, having garnered a majority decision, and knowing that this is a truly historic decision, enjoyed very much jabbing Stevens for his foolish attempts to creatively alter the meaning of the constitution.

Just for clarity, here is the Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.”

So Stevens sets out to try to find hidden meaning in the text, by suggesting first that the phrase means that only state militia (national guard) could have weapons, and that “keep and bear” does not mean to own and carry… It becomes clear that Stevens has a desired outcome in mind and sets out to change the meaning of the words in order to fit it to the desired outcome.

And Scalia takes him to task personally.

Here are couple of jewels {bolding is my emphasis}:
***
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners
and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes)
idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a
hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the
actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an
idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No
dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have
been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried
that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy
to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the
hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning
would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of
the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying
“He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” Grotesque.


If “bear arms” means, as we
think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit
the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense”
or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying
phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is
not limited to military use.11

The next selection is from a footnote, where Stevens was trying to twist the meaning of the amendment so that the citizen can “keep” or store a weapon but cannot “carry” or bear it:

14 Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to
the bizarre argument that because the word “to” is not included before
“bear” (whereas it is included before “petition” in the First Amendment),
the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear” is established. Post,
at 16, n. 13. We have never heard of the proposition that omitting
repetition of the “to” causes two verbs with different meanings to
become one. A promise “to support and to defend the Constitution of
the United States” is not a whit different from a promise “to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
***
I tell you what, between the recent horrendous decision that violates state rights regarding the death penalty for child rapists, and the clear attempt by Stevens to twist the constitution, there can be no doubt that Stevens needs to be removed from the court—which is probably not possible. We definitely need to get more constructivist judges onto the court to counter Stevens and Bader.

News Flash: Nancy Pelosi is a victim!

I saw an interesting article about Nancy Pelosi and went to the Lynn Sweet blog to read it...

Now, before you bash away at me as a "neo-con", or "mysoginist", keep in mind that I have been a Democrat for most of my life. I still have a Democrat voter registration card in my wallet.

But I've grown disgusted with the idiocy that has taken over the party, so I'll be changing party affiliations for this fall's election.

Meanwhile, the article in question reported Nancy Pelosi's statement about her being a victim of sexism. This statement reminded me of a brilliant article I read recently by Dennis Prager, which you should read. In short, Prager points to a study that indicated that Feminism itself has trained women to perceive themselves as victims. The study's author said that "the study found that girls who had a better understanding of feminism were more likely to recognize sexual harassment." Prager agrees, because, as he said "Girls subjected to feminist indoctrination are undoubtedly more likely to interpret innocuous behavior as sexual harassment. "

All you have to do is look at the definition of "sexual harassment" put forth by the study and you should see some immediate issues:
"The most commonly reported forms of sexual harassment were unwanted romantic attention, demeaning gender-related comments, teasing based on their appearance, and unwanted physical contact."

Now, let's see if we can deconstruct this:
If a boy likes a girl,but she doesn't like him, and he asks her out on a date--she should perceive herself as a victim of sexual harrassment.
If a girl is teased because she is a foot taller than her male counterparts, or dresses like a clown--she should perceive herself as a victim of sexual harrassment.
And if a male places his hand on her shoulder and she doesn't want this--she should perceive herself as a victim of sexual harrassment.

Democrats, wake up!

Can't you see how Pelosi's latest festival of self-pity follows in the wake of the comments by Ferraro, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, etc? To hear people like this--who have acquired (through democratic processes) positions such as Senator, Presidential Candidate, Representative, Speaker of the House, etc--whine and complain about how they're victims of "racism", "agism", "sexism", or whatever else is just pathetic. None of these factors kept you from becoming Senator, representative etc, but suddenly NOW they stopped you? The voters supported you before, but maybe now they don't.

How about a little honest introspection? What have YOU done differently or ineffectively?

Nancy, you are an idiot. Not a "stupid woman"...just an idiot. And by that I don't mean that you aren't intelligent--you could never have gotten to the position you're in by being a totally brainless twit. But clearly you do not think before you speak or act.

Is it sexist to suggest that your trip to Syria was STUPID? No. It was a dumb mistake. You made your party (my old party) look like idiots, since you were in such a hurry to try to highlight Bush's lack of diplomatic skill/will that you made yourself (and the Dems) look like naive children. Why did you stop with Syria? Why not do the Carter thing and go kiss Hamas leaders? Why not go to Iraq to meet with and kiss al-Qaida leaders? Oh, that's obviously stupid. Going to Syria was only a LITTLE stupid. You couldn't see at the time what bad judment it was.

So, you get back and are severely bashed for your mistake, and your defense is that you are a victim of sexism. Right...well, hey what can be expected of you, Nancy? You were TAUGHT to see yourself as a victim.

Hillary made a load of stupid mistakes that cost her dearly. And yet her response is to whine about being a victim.

What a great thing "women's liberation" did for you!

And Obama, who has befriended radical anti-Americans, made a show of NOT wearing a lapel pin (he's clearly trying to set himself apart from the rest of the Senate that DOES where one), and makes statements belittling the average American--and then when he is criticized, he evokes the specter of racism.

I guarantee that as long as you see yourself as a victim, that belief will be reaffirmed time and again. See yourself as a victor, and again, you will see that reaffirmed time and again.

I think it's hilarious: the Democrats are victims of their own victim theology. You've fallen down, and can't get up.

Who's fault is that? YOURS.

Save the world with Baby Oil

Thanks to the genius of Al Gore and his entourage of enlightened Hollywood elite, the world is now aware of its impending doom. Leftists are rallying to stop global warming caused by the world’s most dreadful pest species, homo sapiens.

The global warming threat looms over humanity at the same time that energy sources have been maxed out, causing a dreadful situation in which the world’s most important individuals, almost all of whom are California-based actors and musicians, struggle to find new sources of energy to fuel their private jets so they can continue to admonish the plebe for its persistent burning of fossil fuels in wasteful SUVs.

Recent news articles announced to the world the creative efforts of America’s best scientists to free our country from our addiction to foreign oil. First, you heard about the bacteria that devour waste and produce oil. The same week, another article explained how other scientists have figured out how to make diesel made from the bi-product of algae.

Neither of these “solutions” are viable, as pointed out by the good folks of MoveOn.org, who point out that forcing bacteria to devour human waste is an inhumane plan by conservatives to further devalue other life forms.

Likewise, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Algae) enlightened Democratic leaders that tinkering with the genes of plants and animals is unacceptably dangerous, since it might lead to the discovery of a Gay gene, and thus a vaccine which could be used to eliminate homosexuals—all part of the same conservative plot to commit anti-queer genocide that resulted in the creation of the AIDS virus. (Kudos to Reverend Wright and Barack Obama for enlightening us on the AIDS conspiracy!)

But in a tiny laboratory hidden deep in the bowels of the University of California, Berkeley, can be found scientists who may have finally got it right and will solve all of the world’s ecological problems in one go.

Dr Sonny Sorenson, MD, has determined that large quantities of petroleum products could be generated from the waste materials from the world’s aborted fetuses. That’s right: kill your child and save the world.

Dr. Sorenson, who is also President and founder of FetusFuels Inc. says, “There are millions of unwanted children in this world who provide little or no value and are, in fact, a clear drain on both society and the natural world. Additionally, millions of unwanted fetuses are aborted annually, and their bodies dumped unceremoniously into garbage dumpsters. This is a crime: it would be much better if you gave them to me and allowed me to produce bio-fuel from the corpses.”

When asked about the morality of profiting from the murder of human fetuses, Dr. Sorenson laughs. “They are not human unless their mothers say they are, so it can’t be murder. They are actually less valuable than common bacteria, since at least most bacteria have some positive impact, while fetuses don’t contribute to the world until they’ve completed a liberal education and adopted a gay lifestyle.”

This journalist has discovered this newest form of bio-fuel is being promoted by the left-wing Hollywood elite. Rosie O’Donnell has reportedly donated $10 million to research and development of FetusFuels. She reacted angrily to questions about the morality of the proposal. “The US government killed three thousand people in the World Trade Center. The US government bombed Japan. And now you ask me about the morality of fueling my private jet with baby oil? Hypocrites!”

O’Donnell compares this latest twist in the Green Movement to Jonathon Swift’s Modest Proposal. “It was clear that Swift was progressive, and he must have been gay, since only a gay could see past the supposed value of a ‘baby’ and see it as a more valuable product.” She refers to Swift’s essay in which he suggested that the English solve their problem with the Irish by eating Irish babies. O’Donnell says that Swift’s solution, while sounding radical by today’s standards, was actually quite reasonable, given the excessive Irish fertility and generally low overall human worth. “And I’m of Irish decent, so I can say that. And if the breeders don’t like to hear it, tell them to shut the F- up!”

The latest proposal has found support from NOHW (National Oil Hating Wymyn), PIAH (People for the Immediate Annihilation of Humanity), and GLBTAIL (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Against Big Oil).

The honeymoon is over

A good friend of mine sent me an email and told me that he is about to celebrate his FIRST ANNIVERSARY! YAHOO!

That pretty much forced me to give him marriage advice.

The honeymoon is over.

It’s time to take the relationship to the next level. It’s easy to be a newlywed. Being an experience married couple requires focus, determination, and a dedication to curmudgeonly behavior.

Most newlyweds really don’t have the experience necessary to turn a truly trivial issue into a proper screaming match. Being a former teacher and corporate trainer, and an experience husband after eight years, I not only have the techniques down, but I’ve got the professional skills to teach others how to do it.

I’ve considered providing a genuine training course. Maybe a “vacation getaway” plan, or “spouse-abuse boot camp”. No, you can’t bring children or pets until you’re ready for post-graduate level courses.


Semester One:

Course 101: Intro to Arguing.
It’s not enough to disagree. Talented arguers know how to turn their beloved’s best points inside out.
Women learn how to keep track of their husbands every mistake and strategically bring them up when convenient.
Men learn how to convincingly tune their wives out, play dumb when they don’t have a ready answer, and stall for time.

Course 102: The finer points of picking nits.
Toothpaste tube squeezing techniques for dummies.
Who leaves the toilet lid up versus who leaves the lights on and which of the two is the worse offense.
How to use the remote control for maximum irritation.
Find out why “I cooked, so you clean” only works for gay couples.

Course 103: How to ruin a dream vacation.
Camping in the rainy season.
Gambling away the gas money.
Make your macho husband go to a Broadway musical.
Staring at the waitress’s ass.
Many other creative ways to ruin a vacation!

Course 104: Advanced communication skills for In-laws.
Best techniques for sharing your “plumber butt”.
The Baboon’s guide to table manners.
Let his mother know she raised an idiot.
Tactical use of sarcasm and innuendo.

Course 105 (women only): Headaches as a tool for behavior modification
Negative reinforcement is not just for rats.
Even power brokers and high-dollar lawyers will knuckle under eventually.
Find out whY there are no modern monks.

Course 106: Men don’t eat Quiche, unless they want to remain happily married
You don’t know hunger until you’ve insulted your wife’s cooking.
A lack of discretion can be a great diet plan!

Semester Two:
Course 201: (men only): Matrimonial Propaganda: Why Goebbels was a happily married man
Lies told often enough will be believed.
The propaganda uses of an action must be considered when planning that action.
Propaganda must be carefully timed.
Avoiding flattery faux-pas
The lost art of groveling, and why pride has nothing to do with happiness.

Course 202 The joys of make-up sex and how to get it.
Advanced lessons open to 21 and over. Diplomacy in the boudoirs. Men must have finished Course 201 with a passing grade.

Course 203: How to help your spouse develop a sense of humor.
Some people just can’t take a joke. Be persistent, they’ll get it eventually.
Q: “Does this dress make me look fat?” A: “No, it’s your fat ass that makes you look fat.”
Q: “Don’t you think I’d look better with a breast reduction?” A: “That might be a good start.”
Q: “How come I never get a promotion?” A: “Why don’t you tattoo your IQ on your forehead?”

Course 204: Naming a baby should stir controversy. Don’t back down!
Traditional names are for wimps and show a lack of creativity. Be unconventional!
The art of making Biblical names new: Jesusita, Sarahfina, Ismaelrulis, Paulmeliqua
The art of combining both his and her names into one:
Tomas + Mary = Tomary
Robert + Sandra = Sanbert
Francis + Lucy = Frucy
Research tools for esoteric but meaningful names.
It’s fun to name babies after plants, animals, and geographic locations.
The advanced employment of special characters to make unique names: @br@h@m. $tephen. ^atha^. Estr*lla. La’Keisha. &amuél. E-mail.

Course 205: Old Age is a long way off. Live in the moment.
You probably won’t live until retirement, so get that boat you always wanted!
Turning college into a career.
He’s got two and only needs one: How to market your children’s extra organs.

Financial aid is available, reserve your space today!

Alzheimer's Chronicles: Part I

My mother has developed early onset of Alzheimer’s disease. It’s frustrating, and sad, but you know, if it ain’t one thing, it’s another, right? So, we can either mope around and feel sorry for ourselves, or try to find a silver-lining.

She’s living in an assisted living, actually she’s in an independent living apartment, and so she has some interesting things happen with her neighbors. This weekend she had an argument with a lady who thought my Mom was trying to steal from her storage unit. The other lady got so worked up she drove her electric scooter at my mom and hit her legs, knocked her down, and caused a general ruckus. Because the lady has been really nasty to many residents, and because she refuses to calm down and treat people nicely, and because the assisted living facility is having a hard time “getting rid of her”—the state protects her—we decided to call the police and report the incident.

The script below is a condensed version of what happened.

And in case you feel guilty: it’s OK to laugh.

Act 1, Scene 1: Mom is interviewed by Officer Lord
Two officers arrive and introduce themselves to me. It is clear that the younger of the two, Officer Lord, will be conducting the interview. The other stands quietly and sternly in the corner, watching.
Me: “Mom, please sit down, this is Officer Lord.”
Mom: “Such a handsome man. Oh yes, I know you.”
Officer Lord: “Excuse me? I don’t think we’ve met.”
Mom: “Weren’t you the man who came to help when she wrecked her lawn mower?”
Officer Lord: “Ma’am?”
Mom: “You were very nice.”
Me (shaking my head): “Mom, you’ve never met these officers.”
Mom: “I know them from somewhere.”
Officer Lord: “OK, Ma'am, please tell us about what happened.”
Mom: “Where should I start?”
Me, in a slight sing-song voice hinting at The sound of music “Do-Re-Mi” song: “Just start at the very beginning…”
Officer Lord looks at me like I’m nuts: “Just explain what happened.”
Mom: “You know, I was working in the yard—Darren has me doing that—”
Officer Lord: “Darren?”
Me: “Dorro, that’s his name. Dorro, the maintenance man.”
Mom: “Yes, right. I help Doyle because I’m so good at it, I had a big house in St Louis—”
Me: “Tulsa, Mom.”
Officer Lord: “Please don’t interrupt, Sir.”
Me: “Sorry”
Mom: “Tulsa, that’s where I’m from, but also St Louis, that’s where my Dad was from—“
Officer Lord: “So let’s get back to what happened…”
Mom: “That’s what I’m trying to do, because I had a yard—”
Officer Lord: “Ma’am, I mean with the incident.”
Mom: “What?”
Officer Lord: “With your neighbor.”
Mom: “Well, she had fallen down with her lawnmower in the yard—”
Officer Lord: “Lawnmower?”
Me: “Scooter.”
Mom: “Oh, I mean scooter. She had wrecked her scooter and was on the ground and the uh—the uh—Dole wouldn’t help her up and she was furious—”
Officer Lord: “Dole?”
Me: “Dorro, the maintenance man.”
Officer Lord takes note of the name: “Why didn’t he pick her up?”
Mom: “No, and she was so mad.”
Officer Lord looks perplexed.
Me: “It’s against their policy, to make sure they get medical attention first.”
Officer Lord: “I see.”
Mom: “And so the Post Men came—”
Officer Lord: “Post men?”
Mom: “What?”
Officer Lord: “You said the Post men came?”
Mom: “No, I meant—uhm—the Police came—”
Officer Lord: “Was this before the altercation?”
Mom: “The what?”
Officer Lord: “The argument.”
Mom: “No, the argument was later.”
Officer Lord: “So why were the Police here?”
Mom: “The police weren’t here.”
Officer Lord: “You said they were here.”
Mom: “Who?”
Officer Lord: “The Police.”
Mom: “No, no, you’re all wrong.”
Officer Lord: “But you said…”
Mom: “Darn it. They were…they had uniforms. The—er—uhm…they came in the great big red truck…”
Me: “Mom, the Fire department.”
Officer Lord gives me a disapproving scowl, but nods with understanding. His patience is waning. His partner, who had been standing in the corner, now squats down and stares at the floor. This is going to be a long one.
Mom: “Oh, yes the fire department came and they helped her up but they told her they would not get involved.”
Officer Lord: “With what?”
Mom: “With the stuff she said I was stealing.”
Officer Lord: “She said you were stealing stuff?”
Mom: “Oh, she’s an ugly, ill-mannered person. She was yelling.”
Officer Lord: “She said you were stealing?”
Mom is offended: “I’ve never stolen anything! But there was a piece of paper but it was still there.”
Officer Lord: “So why was the fire department here?”
Me: “She had driven her scooter off the edge of the sidewalk and fell over, so the assisted living employees called the fire department and they came to help.”
Officer Lord: “Oh, OK. Please don’t interrupt.”
Me: “Sorry.”
Mom looks at me, annoyed: “I’m trying to tell my story.”
Officer Lord: “Please continue.”
Mom: “So I was there and she just came at me.”
Officer Lord: “Where were you?”
Mom: “We were there in the barn.”
Officer Lord looks puzzled.
Me: “The storage unit by the garage.”
Officer Lord: “Oh. Were the firemen there?”
Mom: “Oh, no, they were gone I think.”
Officer Lord: “So this was after she crashed her scooter.”
Mom: “She is a terrible driver. She wrecks everything, the doors…”
Officer Lord: “But she crashed her scooter?”
Mom: “I said that. And she was so mad. Furious. She has a terrible temper you know.”
Me: “Mother, please get to the argument.”
Officer Lord appears annoyed with me: “So you went to the storage unit and what happened there?”
Mom: “She started yelling. She has a terrible temper. Oh, I’m sure I told you that.”
Officer Lord: “Yes ma’am. But what happened.”
Mom: “Well, she ran over me with the lawnmower.”
Officer Lord: “The scooter?”
Mom: “That’s right. Yes, that’s right, and she came right up at me and over me like this…” she moves her hands up her body as if to demonstrate the scooter driving over her.
Officer Lord: “Did it injure you?”
Mom: “I have bruises on my legs.”
The officer removes his flashlight and shines it on her legs. “I can’t see bruises.”
Mom: “They are small. I heal quickly. I have always been very healthy, even when I lived in Missouri, because I work in the yard, I like the sun you know. I was raised on a farm.”
Officer Lord clicks his radio: “This is Officer Lord, please dispatch a CSI unit to this address.”
Mom points at her bruise. “It hit me here and here.”
Officer Lord: “So when the scooter hit you—”
Mom: “It came right up me like this, and I screamed ‘you’re going to run me over!’ and it came right up like this.”
Officer Lord: “But did it knock you down or were you standing up?”
Mom: “Yes that’s right.”
Officer Lord: “But which one?”
Mom: “Which one what?”
Officer Lord is getting frustrated. “Were you standing up or sitting down.”
Mom: “We were in the storage. Why would I be sitting down?”
Officer Lord: “But then you fell down?”
Mom: “No, she knocked me down!”
Officer Lord: “She pushed you?”
Mom: “No, the lawnmower ran me over.”
Officer Lord: “Was she pushing the scooter?”
Mom: “No, she was on it.”
Officer Lord: “So she drove it into you.”
Mom: “Right, that’s what I mean.”
Officer Lord: “OK, she drove it into you.”
Mom: “Yes, and I yelled ‘you’re going to run me over!”
Officer Lord: “Was she backing up, or driving toward you?”
Mom: “It came right up my body like this.” She sweeps her hands up her chest again.
Officer Lord: “But was she facing you?”
Mom: “Well, uhm…” she closes her eyes to try to remember.
Officer Lord: “Was the scooter coming at you?”
Mom: “Oh yes, right on top of me. And I was yelling—”
Officer Lord: “But was she looking at you?”
Mom: “She was looking right at me! She did it on purpose!”
Officer Lord: “OK, Ma’am, we’ll go and talk to her…”
Mom: “She’s probably home. She sleeps all day you know. She has a—uhm—a blind dog. Well, it’s not blind, but it’s a dog.”
Officer Lord looks puzzled.
Me: “A working dog.”
Officer Lord: “A service dog?”
Me: “Yeah.”
Mom: “It’s a sweet dog. But she’s not nice. She yells and curses at her dog. She’s a terrible person.”
The CSI officer arrives.
Mom: “Goodness, another officer?”
CSI Officer: “I’m here to take pictures, ma’am.”
Mom blushes and begins to arrange her hair nervously.
CSI Officer: “I need to see the bruises on your legs.”
Mom stretches out her legs. “I shaved today.”
CSI Officer chuckles. “That’s good.” He snaps some photos of the bruises.
I turn to Officer Lord, who is taking notes.
Me: “I guess this is probably a welcome relief…no angry Crack Heads…no guns a-blazing…”
His partner responds. “I’d prefer crack heads. They’re my friends.”
Me: “Keep things interesting, I guess…”
Partner: “Yep.”
Me: “You can’t deny this is fun. Quarrelling grannies using scooters as weapons…”
The officer looks at me like I’m off my rocker.
Me: “You would have preferred a car chase.”
Partner: “That might be fun.”
Me: “Maybe that old lady will try to evade on her scooter.”
Partner: “Now you’re talking. If it evades, we will pursue.”
CSI officer: “I’ve got all the pictures I need.”
Mom: “That’s a very nice camera. I still have my Dad’s camera, you know.”
Officer Lord: “Well, thank you. I’ll go next door now.”
Mom: “Oh my. She’s going to yell.”
Me: “Can you Taser her once, just for fun?”
Officer Lord and his partner both frown at me.

Race in the race

I saw two articles today that caught my eye and kind of got my goat.
Behind the Scenes: In Barack Obama Black or Biracial?, and then Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama.

In the first article, CNN’s Jason Carroll “explores the issue of race” and notes that it is odd for Americans to immediately call Barack Obama “Black” since he is, in reality, equally White. He says that “He may be the nation's first black president, but he would also be the nation's 44th white president.”

According to the article, Obama’s mixed race ancestry is an advantage of sorts. He quotes David Mendell, author of "Obama: From Promise to Power", who believes that “there's an idea of a ‘post-racial’ candidate, a candidate who transcends the labels of race to appeal to all races…” In this context, Obama uses “his own experiences to appeal to both black and white audiences and that has translated into political success.”

Immediately after reading that, I read the contradictory article by Charles Babington, who quotes one white Pennsylvania Democrat woman who—while claiming she won’t vote for Obama because of his lack of experience, not his race—nevertheless says that “I don’t think our country is ready for a Black President…A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania.”

The author quoted another Obama campaigner who called to gather support for Obama. "To me, it was almost a code…'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"

OK, so let’s look at this a little. Shall we?

What gets my goat is that there are people who just can’t get it. When a White person says “I can’t vote for him because he refuses to wear a lapel pin”, what gives a Black listener the right to say, “Ah, that’s code for ‘the dude is black’”? Why isn’t it possible that there are people who see the pattern of Obama’s church as a sign that he harbors deep seated resentment, and manifests that resentment in his choice of church, friends, and decision to not show patriotism? It is not wrong to say “I don’t want to elect a President who doesn’t even like the United States of America.”

I’m not really convinced about the woman who says “I’m not voting for him because of his politics, not because of his race…but our state will never vote black anyway.” Really? Now, that—to me—sounds like the assumption of a person with some serious denial going on.
On the one hand, it appears that Blacks had to overcome their own discriminatory beliefs before they could even support Obama. Remember those days? Back when he wasn’t “Black enough”, when he was defending himself and publicly replying by saying essentially, who gave you the right to question my ‘blackness’? Blacks either thought he was too White, or even if they thought he was “Black enough”, they didn’t think he could actually win, because they assumed that Whitey would never vote for a Black man.

Now, ignore whatever bullshit you read in the press, and just consider the facts: Whitey did vote for Obama, and in record numbers. He beat Hillary in a number of key states where it was White, urban votes that pushed him over the edge.

Let’s look in a new direction: White liberal voters, who tend to be young and well educated, are Obama’s bread and butter. Ask them why they want Obama, and you’ll hear the standard, shallow “change, change, Obama change change the thingy change no more Bush need change yes we can change.”

And I think the key to the White vote is a deep rooted desire to prove: “HEY WE REALLY DID CHANGE!”


Obama’s great strength, as Carroll pointed out, is that he can appeal to both Blacks and Whites. His cool, calm demeanor and his—do I dare say it?—eloquence enable him to convince White liberals and moderates that he is just another “guy next door”. Notice, I didn’t say Black guy next door. Just a guy they could get along with.

And yeah, you know deep down there has to be a kernel of thought that says, “Here is a candidate who is inspiring, intelligent, and yes he is Black, and I’m OK with that. And even if he isn’t very experience, I want to give him the chance, so we can REALLY get this racist legacy off our back!”

Now, you may criticize those White people for their “ulterior motive” of trying to assuage their “White guilt”, but let me ask you: is a good deed that is done in penitence any less valid than one that is done for no other reason?

Of course not. It’s White America’s redemption song.

What is wrong with Black America, that seems to think that if a Black man has a way of getting along with Whites without either offending them, or scaring them, or hurting them, then he must not be Black enough?

If you ask me, it isn’t just WHITE America that needs a little “change change change yes we can change”