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
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
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
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
Saturday, May 5, 2007
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
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
Friday, May 4, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
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)
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)
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
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!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)