the salt makers

In case you guys missed it, there was a pretty substantial, if not poorly organized, protest against war in Washington, D.C. last Saturday. I say "protest against war" because the messages of these innumerable "direct action groups" (thats' what they call themselves... as if there's such a thing as "indirect action") were to garbled and convoluted, if you looked at the whole as a group, marching down Pennsylvania Ave., you'd be hard pressed to figure out what specifically they were marching against, marching for, or where the hell they thought they were going.

Apparantly, it's time to stop the war, remember some other war, stop animal testing, start rebuilding Indonesia, stop driving cars, start buying organic vegetables, stop the war on drugs, start offering free healthcare, stop buying Strabucks coffe and start voting with your heart, not with your brain. Code Pink, Mothers Against the War, MoveOn.org, Breasts not Bombs (not kidding) and just about every other lefty, pinko group had a presence in spades. As usual, they came together to deliver one message, and ended up delivering about seventeen, all of them poorly.

What caught my eye was the elaborate "things" these jobless freaks took the time to construct, with no clear purpose in mind. The giant puppet of Uncle Sam drinking a barrel of oil, sure, that's one's pretty clear, but the giant duck?



Yes, that's a giant duck. No, I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. "Stop the Ducking War?" Too childish, even for them. "Duck! Cheney's got a gun?" Clever, but unrelated. Frankly, I'm stumped. Maybe it's some kind of giant "Peace Duck."



This looks like a giant spinal cord. The message is convoluted at best, and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't find a decent photo of what's written on the side. I'll just pretend it says "Spine. It's What's for Dinner" because it doesn't make any sense.



This one's a personal favorite. It turns out public buses don't run on fossil fuels, they operate solely on one's feeling of self-worth. Oh, and gasoline.



I gotta give this woman some credit for a clever protest sign. Here's a conundrum: Do you think she'd polish the President's knob to end the war?



Okay, this one's actually an altered photograph from the Islamic demonstrations in London, I just thought it was fucking funny.



Man, that flag is an asshole! Why do we even keep that thing around, after all the terrible things it's done? I've got a good mind to sit that flag down and give it a good spanking.



This photo was taken in a nearby park area after the crowds had dissipated to score some weed and find a box to crawl into for the night. Truly, civil disobedience in it's purest and most awe-inspiring form.



Alright, this photo is also not from the recent protests, but I just thought it was awesome. Can you imagine what Dr. King would have to say about that? I think he'd just rub his temples and moan quietly to himself.

I find it amusing that so many people start their criticisms of the anti-war movement with "I would never question anyone's right to protest but.." The fact is we should be encouraging these people to to parade around like idiots, waving flags and chanting not-too-clever slogans that make humorous associations with the names Dick and Bush with genatalia. Every time these people show themselves in public, they show not only how disorganized and ramchackle they are, but every time they spit on a veteran or threaten someone's life, they expose their true extremism, hate and disrespect for anyone that disagrees with their own very narrow view of the world.

I love conspiracy theories because of the categorically illogical basis upon which they are vistually always based. Not only does your typical conspiracy theory never follow the common guideline of "the simplest explanation is usually the most likely," the less evidence your average tin-foil hat wearing sideshow attraction can muster to support his brain-dead contentions, the more he's convinced he's right.

The black helicopters are coming!

I find it truly laughable that one consipracy theory that has found significant audience among the conservative ranks of this country is the growing threat of the "North American Union." Conservatives tend not to to subscribe to these whacked out ideas mostly because, deep down, what makes us all conservative is the idea that the government always screws up anything it touches. Logically, if I believed that my federal government would be tragically incapable of administering and executing even basic tasks of revenue tracking, road building and land management, then I would certainly have little to fear from that same entity secretly administering some hemispherical ecenomic control scheme while successfully pulling the wool over the eyes of about half a billion citizens.

However, as usual, someone more eloquent than I has already addressed many major tenets of this bizarre theory. So tighten up that alunimum hat, load up the air rifle, crack open a can of beans from the underground store and take a read.

From John Hawkins at Right Wing News:

Killing the North American Union Conspiracy

"By 2010, the integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. will be almost complete. Congress and the media will not know what happened. Americans will be as clueless as ever; thanks to the complicity of the brain-dead media, the triumph of a bloodless bureaucratic elitist coup will become a reality, or close to it." - Diane Alden

"President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it, and he took the step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States." -Lou Dobbs Tonight

"President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy....Why doesn't President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union." - Jerome Corsi

Judging by the three hysterical quotes you've just read, you'd think that the United States was about to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into some sort of merger with Canada and Mexico.

However, that's not exactly true. As a matter of fact, to be completely accurate, it's not true at all. But, since claims of this sort are spreading like wildfire on the right, it seemed like a good idea to take the time to tear out the underpinnings of this conspiracy theory.

So, let's explore some of the pieces of "evidence" that support the North American Union conspiracy theory and see how well they bear up under scrutiny.

Claim #1: There a Council of Foreign Relations report called, "Building A North American Community," that's being used as the "blueprint" for a merger of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Back in 2005, a task force sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations put out a report called, "Building A North American Community." I recently spoke to Lee Feinstein, Executive Director of the Task Force Program at the Council of Foreign Relations -- and he told me the report calls for improving security between the borders, steps to grow the American economy, and improving trade.

When I asked him if the report favors merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico, his reply was, "It doesn't favor anything of the kind." Indeed, if you read through the report (.pdf file), you will find that it doesn't call for the creation of a superstate.

Moreover, Mr. Feinstein said he would be flattered if people in the Bush Administration were reading and paying attention to the report, but he denied that it was being used as any sort of "blueprint" and said, "Realistically, anyone outside the government has to be modest about the impact that they have on government policy because the government has its own ideas of what it wants to do."

Claim #2: "Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S..." -Jerome Corsi

To be honest, this one has always been a little hard to figure out. After all, Canada and Mexico are our two biggest trading partners. Therefore, it's difficult to understand why some people are so adamantly opposed to improving the highways running between those nations, and into the US, or why they believe a road is part of some monstrous conspiracy. But nevertheless, since this issue has been widely discussed, I took the time to dig into this claim.

First of all, the group behind the "NAFTA Super Highway" is called NASCO. They're not a government entity and they're not advocating building "four football field-wide" roads or even new roads at all. They just support the expansion of existing roads to better serve business interests in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Yesterday, Tiffany Melvin, the Executive director of NASCO was kind enough to take the time to discuss the North American Union conspiracy theory with me. Here's what she had to say:

"NASCO is a non-profit organization that has been around for 12 years. We have no secret meetings with the Bush administration and we're not part of a conspiracy. We're a business organization trying to promote the NASCO Corridor and the connecting highways in Canada and Mexico as an efficient, secure transportation system that will attract companies to use our corridor for their business."

NASCO has gotten so tired of the conspiracy theories swirling around them that they've actually put up a "NASCO Myths Debunked (.PDF File)" section on their website to try to kill some of these rumors. People who believe they're involved in creating some sort of "North American Union" should take a look at that article. It'll quickly ease their concerns.

Claim #3: A customs facility in Kansas City is going to become Mexican territory!

What this refers to is the KC Smartport, which is, at least in my humble opinion, a brilliant idea. The idea is to set up an area in Kansas City, with Mexican and American customs officials there who can examine outgoing vehicles away from the long lines generated at the borders. You heard that right by the way; this facility will only handle outbound freight headed to Mexico, not Mexican vehicles headed into the United States.

So, is the area the KC Smartport sits on going to be leased or owned by Mexico? No. So, where did the idea come from? I asked Tasha Hammes, the Media Relations & Marketing Manager for the KC Smartport project, about that and she said it was an idea that was kicked around via email in something akin to an online brainstorming session at one point. However, as she confirmed to me in a follow-up email, the idea was not something that the KC SmartPort project chose to pursue:

"Kansas City, Mo., is leasing the facility to KC SmartPort. It will NOT be leased to any Mexican government agency or be sovereign territory of Mexico."

Claim #4: The United States, Mexico, and Canada are going to merge their currencies into something called an Amero.

It's always difficult to reason people out of something that they weren't reasoned into in the first place and therefore, it'll be very difficult to convince people who believe in this claim that it's not going to happen.

That being said, George Bush has never advocated merging our currency with that of another country and neither has anyone in his cabinet. Furthermore, no one has presented any proof whatsoever that anyone in the United States government is working on this idea. At least one of the North American Union conspiracy theorists has speculated that the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America may be working on such a proposal. However, I spoke with David Bohigian over at the Commerce Department yesterday and he issued a flat denial that the SPP was working on merging America currency with that of our neighbors.

So, if people want to insist that we're creating some sort of unified currency based on the fact that a few professors think it's a good idea, that's fine -- but as of yet, there has not been one, single, solitary shred of evidence presented that the Bush administration supports, advocates, or is working on this idea.

Claim #5: The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is the government entity that's working on merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico!

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is a group that was launched in 2005 and it works under the aegis of the Commerce Department. The SPP was created to help increase cooperation between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South.

As I mentioned earlier, yesterday I spoke to David Bohigian over at the Commerce Department about the SPP. He confirmed that the SPP is not using the, "Building A North American Community," report from the CFR task force as any sort of a "blueprint" and he added the following:

"This is not a treaty and not an agreement. It's like a discussion you'd have with your neighbors. Nobody is looking to merge our currency, or our borders, or do any sort of union like the EU. The United States is working cooperatively with its neighbors to enhance security and prosperity of our countries."

Summary: Folks, as you can see from reading this column, there is no "North American Union" in the works. If you don't believe me when I tell you that, then maybe you'll believe Tony Snow who had this to say when he was, "asked if the president would categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America."

"Of course, no. We're not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."

If you don't believe me and you don't believe Tony Snow, then believe your own knowledge of how the U.S. Government works. To merge the United States into a North American Union would obviously require a whole host of Constitutional Amendments. In fact, so many would be necessary that the only possible way to accomplish it would be through a Constitutional Convention, an event that hasn't occurred in over 200 years and that would require the support of 34 state legislatures to be possible. So, even if George Bush or any other U.S. President were so inclined to create a North American superstate, he would be powerless to do so unless he were able to rally 2/3 of America's state legislatures to his side.

Since that is the case, there's simply no need for people to try to turn run-of-the-mill attempts to improve cooperation with Canada and Mexico into some sort of vast conspiracy to create a North American Union. The reality is that since Mexico and Canada are our neighbors and our biggest trading partners, there are plenty of reasons for the government and private industry to try to streamline and improve our relationship with them on security, trade, and other issues. So, let's worry about real problems instead of non-existent conspiracy theories that melt like snow in the middle of a Texas summer the moment you take a hard look at them.

There are few things that can be described as "home runs" in the arena of political debate. One such example is the "debate" over federal minimum wage legislation. "Debate" must be placed in quotations in this instance because, in the national arena, there is little discussion of the grand repercussions of this legislation. As it turns out, an incredibly effective way to win an argument is to never allow one in the first place.

Minimum wage laws are the textbook example of bad legislation enacted by a government solely as a boon to constituents that have learned how to vote themselves largess out of the pockets of the faceless masses that make this beautiful capitalist system work. The pervading logic is "You have to because we said so."

Regardless of personal feelings, labor is a good like any other tangible product that can be sold or traded in the open marketplace. It just so happens that it is a good that virtually everyone has to sell. When government arbitrarily sets the price of any good, the people that suffer most are always the people at the bottom of the quality scale. If, for example, the government was to pass legislation dictating that every car sold in the United States, regardless of quality, materials or options, cannot be sold for less than $20,000, public or private, the car manufacturers that sell cars worth $10,000 or $12,000 will immediately find themselves priced out of the market. They either go out of business, or start making their cars worth $20,000.

Logically, if the government decides that all labor, regardless of skill or aptitude, cannot be sold or purchased for less than $7.25 an hour, the scores of people in the work place, or those looking for employment, whose labor or production skill is only worth $5.00 or $6.00 per hour will immediately find themselves priced out of the economic system. The people who are most affected by this type or price-fixing are those who are less educated, less skilled and less employable. This group of people is populated inordinately by minorities.

Oh, I'm sorry, "the diverse."

As such, minimum wage laws are racist.

But discussions on this subject could go on for chapter after chapter, only to be ignored by the plebians that cling to buzzwords like "liveable wage," claiming to help the very "diverse" classes they claim to adore.

No, this post is about hypocrisy.

GOP hits Pelosi's 'hypocrisy' on wage bill

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 12, 2007

House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.

"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."

On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.

The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.

One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.

"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.

During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."

A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."

"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.

"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.

Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.

"I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."

A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.

It's a topic we seem to cover quite a bit in this forum, mostly because examples can be found on the news lines every day: Disenfranchising the majority to accommodate the minority.

But it's still necessary to vent every now and again.

To speak to this subject: Who's crazier? The people that think their children should have a choice to eat meat from animals that are "humanely killed" (something of a contradiction in terms) or the Muslims that believe stunning an animal before slaughtering it causes "small blood vessels (to) rupture" and leaves the "meat tainted with blood which is full of germs, bacteria and waste material."

Parents angered as every pupil is given halal school meals

Halal meat is being served to pupils in state schools without their knowledge, even if they believe the religious slaughter is cruel.

Parents have reacted furiously after being sent letters telling them their children's school dinners have been all-halal for 'some time'.

To conform with Jewish and Muslim religious tradition, animals are prepared for halal products by having their throats slit while conscious - a method many people believe is inhumane and which the RSPCA has condemned.

The meat was introduced at four schools in the Reading area with a high proportion of Muslim pupils. But parents of non-Muslim pupils - between 20 and 50 per cent of the schools' roll -say they were not consulted.

Coach driver Andrew Weston, 37, who has a son and daughter at St John's primary school, said: "We received a letter saying only halal meat was being served and had been for some time. I was shocked.

"The way the animals are killed for this meat is barbaric and cruel. Our children should have a choice."

Abdul Dean, ethnic minorities officer for the Christian Peoples Alliance, said: "Christian children should be given an equal chance to have non-halal meat. The school should have explained the situation to parents at the outset."

Last month, a head teacher in Rotherham caused an outcry when she said she intended to replace traditional turkey with halal chicken to create an 'integrated Christmas'. Jan Charters, head of Oakwood School, backed down after complaints by MPs.

A spokesperson for Reading Borough Council said: "The decision was taken several years ago. Schools thought it was the appropriate choice for their multi-cultural community. We are increasing options at the four schools by offering fish each day."

The other schools where only halal meat is served are New Town, Oxford Road and Alfred Sutton primary schools.

Earlier this year, an RSPCA pamphlet stated: "Muslim communities in the UK should review their slaughter practices. Research demonstrates that slaughter of any animal without stunning can cause unnecessary suffering."

Law Firm Confused About Diverse
December 15th, 2006

The Providence Business News has this story about the new diversity scholarship program offered by Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

This appears on the application form:

Applicants must be a member of a diverse group: for example African American, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Gay/Lesbian, or other minority group.

African Americans constitute a diverse group, but European Americans don't? Heterosexuals aren't a diverse group? Minorities are diverse, but majorities are not?
Banning Christmas So as Not to Offend
December 15th, 2006

The word from the across the pond:

"But what I found so shocking this week was a survey from a law firm, Peninsula, revealing that three out of four British employers have banned conventional Christmas decorations, lest they offend employees of other faiths. Bosses, the report said, are worried that they could be - wait for it - sued if they were to allow displays of Christian joy, but not those of other religions. Can they be serious? If that were not bad enough, the health-and-safety stormtroopers are parking their tanks on our tinsel. Santa's sleighs need seat-belts, and mince pies must be 'risk-assessed' before being handed out to children."