It is clear to me that the one element left out in the evaluation of David Westerfield is the element of vice. He is not a pedophiliac, but a normal man who fell in to vice, like a street kid falls into crack cocaine. People don't know how quickly and how deeply the human person can fall, given the right circumstance. They consider his sentence now. He was convicted of murduring a child. How could any sympathy be generated for him except by his own illness, or suffering? Death is hardly an inappropriate sentence for a man who brutally murdered a child. Will the jury give him life in prison instead of death? Is the jury afraid to render a sentence of death?
March 25, "Annie Get Your Gun" Coulter opened both barrels on Halle Berry, Julia Roberts and the Oscar ceremonies. In an article titled, "I like black people too, Julia," Coulter blasts away at the barn-size racial chauvinism of Hollywood, the immature and "self-aggrandizing" attitude of Berry, and the racist patronizing of Julia Roberts.
Not exactly the sharp shooting Coulter is normally legendary for, this time she blew a hole in Hollywood wide enough for the U.S. Cavalry to run through. Why, there's more despicable critters held up in that animal shed than most folks ever knew.
Coulter blasts away first at Halle Berry, the first "woman of color" to win the best actress Oscar. Ms. Berry made a bit too much of her blackness, as well as her anatomy, to suit Coulter. Berry comes off as a "race-bating" manipulator, whose only distinction is precisely that. Poor Halle. And Annie didn't even bury the body.
Simon Woolley reminds us that the first Oscar awarded a black woman was to Hattie McDaniel for best supporting actress in Gone With the Wind (1940). Woolley knocks Berry's attitude too, but his race concerns are that having given the Oscars to Berry and Washington, Hollywood might retire from its race mission.
Well, Simon has the Woolley over his eyes anyway. He thinks Tarzan's blacks represent the "noble savage." Sorry, Simon. American Indians alone earned that one from Rousseau, in Discourse on the Arts & Sciences (1750), and also "lordly savage" from J. Q. Adams in his Plymouth Oration (1802).
The fact is Hollywood's been hard selling the tears and talents of blacks for over half a century now. They used Sidney Portier in No Way Out (1950). The first real "missionary" film for racial equality was The Defiant Ones, (1958) with Tony Curtis and Poitier. Most of Poitier's films are sermons on black strength, value, and equality. Interracial sexuality was carefully implied in Lilies of the Field (1963) where Poitier is a lone black man helping out a group of white nuns. Then came the outrageous Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967). Poitier is the fiancé of a young white woman (daughter of Tracey and Hepburn).
So, black men made it quicker and farther in Hollywood than women. Black women always held their own in popular music, like Billy Holiday (first recorded in 1933, with Benny Goodman), but were relatively late in Hollywood missions. The reason is simple: black women were not considered beautiful or sexually attractive to the mainstream American audience. They wouldn't sell.
It's really the fashion industry that devoted itself almost irrationally to the assertion that black women are beautiful, and will sell, or at least must be considered as beautiful as white women. In January, 1995, Mirabella made a heroic effort to equalize beauty for blacks when it featured the nappiest, big-lipped, wide-nosed, sandy blonde green-eyed girl in Caucasian history, and also a Southeast Asian girl with wildly curled hair.
Then Elle (November 1997) featured the Sudanese Negress Ale Wek in summer beachwear, exposing as much black body as possible. Ebony and Essence don’t model white women, but white women’s magazines must establish black beauty. When the rage settled, black women might model cosmetics for white women, but no hair products.
The real test of black desirability is not Hollywood awards, but fashion magazines. Coulter thinks Berry is a little "less than black" to be bragging about it, but the Western fashion industry already established what's desirable about black appearance. Berry never won recognition there.
Now the thought of Denzel Washington punching Julia Roberts in the mouth is actually quite delicate. Annie, black men are infamous for roughing up white women paramours. Your sentiments regarding Julia’s sexual condescension toward black men are appreciated, but Denzel already expressed them in Malcom X (1992). He could have asked Julia to kiss his feet instead.
But to reconstruct poor Julia for a moment, I pointed out in my article "Tall, Dark, and Scary" that white women have a problem expressing their feelings toward black men. Julia was just overcome by the circumstances of her profession, and by her own race and gender. To hail the achievement of a black man doesn't mean that she's secretly prejudiced, does it?
I don't like black people because they are black, but because of what sort of character the individual happens to have. Maybe Julia just happened to think a lot of Washington.
Annie, have you hugged your black man today?
8-16-02
Today there was a minor fiasco at the Oklahoma State Capital. The Senate Pro Tempore, Stratton Taylor, had officially formed a citizens task force to investigate and review legal process in the state of Oklahoma. But he announced the day before that the chairman of the task force had resigned. The chairman said he had not resigned. Our committee, and our chairman showed up at the capital, and were denied the meeting room, because we were told we had no chairman, and that the arrangements had not been made. Six weeks before the request had been made. We all had our first taste of mickey mouse politics at a high state level.
The power of American Liberalism is based on Christian emotion. This is the secret of its success. The divine virtues of love and forgiveness are legislated as "compassion" and "tolerance," and these usurped Christian emotions don the liberal in triumphant robes of political righteousness. The liberal himself doesn't have to be religious or moral.
Leftist converts aren't won by strategic Marxism, or some hidden, atheistic Jewish agenda, but by Christianity, America's founding status.
David Horowitz strongly hinted, in The Art of Political War, socialism is "a wish as deep as any religious faith," and “a lie grounded in human desire is too powerful for reason to kill,” p.192. In her latest book, Slander, Anne Coulter spells it out. Liberalism is "blind religious faith," p.2.
How did this union of religion and politics developed in America? How did the Left, the political movement most anxious to keep Church separate from State, itself achieve the ideal marriage and the power to enforced religion emotion? And why did the Church espouse the same agenda as the Left?
When I was at Yale Divinity, I found two mutually contributing factors in the answer: one, a faithless American church; two, an anti-American political agenda (socialism) with mass emotional appeal. Historically, the loss of faith came by technology, evolutionary theory, and Freudian psychology. Socialism came by early 19th century Unitarian social reformists like Joseph Tuckerman, Orestes Brownson, and Charles G. Finney, and later by a certain few Jews like Leon Trotsky, Isaac Deutcher, and David Horowitz. The American "social gospel" movement was in progress here long before Marxism. It prepared the way for Marxism, and provided a political party: the Democrats.
But American Christianity already inherited the religion vs. science issue from Europe. Science had the upper hand. By the 19th century, American prophets like Hawthorne, Melville, and Poe feared the spiritual effects of industrialization. Edgar Allan Poe wrote several pieces about the end of the world. In "Mellonta Tauta" (1848) he's not only concerned about the demoralizing effects of technology, but democracy and progress.
But it was the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee that did in the Christian faith. It was about teaching evolution in public schools. Darwin’s theory in The Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871) could not accommodate a literal reading of Genesis 1, and despite the American South's resistance to evolutionary education, infidelity prevailed. To keep the respect of scientists and university academics, most religious leaders succumbed to a "metaphorical" interpretation of Genesis.
God was dead since 1886 according to Friedrich Nietzsche (Beyond Good And Evil), then Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) explained how religion came about in man (Civilization and Its Discontents, 1930). The Christian faith was finally delivered into the hands of a parasitical replacement: Marxist socialism. American history after that was only inevitable, like a disease.
A castrated clergy, tottering in impotence, left the populace void of political ideology. The Church languished, and the Left knew it. The Left also knew she was the original American beauty, and that, married to her, the Left could create the "New America" under her revived skirts.
Yet, the Church initiated the romance. She wasn't raped by the Left. She prostituted herself for survival. She'd long forsaken any faithful covenant with the Bible, and without her wedding ring, and anyone could have her.
And have her the Left did. And the Liberal agenda seemed to have everything she needed. The Left wanted equal rights for all (which to the Church meant no racial, sexual, cultural, or religious discrimination, but total tolerance); no death penalties (which meant love and forgiveness, and not being judgmental); and political activism (which meant the Church could regain social power). What the Church had lost to the scientist, the professor and the psychologist, she could regain through the Leftist politician.
Yale preached "liberation theology." Any person, race, or country that felt oppressed must rise up and declare its liberty in Christ. Feminist ministers like Letty Russell nobly expounded the self-idolizing theme. Women were to rise up, races were to assert themselves, and third world countries were to resist the encroachment of Western capitalism, all in the name of Christ.
The American Left is energized by usurped Christian emotion, but it yields a Christ-less Christianity. A white female prostitute can bestow racial equality on a black man. An atheist can show mercy to a murderer. A politician can advocate abortion.
And they all want to take your guns, in the name of pacifism, if not Christ.
8-20-02
It is abundantly clear that news stories are now responding to the racial element in the current missing children stories. A new emphasis has become the ethnicity of the child.
The kidnapping/murder stories that made the biggest news, at first, were the ones that involved white children, in fairly normal situations. That is what made them the scariest. Those situations were something that the majority of the public can identify with. Those are the stories that make it big.
The stories coming from low income, racial minority situations are not as big simply because fewer people can identify with the situation, at least in America. Of course, the Van Dam story and the Smart girl story are white stories. The girl is dead in the Van Dam story. Elizabeth Smart hasn't been found yet. But, essentially, these cases seem to be shocking because, considering their socio-economic circumstances, the crime seemed so unexpected. This terrifies the majority of American people, and makes the more exciting news story. The circumstances of these stories, on the surface, would not have led anyone to think that such crimes would have occurred in those circumstances.
Everyone expects foul play in lower income minority situations. Fair or unfair, as far as news coverage goes, is irrelevant. News is a competitive business. The pros go for the bigger story. Equality has nothing to do with it.
But to make sure of politically correct news coverage, we now have several missing black children stories covered and re-covered, and now some Hispanic stories. Lets hope everyone's happy.
The irony is, there are no American Indian stories, and American Indian children suffer more death, kidnapping, and abuse than any other minority.
Another day, another missing child. It could be anywhere, and any child. But, usually, it is either lower income situations, or lower moral situations which create these kidnapping opportunities. It certainly isn't a new activity.
I see it every day. Part of my grocery shopping I do at a large Walmart's. For years, there have been posted anywhere from one to three dozen notices of missing children. That the media today has decided to make hot stories out of kidnappings tells more about the media than the social state of America.
The lesson? You can never depende on media to get the story straight. It is impossible, and not really to be faulted. The media is a competitive profession, not a truth machine.
Today, August 13, American Enterprise posted a new article of mine, on American Indians and Leftist manipulation of language.
I address the newly famous phrase, "una gente en dios." Supposedly, Columbus used this in reference to his first encounter with American Indians.
The phrase means, "a people in God." Indians were thought to be obviously spiritual. However, I can find no such phrase in Columbus' journals of the first voyage.
This phrase is apparently a creation of homonymic transnational manipulation. Indians are supposed to think that Columbus called them "en dios" instead of Indios.
My article presents some historical arguments against the idea that Columbus ever used such a phrase to mean American Indians impressed him as spiritual in the "una gente en dios" sense.
DY 08-13-02
Our American government, as well as England's, would have us believe that we are desparately dependent on the oil resources of the Middle East. Therefore, our national approach to the countries of the Middle East is fairly aggressive, to say the least. We have helped them to develop as independent nations, when we could have easily "colonized," or dominated them from the start. They had no capacity to resist Western power. They have been allowed to developed as nations, and now seem to threaten our Western energy base by non-cooperation or even aggressive resistance.
America seems morally obligated to show respect and fairness in international realtions, whenever and however possible. However, on the matter of fuel, there seems to be a limit to our toleration. There is only one serious question: Why have we not developed alternate fuel, non-fossil fuel?
We have known of such alternatives for over fifty years, but there has been no concerted effort to develop them. This question inevitably casts shadows on the Western policies toward the Middle East.
D.Y. 08-13-02
I recently discovered that in the late 1970's, before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, there were some 40,000 Iranians living in Oklahoma. They were here for education. They say it was the cheapest tuition in the United States. After the Revolution, I'm told, most moved away, to Texas (Dallas) or to California (Los Angeles) to find jobs. Now, in some twenty-five years later, there are only about eight thousand Iranians in Oklahoma, and most are American citizens.
I play soccer every week with a group of Iranians. "We are the leftovers," one of them said. They are mostly in their 40's, and some 50's They were students here, and simply never left. I talk to them often, and have learned much about their sentiments. They all love America, no question about that, yet, they love their country too. I've often wondered. If things changed for the better in Iran, would the one million plus Iranians who live in America all suddenly return? Most have family there. Most have deep attachments, naturally.
One thing Americans often forget, these Iranians got stranded. They didn't come here to demand their rights. They were here for education, with full intentions of returning home. They are a unique minority, so unique, in fact, that they are not given the status at all. They are considered "white," since they are the original "Aryan" race.
Dear Friends and Fellow American Patriots,
In recent weeks I have written six different articles on Iran, one of which was published, "Iranians And Guns," on Iran Free Press 7-19-02 (irnavagate.com). It seemed appropriate to post all of these articles on BadEagle.com, for the sake of history and public information.
August 11, AP wires say Iran has just turned over 16 al-Qaida members to Saudi Arabian authorities, and quotes Saudi Prince al-Faisal as saying Iran has "cooperated extensively with the United States."
We received mixed messages before, do it's hard to judge the significance of these remarks. I do know I sincerely want Iran to avoid any further violent conflict--with anyone. I've seen Iranian youth, and they are among the most beautiful, positive spirited, and talented young people in the world. Any major conflict, and they will be the ones to pay the price. Did the youth not pay the price before?
I'm preparing an article entitled, "Student Abuse," in which I will address political leaders, and their responsibility toward rightly guiding young people.
D.Y. 8-11-02