Wednesday, March 30, 2005


As a 3-year-old, Alina Fernandez didn’t know that the Communist revolution that swept Cuba was led by her father. The only thing she could see was what the revolution did to her TV cartoons. Fernandez, who decades later fled Cuba in 1993, spoke Monday night at James Madison University. She described sitting in her own rocking chair as a youngster, when her favorite program was interrupted. "Shouts of ‘Viva Cuba Libre’ thundered through the living room, and the television screen filled up with all of these hairy people," she said. "Uncle Scrooge, his nephews and Mickey Mouse vanished from the screen forever. And we have had bearded hairy men on television in Cuba for almost half a century now."

So nothing seemed out of place when the top bearded hairy man showed up at their house. Only later did she learn that this man was Fidel Castro, and that he — and not the doctor her mother had married — was her father....

Then the realities of the revolution set in. Everything good — from Christmas to parking meters — eventually vanished. And Fernandez, a toddler at the time, watched what she later realized was a televised execution.

Eventually, the situation in Cuba worsened when the Soviet Union withdrew its support from Cuba in 1989. By 1993, she had to take her daughter out of school because there was no electricity - and no teachers. And by this time, she had already become a dissident. That's when she knew she had to leave, and she was able to smuggle herself out of the country with a little help and a fake passport. She has not seen her homeland or her father ever since."

(Excerpts only above. Article originally here:

Monday, March 28, 2005


AGING CUBAN Communist dictator Fidel Castro is both furious and frightened of a little band of 30 protesters called "the Women in White." But today -- Easter Sunday -- these brave wives, mothers, daughters and sisters of imprisoned political dissidents will do what they have done every Sunday for the past two years. Dressed all in white, they will first attend mass at Havana's Santa Rita Catholic church. And then they'll walk together along the sidewalk in a silent protest against 61 dissidents' continued imprisonment. They are part of more than 300 political prisoners rotting in Castro's jails.

Two years ago, Castro had his police arrest 75 Cubans who dared the unthinkable-they publicly urged his police state regime to allow more free speech and democratic freedoms. After speedy show trials, they were sentenced to up to 28 years in prison. Since then, 14 were released for "health reasons." Heck, some had even asked that the now-78-year-old dictator finally keep his pre-1959 promise to hold free elections. He obviously is still terrified to test free, democratic elections on Cuba's 11 million people-despite the constant claim by him and his henchmen that he's overwhelmingly popular.

But the "Women in White" refuse to be intimidated. Even after last Sunday -- Palm Sunday -- when they emerged from the church and were suddenly surrounded by 200 shouting female government stooges escorted by 50 plainclothes police.


The mob chanted "Viva Fidel!" and "Long Live Fidel". They tried to block the 30 women who persisted in holding a brief gathering in a park. "I feel even more strength and courage to defend my father who's a political prisoner," said Alicia Rojas, the 34-year-old daughter of human rights advocate Jesus Rojas. "The government feels powerless to respond to us so it sends us these people to give a response," said Bertha Soler Fernandez, whose husband Angel Moya Acosta is a prisoner. And just the day before, dissident physician Dr. Darcy Ferrer was beaten with sticks after displaying prisoners' photos on the side of his house. The pictures were destroyed.

No wonder the UN, Amnesty International and the European Union are looking critically at Castro's continued oppression of human rights. It's not a pretty picture. In fact, another physician noted recently that "we live a dark nightmare here" -- one in which people "live with two faces" and trust no one. Under the Stalin-like system, people are rewarded for reporting anyone who criticizes the regime. Of course, this type of oppression by Castro's thugs is never seen by the two million annual tourists -- most of them Canadians -- who bring much-needed money to Fidel. Most of them are safely segregated in such tourist compounds as Veradero.


However, unemployment is massive in today's Cuba and the inefficient Soviet-style regime pays the people the equivalent of about $15 American a month. Some must go hungry. Recently, the paranoid Castro even issued an order prohibiting Cuban hotel and other tourism workers from accepting tips or gifts from guests. And if they do, they must turn them over to "their managers," allowing Fidel to get his cut. Those tips and gifts -- often scarce toiletries and such -- were what made tourist workers among the more prosperous of the suffering Cuban population. No more.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Castro lost about $6 billion in annual Soviet aid. Cuba's economy collapsed and he was forced to encourage investment from foreign "capitalists." Canada, as usual, was a leader in that.

However, in recent years Castro has signed on Hugo Chavez, the leftist Venezuelan president who is a Fidel hero worshipper. Backed by oil riches, Chavez is supplying Castro with cheap oil while receiving the help of Cuban doctors. And some say Castro has sent agents to help Chavez organize a tougher secret police and armed forces. Also, Castro is building trade with such police states as China and Iran -- and trying to encourage leftist take-overs in other parts of South America. Of course, the big bogeyman Castro has always blamed for his messed-up economy is the U.S. and its longstanding trade embargo against his hardline communist regime. Obviously, he never looks in the mirror.

(From the Toronto Sun)

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Swiss Misses. And some hits, too: Scenes from the party in the Alps


Davos, Switzerland

Here at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, you have your heads of state, your foreign ministers, your titans of business, your intellectuals (pseudo and real) - but you also have Sharon Stone, Angelina Jolie, and Richard Gere. Davos is pretty swell as it is, but with movie stars: wowza.

You may wish to know how Sharon Stone looks. Answer: great. Really great. Oughta be in pictures. And Angelina Jolie? I don't see her, but someone who knows someone I know does, and his testimony is, "She's actually unphotogenic. She's so much more beautiful in person, it's not even funny."

Sharon and Richard (Gere) are the marquee attractions at an Opening Day luncheon, and the topic is AIDS. Before she begins to speak, Sharon - Miss Stone, I suppose I should say - gets a serious, actress-about-to-address-something-grave look on her face. She swallows a little. She begins, "I really don't belong here, with all you smarty-pants. I don't have your education, and probably not your world experience, although I have a certain experience. But . . ." It is the most masterly downplaying of expectations I have ever seen. Right out of the Speaker's Handbook, Chapter One.

The gist of her remarks is that AIDS is readily solvable, but that "greed and arrogance stop us." We - we richies - simply don't want to spend enough, simply don't care enough. We are stingy and callous. The actress concludes, "If we just stopped arrogantly killing people all over the world, and channeled the money into AIDS, we would have a solution."

I imagine that "arrogantly killing people" is an allusion to America's War on Terror. I think for a minute about that phrase, arrogantly killing people. What a perfect way to describe the work of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime! But this sort of thinking doesn't fly in Hollywood, and it doesn't much fly in Davos. I have said it before: There are many people - I keep encountering them, and reading them - who would rather homosexuals be stoned to death than that they be liberated by George W. Bush and the U.S. military. The latter is the greater indignity.

The atmosphere in Davos is not quite Durban - I refer to that hate-America, hate-Israel jamboree in South Africa, days before September 11 - but it slides that way. Bush's name is mud, the War on Terror's name is mud. It's sort of assumed that you - that we all - will consider Bush a moron, and his administration a tragedy (if not a crime). The Davosers seem to be waiting it out until Hillary - one of their darlings - wins in '08. The administration has not sent any high-level officials to the meeting this year. (My apologies to labor secretary Elaine Chao, who is present.) Last year, they sent Cheney, and the year before that, Powell. This year, they haven't bothered - and it's hard to blame them. Whether they could have much effect is doubtful. Then again, nothing ventured . . .

To observe the American abroad - especially the American journalist abroad - is always a hoot. Many need to prove themselves more anti-Bush than thou, as though to assure the Euros that they're not Fox News-watching Bible-thumpers. Speaking of Fox News, the very name is a kind of obscenity, like neocon. Al-Jazeera is quite accepted (and there are several representatives here); Fox is the network non grata. You should see a major liberal reporter (American) explain to a major Middle Eastern editor that "if you really want to understand the American mindset, you've got to watch Fox News" - because the hicks from the sticks drink it in all day long, ending up drunk on propaganda. Beautiful.

The Bush administration does have its defenders, however: Tony Blair and John Howard. Blair gives a speech concentrated on aid to Africa and global warming, but he spends the first part of it explicating and seconding Bush's inaugural address. He doesn't have to: He could just go to the safe stuff (because everyone at Davos agrees about Africa and global warming). But, not for the first time, he shows spine. The inaugural address is cited as "evidence of the 'neoconservative' grip on Washington," Blair says. "I thought progressives were all in favor of freedom rather than tyranny." The room is silent, rebuked. As for Howard, he is loose, confident, Australian to the core - and he basically tells the anti-Americans to stick it.

One of the more peculiar panels is chaired by Graham Allison, former dean of the Kennedy School of Government. It is on nuclear non-proliferation, and one of its guests is the foreign minister of Iran. (Read that again, if you have to.) The foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, says that the United States created al-Qaeda for the purpose of destroying the Iranian government. I'm perhaps not the only one who thinks, "They've done a lousy job of it, if so." Also on this panel is Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At one point, the moderator, Mr. Allison, says he wishes to speak "as an American." You see, our government, before the Iraq war, said Saddam had nukes, and ElBaradei said no, and our invasion proved the U.S. wrong, and ElBaradei right. Funny, but that's not the way I remember this recent history - and what government in its right mind would invade a country armed with nukes? But preemption seems too difficult a doctrine to explain to learned people.


The big American kahuna, of course, is not Graham Allison, and not even Sharon Stone, but Bill Clinton. He sits on a panel dealing with aid to Africa, along with Blair, Bono (the rock star), Bill Gates (Microsoft), and the presidents of South Africa and Nigeria: Mbeki and Obasanjo. The moderator of the session, French anchorwoman Christine Ockrent, wheels on Clinton, demanding to know why America is so stingy when it comes to foreign aid (did you know we were?). He answers, "Because no one will ever get beat running for Congress or president" by failing to espouse such aid. I have complimented Clinton's Davos performances before - in general, he's pretty good abroad - but he is a bit shameful here. Then it gets worse.

Clinton says, "The White House has just announced another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, and we could take half of that" and solve all of Africa's problems. The crowd whoops and cheers. This is a cheap political technique: to say, "Instead of spending money on X, we ought to spend it on Y." If Clinton thinks we should spend more on foreign aid, he should say so. And if he opposes our efforts in Iraq, he should say so. But to spite the war while calling for more aid to Africa - cheap.

I think of what may be my favorite political cartoon of all time. (I'm sorry I can't credit the cartoonist, because I can't remember who drew it.) In the first of two panels, Tip O'Neill has his arm around Reagan, and he says, "Do you know how many hot school lunches your $100 million in aid to the Contras would buy?" In the second panel, Reagan has his arm around the Speaker, responding, "Yes, Tip - half as many as your $200 million in aid to Ireland." (Young people will have to be told that, when Reagan wanted to spend money on the military, or on any aspect of the Cold War, Democrats would say how many "hot school lunches" you could buy with the same money. It was a perpetual tic of the 1980s.)

But Clinton isn't through yet: He says that anyone who complains about corruption in African governments - who expresses caution about handing over money to these governments - "should be put in a closet, so no one has to listen to [him]." That, too, elicits whoops and cheers. And it is an odd thing for a democrat to say. Some of us believe that Carter is our worst ex-president ever (the opposite of the conventional wisdom). But the Arkansan is nipping at his heels.

Well, we can count on John McCain, right? Less than I would have thought. At a dinner for journalists - that's his best audience: journalists - McCain takes up the subject of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. They are Davos's favorite prisoners, those other prisoners on Cuba - innocent, democratic guests of Fidel Castro - not rating a peep. McCain is a "try 'em or release 'em" man. (He actually puts it in exactly those terms.) How you try terrorists nabbed on the Afghan battlefield, he does not venture to say. He does say, "Even Eichmann got a trial." Wrap your mind around that, will you?

His worst moment comes, however, when an Arab journalist rises to ask him whether "the neocons are still controlling policy in Washington." This is a golden opportunity: a chance to dispel a pervasive, somewhat sinister myth. But instead of dispelling the myth - that Bush is a puppet of foreign-policy Fagins - McCain more like reinforces it. He says, "There are always power struggles in Washington." Sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down. But Bush is feeling "more secure" in this second term - which implies that an insecure Bush could have been manipulated by others in the first. "Have I done a good enough job ducking your question?" the senator asks. The questioner - a bold, flashing-eyed lady - looks vindicated in her suspicions.

What American have I come to praise? Any? Try Barney Frank, the Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. On a panel, he and I spar over Bush's inaugural address - he disdains, I like - but he is gung-ho on the protection of Taiwan, and on holding the Chinese Communists to account. He won't hear anything about "Asian values," or "different styles of democracy" - democracy is democracy, he says, certainly in its essence. As the discussion continues, a distinguished Englishwoman who heads a "peace-research institute" in Stockholm says that China and Iran are two countries that don't worry her. Oh? wonders Frank. Which do? The answer: "Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Israel." "Really?" replies Frank. "You're more worried about Israel than about Iran or China?" But of course! One must remember what continent one is on.

Later in the week, Frank is on a different panel, this one concerning the media. A co-panelist is Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN. I am not present for this session, but I hear about it, from journalists and others, and many people are abuzz. Jordan has either stated or implied - accounts vary - that U.S. forces in Iraq target journalists for murder. Yes, murder. Barney Frank won't let this glide by: "Whoa, whoa, whoa, he says. What did you say? This is a deliberate policy? Your network has reported this, right?" Well, no, actually. Jordan starts to backpedal - he has gone too far, despite the enthusiasm in the room for what he has said. An odd thing about attending Davos is that liberal Dems such as Frank, Sander Levin, and Ed Markey can come off as John Foster Dulles. The context is everything.


Numerous at the Annual Meeting are Arabs, but I don't see many democrats or reformers. Wouldn't it be thrilling if Saad Ibrahim - the sometime Egyptian political prisoner - attended? I see lots of officials, and, of course, those Jazeera reps. One of them explains that her network must refer to suicide-bombers as "martyrs," because the Arab public would stand for no less: You see, Palestine is under occupation, and these bombers have no choice; hence, they are martyrs. I wonder what language is left over for their victims.

A star of the show is Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi, son of you-know-who. He is the heir apparent, and a Great Arab Moderate - at least, that is his reputation. Handsome and urbane, he is a figure to reckon with. Over coffee with journalists, he says that he considers terrorism in Iraq "legitimate" - because this terror is "resistance" to "occupation." After all, Kofi Annan has declared the U.S.-led war illegal. America, continues the young man, has robbed Iraq - and, by extension, all Arabs - of "dignity and honor." And these are "very important to us." Fascinatingly, he holds that Arabs have lost all their wars against Israel because Israel is a democracy, while the Arab states are not. It will take democracy to improve Arab prospects. Quips an Israeli at the table - though somewhat nervously - "May you never have democracy." For the Palestinians and the Israelis, Qaddafi envisions a single state, on the model of South Africa. This is the "final solution," he says. Oops.

Toward the end of the coffee, Qaddafi is asked about the Holocaust, and the widespread Arab denial of same. The room tenses. Qaddafi begins - very, very hesitantly - "I'm not a historian, and I don't know all the facts." Uh-oh. One can see where this is heading. But he sort of catches himself and allows that "it is incorrect to deny the Holocaust." Why? Because the Soviets liberated Auschwitz - "We didn't learn about [the Holocaust] from the Zionists or the New York Times," but from the Red Army. So, again, "to deny the Holocaust is incorrect." The Davos official with us says, "On that conciliatory note . . ." Extraordinary: that an admission that the Holocaust occurred - because the Red Army said so - should be "conciliatory." But there you go.

If there's a man of the hour - and there is - it is Victor Yushchenko, the new president of Ukraine. He wears his opposition on his face, disfigured by poisoning. By a murder attempt, to be plain. It is an unbelievably noble face, and Yushchenko is an immensely dignified presence. Speaking to a packed auditorium, he wears an orange tie - symbolizing the Orange Revolution - and carries an orange folder. (The latter is perhaps overkill.) He begins by quoting a bit of what he calls ancient Ukrainian wisdom: "If you struggle, and God is with you - if the Holy Will is with you - you will win." Who knew that Yushchenko was a kooky theocrat?

His main point to the crowd is that Ukraine is a European nation, longing to come home to Europe. At a lunch the next day with journalists, he makes similar points. And he is wonderfully candid: "My country is a deeply corrupt country." He has a message for investors, and anyone else doing business in Ukraine: "Do not offer bribes to anyone." In fact, you can enter a new line, when you do your accounting: "Saved expenses on ungiven bribes to Ukrainian officials."

As the first course is served, Yushchenko offers a toast: "I wish you prosperity in all your endeavors. I wish you physical and moral health. [A striking phrase, that.] And may you have a white angel sitting on your left shoulder, taking care of you." Then he claims that the toast - the act of toasting - originated in Kiev, centuries ago. At the time, the most common means of eliminating one's opponents was poison (!). So you clinked your glasses hard, causing drops from both drinks to spill into the other.

Everyone chuckles, warmed and amazed. At Davos, there is a lot of what Clare Booth Luce called globaloney - but there is also inspiration, and we have just had a strong dose.

Friday, March 11, 2005

Blowing Smoke on Second-Hand Smoke and Breast Cancer Link: Another Government Taxation Scheme

By Wayne Lusvardi

You can’t argue with numbers and with the authority of regulatory scientists at the California Office of Environmental Health and Assessment (OEHH). Oh yes you can. The problem with statistics is that you have to believe them; any delight in hearing of an association between smoking or Big Tobacco and some disease is wrecked by discovering that the statistics are bogus.

A classic example is the recent study reported by Associated Press writer Beth Fouhy in the March 10 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle titled “Report Links Second-Hand Smoke and Cancer.” According to the article a 1,200 page report has been issued by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment which draws on more than 1,000 other studies of the alleged effects of passive smoke on health problems. This type of study is called a “meta-analysis.” This means it is nothing more than a sophisticated review of the scientific literature, much of which may be nothing more than junk science to begin with. Hence the dictum: “garbage in - garbage out.” In other words, the study was not an independent and credible statistical analysis, but a re-reading of the literature to submit to the Air Resources Board so that second-hand smoke can be regulated (i.e., taxed). This isn’t science because the scientific method involves trying to disprove your hypothesis, called a null hypothesis, not looking for selective evidence to prove what you want to conclude.

The glaring lack of common sense in the OEHH study should have been obvious to anyone who has a passing knowledge of health statistics or who is computer literate. If, as the study purports, there is a conclusive link between second hand smoke and breast cancer we would expect countries with the highest smoking rates to have the highest breast cancer rates, wouldn’t we? But just the opposite is found in the literature.

This article indicates that the highest smoking rates are found in China. As the referenced article states “thinking about Chinese smoking statistics is like trying to think about the limits of (outer) space.” And as data from this article shows, China and Japan have by far the lowest breast cancer rates in the world. The Japanese are big smokers too.

Government regulatory scientists, not pure scientists, are vandals who have hijacked the tools and results of science and prostituted them for political ends. Secure in the knowledge that the majority of the deceived populace believe them, they have untrammeled license to regulate and tax the public unchecked by an uncritical press. As newspaper journalist H. L. Mencken once wrote:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamoring to be led to safety -- by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

There is little difference in such regulatory science than that produced by totalitarian and fascist governments. Let the public examine the obvious facts for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Evidence Shows Democrats Should Pay Blacks Trillions In Reparation Pay

By Rev. Wayne Perryman, Fact-Finding Investigator & Inner-city Minister

From its inception in 1792 up to the Civil Rights era of the 1960's, the Democratic Party had never attempted to introduce, sponsor or support one law that would benefit African Americans. Every law that they introduced or sponsored during this 168-year period was designed to hurt Blacks - none were ever introduced to help Blacks.

Both the archives of history and the records of Congress reveal that had the Democrats supported the same types of laws in 1864 that certain members of their party decided to support in 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have been necessary. When the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote ony 60% of the Democrats voted for it compared to 82% of the Republicans. Without the Republican leadership and strong vote, this important bill would have never passed.

The following information was taken from Congressional Records and the Chronicles of History regarding the relationship between Blacks and Democrats from 1792 to 2002:

1. What we called the Civil War or the War Between The States was really a war between the Democrats and Republicans over slavery. During his second inaugural address, President Lincoln said these words on March 4, 1865: " Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish...." On the issue of slavery, Democrats fought and gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans fought and gave their lives to ban it.

2. While Democrats passed Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other repressive laws (including the Repeal Act of 1894) to keep African Americans in bondage and deny them their constitutional rights as citizens. Republicans passed the following legislation to set them free and grant them their constitutional rights.

a. Thirteenth Amendment
b. The Civil Rights Acts of 1866
c. The First Reconstruction Act of 1867
d. The Fourteenth Amendment
e. The Fifteenth Amendment
f. The Ku Klux Klan Act
g. The Civil Rights Act of 1875

In addition to these pieces of legislation, it was wealthy Republican Congressman, Thaddeus Stevens that introduced the concept of 40 acres and a mule to Congress on behalf of the newly freed slaves. But Democrats and their new White House (southern ally) Andrew Johnson, worked vigorously to defeat such a program.

3. While Republicans sent troops to Reconstruct the South and protect the newly freed slaves. The Democrats formed terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize the newly freed slaves. Democrats and their Klan supporters whipped, murdered, mutilated, intimidated, and assassinated (collectively) millions of Blacks to regain and maintain control of the South. In the process they burned down entire African American (middle class) towns and communities including Rosewood, Florida, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina.

4. While Abolitionists and Radical Republicans were devoting their time and money to establish many of our traditional black colleges that bear their name. Democrats used every means possible to keep blacks from attending these schools and in some cases tried to destroy the schools.

5. When the Democrats consistently refused to pass Anti-lynching Laws to protect blacks, three whites that opposed the Democrat's racist practices formed the NAACP to stop them.

6. When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., led a multitude of protest from 1960-1962 to gain Civil Rights for African Americans. Democratic President John F. Kennedy ignored him, Attorney General Robert Kennedy approved FBI wiretaps on him, and Democratic Senator Robert Byrd referred to him as a "coward" and a "trouble maker." When Dr. King would not stop protesting against the Viet Nam War, angry Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson referred to him (King) as "that Nigger preacher."

7. From 1960 to 1988 various members of the Democratic Party consistently voted against every piece of Civil Rights Legislation that was introduced during this period, while various members of the Republican Party consistently voted for them.

8. On December 15, 1994 when Federal Judged David V. Kenyon ordered the Clinton Administration to force 100 major shipping companies to develop an Affirmative Action Plan to protect African Americans, Hispanics, and women. Democratic President Bill Clinton (the so-called Black President) left office six years later and never complied with the court order. Thus Blacks were forced to continue to work in jobs that the industry classified as "Nigger jobs."

9. During the 2003 Democratic Primary debates, candidate Rev. Al Sharpton accused the Democrats of "taking the Black vote for granted" and treating Black voters like their "mistress." He said Democrats "are willing to take us to the dance, but not willing to take us home to meet mama."

10. The Democratic Party, the oldest political party in America, has never elected a Black man to the United State Senate. Republicans have elected three.

11. The collective evidence shows that over the years that members of the Democratic Party intentionally did far more horrendous things to us, than they ever done positive things for us.

12. 2004 is the 50th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education. History records that both Brown and Plessy v Ferguson are two landmark Civil Rights cases that were filed to overturn the racist Jim Crow practices that were established by the Democratic Party.

Like the Nazi Party in the case of the Jews, the Democratic Party should issue a formal apology and pay Blacks trillions of dollars in Reparations Pay for the multitude of atrocities that they committed against us, for the multitude of laws they legislated to harm us and for spending billions of dollars to infect the entire nation with racism.


Read more from historical and congressional records in Rev. Wayne Perryman's latest book: Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into the Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats.
P.O. Box 256 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 232-5575 e-mail

Who Is Wayne Perryman?

Perryman is a former newspaper publisher and radio talk show host who is known for his community service and his fact-finding investigations in discrimination cases. As the President of Consultants Confidential Inc., a firm that specializes in fact-finding investigations in claims of racial discrimination, Perryman has never lost a case in 30 years. His clients are individuals who cannot afford an attorney and individuals who cannot get support from community agencies and other organizations that work with African Americans. Some of his settlements has brought millions to his clients.

In 1990, Perryman sponsored the Back Home Banquet for Brothers, a role model recruiting banquet that attracted professional athletes, entertainers and other professionals to become role models for inner-city youth. The packed out seven course dinner was the largest of its kind in America, and because of the participation of NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball ball players, Sports Illustrated covered the black tie event. Perryman himself has been a basketball, baseball and football coach for over 30 years.

In 1997, Perryman (through his church) built a modern day Teen Center for inner-city youth. The modern Teen Centers has a big screen T.V., quality stereo with surround sound speakers, computers, small picnic area, and an outdoor basketball court equipped for late night basketball, pickle ball and tennis. Perryman personally worked on the project, working 12 hour days until the project was completed.

Perryman has received a multitude of awards for his community service including commendations from the United States Congress, the President of the United States, the mayor of Seattle, and the governor of the State of Washington

Perryman voted Democrat all of his life and served on the Washington State Black Clergy to re-elect Clinton. Up to the year 2000, Perryman has never voted for a Republican Administration.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

ARMBANDS FIT THE SLEEVE: Socialism at Work and Play

An email recently received:

You might make the point that Hitler’s NSDAP, the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” (National Sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiters Partei) represents national Socialism; the Marxist/Leninists’ “Communism” represents an international Socialism. Fascism is more akin to simple militarism infused with racism, but from the Comintern (“Communist International”) on down, regimes of this ilk display profoundly atavistic, anti-modern, juvenile-regression tendencies, difficult to rebut because their tenets reflect mere attitudes, not reason. “Social Democrats” vs. “Democratic Socialists” are but strings to this bow. Doctrinally encapsulated, their adherents despise debate. Both words and science fail: Meaning drains from Legislatures and the Courts, facts retreat before contentious “quality of life” campaigns that disdain means-and-ends. For narcissistic Socialists admit no external reality, dismiss all discipline, abjure calling Nature by her name aright.

Whether designated “Right” or “Left”, all Socialisms posit a collectivist, Statist totalitarianism embraced from Mao in China to Stalin in Great Russia (aka Soviet Union), with offshoots from post-WWII East European satellites to North Korea; Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam and Saloth Sar’s (“Pol Pot”) Cambodia; Castro’s Cuba, the FARC in Columbia and Central America, plus the murderous Sendera Luminoso (“Shining Path” [!]) that infested Bolivia and Peru. Africa is not immune, just pre-lapsarian.

These so-called “movements” are worth enumerating because they share common, and constant, characteristics. Most differ from theocracy only in citing some –typically 19th Century-- maestro of determinism, lending ideological credit to otherwise inchoate force majeur. At their root lies nihilism, not materialism-- the purposive gibberish of Joyce and Gertrude Stein; John Cage’s Silent Symphonies, Barnett Newman’s Absent Frames. And behind that nihilism, I’m afraid, lie Flanders Fields, a Western cultural suicide committed in 1914 – ’18 that permanently scarred true idealism, the yearning after something greater than oneself. Throughout our world, we favor easy, empty proxies of celebrity, not aspiring to noble heights but rather burying our political, cultural, and social selves in cacophonous “performance” or mass movements-- whatever armband fits the sleeve.

To me, the sole interest of Militant Islam, outside its crypto-fascist Ba’athist canons, is that it is not of Western European origin. Aside from Shinto, which does not evangelize, I cannot think of another major, historical force that ignores Kant and Hegel, in form of shallow Positivism. (Aztecs and Incas long since resigned the game.) But again, the Saudis’ Wahabi death-cult is also nihilistic to the core, so what’s to choose? On annihilation, tombs of believers vs. infidels distinguish only dust.

So there! I’ve said it, and I’m glad. Alas, against Leftism in all its incarnations, the only defense is to somehow mobilize a prickly mass of individuals, who by nature rebel against that very duty. Neither Koestler nor Orwell indicated how this paradox might occur. As a child of the Silent Generation, I remain a spectator, and have lately put much geriatric distance between myself and the agora’s Sturm und Drang. But, ah! We’re hearing words like “freedom” and “liberty” again. After years of stasis from 1989, the curtain’s rising on a dramatic Second Act. Let’s leverage the opportunity, seize the day, and hope.