30 May 2009

The First Post!

This is the first Wandering Gentile post from the summer of 2003, discovered in the bowels of my Yahoo account. It is brought to the Gentle Reader in celebration of our hundredth post. We apologize for the pretentious use of Canadianized English, but hell, it seemed like a good idea at the time.


The same excuse goes for the first G.W. Bush administration, spicy food, and any automobile built in the 1970s.


Glad you're here, and thanks for spending time with The Wandering Gentile.


Gil.




Such a week, such a week.

The face of evil was found on the face of a 31-year-old trucker from Schenectady, and it is a perfect irony. A black man was trafficking slaves. They were a commodity he was being paid to ship, just as his ancestors were on the ships out of Africa. They were a commodity to be sold for their labour in the streets of scores of municipalities across this great nation.

It is with a heavy heart that one observes the complete lack of understanding this grave situation engendered. The trucker had cargo he was being paid for. The condition of the cargo did not matter to him. He did not consider the value of dead slaves on the open market:none. The black trucker's ancestors were valued more than the cargo he let die.

Such is the course of human bondage in the twenty first century. Aliens without documents, education or legal recourse are better than slaves. They are expendable. When one dies or is deported, another five are queued for his place on the farm or in the chicken processing plant. These are menial jobs that most natives of the United States are not willing to take.

This is not a defence of undocumented immigration...both of the enabling principals;i.e. the immigrants and the employers are equally guilty, but this is not exactly true.

An undocumented alien does not have the education to understand that the United States disproportionately punishes a hungry neighbour for daring to seek scraps of our affluence in the rubbish bin. Yet there is no equivalent compulsion that would sanction someone who willingly seeks the hungry so that he may give them only scraps.

Those who employ...and they do so knowingly...the undocumented face nonexistent scrutiny. Criminalising poverty does not repair the problem. The procedural crime must be less than the crime that engenders the procedural issue. People with education know better. The employers...at the highest level...must be accountable.

The issues at more than one famous poultry processor are examplar. Large contributions to the previous administration appeared, and few charges have been filed. More contributions followed to the subsequent administration. Both political parties are equally culpable. But a deported undocumented employee has no voice, and more often than not, no paycheck.

Anyone who believes that no one knew that there were deliberate mechanisms to recruit and employ undocumented workers in the poultry industry has never been to places like Gainesville, Georgia, or Chincoteague, Virginia, or any other place with a large poultry processing plant. As recently as fifteen or twenty years ago, the poultry industry was employing U.S. citizens.

Once it was discovered that undocumented aliens do not speak out to the Labor Department or OSHA, the Americans went out on a rail.

The eighteen who died on that truck in south Texas last week may not have been seeking employment in a poultry processor, but the conditions that make undocumented employees attractive to poultry processors empower the exploitative in many industries.

Eighteen lives were worth US$2500 to a black trucker from Schenectady. Slaves are now rented instead of owned. Where are the Democrats from the civil rights community and the Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican party?

The civil rights community will defend the black man and there will be Republicans who seek less scrutiny of business practices in spite of TR's abhorrence of injustice. It is a disgusting headstone for eighteen hungry people who died last week, and not worthy of the people of this Nation.




29 May 2009

Father Cutie (Pie?)

Father Alberto Cutie (It's pronounced koo-tee-AY, not QT, for our wise guy reader friends,) is preparing to celebrate his first Mass in the Anglican rite this Sunday in Miami. And yet the debate no longer proceeds with regard to the issue of Celibacy and the Roman Catholic Church.

You see, Father Alberto got run off by the Roman Catholic Church for a relationship with a woman. His relationship appears to be healthy, mature, and expressive. His fiancee is, by all indications, an affectionate and caring lady who is fully age-appropriate.

Yes, this is a "now, let me get this straight," moment. Priests who committed the most heinous acts of homosexual pedophilia were permitted to remain in service while church hierarchy covered up their deeds, but a healthy, adult heterosexual relationship is grounds to eliminate a clergyman from consideration?

If men are created in God's image, one hopes that the part of men going "huh?" is directly derived from God's Personality. Otherwise, we may be in some deep stuff here.

Full disclosure-your Wandering Gentile has effective baptisms in both the Roman and Anglican rites-the details of having two baptisms being unnecessary for the narrative here. Let it be said that I was very devout and sincere in my practice of Roman Catholicism for over twenty years. My discussion was not with Jesus Christ, but with those who portray themselves as holding the patent and exclusive license to my Lord and Savior.

I had a disastrous encounter in South Georgia with a Pentecostal church. The worshippers appeared to my liturgically-informed sensibilities to be suffering from broken legs, i.e., rolling on the floor, crying and yelling "JESUS!" Upon returning to metropolitan Atlanta, I attempted to reconcile with the faith which had once brought me great joy.

The administrations of two different archbishops in the Atlanta Archdiocese had changed the character of the church as I had known it. As a worshipper, I leaned more toward the young Karol Wojtyla's example of social activism and pursuit of justice. It could be described as more Martin Sheen than Mel Gibson. There was great emphasis on connecting the Word to those who had been cast aside. There was an outreach to those who were already out of the womb but as yet not connected spiritually.

That was an exciting time, but it is long since past. When I got back, I found my local parish to be filled to the rafters with people willing to hear the Word of God. The priest apparently got his catechism directly from Sean Hannity, because his Homily included a very unsubtle, and frankly offensive suggestion that the undocumented repatriate immediately. This was during a SPANISH LANGUAGE Mass.

That was the beginning of the Jeremiah Wright phase. The real question was more along the lines of "Do I want to spend Eternity with it being run by people like him?" I did what I could to give the priest a fair hearing. I did not bail out immediately. I stayed for six more months. He did not get better.

Finally, I was informed that if I wanted to attend Mass in that parish, I would have to park across a busy four-lane boulevard. The church's parking lot was reserved for a group which had scheduled in conflict with the Spanish language Mass. They wanted the Lexuses and Cadillacs, and those of us in Escorts and Minivans could be inconvenienced. We would keep coming back.

One of us did not, will not return. I parked across the street, unwilling to be taken for granted. The next Sunday, I found the Anglican parish on the other side of my Atlanta suburb.

The priest spoke of Reconciliation and Hope, the communion of humanity and their Creator. The hymns, the prayers, and the language of faith were from a lexicon all but abandoned by the Roman Catholic parish a short distance away. It was a return to the faith, if not the denomination which had structured my beliefs. In other words, I was home after a long time away.

One hopes that the telegenic Father Alberto will feel the same. Most of those who practice a Christian faith are inclined to seeking reconciliation with God. One imagines that questioning a rule about Celibacy which appears not in the Gospel, but in an admonition from St. Paul, may not preclude a good servant of the Lord from continuing to inspire as he did previously.

Question not the kind priest from Miami who fell in love. Question the hierarchy which would consider him expendable, when they tolerate so many behaviors which estrange men from God.

Judge Sotomayor

There is something satisfying about watching Republicans in a state of absolute public impotence. Please understand, this is not to refute the general impotence that compels a disproportionate number of Viagra ads on Rush Limbaugh-or Mr. Limbaugh's questionably obtained mass quantity of the drug. No, one refers to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the minority woman who has become untouchable.

President Obama has the prerogative to select the candidate he feels is best suited to being the next high court justice. Kudos to Senator McCain for stepping back quickly with the words, "...elections have consequences." Indeed, one could suggest that Mr. McCain is the prototypical centrist, once identified as Republican and now suffering the hangover of two Bush terms. After all, McCain was patient zero in the Bush disaster.

Returning to the theme of Judge Sotomayor's nomination, the facts are such: President Obama is in a position to select a candidate closely reflective of his own center-left politics. At the same time, Obama is in a position to acknowledge the contribution of an ethnic group to his candidacy. Finally, he has the option of a supremely qualified candidate who lives in this political neighborhood.

Now this is about to become fun-like watching Radio Disney switch to an all Garage Rock format.

First and foremost, the most partisan Republicans are going to come after Judge Sotomayor for her ethnicity. Hello? Does anyone think that Roberts, Alito, or Scalia were not given a pass by Republican principals for the simple fact of being white males? Of course they were. Part of the decision to pick the three of them is to reflect the concerns of conservative phallo-centric whites.

Sotomayor is no more or no less racially motivated than Roberts, Alito or Scalia. If that is a concern for the reader, perhaps the reader may wish to reconsider some of his or her own perspectives upon race. One suspects that Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) are suffering from a bit of projection here. Of course, part of that is because Sessions was rejected for a seat on the Federal bench by the Senate

Sessions' partner in crime, Mitch McConnell (R-KY, a/k/a Jim Bunning Lite) has raised a few concerns about Judge Sotomayor's qualifications. Way to go, Mitch! If you want to throw that rock, it's going through Clarence Thomas' roof. Judge Sotomayor has 18 years on the bench, having become a federal judge (roughly) concurrently with Thomas.

One would not feel as compelled to embrace Judge Sotomayor's nomination if, for example, she had hosted the courtroom on an afternoon television program. While one suspects that Judge Milian from The People's Court could capably run any courtroom where she sees fit-the type of court atmosphere where Judge Sotomayor is vastly different. Most of Sotomayor's litigants have a greater command of vocabulary, grammar, and precedent. They are major-leaguers in the field of being a boil on the tuchas of society.

Simply disagreeing with an individual does not make them unqualified. It is justification for withholding support, but one should be certain to have all of their ducks in a row when it comes to evaluating qualification. Should this fight continue, Mr. McConnell's emasculated little party would be in position to be splattered with all the mud.

That would not be of much concern in states like South Carolina and Alabama, where Latino votes are miniscule compared to those of black and white Americans. But in states like Texas, Florida, and Arizona a significant latino electorate would be in a position to turn out about fifteen percent of the remaining Republican senators. Georgia and North Carolina are already on the edge of being driven out of the fold. If those five large sun belt states wind up going blue, Republicans will wind up living next to the Whigs and the Know-Nothings of Millard Fillmore.

Thus it comes down to this. Republicans can pick a fight with Judge Sotomayor's supporters, and become the next inhabitants of the ash heap of history. Or they can make the discreet decision to choose a more appropriate battle. That is the choice they face in this debate.

One asks whether or not Limbaugh, Gingrich, Sessions and McConnell will choose oblivion over relevance based upon a flawed principle. One waits with bated breath.

22 May 2009

But...We're Not Dead Yet

All reports of the demise of the Republican party are as of yet, sadly, untrue. But there is hope, because they are on life support and their recent behavior is evocative of a stage 4 lung cancer patient walking into the QT for a pack of Marlboros.

A Democrat has to love Dick Cheney. His actions and outcomes are as predictable as an Univision telenovela. What Cheney says has ceased to matter as much as his smug, sarcastic delivery. Every time the man opens his mouth, he finds ways to turn off those within the eighty thousand or so people left willing to self-identify as Republicans.

Not only is Cheney unwilling to admit that his party lost six months ago, he keeps reminding the electorate as to why. Choosing a public confrontation with Barack Obama and Colin Powell is not the most appropriate form of swaying the independent voter back to the Republican Party. What is amusing is that despite both Obama and Powell being black, there has been little attention paid to the possibility of a prejudicial component.

Of course, no one harbors any illusions about Mr. Cheney having the first type of commitment to diversity-his crowd being diverse enough to include both Wonder Bread and Hellmanns Mayonnaise. The Republicans have lost all opportunity to connect with socially conservative african-american voters through Nixon's Southern Strategy. Latinos have been turned off by economic isolation strategies directed toward latinos while conflating all immigration with illicit behavior.

Thanks to Cheney coming off as a condescending (bag of fertilizer), a point has been reached where there are Republicans who feel that they no longer are white enough for their party...(see: Specter, Arlen. Before too long, also see: Steele, Michael.) An alliance with Rush Limbaugh and other quasi-sophist pundits has filled the party's ears with the idea that they're all right, but gosh dang it, they're just not conservative enough.

And Al Gore lost because he wasn't Liberal enough. That premise cost the Democrats several years of kowtowing to the anti-semitic, authoritarian Ralph Nader/Cindy Sheehan left. Leaving the center and surrendering a party to the most anti-libertarian forces of its base is a recipe for disaster. Had Gore moved further to the left in 2000, he would have lost twice the votes he got from Nader to Bush, and the whole Florida thing never would have happened.

If a party does not have a leader, they cannot manufacture one. The Republicans should ask John Kerry about that. At the moment, the choices for still-active political figures are limited to Sarah Palin and "Other," because every time Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) inserts himself into the discussion, one hears the late, great Harvey Korman saying "...too Jewish," in Blazing Saddles.

And the base is choosing to embrace Governor Palin in droves. Should Palin be the best that the Republicans can get, there is hope that the Yankees will be calling your pudgy, out-of-shape, 42-year-old Wandering Gentile to pitch...hopefully against the Red Sox. Mrs. Palin is not the cure for what ails Republicans...she is exactly what ails them; poor communication skills, a stale agenda, and an authoritarian political tack well to the right of the mainstream.

Should Republicans wish to rejoin the political forum, they have a few steps to take.

One: Conservative is not necessarily arrogant and caustic. The whole caustic and arrogant thing took off with Morton Downey, Jr.'s TV show in the late eighties, which was evocative of the radio show which predated Limbaugh in Sacramento. Reagan could be acerbic and inappropriate, but was rarely anything less than a perfect gentleman.

Democrats should not fear Sarah Palin, but they need their A game for Mike Huckabee.

Two: The whole State's Rights/Tenth Amendment resurgence that Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) has put back on the table? It doesn't work. Primarily, it appears to be a vehicle for old confederacy types to retry institutionalized bigotry against latinos. Smaller jurisdictions enacting ordinances to review nationality documents with regard to rental properties and business licenses, 287g, and like laws are a pretext to harass latinos of all legal dispositions.

What happens when a progressive state whose economy is in the toilet uses the tenth amendment to vacate the parts of federal immigration laws that they don't like. (I'm talking to you, Michigan and Rhode Island) If driver's licenses and business licenses bring in new entrepreneurs without papers and the economy takes off, the current tenth amendment fans will howl for a constitutional convention to repeal the thirteenth through the seventeenth amendments.

As if they liked those amendments in the first place.

Three: Whether they like it or not, Republicans are going to have to move left to survive. At the moment, there is a very weak railing holding their political vehicle away from a looong drop into the drink. Republican potential lies in the increase of old, angry, affluent white Christians, which is a demographic which shrank under their watch, and the trends aren't looking too good for the future.

You see, their children grew up knowing Dora as well as their parents knew Miss Piggy. Those are children comfortable with diversity. They saw the government break the country's image, social compacts, and economy within five years of a surplus of goodwill, tranquility, and money. Those children reaching voting age this year know Democrats as the party of peace, prosperity, and minimal governmental intrusion.

Remember, the people that Republicans promised us that they would be?

15 May 2009

Spanish TV and Led Zeppelin

As a result of my intercultural marriage, I am blessed with the opportunity to watch a lot of programming on the TeleCaramba network. There are only two problems.

I understand what's going on, and my wife and hijastras will not allow me to do something about it by turning the volume off and listening to Led Zeppelin instead. TeleCaramba would most appropriately serve as imagery backed by The Immigrant Song.

The top-rated show on TeleCaramba is a telenovela produced by Mexico's XCRTA-TV/TV Chilango called El Querubin, or "The Cherub." The Cherub is the story of a Very Poor Young Woman who was born a Very Rich Baby, but was given to the Church when her mother was mistakenly diagnosed with a brain tumor which turned out to be sinusitis. There are great opportunities to make this very campy and funny, but none have been taken as of yet.

The Very Poor Young Woman and her infant are perpetually imperiled, facing certain death approximately 3.2 times per every one-hour episode. Again, this could be made funny, owing to the sheer exaggeration of precarious situations, but the only thing more serious than a Bridezilla is a Latina watching her novela.

Hijastra la Mayor dared to express concern for the infant's outcome on El Querubin. Once. I explained that nothing was going to happen. First of all, we were ten minutes into the start of the show. Second of all was that the vast number of men associated with the novela and working for the various broadcasters playing a novela that dared to harm the infant would be scheduled for immediate castration.

If one understands the dialog, this program begins to grate upon the viewer almost immediately. The only thing worse than the padded rehash of Cinderella they call a script is the actress portraying the Very Poor Young Woman. Her only visible attribute is a pair of spectacularly thick eyebrows. However, judging from her acting, one suspects that she could consume a McDonald's milkshake with a coffee stirrer. How else could someone get a role that only required hugging something and crying for most of every episode?

Should the volume be turned off, one could invent his own script while listening to Robert Plant belt out Dazed and Confused.

On the bright side, El Querubin is not the Miami-based topical talk show, ?Quien Grita Mas Fuerte?

?Quien Grita Mas Fuerte? features an unappealing host, a robust, blond-bewigged woman whose dimensions approximate those of a Dodge Caravan, and guests of such unattractiveness as to inspire a rebirth of enthusiasm for eugenics. This program makes Jerry Springer look like Manners Day at the Junior League.

Sadly, ?Quien Grita Mas Fuerte? is produced by TeleCaramba in Florida, but none of the principals has, as of yet, been eaten by an alligator or a sink hole. As a result of being produced in the United States, ?Quien Grita Mas Fuerte? is not subject to the more conservative standards of the subsequent XCRTA-produced tabloid Impacto Rojo (Red Impact) which implies bloodiness and gruesomeness but is actually quite tame. Impacto Rojo seldom shows anything more controversial than a two-headed Venezuelan goat.

Which is preferable, D'yer Maker, or Hugo Chavez ranting? Yeah, you get my point.

Finally we get to TeleCaramba Noticias en Accion, or TeleCaramba Action News. It is instantly recognizable to anyone who has watched the local news in a major metropolitan area. Everything is there, right down to the Centro de Satelites, or Satellite Center. That would be a bunch of monitors in the basement.

And The Song Remains The Same.

05 May 2009

SAVAGES!

The United Kingdom has banned Michael Savage from entry, and the trolls are ballistic. One is certain that the Internet will be on fire with rantings about how the British are opposed to free speech, that the death of liberty is imminent, and the English are opposed to fairness in general. One is also certain of something else.

The trolls will be wrong.

Michael Savage is unquestionably hateful. If an award were given for fulfilling the requirements of any pejorative that the Gentle Reader deems appropriate, little question exists that Mr. Savage would be a finalist if not the grand-prize winner. He is simply not a very nice person.

Savage, nee Weiner, has been quite the firebrand for limiting access to the abundance enabled by the American constitution to white, heterosexual, Judeo-Christian, and English speaking persons who adhere to his particularly strict definitions of "Language, Borders, and Culture." No tolerance exists for those who disagree with Savage's viewpoints, while dissenting opinions are mocked as unworthy of consideration. Savage is the most unusual of creatures: a Jew whose sympathies are more closely aligned with the practices of German National Socialism.

One notes with great amusement that the first well-publicized act impeding the international movement of an individual based upon his politically sensitive speech be directed at Michael Savage. He has made his career upon advocating an agenda which specifies which opinions and groups are worthy of entry into discourse. Savage's infernal hatred of those who disagree with him has resulted in his banishment from the United Kingdom.

The British have a great tradition of discourse. One suspects little challenge to free speech actually exists in the UK, but the differences between the Magna Carta and the Constitution force the British to preclude opinions advocating antipathy for smaller populations coming from abroad. The list included a legion of bigots from multiple societal subsets.

No one is incarcerating the National Front in Britain. There is a big difference between protecting the right to minority opinion and permitting an atmosphere which empowers the same groups to impose their opinions upon others from overseas. The liberty to espouse an unpopular outlook does not bring with it the leverage to import reserves from beyond borders.

The British home office, under the auspices of the Labour party, have moved to restrict entry to radicals of multiple viewpoints. Were all of the affected from a particular, distinct religious and/or political viewpoint, or being culled from the number of British Subjects, then it would be incumbent to question a commitment to liberty of conscience.

The libertarian standard of the United States ends at the border. Michael Savage, and the numbers who agree with his narrow view of acceptable behavior in the United Kingdom will conflate tolerance and endorsement of opposing viewpoints. To challenge the unrestricted entry of persons whose presence may be considered disruptive to the well-being of societal structures is not unknown in this country, either, and Savage has been an advocate.

The real point that the British made was that if one chooses to be outspoken about one's intolerance and vehement regarding one's conditions of acceptability, then one is also expected to abide by the same standard.

There is nothing so unfair as being asked to live up to one's most bigoted criteria.