sparrow chat

I’m no great sports fan. I’d never heard of Ozzie Guillen until today, and frankly, it doesn’t bother me if I never hear of him again. I understand he has a passion for bullfighting. Those who take pleasure from cruelty to animals deserve no respect from me.

Yet today, I found myself sympathizing with Ozzie Guillen. He’s been punished for speaking his mind. Here, in the America that boasts constantly of its freedoms, Ozzie Guillen has been punished for daring to say he admires Fidel Castro.

Why are Americans not roaring their disapproval and demanding his reinstatement? He wasn’t being racist. He wasn’t suppressing a minority. He merely said he admired Fidel Castro. As a result, he’s been suspended for five games.

Oh, did I forget to clarify? Ozzie Guillen is the new manager of the Miami Marlins. I believe they’re a baseball team in…guess where?

Florida – yet again! It all happens in Florida. I’m tired of writing about the place.

Apparently, in Florida, you have the legal right to shoot unarmed boys on their way home from the candy store, but you mustn’t announce publicly your admiration for a socialist dictator.

Florida is full of Cuban people who fled the regime of Fidel Castro. America welcomed them with open arms because America hates Castro. They’ve tried to assassinate him on numerous occasions. In America it’s okay to assassinate people the government doesn’t like. These days they’re murdering folks in the mountains of Pakistan by remote control .

In 1959, Castro toppled the previous dictator of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista

Batista was America’s boy. He loved capitalism. He aligned himself with all the wealthy sugar plantation owners on the island, while keeping the rest of the populace in near slavery. America helped him by supplying the weapons for his secret police to commit gross acts of violence, torture, and public executions. In total, America’s boy was responsible for the deaths of around 20,000 Cubans.

Why was America so keen on Fulgencio Batista? Here’s what John F Kennedy had to say on the subject:

At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands—almost all the cattle ranches—90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions—80 percent of the utilities—practically all the oil industry—and supplied two-thirds of Cuba’s imports.”

And Kennedy didn’t stop there:

“Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years … and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state – destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista – hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend – at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections.”

Despite these remarks, John F Kennedy still did his level best to have Castro assassinated. The notorious Bay of Pigs affair was probably his greatest blunder.

It was to topple Batista’s evil, US-backed, regime that Fidel Castro returned to Cuba from exile in 1956. It took three years, but eventually Batista was forced to flee the island and Castro took over control.

He nationalized the industries and threw out the US corporations. In retaliation, the US began an economic embargo of the island, which began in 1960 and continues to this day, devastating the Cuban economy and forcing many into poverty.

While it could be argued that Castro’s regime was far from perfect – tales of torture, executions, and political prisoners kept in appalling conditions, abound – there is no doubt that the American government has taken every opportunity to blacken Castro’s name.

During Eisenhower’s presidency the CIA even joined forces with the Mafia in an attempt to assassinate him. When a superpower stoops that low it should ring warning bells right around the globe.

So, today, I join with Ozzie Guillen in stating my admiration for Fidel Castro. He’s stood against the corrupt and arrogant superpower of the United States for over sixty years, and they haven’t got him yet.

Now that’s some achievement.

Twenty years ago it would only have been used for dog-food. Since the 1990s it’s been in 70% of all processed beef products on the store shelf. ‘Pink Slime’ is the one that leaped off the production belt of secrecy and out into the limelight of public knowledge, thanks in no small part to TV chef, Jamie Oliver, who ‘outed’ ‘Pink Slime’ on a 2011 TV show.

What disgusted consumers the most was Oliver sloshing household bleach all over the stuff.

They’d probably be even more horrified if they realized ammonia is used extensively in the meat industry. How do they think those ‘oven-ready’ chickens remain un-putrified until they finally reach the supermarket shelves?

The answer is they’re stored in huge caverns filled with ammonia gas. Back in the mid-seventies, while training with the British RSPCA, I visited a poultry processing and storage plant. It was one of the largest in the country. I won’t mention the company’s name, but can assure you the processing was definitely not as ‘bootiful’ as the owner described his product on television. British readers will, no doubt, remember the relevant advertisement.

‘Pink slime’ is supposedly safe. It meets federal food safety standards. It’s only fault is it’s bloody disgusting.

Desperate to save their profits, the meat industry is fighting back with a new slogan: “Dude – it’s beef”. Wow! They’ve also called on failed Republican presidential nominee, Rick Perry, for assistance. He happily sampled the product and appeared to enjoy it.

The meat marketing companies knew it was disgusting, so they came up with the name, ‘Lean Finely Textured Beef’. That makes it sound quite appealing, and while it isn’t a lie, there can be no doubt of the obvious deception to the consumer.

It may be perfectly acceptable to describe a tin of ‘Lassie’ as ‘lean, meaty, chunks in a rich, taste-laden, gravy’ when the reality is a load of offal processed into lumps of gristle, but dogs aren’t too bothered what they eat so long as it tastes okay.

To treat human consumers as though they are no better than animals is an extreme insult, and a certain marketing disaster once the ‘pink slime’ hits the fan.

It’s sad that 850 employees have to lose their jobs because yet another food marketing scandal has come to light. Some folk appear to blame Jamie Oliver, or the media, but it’s not their fault.

No, the blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the meat processing industry. Deception will out, eventually.

We’re not their pets, we’re their customers, and it’s time they remembered that.

Two weeks ago, a seventeen year old black youth, Shawn Tyson, was sent to prison for life, with no possibility of parole, for the brutal, cold-blooded, murder of two young men from the UK, James Cooper and James Kouzaris. Both men were in their mid-twenties.^[1]

The two men were on vacation in Florida and strayed into the rundown Newtown area of Sarasota late one night while looking for an all-night cafe. Tyson, released from prison only that day after a conviction for shooting at cars, gunned them down as they stood in the road, defenseless, pleading with him to spare their lives.

Just about the time Shawn Tyson was learning he’d spend the rest of his life behind bars, Florida neighborhood watch man, George Zimmerman, gunned down black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in an incident that sent the US media into a frenzy and provoked marches and protests throughout the state.^[2]

On March 6th this year, not long after the Trayvon Martin killing, a disgruntled ex-teacher at the Episcopal School of Jacksonville, in Florida, walked back into the school carrying an AK47 assault rifle and shot the head teacher, Dale Regan. Ms Regan had been at the school thirty-four years. The man, Shane Schumerth, a Spanish teacher at the school had been fired earlier that day. After shooting the principle, he killed himself.^[3]

James Cooper, James Kouzaris, Trayvon Martin and Dale Regan, were all in front of the bullet. They are dead. Shane Schumerth killed himself with his own gun. Shawn Tyson, George Zimmerman, may as well be dead. Their lives are over, destroyed by the same weapons used to inflict their deadly violence.

It may seem that Florida is especially gun-violent. It isn’t. Similar stories abound all over the United States. In every state similar incidents occur on an almost daily basis.

I received this document recently in the mail, together with an unsolicited membership form.

It came from the National Rifle Association, based in Florida. I sent it back, unsigned.

Guns kill – that’s all they do.

^{[1] “Shawn Tyson gets life sentence for murdering British tourists in Florida” Guardian, March 12th 2012}

^{[2] George Zimmerman Innocent Of Racist Hate Crime” Sparrow Chat, March 20th 2012}

^{[3] “Two dead in shooting at Florida high school” March 6th 2012}

The latest revelation to spew forth from the Supreme Court of the United States is further evidence of how much this once august and independent establishment has become affiliated to corporate influence.

The question under debate is whether the federal government has the power to make medical insurance mandatory on every individual. Is it ‘unconstitutional’; does it attack those sacred principles: the rights and freedoms of the individual?

What the Supreme Court is totally ignoring is the very essence of government. Governments are appointed by the people specifically to regulate their affairs within the confines of the society in which they live. In a democracy, that means governing for the greater good of all – not just those at the higher echelons of society.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, disaffectionately labeled ‘Obamacare’ by its opponents, was an attempt by the US government to provide a framework of support for those people presently unable to afford medical insurance. ‘Healthcare for all’ was one of the platforms Barack Obama campaigned on, and the fact it helped him win the White House in 2008 is proof that a majority of Americans supported it.

Despite huge resistance from House Republicans, who forced substantial amendments to the bill and seriously weakened it, it managed to become law. There is little doubt, if Obama is elected to a second term, he will make every effort to strengthen those weaknesses imposed by his adversaries.

Unless, of course, the Republicans and their corporate masters bend sufficient Supreme Court judges to their will and force a legal ruling against the Act.

What began, only a few days ago, solely as a discussion on the legality of mandatory insurance, has now resulted in a proposition, by certain of the more ‘conservative’ (read: right-wing) judges to throw out the Act in its entirety.

If the US government is acting on behalf of the majority of the people in this matter, it seems that the Supreme Court most certainly is not. Which begs the question: on whose behalf are they acting?

The argument against mandatory insurance appears to hinge on a lack of precedent. Apparently, only once before has any US government tried to impose such a mandatory imposition. It was nearly two hundred years ago and only lasted a few months before being overturned.

Yet, it’s perfectly fine for any of the fifty states to do it, though they can be a little tardy. Take motor insurance, for example. Despite the advent of the Model T in 1908, Massachusetts was the only state requiring compulsory auto insurance until 1956. Most of the others followed suit in the 1960s and 70s, though Illinois allowed its citizens to drive around without insurance until 1990. God alone knows how many people died, or were maimed, from road accidents between 1908 and 1990!

Was Illinois merely protecting the ‘rights and freedoms’ of its citizens? Surely, not those who were mowed down by uninsured drivers?

The only US state still so irresponsible as to not demand mandatory auto insurance is New Hampshire. There, a penniless bum can swan around in any old pick-up truck and kill or maim whoever he chooses. If he has no money, they’ll likely get no recompense whatsoever.

Which begs a somewhat ironic scenario. Imagine for a moment, you lose your job, and with it, your family’s medical coverage. Bereft, you spend your last few hundred dollars on a vacation in New Hampshire. Whilst there, a drunken hobo from a tumbledown shack in the backwoods smashes his pick-up into you and your family. You spend weeks in hospital, only to discover on your discharge that the hospital’s taken your house and all your possessions as part payment for those huge medical bills.

You have no money, nowhere to live, and your only recourse is to move you and your family into the tumbledown shack with the drunken hobo who almost killed you all.

Maybe ‘Obamacare’ might seem a little more attractive from your new perspective.

What price your rights and freedoms, then?

The killing of teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida last month has been hyped by many in the media as a racial hate crime. It’s hard to understand how the gunman, George Zimmerman, could commit such a crime given that he’s of Cuban origin and brought up in a mixed race household, if news reports are to be believed.

This was no racial hate crime, despite the hysteria of minor celebrities like Al Sharpton. It was cold-blooded murder.

If there was any element of racism connected to this case it was on the part of the Florida police department. They knew Zimmerman as a serial 911 caller, though were apparently unaware he was a self-appointed vigilante with no affiliation to any official Neighborhood Watch group. When Trayvon Martin was killed they made no effort to apprehend Zimmerman, which would undoubtedly not have been the case had Martin been Caucasian.

According to Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch Program, there are about 22,000 registered watch groups nationwide, and Zimmerman was not part of a registered group — another fact the police were not aware of at the time of the incident.”^[1]

Despite this fact, he is still given the title ‘captain’ of a Neighborhood Watch group in many news reports. If he were in an official group then he should have followed the rules as laid down by the National Neighborhood Watch Program manual:

“It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous.”^[1]

Instead, Zimmerman went out that night armed with a 9mm hand gun. He was, according to some, angry at a number of recent burglaries within the gated community. He pursued Trayvon Martin, despite being explicitly told by the police not to do so. He then confronted Martin and shot him.

Whether Trayvon Martin tried to fight off Zimmerman is irrelevant. Even if, unlikely though it is, he got the better of Zimmerman in a fight, Martin was unarmed and therefore not in a position to put Zimmerman’s life at such risk as to condone his use of the firearm.

George Zimmerman dreamed of being a cop. No doubt he acted out that fantasy while he ‘patrolled’ his neighborhood each night, dreaming of how he would react if faced with one of the burglars he longed to apprehend.

Meanwhile, the gun on his hip just itched, and itched, and itched, to be fired.

Trayvon Martin was no burglar. He was just a teenage lad returning home from the local store after nipping out for refreshments during a break in the TV ballgame.

To Zimmerman he neatly fitted a description long carried in his head. Martin was a criminal out to burgle: young, hoodied, black. Zimmerman would apprehend him. Perhaps then he’d get the glory he always sought, maybe even be offered a job on the force.

He went after Martin, cornered him, and made to apprehend him. When Martin resisted, Zimmerman was finally able to scratch that itch.

NOTE: It’s not the policy at Sparrow Chat to convict someone before they’ve been tried in a court of law. Americans love to do it and the media are awash with unofficial ‘hanging judges’ like the evil Nancy Grace. This case is somewhat different. For some strangely unfathomable reason, the killer was never arrested.

If evidence is ever allowed to be revealed in a court of law it may well be that a jury will find George Zimmerman innocent of any crime. There may be factors in this case we are presently not aware of. Until then, we find George Zimmerman innocent of any racist crime, but undoubtedly guilty of deliberately shooting an unarmed boy to death.

If that isn’t murder, we don’t know what is.

^{[1] “FBI, Justice Department to Investigate Killing of Trayvon Martin by Neighborhood Watchman” ABC News, March 19th 2012}

Dear US Christian Person

I would like to reassure you that your religious faith is not under fire from those of us who do not care to share it with you. We who have no religion don’t give a tinker’s cuss what you do, say, or practice, just so long as it doesn’t affect us.

Your ecclesiastical hierarchy want you to believe we are out to get you. It puts us in league with the Devil, against God, you could say – anti-Christ, or, for that matter, anti-Mohammed. Nothing is further from the truth.

Your politicians, who all rush to announce their religiosity with gusto, are quick to seek your vote by sowing the seeds of fear. Fear of religious suppression waiting to ensnare you; fear of a great army of sinful, leftist, degenerates about to engulf you.

You really shouldn’t listen to them. Your religion is as secure in the US today as it has always been.

I only wish the rights of we, the non-religious, were in equally safe hands.

I would like to know why you are hell-bent on forcing your beliefs and ideals on the rest of us? Perhaps you could explain why it’s so important for you to deny us, the non-believers, the scientific benefits from which, by virtue of your religion, you choose to abstain.

It’s simple to understand the motives of those in higher ecclesiastical authority. They wish to ensure the product they sell retains its ready market. Sowing fear, as Edward Bernays would have enthusiastically agreed, is a great way to market certain products: medicines, drugs, religion, etc..

It’s also a terrific means of coining votes, particularly when the politician in question can assure you that, if you vote for him, he’ll immediately make everything right again. Unfortunately, we all know the track record of politicians…

Politicians, bishops, and popes are really very transparent. They have ulterior motives. But what of you – the ‘Christian-in-the-street’, so to speak? Why are you so vociferous in condemning our beliefs, just because they don’t agree with yours?

If you are a woman who gives birth after a brutal, traumatizing, rape because you chose not to take the ‘morning-after’ pills offered by the hospital, or refused to have an abortion, will any of us non-believers stand outside your house with placards denouncing you for your beliefs?

If you believe your body was designed by God to be a ‘baby-factory’ and you produce ten or twelve off-spring in your fertile life, having denied yourself contraception, will we ostracize you for your choice?

How will it change your life if a man is allowed to marry another man, or a woman marry another woman, in a civil ceremony? After all, no-one’s suggesting they should get hitched in a church. Heaven forbid! So, why are you so vehemently opposed to people of the same sex, who love one another, getting married?

Please don’t give that trite response: the Bible forbids it. We don’t believe in your Bible, or Koran. Or, at least, if we do it’s only the part concerning the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed, about love and understanding, caring for others, and turning the other cheek. You know, the bits you tend to ignore.

There are many non-religious people, like myself, who have concerns over ‘late-term’ abortions. In all but the most extreme cases ‘late-term’ abortions are unnecessary. Sadly, in the United States, abortions considered ‘late-term’ i.e. twenty weeks and over, are much more prevalent than in more secular European countries.

The reason is simple: it’s your fault. Your religion’s interference in the affairs of others has made abortion much more difficult to obtain in America; you force young women to feel guilt, and the consequence is tardiness in seeking medical intervention. The freer attitudes in much of Europe – free, that is, from your religious intolerance – allow a woman to make the right decision at a much earlier stage.

Possibly your most hypocritical stance is the one you term, ‘Pro-Life’. With hindsight, I’d freely admit to being quite glad my parents didn’t have me aborted. But hindsight requires retrospective reflection, and retrospective reflection demands conscious memories to reflect on. I never had one conscious memory of the time in my mother’s uterus. I’ve never known one person who has. Have you?

Just how much life has a small bundle of cells one month, or even two, into gestation?

Take a look at the last image in the photograph above. A fetus at two months. It may look vaguely human, but in fact it’s barely half an inch long.

Here’s where your hypocrisy displays itself: you shout and scream and beat your breasts at the thought of an unconscious bundle of cells denied access to the world, yet you applaud with gusto those who did make it onto the planet, as they march off to some infernal foreign war, probably to be blown to pieces, so Halliburton can make more profits for its shareholders.

Please tell me why the life of a young adult is less valuable to you than something this <---> long and weighing under half an ounce?

While on the subject of war, America has had quite a lot of them of late. True Christians, those who cleave to the teachings of Jesus, are supposed to abhor war. Are you a real Christian? Or, have you just hijacked Jesus’s name to add credence to your over-inflated sense of nationalism?

You cheer wildly for your politicians when they make war-talk against another country – for example, Iran – but they talk that way just to persuade you to vote for them. Are you really so easily hoodwinked?

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your beliefs. America constantly boasts to the rest of the world of its ‘freedoms’. The US Constitution gives legality to your beliefs.

What you choose to ignore, along with your ecclesiastical mentors and numerous right-wing politicians, is that the US Constitution bestows legality on my beliefs also. America is a cosmopolitan nation. Within its borders live people of many faiths, some like myself, with no defined faith at all. Much as you might like it to be so, America is not a ‘Christian’ country. It is not a theocracy. If you could get that fact into your heads, it’s likely you’d feel less threatened.

If you are a Christian person whom Jesus of Nazareth could be proud of, if you love your neighbor, and help the afflicted, feel sympathy for those worse off than yourself, and would willingly give succor to the poor, or, even if you are still trying vainly to attain those attributes, then this letter is not to you. Your values as a Christian are true to your religion.

To the rest of you, I’d really like to hear intelligent, logical, answers to the questions I’ve posted above. Go on, have a go. See if you can actually come up with a sensible argument to the points I’ve outlined. It shouldn’t be difficult. After all, you’ve dedicated your life (and thereafter) to these things. Surely, you must have very good reasons?

And who knows, you might even convert me.

R.S.V.P. (NOTE: Abusive, threatening, or idiotic responses will be deleted).