Archive for the ‘Liberal Fascism’ Category
An exceedingly excellent article in the New Yorker (surprising, given the lessons contained within) on the trial of Khmer Rouge killer Kaing Guek Eav a.k.a. “Duch” as seen through the eyes of journalist Thierry Cruvellier. The setup to the interview of Cruvellier has this interesting nugget:
Duch wasn’t one of the masterminds, but he was their zealous servant, and he was entrusted with the command of S-21, the prison where Khmer Rouge cadres were sent to be purged. The purges were constant. While ordinary Cambodian civilians were killed on an industrial scale and without ceremony, it was Duch’s mission to insure that everyone held at S-21 was broken down until they confessed to counter-revolutionary crimes—working for the C.I.A., say, or for the K.G.B., or for both, even though most prisoners had never heard of either agency before Duch’s torturers went to work—and then he had them slaughtered.
Duch didn’t expect to survive the revolution: he had sent most of his own mentors to their deaths, and, by the logic of S-21, his time, too, would come to confess and be condemned.
Thankfully, America is not Cambodia and no one is being put to death for their beliefs, but the mentality behind the likes of Duch is alive and well in the West where on a daily basis, celebrities, athletes, politicians and other members of the glitterati are forced to apologize for their beliefs and made, one way or another, to abandoned those beliefs for that of the Ayatollahs of Pop Culture. No, no one is killed in the literal sense, but nevertheless, America is home to a bloodsport of ruining lives that are lived out in the grand arena of fame and fortune. Many point out the folly of going along with such authoritarian actions for, ultimately, no one will be safe from the politically correct gulag. Duch always suspected the tables would be turned on him one day, and yet, it all made sense to him.
Where does this mentality come from? Another interesting snippet where Cruvellier is asked about left-wing vs. right-wing tribunals:
“There is a historical lineage between the far left and the human-rights movement. In the nineteen-sixties, after Stalin’s terror was widely acknowledged; in the seventies, after Solzhenitsyn’s denunciation of the Gulag; and then, finally, in the eighties, after the horrors of Pol Pot were fully revealed, many Western intellectuals moved from the discredited and disgraced Marxism-Leninism to the ideals of universal human rights. As opposed to the boredom of prosaic reforms, advocating for human rights is, in its own way, another grandiose and poetic enterprise where we, as a people, fight against exploiters. As the French philosopher Raymond Aron astutely noted, human rights, as a political philosophy, is based on a notion of purity. It’s not about taking responsibility for a decision “in unpredicted circumstances, based on incomplete knowledge”—that’s politics, said Aron. Instead, human rights function as a refuge for utopia.
“What was interesting to observe at the Khmer Rouge tribunal was that former Western Maoists or fellow-travellers were not transformed, when they became disillusioned with Communism, into skeptical minds. They now presented themselves as human-rights defenders. The appeal of “pure” ideologies seemed irresistible to them. Revolutionaries get indignant about police abuse or ruthless capitalism, and then forgive, in the name of the revolution, every injustice they had otherwise denounced. Interestingly, the moral indignation of human-rights activists can suddenly be silenced when institutions that they helped create and that were supposed to exemplify their ideals—such as international war-crimes tribunals—start violating the very principles they have claimed to stand for. They say that criticism would serve the “enemies” of justice. They begin to accept that the end justifies the means. Double standards widely apply. The drive that often made them efficient when they worked in a hostile environment now, when they are empowered, transforms into an intransigence that can make them very insensitive to realities that don’t fit their ideological paradigm. International tribunals can be a harsh reminder that injustice and unfairness are not incompatible with humanist intentions.”
Ruminate on that.
Over in England, there’s this comedic television host named Jonathan Ross. Apparently, he’s a polarizing figure because he has at times made humorous quips about women and their amble frames. After being named the host of this year’s Hugo Awards which honor science-fiction writing, the sci-fi world was up in arms with concerns about…”safety.”
Novelist Charles Stross wrote:
“Worldcon should be safe space for fans, and inviting a high profile media personality who has been targeted by the tabloids is going to cause collateral damage, even if nothing happens, simply by making many fans feel less safe,” wrote Stross. “If Ross is toastmaster, I can predict that at least one major Hugo nominee/past winner [McGuire] who was planning to be there won’t be present at the ceremony, because Ross has past form for using women with weight issues as the butt [Ed. - irony anyone?] of his humour. She says she doesn’t feel safe, and I believe her: I wouldn’t want to be there in her shoes … I don’t like seeing my friends mocked, so I probably won’t be there either.”
It’s the use of this word “safe” that drew my interest. While this isn’t necessarily a new argument in the realm of free speech when we’re talking about so-called “hate speech” or speech that supposedly “incites violence,” I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes the new buzzword for the progressive left as they try to, as John Dingell puts it, “control the people.” We’ll hear soon that people don’t “feel safe” when Rush Limbaugh is playing on the radio or when Glenn Beck is speaking at a rally in their town or what have you. Take it to the bank.
In light of recent events involving NSA spying, Edward Snowden, the IRS bullying the Tea Party and so forth, I decided to finally pick up The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. It’s a sci-fi novel written around 1970 and published in 1975 about a secret society that controls world events. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell and it’s a highly amusing read if you have a better-than-average grasp of world history. However, I came across this one passage that made me do a spit-take. In it, the character Hagbard is explaining how the Illuminati is planning to assassinate some American leaders.
Remember, this was written around 1970:
“Their grip on Washington is still pretty precarious. They’ve been able to socialize the economy. But if they showed their hand now and went totalitarian all the way, there would be a revolution. Middle-roaders would rise up with right-wingers, and left-libertarians, and the Illuminati aren’t powerful enough to withstand that kind of massive revolution. But they can rule by fraud, and by fraud eventually acquire access to the tools they need to finish the job of killing off the Constitution.”
“What sort of tools?”
“More stringent security measures. Universal electronic surveillance. No-knock laws. Stop and frisk laws. Government inspection of first-class mail. Automatic fingerprinting, photographing, blood tests, and urinalysis of any person arrested before he is charged with a crime. A law making it unlawful to resist even unlawful arrest. Laws establishing detention camps for potential subversives. Gun control laws. Restrictions on travel. The assassinations, you see, establish the need for such laws in the public mind. Instead of realizing that there is a conspiracy, conducted by a handful of men, the people reason—or are manipulated into reasoning—that the entire populace must have its freedom restricted in order to protect the leaders. The people agree that they themselves can’t be trusted. Targets for assassination will be mavericks of left or right who are either not part of the Illuminati conspiracy or have been marked as unreliable. The Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, for example, were capable of mobilizing a somewhat libertarian left-right-black-white populist movement. But the assassinations that have occurred so far are nothing compared to what will take place. The next wave will be carried out by the Mafia, who will be paid in Illuminati gold.”
I’m no conspiracy theorist, but damn…that’s too familiar for comfort. Nice job, Roberts.
Odd to see a black president & black attorney general claim the nation hasn’t made progress on racial issues in the past 50 years.
— Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) June 25, 2013
“All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing
circumstances . . . they are all artificial and temporary.” – Strobe Talbott
The recent scandal regarding the government surveillance program “Prism” and the preoccupation of Congress with amnesty for illegals are not separate stories, but in fact perfectly entwined.
If you paid attention in the 1990’s, you saw the phrase “New World Order” develop a significant amount of recognition. Ironically, it was President George H. W. Bush who would send the conspiracy worlds of the political left and right into hysterics when he used the phrase in a various speeches as the Soviet Union was breaking up and coalition forces drove Iraq out of Kuwait. His definition of the term seemed rather banal as he talked about everyone living in harmony, fighting for the weak, and other bromides. However, the term New World Order had been around for many years, used by such diverse world leaders at Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill. It also reminded people or the semi-real/semi-fictitious Illuminati.
Move ahead to the Clinton era and you had many foreign policy wonks dropping hints about one-world government such as the aforementioned Strobe Talbott. As James Pinkerton wrote in 1999:
To the Strobe Talbotts of the world, it’s more than a promise: It’s a career opportunity. The tragic irony of John Lennon’s life is that the man who sang about “nothing to kill or die for” in “Imagine” was himself killed by a deranged stalker in 1980; surely there are even more armed and dangerous people loose in the world today. That’s bad news for American taxpayers, not to mention American soldiers on the cutting edge of intervention. But for Talbott types, looking beyond their own petty borders for new venues to think big thoughts and make big pronouncements and undertake big missions, it’s a global-government dream come true.
But as we move on to 2013, the explanation is not so simple as mere “career opportunity.” What we are witnessing is a very carefully crafted plan centuries in the making. The people behind the “New World Order,” if you wish to call it that, are working toward a world without borders, and a world where everyone is indeed tracked.
We were shocked (but some of us, not that shocked) to find that the American government, while not necessary listening to every phone call or reading every email in the country, was indeed tracking every phone call and usage of the internet and then, so we’re told, using algorithms to look for patterns. However, while the government has been able to keep tabs on Tea Party members and Sharyl Attkisson, it somehow wasn’t able to find any red flags (or if it did, it didn’t care) regarding the Tsarnaev Brothers.
Meanwhile, Congress is dealing with the most pressing issue of our time [insert sarcastic inflection here]. More pressing than a stagnant economy, high unemployment, high gas prices or the threat of Islamic terrorism. No, the most important issue in the country appears to be immigration…more specifically the legalization of illegals. Why? Well, most importantly, it creates more Democrat Party votes thus allowing the march toward the fabled New World Order to continue. When Tea Partiers talk about securing the borders, the amnesty Gang of 8 says, “Oh yeah, we’ll totally do that, just as soon as we get all the illegals citizenship.” However, inside their heads, they’re thinking “Stupid fools! Not only are we not going to secure the borders, we’re going to eliminate the concept of borders.” This is what Schumer is thinking. Rubio, however, is much more idealistic and thinks he’s doing good for the downtrodden and will be rewarded for it. Stupid fools, indeed.
The part I always struggle with when it comes to the men and women that wish to enslave their fellow men to the yoke of authoritarian (at a minimum) government is “what’s the payoff?” I mean, everybody dies. Why does one get up in the morning saying “I’m gonna work to roll back freedom as much as possible so people will eventually live under a watchful eye for centuries, long after I’m dead and gone.”? What’s the point to this? Why not just makes enough money to retire, then go fishing?
Well, it’s all goes back to the beginning of civilization itself, and the concept is eventually documented by a man you may have heard of, that Greek monster, Plato.
But first, we should look at the very, very beginning. Speaking of the early Mesopotamian and Egyptian societies, Norman Kantor wrote in his excellent book The Civilization of the Middle Ages:
In these early societies there were, in essence, only two social groups, or “classes” (to use a term that has been central to aristocratic thought since the nineteenth century). One class was the elite: the aristocratic group that controlled both rural and urban wealth and dominated the religious institutions, the government, and the bureaucracy. The other class was a mass peasantry, who may or may not have been slaves, but in any case were bound to till the soil in the interests of the ruling elite. We have no reliable statistical information about these early societies—indeed, it is difficult to give social statistics for any period before the Middle Ages—but a safe estimate would be that the elite compromised 5 percent of the total population. The vast majority of the population, somewhere around 80 percent, belonged to the peasantry.
In short, most of the history of civilization has been rulers and slaves. The rulers became rulers because they were willing to risk death for power. They went beyond the natural instincts of survival to give their lives a “higher purpose.”
This concept is explored in the Francis Fukuyama’s landmark work The End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama’s overall thesis would nevertheless be proven wrong and after 9/11 he would go down with his sinking ship, but that’s another story for another time. Nonetheless, his scholarship in the book is superb. Regarding the concept of “recognition” and the various words used to describe it (Plato’s “thymos”; Nietzsche’s “beast with red cheeks,” et al) Fukuyama writes:
All of these terms refer to that part of man which feels the need to place value on things—himself in the first instance, but on the people, actions, or things around him as well. It is part of the personality which is the fundamental source of the emotions of pride, anger, and shame, and is not reducible to desire, on the one hand, or reasons on the other. The desire for recognition is the most specifically political part of the human personality because it is what drives men to want to assert themselves over other men, and thereby into Kant’s condition of “asocial sociability.”
In other words, man has a desire to force his will onto others. We all have the desire, but obviously, it varies in degrees person to person.
This takes me to our ol’ buddy Plato, who introduced the idea of the Philosopher King. Put simply, Plato argued that philosophers, i.e. the smart guys, the guys that read lots of books, pondered concept like “what is beauty?” for countless hours and generally knew more about life than anyone else, should be the kings that ruled societies. The 20th Century philosopher Karl Popper would lambast Plato, Hegel and Marx arguing that their philosophies were the road to totalitarianism. Debatable, in the case of the first two, but most of the evidence proves this theory even if the men themselves weren’t totally totalitarian. The Ayatollah Khomeini is said to have been influenced by Plato’s philosopher kings concept (though solid proof is a big hazy).
I speak of all this heavy stuff to point out that man’s desire to rule man has always been with us and is still with us. Jonah Goldberg points out in a recent column that the libertarian philosophy (i.e. liberty, man answering to no man) is the only new concept in recent history:
That phrase, “the wave of the future,” became famous thanks to a 1940 essay by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She argued that the time of liberal democratic capitalism was drawing to a close and the smart money was on statism of one flavor or another — fascism, Communism, socialism, etc. What was lost on her, and millions of others, was that this wasn’t progress toward the new, but regression to the past. These “waves of the future” were simply gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.
The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it’s still unfolding.
The failure of Fukuyama’s thesis is his argument that ideological history is linear. Written as the Soviet Union crumbled, The End of History argued that liberal democracy had won the day, defeating all other political philosophies and, with no other concepts on the horizon, it was thus “the end of history.”
I have reached the conclusion that history is not linear but cyclical. As in nature, we have life and death, sunrise and sunset. Man is born a slave but eventually throws off his shackles, only to be enslaved again. From Athens to America and France, liberty was achieved and is now slipping away, but the free man will rise again…perhaps now or perhaps 100 years from now.
This brings me finally to George Orwell and 1984. Recent events concerning the IRS and the NSA have led to a recent spike in the novel’s sales. We’re not where Winston Smith found himself just yet, but said events lead many to believe we’re on our way. If so, what can we do about it? Well first, let’s understand what Big Brother wants from us. What may surprise you is that this was encapsulated in a simple scene from the movie Office Space. Watch closely:
Do you see what’s going on here? It’s not enough for Jen Aniston to simply do as the boss tells her to do. He wants her to agree with and be devoted to the concept of “pieces of flair” like that complete tool, Brian. It was the same with Winston Smith. It wasn’t enough that he should obey…he must also love Big Brother…and in the end (spoiler alert!) he found that he truly loved Big Brother as the long hoped-for bullet entered his brain.
So what can we do in this age of encroaching government? One word: defiance. By defiance, I don’t mean act like those Code Pink mutants and dress up like vaginas and shout during Congressional hearings. What I mean is defiance in the way you live your life. Big Brother plays “long ball.” He’ll work as long as it takes to make you love him. But if you let him know you’re ready to play long ball as well, he can never win. Put up an American flag, go to a Sarah Palin rally, give money to the Tea Party–not on the sly, but in the hope that Big Brother does notice. Let him try and scare you and let him know no matter how many audits or tapped phones you are subjected to, he’ll never have your mind, he’ll never have your love.
You want to fight this out for centuries? Game on.
Nick Gillespie, the Fonzie of the libertarian movement, has an article today in The Daily Beast(!) lamenting how the public is okay with Big Brother as long as he is of the right party affiliation. Again, not that shocking.
In January 2006, Pew Research asked whether it was OK to collect info on “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading emails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.” A slim majority of all respondents—51 percent—said yes while 47 percent said no.
The partisan breakdown, however, was vastly different, with 75 percent of Republicans finding it acceptable and just 23 percent dissenting. When it came the Democrats, only 37 percent of Democrats signed off on NSA snooping, with a whopping 61 percent saying screw off.
Fast-forward to June 2013, when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office after an easy reelection and his party controls the Senate. Pew asked respondents whether it’s OK that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.” This time around, it’s Democrats who overwhelmingly support collecting collecting yottabytes and exabytes of metadata on us all, with 64 percent saying they are totally fine with NSA surveillance programs and a measly 34 percent disagreeing. Among Republicans, enthusiasm for eye-in-the-sky surveillance has taken a major hit, with only 52 percent agreeing and 47 percent saying no.
Too true, but we can’t dismiss partisanship out of hand. Principles should be the utmost, but when you vote for a president, the trust issue has to play a role, or at least, it should. While George W. Bush was very much a big-government Republican, I didn’t have much fear that he would monitor my phone conversations unless I started hanging out with Hezbollah…nor did I fear that he would use the IRS to punish his political enemies. Didn’t seem like that kind of guy. With Obama and/or Hillary, I knew such actions were possible if not probable. In fact, Hillary already has a rap-sheet full of such nefarious activities.
Nevertheless, Gillespie is correct that we are put too much trust in “our guys” over staying true to our principles even when we run the show. However, I think the lack of outrage on a grand scale over Prism and the IRS targeting is cultural in nature. We’ve been trained to believe that this was going on all along. George Orwell introduced the possibility…since then we’ve been inundated with movies like The Truman Show, Minority Report, The Bourne series…and going back a ways, the masterpiece work of Francis Ford Coppola, The Conversation. Couple this with non-stop cable documentaries on Area 51, UFO conspiracies and the like and you have a public that receives the recent news with a knowing shrug.
So Gillespie says we need to be more principled and less partisan. Yes, but I would also advise folks to call the government’s bluff, whether it’s a bluff or not. At this point in the game, we’re not where Winston Smith was. Right now, you should show yourself to the cameras. Let them see what you do and think. Put a sign up that says “Lindsey Graham, Come Out of the Closet!” or “Wacko Birds of the World, Unite!” Let them know where you stand and let them come after you. When that happens, expose them. Look, I gave Mitt Romney $300 in 2012. It’s already established that if I ever need a lung-transplant or something like that under Obamacare, it’s not happening. Knowing that, I might as well spend what freedom I have left being defiant against tyranny.
Here are the 4 Democrats (not counting Harry Reid) who voted against the Manchin-Toomey Gun Control Bill:
Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
And guess what, 3 of them are up for re-election next year. So, to the Republicans that will run against them, your message to your prospective voters is simple: “How would they vote on the same bill in 2015?”
MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry has become the latest bête noire of the so-called right and I use that French term like bait on a proverbial hook in a pond stocked-full of white liberals. She is black and politically she is a “beast,” but the semantics and hyperbole of the term are more ironic than axiomatic as you’ll soon see.
Harris-Perry has been under fire for comment she made on a network promo that children do not “belong” to parents but rather belong to the community. In light of the criticism, she has held firm to her rhetoric and defended her position, though with just a dash of sedation.
“This isn’t about me wanting to take your kids, and this isn’t even about whether children are property. This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years.”
Quite right, Melissa, quite right! That is indeed what it’s all about and I applaud you for sticking to your guns and standing firmly on the side of fascism. In this age of mushy moderates and Senators not wanting to stand next to other Senators in public after politically fornicating with them in private, this radical stand is a breath of fresh air despite the gust of tyranny that soon follows.
In that foul year of our Lord, 2012 (to paraphrase Dr. Gonzo), the political discourse was littered with an arguably unprecedented number of straw men divisions unleashed on America’s political battlefield. For someone of the political right to offer up the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the federal government didn’t need to spend tax dollars to fund cowboy poetry festivals, the notion was quickly equated to wanting a form of anarchy in America akin to something out of the Road Warriors putting us all at the mercy of Master Blaster. This platform of anti-libertarian hysteria won over a public far too enamored with Snooki’s pregnancy, their Instagram accounts and, for reasons I still don’t fully understand, an insistence on calling me “maybe.” Couple that with a still demented fear of doing anything that might easily be construed as racist by the high council of race relations on Manhattan’s upper-east side, and you had the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States. This is a Cliff’s Note version of my answer to William S. Burroughs famous question: “When did I stop wanting to be president?” But that’s for another time.
Harris-Perry is quite right that battle between individual freedoms and the “common good” is a fight we’ve been having for some time whether it be hundreds or thousands of years. For our purposes here, let us stick to the last 50 or so. The true believers of the political left has always been experts on playing long ball. They know that events like the Democrats losing the House of Representatives in 1994 are mere speed bumps on a very long road that F.A. Hayek urged us all to avoid. They know full well (as do the bigger brains on the right) that once a government program is in place, it’s easier to move a mountain than to remove the program from layers of bureaucracy and public complacency. Republicans play prevent-defense, or play not to lose, you choose your sports metaphor…thus, they almost always lose except when a once-a-century leader comes along. But the likes of Reagan and Thatcher could only slow the descent so much before they are stabbed in the back by their own palace guards whether they be named Bush or Cameron. But still, the fight between individuality and collectivism continues in its many forms. Harris-Perry has shown some moxie in sticking to her position publicly even if said position may be even more radical privately. But as compassionate human-being, I feel compelled to warn her that she mustn’t forget that while she calls for all of us to be part of the “collective,” she will always be subservient to a sub-collective known as white liberals. The hard truth is, they call the shots.
When someone utters the “N-word,” who is the first to get the vapors? When the Amos-and-Andy radio show started getting criticism, where did it come from? When Robert Crumb drew black caricatures in his comics, from where was he feeling the heat?
White liberals put up with black punditry as long as they realize that they are and will always be victims. When they stray from this, shall we say, plantation? the consequences are dire. Dr. Ben Carson has been told by political pundits and public universities in no uncertain terms that his speech is not deemed by them to be worthy of First Amendment protection and therefore must not be uttered. They understand they can’t legally stop him from speaking, but to paraphrase Arte Johnson “We have vays of making you not talk.”
For white liberals, the scourge of the planet is quite simply white people. They are the imperialists, the rapers of the western lands, the bible-thumping, anarcho-capitalists who refuse to show the proper respect for cultures prone to cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora of young girls. These scoundrels are also deemed guilty of referring to anyone not white as “brown people.” Peculiar then, the only time I hear that term “brown people” is from media entertainment produced in Hollywood, California. But I’ll take the bait. Brown people = good. White people = bad. That’s perhaps the most sacrosanct decree from Democratic Republic of the Limousine Liberal, so let’s go with it.
Ms. Harris-Perry, you have shown resolve and fortitude in sticking to your guns (no, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, that’s not a veiled message) on the virtues of collectivism. You are special. You could be wasting time ladling soup to the homeless or building houses for the downtrodden, but you’ve gone beyond that. You host a show on an extremely low-rated, hysterical “news” network where your message can be heard by literally hundreds of people. Showing us such bravery, it’s time to take things to the next level. Your masters’ have decreed that white people are the scourge of the planet, so it’s time for solutions. It’s time for these high-minded white people on the upper-east side of humanity, who truly understand the evil that lurks in their epidermis, to do what must be done: commit mass suicide.
Albert Camus wrote in the The Myth of Sisyphus:
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer [the questions of suicide].
For white liberals and their cultist followers, the answer to this question has to be indisputable, incontestable and irrefutable. If planet earth is to be saved, white people en masse, as many as possible, must commit suicide and allow the “brown people” to finally, at long last, live in a grand, unfettered utopia, free of individualism and all of the unpleasantness and inconveniences that freedom and liberty bring. You, Ms. Harris-Perry may just be the right person to bring to the fore a solution who’s time has truly come. And if you feel any pangs of doubt, just remember that Janet Reno is available if you feel the process needs a gentle nudge.
Best of luck to you and yours.
Thus Spat Zarathustra
[Editor's note: If you fail to grasp the irony of this blog post, please include yourself in the hopefully eventual kool-aid party that will be held at Sardi's on West 44th street. Invitation only.]