Kevin Tracy

Before I get to my argument about eco-terrorist James Jay Lee, I want it to be said that I in no way condone Lee’s actions, support what he did, or sympathize with his motives.

With the above said, everyone appears to agree that James Jay Lee was mentally ill. Why? Because anybody who wants to wipe out the “parasite” that is humanity to preserve the environment must be unstable… right? Maybe less so than you would think. James Jay Lee isn’t the first person with a radical ideology to do something radical. Adolf Hitler is a prime example. His ideology required a re-writing of world history and the extermination of several ethnic and religious groups in the territory he came to control. Coincidentally, there have been quite a few people to suggest Hitler suffered from his own mental illnesses. Yet, there’s absolutely no documented evidence of this being the case. Why then would people suggest Hitler had a mental illness? Well, they’re biased: not against Hitler as much as for humanity.

There are a lot of people who want to believe that no human being could do something as extreme as attempt to exterminate an entire ethnic group or even all of humanity. After all, since we’re all created equal, that would be admitting that any one of us, including ourselves, could become that kind of a person. Since denying the existence of these actions is impossible; the only other course of action for these people is to bring into question the humanity of the people who commit such horrific acts. Yet, because people like James Jay Lee and Adolf Hitler weren’t space aliens, the only other way to question their humanity is to question the part of them that makes us act “human.”

No, I’m not talking about our opposable thumbs! It’s our brains.

I know it’s considered “poor taste” to ask us to look at ourselves when somebody else does something like this, but it’s usually the things that are in “poor taste” that are the most important to discuss. So let’s look at ourselves. What actually makes an individual do something or believe something different than another human being? For example, I think Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin are idiots, and that Barack Obama has a God awful domestic policy but one of the most under-appreciated and many times brilliant foreign policies of any President in U.S. History. I know that 95% or more of you will disagree with my opinions in the last sentence. There are probably some folks who will say that my position makes ME mentally ill… others of you wouldn’t go that far. So even those of you who disagree with me will disagree with me for different reasons and reach different conclusions.

The reason for this is because each individual accumulates unique life experiences, which shape their perceptions and understanding of future experiences. It’s why every day, people convert from Christianity to Islam and from Islam to Christianity, why people vote Democrat one year and Republican two years later, and why Tea Parties that tackle a wide spectrum of local, state, and national issues (and non-issues) are usually the ones that fail.

Coincidentally, James Jay Lee was inspired by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and it’s a surprise more people haven’t developed the same positions as this eco-terrorist after seeing it.

Now, generally speaking, the “American experience” is somewhat identical from person to person, despite our culture’s social, economic, religious, and political segregation. We are typically born in controlled environments, our parent/parents/guardians provide us with a means for survival, they provide us with a sense of right from wrong along with an institutionalized education, we learn a trade, we develop passions, and our ideas evolve as we accumulate more information. Granted, this list needs to be interpreted loosely because each individual experience and outcome is so unique.

Having said that we need a loose interpretation of the American experience, there are “norms.” For example, most Americans will learn a trade that is legal. With that said, there will still be people who resort to dealing drugs and prostitution as their trade. Likewise, the “norm” is that the typical American won’t kill another human being. Yet, there are soldiers and murderers who will take lives. Historically, and often even religiously, taking a life in the name of our country is considered honorable while murder is generally seen as the most heinous of crimes.

Don’t worry, I’m going to get back to James Jay Lee very soon.

Now, the difference between taking a life for your country and taking a life in an act of murder is not always universally agreed upon. When a bomb is dropped from an American plane onto a wedding ceremony in Afghanistan, a lot of people (Afghans and Americans alike) will call it murder while others will say it was an accident due to faulty intelligence, bad charts, technical problems, or human error. Likewise, what is seen as military action varies greatly, too. The Provisional Irish Republican Army often times killed soldiers, paramilitaries, and police officers. Beyond that even, they also targeted Ulster civilians who were known to support protestant terrorists. To many (but not all) Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland (and around the world), these men and women were heroes fighting for their civil rights and independence. Yet the British considered them criminals and, as would often be the case in the later years of the Troubles, “psychological tests” would be performed on captured members of the IRA and their findings of “mental illness” would often be found in newspapers and on the evening news.

Were they terrorists? Sure. But if fighting for a cause you believe in makes you “mentally ill” then there are millions of Americans, myself included, who need to be committed because we volunteered to serve our nation in uniform knowing that we would directly or indirectly be responsible for killing people and blowing stuff up and could potentially put our lives on the line doing it.

So what makes one cause better than another if somebody is willing to die for it? When we think about the legitimacy of a cause, we often think of terms of “What does God want?” or “What does our society/country/world need?” Regardless of the definition you use, there are some causes that will be legitimate and some that will be illegitimate.

“Kill Humans” might be the mantra of James Jay Lee and Bender Bending Rodriguez, but it’s far from the “norm” in society and most people reject it as illegitimate (thankfully). However, we’re thinking of it from our own unique perspectives and not the perspective of James Jay Lee. From his own perspective, humanity is a parasite to the environment. It’s actually not that foreign of an idea. Environmentalists around the world have argued this for decades, it’s even been in movies like The Matrix. In fact, I’m inclined to agree with them on the parasite point, although I differ from them because I’m completely dedicated to my role as a human parasite on the environment.

Now, James Jay Lee took this view to the next level. He asked himself, “What is best for the world?” and proceeded to take action in support of his cause. If we agreed with his cause and actions, I think we would all agree that he acted courageously. Obviously, we don’t agree, but as I’ve said for years, what we think is NOT important. What matters is what James Jay Lee thinks and just because his experiences and perceptions led him to reach different conclusions than the rest of us doesn’t make him “Mentally Ill.”

In fact, judging by his actions, I would say that James Jay Lee fits the mold of an “Evil Genius” more than a “mentally ill” nut job. Although “Evil” is a subjective term, because Captain Planet would probably consider him an honorary “Planeteer.” Allow me to explain:

During his attack on the Discovery Channel, James Jay Lee contacted MSNBC. Among his many complaints, Lee was upset that the Discovery Channel wasn’t running enough shows about the environment and the negative impact humanity is having on it. He told MSNBC that he had a bomb and that he had learned how to make bombs from the Discovery Channel’s hit-show Mythbusters.

Now, if you’re like me, you watch a LOT of Mythbusters when it’s not football or hockey season and you’ll also know that Mythbusters‘ hosts and editors go out of their way to ensure that viewers aren’t shown how to make bombs because it would be a huge liability if someone got hurt or killed because of something they taught their audience how to do. Regardless of this, Lee’s blaming Mythbusters for his “bomb” was a very well calculated and very intelligent move considering his cause.

Mythbusters symbolizes everything that James Jay Lee hated about the Discovery Channel. Yet, instead of attacking the show, he cited it as a co-conspirator in his attack against the Discovery Channel. You can bet the barn that, at the very least, Lee’s comment is going to cause the Discovery Channel and everyone involved with Mythbusters to evaluate how they produce the show and even the kind of myths they take on.

Personally, I hope they don’t change a thing and I don’t expect they will. Yet, it’s still going to cost the Discovery Channel and Mythbusters a fair sum of money to conduct the review. Granted, Lee’s actions aren’t likely to accomplish his objectives, but his chosen actions were probably the best chance he had at success. So when you think of James Jay Lee, think of him as a sort of suicide bomber of sorts. Like an Chechen terrorist who blows him or herself up on a Russian airliner, James Jay Lee was not successful in bringing about the change he wanted but he made his statement and views known to the entire country.

And coincidentally, the entire country rejected him just as he had rejected humanity.

Free will is a bitch.

Okay, I’m stepping back in politics for a moment so you might better be able to understand why I want nothing to do with the business with the political parties in their current, asinine state.  To be fair, I have not listened or watched Glenn Beck’s speech from yesterday, nor do I plan to read a transcript of it.  I dislike the person for a variety of levels and I doubt his speech was much more than an acknowledgment of where this country has been and the negative direction we are heading, while offering a positive light at the end of the tunnel in the form of conservative values or the Republican Party.  I’m also sure that there were a few token minorities on stage before a sea of white Americans.  None of that is really important for the point I’m going to make.  The point I have to make deals with Democrats.

Democrats have been whining and moaning and, yes, bitching ever since Glenn Beck announced he was going to be speaking on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream speech.”  All I’ve heard is how Glenn Beck is a racist (probably not true) and how it was sooooooo inappropriate for Beck to do this.  Conservatives rightfully told Democrats that they could shove it up their butts because the First Amendment overrides their liberal whining about appropriateness and Glenn Beck’s views on politics.  Some of which are in disagreement with Dr. King’s.

But liberals and Democrats whine, complain, cry, moan, get angry, and, yes, bitch at everything.  That’s one of the many things that Democrats do that pisses me off.  “Oh, we disagree with you!  You’re a Nazi/Fascist/Racist!”  Unfortunately, due to the Republican Party’s history opposing the civil right’s movement, that nonsense and baseless attack still has weight in some parts of the country, even if it isn’t always true.

That’s not to say there aren’t racists in the Republican Party, there are.  I’ve had the dishonor of meeting a handful of racist activists at the 2010 Indiana Republican Party Convention who argued against school vouchers because black kids should be kept out of certain schools.  However, the vast majority of politicians and party leaders and officials take the position Teddy Roosevelt took way back at the turn of the century.  It doesn’t matter what ethnicity you are, you’re an American first.

So here’s what’s bugging me.

In New York City, there is a group of Americans who are seeking to build a religious based community center in a run down, slum infested neighborhood that’s being overrun by drugs, prostitution, and sex shops.  However, because this religion in question is Islam and because the slum infested neighborhood is a couple blocks away from Ground Zero, conservatives say it’s wrong to allow the Muslim community to do what they want.

Are you smelling the hypocrisy?  It’s hard to miss.  Might this Islamic Community Center be “offensive” to some Americans that wrongly think Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a supporter of terrorism?  Sure!  Might Glenn Beck’s speaking on this day at this place also be “offensive” to some Americans who wrongly think Glenn Beck is a racist?  Sure!

So to Democrats: “Why is the Imam’s 1st Amendment Right protected but not Beck’s?”

And to Republicans: “Why is Beck’s 1st Amendment Right protected but not the Imam’s?”

There’s all this talk on both sides of the political divide about dates and places being sacred and something we just shouldn’t mess with.  Yet, when i was a kid, I learned that the United States, from sea to shining sea, and our rights, including the 1st Amendment, were the sacred things that made America the greatest place on earth.

What happened?  Why is the 1st Amendment now being used as toilet paper by Democrats and Republicans while they encourage bigotry and fear mongering within the politically active population?

When I say that I don’t want to be associated with the Republican Party or the conservative movement today, this is why.  I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.

I know I needn’t remind you that this isn’t the first time that conservatives have practiced religious intolerance.  A little over three years ago, the target was Hinduism. If you were reading KTracy.com back in 2007, you’ll remember that I came out and bashed those bigots just as harshly as I’m bashing them today.

Does ANYBODY know what this was part of an advertisement for?  It worked and I want to try whatever it is.  Only, I don’t even know where to begin.

Any help at all will be greatly appreciated!

I’ll review the product here on the site, too.

Above is a glance at history. It isn’t the first ever photograph (which was accidentally destroyed years ago), but it is the first photograph of a person. I know what you’re wondering… it’s a look out some guy’s window at a city.

Here’s the thing. Back in the day, in 1838 when this particular photo was taken, the exposure time for a camera to take a picture was 10 minutes, and it was pricey, too. To put this into modern terms, the “exposure” time for my iPhone camera is 1/24th of a second. Theoretically, I could take 14,400 photos with my phone in the time it took for the picture above to be taken.

That’s what Louis Daguerre (the photographer) gets for being an early adopter of new technology.

Oh, the person! So 10 minutes was too long for a person to keep perfectly still without blinking. As a result, photographers chose to limit their art to scenery, whether it was natural or man-made. The photograph above was actually taken on a busy street in the middle of the day. Yet there are no horses, carts, or anything else you would expect to see on a busy street in the middle of the day. Because they were moving, they weren’t in one place long enough for their image to be exposed.

With one exception.

Take a gander at the lower left of the picture on the corner of the sidewalk. You’ll see a man with his leg up on a large step. He’s getting his boot shined. Nobody knows who he is or anything about him, other than he had scuffed boots and didn’t like it. Little did he know that he was making history by seeing this particular shoe shine boy at this exact time in 1838.

The photo was taken in Paris and is called the “Boulevard du Temple”. Also in this picture are the shoe shine boy, who was too busy to have his figure seen clearly and two very animated men at a nearby table, who also are unable to be seen clearly.

Since stepping out of politics, I’ve been reconnecting with my lost love of art. I couldn’t be happier.

I’m not sure if I buy the part about evil spirits diving in, but I am inclined to believe the end result is close to the same. I’m tempted to do further research into girls with crazy eyes, but I feel as though such research should be done within the safety of an asylum… a well lit asylum… the kind that they don’t make movies and games about.

This clip is from the film Mongol, which came out a two or three years ago (depending where in the world you lived… or if you had a region-free DVD player). In the scene, Temüjin (as he was known before he became Genghis Khan) is getting instructions from his father on how to choose a bride. They are on their way to meet the powerful Meerkit clan, where Temüjin is supposed to choose a bride that will form an alliance between their clans. Temüjin, however, convinces his father to let him “practice” choosing a bride with a smaller, weaker, and already allied clan. If you pay attention, you’ll see his father give an “Oh, shit!” face after Temüjin shouts, “I have chosen my bride!” This is actually one of my favorite scenes in the film, as it establishes the characters of the Temüjin and Börte (the girl he chooses) throughout the rest of the film perfectly.

Although there are so many legends about the young Temüjin and Börte Üjin that this scene must be considered historical fiction; the proverbs about a girl’s attractiveness being in her flat face, narrow eyes, and strong legs are more provable.

If you haven’t seen this film yet, it’s worth watching at least twice. There is a sequel in the works called The Great Khan. The entire work by Sergei Bodrov was originally slated to be a trilogy, but there have been a lot of conflicting reports about the possibility of The Great Khan being the final installment. You’d think it would be easier to get information on the smaller number of films coming out of Russia relative to Hollywood, but that’s just not true.

I was experimenting with a new function before I left and forgot to disable it. As a result, some photos made it onto the website as entire posts of their own instead of just in the Zannel window. The site continues to be worked on.

Most of this stuff will also be posted on Facebook. I’ll compile it all into a gallery when I get back home from Tennessee. If the last picture I send is of an angry bear; I wish to be cremated, coated onto a brass knuckle, and used to punch Ron Paul in the throat. I’ll be back sometime between August 7th and August 14th, depending on how well I’m feeling after being in the Smoky Mountains for a week.

Over the past few years, I’ve been known to poke and prod people over a variety of things. Many of them have been politically related, but not all of them. I’m going to share one of them with you.

I have never seen Fight Club. Beyond that, I have no intention to see Fight Club. Nor do I ever intend to read the book, which I didn’t know existed until earlier this month.

At this point, everyone who has ever seen Fight Club exclaims, “What!? How has he never seen Fight Club? He needs to see it!”

The Hell I do. The movie came out in 1999, the book in 1996. I have gone 11 years without seeing the movie and 14 without reading the novel. If I really NEEDED to see this movie, I don’t think I would be here writing this blog entry about how I don’t need to see the movie right now.

Why don’t I want to see the movie? To prove a point.

The truth of the matter is that I don’t care one way or another about the film. My refusal to see it really has nothing to do with the film, it has to do with the scores, possibly over a hundred, people who have told me that I need to see the movie. I don’t, therefore I haven’t and won’t! Without seeing the film, I already know it’s not going to be as good as The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari, The Temptress, Citizen Kane, and the 2008 Speed Racer. That’s impossible. That’s not to say it’s a bad movie, but I’m not missing anything other than another Hollywood sensation that the gullible public ate up, again.

For this same reason, I hated Spiderman 1 so much that I refuse to see Spiderman 2 and 3.

I also refuse to see Transformers 1 and 2, and when 3 comes out, i won’t see that either. Although this in part has to do with my complete hatred of Stephen Spielberg, who I’m convinced is on a seek and destroy mission of anything great that has ever been created in the history of entertainment. Not only did he defile H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds, but even his own work Indiana Jones was massacred. War of the Worlds was really the most horrible thing that has ever happened in the history of Hollywood. Spielberg should have been arrested and executed by an international court for that travesty.

The same can be said of certain television shows. I refused to watch 24 or Alias when those shows were on because they were complete bull crap. I don’t care if they look cool, they’re crap. And then to have Republican Presidential Candidates saying they wanted Jack Bauer to torture people? REALLY?! Well gee, if only his phone was listed in the phone book.

Quite frankly, the American public is too stupid to have anywhere near enough credibility to be able to tell me what I “NEED” to watch. I’ve seen too many amazing movies get shafted by the media and, like sheep, the people go along with whatever they’re told by critics. Did you know that the movie industry pays critics for favorable reviews? That’s not to say they don’t sometimes give good reviews to good movies or bad reviews to bad movies, but to suggest that they are unbiased in their reviews is a complete joke. Likewise, studies have been done that have proven that people like movies significantly more if they read a favorable review about it before and even after seeing it. And because of this, great films and television shows (and even music) is buried while the same crap keeps being peddled to American and world audiences as entertainment. Speed Racer; God, The Devil, and Bob; Boondock Saints II; Pushing Daisies; Solid State Society; Wonderfalls; and even Futurama (until recently) got the shaft.

When I meet someone who can tell me what statement the Cabinet of Dr. Calagari was making about the world when it was made, or why everything Orson Wells did was so compelling, or what Speed Racer was about; and they tell me I need to see Fight Club, I’ll consider it more tempting. But until then, I’m maintaining that none of you who have told me that I need to see Fight Club are smart enough to convince me you know anything about films aside from what you learned in the newspapers and Google movie reviews.