Sunday, February 3, 2008

Welcome to America ... You're Under Arrest

Welcome to America ... You're Under Arrest

By S. Abbas Raza, The Smart Set. Posted February 2, 2008.


Tales of a Pakistani immigrant dealing with racial profiling, the Patriot Act and the INS as he tries to make a life in New York City.

Mr. Sampson, I Presume?

It was about five years ago. I was returning from Pakistan and standing in the immigration line at JFK, completely exhausted after a 20-hour flight. When my turn came up at the counter, the INS agent looked at my papers, typed a few things into his computer, and then asked me to follow him to a large room at the side of the immigration hall. I was informed that I was being detained. Two agents handcuffed me and led me to another smaller room. When I asked what I had done. They said things like, "Oh, you know what you've done. We know who you are."

"Who am I? What have I done?"

"You should know that better than we do, now shouldn't you?"

When I asked to contact a lawyer, I was informed that I hadn't yet been admitted to the United States, and so had no legal standing. No lawyer would be called, nor would I be allowed to call anyone else. They took my cuffs off, fingerprinted me (very difficult because of my sweaty palms), recuffed me, and then left me there.

It was at this point that my knees went a little trembly. I had heard many stories of Pakistanis being held for months without charges under the Patriot Act, and now I had visions of Guantanamo in my head, and I became almost dizzy with the adrenaline rush of fear. I thought that I must have been mistaken for someone else, God knows who, and there would be no chance to clear my name. I sat in that room for a few sweat-drenched hours before a couple of INS officers came in with two police officers from the NYPD. The NYPD officers told me that they had a warrant for my arrest. This immediately came as a huge relief to me, because whatever it was they wanted with me, I would rather be held by the NYPD in New York, than in some INS facility. I felt like whatever it was, I would be able to clear it up.

That's when things started to get weird: The NYPD officers addressed me as Mr. Edward Sampson, as in, "Let's go, Sampson." When I protested that I wasn't Edward Sampson, whoever that might be, they told me that fingerprints don't lie, and I had a full 10-finger match as one (wanted) Edward Sampson. They told me to stop lying and just admit that I really was Edward Sampson. The name sounded vaguely familiar but I couldn't quite place it in my exhausted state. The INS guys removed my cuffs and the NYPD officers replaced them with their own. I was then led out for the perp-walk in front of all the other passengers, coming out by the regular path where people wait for their friends and relatives to come out. People whispered to each other rather excitedly when they saw me being led out, held by each arm by one of the officers, wearing handcuffs and a nice suit I had had tailored while in Pakistan.

It was then that I remembered who Edward Sampson was, and it came to me suddenly: About a decade earlier, my nephew and I had been having a drink at the West End Restaurant and Bar (where Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg used to hang out) near Columbia University (I had just started the Ph.D. program in philosophy there), when four rough-looking characters wandered in. They looked like skinheads, and they sat at the table behind where we were standing at the bar. My nephew had draped his jacket over one of the chairs on which one of these guys was now sitting, and so he tapped the guy on the shoulder to retrieve his jacket. I saw the guy stand up and get in his face, but couldn't hear what was going on. The man then raised his voice and I heard the n-word yelled at my nephew along with a string of curses, after which the man grabbed my nephew's hair with his left hand and drew back his right fist, getting ready to throw a punch.

I hit him first. I had lunged from the side, and my momentum threw both of us to the floor. I didn't know it then, but I was rolling around on the floor of the West End with Edward Sampson.

We were separated by the bouncers of the West End and all six of us were thrown out. Once outside, these guys ganged up on me and managed to throw me to the ground, where I hit my head on the sidewalk. I was momentarily stunned, and had no chance after that. Mr. Sampson pummeled me pretty good. Then the police arrived, and Sampson and crowd quickly walked off. I explained to the police that my nephew had been assaulted, and while trying to protect him, I, too had been beaten up, and that the guys were trying to get away. The police told me that if I insisted on having those guys arrested, they would have to arrest my nephew and me as well, since they hadn't been there to see who started it. I said fine, go ahead and arrest all of us, but I am not going to let these punks get away with this. I figured we would sort it out later in court. And so the four of them were also picked up and all six of us were driven to a precinct where we had our portraits taken, were fingerprinted, etc., before being released on our own recognizance.

After the District Attorney heard the whole story, charges against me and my nephew were eventually dropped, and it was decided that Sampson and his friends would be prosecuted under the hate crimes statute of New York. I was pleased by this, and felt vindicated that I had insisted that the police arrest everyone, rather than just letting these guys walk. Except that those people didn't show up at their hearing, and were never heard from again.

By the time the NYPD guys had put me into the back of their van outside JFK, I had figured out what must have happened: Somehow, that night 10 years before, someone at the precinct had made a clerical error and had somehow put Edward Sampson's name and other information on my fingerprint card. Then, when they didn't show up for their hearing, a warrant was issued for Sampson's arrest (and for all I knew, he might have committed other crimes since), and now I had been arrested as Edward Sampson. This was the only explanation I could think of, and it sounded plausible to me. I excitedly told the NYPD guys this theory, but they were pretty unimpressed. One of them said that people often come up with crazy stories when they get caught, but this was one of the best he had heard. I told him to look at me. Did I even look like I might be named Edward Sampson? I just kept repeating my theory to them until finally, one of them, Detective John Regan of the Queens Warrant Squad, started to believe me, at least a little. He told his partner, "Look, it sounds crazy, but it might be true. While you guys see the judge [I was being taken to a courthouse in Manhattan where I would be presented to a judge, and we needed to get there before midnight, which was getting close, otherwise I would have to wait in lockup overnight], I'll go try to find the records from that arrest 10 years ago."

I was appointed a public defender. Now this guy was a complete idiot. He kept telling me to stop lying and just plead guilty to a reduced charge for which I would just get some community service and no jail time. No matter what I said to him, he would not believe that I was not Edward Sampson. Meanwhile, Regan showed up with a file containing the decade-old arrest records, and luckily it had a picture of Edward Sampson in it. But even then, my supposed lawyer kept saying things like, "That could have been you 10 years ago." Finally the judge herself yelled at him and said, "It is unlikely that your client has changed race since that arrest." She told me I was free to go. I was then driven by Detective Regan and his partner back to JFK, where I was released.

A few weeks later Detective Regan called me with a strange bit of news: Edward Sampson had committed suicide in 1996 by jumping out of his fifth-floor window.


Does Your Client Realize He Is Under Oath?

My very beautiful, blond American immigration lawyer and I walk into the Federal Office Plaza building in downtown Manhattan for my U.S. citizenship interview. Though I have been living legally in America for over a quarter of a century, I have only recently decided to apply for citizenship because 1) traveling with my Pakistani passport has become unbearably difficult and expensive (visa fees add up), and 2) it will make living in New York easier for my Italian wife. I am prepared. Or so I think. I have memorized all the answers to the questions in my citizenship test booklet. I know who my senators are. I know the name of my congressman. I know the order of succession of the presidency. I know how old one has to be to run for various public offices. I know all kinds of things about American government that the average American probably doesn't. I am wearing a pinstriped, navy-blue three-piece suit and expensive shoes. I have shaved my Elvis sideburns off and slicked my hair back with gel to attempt a GQish look.

But it turns out I am not prepared at all. We are summoned to a small office and invited to sit down. The interviewer is a small man from Bangladesh (I immediately wonder how long ago he himself got his citizenship) who is obviously a strict Muslim. He has the regulation neatly-trimmed beard of the modern Muslim, and even has a "gatta," a mark on the forehead of the devout from pressing it to the floor in prayer a score or more times a day. He glances at my green passport and my white lawyer with an expression of disapproval before any words are spoken. I understand both: Bangladeshis are not too fond of Pakistan since our army murdered tens of thousands of them in 1971 (I don't blame them), and my lawyer is too sexy in her shortish skirt for his strict Muslim sensibilities. Actually, her legs are distracting even me from the business at hand.

He begins with some routine business: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party?"

"No, sir, I have not." ("Is there still a Nazi Party?" I wonder to myself.)

"Have you ever used or abused a controlled substance?"

"No, sir, I have not." (Well, what would you have said?)

"Are you a habitual drunkard?"

"No, sir, I am not."

And so on. After this boring litany, he starts to look through my papers. Now, one of the things that one has to do is provide reams of documentation for any and all arrests one has ever been subject to, even if they were just traffic violations, and even if the charges were dropped and one was never convicted. I have quite a few. Only one is a traffic violation, but it is a serious one: When I was in my 20s, I was charged with a DUI while driving home from a Halloween party one year. I immediately pleaded guilty, paid the fine, had my license suspended for six months, and was more careful about these things afterwards. He is not interested in my other arrests (for assault -- a bar fight -- for example) and stares at the DUI papers.

"Mr. Syed Abbas Raza, so you drink?"

(By saying my full name, he is pointing out that I am unmistakably Muslim, because he cannot explicitly bring up religion in the interview.)

"Apparently I did that day, sir." (Now he really hates me.)

"So you are a habitual drunkard?"

"No, sir, I am not."

"I see. Do you frequent prostitutes?"

"No, sir, I do not."

"You see, I have to make a judgment about your moral character, because U.S. citizenship can be denied on the basis of bad moral character."

"Yes, sir."

"So I must ask you again: Are you a habitual drunkard?"

All this time he is glaring at me with undisguised contempt. His expression says: "You are a traitor to Islam." And at this point, I have had enough. I feel the anger rising and stare back as I say: "Just because one has a DUI on one's record does not mean that one is a habitual drunkard for life. It is possible for an individual to admit one's mistake, and learn from it, and then go on to achieve great success. For example the current president of the United States. Or the current vice president of the United States, who has two!!!

At this, my Bangladeshi friend flies into a rage, yelling: "I don't want to hear another word from you! You come to an interview for U.S. citizenship and insult the president of the United States?"

"I am not insulting the president. I am suggesting that at least this once George W. Bush learned from his mistake and managed eventually to become the president of this country."

"Don't say another word!" And looking at my lawyer: "Does your client realize he is under oath?"

My lawyer: "Yes, he does. Are you claiming he has said something false?"

"This interview is over. You will receive my decision by mail in less than 120 days."

A few months later I get the predictable notice in the mail: petition denied. My brother laughs cruelly when I tell him, saying, "Just your luck to be denied U.S. citizenship for not being Muslim enough."

Postscript: My lawyer was more incensed than me about this whole affair. We filed an appeal, won, and a few weeks ago I traveled to New York City from Italy, where I now live, to take the oath of U.S. citizenship. I am back in Italy now with a shiny new blue passport, trying to decide what public office I should run for in 2008.


I Get Busy, Mo!

It was the day after the annual party of the Web site that I run. We'd had an 18-piece jazz band play at the event, and there were a lot of mics and monitors and stands and other junk that I had had to rent, and now had to return. I awoke in bad shape (it was a good party) and barely in time to make it to my nephew's place, borrow his Jeep Grand Cherokee, pick up a friend who had in a rare moment of stupid generosity agreed to help me, drive to Queens where the party had been, pick up the equipment, and then drive to midtown Manhattan where I had rented the stuff before the shop closed. Anyway, my friend and I got the crap into the car and entered Manhattan over the 59th Street Bridge. I made a left onto Lexington Avenue from 60th Street (both one way streets) behind a bunch of other cars also turning left and saw that we were all being waved to the right side of Lex by a sandy-haired police officer of the NYPD. He then turned his attention to the first of the rather long line of cars he had pulled over. It was about 4:15 in the afternoon, neither my friend nor I had had any food since the previous evening's dinner, and the sound equipment had to be returned by 5. So we were not too pleased by this (left) turn of events. (Though we had no idea just how sinister things were soon to become.)

My friend and I made some small talk while waiting for the cop to make it through this hapless caravan of unknowing crime, wondering what it was we had done wrong. Finally, it was my turn: "License and registration."

"What did I do?"

"May I see your license and registration?"

After the usual shuffling through of dry cleaning receipts, a dental report, and some yellowing misfolded maps in the glove compartment (it wasn't even my car), to my surprise I found a valid New York State registration card. I handed this and my license to Sandy Hair and he disappeared into his police rickshaw for a longish time. (Is there any police vehicle imaginable which could confer less dignity and much-needed authority upon its occupant?) Meanwhile my friend told me that for reasons of economy (and because they seat only one person) these rickshaws were originally designed and built with a door on only one side. They soon realized their design error as New York's creative denizens immediately took to tipping the whole thing over (it is three-wheeled, small and unstable to begin with) onto the side with the door, leaving the policeman inside trapped and as immobile as an overturned turtle. And then we spoke with great yearning of the Abbey Pub hamburger and headache-killing libation we were planning to have immediately after our interrupted errand.

"Sir, step out of the vehicle and put your hands behind your back," Sandy Hair said.

To my friend, as I undid my seatbelt, I said, "This somehow always happens to me. Please call my wife and tell her to call my lawyer. And return this stuff before 5, will you?"

Friend: "But my driver's license is expired."

Sandy Hair: "Sir, I pulled you over for making an illegal left turn. There is a sign which indicates no left turns between 4 and 6 p.m., and I am arresting you because your driver's license is suspended."

"Why is my driver's license suspended?"

"You failed to pay a speeding ticket in Florida five years ago."

"It's been suspended all this time?"

"Yes, sir."

Click of handcuffs, followed by a futile, "Can't you give me a ticket or something?"

"No, sir. We are cracking down right now on driving with suspended licenses, and I must take you to the precinct. With any luck, you'll be able to see a judge later tonight and be released."

Sandy Hair to friend: "Can you drive the vehicle, sir?"

Stupid friend: "My license is expired."

Nice Sandy Hair, pretending not to hear, "OK, good, you're free to leave."

So my friend drove off (apparently the NYPD were not cracking down on driving with expired licenses that day) and I was taken to a police car and driven to the 19th Precinct. (Or to the one-nine, in cop-talk.) Here I was searched, and everything from my pockets was catalogued and taken, along with my belt and shoelaces. Then off to be fingerprinted and mugshotted. Now only the true hyperhydrotics among my readers will understand why I dreaded this so much. Hyperhydrosis is a real condition in which one's palms and fingertips sweat profusely, all the time. (You may remember the sudden feeling of disgust you experienced at having shaken the cold, wet hand of one at some point in your life.) Anyhow, I have it. As a result, it is almost impossible to fingerprint me properly. The fingerprints keep coming out as smudges with the deep rifts and valleys of my permanently raisined fingertips instead of the normal loopy, whorly pattern of ridges, even if I wipe my hands immediately before the prints are taken. So there was an hour-long comedy of fingerprinting errors before I finally had my Nick Noltyish portrait taken and was locked up in a large holding cell with about six others.

To my pleasant surprise, there was only one street lunatic among all my cellmates, and fortunately even he limited his display of lunacy to a stream of continuous but thankfully soft-spoken mumblings about the Lord. It was quite soothing, really. And one quickly became used to the initially emetic assault of his odor. The rest of the multicolor crowd was sleeping in various positions, or trying to. That is just what one does to pass time in jail. By now it was about 7 in the evening and I hadn't eaten in 24 hours. I asked if I could make a phone call and if I could get something to eat. I was told that they had no food and I could make the phone call later.

I called my lawyer when I was finally taken outside to make the phone call. "Please call my wife and let her know where I am, and get me the hell out of here!" My lawyer happens to be a friend so I at least remembered her number.

"I'm gonna' try, but I don't think you'll be getting out tonight. It's too late. I'll be there when you get to court first thing in the morning, though. Don't worry, you'll be fine."

My heart really sank at hearing this. I was in terrible physical shape. I needed food. And a hair-of-the-dog drink. Or three. But I tried to be manly and asked her to do whatever she could. Then I sat in my cell and joined the rest in feigning sleep. One by one, the rest of my cellmates were taken out just as others were put in. Around 11:00 I heard the welcome sound of my mispronounced name. I still thought there was a chance that I would be taken to court to see a judge, but that turned out to be too optimistic: I was handcuffed, put in a car and driven to the 27th Precinct (which happens to be very near my house). The policeman and policewoman were chatty on the way and told me that all the criminals who were arrested in the evenings in Manhattan were held at the two-seven overnight before being transported to the courthouse downtown early in the morning (I didn't yet realize how early) for arraignment.

So here I was at the two-seven, at around midnight, standing chained to a wall with a bunch of other prisoners, feeling like I would faint if I didn't eat, and with a pounding headache. Things would soon get much worse for me. I was eventually searched again, and then led to a hallway with 6- by 8-foot cells on one side. Each cell has a metal bunk about 2 feet wide and maybe 7 feet long on one side, and a small sink and toilet on the other. The cell was quite nice and functional, even if filthy, and wouldn't have been scary if it weren't for the completely psychotically violent graffiti scratched onto every available surface. Luckily, I was put in one that was empty.

I figured I'd try to sleep. I used my shoes as a pillow, figuring that dirty as they may be, they are probably cleaner than that bunk. But I couldn't sleep. There were too many prisoners screaming to each other from their cells, and they kept bringing new ones in. I communed with various violent felons through their writings on the walls of my new bedroom and marveled at the literary qualities of their schizophrenic musings and murals. I wondered to myself whom I might get as a cellmate, and resolved silently to act tough and intimidate him quickly (I have a deep and loud voice which I can usually deploy with frightening effect), if and when one was put in my cell.

As it turned out, the man who was led to my cell and put in it with me about an hour later was a very large (about 6 foot 4, 250 pounds) man wearing a Mark Ecko sweatshirt and white sneakers, both covered in dried blood because earlier that evening he had stabbed someone he later described to me as "that Mexican nigga" during a robbery. He came in and casually pushed my legs off the bunk, not bothering to say anything. I knew that this was my cue to get tough, but at that moment I happened to be far too busy concentrating on not peeing my beltless, falling-off pants to actually think of something to say. It got worse. He looked at me with contempt and asked what I was in for, and when I tried to answer with a non-committal reply (I obviously didn't want to admit to my fruity suspended-license rap), to my shock and horror my voice cracked out of nervousness and I heard myself stutter something incomprehensible in a higher-pitched falsetto than a goddamned Bee Gee. This, of course, amused my new friend to no end, and out of pity, I suppose, and good humor he reassured me that he would not hurt me. I realized that it is one thing to yell at my cat at home and scare her, or even at some annoying bureaucratic drudge or other behind a car-rental counter, and quite another to try and intimidate someone who is covered in the blood of his last attempted-murder victim and looks as if he could break me in two at the drop of his sideways-worn baseball cap. I now swore to myself that if I made it through this night in anything resembling wholeness, no matter how tempting, I would never ever do anything that had even an infinitesimal chance of landing me in an actual prison, where I now knew with certainty that I would last all of about three nanoseconds.

Despite the fact that Bloody was on probation and was now looking at something like four years in Attica, he didn't seem particularly upset. In a situation in which I would have been suicidal at the thought of losing four years of my life, he seemed nervously excited and managed to even repeatedly laugh at his own predicament. Indeed, after asking me if I had ever been upstate (meaning, to Attica) and receiving a negative reply, he told me, "I'ss nice up there. Green grass and shit." It was almost as if he were inviting me to join him by stabbing a Mexican nigga of my own. The only time he expressed any regret was when with a childish and sad expression he told me that his Mama would be upset. It turned out that our would-be killer was 22 and had already spent three of those years in prison. After stabbing the Mexican with his cousin, Bloody and Cousin decided to smoke a joint and were picked up by the police at a nearby corner where they were pointed out from the back of the squad car by the bleeding Mexican. His lack of concern about being caught (not hiding, not running away) made me think the grim thought that perhaps his life was so bleak that he didn't much care if he spent it on the streets or in Attica.

I gleaned most of this from Bloody's excited chatter with Cousin, who was locked up in the cell next to us. After an hour or so, Bloody and Cousin were talked out and it was then that the voice came from the void: "Son, I live clean now, but I used to be young like you. I done my share of robberies, and you's goin' about it all wrong." This was an older voice, calm and rational. It belonged to a man in another cell that I would eventually come to think of as the Professor of Crime University. The Professor proceeded to instruct Bloody and Cousin in how they should have committed their robbery, in great detail. The advice was brilliant and contained such gems as, "Son, you shoulda' got some videos and snacks and some weed and put it in your crib beforehand. That way, you coulda' stayed outta' sight for three days." As the Boy Scouts say: "Be prepared." I was fascinated by all this avuncular instruction and pictured the Professor as an older Malcolm X as played by Denzel Washington, sitting in his cell in suit and tie and hat and professorial glasses, too old for the life of the streets but still proud of his player past.

At 3 a.m. we were ordered out and instructed to stand just in front of our cells. Then, starting at the back, two cops proceeded to handcuff us and attach chains to our feet. Twenty-one of us were thus bound together into a chain gang before being marched down the hallway and out into the parking lot, where in the darkness stood a white windowless bus. Inside there was a metal bench on both sides and along the partition that divided us from the driver, the chain gang managed to arrange itself in a U-shape. I was on the side, bound to Bloody on my right and Cousin on my left. The bus got on the West Side Highway and headed south with far too much speed, and we were bouncing up and down nervously. Bloody excitedly observed: "They gonna' git us all killed." Across from me sat a very tall, very thin, very handsome man in impeccable streetwear: a blue Adidas tracksuit and very white sneakers. Suddenly, looking at Bloody, he spoke up: "Son, you should be hopin' this bus crashes. We all be rich then after suin' the city." This was the Professor. He continued to command deference and even awe from Bloody, Cousin, and, of course, me. It turned out he too was in because of the suspended licence crackdown, but was resigned to his fate. This is life, he said. But the strangest thing about the Professor was that he would occasionally, and randomly, and to no one in particular, somberly and emphatically proclaim, "Like the Bronx nigga said, I get busy, Mo!" I still don't know what that means, but I have been infected, and often repeat it to myself like a mantra.

After standing around in interminable lines at the courthouse downtown, we were led to a large cell with about 15 people in it. At 5 in the morning we were each finally given one of those little boxes of cereal that you can tear open and pour milk right into, and a small carton of milk. I inhaled both almost instantly. The Professor left his untouched. After 15 minutes, I couldn't stand it and asked if he was going to eat his breakfast. "Go ahead, son," he laughed.

Our final stop was yet another holding cell just behind the court where the judge would be. There were about 25 people here, including a very scared-looking small Indian man who practically ran to me when I entered the cell, asking desperately: "Vair are you from, man?" I said Karachi, to which he replied, "Me Bombay. Same thing, no?" His relief at meeting another South Asian was palpable and as a good student of the Professor, I took him under my wing.

"Suspended license?" I asked.

"Ya, man, they arrest me in front of my wife and my 6-year-old son. I didn't even know the bloody license was suspended. You? Same thing?"

"Yeah, same thing. This is life."

At 9:00 I was summoned to the courtroom first (thanks to strings pulled by my lawyer) and said my farewells to Bloody, Cousin, and the Professor. Then Bombay walked me to the door of my cell somewhat enviously. In the courtroom, I saw my very beautiful, blond American lawyer, who pleaded not guilty on my behalf to something of which I was very obviously guilty. She said she'd have charges dropped later, which she did. I was free. And I have paid my Florida speeding ticket. • 24 January 2008

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

No to 'compassionate conservatism'

No to 'compassionate conservatism'


Posted: August 7, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Well, we've all witnessed the "compassionate conservative" convention.

It left me feeling empty.

I respect Marvin Olasky, the former Marxist journalism professor who coined the term. But he and George W. Bush are barking up the wrong tree if they think "compassionate conservatism" is going to rally popular support necessary to effect the real change needed to turn this country around.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am not a "conservative." I reject the term. I repudiate it.

Why? Because conservatism only makes sense if there is something to "conserve." America is far beyond that point.

The founders gave us something worth conserving -- an ingenious and inspired system of limited government, a constitutional republic of sovereign states, an independent nation, checks and balances against tyranny and protections of individual liberties.

Basically, it's all gone. Today we pay only lip service to some of the ideas. Both parties and politicians of all stripes serve a federal leviathan that respects none of the principles of freedom upon which our nation was created under God.

So what are we "conserving"?

Olasky is right as a historian. He recognizes that there was a better time in America when churches and charities did a better job serving the poor, handicapped and underprivileged. He suggests we need to return to those ideals and a time before the federal government stepped into every aspect of our lives and tread so heavily on our rights.

But, by George, we won't get there by being "conservative" -- compassionate or otherwise.

We will only get there by being radical, revolutionary change agents like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry before us. Were these men "conservatives"? Hardly. But they are my heroes. Was Jesus Christ conservative? Hardly. But he is my ultimate hero -- my Savior and my Lord.

Jesus and Washington chose to overturn the world's established order, not preserve it.

You can't tame this beast. That's what America's federal bureaucratic establishment has become. It's a hungry, voracious animal that devours freedom, self-reliance, prosperity and independence. It's much more dangerous than the British Empire was in the 18th century. The founders' dream can only be restored by revolutionary action and a radical agenda for change. Anything short of that will only perpetuate the inevitable march to tyranny.

"Compassionate conservatism," Olasky admits, is an attempt to co-opt a tactic employed by the left during the last 35 years. Liberals used "compassion" as a guise for change. It worked. But conservatives, by definition, oppose change. They seek to preserve. They seek to tinker with a system that is frightfully contemptuous of all the principles upon which human freedom is based. It won't work. At best, "compassionate conservatism" can only slow down the momentum that is driving America down the road to serfdom.

"Compassionate conservatism," for instance, seeks tax credits as rewards for good charitable works. It does not seek the overthrow of the tax system -- the very idea that the government has some inalienable right to confiscate your wealth, your earnings, your property. That is a woefully unambitious agenda. Given the yoke of dependence and servitude with which Americans are currently burdened, it is a very un-compassionate plan of inaction.

I've heard many conservatives attack "compassionate conservatism" because they don't like the adjective. They believe it's squishy and wishy-washy and suggests some conservatives are not compassionate. I'm different. I like the adjective. I don't like the noun.

"Conservatism" has lost any meaning, if, indeed, it ever had any. A conservative in China is a Communist. A conservative in America is an anti-communist. Does this make sense? Conservatives define themselves, it seems, by aligning themselves with the status quo. That is a recipe for disaster in an ever-changing world.

Picture two men involved in a ballgame. One is trying to advance the ball, while the other is trying to hold it still. Who's going to win? Obviously the man who is trying to advance it. Picture two men in the boxing ring. One is trying to knock out his opponent, while his opponent is only trying to defend himself. Who's going to win? Obviously, the fighter who is attacking.

Those are illustrations of why the principle of "compassionate conservativism" cannot win. It is a purely defensive strategy. It is a holding action.

It's also an oxymoron. Because when you are confronted with evil, there is nothing compassionate about standing still.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The Hot Air of Climate Change, Part 8

The Hot Air of Climate Change, Part 8

By Kermit Frosch
Published: January 14, 2008, 08:33 AM

This is a multi-part series examining the current debate over "global warming", also known as "climate change".

We live in an era of tremendous technological change. One hundred years ago, most Americans lived or worked on a farm, or in some sort of farming-related service industry. Then, technology improved; one farmer could produce more food; so people went to work in factories, making goods to improve all our lives instead. In recent decades, technology improved again; now, instead of 10,000 people clocking in to a massive factory, you have a few dozen highly trained staff monitoring the computer systems that churn out even more stuff. Things have changed so much, that it's all too easy to say, "Everything is different now! The past doesn't matter!"

For all the changes in technology, human nature has not changed one iota. Our leaders today have the exact same natures that you would find in Caesar's Senate, Nebuchadnezzar's court, or for that matter, Ooga and Booga's cave; the only difference is how they manifest themselves. It's no longer beneficial to clonk your opponent over the head with a club, or poison their wine; so they don't. The end goals, however, are identical: our leaders all want money and power, as leaders always have.

So in considering the fraud of global warming, which has been so successfully perpetrated on most of the world despite being so transparently obvious, it's worth considering: why? How could we reach this point? Who would prostitute science, promote clear falsehoods, and attempt to destroy all the benefits of modern life, all for nothing? And the answer can be clearly seen, if we follow the money, and the power.

Money

As the children of a technological age, most of us have some sort of idealized conception of the scientist - an odd guy in a white coat slaving away in a lab, making amazing discoveries, to the exclusion of everything else in life. Most scientists you see in the movies cannot even comb their hair or wash their clothes; surely such pedestrian concerns as dating and mortgages are beneath them (or maybe above.)

But that view is totally contrary to the real world. No doubt there are some scientists whose whole life is in the lab, just as there are some businessmen whose whole life is the office, some musicians who care only for their music, and even some politicians who'd sell their own mothers for a bigger budget. Most scientists, though, are just like anybody else: they juggle test tubes from 9 to 5, then drive home in their SUV to watch American Idol. They'd like to have a nicer car; a bigger house; finer schools for their children; and, nowadays, maybe even the chance to participate in an IPO and become rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

And like anybody else, they respond to what's being demanded by the market. The trouble is, the market for science is an odd one. Really, it's two markets. There's certainly a market for science in the business world - Intel, Gilette, and countless other large companies employ thousands of researchers trying to come up with useful innovations. But that kind of science is not as prestigious as the other kind - the "pure research." Almost by definition, that sort of science is not useful - or at least, not obviously useful. Of course, there's certainly the hope that it might be useful - Einstein's Theory of Relativity has some interesting implications, and contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. But it didn't make any money for him or for any of his colleagues. The profit in nuclear weapons and nuclear power was quite disconnected from the research.

So where did Einstein work, anyway? At a university - Princeton, to be exact. In the United States, our system of major research institutions is designed to allow scientists the freedom to investigate pretty much whatever they themselves consider worthy of research, in the hope that they'll trip over something worthwhile. And it's worked fairly well for a long time.

The trouble is that science has gotten very very expensive of late. Time was when you could do useful, original research with a few dollars' worth of test tubes, chemicals, and beakers. Now, most of the easy stuff has long since been nailed down; to come up with anything really new, it takes a lab full of expensive computers, specialized measuring equipment, and all sorts of things. The money has to come from somewhere.

Thus, we have government funding of science, via grants. Many if not most science professors who are doing research at universities, may be receiving their paycheck from the university, but the actual money is coming from a government research grant. If the government grant ends, so does their salary.

Which brings us to the first reason why global warming has become the force that it is. Dr. John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel and a professional meteorologist (that is to say, a professional student of the weather), gives this explanation:

Scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PhD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them and brushed their studies aside.

Supposing a scientist did research, and reported that the sky is blue. He'd be ridiculed for wasting his time, and certainly wouldn't get any more money to burn on something so lame. But, suppose instead that he reported the sky to be green. Now, that would be new! Some might agree; others would disagree. But at the very least, more research would be required to resolve the issue - and the scientist's paycheck could continue.

And once the entire scientific establishment, or a large portion of it, is subsisting off of one single theme, do you think it likely that they would support research which might show that theme to be fraudulent?

Look at it this way: would any group of people support another person who was arguing the first group's beliefs to be wrong? Of course not! Any child in a playground could tell you this. So why do we think scientists are somehow more noble than anybody else? They aren't - they are mostly just ordinary people with ordinary problems, wanting the next raise.

But, why would their paymasters - the government - allow research dollars to be wasted in this way? The money might have been spent on some other, more useful (not to say true) science. Go and research a cure for cancer, or cold fusion, or something.

And that presents us with the other key driving force behind the global warming fraud.

Power

Just as with scientists, bureaucrats wish a better life for themselves. They want more prestige, more authority, a bigger budget, a larger staff, and certainly a bigger paycheck. If you are the administrator of some obscure and irrelevant government backwater, your prestige is not going to be very high, nor anything else. If, on the other hand, you are given the opportunity to transform your agency into a "happening place," wouldn't you jump at it? So, is it any surprise that the bureaucracy, top to bottom, jumped on board with the scientists to help create the "global warming crisis"? It's simply human nature at work!

But now, it's gone far beyond that. A growing bureaucracy is bad enough, but there are many leaders worldwide who have seen the opportunity, and the excuse, to increase their power on a global scale.

For what is regulation, but the opposite of freedom? By definition, as regulations increase, freedom decreases.

In San Francisco, you no longer have the freedom to choose what sort of bag you want at the grocery store - the government has chosen for you (paper).

California is seriously considering banning the ordinary light bulb - Thomas Edison must be rolling over in his grave. That would mean that you could no longer choose to have lights on a dimmer, since flourescents don't work with ordinary dimmers; it would also mean the poor could no longer choose to have well-lighted houses, since compact flourescent bulbs cost ten times as much as the old ones.

Nationally, you cannot even choose to buy a strongly-flushing toilet. The only legal toilets are "low-flow" such that one must flush it mutiple times to obtain any serious effect.

These are all relatively small and minor nuisances, and we've learned to work with (or around?) them. But little nuisances become big ones.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has rejected the construction of much-needed new electric power plants.

Canada is trying to ban leaf blowers and gasoline lawnmowers, to cut down on carbon emissions.

Activists are attempting to disrupt and derail the desperately-needed expansion of Heathrow airport in London. As perhaps the most grossly-overcrowded and dysfunctional airport in the Western world, Heathrow has needed expanded facilities for decades, but the global-warming crowd would prefer flying to be as uncomfortable and inconvenient as possible to make people less inclined to fly. This impasse affects the entire traveling population of England, much of Western Europe, and Europe-bound Americans.

As we've already seen, the CAFE fuel-efficiency regulations in the United States have led to deaths, as people drive government-mandated smaller, lighter cars which are less safe than bigger, more heavily-built ones.

Yet, we see Al Gore flitting around the globe on a gas-guzzling, ozone-destroying private jet. He doesn't feel that global warming or climate change requires any sacrifice from him. Sacrifice is for little people like you and me.

The protesters will never shut down Heathrow airport - but by limiting its capacity, they will drive up the price of air travel. This is no big deal for the rich, but makes it harder for ordinary folks to go on vacation. The same is true of higher gas prices caused by environmental taxes, and of higher electric power prices caused by bans on new power plants. Sacrifice is for little people, not for plutocrats like Al Gore.

As people see their living standards declining, where will they naturally turn? To government, of course! We see this taking place with government fuel assistance programs; how much more so will this be, when the full cost of government regulations and environmental taxes are felt?

The global warming scam has been foisted upon the public for very good and clear reasons, not because it's true. The people involved have private motivations and beliefs, just as we all do. Scientists want research grants, more published papers, and to be listened to by the general public. Bureaucrats want a bigger department and more clout. Politicians want a crisis - any crisis - so they can ride to power with a "solution". Is there a secret conspiracy of the world's leaders, meeting in an underground chamber somewhere, to create this fraud for their own benefit? [Insert Dr. Evil laugh here.] No, almost certainly not. No conspiracy is needed. This all comes about simply by following the motivations of the various players involved. Follow the money and follow the power.

What's needed is a strong dose of truth and reality. Polls show that, although Americans are concerned about global warming, they're still far from convinced that the Al Gore path is the way to follow; we even saw this effect in an earlier discussion. In other countries, the measures taken to reduce carbon emissions are provoking a backlash. More and more voices are being heard, saying quietly, and then louder and louder, "It's a lie!"

Now you know the truth, and have the arguments to back it up. And with each person who actually studies the evidence and thinks it through, the forces of falsehood grow weaker. As Winston Churchill once observed,

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing... after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Kermit Frosch is a guest writer for Scragged.com. Read other Scragged.com articles on environment and global warming

Ethanol - The Perfect Boondoggle

Ethanol - The Perfect Boondoggle

By Petrarch
Published: August 9, 2007, 09:28 AM

Western society, with its tremendous need for energy, has been primarily petroleum based since at least the Second World War. If you consider transportation needs alone, dependence on oil goes back further than that, to the 1920s. As a fuel, oil-based products have so many advantages that it is difficult to imagine any effective replacement. Electric? Either you need extremely expensive infrastructure, as with the overhead lines on high-speed railways, or you need heavy, expensive batteries filled with nasty chemicals. Coal? Chunks of filthy rock have their place, but in my car isn't one of them, and while there have been experiments with converting coal into something a little easier to use, they haven't been economically successful. Hydrogen and other gases? Aside from the question of where you get the hydrogen in the first place, storing high-pressure explosive gas in fast-moving vehicles has its disadvantages.

Now comes a solution which claims to present an answer to all these problems: ethanol. Since it comes from plants, ethanol is a renewable resource; and since it's a farm product, it can be produced anywhere that farming is feasible. Ethanol refining results in a liquid, which is far easier to transport and use than solids (coal) and gases (hydrogen). Ethanol even works with today's existing car technology, if it's mixed with ordinary gasoline; and with fairly minor modifications, an ordinary car can burn straight ethanol. What's not to like?

Well, there are a couple of technical problems with this approach. For one thing, it seems to be illegal to convert a normal car to run on ethanol. Cars are so heavily regulated that any change must be vetted by the government, and this one hasn't been. (Ethanol is not alone with this problem; bio-diesel falls foul of EPA regs too.) Another problem is the inherent chemistry of ethanol; it doesn't pack nearly as much of a punch as gasoline, so if you are using ethanol to fuel a car, your mileage goes down accordingly - in some cases, by quite a lot.

Even the environmental benefits of ethanol are somewhat questionable. Sure, ethanol comes from renewable plants. But, in the US, almost all ethanol comes from corn, which doesn't exactly grow wild. A corn farm requires large amounts of (petroleum-based) fertilizers; many miles driven by (petroleum-fueled) farm equipment; and even the conversion of corn into ethanol takes a great deal of energy, almost as much as the ethanol itself can produce. Studies at MIT conclude that the environmental benefit of ethanol is basically too close to call - that is, corn-based ethanol is so inefficient in other ways, that it's environmentally as harmful as gasoline. And goodness knows ethanol is not cheaper - in fact, each gallon of ethanol receives a 51-cent subsidy from the federal government, and it's still more expensive than the Saudi stuff!

So the only real reason that ethanol finds its way into our gas tanks, is the one we know to look for whenever something stupid is going on - government interference. The law requires oil companies to mix ethanol in with their gasoline, and to almost double the amount of it by 2012. However, this is an exercise in futility. Even if every last corn-cob grown in the US was lobbed into an ethanol refinery, that would still meet only 10% of our current petroleum consumption.

Are we going to give up our corn-on-the-cob and nacho chips, to fuel our cars? It's no laughing matter - the famous laws of supply and demand are already at work here. Every bushel of corn that's turned into ethanol, is a bushel of corn that is not available at the grocery store for you to eat. That pushes up the price of food. Of course, the frozen Birdseye is going to get more expensive - but it's surprising just how dependent our entire food chain is on corn. Perhaps we can afford to pay a little more for food, but the world's poor can't.

A great deal of meat is produced by feeding animals. Corn products, such as cornflour, are found in most cereals and a great many backed goods. How about dairy products, which come from corn-fed cows?

Then there's that famously unhealthy sweetener, corn syrup, which shows up in darn near everything. And therein lies a tale.

Traditionally, sugar has been the most common sweetener used in our food - either cane sugar, or sugar refined from sugar beets. Everyone is familiar with the white stuff you spoon into your coffee, and years ago food manufacturers did much the same thing on a larger scale, with train cars full of refined sugar. Then, in the 1970s, corn syrup was developed as a cheaper alternate source of sweetness. But corn syrup is not naturally cheaper than sugar, for many of the same reasons that ethanol is not naturally cheaper than petroleum - more refining is needed to turn the corn-cob into something useful. So how is it that corn syrup is cheaper? Again we find - government interference, through tariffs and subsidies.

The government subsidizes American sugar cane and sugar beet production, and places high tariffs and strict quotas on importing foreign sugar. The end result is that in the US, sugar costs about double the price paid elsewhere in the world, costing American consumers billions, and benefiting primarily industrial-scale producers such as ADM. Since the corn is grown in the US, it is not subject to import restrictions, and corn syrup can compete - but only because the price of sugar is twice what it ought to be.

Brazil is one of the world's leading producers of sugar, and is often cited as an example to follow when it comes to ethanol. Being a tropical country, Brazil has a very easy time growing sugar cane, which is not so easy in Iowa. And as sugar cane makes cheaper sugar than corn, so does sugar cane make ethanol more easily. In fact, the comparison is truly astonishing. An acre of sugar cane can produce 650 gallons of ethanol, as compared to 400 gallons for an acre of corn - but beyond that, 6,500 kcal of energy are required to produce one gallon of ethanol from sugar cane, most of which can be obtained by burning the sugar stalks. To get one gallon of ethanol from corn, it takes 28,000 kcal of energy - more than four times as much!

Why on earth are we attempting to grow the ethanol ourselves, when we have available a large, friendly country with 30 years of experience in producing ethanol, from an inherently more efficient source? Why don't we see ethanol tankers from Brazil pulling up to our docks every day?

By now, you can probably guess the answer already. Sure enough, the US has a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol, enough to price it out of the market. The combination of tariffs on ethanol and other farm products, and our farm subsidies, has led to a great many problems in free trade agreements - if we won't lower our tariffs, other countries won't lower theirs, making it more difficult for American companies to export American products, as well as more expensive for us to buy things domestically.

So let's review for a moment. How are we robbed?

We are robbed at the gas pump, because of the government requirements for overpriced ethanol, a gift to factory farms and industrial agriculture.

We are robbed at the grocery store, because anything with corn in it is going up in price, as the corn is needlessly converted to ethanol by government decree, instead of being sold as food.

We are robbed again at the grocery store, because we are paying twice as much as we should for sugar, again a gift to big sugar corporations.

And we're robbed in our taxes, because we pay subsidies, both to farmers for growing corn and sugar, and to ethanol producers who must make ethanol inefficiently from corn, when Brazil can do it more efficiently and cheaply from sugar cane.

Anything else? Oh, yes, we are starving the poor by driving up world food prices, and damaging the environment in so doing.

A more perfectly destructive boondoggle would be hard to imagine. Our government at its finest!

Petrarch is a staff writer for Scragged.com. Read other Scragged.com articles on economics, regulation, Brazil, corn, farm subsidies, sugar, energy, ethanol and tariffs

Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One

Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One

ScienceDaily (Apr. 1, 2005) — In 2004, approximately 3.57 billion gallons of ethanol were used as a gas additive in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). During the February State of the Union address, President George Bush urged Congress to pass an energy bill that would pump up the amount to 5 billion gallons by 2012. UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that's a very bad idea.

For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.

"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

Patzek's ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.

"Limiting yourself to the energy balance, and within that balance, just the fossil fuel used, is just scraping the surface of the problem," he says. "Corn is not 'free energy.'"

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

Patzek is also concerned about the sustainability of industrial farming in developing nations where surgarcane and trees are grown as feedstock for ethanol and other biofuels. Using United Nations data, he examined the production cycles of plantations hundreds of billions of tons of raw material.

"One farm for the local village probably makes sense," he says. "But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece ."

If ethanol is as much of an environmental Trojan horse as Patzek's data suggests, what is the solution? The researcher sees several possibilities, all of which can be explored in tandem. First, he says, is to divert funds earmarked for ethanol to improve the efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars.

"Can engineers double the mileage of these cars?" he asks. "If so, we can cut down the petroleum consumption in the US by one-third."

For generating electricity on the grid, Patzek's "favorite renewable energy" to replace coal is solar. Unfortunately, he says that solar cell technology is still too immature for use in large power stations. Until it's ready for prime time, he has a suggestion that could raise even more controversy than his criticisms of ethanol additives.

"I've come to the conclusion that if we're smart about it, nuclear power plants may be the lesser of the evils when we compare them with coal-fired plants and their impact on global warming," he says. "We're going to pay now or later. The question is what's the smallest price we'll have to pay?"

Adapted from materials provided by University Of California - Berkeley.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Is A New Dark Age At Hand?

January 27, 2008

Is A New Dark Age At Hand?

By Lawrence Murray

The Internet has brought a sudden and tremendous change in the history of man's search for information. We like to think that the Internet, the I-Pod, the I-phone, and all the other "Eyes of the Future" will bring about a new Age of Enlightenment, with all the wisdom and artistry of mankind instantly available to everyone's fingertips.


But suppose we're wrong. As Herbert E. Meyer recently put it:

"...information is like water. It's vital to our lives; we cannot survive without it. But if too much pours over us - we drown."

I dare to suggest that we are drowning, that the dam has burst and we are bring swept by the deluge into a new Dark Age of ignorance and superstition.

The Google glut

In the Dark Ages - which began with barbarians driving Roman civilization from Europe and ended with the Medieval awakening, the Italian Renaissance and the Gutenberg revolution - long nights were filled with gossip, rumor, storytelling, and idle fancies flowing into a fact-impoverished world....

Today, easy access to the Internet is flooding us with gossip, rumor, celebrity tales, and slant that drown out the trickle of actual truth. The Internet can tell you anything you want to know with a googly glance at its googol of inputs. We no longer need seek out and read a book to learn; we need only power a search engine with a few words, even when they're spelt inkorekly. Internet's Wikipedia, which is as objective as a list on a barroom menu, and often as fully fact-checked as a diatribe, has all but replaced studiously researched encyclopedias.

"Information" is not the same thing as "fact". But eventually, we forget the distinction and uncritically accept all information as truth. When a briefly popular author invented a mythical society, the Priory of Sion, Google was rapidly filled with thousands of references to its history, organization, famous leaders, and its lost, hidden or church-burned documents - none of which were true. Need one add that 70% of us believe in UFOs and 70% believe that JFK was the victim of a political assassination plot.

And thus, if it's "hot" on the Internet, we uncritically accept the fad of the moment. A growing multitude drink water from bottles that Pepsi and Coke fill from New York water faucets rather than drink the water coming out of those faucets because we've been warned that non-toilet trained Catskill fish swam in it.

The stifling of skills

In the Dark Ages, the upheavals from wars and barbarian invasions eroded education and the common knowledge of skills and arts, which were preserved only in a few places such as monasteries....

We accept this flood uncritically because we are no longer trained to use our minds. In ancient days, one was expected to listen to and retain a million words for instant recitation. Then, the Greeks and Romans, and their latter-day Renaissance counterparts, couched their minions to read the written word, rather than listen to some minstrel song, like those from the likes of Homer. But at least education in readin', ritin' and 'rithmetic were still considered a necessity as ways of training the mind to think.

Now, when hand calculators instantly answer the most complicated A/S/M/D mélange conceivable and times-tables are no longer necessary, memory can be used for better things like celebrity gossip and e-mail addresses. Why bother anyway? Sex ed and 'personal development" are the real needs!

The passivation of leisure

We are also losing our leisure skills. Western society brags of the prosperity brought to it by technological breakthroughs while disregarding their social side-effects. These inventions with unintended consequences began with Scotland inventing the Industrial Revolution, thereby causing labor to move from farms to mines and mills. Then the phonograph brought music into every house-bound ear, thereby inducing parents and children, who once learned and played instruments at home and amuse themselves in neighborly song fests, amateur combos, quartets and pickup bands to just sit and listen to the parlor Victrola. Listening replaced performing.

Radio brought entertainment and the world into the living room, so that neighbors and relatives who had once gathered to chat and tell stories sat quietly in front of talking boxes. And why bother to read so much, if just listening is easier and cheaper. In passing, it ought be stated that free radio brought along radio ads that provoked family purchases of a superabundance of Wheaties, Ovaltine, Pepsi, Ivory-soap, Tide and Lux.

Then came television, showing scenes and details that could only be imagined while listening to the radio, so imagination was left to Castles-in-Spain daydream-time. There were also movies, but why drive to theaters when you can watch a move on TV or download it from the Internet.

And what little reading we now do is confined to TV schedules, movie timetables, and magazines and books about the doings of politicians and celebrities whom TeeVee made infamous. Or we try to dig up the real dirt about those celebrities on - yes - the Internet.

We used to go to concerts. Now, enabled by Dialup to download any music onto a CD, music is more easily heard using good earphones than by motoring through downtown traffic to Symphony Hall to look three tiers down at a hundred seated people chugging away! Symphonies are declining everywhere while motion-dominant Opera thrives: another victory for look over listen.

We used to participate in sports. Then, TV began gobbling up the remaining free time, once devoted to stickball, stoopball, roller-skating and burying treasure in empty lots, to watching professional sports on TV or simulating them in computer games. Even the most basic physical activities of our ancestors, such as walking or horseback riding, were obliterated by the automobile - which at least provided some arm and right-foot exercise.. But even that will soon be eliminated by telecommuting and Internet shopping. We are becoming a nation of couch- and console-potatoes.

The triumph of triviality

The upheavals of the Dark Ages so restricted travel that most people lived in isolated villages, unknowing and unconcerned with great issues and preoccupied with the trivia of daily life...

E-mail instantly and cheaply sends our just-thought-ofs' to your computer list. No longer need you spend time writing down and thinking about what you're going to say. And you don't have to worry about spelling [nor own a dictionary anymore]: an email maven corrects spelling [never information or syntax] errors. Messages need not be composed with pith, wit, personality or any particular intent. They need only be laboriously typed without a syntactical glance and sent out quickstep. On hearing "You've got mail", most such free-from-thinking machinations are scanned with deserved dispatch and deleted. Inadvertently have we also deleted from our lives the joys and treasures of personal correspondence - treasured emails lie in the category of seashore sand-castles; they get tidied up in the next tide. Autographed signatures at the bottom of cherished letters have been replaced with scrawls of accidental heroes on baseballs and movie albums.

Cell phones provide instantaneous communiqués to wherever a whomever happens to be. One often talks the instant a name pops into her head so that chatting takes the place of time-wasting speculation about work, family, church or country.

In being preoccupied with trivia, we're only imitating our masters in the entertainment world. With the triumph of FX and morphing, movies and TV shows have lost what little literacy they ever had. Dialogue movies have started to disappear with flash, slash, and bash becoming Hollywood's latest sacred cash-cow. On TV, CSI's multiple second-long quick cuts, and "unscripted" Que Sera, Sera reality shows are replacing slow-moving situation comedies, mysteries, musicals and adventure tales. Modern talkies - and now TV - contain fewer words than silent films showed in their title cards.

And needless to say, the Internet encourages, and amplifies this trend toward triviality: digits ranging through digitized agendas instead of eyes scanning a better known analog world; ear-splitting sounds rather than script-advancing dialogue; dramatic eye-confounding screen switches instead of stage play continuity. Game buttons, Cable remotes, and Internet clicking have trained us to hop, skip, and jump - rather than slowly turn pages in an easy chair.

Envoi

And so, the Internet has induced society to scorch its path from see-read-listen-remember-digest into scan and flip, thereby replacing judgment with opinion, objective reasoning with subjective impression, and common sense with consensus. We are thus becoming perfect little lemmings, easily stampeded by marketers, fad creators, propagandists, and politicians with hidden agendas.

Is our culture navigating the circle back to where darkness lies waiting for us? Is our modern path freeing us from thought - while letting in a new horde of barbarians, the Superficials, to open our gates to a New Dark Age?

With easy-access now on cell phone and soon, perhaps, via a chip implanted into our cortexes or spines, this next fifty years is going to get very interesting (in the Chinese sense) unless the world ends first - or until something or Someone more meaningful comes.

Cream Rises to the Top, Even on the Internet

January 27, 2008

Cream Rises to the Top, Even on the Internet

By Thomas Lifson

In the Dark Ages, information was a rare and precious commodity. Books were copied by hand, and were expensive, rare, and unavailable to most people, who could not, in any event, read them, as literacy was limited largely to the nobility and clergy. Most book publication was in the hands of religious orders, whose scribes produced many beautiful examples of illuminated manuscripts, enhancing the beauty of the Scriptures and other sacred works with exquisite artistic flair.

Once Johannes Gutenberg's infernal invention moved beyond publication of the Bible and fell into the Wrong Hands, the average quality of books was never again so high in the West. All sorts of mischief resulted, upsetting the political, religious, and social order. Martin Luther's 95 Theses, leading to a long, fierce and deadly religious war, were an early sign of the trouble to come. With religious authorities no longer controlling the flow of published information, the slippery slope downward was inevitable, leading to romance novels, pornography, and It Takes A Village receiving widespread circulation.

So it is with internet. While Lawrence Murray offers American Thinker readers a perceptive critique of many serious problems accompanying the arrival of the internet, and while we should strive to minimize the downside he persuasively identifies, I am thrilled that I have lived to see the arrival of the internet, and have been privileged to launch a publishing venture that never would have been possible in the era of print and centralized control of broadcasting. The tender mercies of the elites in control of major newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are insufficient to ensure a balanced and accurate supply of information reaching those who care about politics, art, culture, and many other expressions of the human intellect and soul.

When ordinary people are in charge of making decisions over their own lives, it is inevitable that many of their choices over what to do, what to read and think, and how to take care of themselves, will displease others who reckon themselves better educated, more aware, and more capable of infusing those choices with wisdom. And when those same ordinary people are able to publish their own thoughts for the world to see, a lot of what they produce will be dross. This is both the peril and glory of a mass culture of culture producers. As seen on YouTube, where terrible dreck exists, but where rising geniuses get access to the world's eyeballs.

The nearly ubiquitous phenomenon of Wikipedia illustrates well the tradeoff we make by accepting the internet. Yes, it is true as Murray avers, that Wikipedia entries can include nonsense and worse. But a self-correcting mechanism exists, and is put to good use: readers and the public are able to dispute incorrect information. When links to additional information are included, readers can search for the truth themselves. For all faults, Wikipedia has enabled me to gather information effortlessly, and as a result on a daily basis I have informed myself of a far broader range of subjects than was possible two decades ago.

Yes, nonsense can become amplified by the arrival of Google and other search engines. But it does not take much life experience before internet users grasp the concept that mere arrival of information on a computer screen does not guarantee reliability. Perhaps there is a higher percentage of nonsense published on the internet than in books, but there have been some pretty awful nonsense books published with great harm resulting (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Mein Kampf, for instance). At least counter-arguments can be rapidly produced and distributed on the internet when a comparably evil work is produced on the web.

Movies were regarded as cheapening the art of stage performance. Recorded music threatened live performers, as did radio. Television took less imagination than radio and went for the lowest common denominator. Every advance in the technology of communications is denounced as vulgarizing earlier artistic forms. And the younger generation's fecklessness has troubled their elders since the dawn of civilization. The complaints Lawrence Murray offers are hardly new or unique to the internet.

The web is still in its infancy. The reason I am optimistic that it will lead to a better (though far from perfect) culture and society is that the very accessibility ensuring vast quantities of low quality information also serves to sort out the good from the bad. Critical voices have access to the web, too. And they can be virally distributed. You can't suppress dissent, and leaving a reasonable argument unanswered becomes a public act with archives a hyperlink away.

Those of us who publish on the internet hear almost instantaneously from critics when a typo, , much less a questionable assertion is published. Those who refuse to be responsive to such critics quickly lose their reputation for quality and reliability, for the critics have full access to the world's eyes and ears.

If anything, skepticism is on the rise because critics are able to find an audience for their questions. We saw how this worked in Rathergate. Certainly Dan Rather and his colleagues at CBS News were appalled at being questioned over the reliability of a docment on which their report was based. To them, the internet seemed pernicious indeed, But in the end, the truth will out, and these days it runs at the speed of light.

It makes great sense to be concerned about the tradeoffs we face with the arrival of the internet. But those who believe in the marketplace of ideas as a sorting mechanism for discerning Truth have nothing to fear.

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

Protection And Profit From Falling Dollar And Rising Inflation

Protection And Profit From Falling Dollar And Rising Inflation

Issue #355 11/7/2003
The U.S. dollar is now vulnerable to a decline on two fronts — against major foreign currencies and in terms of its declining purchasing power in the United States.

Already, based on our recommendations in this column, you should be protecting yourself — and profiting — with:

  • About 10% of your conservative portfolio in Prudent Global Income Fund (PSAFX, 800-711-1848, www.prudentbear.com/funds_pshfund.html), which has enjoyed nice gains, and/or American Century International Bond Fund (BEGBX, 800-345-2021, www.americancentury.com), which has done even better. But don't let the difference in their relative past performance bother you. Both are still buys. Here's a chart showing their relative progress:

    Contra-Dollar Funds


    Both of these mutual funds are designed to benefit from a declining dollar, but each does so in a somewhat different manner. The American Century fund buys short maturity highly-rated bonds of overseas governments and corporations in non-dollar currencies. Prudent Global Income fund, meanwhile, also includes shares of gold companies in its allocations, along with a modest allocation to US treasuries for stability.

  • About 15% in gold-related investments, which are also doing very nicely. Now, it's time to go a few of steps further.

    Step 1. Reduce your Treasury-bill allocation from 45% to 30%. That's still more than adequate for good safety and liquidity.

    Step 2. Open an account with Everbank. It's owned by First Alliance Bank in Jacksonville, Florida, which earns a Weiss Rating of B (good) and is insured by the FDIC up to $100,000. You can reach them via email at worldmarkets@everbank.com or by calling 1-800-926-4922.

    Step 3. Their minimum account is $10,000. If that's more than 10% of the amount you've allocated to our Conservative Portfolio, add to your dollar-contra funds instead. Otherwise, put the 10% of your Conservative Portfolio into their 3-month euro CD, yielding 1.26%.

    Although the interest is better than the equivalents in the U.S., the primary goal is appreciation in the value of the currency. I like the euro because it has such a strong uptrend against the dollar.

    Step 4. Set aside 5% of your portfolio to buy Enerplus Resources Fund (ERF). This is a closed-end investment trust that produces a steady flow of earnings from various royalties it receives from the distribution of natural gas and oil. But don't buy it right away. Wait for it to decline some more and pay no more than $25.75 for it.

    Portfolio Update

    To sum up, here's what your Conservative Portfolio should look like:

    1. Treasury bills or equivalent money funds: 30%. Buy directly through the Treasury Direct program (for info, call 800-722-2678 or visit www.treasurydirect.gov).

    One of the most convenient ways to buy is through money market funds specialized in Treasuries, such as:
    • American Century Capital Preservation Fund, ticker symbol CPFXX (800-345-2021; www.americancentury.com)
    • Dreyfus 100% US Treasury Fund, ticker symbol DUSXX (800-645-6561; www.dreyfus.com)
    • Fidelity Spartan US Treasury Fund, ticker symbol FDLXX (800-544-8888; www.fidelity.com)
    • USGI US Treasury Securities Cash Fund , ticker symbol USTXX (800-873-8637; www.usfunds.com)
    • Also consider our own Weiss Treasury Only Money Fund, ticker symbol WEOXX (800-814-3045; www.tommf.com).
    2. 3- to 5-year Treasury notes: 15%. No change in your allocation.

    3. Dollar-contra funds: 10%. No change.

    4. Euro CD: 10% (see above).

    5. Gold-related investments: 15% (see Larry's Gold Column).

    6. Enerplus (ERF): 5% (see above).

    7. Other energy related investments: 15%, including ...
    • Provident Energy Trust (AMEX-PVX), which rose as high as $8.63 in October, nearing my sell targets. Sell half at $8.90 or better and the other half at $9.40 or better. In the meantime, hold on and enjoy the dividends.

    • Pogo Producing Company (NYSE-PPP): Profits rose from $31.6 million to $67.7 million in the third quarter for this company. But the shares slipped as oil prices fell. Hold.

    • Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (NYSE -KMP): 5%. KMP announced third-quarter net income up from $80.4 million to $95.6 million. Hold.
    8. FTI Consulting (NYSE-FCN). Last month we recommended that you exit this stock at $18 or better, and it rallied as far as $20, giving you ample opportunity to get out.
  • Sunday, January 27, 2008

    The gospel of money

    Hd_onreligion

    Pinsky_12opedonline The gospel of money

    Megachurch pastors and broadcast ministries are drawing renewed scrutiny for living lavishly off the faithful’s funds. Fortunately, a divide is emerging in the world of evangelicals: the ‘haves’ and the ‘will have none of it.’

    By Mark I. Pinsky

    "The love of money," the New Testament teaches in I Timothy 6:10, "is the root of all evil." But what about some televangelists' fondness for major bling — such as multiple, multimillion dollar estates, luxury cars, vacation homes, exotic trips and private jets? Does that make them, in the words of one author, "pimps in the pulpit?"

    Many outside the evangelical movement are puzzled by the apparent lack of outrage following reports of high-living, tax-exempt religious broadcasters. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has been looking into six megachurch pastors and broadcast ministries, requesting financial records. Richard Roberts has stepped down as president of Oral Roberts University following charges that he used the school's resources for family perks, such as a trip to the Bahamas for his daughter.

    These charges come as no surprise to those within the evangelical world. Such tales of excess and profligacy have been an open secret for years.

    (Illustration by Sam Ward, USA TODAY)

    Some justify this way of life by arguing that, as advocates of the "prosperity gospel," it only follows that those who are the most faithful will prosper — in a big way. Is this why there has been no outcry among the faithful? Perhaps it is a reflexive circling of the wagons.

    "Within conservative media ministries, criticism from outsiders often is seen as a badge of honor that validates a ministry's righteousness," says Quentin Schultze, of Michigan's Calvin College, author of Christianity and the Mass Media in America.

    Loyalty or gullibility?

    But there is something new going on. Just as political, ideological and generational fissures are emerging among the nation's evangelical leadership, there is also one involving lifestyle.

    In one camp are those being scrutinized by Grassley: Benny Hinn of Texas, a flamboyant faith healer whose followers believe he can raise the dead; Paula White, a motivational speaker whose recent divorce from her co-pastor husband rocked their Tampa megachurch; and Joyce Meyer, a St. Louis author and speaker whose broadcasts are heard in 200 countries. They make no apologies for the way they spend their salaries, speaking fees, CD and book royalties and "love offerings," lavish gifts of cash and jewelry.

    What makes this discussion delicate and sometimes uncomfortable — especially among evangelicals — is that many of these leaders come from the Pentecostal (or Charismatic) tradition. This brings with it undercurrents of class and culture. Historically, those once derided by other Christians as "holy rollers" for their ecstatic prayer and preaching have their roots in the working and lower-middle class, in rural areas and small towns. There is the implication that their leaders, having grown up in hardscrabble circumstances, tend to have a nouveau riche weakness for flashy displays of wealth.

    In the other camp are those in the Billy Graham tradition, who are determined to live more modestly and to give back much of what they earn. These include Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., and author of The Purpose-Driven Life; and Joel Osteen, leader of Houston's Lakewood Church and author of Your Best Life Now.

    Followers of Warren and Osteen's tend to come from those a little higher up the demographic scale than most Pentecostals — solidly middle-class people from the Sunbelt suburbs. As the cameras pan their audiences, they appear to be somewhat more affluent.

    Warren is vociferous in his opposition to prominent Pentecostals' embrace of the prosperity gospel. "Success in any area often creates a spirit of entitlement — 'I deserve this' — that is the exact opposite of servant leadership," Warren says. "It is evidence of insecurity and low-self esteem. Insecure people show off. Secure people serve."

    Warren takes no salary from his church and has returned every dollar he has earned from the congregation. He will not accept money to speak, and he gives away 90% of his sizable book royalties, in what he calls "reverse tithes."

    "The opulent lifestyles of televangelists make me sick," he says of those ministries being investigated.

    Trying for a balanced life

    Osteen, a rising young star in the evangelical firmament, has stopped taking a salary from his 48,000-member congregation, thanks almost entirely to his own best-selling books. "We make plenty of money from our books," says Osteen, who does not solicit contributions on his nationally televised broadcasts from the Compaq Center. "But we just live normal lives. We try to be conservative and honor God with our life and with our example."

    (Not always, however. Osteen's wife and co-pastor, Victoria, was not above a diva-like snit fit on a flight bound for Vail, Colo., in 2005 after claiming her first-class seat had not been cleaned. An altercation with flight attendants led to a two-hour delay, and the Osteens were asked to leave the plane. Victoria, who called the incident a "minor misunderstanding," later paid a $3,000 fine assessed by the Federal Aviation Administration.)

    Osteen owns just one home where he and his wife have lived in for 13 years, and until recently, he drove a 9-year-old car. Osteen flies commercial and, on the road, pays his own hotel bills.

    True to his Mr. Nice Guy message and his image as "The Smiling Preacher," Osteen refuses to condemn those in Grassley's spotlight. Yet, despite his personal wealth, Osteen has a much more modest way of living and of interpreting the prosperity gospel. "I never preach a message on money," he says. "I do believe that God wants us to be blessed, to have good marriages, to have peace in our minds, to have health, to have money to pay our bills. I think God wants us to excel. But everyone isn't going to be rich — if we're talking about money."

    There is a clear difference between praying for health and financial self-sufficiency, which is reasonable and understandable, and the expectation of divinely mandated wealth and the right to profligacy. American evangelicals have enough enemies. Why hand such adversaries another stick — especially a gilded one — to beat them with?

    Mark I. Pinsky, religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel, is author of A Jew Among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed.