AI and the rise of Fast Food Content

 

This article was in part inspired by my friend Josh Ginsberg’s piece on Generative AI. Give Josh a read and a follow if you would like. And the image is from Agata of goodstuffnononsense.com. Go check out their work!

In 1940, the McDonalds Brothers opened their first hamburger restaurant. In 1948, McDonalds introduced the Speedee Service System, a process that did away with plates and forks and reduced the menu to handheld foods such as burgers and fries. For Americans with a need for speed and the development of highways and suburbs, McDonalds was convenient and profitable. In 1953, McDonalds began franchising. By 1972, they were global, spreading their efficiency all over the world.

But there was a dark side to the rise of fast food. As McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, and hundreds of other chains spread across America, American waistlines also spread, blood pressure increased, and obesity soared. In 2004, Morgan Spurlock released “Super Size Me”, a documentary detailing the impact of McDonalds and fast food. This followed Eric Schlosser’s 2001 book “Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal”. Numerous studies linked fast food to poor health. An American success story in efficiency was killing Americans.

In response, fast food chains saw a drop in revenue. McDonalds sales lagged throughout the early 2000s until they introduced dollar menus, sparking low-income customers. But for many, the damage was done. Fast food is still considered an unhealthy, albeit convenient, option.

Today our society faces another type of efficient revolution. Not in food, but in thought. Or the outsourcing thereof. Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) use has soared in the last five years. Outputs from Gen AI have swamped our media in a way that makes the expansion of fast food from 1950 to 2000 look glacially slow. AI slop is everywhere, from emails to letters, wedding invitations to commercials. Students are using AI to write papers, lawyers to write arguments, job applicants to write resumes, musicians are using AI to make music, artists to make art, and authors to write books. It seems everyone is using AI to make everything.

I don’t trust anything created with AI.

AI is driven by Large Language Models. Those LLM drive the outputs of queries. I don’t have the time or the patience to read what is under the hood of every Large Language Model and how it chooses its responses to queries. Nor do I care.

Think about this, if an LLM was only fed text in Yoda-speak, it would only reply like the ancient Jedi master. And that is why we need humungous data centers on every corner, because the LLMs behind popular AI models need to scan through trillions and trillions of gigabytes of data to give users an answer. Because the robot is making the analysis from millions of unknown sources, I don’t trust it.

I compare AI outputs to cake. I could ask a machine to make me a strawberry cake. I can add the strawberries to the LLM, but what else is in the cake? It could be coded to make a strawberry cake out of cement mix and strawberries. That’s a horrible cake.

(Not to mention copyright issues and lawsuits that have resulted from LLMs sucking up very distinct work and providing outputs to users for the financial gain of the AI company, not the original creator.)

According to Gregory Bourne of Tiny Desk Publishing, I am not alone in distrusting Gen AI, especially as a Gen Xer. My generation, the one known for its cynicism and aloofness, is among the most distrusting of AI technology. According to a few reports, Gen X is using AI in the workplace, but reluctant and hesitant to incorporate it in their private lives due to privacy concerns.

As a writer, I believe AI takes the fun out of writing. It removes the joy and wonder of creating. It reduces the need to make mental and creative connections. When I wrote my novels, I often sat with two scenes in my head for days, wondering how I can get them connected. When a middle scene finally arrived in my brain, it was like unlocking a puzzle where suddenly all the pieces have a place. The lightbulb went on and I started writing. I don’t want AI to do the creative lifting and put in puzzle pieces I am struggling with. There is no fun in that to me.

According to Eve Fairbanks’s recent article in The Atlantic, AI writing is like a mass-produced burger, flavorless and boring.

“The tone is bland; individual word choices are baffling; the structure lacks sense; key pieces of the argument are missing; facts are false. Working on AI text, as an editor, is like trying to operate on a body whose skin, muscles, veins, bones, and organs are all compromised. There’s nothing to leave intact, nowhere to begin.”

Burgers created through the Speedee Service System aren’t known for their flavor, they are known for their speed. Unfortunately, speed is a key driver to today’s creators, especially those creating for marketing purposes.

Good art takes time. But when “content creators” need to make “content” to maintain awareness in the algorithm of social media platforms, they query and prompt whatever Speedee Service System they can, lest they fall behind and their posts not reach their desired metrics in views and engagement.

Did you know TikTok recommends posting 5 to 10 times a day to maintain relevancy on their algorithm? Big media organizations are able to do that, especially if they have daily inputs, such as sports highlights. But that is impossible for small creators.

Meeting an algorithm’s demands is not about art. It’s about numbers. Marketing content driven by analytics, driven by ROI and budgets. Financial people don’t care about the quality of art. They only care that the money spent gets the value desired. So be it if a content creator has to go to the fast-food drive-thru 5 times a day to get a mass-produced burger and fries to fill the belly of an ever-hungry algorithm.

When does it end?

While it took 50 years to see the impact of fast food on health, there are already multiple studies on the impact of AI on human thought and learning. Like fast food, the results are not good.

Studies on AI users show less cognitive activity, less creativity, and less thought. Outsourcing decisions is leading to laziness and the atrophy of human decision making. Worse yet, the AI is programmed not to disagree. It is more apt to agree with the user and at the same time, produce content that is homogeneous to other users’ work. In other words, it lacks originality. It lacks flavor. It doesn’t take much brain power to make a hamburger at McDonalds. It doesn’t take much brain power to make art as bland as a Speedee System product.

(No offense to McDonalds workers. My first job was flipping burgers at Mickey D’s.)

Not only is AI ruining our brains, it is also producing content that is hurting the very LLMs the content is derived from. According to a new study by researchers at Texas A&M University, University of Texas at Austin, and Purdue University, Large Language Models can be negatively influenced by attention-grabbing, sensationalist, and shallow information. The results of queries from LLMs fed this “brain rot” content were marked by “worse reasoning, poorer long-context understanding, diminished ethical norms, and emergent socially undesirable personalities”.

The rise of AI programs in our current tech and media spaces is akin to McDonalds incorporating the Speedee System in every restaurant and grocery store in the world while feeding its own workers its own unhealthy fast food. When the great cholesterol calamity occurs, the only survivors will be those who create their own supply chain, breed their own cows, slaughter their own animals, grill their own meat, and make their own burgers. They will be oases of humanity in a desert of Gen-AI slop.

As Fairbanks writes in her Atlantic article,

“Maybe human writing will become like cloth-aged cheese or handloom rugs, an artisanal product created effortfully. Maybe we will come to treasure older writing. Herman Melville, George Orwell, Toni Morrison—all authenticated. Writing like this will be a fossil record for a kind of thought process we buried without realizing it.”

Meanwhile, McDonald’s itself is heavily embracing AI in its Speedee System 2.0, attempting to use automation to get orders out faster. Americans are still partaking in fast food cuisine, reportedly more often than ever before. 

Old habits die hard, I guess.

Thoughts on the AR-15

The AR-15 is perhaps the most polarizing weapon in a very polar gun-control debate. It has been the weapon of choice for several mass murderers in the United States over several years. According to Wikipedia, it was used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. As well, the Pulse Nightclub shooting was conducted with a weapon very similar to the AR-15.

The weapon is popular - both with collectors and those with bad intentions. According to experts cited by the New York Times (it would be nice if they put a name to at least one expert, by the way), "there are easily several million in the nation’s rifle racks and gun safes".

But is it really needed? Do we really need millions of rifles in the hands of private gun owners across America?

According to gun websites, we do. Here are screenshots from a late 2017 article on the TheTruthAboutGuns.com.

Picture 1:

Picture 2:

The rest of the top 10 were 8 pistols and a shotgun. While there is no arguing the presence of a firearm can help home defense if used by someone who knows what they are doing, and there is no arguing that the "intimidation factor of a pump action shotgun can’t be overstated" as the article says (shlack-lack), why is an AR-15 on this list?

According to the article, "If your home or your property is unfortunate enough to be targeted by multiple intruders" it is best to have an AR-15 handy. Does this happen often enough that the rifle has to be number 2 on the list? Are there groups of robbers and home invaders breaking into houses throughout America?

Also in the description, "In a multiple bad guy situation, an AR-15 will help even the odds by giving you the advantage of distance, velocity, and ammunition capacity". Are gun owners defending their homes or guarding the front lines at the Battle of the Bulge? If the average size of an American home is 2,600 square feet (792.5 meters) with walls, do gun owners really need a weapon with a maximum effective range of 400 meters to 1 mile (1,609 meters), depending on the configuration and ammunition?

According to a 2013 article entitled, "Gun Control Myth: The AR-15 is Not Actually a Hunting Rifle" by Matt MacBradaigh,

In reality, AR-15's make excellent hunting rifles and are normally used for that purpose. They are configurable via a separate upper and lower part that make it possible for the user to configure the rifle for various types of bullet cartridges. Depending on what game is being hunted, and what bullet the rifle is configured to fire, virtually all AR-15 rifles are useful for hunting.

Can a weapon be good for home defense and hunting? Or is there another reason for the weapon's popularity? Could the answer be in the home defense ranking article?

Look again at the first picture. Notice the ads? Both ads are for accessories for an AR rifle. There are many parts gun owners can add to the AR-15 "platform" that increases distance or power. Smaller weapons such as pistols don't have as many parts to add on as larger rifle platforms. Selling these parts are big business. The companies that sell the parts rely on the sale of the platform and their ads to continue their revenue.

The parts companies want to sell more parts, so they buy more ad space for parts on gun websites. Those sites see where the ad revenue is coming from and promote the applicable weapon in an effort to increase the sale of weapon and then tell the advertiser that the ads on their sites are working. Then the website can increase the cost of advertising on their site.

All the website needs is text to pitch a need to gun owners that fits the narrative to support the website's ad selling business.

Like most internet business, selling AR-15s is a shell game based on ads and marketing. Seeing through propaganda is important if societies want to have rational debates about the safety and practicality of purchasable products.

A White Middle Class Dude's Take on Joyner Lucas's "I'm Not Racist"

A few months ago, rapper Joyner Lucas dropped a video for his song "I'm Not Racist". The video was a viral sensation, stimulating discussion in hip-hop circles and in the mainstream, to include CNN.

If you haven't seen it, here:



It is definitely a provoking video, touching many third rails. It should make you think. I've been thinking abut it for a while, and am finally writing about it now.

As provoking as it is, in many hip-hop circles, many thought Joyner Lucas didn't express the black side hard enough. On the blog VerySmartBrothas, writer Damon Young wrote that because American racism was originally a white invention, there should be no video. Young writes that white people should just stop using race as a way to divide.

The only conversation that can do that is white people talking to other white people to try to find a way to be less awful to black people

That makes sense if you understand that the entire global capitalist system we live in is a white culture invention. For centuries, global leaders were white and did things in the interests of their more powerful kingdoms and countries. Leaders of non-white countries weren't even part of the conversation.

Along with Damon Young, other rappers wrote their own verses for Joyner Lucas's black man, expressing what they though he should have said. Rapper Mysonne's was perhaps the most viewed and impressive.



Mysonne has some strong points here, although I think they are less effective to the white audience he is trying to talk to.

There is no way for me to speak for all white people here. I can't do it. I won't do it. But what I can do is describe how I feel about the issues based on my background and influences and attempt to describe some of the people around me and why they feel the way they do. And then conclude with why I think Joyner Lucas's spoonfed approach is better than Mysonne's hammer.

I embraced hip-hop in the early 1990s. Hip-hop was growing, it was fresh, it was different. It was also thought provoking. I was feeling stagnated in my predominantly white Florida suburb and knew it wasn't the place for me. My town was great for families and some of my friends, but I didn't see a future there. I listened repeatedly to songs about getting out of the ghetto like my white suburban town was my personal ghetto.

Right after high school, I joined the military. That adventure led me to college, then to city life,
and then to a job that required world travel. My career path has forced me to open my mind academically and socially. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Unfortunately, not all my white friends and family have had those experiences. Some stick to the rivers and the lakes they are used to.

A few years ago for example, I had a white friend drunkenly say "I wish I was black for a day, just to see what it's like."

Even though I had been drinking as well, that statement sobered me up and stopped me in my tracks. Cold. I wasn't about to get into a deep philosophical discussion with her about why what she said was the most white privilege thing she could ever say or why it was horribly ignorant. After a day's worth of drinking, nothing good could have happened from that. So I let it be. But years later, it still bothers me.

I don't wish to be any of my friends. Be they black, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, man, woman, tall, or small. I might wonder what it's like to have a wife, a minivan, and a house full of children, but that's a lifestyle, not a born condition.

Back in the wonderfully innocent 1980s, there was a movie entitled "Soul Man" starring C. Thomas Howell. In the movie, Howell's character dyes his skin and he acts "black" in order to win a scholarship to Harvard. Although the movie is full of awkward hijinks and social commentary, the most powerful part is at the finale when Howell's character has a conversation with James Earl Jones' character about the black experience.

"I don't really know what it feels like, sir. If I didn't like it, I could always get out."



The closest I ever came to experiencing systematic discrimination was while I was in Afghanistan. Work culture on military bases in Afghanistan is very hierarchical. US Military personnel are on top, foreign military personnel are second, followed by US contractors, then foreign contractors. As a US contractor, I couldn't take the US military bus around the base, I couldn't use the better military doctors unless there was a life-threatening injury, and I couldn't eat at the dining facility at the same time. All because of my label.

I didn't like that very much. I didn't have the freedom to eat when I wanted or see the doctor I wanted. I had to use the facility that was for "my people". Perhaps it was "separate but equal", but the separation was not something I was used to.

Fortunately, when my time in Afghanistan was over, like C. Thomas Howell's Soul Man, I could return to my white American comfort zone.

Also in Afghanistan, I would often speak with one of our translators, a young member of the Hazara tribe of Afghanistan. The Hazaras are among the most persecuted people in Afghanistan. Both ethnic Pashtuns and the Taliban targeted the Hazaras and attempted to "ethnically cleanse" the group.

During one conversation, my translator friend told me one of the most eye-opening things I have ever heard. He said the election of President Obama in 2008 gave hope to the Hazara people. According to him, the Hazara felt that if a black man could become President of the United States, then perhaps one day a Hazara could become president of Afghanistan.

That is the type of social advancement and trailblazing America should be doing. We should be empowering not only our own people, but we should be an inspiration for the discriminated and downtrodden around the globe. America should be the land of opportunity, where your potential is determined by your input, not where you were born, the color of your skin, your religion, or the school system you are near.

Of course, a country as wide and diverse as America will always have different points of view. We will never be unified in thought. Some of us prefer a day on the farm and some prefer a day at the beach. Some want to live a life of quiet solitude and others want to be knee-deep in the hustle and bustle of metropolitan life. What we do for fun and what media we consume typically aligns with that lifestyle.

And that brings me back to Joyner Lucas and his video. For those who are comfortable in our society, media that expresses views that society is not acceptable for everyone is upsetting. It is easier for those who are comfortable to listen to music that celebrates their comfort status. That's what country music does. It celebrates the present - the small town, the pretty girl, the pick-up truck, and the complacent country lifestyle. Country music is very conservative. It does not aspire for progress.

That's why many white people like it so much.

Counter-culture music requires upsetting thought. Be it punk, hip-hop, metal, or folk music. Counter-culture requires unpacking and seeing things from other perspectives. Not every white American wants to be challenged to do that. Hence sometimes media that slowly opens up conversation is a better way to inspire change, kinda like hiding a pill in ice cream.

Joyner Lucas's song is safe and easy to digest. It takes elementary school social understanding. Mysonne's verse, while important, requires grad school level social understanding. A lot of white culture is not ready to have that conversation, no matter how many non-white people scream they need to.

Unfortunately, when scared, white people can retreat to their bubble. They can go back to listening to country music and hanging out in an all-white world. As a white person, let me tell you, it is easy to do. It is also lazy. White people should do better.

There are a lot of great things in America. But there is a lot our predominant culture still needs to work on. We need to keep moving forward and we need to understand each other. "Others" are not going away. If understanding them requires baby steps, then take baby steps. If that means jumping into deep philosophical literature, then do that.

But while you are here, listen to Joyner Lucas's "I'm Not Racist". Understand his point of view. Listen to Mysonne's remix. Understand his contribution and point of view. If you need help, ask a friend. Have a conversation. It's easy if you try.

Donald Trump and Empathy

The President of the United States has an empathy problem.

His problem is that he has never needed empathy. He has never needed to care about a community, nor anyone outside a community. As a real estate magnate, he was never in the people-caring business.

That's not to say he is the only president who has ever had an empathy problem. I'm sure others have lacked in that department as well. That is also not to say he hasn't shown concern or care for individuals on occasion.

Nor, lastly, is this to say that a lack of empathy is a disqualifier to hold the world's most powerful political office. This is merely an observation on Donald Trump, President of the United States, and his actions thus far in the office.

When Trump won, I knew his lack of empathy was going to plague his administration. He ran a highly divisive campaign in perhaps the most divisive election in America in over 100 years. He kept his campaign focused on taking sides on social issues, instead of focusing on policies - which frustrated many pundits and fellow candidates. But by taking sides, he alienated those who disagreed and he has yet to show interest in building bridges to bring those who disagreed with him into the fold.

Dr. Richard Friedman, a professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the Cornell Medical College, recently wrote that Trump is a master of empathy.  Friedman stated Trump's ability to empathize with his base is what keeps them on his side. He concluded that Trump uses that empathy to feed the fears of his base and create a bond with them.

I think Friedman is right to a point. What he gets wrong is that Trump doesn't really understand the struggles of his base. Trump's political connection with his base is not empathy for people, but empathy for power. He understands there is power in drumming up fear and he used that to sell himself as the savior against all that would reduce the social power of his base - be that globalism, terrorism, or liberalism.

President Trump is an admirer of power. He seems to believe politics is about power, not people. He lauds those who have power, and doesn't identify well with those who don't. That is to be expected from a billionaire. Rarely do those with their own private jet understand those at the bus stops. But as president of all Americans, Trump represents the people at the bus stop as much as those in penthouses and private yachts.

Thus far, Trump's statements have given little indication that he will learn to be empathetic. He pins blame, points fingers, and plays favorites. He might be great at business, tax plans, and trade, and he may tweet a generically empathetic platitude when needed, but connecting on social issues will continue to befuddle him.

Trump's lack of empathy looks even worse when compared to previous presidents. For better or for worse, President Obama was seen as very empathetic to minority struggles in America. Likewise, President George W. Bush was a church-going, God-fearing man with a good heart, although he may have been the victim of bad advice on Iraq and slow movement on New Orleans.

For President Trump, meanwhile, every cameo at a golf course and every awkward speech further distances him from many of those he represents. While many will never like him as a person nor have any tolerance for his policies, his ability to connect could earn him the respect of the position.

Increasingly, empathy is considered an essential element of leadership. Understanding the trials, tribulations, and life decisions of team members is an advantage in building unity and cohesion.

According to Justin Bariso, who writes about Emotional Intelligence and the ability to connect,

If a leader can demonstrate true empathy to individual team members, it will go a long way toward encouraging them to perform at their best. It may even inspire the team to show empathy for the leader.

Trump seems to want Americans to "make America great again", but can't seem to connect with half of them on a personal level. He has a slogan, but getting people to run with that mission statement requires emotional buy-in. If Trump can't connect with people, he will have a hard time motivating them.

This is another difference between real estate and other corporations. Trump's money came from development and the value of land and buildings. There was little production outside of construction. And those doing construction were not building based on Trump's vision, they were building based on his specifications.

Trump's dilemma reminds me of an old Casey Stengel quote, "The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided.” Those who oppose Trump (and there are many) can easily run the narrative unless he shows empathy. Showing empathy and not causing conflict may create empathy for Trump himself.

Among other difficulties, Donald Trump has an empathy problem. It is tough to teach an old dog new tricks, and even more difficult to teach empathy to a 70-year old man whose empathy muscles have atrophied, if they were ever developed.

The Case of the Mistaken Lortz

Today I received an interesting email from someone with an Asian name.

Hello Mike, good morning. I am planning to remodel three bathrooms of my house. Mr. (another Asian name) refers you to me. Could you please give me a call to discuss the further details ASAP? I can be reached at (402) xxx-xxxx (home) or (402) xxx-xxxx (cell). Thanks a lot.

At first, I thought the email was spam. I've gotten enough notices from Nigerian princes who need help moving money from one account to another to be suspicious of emails from people I don't know.

But the text of this one sounded a bit too earnest. It sounded authentic. So I decided to google.

I started by searching the sender's email address. It was legit and belonged to a professor at a university in Omaha, Nebraska. Then I googled the person who "recommended" me. Sure enough, he too was a professor from a midwest university.

Then I googled the phone number the requester asked me to call. 402 is an Omaha area code.

I had enough evidence to think this was legit. All the information led to an Omaha business deal. But why were they contacting me?

My final web search was for "Lortz Omaha". The first result:

Lortz Home Solutions

According to their website, "LHS, Inc. specializes in basement finishing, kitchen and bath remodels, decks, home maintenance and some additions."

That had to be who the email sender was looking for. There was no way this was spam.

I sent a reply email informing the sender that he had the wrong Lortz and I provided the number and website of Lortz Home Solutions.

A few hours later, I received a reply.

Hello Michael, thank you very much for alerting my mistake. Yes, I tried to contact Lortz Home Solutions in Omaha. I have got in contact with him now and hope my remodeling will be smooth and look great later. Thanks a lot again and best regards.

As you can see, not the most conversationalist English. But I was right. They were looking for Lortz Home Solutions. There was just a small cultural or communications gap that led this person to my email address when they meant to contact Lortz Home Solutions.

Answering emails from people we don't know - especially when they are proposing a business transaction - is usually a big time Internet no-no. But sometimes people make honest mistakes. I could have deleted the email or I could have been a complete asshole and led the person in the wrong direction (I thought about both options). But in the end, the good person in me won out and my five minutes of googling provided the sender with the correct contact information.

They were lost on the information superhighway and instead of running them over or cursing them out, I pointed them in the right direction.

I like to think I did a good deed.

In retrospect, I should have asked for pictures of their finished bathroom.

The Homeless Dilemma

A few years ago, long-time friend Clark Brooks wrote an interesting post on his thoughts on homeless people. Clark looked at recent incidents of panhandlers faking the funk and not being who they appear to be and pondered on whether or not to ever give a dollar or two to local panhandlers he sees in the Tampa area.

In the dilemma of whether to keep giving or not, Clark didn't come to a conclusion either way.

Contrary to popular belief, as Clark points out, not all panhandlers are homeless. While some are complete frauds, I've been told by a few that they live in nearby cheap hotels. Which is a small step up from living under a bridge. If they can beg for $30 a day, they can pay for their next night in a hotel. So when they plea the "hotel locked me out" story, it's not 100% made up. Maybe only 50%.

But in other cases, there are certain panhandlers I will absolutely never give anything to.

The biggest group I deny is homeless Vietnam vets.

Before anyone chastises me for being unpatriotic, let me explain.

Yes, I am a veteran. Yes, I have compassion for fellow veterans who might have fallen on hard times. Sometimes adjusting to life in America is difficult after a year or more in a high pressure combat zone. I totally understand that and I sympathize.

But my sympathy is nil with those who use Vietnam as an excuse for being homeless or jobless.

It's been 40 years since American involvement in Vietnam ended. Vietnam veterans have had 40 years to find assistance. While that assistance might not have been easily accessible upon their return, it is easily accessible now. There are veterans' hospitals, veterans' counselors, and veterans' assistance centers everywhere. And there are plenty of public libraries where those without personal computers can look up their local veterans' assistance facilities.

Homeless Vietnam veterans have no excuse. By now, they should have found the help they need. Therefore, they get no money from me.

Which brings me to a recent interaction I had with a panhandler. I have never been so insulted or wanted to physically confront a panhandler so much in my life.

On the way to visit my parents a few weeks ago, I exited I-95 in Melbourne, Florida. At the intersection of Eau Gallie Road and John Rhodes Boulevard, I stopped at a red light. In the median was a disheveled man with a scruffy beard and old clothes. He was carrying a small sign that read "Love / God Bless".

I was the third car in line waiting for the light in the left turning lane. As the disheveled man began walking the line, his eyes locked into mine. I knew he was headed my way. Perhaps he thought the fact that I was looking at him meant I was interested in providing assistance.

As he walked up to my car, I turned down the stereo (Slayer, of course). He was near my car when I broke the ice.

"How are you?" I asked.

"Vietnam vet," he replied.

Not an expected answer, so I asked him to repeat himself.

"Vietnam vet," he said again.

"That's cool," I replied, immediately shifting into my stubborn stance of not assisting veterans from that conflict. Had he said that he need money for beer or that he was a recovering crack addict, I would have helped. But not a dime to panhandling 'Nam veterans.

Of course, I could have questioned his credibility and asked him what unit he was with. That's not a bad option. If he stated a unit and mission, that might have improved his chances of receiving a handout. Then I might be able to confirm he is the real deal. Or we could have exchanged war stories. I could have made a friend.

He then skipped the formalities and went straight for the deal.

"Can I get some money?" he asked.

Ballsy. And not a good approach.

"Sorry, I don't have any cash," I said.

After I politely rebuked his plea, the conversation turned weird. And borderline offensive.

"Yeah," he said, looking at me in disgust. "But we have millions for those Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. If you ask me, they are just a bunch of punks."

"Woah, Nellie," I thought to myself.

Did he have any idea he was talking to a Bosnia veteran who spent 14 months in Afghanistan working with the people he just called "punks"? I doubt it. If there was any chance he was getting a handout, it was obliterated, decimated, and cremated then and there.

"If you say so," I said. It was the least I could say without getting out of the car and confronting him. Which would have made for a very awkward scene.

Imagine if someone got out of a car to fight a homeless person. People in cars are supposed to be more civil. What would the other drivers think if a driver exited their car to pummel a panhandler? Drivers have the power to put up the window and drive away, if possible. They are expected to exercise that power if needed. They are not supposed to engage panhandlers in pugilism.

"You disagree?" he continued. I don't think he understood that I was offended by his line of panhandling.

"Yes, I do," I said. "But you keep on thinking that."

Before he could reply, the light turned green, the cars in front moved forward, and I pressed the gas pedal to drive away from the disheveled malcontent.

I can't imagine this particular panhandler being very successful in his game. Insulting veterans is not a good play. I hope no one gave him a dime.

Normally, I am helpful to the unfortunate. I know I would want people to give me a hand if I was ever completely down on my luck. But while Clark Brooks didn't have any hard rules on who to give or not give to, I have one solid one:

I won't give a dime to people who insult me or people I think highly of.

If they stick to that rule, everything else is cream cheese.

Thoughts on Ferguson and the Militarization of Police in America

The situation in Ferguson, Missouri continues to dominate social media. What started as a sad situation when a police officer killed a teenager has turned into much more with protests, demonstrations, looting, and an increased police presence that borders on an occupation.

I am far from Ferguson. I have no first-hand experience nor first-hand knowledge of the situation. But I did want to organize my thoughts in regards to the many discussions going on. Twitter and other social media platforms might be great for news and rapid responses, but social phenomenon and analysis are not done well in 140 characters.

Why I have this blog.

I am going to skip the incident that caused the situation and the racial makeup of Ferguson versus the racial makeup of the powers that be in area. That has been discussed in length in many other places. There are many angles to that situation that I don't know.

What I want to discuss is the concept of power.

International Affairs professor Steve Saideman wrote a really good piece today for OpenCanada.org where he compared the situations in Iraq, Israel/Gaza, and Ferguson. Saideman writes that in each instance, the trust in government and use of power was not correct. He writes that each situation boiled down to deterance and assurance - the ability of a government to deter a bad thing from happening and its ability to assure the populace that only the right amount of power will be used.

According to Saideman,

deterrence is a threat with a promise —that if you do nothing bad, nothing bad will happen to you

When America was first created, long ago in the days of our "Founding Fathers", the nation was built on the premise that power should be controlled. That the central government should not have the amount of power used by the British crown. This is the philosophy behind many of the amendments. The Constitution by nature is a restrictive document.

But Saideman states that perhaps even here in America, democracy has lost its power to control power.

Democracy is seen as the solution to this problem of combining effective governance and restrained governance.  Indeed, some of the chapters in our book make that quite clear.  Yet, even in democracies, the balancing act continues with swings towards too much coercion and too little assurance leading to tensions and conflict.  The situation in Ferguson in the U.S., where protests and even perhaps a riot have followed the shooting of a young, African-American man, illustrates this.  We need police to have the capability to use force, but we need that use of force to be limited and targeted or else the police lose legitimacy.

Which brings me to my second point, that the most extreme insurance against the imbalance of power has been eroded to the point of ineffectiveness.

"Open Carry is White Privilege"

Earlier Wednesday, I saw several tweets comparing the situation in Ferguson - where an unarmed teenager was shot - to situations in Texas, where 2nd Amendment supporters are carrying their rifles on their shoulders as they go to Wal-Mart, gas stations, church, etc. The tweets said this was a clear example of "white privilege", that the rifle-carrying persons were not seen as a threat because of the color of their skin, while the unarmed teenager, who was black, was seen as a threat solely because of the color of his skin.

I disagree completely. Open carry is not only a "white" thing. Never has been.

Prior to 1967, the Black Panther Party frequent patrolled the streets of Oakland armed with rifles. According to PBS.org,

The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.

The rifles were not necessarily to shoot cops, but to portray legitimacy, that the Panthers could deter and assure. According to a University of Virginia website,

The gun was a rhetorical tool, deployed to impress black urban audiences and to warn law enforcement officers and other outsiders. Newton described the emphasis on the gun as “a necessary phase in [the Panthers’] evolution, based on Frantz Fanon’s contention that the people have to be shown that the colonizers and their agents—the police—are not bulletproof

Unfortunately for the Black Panthers, their power was neutered with the passing of the Mulford Act, which restricted open carry ability in California. This bill, like many other gun control bills in America, was designed specifically to restrict the power of African-Americans.

(Of course, notice the racial undertones of the image to the right. "Invaded" by a "Armed Negro Band".)

Community Leaders

Armed or not, the Black Panthers had something the people in the streets of Ferguson do not have: leadership - specifically organized local leadership to either continue protest or negotiate on the streets. While organizations such as the NAACP and national spokespeople such as Al Sharpton make their faces shown, there should be church leaders and neighborhood spokespeople who can control, speak for, and when needed, police communities. Of course, neither the right-wing mainstream media or the left-wing mainstream media dare mention the ability of a community to police itself using guns. They believe either a) guns and should only be used by those in power or b) only be used to protect homes and individual persons.

That's what most people believe and what most people have voted for.

And that's why the power pendulum has swung so far to the system and out of the hands of the people.

To quote Boots Riley of the controversial rap group The Coup: "I got faith in the people and they power to fight / We gon' make this struggle blossom like a flower to light"

Examples of Power

Slowly but surely, I am starting to see more people comment on the "militarization of police forces" in America. This has been the case for a while, but if the situation in Ferguson promotes change, then I'm glad people are finally on board. Even non-news media are talking about it.

(Bill Maher had an interesting take here. A few too many bad punchlines, but good points.)

During the 2012 Republican Convention, I was shocked to see pictures of the security forces. The police and security forces were not the usual run-of-the-mill beat cops, they were heavily armed, SWAT troops. As well, blocks around downtown Tampa were blocked off and people had to show identification cards in order to enter the area. There was even debate whether drones were used. All this for a convention.

Less than a year later, after the Boston Marathon bombings, hundreds of police swarmed the streets armed to the teeth, looking for one man. There was no way the bomber could have had enough firepower to topple the Boston police force. Impossible.

Trust of the populace

One of our biggest problems in the US is trust.

Not only do we not trust each other, the powers that be do not trust the populace. There is the assumption that the populace is "up to no good". This is a really bad assumption. It is what got the US military in trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't until the Petraeus doctrine was enacted and counterinsurgency modified to integration not occupation, did US forces start developing bonds of trust with local populaces.

We have police forces in the United States that don't understand that. Forces can be all-white, all-black, all-Asian, all-Hispanic, or all from Mars, if they don't understand the concerns of the populace, then any effort to be seen as positive contributors will be lost. Police need to be seen as a positive presence, not occupiers. In Ferguson in the last few days, with their tear gas, armored personnel carriers, bullet proof vests, shields, batons, and attempts to silence the media, the police are definitely playing the role of occupiers.

Which brings me to another interesting point. We have in a sense, dehumanized the police. They are the authority, the power, The MAN. But I wonder what goes through their heads when they stand their with their armor and their shields. Are they scared? Are they nervous? How much has their training become instinct? When they make a mistake, it is because they were trained wrong, or because they panicked and did what they thought was right?

We have to understand both sides are human. It is easy to humanize protestors. But we also have to remember in many cases the people in uniform also have families and children and the same concern for human life. Unless they are cold-hearted, jack-booted thugs, which may be possible. Then again, some protestors may be anarchists or wannabe martyrs. But the odds are small of radicals on either side.

Solutions

Again, I am not there. I have no idea the political situation or the personalities involved. But I don't like analyzing something if I am not going to give a "now what?".

Hopefully based on the bad public relations the Ferguson police force received, police forces across the country will review their doctrines and processes. Maybe increase their level of work with community leaders to establish boundaries, processes, and equipment use.

Maybe governors across the United States will put limits on police force equipment acquisitions. The US has limits on personal weapon capabilities. Why not limit the power of the authorities to match or be slightly above the degree of average weaponry owned by the people of the community? Weapon restriction is a state issue or something that can be handled at the local level. I wonder if that is a platform that would garner support in an election. Would people back a candidate who says they are going to reign in police? Better yet, could they?

In the meantime, a short term solution could be a legal person accompanying the police in every action. This legal representative would ensure laws are followed and rights are respected. If this is too consuming, perhaps ridealongs should be mandatory only while forces build relationships within communities.

As for Ferguson, Missouri, they need to take their relationship with the community back to square one. It is broken. There is no way the police will be trusted there again. Their credibility is shot. So too is their ability to deter and assure.

Just some thoughts.

The annoying trend of phones at concerts

FIX

Regular readers of this site know I am an avid concert-goer. I am at a live music performance at least every other week (gotta leave some time for stand-up comedy and pro wrestling).

By far one of the worst recent trends at concerts is the increasing inclination of concert goers to stick their phones in the air and attempt to record performances.

There is one and only one reason people do this: so they can upload them to YouTube and hope the rest of the fanbase sees their work. I guess they feel they have to put the videos out there for the advancement of the fanbase and maybe the advancement of their ego.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with taking a picture of a concert. Although there are professionals that do that better, a self-taken picture at a unique angle makes a nice memento. But taking a picture doesn't last long and the phone or camera is usually back below eye level in a moment or two.

Completely recording performances, on the other hand, has to stop. It is incredibly annoying and serves no purpose.

None.

Take a look at the following videos. Same song, same concert. The first was taken by RockScene.com. The second by some person in the audience.



Pretty professional, no? Sounded good, good view of the whole stage, and not obstructed at all.

Now watch video 2.



Not very good at all. Limited view of the stage. Can't get a view of the performance. Sound is worse. And everyone around also has their phone in the air trying to take video. The other phones are cannibalizing the video.

What is the point of everyone trying to take a video of a concert? Do we really need 500 different YouTube videos of the same song? Do these people really not trust that the performance will be recorded and uploaded by someone who can get a good shot or good location?

Perhaps the people who want a recording can volunteer one person to record the show. That person would bring an HD camera to the show, set up, and record. Then, after the show, they would upload the video to YouTube. If people want to make sure they see it, they can put their email address or phone number on a list and the uploader will ensure the person requesting gets a link.

Sounds ridiculous, right? But so is the plague of recording concerts with phones. Unfortunately, knowing our society's need to video or take photos of everything, I don't think it will ever go away.

Unless Glenn Danzig does something about it.

Popular Delusions, Witchcraft accusations, and injustice

I've been reading "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" lately. Written in 1851 by Charles Mackay, the book is a fascinating look at crowd phenomenons and events that have upset social fabrics in Europe, from the 1200s to the 1830s.

Although the chapters on alchemy and the Crusades were interesting, perhaps the most eye-opening chapter was that on witchcraft. For nearly 200 years, people - mostly old, lonely women - were put to death on suspicion of being witches. So bad was the hysteria the onus was on people to prove they were not witches in order to not be put to the stake, drowned, or killed in other cruel devices. They were guilty until proven innocent.

And anyone could accuse anyone of being a witch. Mackay writes of children accusing adults and adults accusing children of witchcraft.

Eventually, the tide turned on accusers, and not only were people they accused innocent until overwhelming evidence could be provided, but soon accusers were prosecuted for faulty accusations.

However, all of Europe did not advance at the same pace. Here is one of the more interesting cases:

Julian Desbourdes, aged fifty-three, a mason, and inhabitant of the village of Thilouze, near Bordeaux, was taken suddenly ill, in the month of January 1818. As he did not know how to account for his malady, he suspected at last that he was bewitched. He communicated this suspicion to his son-in-law, Bridier, and they both went to consult a sort of idiot, named Baudouin, who passed for a conjuror, or white-witch. This man told them that Desbourdes was certainly bewitched, and offered to accompany them to the house of an old man, named Renard, who, he said, was undoubtedly the criminal. On the night of the 23rd of January all three proceeded stealthily to the dwelling of Renard, and accused him of afflicting persons with diseases, by the aid of the devil. Desbourdes fell on his knees, and earnestly entreated to be restored to his former health, promising that he would take no measures against him for the evil he had done. The old man denied in the strongest terms that he was a wizard; and when Desbourdes still pressed him to remove the spell from him, he said he knew nothing about the spell, and refused to remove it. The idiot Baudouin, the white-witch, now interfered, and told his companions that no relief for the malady could ever be procured until the old man confessed his guilt. To force him to confession they lighted some sticks of sulphur, which they had brought with them for the purpose, and placed them under the old man's nose. In a few moments, he fell down suffocated and apparently lifeless. They were all greatly alarmed; and thinking that they had killed the man, they carried him out and threw him into a neighbouring pond, hoping to make it appear that he had fallen in accidentally. The pond, however, was not very deep, and the coolness of the water reviving the old man, he opened his eyes and sat up. Desbourdes and Bridier, who were still waiting on the bank, were now more alarmed than before, lest he should recover and inform against them. They, therefore, waded into the pond--seized their victim by the hair of the head--beat him severely, and then held him under water till he was drowned.

They were all three apprehended on the charge of murder a few days afterwards. Desbourdes and Bridier were found guilty of aggravated manslaughter only, and sentenced to be burnt on the back, and to work in the galleys for life. The white-witch Baudouin was acquitted, on the ground of insanity.

So for no reason, they killed a guy. Then they got off with only aggravated manslaughter. And the ringleader was acquitted.

Amazing.

If you are interested, this book is available for free download here or in html form here. Although it is a bit of a read at over 700 pages, it is worth it just to see how stupid, naive, and insane societies were and continue to be.

Charlie Brown: The Last Lovable Loser

The economy is in the crapper.

People fight and kill over religion.

Gas prices are high.

You still can't pee on the Alamo.

But at least you're not Charlie Brown.



You know, sometimes I think the fact that Charlie Brown was such a lovable loser was good for society back in the day. There aren't any new lovable losers anymore. There are characters that keep failing and make a show of it or ones that act out to fight their oppressors - they would have fought Lucy or punched her in the nose. But they don't have the grace of Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown isn't a bad guy, he is just a guy who didn't win.

And no one gave him a trophy just for showing up, either. He went home empty handed.

Then he tried again.

Victor Licata, Trayvon Martin, and Marijuana

Few people have a favorite ax murder. Devouring details of people hacked to death is usually the territory of criminologists or psychopaths.

Yet ever since I learned the epic ax murder that changed the face of public opinion on marijuana occurred in Tampa’s Ybor City, I have been enamored with the case of Victor Licata.

To summarize, on the night of October 17, 1933, someone killed five members of the Licata family with an ax. According to police reports, blood was everywhere. From author Paul Guzzo’s article in a 2011 issue of Cigar City Magazine:

“On the bed in the front room they found Michael Licata lying in a welter of blood, killed with one swing of an axe. In the adjoining bedroom they found the bodies of the family’s 22-year-old soon-to-be-married daughter, Prudence, and her 8-year-old brother, Jose, both hacked to death. In the rear bedroom they found the murdered mother, 44-year-old Rosalie. On the bed beside her lay her 14-year-old son, Philip, alive but suffering from numerous axe wounds. And lying on the floor next to the bed was the murder weapon–a blood-stained axe.”

Reports continue by stating the police found 21-year old Victor Licata, the sole Licata family member still alive, cowering in his room with blood stains on his shirt.

Sounds like an open and closed case, right?

Not so fast.

Victor Licata’s supposed use of marijuana (he was labeled the “Marihuana Maniac”) was a key part of the prosecution. The fact that marijuana was associated with the murder made the drug public enemy number one, leading to the “Reefer Madness” phenomenon.

It also led to many pro-marijuana advocates to re-examine the Licata case. A few writers even believe Licata was innocent. That's what makes the case so interesting.

Many of their points, for example, are on the site “The Reefer Madness Museum”.

• There was a serial Axe murderer operating in the Tampa area at the time


• That the Licata family was NOT the only Tampa family cut down by an Axe murderer.


• That one of the other families slain by the serial Axe murderer was the Rowell Family - same last name as the author of "On the Trail of Marihuana, the Weed of Madness”


• That Victor Licata (to his dying day) denied that he has ever used Marihuana and that there was never a scratch of evidence to even suggest that he ever had?


• That at least one of the major players (the Detective chief who had accused Victor Licata of having committed the murders) has been caught (documented) lying about the matter?


• That much of the (alleged) evidence against Victor Licata was fabricated and so fake it wouldn’t have stood the light of day in a courtroom?


• That many of the senior people within the Tampa judicial justice system knew the truth – and choose (for whatever reason), to deliberately keep quiet?

Also adding to the dispute is Victor Licata’s size. According to reports, he was only 5’8 and 120 lbs. Not a big man by any means. Could marijuana have made a skinny young strong enough to move furniture and wield an ax with such brutality?

It is now pretty much popular consensus that marijuana did not play a huge role in the Licata family murders. Medical reports indicate Victor Licata had several other mental problems, and wasn’t exactly fit for society. And back in the day, Tampa wasn't exactly a paradise of proper legal process. So there may just be room for debate.

As it is my "favorite" ax murder, the other day I mentioned the Licata case on twitter to Tampa Bay Times writer Ben Montgomery. Montgomery has been tweeting about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial since it started and was discussing Martin’s supposed use of marijuana and what role if any the drug might have played in the incident that led to Martin’s death.

Based on our discussion, Montgomery used the Licata case as a topic for his own article comparing it to the Zimmerman case. Definitely worth the read. Check it out:

At Zimmerman trial, marijuana testimony echoes famous Tampa killings

Thoughts on Guns and Government Part 2

Since gun control is still in the news, I am again going to drop some of my ideas and theories on the subject here. Feel free to respond.

In science, Newton’s Law says Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is only transferred from potential to kinetic and back.

I believe the same theory holds with the psychological measurement of Power. Power is in every relationship we have. Bosses have power over employees, friends share power, married couples may share power depending on the culture, slave owners have power over slaves, parents have power over children, etc, etc. Every relationship is a balance of power in some way, shape, or form.

In a positive relationship, power is agreed upon. In a bad relationship, power is disputed.

This goes for individuals, tribes, governments, and even nation states.

In a global community, a nation can only be as powerful as other nations let it. Unless it is the top nation, then no nation can stop it.

Likewise, a government can only be as powerful as its citizens let it. If the people revolt, either they will overthrow the government, die as martyrs, or accept the power of the government. The American constitution was written to ensure the central government cannot have more power than the people. It was spawned from the rejection of a powerful kingdom. Checks and balances were placed in the American Constitution so no body of government could be more powerful than any other.

The US Constitution is a miraculous document. Nowhere in its pages allowed for unchecked power.

With that in mind, let’s look at Power. To many, violence equals power, weapons equal power, and guns equal power.

A chief may hold the sole rifle in a tribe. A nation with more nukes is considered more powerful. Some nations such as Iran aspire to have nukes to raise their power profile in their region.

This is why we have arms races and huge defense budgets.

Someone with a gun is considered more powerful than someone without, especially among the masses.

Consider this:

In 1999, Amoundo Diallo was shot 41 times by New York City cops.

In 2006, Sean Bell and friends were shot 50 times by cops.

In 2012, US Army SSG Robert Bales went into an Afghan village and shot 16 people, including nine children.

These are all examples of the powerful misusing their tools of power on the powerless.

In none of these cases was the ability to bear arms questioned or repealed in any way.

Going back to the national level, over the last 100 years American military, police, and government power has grown unchecked. In the 19^th century, military forces belonged to the state. After the Civil War, soldiers and sailors were organized into a true national military able to project force worldwide. America vastly changed its socio-military culture.

America now has the largest military in the world by far. There is no way any organized military can defeat it. There is also no way any group of citizens or revolutionaries can defeat it either. In its current state, America will probably only collapse under its own weight – budget collapses, etc. That is what happens to all empires.

However, we also have a volunteer military. If revolution were to happen in America, which way would they go? State pride is much lower than it was during the days of Robert E. Lee, so few would leave because of love of state or region, such as the South or Virginia. Would American soldiers turn their arms on American citizens? Or would they lay down their arms and join the proletariat as Russian soldiers did during the Russian Revolution when they failed to get paid or equipped? And what would happen to the nation’s weapon systems if the volunteer force quit?

With all this in mind, in the wake of massacres done by mentally unstable people in America, lawmakers (those with power) are discussing ways to disarm the populace further tipping the balance of power away from the citizens.

Maybe I have listened to too much Public Enemy but I worry about a nation that grants its government unchecked power. I worry about a nation that has far more firepower than its citizens. What if a better form of government was thought up, say as Marx did for Russia or Jefferson did for America? Could we ever uproot our form of government and enact another?

That would take a lot of power.

By the way, I once wrote an article claiming that people who were anti-gun should be for the Iraq war because our premise was that we disarming Saddam Hussein and removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We were exercising global weapons control. I also wrote that pro-gun people should be for Saddam having weapons equal to his neighbors, after all, an armed society is a polite society, or something like that.

Unfortunately, as it was counter the real-life opinions on the war, few understood it.

Thoughts on gang treaties, world peace, and Wal-Mart

These are somewhat old thoughts, but I think they are still relevant.

I frequently read John Robb's Global Guerrillas blog. Robb is a smart guy who often writes about guerrilla warfare, networked organizations, and independent sustainable communities. It's high-level stuff and highly theoretical, but with the way the world is going these days, you gotta stay informed.

Besides reading Robb's stuff, I also like watching shows on gangs and gang violence. I'll watch shows on biker gangs, the Crips, the Bloods, Friends Stand United (can you believe there is a gang that's initials are "FSU"?), or any other motley assortment of related thugs, hoodlums, gangstas, rapscallions, rascals, or droogs, especially those from America. I think the fact that we can't stop these organizations here in America, the land of milk and honey and Budweiser and McDonalds, makes Robb's work that much more relevant.

Sometime ago - not sure when - I was watching one of the many shows/documentaries on the South Central LA gang scene of the 1980-90s. According to a lot of sources, South Central was for all extents and purposes a warzone. However, on April 27, 1992 a peace treaty was signed between the Bloods and the Crips. In the years that followed, gang violence dropped dramatically.

According to Alex Alonso on StreetGangs.com,

In 1992, shortly before the urban unrest of April 29, 1992, a cease-fire was already in effect in Watts, and after the unrest, a peace treaty was developed among the largest black gangs in Watts. Early on, the police started to credit the truce for the sharp drop in gang-related homicides (Berger 1992). Homicides remained relatively stable for the two years following 1993, and in 1996, there was a notable 25 percent drop in gang-related homicides from the previous year. By 1998 gang-related homicides were at their lowest rate in over ten years despite the increasing number of gang members over the same period.

If we could get the Crips and the Bloods to sit down and work things out, why can't we get other groups? Why can't we get Israel and Palestine to figure things out? Why can't we get the drug gangs of Mexico, Columbia, and other South American nations to come to the table and declare ceasefires?

We need to focus on the disenfranchised folks. Not the highfalutin muckity mucks in power. They aren't the ones pulling triggers. They are the ones sending people to war. Although the world is slowly slipping from most major governments, those in power can still guide the plane into a less than tragic crash. Unfortunately, those with power are harder to convince that change is not only needed, it is possible. Most of those people are suckers to stacks of financial compensation.

The poor and destitute, however, are the ones whose loyalties are more easily malleable. They are the ones begging for a sense of importance and identity. They are the ones who join gangs, join violent religious movements (to include Al Qaeda). We need to focus on the needs of individuals, not nations.

As the old saying goes, teach a man to fish and he can eat for a lifetime. But when it comes to preventing gang violence, if you give a man a job, he'll stays out of trouble.

Getting people of all classes and organizational structures to talk and then finding the disenfranchised among them and putting them to work is the only answer.

Another of course is building 60,000 more Wal-Marts in conflict areas around the world and putting the remaining global population to work where most of America already does.

Musing about politics

I know I have been all over the map with my topics lately. With the election season in full effect, there are a few things on my mind I wanted to put into words.

1) A few weeks ago BBC News and several other news outlets reported that White people of European descent will no longer be the majority in America by the year 2042. What effect will this have on the Republican party? As America becomes more multi-ethnic, will the Republican Party - stereotypically known as the party for White males - be able to adapt? If they don't, what will happen when they are mathematically eliminated before an election begins? Evolution is normal in political parties, but I think the Republican Party has to start planning for change now if it wants to be relevant in 50 years. That could be difficult for a party that touts itself as traditional and conservative.

2) On a related note, don't be surprised if the Democratic Party breaks apart and a new party emerges when a minority group decides the party line isn't best for them. We almost saw a splinter faction this year, but the solidarity of the GOP is forcing Democrats to vote as one bloc. If the GOP ceases to be relevant, the Democratic Party might not be able to hold the monopoly on their many diverse voices. It should be interesting.

3) A lot was made last week about Gov. Palin's pregnant daughter. What bothered me most was the young girl's boyfriend was immediately labeled Miss Palin's "husband-to-be". There is a verse in one of the songs of socially conscious hip-hop group The Coup in which Boots Riley raps:

I heard a lot of bad things about teenage mothers
From those who don't really give a fuck about life
She said "It ain't so much that they startin' out younger"
"It's just they supposed to be more like a wife"
Meanin' you ain't shit without a man to guide you
If ya mama tried to feed you that she lied too

The Bristol Palin controversy seemed eerily familiar to the family-first stance Dan Quayle took against Murphy Brown. Oddly, not much of the mainstream media is making that connection (this blog comes up first in a Google search). Maybe they are scared. Whatever the reason, in a land where a man without a solid nuclear "mother and father" family unit is running for president, does it really matter that a child is raised with a husband and wife in an average house with a mini-van and a white picket fence, as long as the child is raised with good morals and ideals and is hopefully a productive member of society?

4) I enjoy talking politics with a few people at my work. Sometimes, however, they baffle me. The other day, for example, one of my co-workers, a staunch conservative, said he liked watching Fox News because it "reaffirmed his views".

That is the exact reason NOT to watch.

I always try to keep an open mind, whether in discussions or in the media I absorb. My personal library is a smorgasbord of various philosophies, opinions, and mantras from Islam to Christianity to Buddhism to 1960s-era Black Nationalism to theories on warfare to books on the beatnik and hippie movements. How can someone understand the points of view of others if they only stay in their lane? Even if someone lives by one view, they should at least understand the mindset of other views. Anything less is ignorant.

5) Last but not least, fellow blogger MC Bias, a longtime friend of The Serious Tip, has a really good post on the dearth of conservative views in the sports blogosphere. He is definitely right. Although sports and politics don't mix too often, when they do the opinions tend to lean to the left. Although I commented that perhaps the reason was merely due to demographic and technological adoption (John McCain doesn't use email, remember?), perhaps it is also because sports is usually more progressive than most of society. This is especially true socially (Jackie Robinson came long before the Civil Rights Movement) and economically (isn't revenue sharing basically socialist?).

My favorite albums of 2006

Here is a schizophrenic scatological smattering of semi-conscious ponderings. In other words, my favorite tunes of 2006. Enjoy.


My top 11 CD releases of 2006:

11) Black Stone Cherry - Black Stone Cherry: Think a hard-rock 70's throwback band with a Ronnie Van Sant wanna-be on vocals. Listeners must like Zakk Wylde, Skynyrd, and long walks on the beach.

10) Audioslave - Revelations: I definitely thought this CD was better than Audioslave's second release. It seems like these guys are pumping out songs like they were mass produced by 8-year old sweatshop workers. Wait, Tom Morello might disapprove of that.

9) Method Man - 4:21... The Day After: A little older, a little more mature sounding Method Man bringing the southpaw style with guests Ol' Dirty Bastard, Lauren Hill, and Redman.

8) Pearl Jam - Pearl Jam: After a disappointing Riot Act, I was pleasantly enamored with this album. Good to see Pearl Jam back again.

7) Robert Randolph & The Family Band - Colorblind: Real good funk, jazz, gospel, rock thing going on. And Robert Randolph is a big Mets fan.

6) Buckcherry - 15: I never figured out why they called it 15. There are only 11 songs. Although they do kick ass like 15 songs of your average white band.

5) Jurassic 5 - Feedback: There is not a bad song on this CD, even the one with Dave Matthews is good. As a bonus they quote some old school, pre-"Are We There Yet?" Ice Cube.

4) Drive-By Truckers - A Blessing and a Curse: Some good ol' southern rock. Everybody seemed to have this on their "best of" list. Screw it, I liked it anyway.

3) Public Enemy f/ Paris - Rebirth of a Nation: Nothing better than militant political rap by two of the genre's best: Paris and Chuck D. Even Flavor Flav cameos with some old school, pre-Flavor of Love rhymes.

2) Cowboys from Hell and David Allen Coe - Rebel Meets Rebel: Dimebag Darrell, Vinnie Paul, and Rex Brown formerly of Pantera join forces with country outlaw legend David Allen Coe in what was Dimebag's last recording. A kick-ass one at that. RIP Dime.

1) The Coup - Pick a Bigger Weapon: Think Public Enemy mixed with heaping servings of Parliament-Funkadelic and you have The Coup. Socialist, communist, militant, anarchist, whatever ... with songs like "Laugh, Love, F*** (and drink liquor)", how can you go wrong?