Mission Accomplished

The war is winnable! The war is unwinnable! That's where the war debate stands in our country. As usual, Democrats and Republicans are hiding their get-rich-quick schemes by falsifying the premise of a debate.

The war is won, but White House officials aren't allowed to say it, because if they did they would have to explain why they concocted the war in the first place.

To determine whether a war is won or lost you have to bear in mind what the primary aim of the war was. Bush's aim was to seize Iraq's oil fields and retain control over them for future exploitation by American oil companies (that's how we're going to get our hundreds of billions back). Anyone who hushes about this is either naive or has financial motives for keeping quiet. Our economy depends on that oil, now that we've invested so much money in Iraq.

The oil fields were seized in the early days of the war. They are still under heavy U.S. military protection. They are almost ready for U.S. exploitation. And we have 14 military bases in Iraq. So when Bush appeared on the aircraft carrier with the "mission accomplished" banner, he was right. The Democrats know it, they're a part of it, they even recently planned the oil exploitation as the majority party. They pretend to be against the occupation. It's a show, to lull the ignorant American masses into complacency. Their goal is to make tons of money no matter what the cost for the environment. We Americans are going to be rich in a few years, but we're going to be spending that money in a hot, smelly, unhealthy planet.

To hell with the economy!

-Carmelo Modica

Wordplay

I had to edit the Islam Expedient post because I had erroneously used the words subtle and subliminal as adjectives of the same noun. Subliminal, from the Italian words sub (=under) and lamina (=surface), and Subtle, from sub and tile, are synonyms. They are basically the same word.

Yes, I'm obsessive.

Break

I'm taking a break from the blog for a month or two, but I'll be back before you can say CIA!

Coming in August: startling webs of intrigue and conspiracy!

The Islam Expedient

C-Span's latest Q&A featured an interview with Frank Gaffney, well-spoken producer of the documentary "Islam vs. Islamists", which was recently scrapped by PBS for obscure reasons. The film is about moderate Muslims speaking out against "Islamic fascism", and Gaffney is protesting PBS' motives for not airing it.

In order to understand why PBS is blocking "Islam vs. Islamists" from hitting the airwaves, one must consider the political atmosphere the film feeds on.

History is full of examples of a government controlling the population - its most feared enemy - through astute psychological warfare based on exploiting racism as a diversion.

The U.S. government's very first political scapegoat was the black man. As if the Africans hadn't already endured enough in the tobacco fields, Mayors, Congressmen, and Governors in the Southern states went on to use them as a diversion, conforting the white man with his 'racial superiority' in the hopes that he wouldn't dwell on his own poverty.

In the post-WWII Soviet Union, Stalin used the same tactic to distract the people from their hardships. The propaganda was that the Jews were a nation within the nation, unassimilable and unworthy of holding any high place in society. The real message was, if you think your life is bad, look at these other people.

The complicit media machine understood from the beginning that if they were going to convince the American masses to support a war in Iraq, they would have to somehow justify it. Whenever a journalist uses the phrase "Islamic Fascism" or "Muslim Extremists", the public receives a subtle, secondary message, disguised as a mere "pointing out the fact": the people who are attacking U.S. soldiers are doing it not because they resent the Bush administration's Middle East policies, but because Islam told them to.

Putting aside the proganda, it's obvious that these terrorists would kill our soldiers even if they were Christians. Instead of quoting the Koran, they would quote one of the many violent passages from the Bible. Religion is completely irrelevant in the so-called war on terror. But it's used as a tool of opportunity by the media to distract people from the real problem: the corruption of the Bush Administration. If the media's thought patterns were correct, one would have to attribute the Manson murders to Christianity. Charles Manson told his followers that he was Jesus Christ. Then he ordered them to commit mass murder. But do we call these killers "Christian Extremists"?

Islam is merely a propaganda tool used by terrorists to recruit suicide bombers. If the predominant religion of the Middle East were Christianity, they would be using the Old Testament as a recruitment tool.

If Washington needs to spread racism to rally the people behind this war, so be it. It is willing and able to do so. And history repeats itself once again.

The "Islam vs. Islamists" documentary is based on the false premise that the Muslim-bashing propaganda is correct. The film shows interviews with moderate Muslims, doctors and stock brokers expressing outrage at the extremists who have sabotaged their religion. Their complaints are justified, of course. So why even have these interviews? The agenda is the continuation of the Bush/media racist message, cementing into the public mind the presupposed notion that "they hate us because we are infidels". One of the tools used in the film is the idea of a nation within a nationn, that the USSR used to brainwash its population against the Jews.

PBS is blocking the perpetuation of racist government propaganda on the public airwaves. This is not censorship. Freedom of speech is not an issue here. Taxpayer money should not be spent to spread Bush's deceptive racist message.

Our government's policy of fueling racism has had an unpredicted side effect. The fear of the Muslim Extremist has recently led to paranoia about our southern border. The Islamic Fascists might come in from Mexico and blow us up. So now the "Mexican Illegal", who up until 2001 was of no concern to anyone, is suddenly a threat. What kind of threat, we don't know.

I think this is the end of 99-cent hamburgers at McDonald's...

-Carmelo Modica

And the Oscar Goes To...

I was sitting on the couch last night waiting for the Republican debate on Fox News, popcorn in hand. But then the unthinkable happened: the journalists began asking important questions! They forced me to think about issues relevant to the presidency of the U.S., and since I can't think and chew at the same time, my popcorn turned cold.

After the MSNBC debate, I was expecting 90 minutes worth of slapstick entertainment, inside jokes and clever one-liners. But there I was, having to listen to these politicians and their economic mumbo-jumbo.

Then Congressman Ron Paul suggested that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if only we would have pursued friendly relations in the Middle East, instead of bullying everyone into hating us. Mayor Giuliani, offended, responded by saying that the remarks were outrageous and that Rep. Paul should apologise.

But he forgot to tell us why.

A discussion exploded between the two, the like of which is rarely seen in the mainstream media. The Fox journalists immediately aborted the discussion. I'm paraphrasing to the best of my memory:

"Let's move on to another topic. Senator McCain, should the Confederate flag be displayed on public property?"

Immediately, in an involuntary motion, my hand dove into the popcorn bowl, and it was hot again! A miracle!

The debate plunged rapidly to the level of the previous Chris Matthews farce.

"If a nuclear time bomb were about to explode, would it be OK to torture a suspected terrorist who may know where the bomb is?"

Oh yeah, baby! Now THAT's more like it! The popcorn is literally jumping out of the bowl and into my watering mouth...

Congressman Tancredo then brought the debate to its pinnacle, what screenwriters refer to as the 'plot point': "In that situation, I'm looking for John Bower!"

Awesome, dude! It's total action-packed fun! (Roaring applause from the fans present at the stadium.)

If I hadn't been sitting next to a fan of the show "24", I would have thought this Bower guy was some FBI chief or something. [Side note: the members of the U.S. Congress watch teen entertainment.]

Of course, macho man Giuliani said we should do anything we can think of. Not torture, but 'advanced interrogation techniques'. Wink, wink. The fans adore him!

"Governor Gilmore, why are there no minority candidates on the stage with you?"

He might as well have asked, "Governor Gilmore, why do you hate n_____s?"

It's an awesome show, dude. And it has a really cool moral message. It even has the wacky next-door neighbor, Gov. Huckabee (even the name sounds right!)

He blurts out his whacky joke: "We're spending like John Edwards in a beauty salon!"

Pure pandemonium in the stadium! The governor has made the crowd feel important, like they're members of the Republican club.

Thank you, Fox News, for this great new show, "Presidential Idol".

Anyway, the Oscar goes to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He was the real crowd pleaser. He was the tough guy. The Terminator of the terrorists. The Annihilator. The Liquidator. The Executioner.

Hey, I think I have a script there!

-Carmelo Modica

War and Space

"The exploration and use of outer space […] shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development."
from the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/32, 2001

Unfortunately, our government has added this to its long list of ignored U.N. resolutions. For almost a decade, the U.S. has been working toward building "defense" capabilities in outer space. Of course, other countries will not be allowed to "defend" themselves:

"A key objective […] is not only to ensure U.S. ability to exploit space for military purposes, but also to deny an adversary’s ability to do so."
from the Quadriennal Defense Review, 2001

But it appears that God doesn't intend for us to do anything of the sort. To President Bush, who says he's a Christian, I put forth this quote from the Bible [Old Testament, Book of Obadiah, verse 4]:

"You who say in your heart,
'Who will bring me down to the ground?',
Though you ascend as high as the eagle,
And though you set your nest as high as the stars,
from there I will bring you down," says the Lord.

That's spooky... I don't think I want to be an astronaut anymore!

by Carmelo Modica and Herman Petrecca

Illegal Immigration, Part 2

I can't keep up with all the messages and emails I'm getting about this, so I'm forced to post a general message.

Consuetudo is a universal legal term meaning, to make it snappy, "a law that no one cares about anymore". Illegal immigration is a crime we never gave a damn about until 9/11.

Desuetude (from the French word désuet, outdated) is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.

The seminal case under U.S. state law is a West Virginia opinion regarding desuetude, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va. 182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992). In that case, the West Virginia state supreme court held that penal statutes may become void under the doctrine of desuetude if:

* (1) The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum and not malum in se;
* (2) There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of the statute for a long period; and
* (3) There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the statute.

This holding was reaffirmed in 2003 in West Virginia v. Blake, ___ S.E.2d ____ (W. Va. 2003)

I believe the millions of people who came to the US through our southern border before 2007 should be granted amnesty out of this basic principle. To make it very simple, we've been encouraging illegal immigration for the past 200 years in order to get cheap hamburgers at Mcdonalds; we can't just all of a sudden tell these people we're going to separate them from their families and ignore the fact that we wanted them to come here in the first place.

-Carmelo Modica

Debateball: America's Favorite Sport

"Would it be a good thing if Bill Clinton moved back into the White House?"

This is just one of the many thought-provoking questions asked by Chris Matthews to ten Presidential candidates in yesterday's Republican "Debate". But why should we be surprised? After all, watching Chris Mathews' "Hardball" show is a lot like watching a football game. In his world, politics is all about this guy vs. that guy, who poked a cheap remark at whom, who's the most "presidential", who can "win it". It's all about appearing, never about being. His "down the line" debate questions requiring a quick yes-or-no answer forced each candidate to stoop down to his game-show antics; it was a tear-jerker to watch these grown men scrambling to quickly spit out something that would get them into the least amount of trouble.

Suspenseful and action-packed? Yes. Useful? About as much as the last episode of American Idol.

Brian Williams and Chris Matthews: serving American frat boys their daily intellectual milk shake.

The Audacity Of Ho

I like Barack Obama, but I couldn't resist borrowing his book title for this.

Don Imus intends to sue CBS, because apparently his contract with them specifically called for him to be "irreverent" and "controversial", so it looks like he has a good case. He's looking for about 40 million. Here's my first and final take on this issue.

It should never be so much about what you you say, as who you are and in which context you say it. If Katie Couric had said the "ho" thing, she should have and would have been fired. But if Howard Stern had said it, people would have laughed and applauded as usual. It's not the words, it's the person and the context.

The Imus "scandal" is a case of mistaken identity. He has been portrayed as a serious news anchor. He's not. I've heard his show a few times, and I heard him insult Jews and Italians, with remarks just as "offensive" as the "ho" jab, if not worse. I was not offended at all, in fact I laughed my head off. The context of the show is something along the lines of "your crazy uncle from Texas who shoots his mouth off at the dinner table". That's Don Imus. A character, a caricature. If you're offended, switch to another show. Because that's all it is, entertainment, just like Howard Stern or The Daily Show. The fact that Imus occasionally has politicians on the show doesn't make it a serious show. It's your crazy Texan uncle interviewing John McCain, nothing more, nothing less. If you're offended, switch to some other entertainment. David Letterman has politicians on too, but we don't hold him to the standards of Katie Couric.

The only reason Imus was fired is because other media outlets talked about the episode, misportraying him as a Ted Koppel. Since most people had no idea who Imus was, they were genuinely outraged, as they would have been if Brian Williams had made the remark. I wish Imus would have defended himself like I am doing now. His firing is just the result of misportrayal and phony mass-hype.

Instead, Imus went to Al Sharpton and made an ass of himself. Does Howard Stern apologize every time he offends people? No, because it's a show. Does Quentin Tarantino apologize for his movies, which contain insults to Jews and Blacks? No. It's entertainment. Al Sharpton is a human flamethrower, always looking for someone to argue with. More people need to ignore him.

Now they want to ban hip-hop. As much as I dislike it, it's a form of entertainment, and even a form of art in some cases. Art sometimes forces us to see realities we may not want to see, but they're there. Hip-hop artists tell us, "these are the slums of America, and if we have to live in them, you're at least going to hear us sing about them." When they use words like "ho", they're presenting reality to us. Their reality. That's what women are called in the slums. It's real. If you don't like it, then you don't like reality. Change the channel, my friend. Or help make our cities a better place to live.

If we ban Imus and hip-hop, then we need to ban lots of books and movies. Let's take Harper Lee's novel "To Kill A Mockingbird", in which a poor black man is persecuted and repeatedly called the N word. Since context is obviously not an issue for us, we're going to need to burn that book first...

-Carmelo Modica

Ad pondus omnium (Consider everything's weight)

Presidential Debate or Reality TV?

I'd love to write something profound about Brian Williams' Democratic presidential debate, but I can't. It was sadly irrelevant, a tragicomedy. What's the point of asking huge questions and then giving the candidates thirty seconds to respond? Can anyone really explain how they intend to govern our nation in thirty seconds? Of course, the real goal is entertainment. Our elections are just a popularity contest, and Brian Williams knows it. So how much can we blame him? That's what our elections boil down to. The man with the best smile or the best catch phrase always wins.

I can prove this, of course. Brian Williams, during this "presidential" debate, asked Sen. Edwards about the cost of his haircut. I repeat, this is a debate to help the American people decide who will be the next President. If this were not just a popularity contest, would Williams have asked this tabloid gossip question?

I can't wait for the Republican debate. I already bought popcorn, movie theater style!

Mexican "Illegals": The Case For Amnesty

With all the wild rioting taking place, it would appear there is no moderate position to be taken on the issue of illegal immigrants. Judging from what we see in the media, it's either Lou Dobbs-style revenge politics or throwing stones at the police. But nothing is that simple.

I'll begin my argument by making it clear that our borders should be secured. North and South.

But the issue of what to do about "illegal" immigrants is not just a matter of opinion. It's a matter of law.

Consuetudo pro lege servatur. Or, "custom is kept above the law". This sentence is centuries old. We can't ignore it. Let's examine what it means for people who have crossed the Mexican border illegally.

Here's my favorite example of a consuetudo. Everyone has walked across the street on a red light. It's a crime, whether you caused multiple crashes or you did it when no cars were coming. Technically, they can prosecute you for it. They largely do not, however, for one simple reason: although it's technically a crime, the people, their state representatives, and law enforcement agents do not consider it as such. And so we can legally break that rule.

But what happens when a cop sees you walking a red light and tickets you, although you caused no risk to anyone? In this case you should defend yourself by claiming that "custom is kept above the law". The "crime" is actually not a crime, because over the years it has gained the status of a legal consuetudo.

This is a legal standard in every civilised country.

Now let's get to the specific issue of border-crossing. For centuries, Mexicans have been coming to our country, and we have been accepting them (or 99% of them) wholeheartedly, mainly because they accept jobs we don't want, at low wages. So the American people don't mind illegal immigration. Our representatives in Congress have never seriously tried to stop illegal immigration. And so there has never been any serious attempt at border enforcement. The number of border patrol agents is ridiculous, so I would go as far as to say that the real policy of our country is to encourage illegal immigration. Thus crossing the border illegally can be considered a legal custom.

Only recently has there been a half-serious attempt to secure the border. So let's assume that as of 2007, crossing the border is no longer a consuetudo, but a full-fledged crime. Even so, "Illegals" who are already here should be granted amnesty, because they committed the crime when it was a consuetudo. A centuries-old consuetudo.

The fact that the perpetrators are Mexicans is irrelevant. If you commit a crime in the U.S., it doesn't matter whether you're a citizen or not, you get the same punishment in either case. And going back to the streetlight example, there's no difference between an American crossing on a red light and a non-citizen committing the same crime. A Mexican who illegally came here last year should not be prosecuted for it. I wish "Illegals" would use this argument to their advantage. Violent riots won't help anybody.

-Carmelo Modica