Two Sides to Every Story

I know it's been a while since I've written a blog, I've been wrestling with a professional decision (which I am still not sure about) and have been way too scatter-brained to focus enough to write one of these at work the past week.


Israel is 100% right and Lebanon is a terrorist state without any redeeming qualities; or at least that's what Dan Gillerman (the Israeli ambassador to the UN) would have me believe. Ibrahim Assaf (the Lebanese ambassador) on the other hand, if I were to believe him, tells me that Israel is an evil aggressor bent on the destruction of Lebanon. Every story has more than one side, and it's tough sometimes to really determine which side to take as the truth and which to take with a grain of salt. Though this conflict has been brewing for 60 years, Lebanon (through the actions of Hezbollah) technically started it with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Lebanon is partially at fault because of their foolish support for Hezbollah and pathetically weak internal security forces. The Lebanese military is dominated by Hezbollah and the government cowers to the terrorist organization. A rational Lebanon would never have allowed Hezbollah to provoke Israel and their superior millitary might. Despite the fact that Lebanon made the first attack, (and continues to rain missiles on civilians, including the 3rd largest city in Israel) the Lebanese ambassador called for the Israeli aggressors to be brought up on charges for war crimes. When you have two sides both calling the other war criminals, maybe they are both right.


Crime begets crime. When someone is a victim of a crime, they vow revenge, and sometimes that revenge involves criminal action. When my house was robbed back when I was 19 and I lost basically every item of baseball memorabilia and electronics I owned, I would have beaten those robbers into a coma, or worse. I felt personally wronged, as if they had chosen to rob me in order to cause me pain instead of the fact that they would have robbed me regardless of who I was. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I had no idea who they were and could never exact my revenge. Israel was robbed of two soldiers and they sought the return of their property as well as the satisfaction of revenge and the prevention of future incidents. Hezbollah, I believe, sought to enrage Israel and provoke them to attack Lebanon, and that's exactly what happened. Even though Israel has been dropping leaflets on Hezbollah strongholds urging civilians to evacuate, they have still been killing all kinds of "innocent" Hezbollah sympathizers and the poor people who cannot afford to evacuate. The Israeli military has always been known to take aggressive action to prevent counter-strikes. Case-in-point: About 1.5 months ago the Lebanese agovernment had arrested a 7-man Mossad ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad ) assassination squad active in Lebanon, so Israel isn't exactly being 100% open and innocent in this. Obviously Hezbollah isn't a charity group seeking to create a peaceful world of harmony, they are a group of religious zealots who are bent on creating a Islamic theocracy.


When two people see a different side to the same story, it's hard to determine which story is actually the true one. In the (absolutely amazing, thought provoking, humorous and compelling) film Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dog ), the main character is assaulted and has his life saved by a small-time mafia associate. He then changes his life by dedicating himself to the code of the Samurai and pledges his loyalty to Louie the Mafia associate. However, Louie saw a completely different version of the assault. Instead of the assaulters pointing a gun at Ghost Dog (as was seen in his flashback), Louie sees (in his version of the same flashback) the assaulters point a gun at him when he confronts them. This is a major point of the film, and it is echoed in life every day. In relationships there are always two sides to every story or argument, the man's and the woman's (or the top and the bottom, or the butch and the femme, etc.) and though they might be able to hear and understand the opinions, neither side will truly see what the other saw. Even words have double meanings based solely on the meaning that people take from them. I could tell a girl she looks hot today at lunch and she could either think I was sexually harrassing her or that I was commenting on the weather. Well, Israel and Lebanon are just like a couple that was forced together in an arranged marriage, they don't care for each other, but their lives are intertwined. They hear what each other say, but do not listen.


What makes this situation dangerous is that each side believes that they are the forces of good fighting against evil aggressors. Israel believes that Hezbollah is acting under the guise of a terrorist organization in behalf of Iran and Syria in order to destroy Israel. Lebanon believes that Israel desires to take control of Lebanon and revoke their self-determination. With their bombing campaign, Israel has sent Lebanon back at least 3 decades, destroying infrastructure and renewing fears of a destabilizing Lebanon. The destabilization will not help to oust Hezbollah, but in fact it will do the exact opposite. Hezbollah, like Al-Qaeda, is only gaining in strength as a nation declares war on them. Hezbollah is gaining support not only in Lebanon, but in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even Jordan. Israel could be in very bad shape if Eilat becomes a target of aggression, and it should be considering its economic and stragetic significance, because fighting a war on two fronts is always devastating to the nation. Look at Germany during the World Wars if you don't believe me.


So what is going to happen with this? Will they create a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon? Will Hezbollah give up their bombing campaign? Will Israel step down and call for peace? Will it matter? The Middle East is just waiting to erupt, and that's scary considering how unstable and violent it has become. We're living in a world today that is far more dangerous than it's ever been. We have private citizens with the power of a nation, rogue scientists who help to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons for terrorist organizations. We have democratically elected dictators (Chavez in Venezuela, Ahmadinejad in Iran) who threaten the global community with radicalism and hatred. But what if we're really the evil aggressors? Even the devil believed that he was good, in fact, he was an angel who fell out of favor with god. It's not as if Bush has a lot of evidence to support his claims and every time I hear an Arab on TV he believes that his people are the victims. What if the side of the story that we're seeing is really the imagined one and that gun was actually being pointed at them and not us? Or what if we were all evil and had eliminated good from the planet years ago? Something tells me that we'll never really know for sure...

What's the Meaning of Life?

Recently I have been racking my brain trying to make a choice that will affect the rest of my life. I have the choice of either keeping on this corporate path towards executive success, or I can abandon my progress so far and take a job working with kids where I would feel good about myself every night when I went home. The choice may seem easy at first glance (it did, I thought, but I'm still unsure of my choice) but when you're someone like me and think about the ramifications 10, 20, 30 years down the line it becomes much more difficult. I moved to San Diego with the intention of trying my hand at teaching, as working with kids is far more rewarding for me than basically anything else I do. However, it was much harder to find a decent teaching job that didn't require me to waste another year (and a year's tuition) going to school to learn absolutely nothing just because I'm required to have a piece of paper saying I did so.


Part of my problem is that I have no idea what I really want to do with myself. I have always been an ADD guy, going from one thing to the next because I become bored quite quickly and am always looking for a new challenge. I hate being stuck in a rut where nothing new is introduced to stimulate my mind. That is why I chose to leave Burlingame High School despite the nice social scene and the gorgeous girls (especially the cheerleaders...something I didn't get to enjoy at Exeter) for the far more challenging Phillips Exeter Academy despite the vast distance and snow-filled winters. But even when I am being challenged I am sometimes unsatisfied because I don't find the challenge to have any meaning, that it's simply challenging for the sake of making me busy. Being overwhelmed with easy work is challenging because it's tough to get through, but it's empty and makes me feel like I am wasting my time.


To me time is finite, I only have 75 years of life to live (the other years of my life, if I actually live longer than that, will be filled with medical treatment and the other unpleasant aspects of old age) and I want to leave this world having been worthy of life. I believe that life is a privelage, our ancestors fought to survive in order for future generations to live in a better world. It is my obligation as a living being to do my part in leaving this world a better place than when I entered it. So how is processing 50 IRA applications 5 days a week doing my part? I'm just living day-to-day without any purpose other than earning money to live. That is why I volunteer with the Rec Center's youth basketball program (and hopefully they'll have the money to do football again this year), because without doing a little something to give back I will be forever unfulfilled.


So for me to give back, I might just have to take that teaching job I've been offered. But then I will be making a teacher's salary with no chance of ever being a high-roller. That may sound greedy, but my ultimate dream would be to donate $1,000,000,000 to inner-city schools and that will never happen if I'm making $35,000 for the next 20 years. The only way to make a real impact on today's society as a whole (as opposed to having impact on individual kids) is to be highly influential and the only people who have influence nowadays are politicians, celebrities and billionaires. Since I have too many opinions to be a politician, let my celebrity train pass long ago (made the choice as an 11-year-old to turn down offers to move to LA to become an Actor/Model), the only real route for me to have the impact that I think I should have, I need to become incredibly wealthy.


I live my life with deadlines, I can't really function without a deadline to work towards. Even when travelling by myself around the country without any specific itinerary I always had to set some kind of daily goal for myself. If I woke up in Texas, I HAD to wake up the next morning in another state, even if it meant driving 600 miles (or 1000 once...but that was coming home from New Orleans after the semester) in a single day. So I see this pending deadline of age 25 being a major one in my life. I turn 25 a month from today and I still feel like I am trying to figure out my path in life. When I was in high school, I always figured I'd be entrenched in a career at this point, even owning my own home and getting ready to start a family. Now that feels like it's another 5+ years away and that scares me. Like when contributing to an IRA or 401k, every year you delay costs you exponentially. If a 22 year old starts at a company and becomes a partner in 8 years, he still has 25+ years of partner-level earning and influence. But if that same guy doesn't start his partnership till age 40 instead of 30, he's only got about 15+ years left and already has lost a fortune in those 10 wasted years. So sometimes I feel like I should build up my finances, concentrate on myself until I retire from the private sector only to retire to teaching. But then I might miss changing the lives for hundreds of kids for the better. For all I know, I could miss the chance to influence one kid to become the next Nelson Mandela or Bill Gates (including the charity) and maybe that's the impact I was born to make. But teaching might just be the easy way out, as basically any relatively intelligent (or not) person can teach middle schoolers. I was supposed to make my choice Friday, then Sunday...now it's Monday and I think I'm leaning towards teaching, but if my blogs are any indication, I can change my mind in the middle of a sentence and tend to regret the choices I didn't make.


So that leaves me with the final question: What's the meaning of life? Is it love? Money? Power? Findinf a niche? Until I figure that answer out, life will always be series of difficult choices. But then again, maybe that's the meaning of life: The meaning of life is the search for meaning in life.

State Sponsored Ignorance

Today the Chimpanzee known as George W Bush used his first veto of his illustrious 5.5 year reign as dictator of the US. It wasn't on gay marriage, legalized pot or a tax cut...no, it was to stifle scientific progress by curbing the stem-cell research initiative passed by both houses of congress. Many of the pro-life members of the Senate voted for the bill (63-37) , including Dr. Bill Frist, which would have loosened restrictions on stem-cell research. The fact that this was the very first veto after 5.5 years of disaster-after-disaster is very troubling because it was a bill that was supported by both Democrats and Republicans and Bush's idol's widow Nancy Reagan. Even Utah senator Orrin Hatch (a surprisingly astute man, considering how conservative he is I am always surprised how often he is right on debates) was an avid supporter of the bill. The opponents were those like Rick Santorum (sanitarium?) who are so blind in their support of the right wing conservativism that the would never even consider a yes vote on anything related to a fetus.


If life begins at conception, where is it not life? A sperm is just as much of a living, breathing creature as a fetus is. Neither have self-awareness or complex thought, they are just a stage in the development of a life. If it is so bad to take a life, shouldn't every pro-life (and anti stem cell) person be a vegan? After all, every human takes hundreds (if not thousands) of lives each year to simply survive, even vegetarians (plants are alive too, some like Seymour from Little Shop of Horrors are smarter than George Bush). Why not say that life begins at the contemplation of consumation and just make it illegal to get horny without making a baby? Based on the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriages or other disasters, you cannot count on a fetus becoming a viable human being until it is exposed to the light of day. Abortion is not something that is "good", but it is a necessary evil in many cases. There have been studies that clearly show that abortion reduces crime thanks to the fact that fewer children are born into harsh situations where they are unwanted or unable to be supported by anyone. If it weren't for abortion (well, the emergency contraceptive "morning after pill") I might have had a baby or two to support far before I was ready. Woudn't we rather have this world filled only with those who can be supported enough to become productive and valuable members of society?


"Science offfers temptations to manipulate human life"...no shit! That's the point of science. Without science, Bush would probably be dead by now considering the fact that we've more than doubled the life expentancy of a human thanks to scientific research. We wouldn't have penicillin without the intuitiveness of scientists to use mold to combat disease. It's not as if the stem-cell research would be forced upon pregnant women, only those who give up their fetus for research would be affected and most of the stem-cells would be created in labs anyways. What is the possible life of one worth when weighed against the cure for diseases like Alzheimer's, Cancer and Parkinson's that can be discovered if stem-cell research is legalized and supported by the government? If the potential life of a fetus is used to keep another alive, isn't that protecting the sancity of life? Isn't it wrong to deny helping a sick person simply because you have a religious belief against progress? The Dark Ages were dark because of the religious fervor that not only stifled progress, it persecuted those who thought progressively.


So what is the future of stem cell research? As long as we have a born-again retard in the white house, it's pretty bleak. Maybe the Gates Foundation will just buy an island to create their own nation, "The Gates Foundation Nation", in order to research things without a backwards government getting in the way. I'm curious about where Bush would stand on the deactivating of an artificial life form. What would he say about putting an obsolete robot to scrap? It is more self-aware than a fetus, has contributed more to the world and can technically live forever with the proper support. For all we know, that fetus being used for stem-cell research might have been the next Timothy McVeigh or Charles Manson.


So what Bush is saying with his veto is that he cares more for the rights of the unborn than he does for the living. While he is working to deny gays the right to marry and adopt, immigrants the right to live in peace and our rights to privacy, he is working hard to establish a theocracy based on the principals of pro-life. I just can't understand how this could be the first veto in 5.5 years when there have been so many questionable decisions by congress since Bush took office. Instead of a progressive society fueled by progress, we are becoming a reactionary society ruled by spiritual beliefs. When 75% of the nation supports something, 63% of the Senate and basically every doctor does too, it shouldn't be vetoed by Bush. So when Bush is suffering from Alzheimers in 15-20 years, I'm just going to laugh at his plight because he brought it on himself. Because if we funded the research on stem-cells, we'd see our nation get much closer to curing many of the diseases that devastate our golden years. Or we can just deny evolution, make all medical research illegal and display the 10 commandments on all public buildings.

We all know about the problem...So what's the solution?

With WWIII on the brink and armageddon just around the corner, it's about time that we look at how to end this conflict and stand-offish geopolitical situation. Israel is always going to be a target of religious conflict, there is no stopping that unless we eliminate religion (or just Judaism, Christianity and Islam) off the planet completely. I spent 6 weeks in Israel back in high school and instead of instilling this religious fervor in my soul, it convinced me of the ills of religion and the fact that none of those parties involved in the conflict is innocent and good. The Israelis were given this holy piece of land by the white oppressors who felt guilty about their abandonment of the Jewish people in WWII without really taking the local residents into consideration. They were asking for trouble by giving away land that had been the source of conflict for more than a millenium. Israel quickly became the region's military power after squashing every attempt to grab at Israeli power from the Islamic nations that surround Jerusalem. But they have gone too far at times, using the threat of Islamic anti-Israeli aggression as an excuse to attack with very questionable methods. However, the Palestinians aren't innocent, as they have employed terrorist activities to help their cause and have not shown initiative in fighting for peace. But I believe that peace is the last thing that either side really wants, they want sole control of the Holy Land.


So how can we avert this coming holy war? Is there really any chance for us to bring peace in the Middle East without dropping bombs and installing pro-western regimes in EVERY nation? YES!!! And I will tell you how it could happen. First off, let us remember that every party with a claim to Israel has at one point taken the land from those who occupied it rightfully, so nobody is innocent here. Because Jerusalem is such a holy city for 30+% of the world's population, destroying it would be a devastating loss. Despite all of my anti-religious sentiment, I believe that the cultural significance of Jerusalem should be protected at all costs. So what I propose is that we kick EVERYONE out of Jerusalem and turn it into an International Historical Monument somewhat similar to how the Vatican is. I would make a 50 mile radius protected zone where the only people allowed to reside within the borders would be religious leaders and those who work to maintain the historical monuments and religious sites.


So would that actually work? I can't imagine that it would be any worse of a situation than we have now. In the globalized world we live in today, it's not very hard for people to pick up and move somewhere else...if it was hard, we wouldn't have Lou Dobbs on CNN bitching about all the Mexicans he sees. What I don't get is why people would even want to stay in Israel. It's a sweltering hot (mostly) desert that has endured an endless series of war and conflict from the begninning of human civilization and it has very few valuable natural resources. Obviously this wouldn't be a popular proposal, to force everyone out of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, but how much longer can the Jews hold off the Islamic pressures facing them? I fear that this conflict will be escalated because of Israel's unmatched (in the region) military might. The other nations will only catch up to Israel and eventually surpass their military force thanks to their vast population advantage, and Israel will have only one answer: war. That is why the country reacted so violently to just two soldiers being kidnapped, it's a perfect excuse to eliminate one of their most dangerous and threatening enemies. If we gave Israelis (and Palestinians, Jordanians and anyone else in that Jerusalem area) a free chance at citizenship in whichever nation they decided to resettle in, it would solve some of the problems of depopulating an entire region.


Obviously this isn't a realistic proposal. But the future of mankind is going to be in tightly urbanized societies, and that wont happen in Israel as long as the conflict continues. The path of a metropolitan society is Urbanize, Sprawl, renewal of urbanization. We've already seen it in many European and Asian metropolises; and as technology expands, we'll be able to accomodate more people in smaller spaces. Even here in the US there is a push (thanks to our low gas prices, it's taken way longer than it should have) to become more centralized because it's far more effecient. The other benefits of tightly knit societies is the blending of cultures and exposure to various social and ethnic groups. Ever wonder why the larger a city gets, the more liberal it becomes? That's simply because people become much more tolerant of something when they are exposed to it. Think that everyone in San Francisco would be so supportive of gay rights if they grew up in Texas? Obviously not, because intolerance is learned, it's not ingrained in our personalities.


Israel has basically created its own mess. By being so forceful in estabilshing themselves as the region's military power, they have given an incentive for their enemies to build up and find allies. North Korea has a hand in funding Hezbollah, so does Iran, and even Venezuela has been rumored to support Hezbollah. Israel will never be popular, and it is losing allies left and right. Europe is beginning to feel less guilty about the Holocaust (the only reason why Israel exists in reality) and the support is waning. Obviously Israelis wont just evacuate and leave Israel to the Muslims, but this is quickly becoming a global conflict of idealology and the only sollution I see being one that would be a good compromise without letting anyone come out on top is my International Historical Region. Let's wall off the Holy Land, charge $50 admission and kick everyone who isn't a cleric, priest or rabbi out of their homes. That way the Palestinians wouldn't be pissed about losing land to a bunch of greedy Jews. The Jews won't be mad about having to be surrounded by enemies and the Christians won't have to worry about that suicide bomber attacking while they are paying homage at the Western Wall. Or we can just let them all kill each other and suffer the collateral damage. The choice is ours.

Who's your daddy?

As America matures into old age, we as Americans are faced with new ways to restrict our freedom that would not have even been considered back in the days of our founding fathers. Fathers is an interesting way to word it, as this nation has become one of paternalism and protective laws that aren't always justified. Just like an overprotective father of a Catholic schoolgirl, Uncle Sam sets all kinds of harsh rules to protect us from our own decisions. But just like that Catholic shoolgirl who ends up rebelling against her repressive upbringing, Americans will rebel against the rules when they become too much. We did it during prohibition, and we do it still today with basically every prohibited substance, activity and behavior. You would think that as societies became more advanced that freedoms would never be taken away, only given. But that is simply the opposite of what is actually happening. Because of the fear and paranoia that has run rampant, especially since 9/11, we've seen people supporting laws that restrict their own freedoms as human beings.


A recent poll showed that more Americans can name the 5 members of the Simpson family (Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Homer and Marge) than can name the protections granted by the 1st Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.) What that poll showed is that Americans don't really care about their freedom if they have entertainment. This is a key to why this nation is quickly abandoning the principals which once made this the greatest nation in the world. America obviously has never been perfect, but it used to be far more progressive, now it's growing conservative and much more repressive. The main enemies of freedom are religious groups, parent's groups and conservative political groups.


Parents are the problem. I know this because I've volunteered as a coach in Pacific Beach and La Jolla and personally saw the results of bad parenting. After just two or three practices, I can tell people a lot about the child's home life because of how much of an influence on their personality it has. Most of the kids I deal with are slightly troubled and generally abandoned by their parents. The only ones who had strong parental influences (meaning the parents who would show up to practice, talk to me without the ulterior motive of trying to hook up with me, or whom the kids talked about) were the ones who seemed most well adjusted and poised for success in life. However, most of the kids were basically left to raise themselves alone, and it showed. These kids are able to do whatever they want because they live in a city and live near the beach, so if they want to do something, they will. Instead of paying attention to their kid's interests and asking them questions about their life, they make rules and punishments without really thinking about what they would have thought about those rules at that age. Empathy has a lot to do with good parenting, you have to be able to identify with their situation to understand it. Telling your son not to buy Grand Theft Auto because it's violent wont accomplish anything except resentment, because he will be able to go to his friend's house and play anyway.


The government acts just like bad parents. It makes rules to protect us without really thinking about the negative impact that it may have. The "Click-it or ticket" campaign is fascist by definition: using fear to push an agenda. By threatening financial harm for not wearing a seatbelt, the government is acting as an authoritarian, forcing people to protect themselves in a way that impedes on comfort. I for one, ALWAYS wear a seatbelt because my life has been saved by them twice, but if I wanted to go without, who could it possibly hurt? Me and my loved ones if I die, and it's up to me to consider my loved ones and not the government. If I don't wear a seatbelt, I am no less (or more) dangerous behind the wheel than if I do wear it, so why make the police extort money from those who make the conscious decision to go without. And what about the time that you just forget to put it on for the forst couple blocks of a drive and a cop sees you as you are putting it on? You'd get a ticket, and that's just not right.


I believe that everyone should be responsible for their own life and safety as adults. Parents have that responsibility before their kids become adults, and those who try to push it on the government are doing everyone an injustice. Just because your 14 year old daughter is too much of a moron to realize that meeting a 35 year old man from myspace is not a good idea doesn't mean that you should punish the non-idiot population for it. That girl who falls prey to an online sexual predator had a failure of parenting, because if her parents were even halfway decent, she would never even consider meeting some middle aged man from the internet. In fact, any time a child falls victim to something like that, I believe that the parents of that child should be punished severly. After all, you don't have to be qualified to give birth to a child, you just have to be fertile. We act as if giving birth is such an impressive feat, when in reality it is one of the least impressive feats there is; after all, there are 6,000,000,000 people in this world who were born once. So instead of letting bad parents force the government to do what they were unable to do themselves (protect their children from their own stupidity), why not hold people responsible for their poor decisions and parenting skills?

Racism and Bigotry in sports

This year in the world cup we saw all kinds of young heroes emerge, stars
fade and nations rejoicing. But we also caught a slight glimpse of the ugly
side of sports: Bigotry. There has been a campaign to combat racism in
European soccer (which is far worse than it is here in the US, it's about as
bad as it was in Hank Aaron or even Jackie Robinson's day.) with marquee
players like Thierry Henry speaking out against fan racism. But there's a
whole other side to this issue, and that's within the clubhouses and players
themselves. As sports become more and more prevalent in our popular culture
and the stars gain even more influence as role models, it is imperative that
these athletes don't follow the crowd but instead lead it.


Baseball had a long history of racism. Ty Cobb refused to room with Babe
Ruth on barnstorming trips because he suspected that Ruth had some black
blood in his system. Baseball was without a single black player from 1884
until 1947, a period of 63 years where the major leagues were completely
white despite the presence of some of the greatest baseball players ever
(Pop Lloyd, Newt Allen, Satchell Paige, Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, etc.)
in the Negro Leagues. The simple fact that these men were descended from
slaves and had brown skin kept many Americans from witnessing some of the
most talented athletes to have ever lived. In many respects, baseball
helped to shape American society and the civil rights movement. Branch
Rickey, the hall-of-fame executive, saw a void in the major leagues and
recognized the injustice of segregated baseball and put young Jackie
Robinson in the white minor leagues to develop him as the first black major
leaguer in 63 years. He made his debut in 1947, but it wasn't until 1967
that all teams had at least one black player to appear in their uniform.
That's a far cry from where we're at now, with the majority of players being
non-white, but it took way too long to happen.


European soccer is far worse than American sports in terms of the racism.
Black players are subject to entire stadiums heckling them, or worse (like
making monkey noises every time a black player touches the ball, sometimes
even throwing bananas onto the field) and the players are known to be very
bigoted towards one another. The incident between Zinedine Zidane and the
Italian player Marco Materazzi (
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=373723&cc=5901 ) has gotten tons
of press since Sunday, but the real issue here is that Zidane would be so
sensitive about his heritage. He's been known to have reacted violently,
like on Sunday, to any insults regarding his Algerian/Muslim heritage. If
Materazzi actually called him a terrorist (judging by his rediculous denial:
"I insulted him, but I categorically did not call him a terrorist. I'm not
cultured and I don't even know what an Islamic terrorist is." there's almost
no way he didn't), that's a clear sign of the ignorant bigotry that is
rampant throughout the sports world. The fact that Materazzi claims that he
doesn't even know what an Islamic Terrorist is has convinced me that it's
exactly what he said. How can an Italian World Cup (not to mention the fact
that he plays for AC Milan, one of the top 20 European Football clubs),
player not know what an Islamic Terrorist is? Maybe it's just me, but if
EVERY American knows something, I'd think an international sports star might
have an idea. After all, the World Cup (and Italian Serie A games) had very
heightened security as a direct result of Islamic Terrorism. Materazzi knew
what he was saying and has a history of incidents involving altercations
with other players.


While making fun of blacks is completely off limits nowadays (in the US for
anyone without African ancestry), it's not the same for other groups.
Chinese, North Koreans, Arabs, fat people, homosexuals and the mentally
challenged are all acceptable targets of insults and jokes. Even "The
Ringer", a Farrelly Brothers film starring Johnny Knoxville sponsored and
endorsed by the Special Olympics was designed to change people's perceptions
of the mentally challenged, but not everyone got that point. Many people
just watched the movie because it was funny to see Johnny Knoxville play the
part of a man pretending to be mentally disabled man. Hell, people post
things like "___is like winning at the Special Olympics, if you win, you're
still retarded" and think that it's inoffensive to everybody. I am not one
who is personally offended by much, but I am offended by people who show
others no respect. Just as making fun of black people is not okay, the same
goes for Chinese, North Koreans (how many jokes about eating dog have you
heard?), Arabs (people assume all arabs are Muslim, they aren't; that all
Muslims are repressive religious zealots, they aren't; that all Muslims are
violently anti-American...they aren't), fat people, and especially
homosexuals.


The prevalence of intolerance for homosexuals is simply unacceptable. In
the sports world, being a homosexual is simply against the rules. It's not
a coincedence that there hasn't been a single recognizable player to have
come out of the closet. Do you actually think that even though at least 5%
of the population is homosexual, that there isn't a single active athlete in
the 4 major American sports who is gay? The ESPN Original Series Playmakers
had a storyline about a star TE who comes out of the closet as being gay and
it ends his career because of the abuse from his teammates and the fear of
the ownership. What if Pedro Martinez (finally) came out of the closet,
what would happen to his fans? If we're so scared of admitting our
effeminate hollywood stars (like Tom Cruise, Jude Law or any other 5'6" "sex
object") are gay, how can we possibly admit that our masculine ideals are
actually homosexual? Esa Tualo is the only NFL player to have come out of
the closet, but even he had to wait until after his career was over before
he could come clean to the public.


This world is modernizing, but it's still in the dark ages. We don't accept
people for who they are, and are unwilling to accept anyone different from
us. We place our athletes on a pedastal, they're allowed to basically do
and say anything. Neither Zidane nor Materazzi are innocent, both escalated
a situation that should've only been about the game. Sports have become
such a major part of society that the athletes hold a lot of power over the
masses. Kids will see what Zidane did and think that it's acceptable to
retaliate physically against words. I play a lot of street basketball and
hear some trash talk (especially since I'm a small, well for basketball
players, white guy who looks like Justin Timberlake), but you'll never see
me get back in their face. I learned this as a high schooler, but even then
I always knew that it was just a game and should be treated as such. Our
pros are simply that, pros. They shouldn't just be professional in terms of
their skills, but also in terms of their sportsmanship. After all, it is
just a game.

Left Behind

Over the weekend I heard of a new computer game being developed called "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind_%28series%29#Videogame_based_on_the_series ) as a way to market radical conservative Christian values to kids and PC gamers. This game is probably one of the most rediculous things I have seen in a long time. It's not some kind of mythical quest to discover the bible, it does not teach peace, forgiveness or any of Jesus' cardinal values; the game is a shooter where you use the "power of prayer" to heal and improve your chances in battle. I saw game footage of this game, and it was just as violent as GTA or Halo except that it preaches radical Christian values and the killing of non-Christians. This game actually gives you a bonus for killing the non-believers. Tell me that this isn't a frightening development in the electronic entertainment industry.


In the past the Christian games were incredibly sheltered from the real world, they preached the good Christian values (you know, the ones that Jesus preached and not the ones preached by the Spanish Inquisitors or the Crusaders) and taught the kids how to share, how to make moral judgements and other good and upstanding moral beliefs. Even if they did preach Christian dogma in an effort to brainwash kids into Christianity before they had a chance to develop their own moral and spiritual beliefs. Obviously since I am an Athiest, I am a bit biased on this, but I believe that there are good Christian values and bad Christian values. The good ones are those that preach tolerance, community, charity, love and forgiveness; the bad ones are those that preach intolerance, conformity, and the violence towards non-Christians. If you ever watch the Simpsons, I believe that the values instilled in Rod and Tod Flanders are the proper ones if you wish to raise your child as a Christian, they watch the G rated Christian TV shows and Movies, they play the Christian versions of board games and none of them have anything even remotely related to violence...especially violence against those non-believers.


Okay, so I have blasted this game from its Christian morality standpoint, but what about as a PC game. When I first looked up at the TV and saw the game footage, I was actually rather impressed by the graphics and fast-paced action, but then they started to show what made this game unique. The soldier in the middle of an incredibly intense firefight who stops fighting to pray doesn't get shot like he would in an actual battle, but instead gains strength and skills. In war, stopping to pray in the middle of a military action is a guarantee that you will get killed, and since a high percentage of our military comes from this same demographic that the game is marketed to, we're going to see a few soldiers who might take this game literally...after all, the Christian right who preach against GTA say that it will cause us to steal cars and climb the water tower with 350 shoulder propelled rockets (nevermind where all that extra ammo goes in my jeans and t-shirt) and shoot down police helicopters by the dozens. If video games really do cause us to copy what's in the game, wouldn't I be running around trying to headbutt every brick wall I see in the off chance that I will gain the ability to shoot fireballs? I learned that from Mario and Luigi, so how is that different than CJ from GTA?


If prayer really worked in battles, wouldn't the Romans have been able to keep from falling to the barbarians? Same thing for sports, both sides pray to god before the game, only one team wins...prayer simply doesn't cause things to happen, though faith is important. If we'd just sat around praying for a cure for polio, I might be in a wheelchair due to my struggles with the disease as a child instead of being immune to it thanks to the vaccine developed by scientists. I wish to be the best basketball player in the world all the time, but I still play like a white guy (meaning I can't palm the ball or dunk), so I go to the courts and play more to gain skills with hard work and dedication. I've seen great people get sick and how everyone prayed for them to get better, but the prayer didn't work and they died. On the other hand, there are horrible, abusive people who get everything they want without even trying. Prayer does not bring justice, success or anything other than false hope.


So this started as a rant against marketing things towards Christians, and ended up as an anti-prayer rant. To me, the fact that companies use "Christian" values to market their products in order to make millions. The people who buy these products are generally those who are struggling to make ends meet and are conned by the church to waste their money on "Christian" products and services. I dated a girl who lived in poverty, not knowing if she would even have enough food to eat dinner from one day to the next, and her mother STILL donated a significant amount of her earnings at the shoe factory (seriously) to her church. Meanwhile, her daughter suffered through poverty and abuse, all without any protection from the church that was paid to give her that support. Religion has long hijacked the finances and opinions of the ignorant, stupid and needy, so now that they are starting to market violent video games to this same demographic it is starting to get rediculous. If you really believe in the power of prayer, try this: Go into Sadr City with American flag parachute pants and an Israeli flag poncho with a crucifix in your hand and stand there and pray to Jesus. See how long it takes before you're in the trunk of a car on the way to your torture and death. Or maybe Jesus can come save you or grant you temporary invincibility or a weapon power-up. How is that any more rediculous than spending every sunday praying for a better life instead of actually going out there and DOING SOMETHING about it?

I'm taking a gamble

New Jersey is a joke. Hell, if I was a standup comedian, I could just say the words "New Jersey" and I guarantee there'd be at least a few laughs, it's that much of a laughingstock. But recently, there has been cause for even more laughter at the wonderfully inept New Jersey leadership. The government was in crisis for lack of finances, so what did they do? They shut down the #1 most important industry in the AC region: Gambling. A business that brings over $1.2 million PER DAY to the state, Gambling is more important to New Jersey than most anything else. After all, who the hell would go to Atlantic City if it didn't have casinos? Hell, how many people would avoid Jersey altogether if those casinos were shut down permanentely? Other than Princeton, I can't see any reason why someone would strive to go to that state filled with toxic waste.


So what is the future of Gambling in this country? It looks as though that national prohibition on organized gaming is coming to an end, as we are seeing poker rooms, Indian casinos and riverboat gaming springing up basically everywhere. So as of today, we're seeing all kinds of new millionaires emerge out of Indian reservations thanks to the relaxed laws and convenient locations. Atlantic City has become a major destination thanks to the legalized gaming, and not the coast, but with the increased influence of Indian casinos it is facing a dilemma. The NYC tourists might just choose to go to an upstate casino or one somewhere in Connecticut if AC continues to alienate the customer base.


I'm actually starting to get involved in casino resort development, having just developed a proposal that I sent to Wynn Resorts. This is an industry that will always be profitable because offering gambling is such an easy way to make money, but the two gambling destinations will lose their power and influence if they abandon what made them successful in the first place. Vegas has been adding all kinds of luxury mega-resorts, designed to entice non-gamblers to visit Vegas instead of the Indian casinos. That will be the only way to compete, because the gamblers will only want to go to Vegas for major tournaments and events when they can just stay within 50 miles to gamble somewhere where they can sleep in their own bed and go to work the next morning.


To me, gambling should never be illegal simply because it's the survival of the fittest in this world. If someone is dumb enough to gamble away their life savings, they didn't deserve to have savings anyway and it's only natural that they'd help out the bottom line of Wynn's Las Vegas Resort and the 1000s of people employed by them. To make gambling illegal, it's just hurting the economy and enabling the private (underground) gaming industry. When Katrina destroyed the casinos on the Mississippi coast, the state lost millions a day in tax revenues...they've yet to recover. Jersey isn't exactly a state that is rolling around in excess capital, so even losing 2 or 3 days of Casino revenue could be devastating long-term.


In about 25 years, AC will probably be a shell of its current state. Las Vegas, on the other hand, will still be a thriving metropolis because they've used the legalized gambling to develop supporting industries and have created a destination resort in addition to a gambling resort. Vegas has golf courses, entertainment galore, and fantastic shopping. They've also attempted to legalize marijuana and prostitution to encourage safe and profitable (for the state) use of those two "products". So while LV is becoming a suburb of LA and its premier weekend destination, AC is quickly losing out to Mohegan Sun and other Indian gaming sites. It's just amazing how a crappy city in the desert isolated by 100s of miles could somehow overtake this coastal resort just a couple hours drive from Manhattan.

Korean Missile Crisis II

If we had to decide on which nation to take on, I can't imagine that North Korea would be the most intimidating opponent for us. They have suffered under an autocratic regime for years and have faced famine and scarcity of resources that would render the nation nearly defenseless in a regime change situation. Even Iraq was better off than North Korea is today. But attacking is not the answer, as it would only further stretch out our "limited" military resources and cause even more global dissent. So what is the solution to this problem that President Bush let grow from a little annoyance to the biggest threat since Soviet missiles arrived in Cuba.


I don't believe that North Korea would survive as is stands if Kim Jong Il were not in power. He's a classic tyrant: born into power, surrounded by yes-men and worshipers who treat him as a diety and never hearing any dissenting opinions...oh yeah, and he's incredibly short, even for a Korean man. South Korea is one of the pinnacles of modern society with ultra-modern cities and an upwardly mobile and educated society. Despite the relatively similar geographical and ethnic characteristics, North and South Korea have vastly different economies and politics. If that hard border that was set during the Korean War were to soften and the DMV were to actually be demilitarized, we might see something similar to what happened with Germany.


So what would happen if we were to assassinate Kim Jong Il? Would North Korea collapse into anarchy and descend into the hands of terrorists? No, definitely not...though it might fall further into Chinese control, but China is less of a threat than North Korea with Kim Jong Il in power. I was saying this before we invaded Iraq, when Il was basically begging us to invade to see his nuclear progress and the various weapons he was working on. To me, Kim Jong Il is the single most threatening person in the world because he has the political power and resources necessary to develop the kinds of weapons that actually pose a threat to everyone worldwide.


Am I advocating political assassinations? Yeah, I think I am...sometimes a leader is too powerful to be allowed to continue his control of a nation. When the life of a tyrant is weighed against the lives of millions of innocent people, there is no question. But where would we draw the line? Would I advocate assassinating Castro, Chavez or Olmerht? Certainly not, but they aren't threatening to launch missiles on the population base of the west coast. You can't tell me that the Korean people could be any worse off if Kim Jong Il were to be assassinated and replaced with anyone. The Korean people are very smart and if they were given a chance to rise up and lead themselves, this world would be a safer place. Then finally we could focus our energy on the regions that truly need our help: Africa and the Middle East.

Korean Missile Crisis

Kim Jong Il is a cartoon villian. He talks big, makes crazy claims and doesn't seem to answer to anyone or anything. Oh yeah, and he actually has the technology and authority to bring his insanity to the forefront of our current events. The Daily Show made fun of the North Korean missile because it had a name that sounded like "Type O' Dong" when named in English. But this missile, despite the failed test on July 4th (think that's a coincedence?), has the ability to wreak havoc on the Pacific Coast. This world is getting more and more complicated, and the technology that used to only be in the hands of the two hegemonies (USSR and USA), is now available to anyone with enough of a drive. I'm just amazed that more rogues aren't able to develop their own weapon systems.


The inherent danger in the Korean missile is not in our borders, but in Asia. What happens if Kim Jong Il decides to launch an attack on Tokyo or Seoul? That would send the Asian economy into a tailspin, which would certainly lead to a worldwide recession. We have had a lot of "busts" recently in our global economy, it's only a wonder how many more we can handle before the damage becomes too great. W missed his opportunity to eliminate the North Korean threat when he had the chance. Kim Jong Il was making all kinds of crazy statements, basically asking us to invade, but our fear of China and (i believe) our racist feelings towards the Islamic nations held us back. So then we attacked the wrong Ira_ country and now we have both the leader of North Korea and Iran threatening Nuclear actions.


I will continue this tomorrow...