How to Destroy the United States Without a Shot

Stop for a moment and imagine Chicago as the source for everything produced in the supermarket. All of the food goes through Chicago. Then imagine that every home is built at some point in Atlanta. Then consider that everything that gets cleaned in the country at one point or another has to go through one of those two cities.

Then imagine the Chicago and Atlanta metropolitan areas gone; disowned by the United States.

Instantly, five percent of the US economy is pulled out of the equation at the consumer level. The effect at the production level is over fifty per cent for housing, food and service industries. Transportation grinds to a halt, as there is nothing to haul.

Prices for food and housing triple overnight; the loss of consumers does not add enough slack in the system to account for the lack of production.

Americans stop buying homes. Fuel costs rise because the scarce goods that need to be transported still have to go the same distances to Miami and Seattle. A lack of finished products causes riots. Poor access to fresh fruits and vegetables allows disease to run rampant in remote corners of the lower 48 states.

Food riots break out in Boston, St. Louis and Denver. Thousands perish while stalking deliveries at warehouses in Detroit and Minneapolis. Truckers abandon their careers as a hellish Road Warrior mentality strikes the Interstates, and armed gangs attack trucks containing corn flakes and oranges.

Two million truckers are out of work. Wal Mart abandons rural areas, and greeters in Birmingham are strapped with semi-automatic pistols. Five million people who worked in retail are now seeking public assistance as their jobs went away with Chicago and Atlanta.

Now we're up to 21 million. Banking and investments are slipping, putting another two million out of the private sector. Automotive production grinds to a near standstill, idling another two million in the myriad facets of that industry.

Declining tax revenues decimate the federal budget, and the armed services are forced to serve as trainers for despotic regimes worldwide who are willing to part with finished goods. Some countries remember us as a friend, but most are happy to see us fall.

Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals abandon our shores for Europe, Australia and the far east. Another ten million are gone or underemployed. Our highway system, once the envy of the world, becomes a series of potholes connected with patches.

Construction becomes a memory of better times, and eight million more are idled in New York and San Francisco, and everywhere else. Government jobs which once seemed stable and secure dry up in this atmosphere.

As a last ditch effort to save the country, California is sold to the People's Republic of China as a trade for outstanding debt going into default. Texas is returned to Mexico, and most of the Midwest is returned to France.

The south splinters off as a New Confederacy, before an eventual alliance with Canada and the Commonwealth. Florida and Puerto Rico are merged with the New Bolivarian Union under Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.

Imagine Chicago and Atlanta removed from the equation.

Then change the 14 million to illegal aliens who make up a disproportionate part of the production of food and construction industries in the United States.

Who is willing to kill the country in order to save it?

Mourning For Ethics

Jimmy Carter was once synonymous with an uncompromising commitment to principles of democracy, human rights and peace. Whether or not one agreed with his tactics or approach, there was never a question about Carter's sincerity or his unwavering faith in humanity and the standards he held himself to.

The preceding ideas do not identify a man who expresses the role of Israel in conflict with the Palestinians as "Apartheid." How quickly did former President Carter forget the celebrations by fanatics in the streets of Gaza and Ramallah, while our genuine and sincere ally was dispatching their terror response team before the towers turned to dust in the streets of lower Manhattan.

A man, a leader and a peacemaker, has shown his back to the ideals he once swore to uphold as President. Carter appears to have surrendered the integrity which was once his trademark and greatest quality. Even Carter's detractors were unable to dismiss his credibility as a force for decency and honor in the world.

About ten years ago, some large flaws began to appear in Carter's integrity, from his sanction of the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to his budding relationships with Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe. At the time there was room for accepting Carter as a dignitary with the objective of furthering America's image at home and abroad, owing to his connection with Habitat for Humanity and pivotal role (with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias) in the Central American Peace Process.

It is telling that during a joint interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, even his former Vice-President Walter Mondale expressed reservation concerning Carter's recent book. Vice-President Mondale showed great grace and tact, deferring specific commentary until he had the opportunity to articulate his concerns to Mr. Carter in private. Mondale revealed the quality of man that he is, and the continuing level of reason that he brought to the discourse.

To equate the issues of Palestinian statehood with Apartheid diminishes the value of the long struggle of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to bring justice and human rights to a long-oppressed majority in South Africa. There is no relationship between a fundamentally peaceful movement (in South Africa) and a militant Intifada.

There has been, from the outset, recognition and an atmosphere of protection for the rights of white South Africans. While there have been instances of retribution in South Africa, the transition to Majority Government cannot be characterized as a systematic process designed to abase a population which had abused its authority for so long.

In contrast, the Palestinians have relied solely upon violence as their bargaining chip. No concession has been made for the Israeli right to exist peaceably. Should Israel take steps to defend herself from military operations undertaken with the tacit economic support of nations such as Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Israel is accused of tyranny.

Hamas and Fatah are not friends of democracy, peace, nor human rights. As so many in America have stated eloquently, the only people who would survive nonviolence are the Palestinians. Were Israel to unilaterally demilitarize on Monday, Israel would cease to exist by Friday.

The question as it exists for Palestinian statehood is that such a condition depends upon Palestinian willingness to bring statehood. Intifada is not only apart from a path to statehood, it is an obstacle the size of the Pacific Ocean. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Junior, and Nelson Mandela succeeded through nonviolence and acceptance that coexistence is fundamental.

A people cannot be seen as human if they deny the humanity of their neighbors. Stateless people are not awarded an existence as a nation in the modern world by virtue of espousing an ideology of hatred and retaliation. Sometimes people, such as the Kurds and the Tibetians, are deserving of self-determination and fulfill their obligations as peaceable nations in a much broader context of oppression than the Palestinians face. Yet these worthy and dignified peoples are denied repeatedly.

Carter, as a native of Georgia, should have a better understanding of the devastation that occurs when a nation divides upon itself violently, and a people refuses to accede to even the most basic recognition of human existence for some part of the population. Atlanta burned in 1864 as southerners reacted violently to the will of the broader nation, and exactly 100 years later the same horror revisited the Deep South during the nonviolent Civil Rights movement.

The success of Civil Rights in the 1960s, or India in the 1940s, or South Africa in the 1980s owes everything to nonviolent perseverance. Israel's only option is to contain a violent threat to her existence that disavows the recognition of that right. Until Palestinians embrace Israel's right to exist and decide for themselves that self-determination cannot come about without peaceful action on their part, nothing can change.

The time has come to acknowledge the tremendous restraint that Israel has shown to Palestinians who have chosen to wreak havoc upon civilians of both populations. To contain a bellicose group is a rational and responsible action of a threatened nation. Until Palestinians desist from wanton action and come to peaceful existence with the Jewish state, Israel has no choice but to contain the Palestinians.

It is regrettable that Jimmy Carter, a man who established himself as a peacemaker, has chosen a path that puts him at odds with the very ideals that he once brought to the table. The violent action of Palestinians has brought about the current situation, and only Palestinians can bring the change that ends containment and confinement.

The Palestinians can outlaw Hamas and Fatah more quickly than Israel can. Individual Palestinians can choose a path of nonviolence. Israel has elected to demonstrate the restraint so often denied to Jewish populations, and coexist with her neighbors as long as those neighbors do not take steps to attack.

Reason is on the side of the Jewish state. Israel has never committed an unprovoked atack upon a sovereign neighbor, and has taken steps to find peaceful relationships with the hostile states surrounding her. The Palestinians have failed to govern themselves ethically or peacefully, with infighting as rampant as terrorism against Israel.

Tragically, the Palestinians need the old Jimmy Carter; his integrity; his commitment to peace and human rights; his decency...and he is nowhere to be found.

A Little Like Falling in Love

A few words about returning to one's hometown.

Atlanta has been the base of operation for your egomaniacal Wandering Gentile since 1978, and even during periods domiciled elsewhere, I returned. It is a love affair with a city that stretches back several generations.

Atlanta was then, is now, and ever shall be world without end, HOME.

It is the Braves and the Varsity; Georgia Tech and Immaculate Heart on Briarcliff; The stink of traffic on the connector and the allure of hot Quesadillas on Buford Highway. Some lament change, but it is the nature of this great city. Sherman invented urban renewal here in 1864, and that was the last time that there weren't orange barrels lining the expressways.

After several hours traveling the streets of the ATL, one who has been absent will notice people on the streets downtown and about twenty new skyscrapers going up. It's not my father's Atlanta, nor is it even the one from my adolescence. It is a new city every day.

Atlanta's lineage is in the great cities of the Northeast with the lack of boundaries from out west.

Richard Jeni once said that Chicago was founded by New Yorkers who liked the crowding and crime, but New York just wasn't cold enough in the winter. The same can be said for Atlanta, except New York summers just weren't hot or humid enough.

The skyline from the northwestern approach is a ringer for Manhattan. Drive over the hill on Georgia 280, and the casual observer could be forgiven for any and all comparisons to the view from New Jersey 3 or I280 west of the Meadowlands, coming down the hill from The Oranges and Clifton. We recognize New York's right to pride in their beautiful architecture. Our central city, built on a ridge, echoes the length of Manhattan Island if not the breadth.

At street level, Atlanta has become the vibrant city with nightlife and cultural opportunities that so many in Atlanta never believed possible. Downtown is no longer the sterile concrete canyon of 1990 or 1995. Nor is it the sterile concrete canyon of Philadelphia, Los Angeles, or Houston.

Atlanta's detractors are frequently concerned about encounters with any of the following; Gay people; Black people; Foreign people; or Jewish people. Perhaps they would be better served by avoiding Ignorant people, but how could they get up in the morning? One can avoid trite treacle like "our strength is our diversity."

Nobody in Atlanta really looks like the next person. The principal color motivating this city is green, as in money. Like Texas independents and California dreamers, Atlanta is a place for people to seek their fortunes and fulfill their destinies. If one does not like Atlanta, he or she will be encouraged to reverse their path of ingress.

Sometimes Atlanta is a cruel mistress or an abusive mother. But she is most often a sister to the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Los Angeles, Tony Bennett's San Francisco or Billy Joel's New York. Atlanta is a beloved place where everyone is from somewhere else, but their homes and roots are here on the Georgia Piedmont now.

And what a wonderful Here we have.

Calling a Spud a Spud

Michael Richards was best known as a comic with a tremendous gift for physical comedy, so his transition to stand-up is the first thing that defies comprehension. His physical portrayal of Cosmo Kramer on the defunct Seinfeld series transcended the mundane and occasionally verged upon greatness. It could have been defined as an Upper West Side Manhattan take on the work of Jackie Gleason or possibly Sid Caesar.

Taking that into consideration, perhaps the hecklers had a valid point in letting him know that his stand-up routine left something to be desired. One would expect a solid stand-up gig from Jerry Seinfeld, but might risk disappointment when words to the effect of "formerly appeared on Seinfeld," appear on the showbill. The transition to standup is one which has vexed abler comic actors than Michael Richards.

The Outburst happened. However, Richards' unique position as third or fourth banana on a long running series might have allowed a more productive response to the aftermath. Consider John Amos' embrace of John Gotti, or more recently, the antics of such famous-for-being-famous types as Paris Hilton and Kate Moss.

Never complain, never explain.

The more Richards attempts to atone, the further his foot goes into his mouth. In an attempt to appease and reconcile with a segment of the afro-american population that will constantly find fault with anything he does from here on out, he has taken a craven tack. It should not be incumbent upon him to appease and reconcile until he gets an apology for being heckled.

There is no defense for the tenor of his outburst. Slurs and profanity are weak-minded substitutes for a pointed rejoinder, and high evidence of a poor performer using substandard material. It is the same kind of gutter material that earns other performers rebuke from able commentators for using "thrill words," as a substitute for talent.

The profane and vulgar expressions seen on 17 November were not with the ultimate goal of significant social observations of such talents as Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Mel Brooks, Chris Rock, Denis Leary, or Dennis Miller. All of whom have approached the issue of race to varying degrees, and most of whom have uttered the same slur as Richards. It was the rant of a bitter (and probably very lonely) man who abandoned his decency while trying to pursue the remnants of his identity as a comic performer.

The hecklers are not entirely without culpability. Indeed, most rational people would abandon a performance they did not find entertaining. It is just as easy to walk out of a door as in through it. How much of an investment would it represent to cut one's losses and seek another option for being entertained?

They could have, most appropriately, approached the management of the Laugh Factory, and requested a refund because the performance failed to meet their expectations. Refund or not, then the management would be aware that something was amiss and the situation could be rectified. His business requires satisfied patrons, not customers heading elsewhere on the Sunset Strip due to a poor performance.

Hiring Gloria Allred and demanding mediation with unspecified damages in front of a retired judge evokes the worst kind of opportunism. A group of young people has little threat from a comedian in his late fifties. The man is clearly meshugginah, but whom could they demand apologies from next? A homeless person? The tire buster at a department store in Waycross?
The next caucasian who dares to exclaim anything beyond Kum-ba-yah in traffic?

The demands are from a perception of deep pockets. Are Michael Richards' pockets deeper than most? That's probable. Does he live in a country with a guarantee of free speech? Absolutely. No matter how one feels about what Michael Richards said, he has the right to say it. If he wishes to say that The Wandering Gentile may have an unnatural interest in furry woodland creatures, it's allowed in the Constitution.

What is not in the Constitution, and is pretty illegal, is the unauthorized use of a performer's image for profit. And Michael Richards, by virtue of his appearance on Seinfeld for eight seasons, is a recognizable figure who could reasonably be considered as having value while promoting an agenda. The taint of racism is applied with the accusation, and it does not come off with Clorox. His livelihood is destroyed beyond repair.

What Richards said is reprehensible, but he had the legal right to speak irresponsibly. Once he spoke irresponsibly, there is no injury nor tort that can be defined under the law. In publishing the material deemed offensive to certain populations, tangible harm has come to Michael Richards from the unauthorized and illegal use of his image. No contract exists that one will not be offended when entering a comedy club, be it tacit or explicit.

What is at stake is not the rant of a television actor in the twilight of a modestly successful career, but the ability to mock racism by exposing true racists. Mark Twain, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck, and Mel Brooks made significant progress by exposing bigots through the bigot's own words. As hurtful as the words are to hear, if one word is removed from our vocabulary, then all words and ideas are in danger.

To allow oneself the comfort of offense upon hearing a slur is a vanity that is not necessarily productive. To disallow anyone the right to a term based upon that individual's race without considering the individual's motives, or context is a censorship equal to Bowdler's devastation of Shakespeare. Free speech for all demands that disagreeable expression be openly brought to the table. It is the hallmark of American experience that has served our nation well for 230 years. Anything less is a push down a slippery slope.

The suggestion that one slur is a special case allows that one word to retain its power to polarize and destroy. It allows a population to hide behind the concept that racism and bigotry are the cause of individual failure, and impedes the actualization and realization of the talents of those who use racism as an excuse. Racism and bigotry do exist among whites of Michael Richards' age and older, but the scapegoating of caucasians among americans of african descent without regard to the individual's action or lack thereof in his or her own destiny is pervasive.

No cabal of caucasians can exist to achieve what black america has managed to do to itself, much as Bill Cosby has stated. The pursuit of excellence knows no boundary but the will of the individual. Permitting the hateful words of a fading celebrity to be hurtful is the hallmark of people who have a comfortable existence, not people who are oppressed.

Let Richards' hatred and anger wither, or not. But he has the right to his image and craft, a right which has been violated in the name of furthering the idea that his detractors are oppressed by the power of an ugly word that they provoked. His detractors are oppressing themselves, and dragging discourse back to the 1950s.

This is what Dr. King was martyred for?

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

The hard line on Immigration wants the public to believe that undocumented immigrants deserve a response that is provacatively disproportionate. Mass deportation and banishment are the tools chosen by a mindset that believes that its very existence is threatened.

We are not running out of white people. The jobs being filled by undocumented workers would lie fallow in places like Dallas, New York and Atlanta. An authoritarian response to an unjust law depresses wages for all workers entering an industry, and Government intrusion that reduces the pool of potential employees will lead to reduced productivity.

If one thinks whites are endangered, go to Fargo or Missoula. This myth is expressed behind closed doors. Lack of assimilation is used as a code to express that many undocumented aliens are from non-English-speaking places.

When there is a level of mistrust that a social service such as English lessons may be used in such a way as to destroy one's livelihood, the impetus for assimilation is emasculated. If an environment permits openness, assimilation becomes a high priority.

The necessity for undocumented workers to hover in the shadows of US society depresses the wages in industries where this population predominates. In this fashion, those who deliberately employ the undocumented skirt federal safety and labor laws. By creating an underclass, these costs are lowered at the price of US born workers.

If employers in Mexico were required to compete with US employers for workers, wages would rise across the border. There are not a lot of Canadians sneaking into the United States. A system that identifies Latin American workers puts US security at the forefront on two levels. Primarily, persons of desire to function productively are identified quickly and easily. The structure as it is lumps a large population of diligent and self-disciplined workers unjustly with a small criminal element.

On this week of remembrance for the tragedy of 9/11, we must recall that Mohammed Atta and his merry band of Jihadist Kamikazes entered the United States legally, with full sanction of the departments of State and Justice.

The law and system as they exist are broken. Regrettably, the sanctions of the Tancredo Republicans are tantamount to putting a 5-speed transmission behind an engine that does not run with regard to what security improvements could be attained. They are a knee-jerk response to a perceived problem that will not be remedied through punitive legislation.

A step by step solution could ensure that United States security and sovereignty interests are protected.

1. We need to identify that we have a common interest with our next door neighbor, Mexico. If terrorists are sneaking into the US as has been alleged, should they fail to enter the United States, then they become a security risk for Mexico. The latest information reveals that Mexico is a predominately Catholic/Christian country. It wouldn't take but one terrorist to turn on Mexico as an equal "infidel" to devastate the Mexican tourism industry.

2. Guest workers and amnesty are the fastest method for ending the inequitable mechanisms in Mexico. At the point where Mexican industry is required to compete with wages in the United States, more Mexicans will stay home. Normalized Mexicans in the United States would quickly embrace a call for improved working conditions and parity with US workers. Wages would go up instead of down, as alleged by the Tancredo/Sensenbrenner right.

3. The right's sacrifice on amnesty and guest workers enables a system that allows our security interests to be protected with the smallest amount of resources and the greatest effectiveness.
Ronald Reagan spoke of smaller government, right? Bloating agencies on the public dime is always a bad idea. This does nothing but give opportunities for corruption and malfeasance, putting Americans at a disadvantage.

In too many developing countries children learn to function under corrupt systems. The US is not as good at graft, and we should not learn how.

4. Industrialization+prosperity= an educable population. An educated population is the greatest insulator against tyranny and dictatorship rooting on Texas' doorstep. The more who know of our nature as a giving and hospitable people, the less likely we are to see an Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro pop up 100' from Laredo. A wall and mass deportation fuels the rhetoric of a politician like Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. We have enough problems without giving the Sheehan left another Palestine.

The world is watching how we deal with this problem. Undocumented latin american laborers are not blowing up pizza places.

They're eating in them, and that does not justify a wall like blowing one up.