Larry The Entertainer

Is this the face of justice? I don’t think so. Larry Seidlin is rapidly become a celebrity on his own by presiding the Ana Nicole Smith case. Save the fact that this is nothing but another feud over money and personal interest of the parties involved, the trial has taken center stage not for the legal aspects of it but for the performance of a judge. His antics and personal remarks are more adequate in the setting of the People’s Court show-biz style than that of a real and subdued justice dispensing court. Perhaps he’s practicing to succeed Judy when and if she ever retires from the funky and fake court she presides. Bring in the clowns! We’re on TV!

CrAp TeLeViSiOn

CNN- Ana Nicole Smith
FOX- Ana Nicole Smith
MSNBC- Ana Nicole Smith
And on and on…

It would be nothing special to say about this bit of news, except that they were all airing at the same time! Even Anderson Cooper and Larry King had to have a special on the issue of the now dead so-called celebrity. And this is not something occasional, it happens all the time. One-note-news-reporting seems to be the easy way to fill one hour of television these days.

Fact is that many of the stories have no value whatsoever, like the one mentioned about Nicole Smith, and many others regarding insignificant people - Paris Hilton, Britney Spears - Lindsey Lohan and a host of drunken, into rehab, out of rehab - now overweight, then underweight, parties late at night and many other couldn’t-care-less bits of information.

Is this what we pay for cable? A sleuth of sameness and irrelevant stream of crap? Never mind the over the air channels, relegated to smiling faces more preoccupied with the local flow of advertisers than real news.

We are becoming a nation of ill informed people being fed the stupid antics of bimbos, drunken celebrities and feuds about who said what to whom (Trump-Rosie).

Mentioning somebody’ passing once should be more than enough, but no, we have to witness a whole week of interpretations and opinions even from people we never heard of.

What the heck is going on? Leave all that non-sense for the Enquirer and other tabloids!

Iran, Iraq and the U.S.

The new twist in Iraq’s mess is: Blame the Iranians! Nothing has worked so far, not even the deployment of more troops which has been condemned as futile by the majority of opinions, including those who at one time were fervent Bush follower’s, so the administration has found a new boogie man to scare us into accepting the horrible policy they are pursuing.

Is Iran arming some of the insurgents? I don’t know, really nobody knows for sure, but it is possible. The same as is possible that any other country in the region, feeling threatened by the conflict, may be arming one side or the other inside Iraq. After all, we are arming and putting troops on the ground with the clear intent to influence the internal political make-up of the country and eventually the region itself.

So, if others who oppose our point of view, whatever that may be, don’t like what we are doing, makes sense that they’ll try to counteract our actions. And this may be especially valid in the case of Iran, a country who has received nothing but harsh comments from our side and lots of veiled threats from our president. Between the stubbornness of Bush, an unlikely international expert and the big mouth of Condi Rice, forever blasting the Iranians, mostly on the intended use of atomic energy, that country has been left with little choices, if any, given the persistence of conflict in Iraq, a very close neighbor.

What we see as threat from Iran is really a by-product of our own doing. Pushing the entire region into fear with more troops and now the possibility of expanding the conflict into border nations creates the impression that not only Iraqis should follow our design, but everyone else around it.

That may have worked in Bush’s Fairyland, where Iraq should be a paradise by now with a happy and complacent population, grateful to live in harmony, peace and free of dictators. It hardly makes sense in the actual reality, where our troops are practically gambling their lives in every encounter and hoping that the guy they meet on the street does not carry a bomb to blow them up.

Unless the U.S. policy in the region does a 180, Iranians, Syrians and even many Pakistanis will never show good will and support to facilitate a solution. And why should they? Can they trust the American policy being implemented at the present time in Iraq? Sadly, we have nothing to show for; with the exception perhaps that Hussein is no longer there. Iraqis are fighting among themselves, sometimes with the willing help of foreign radicals, and killing each other by the dozen. Is this what the rest of the region can expect from our actions? I doubt they’d like that.

Articulate, The New Controversial Word?

I consider Joe Biden a nice guy. While I don’t agree with everything he may do or say as a representative, I believe his intentions are good and tries very hard to serve his constituents. So, why is he now the center of a controversy regarding some recent remarks about Barak Obama? After all he was praising him and being friendly in his appreciation of the black senator. Whoops, did I say black? Sorry, I meant African American. See? Here we are again, having to choose and pick what and how we call each other.

As you probably know by now “the word” that is all over the news is “articulate”. What’s so wrong with being articulate? I’d love to be called articulate for a change. Someone who’s articulate can communicate better with others and have his/her opinions understood by most of us without having to search for the meaning of obscure and convoluted words or terms. Being articulate provides an easy flow of ideas and exchange of opinions so necessary in politics.

The problem is that Obama, being a non-white person, can be articulate but cannot be called articulate by white people. Makes sense? Even Whoopi Goldberg, someone I admire and respect for her stand in several social issues, said that she doesn’t understand why others would apply the term to her - being so articulate that is - signifying that the use of the word when referring to an African American, is demeaning because it implies that the user of such word believes that most African Americans are incapable of being articulate.
So, we have come to this, we have to think twice every time we talk to each other even in friendly terms, because practically anything can trigger a controversy.

As usual in our political theatre, little things, words and gestures are more important than real substance. And this is especially true when race is on the minds of people at all times. We have not achieved total integration by any means in this country and have a long way to go on this.

I remember in my old country, we had our share of practically everything there is here. From different Europeans - Italians, Spanish, Germans, British, and so forth - to religious beliefs, such as Catholics, Jews, Muslims and yes, even Later Day Saints-door-knockers, including all colors, from white to black and the rainbow in between. What made us different perhaps was the fact that we were not trying to denigrate each other. I, being mostly white and catholic, could comfortably call my friend a freaking black, or money-grabbing Jew, for example, and still go to each other’s house and have a laugh and a good dinner. My friends could still make fun of my British roots and apparent lack of humor but we really enjoy the freedom of saying things that were not meant to hurt but have always been part of the vernacular. Most of those words were just a way of letting off steam when finding a quick and simple picture of each other, and we all accepted that without hard feelings. In the end, when any of our friends, straight or gays, Jews, Catholics or LTS, black, white or green, needed us, we were there and, joking aside, we share our lives and loved each other.

The more we try to impose on ourselves politically correct words, the less human we become and as result we are just presenting a parody of our personalities. Besides, what good it is to play the word game if our actions may or may not be the correct ones? I’d rather have crude words coming from honest people, friends and foes, than appealing terms and hidden agendas from dishonest individuals. If the words come from a friend, we can all have a laugh and if they come from someone who’s trying to hurt, I can be the better person and ignore him/her. It won’t change who I am.