Of Palin, Pigs, Pit Bulls - Lipstick As An Agent for Change

The American political scene has entered the schoolyard. Everyone has their crayons out, (or in this case their lipstick,) busily painting the mouths of all kinds of animals hoping to make them look like other animals, or the same as certain politicians or policies…If this sounds stupid to you, I guarantee you are not alone, and Aurora is confused, and not a little horrified.

Sometime back, Senator John McCain took out Cindy’s lipstick and painted the lips of a pig. To date, no one really understands why. More recently, his running mate, Sarah Palin, an ex-pageant girl with a lot of face paint to spare, decided to use some of her overstock on a pit bull and call it a hockey mom. Or was it the hockey mom who got to wear the lipstick? Perhaps Palin wanted to put lipstick on Senator Obama so she could claim that he is really a homosexual. After all, recent interviews reveal Palin will spare nothing to win what she clearly believes, will eventually be the presidency - not even her own family's dirty laundry. Like many pageant girls and politicians, I sense that Governor Palin is adept at being vague, frequently using images in place of explanation. In this instance, she and Senator McCain seem to view lipstick as an agent for change. I can imagine Palin at a beauty contest stating: “If I were Miss America, I’d change our country by giving everyone lipstick!” leaving all of us to decipher what she really meant, or if there was meaning to be found.

Senator Obama seems to be the only one in this colorful diatribe to make sense, with the redundantly obvious statement: “If you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.” But unlike Palin’s “The only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is lipstick.” Obama's terse analogy worked. Palin's speech writer needs to be schooled. First of all, who is wearing the lipstick? Has Governor Palin put her lipstick on the hockey mom or the pit bull? The analogy is as muddled as GOP policy proposals, confusing and incoherent as a Fallout Boy lyric but nowhere near as entertaining. Who wrote this nonsense, Bart Simpson?

But the GOP didn't stop there. Plummeting further into the schoolyard rhetoric is the Republican Party’s request that Senator Obama apologize for his remark about the lipstick-besmirched pig. Again, wasn’t Senator McCain the first to put lipstick on the pig? And was the pig referred to in that case Governor Palin? And is that pig the same as the pit bull or hockey mom that Governor Palin put lipstick on? Has lipstick now the power to change a pig into a pit bull? Sadly lipstick evidently does has the power to make some believe that Palin did not support the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere, although the evidence is overwhelming that she did in fact enable this folly. And Palin would now have us believe that a reference by Obama to a pig is the same as reference to a pit bull. Furthermore, she is offended. Which critter is she? Clearly pit bulls are not pigs, unless you need glasses, a hearing aid and have an IQ of 125 or below. It would appear members of the GOP and Senator McCain, fit this criteria. But his lame argument is semantically invalid to anyone who can hear, see or read. It is merely another red herring (speaking of stinking fish) thrown by the GOP to an illiterate and angry mob who will swallow anything. Obama need not apologize to anyone. As the madness ensues, I believe that in the end, we may all owe an apology to the SPCA and Miss Piggy. Furthermore, this school yard brawl filled with elementary school name calling, is an embarassment to the United States. Somebody call the principal and put these kids in time out, please.

Joking aside, I find it deeply disturbing that political debate in the United States has sunk to this level. Indeed, if Governor Palin has compared herself to either a hockey mom or a pit bull, these analogies do nothing to enhance her image as a competent leader. Her self comparison to a hockey mom makes us see her as a violent woman ready to bash her opponent with a large stick, and with the comparison to a pit bull, she evokes commonality with a creature known to frequently mall anything smaller and weaker than itself, including children and owners. Either way, she is calling herself a lipstick-wearing bitch, and Aurora believes that interpreted in such context, this is the only honest and coherent remark we’ve heard from Palin to date. That Senator Obama even bothered to respond this faded pageant girl's playground bragging with comparable rhetoric is troubling, although I understand his reasoning.

But rabid and incoherent as more intelligent minds may find her, Sarah Palin should not be underestimated. Based on her own remarks made over this past week, Palin is, arguably, the most frightening candidate this country has seen since Governor George Wallace, and like Wallace, her appeal to the hate mongers and religious zealots who fuel irrationality among right wing extremists and so called “conservatives” cannot be ignored. She is dangerous to both America and the world. She is Medea, who would kill her own chilren for vengeance. She is Eva Braun, who stood beside a madman as he tried to destroy the world in the name of power. She is the antithesis of every good, strong American woman who values the lives and rights of her sisters throughout the globe.

And the danger Palin represents is evident in the GOP’s increasingly troubling rhetoric. McCain and Palin have summoned the image of lipstick as an agent of political change; lipstick on moms, pigs, pit bulls, and possibly fish. But what is the nature of lipstick? Superficial, easily removed, oil based, and the color of blood. A pig may wear lipstick and still be a pig, but it is also a pig worsened by a product that does nothing for its health or appearance. A pit bull wearing lipstick may still be a pit bull, but the lipstick may hide, for a little while, that it is foaming at the mouth. I hear in McCain and Palin’s speeches attitudes resembling those of Heath Leger’s psychopathic, lipstick wearing Joker – a maniac who painted the faces of his victims with a disfiguring lipstick smile, as if that could hide the agony of their death throes. Palin’s use of political lipstick is evident in her disregard for her pregnant daughter’s discomfort before the cameras, in her disdain for this country’s more serious economic concerns, the loss of its youth to continuing conflict, and her wish to dismantle the fundamental constitutional separation of church and state upon which this nation was built. Like the Joker, both she and McCain would paint a bloodstained smile on American’s problems and ask: “Why so serious?”

Considering these issues, this writer may never wear lipstick again.

Is There Life for Teachers Outside the Classroom? Apparently Not.

Yesterday, a young friend of mine learned that because she had joined the ranks of public school teachers in a certain, nationally prominent county, she could no longer maintain her profiles on two popular social networking sites. This due to the fact that students would not only be able to potentially access her personal information, but also would be able to communicate with her outside the classroom. Should she fail to comply with the order to unsubscribe from these networks, she could lose her job. This decision was made due to a series of events resulting in some curious students investigating their instructors online and finding some less than flattering, down right embarrassing information. Now, all teachers in the county must pay the price for the indiscretion of a few trusting souls who never dreamed their students cared so much or that their parents cared so little about where their child's net searches carried them!

This world is full of evil men, and women. This has been so since I last walked this earth, was so before I was born, and unless we are proverbially bitch-slapped by Venusians, will continue to be until God returns or we fall into the sun. Our duty as conscientious adults is to protect children from said evil-doers, but do we, should we draw the line when children seek out trouble? Do we, should we, hold parents accountable for leaving their children uninformed about said evils in order to "preserve their innocence"? Who is responsible when a parent abdicates responsibility for the protection of said "innocence" or leaves that responsibility to others? When a child finds a gun left in an accessible location and shoots another child because no one has told them of the weapon's dangers in order to "preserve their innocence," who do we blame? Children need to be protected from reading certain books (such as mine) before they reach a certain level of maturity but do we burn the books?

Children need, most definitely, to be protected from those who would hurt and abuse them. That said, does it give them the right, when unmolested by a teacher, to solicit said teacher's attention when they are not in the classroom? Does that give children the right to make an online search, prying into an instructor's private life? And who will teach these children what is appropriate and inappropriate contact with an instructor? My natural assumption - it is a parent's responsibility to prepare their child to deal with this evil world. I might further state that the idea of "innocence" strikes me as somewhat ludicrous in the current information saturated environ. By nineteenth century standards there are no "innocent" children in America. Media has seen to it that most children know far more than my era would deem appropriate by age twelve or younger. Therefore, rather than protect "innocence", a wiser move on the part of all concerned with the raising and education of children, would be to inform them about potential online predators, teach them about personal and professional boundaries, about appropriate behavior and language.

Alas, Aurora has noticed that many parents seem to think this is just too much work and should be left to the school system, the church, the army, navy, marines, police force, Dr. Phil, President Bush, Oprah, - anyone but themselves, by heavens! After all, these forces are already monitoring our phone calls, our borders, securing our homeland against unwanted terrorist invaders and Martians, paying off our foreclosed properties, making sure there is enough bread and oil for the entire world, telling us how to keep our families happy and healthy while giving us whiter teeth and fresher breath. So baby-sitting our children should be no problem.

But there is a problem when government oversight of teachers inhibits the teachers' personal freedom of self expression when not in the classroom. Classroom teachers are among the most overworked, underpaid demographic in America. They are left cleaning up the mess left by "concerned" but seemingly never "involved" parents. Yet, counties constantly recruit instructors with a number of incentives, none of which, to my mind, are worth the price they pay in stress, and now loss of their freedom of expression. Were the government equally stringent on the behavior of parents there might be hope for the situation. After all, no matter how effective or ineffective an educator may be, their time with children is limited and their influence does not supersede that of a parent, no matter how ineffectual that parent may be. If we are so careful to save children from the inappropriate conduct of educators, doesn't this situation demand that we be equally vigilant regarding the behavior of parents? Most of the phenomena resulting in the present educational crisis has been bred within the home, not the classroom. Furthermore, I find it profoundly ironic that parents who see the school system as a government funded baby sitting service usually complain about there being too much government in their business lives. Can we have it both ways? I think not.

In the late 1960's a certain Catholic school in Florida required students to repeat each day after reciting the Pledge: "There is no liberty without responsibility. With the help of God, I take personal responsibility for my actions this day in order to preserve my freedom." The teacher also communicated to these students that Lady Liberty united all as a family, that peace involved compromise not conquest, and that brothers and sisters had to learn the art of compromise in order to survive. Somehow the Boomers have either missed entirely or failed to pass on this philosophy to the current child rearing Gen Xers, a collective who seem to believe that they and their spawn are entitled to everything while being responsible for nothing, and if you don't like someone or something, just beat it to death. They consistently advocate politics and policies that abdicate them from all forms of personal responsibility except those concerning making money. An appreciation of education as a factor that ensures liberty means nothing to them. Teachers, in the meantime, fall from any position of respect to one of servitude not seen since Roman times or the mid-Victorian British Empire, as anyone can see in the rising employment of Nannies, Au Pairs and the like.

Servitude, censorship, baby-sitting, wonderful reasons to become an educator! All you lose is your liberty, perhaps even your freedom to Blog in your own name because someone's child may see it and the parent will object to your opinion! As for the average Americans' concept of Liberty, well isn't that what the Armed Forces are there for? Radio pundits tell us to keep that war in Iraq and Afghanistan going-just don't ask any of the entitled to fight it or fund it. And while the current political climate states the Right is mighty and will prevail, the unseen price looms in the words of Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both."

In the meantime, my friend searches for an alias and another job.

Aurora

Hair Color and the Female Psyche

Today, my daughter sent me an essay she wrote in response to her brother's criticism of dying her hair and wearing make up. She decided to put her rebuttal in writing and send it to me. I found it sad, - sad in थे थौघ्त that my son and his generation take such a narrow view of female "self embellishment". However, I post this essay with pride in a यौंग woman who could frame such an intelligent, insightful response to this type of female stereotyping. Enjoy.

Aurora

My brother gave me something to think on today. He told me that he and most other men he knew didn’t always trust women who dyed their hair or wore a lot of makeup or participated in many primping and plumage rituals as a whole, as they got the impression that it was a form of disguise that women wore, a sign that those women were uncomfortable in their own skin, signaling issues unresolved, a type of baggage few men want to deal with. This surprised me. I’ve been dying my hair since middle school and have never once thought of it as a disguise or anything like it (for anyone who cares, my hair is currently true red pomegranate, and if you can guess which brand it came from, treat yourself to a cookie). In fact, I’ve always felt the exact opposite about my decision to mess with my hair color. My hair color and occasional instances of wearing makeup have always felt like representations of who I feel that I am, something that allows me to express myself more truly than my own skin, totally au natural.

I’ve known a lot of girls who fool around with their appearance, and while the reason for the cosmetic tampering is always varied, never within my circle of friends has the reason been to hide or change something internal about themselves that they didn’t like. I concede there are women out there who do use cosmetics to hide from some inner ugly truth, but the girls I’ve met and spoken with about this all do it for one of three main reasons. They are as follows: १. to express something about themselves which they feel their natural appearance does not convey or misconstrues, or they dislike their own hair color –my group, २. they wish to emulate someone –or something- they respect or admire physically -think cosplayers-, or ३. it is an act of rebellion against controlling family or lovers who wouldn’t allow them control over their own bodies.

We rarely know ourselves as a whole, self-discovery being a lifelong process and all (yet somehow, we’re expected to by the time we hit college), but what we do know and feel about ourselves rarely matches completely with what shows in the mirror. (For the sake of argument, let’s leave the issue of weight out of the picture and focus on the physical things that can be changed in a day with breaking the bank.) We create characters for and of ourselves which mirror who we feel we are inside, what are bodies naturally fail to show about us. It’s a mask we wear that shows clearly what we know while we work behind it finding out more, adding details and colors. It’s not a disguise, but a preview of the person who will be.

How do we feel about our bodies? Do they represent who we are naturally, or are they mannequins of flesh, which our minds and personalities spend lifetimes transcending so that we show? Don’t our opinions change and shift with age? Shouldn’t our appearance, the badge by which the world sees and ranks us, be allowed to shift with it to match? Perhaps the people who don’t shift are really the ones wearing a disguise; hiding behind the mask of normalcy and compliance while in their minds, they have electric blue hair, wear evening gowns with combat boots, and keep ninja throwing stars next to the stick of aloe lip gloss in their purses. Maybe they cower, afraid of what the world would think if it ever knew how weird, or quirky, or nerdy they were, afraid that it might not love them anymore. Meanwhile those of us who dare to fry our follicles all shades of the rainbow, and wear t-shirts that shout loud and clear to the world exactly what we think of it, face the threat of immediate love or condemnation head on. None of us are judged at first on what we think or who we are, only on how we look when faced with the looking glass of society. We hurry the decision, cutting short the long, cruel process of introducing our individuality to the mob, waiting to see if they love us, or like our mask enough to stay in spite of the insanity, or if they turn away in search of someone less threatening to their tender, politically correct sensibilities.

I can’t help but think of the Ganguro girls of Japan who defy their country’s standard of beauty, bleaching their hair and tanning their skin an improbable brown in protest of the idea that beauty comes in only one form. I think that’s awesome. I think, if I were Japanese, or lived in a society where concepts of beauty were that rigid, I’d do the same thing. Then the otaku and cosplayers, whose choice to emulate something they love often labels them in their society as slackers or idiots. Stereotypes are death to imagination, individuality, and humanity in general. But that is another post for another day. For now, I have to wonder, according to the philosophy my brother and kind hold, do ganguro girls and cosplayers, do they all have some deep emotional issue? If so, then I’m far happier that they choose to wear some funky outfits to deal instead of any of the alternatives.

To get to the point, my nerd fighting brethren, I am curious as to your opinions on this matter as a whole. Girls, why do you –if you- dye your hair, or wear the things you do? Guys, what do you think about those of us girls who dye our hair, regardless of whether it’s some out there color not found in nature or just a modification of shade to something lighter or darker? Or what about the use of makeup? Do you think it’s some girlish ploy to make ourselves more attractive? Do we do it to hide some deep emotional scar that we’re too paranoid to go into therapy for? Are we that susceptible to the pressures of media? I want to know what you all think.

I, for one, dye my hair because I want to; because I think it looks better than my natural hair color; because I think that, if genetics didn’t dictate what I looked like and my body could mirror my personality exactly, I’d be a redhead; because, as any girl with half a brain would tell anyone who bugged her about it, it’s my body, and if I want to dye my hair a shade of red found only in anime, wear purple glittery eyeliner, and paint my toe nails green, that’s my business and you can just go look elsewhere if you find it disturbing. This is Me in all my colorful weirdness, as it is many people, men and women alike.

But the idea that hair dye is a sign of some emotional issue threw me for a loop, and I want to see what other theories guys have for the stuff we grrl folk do, and if any girls out there care to validate it or toss these twats out a proverbial window. Don’t worry about my brother. I set him straight and he conceded that he’d never thought of it as a means of self-expression. We’re cool now, and we both know a little more about the craziness one gender thinks the other is capable of. In closing, this post is full of my opinions. They are flawed and possibly wrong, as will be the opinions of many who respond. I respect that whole-heartedly. That is what opinions are about. To paraphrase Voltaire, we all have the right to be wrong, and I, even if I disagree with it, will fight to the death to uphold that right. And as sure as I am that I will dye my hair again in another 3 months, I know that even sooner than that, I will look back on this post and think of something else I could’ve said, or something I won’t believe in as adamantly by then. So please, disagree. Be civil, but disagree. Challenge me and anyone else who sees my point. Let us all be individuals with opinions and points here on nerd fighters, where, theoretically, we are talking because we have something to say, not because our profile pic shows skinny and cute and casting come hither looks at the camera. Because, while this is by no means the most poignant post, I must know what the consensus is. Please, indulge me.

Racial Rant

Yesterday marked the forty-year anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination in Memphis. I started the day concurring with many pundits that King might be disappointed were he alive today to see the apathy most young African Americans seem to have about “the Dream”, and the lack of progress we have been made as a country in eradicating racism. Barach Obama’s relatively successful presidential candidacy not withstanding, I must say that the Baby Boomers learned little from that turbulent era we lived through as children and young adults. Or it might be more accurate to say that, while we learned “racism is wrong!”, it seems few of us actually acquired the ability or desire to recognize it within ourselves. Some Boomers, like my ex-husband and his brother, answered the proverbial guilt and shame of being a DAR American by marrying women of the darker persuasion, and expecting them to live in humble thankfulness, a life of servitude and poverty until “death do part” while they spent the bulk of their money and time on a white mistress. Dare we call this discrimination? The insidious nature of hidden racism among white Boomers is exhibited in their attitude of so called “tolerance” which in practice, might be better described as condescension. Their African American counterparts fare little better. Hence, beyond the occasional honest fool, impervious to the social straight-jacket of being “PC”, any meaningful racial dialogue is gagged and bound in Aunt Tillie”s closet, its shadow hovering over employment and immigration issues while everyone ignores the topic’s muffled screams.

We could argue the reality of racism in America for days. Better minds than mine have already taken that on. Sadly, progress towards answers or reasonable solution is always lost in a veritable barrage of semantics. I would rather discuss empirical evidence that is rarely brought to light due to threat of job loss, lowered grades, stagnating income, the threat of home and livelihood, or social ostracization. After all, we have to eat don’t we? But since Aurora is a nineteenth century writer, now deceased, she is, thankfully, no longer in need of these things and therefore free to write what she witnesses from the “other side.” Arguably, the most outrageous situation observed from my “otherworldly” vantage point is the use of the educational system as a training ground for racism, bigotry and the suppression of equality in the United States. No, I do not wish to discuss the obvious issues, such as the creation of a lowered educational standard by the legislative condescension of the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" program, or the creation of a "ghetto class" through economically influenced neighborhood zoning that leaves the most needy segment of the population without funds for teachers, materials, or even hospitable classroom environs, while levels of third grade literacy are used to predict future prison populations. Rather, allow me to draw your attention to what happens should non-white students managed to run the gauntlet of K-12 and actually find their way into the echelon of higher education. The following three stories, my friends, are true.

In one of the Midwestern Big Ten Universities, a Latino student finds herself seeking work-study opportunities. She types an approximate 90 words per minute and has some experience in fundamental book keeping techniques. Her white roommate, who types approximately 40 words per minute, and has no work history, but is also in the work-study program, is given a position in the school library, while the Latino student is told the only position available to her is in housekeeping.

On one of the campuses of the University of North Carolina, white students of a certain professor can enter their education methods class up to ten minutes late, or miss a week of class without having to account for their whereabouts. However, should a Black or Native American student be late or absent, even carrying a doctor's notice, they are penalized with either verbal abuse or the drop of a letter grade. If they report their situation to Student Affairs, or anyone else in a position to discipline the professor, not only is unlikely that the teacher will receive anything more than a slap on the wrist, but the student who "breaks confidentiality" will receive a failing grade. Lumbee tribe members in this class are routinely exercised from the program because "Indians are stupid and lazy" not because certain teachers award them lower grades or conveniently "misplace" completed assignments, stating later that the student never turned in their work.

In one of the country's leading East coast music schools, a Metropolitan Opera Council Auditions winner is never awarded anything other than a minor role in the Opera Theatre program. Could it be because this student is African American? Another Hispanic student in the same program is told that she will never have a singing career because she would never be believable in Euro-centric operatic roles. Furthermore, since she is not a mezzo-soprano, she can’t sing the role of Carmen. When the student tells her teacher about the comments, the director of the program tells the faculty that she is “mentally unstable.”

Members of academe routinely state: “disadvantaged” students come to the table with “lowered expectations and poor work ethic.” The sensible response to this, were it indeed true, would be to encourage and uplift students who work under the so-called restrictions of race and economic hardship. Aurora, however, speculates that anyone experiencing the type of “subtle” discrimination described in these three situations, would come away from the events with a profound sense of discouragement and disillusion. When this is the totality of educational experience from K through college, it easily translates to the aforementioned lack of incentive or enthusiasm. I believe your average human being in such circumstances would quickly come to believe “resistance is futile”- that equitable treatment is NOT to be expected unless you belong the ethnicity of choice. In predominantly white environs, a subliminal lesson is conveyed: that discrimination is acceptable, even expected.

A nasty side-effect of this phenomena is the creation of stereo-types. Society likes stereotypes, it makes for easy filing and categorizing of the complex human animal, the creation of the proverbial “us vs. them” mentality. I can cite, once again, the Obama campaign, in which a man of "mixed" racial origins has mysteriously morphed into someone who is merely "Black,"and hence, "un-American." Stereotypes are easy to dismiss. As one erudite educator stated to his class, “it must be difficult to be a black man and not be angry.” When this statement was challenged by a student who mentioned that a certain Black classmate who dressed and behaved in the manner of a Harvard professor, was anything but an angry young man, the erudite educator responded: “(Student X) is not really Black.” This type of insidious racism is practiced by white and black alike. Stereotypes, after all, are easy to sell, and as I stated previously, everyone needs to eat. Therefore, heaven help the "sista" who likes French symbolist poetry, the Latino who doesn’t speak Spanish, the Native American who isn’t a story-teller, or the White girl with a black boyfriend. We have reached the unthinkable, dark day when educational institutions encourage students to believe that “the content of a man’s character” by which Dr. King hoped we would all eventually learn to judge each other, is only validated if it meets the stereotypical expectations dictated by the color of his or her skin.

Of course, there is solid reasoning behind this type of discrimination. While legislation now prevents academic institutions from turning away minority students, once within the confines of a college or university, there is no way to guarantee their retention. Racial stereotypes, demographic designations, etc. form a body of “empirical evidence” through which these students may be discredited and dismissed. Often, the student is left to choose between enduring a less than supportive environ, staying below the radar, or acting out. It’s interesting to note that when middle class white children “act out”, it’s attributed to quaint phrases such as “sowing wild oats”, “youthful exuberance”, "ADHD" etc. When the other ethnicities follow suit, the consequences usually result in incarceration.

In reading this, you may or may not see yourself. Interestingly, none of the persons perpetrating the blatantly unfair conduct discussed here consider themselves prejudiced or racist. They believe this is how the world is, has always been, and should remain. They sincerely believe that due to circumstances of birth and luck, they are better than those who are not like them, and that those who are not like them had bloody well be grateful to them for their tolerance. Most humans want to feel important. That we gain that feeling of superiority at another’s expense might be part of the human condition. A common characteristic of human nature is to attack those who challenge our ego, our sense of self worth. We defend ourselves through conquering and subjugating those who are different, who challenge our self-importance. However, the hallmark of a civilized society is the ability to rise above our animal nature.

Fear based thinking lies behind every war ever fought, every atrocity man commits against fellow man. The fact that institutes of “higher education” in the United States continually advocate this fear-based mentality in order to maintain their reputation for excellence, forty years after the civil rights movement allegedly raised our awareness of racism, is the greatest testament to their failure as a force for social change in this country. It is also why American educational standards remain among the lowest in the modern world. Meanwhile, most Americans remain deluded in thinking that there is no longer any need for NAACP, Affirmative Action, or any other programs enforcing standards of fairness for minorities. They fail to realize that in allowing immigration to grow over the past years, we have created among Hispanics, a new type of slave class. As a nation, we have not become less prejudiced, we have only become better at hiding it.

Is there a solution? Legislation works at a snail's pace, even in those rare, historic moments when public opinion demands action. At this moment in history, Boomers in particular, seem obsessed with maintaining their comfort zone at all costs. And it is the Boomer educators - those in their late 40's through mid 60s, who form the vanguard in this movement to preserve the status-quo. Perhaps, as national economic conditions deteriorate, they will learn the lesson of cooperation rather than "tolerance"- that societies, ultimately, rise and fall as one. Of course, in France we simply stormed the Bastille when there was no longer enough jobs, housing or food, and took the ruling class to the guillotine. It seemed a good idea at the time, but now I am ashamed to say, the current prejudice most of my former countrymen demonstrate toward both Muslims and Jews is hardly reminiscent or representative of “Liberti, egalité, fraternité”. The French might note that the evolution of the guillotine to the car bomb may represent a leap of technology but not of social pathology. They say those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Isn’t it time we all recognized each other as part of the species Human, or must that wait until the mother-ship of Venutions arrives to bitch slap some sense into us or begin the War of the Worlds? In the meantime, to all you racial egomaniacs - Get over yourselves, this is the 11^th hour.

Aurora Delacroix