Rw005g's Open Salon Blog

CHIPs Protecting us from May Day Protesters

Wed, 2 May 2012 11:05:54 -0400

California Highway Patrol members stand watch at the Golden Gate Bridge in preparation for possible May Day protests in San Francisco, Tuesday, May 1, 2012. Protesters had backed away from a call to block the bridge. But scores of California Highway Patrol officers nonetheless lined the span and gathered around the toll plaza this morning. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

Residents of San Francisco woke up to resplendent feelings of safety yesterday, knowing that the California Highway Patrol was hard at work, protecting them from dangerous May Day protesters. It remains to be seen whether such large numbers of armed, black-uniformed order-police will become an everyday sight in America...

CEO to Worker Pay Across the World

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:04:01 -0400

I found this on the internet and thought I would share it with you.

Many on the radical right claim that the US government and economy is "socialist." I disagree.

I think the US government and economy is currently very right-wing, pro-corporate, and pro-wealthy.

It is also strongly anti-union and anti-labor. It has consistently been this way since the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What happens when you have this sort of an imbalance between worker and CEO pay?

Democracy invariably suffers.

An imbalance of pay leads to an imbalance of wealth, over time. And this, over time, leads to a massive imbalance of political power that is detrimental to the principal of proportional representation, where the needs of the many (the poor and the middle class) should ideally transcend the mercurial desires of the wealthy and privileged few.

In the America of today, the ideal principles of democracy have been reversed and turned on their head. It is up to the youth of this nation to rectify these wrongs and save our civilization from those who are actively working to betray it, those "malefactors of great wealth" who sacrifice our rights upon an alter of predatory greed and a butcher's block of unregulated, unrestrained, unaccountable international finance.

Should America have an Official Language?

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:04:59 -0400

I was reading the wikipedia entry on the Breton Language and found the history of the language to be quite fascinating. I did not know that a major celtic language was spoken in one of the major regions of France. Furthermore, I would have assumed that such a language would have been a descendent of the early Gauls who populated the region prior to the Roman conquest. However, this assumption would be mistaken. I learned that Breton was brought to France by Celtic folks from the British Isles who fled to France in the 500s, presumably to escape invading Germanic Tribes, such as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who were attacking Britain at that time.

What I find to be most interesting, though, is that Breton, along with most minority languages in France, was hotly suppressed by the radical left-wing Jacobins during the French Revolution. In order to understand this, a brief historical survey is needed.

Apparantly, when the first Breton-speakers arrived, they were mostly members of the nobility, their servants and dependents. Over the course of centuries, their numbers grew and became self-sustaining communities. However, the nobility of Brittany (the region of France where the Bretton speakers settled) quickly adopted Latin and French for communication purposes, as they wished to partake of the economic and political largesse that knowledge of said languages in France could afford them. This was especially the case since the official business of the French King was done in French and Latin.

After the nobility switched to French and Latin, the Bourgeoisie (or upper middle and middle classes, the professional classes and merchant classes) made the switch as well, but this was not as complete, and they had a great facility in going back and forth, from what I have read on various other websites.

By the 18th century, the speaking of Breton was seen to be primarily focused among the peasantry and this was never contested by the French monarch, who didn't really care what language the peasantry spoke. Again, his only concern was being understood by the nobility.

Well, during the French Revolution, the Breton language was suppressed by the Jacobins. This, from wikipedia:

" The French Monarchy did not concern itself with the minority languages of France spoken by the lower classes, although it did require the use of French for government business. The revolutionary period saw the introduction of policies favouring French over the regional languages, pejoratively referred to as patois. It was assumed by the revolutionaries that reactionary and monarchist forces preferred regional languages in an attempt to keep the peasant masses under-informed. In 1794, Barère submitted to the Comité de salut public his "report on the idioms", in which he said that "federalism and superstition speak breton". Under the Third, Fourth and Fifth republics, humiliating practices aimed at stamping out the Breton language and culture prevailed in state schools until the late 1960s.^[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_language#History_and_status

I wonder if this was the case? Did the existence of minority languages in France, prior to the Revolution, add to the power of the monarchy to keep regional peasant communities under-informed, parochial and sepperated from their fellow countrymen?

Were the Jacobins correct in pushing for an official, national language on progressive, leftist grounds? On grounds that it would unite the country and create a national folk-community where all would be able to commune at the alter of liberty, fraternity and egality? Would this common effort be hindered through regional and linguistic differentiation?

In our own time, the right wing pushes for "English Only," but this is done for reactionary, bigoted and xenophobic purposes, far removed from the progressive motives that seem to have underlay the policies pursued by the Jacobins.

Certainly, bilingualism and trilingualism enhance the power of our citizenry in the international marketplace. I think all Americans should know more than just English. That said, I also think that we should make a greater and more conscious effort to ensure that more Americans are on the same page, language-wise.

As an attorney, I have seen and heard of countless workplace abuses and injustices committed, merely because people didn't know English and didn't know where to go for help. Oftentimes, interpreters aren't available and this enhances the prospects that many immigrants face in terms of exploitation and oppression, not only from American, English-speaking employers, but also from members of their own community that may seek to exploit them and capitalize upon their lack of English-language skills.

I think that the right wing is totally insane when they demand that all official business in America be conducted only in English. That said, I think liberals are naive and unrealistic when they argue that the business of government and civil rights can act in an optimum manner without everybody being on the same page in terms of knowledge. Language is the medium through which knowledge is transmitted. And knowledge is power in a democracy. Without knowledge of your legal rights, political rights and economic rights, oppression and exploitation become a constant companion. And language becomes the barrior through which such knowledge is denied to millions.

We must make English-language classes and training more available to all throughout the nation.

I don't know how I feel about America adopting English as the official language of the nation. Some "feel" that it would be used to oppress and persecute people in the way that literacy tests were used to alienate and disenfranchise black voters in the Jim Crow South. Some feel that it bespeaks nativism and xenophobia.

On the other hand, countless nations throughout the world have official languages and none of them are seen as racist or bigoted for having them. India, Jamaica, Singapore, Nigeria, Kenya all list English as an official language. Spanish is the official language of Mexico. I don't know what harm would come about, if it is done correctly, in declaring English as an official language of the United States. Of course, it need not be the ONLY official language.

That said, optimality would be achieved if everybody were on the same page, linguistically speaking, and if all governmental efforts were aimed at bringing this about.

As an attorney, I tell you, there is a great deal of cost and confusion in court when 30% of the defendants can't speak English. Some can spend 15-20 years in this nation and they demand an interpreter. I am a liberal and a progressive and I fully support the need to help the downtrodden, the persecuted and the needy. But I also think that people need to take some initiative and learn English if they have lived in this nation for 20 years.

I am starting to see liberal, progressive judges DENY requests for a translator, in circumstances precisely like these. It gets expensive. Its $400 an hour for a translator.

Its much cheaper for everybody to be on the same page. A lingua franca helps, it adds to a society's cohesion.

Perhaps the best way to resolve the tension between conservatives and liberals would be to choose a third-party, neutral language as the official language and force everybody to learn it? I have no emotional ties to English. Perhaps we can speak Chinese or Russian? Perhaps we can chose Esperanto or Tagalog? It makes absolutely no difference to me.

Some may wonder if it even makes a difference if we have an official language. Maybe not. Eventually the forces of assimilation come into play, along with public schooling, and everybody eventually learns English.

But modern trends are mitigating the "melting pot" theory of language cohesiveness. For example, its alot easier today to remain totally ignorant of English for a long period of time, due to the large nature of many immigrant communities that can survive long periods of time without any contact with the outside, English speaking society around them. Modern electronic, satellite and internet communications facilitate this, as these communities can be in closer connection with their original homeland than they are with their new, adopted one. Its not unheard of in many migrant worker communities, for people to work 15-20 years in the US and never learn English. I understand that there are places in Miami where one can go and not get by without a strong command of Spanish. Same goes true for various Chinatowns throughout the United States and the need for Chinese language skills. Many police departments, child protection agencies, welfare agencies, senior citizen agencies, INS and labor department inspectors and the like find their work in such communities severely hampered, due to linguistic barriers, even when they have members of said communities working on their staffs. As a result, its completely feasible that hundreds if not thousands of cases of neglect and abuse go unreported and un-investigated, due to these linguistic barriers, each year.

Perhaps traditional liberal notions of not having an official language, rather than enhance liberty and freedom, may actually serve to detract from freedom and enhance the powers of oppression, division and alienation, like the leftist Jacobins once thought?

There must be a way to solve this problem in a way that is acceptable to all sides, liberal and conservative alike. We can't have total linguistic anarchy. I like having a diverse nation, but I also understand the linguistic efficiency that can be had by more linguistically homogenous nations, or at least those linguistically diverse nations that settle on a few basic languages as their "lingua franca." For example, India has hundreds of languages spoken within her borders. Its one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse nations on earth. Yet they all share the common history of having been an English colony. For this reason, English is one of the official languages of India, and it greatly facilitates communication among her diverse population groups, especially among the elites in universities, government, banking, science, medicine and the like. In many ways, it serves the same function that Latin served in Europe from the Middle Ages up through the 17th century.

And yet, by that same token, we can't have xenophobic nativists turning the English language into some sort of litmus test by which they "lord it over" everybody else in the nation. And that's the great threat, and great fear that everybody has, whenever we bring up the subject of having an "official language."

The American Experiment is unique. We are a nation of immigrants, from all quarters of the globe. What and who we are is constantly changing. But in order for us to even be a "we" there needs to be some sense of unity, other than shared geographical space. If that's all it takes to be an American, then our national identity isn't long for this world.

Should English be the national language? If not, should both English AND Spanish be the national languages and should we require that everybody learn both of these in school?

I am leaning toward the latter option.This way, Hispanic citizens whose numbers are growing and who will comprise a larger portion of our nation in the future, and whom we can't alienate, don't feel marginalized by our efforts to have unity. Furthermore, English speakers can work toward this unity by learning Spanish, and working toward our Hispanic brothers and sisters, as they simultaneously work toward unity by learning English. Within 50 years, the linguistic issues we now face regarding English-Spanish confusion would thus largely be overcome. Who knows, maybe a new language would come about in a few hundred years, a hybrid born of the two tongues?

The Roman Empire lasted for 1,000 years with both Latin and Greek as its official language. Perhaps we should have two official languages as well?

Your thoughts?

America's Cities Wage War on the Homeless

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:03:32 -0400

^{Last year, I wrote a story about the 19th century Poor Laws in Britain. These laws did many things to hurt the poor, such as mandate workhouses, remove the poor from the countryside and prohibit secular and sectarian granting of alms and charity for the destitute.}

http://www.open.salon.com/blog/rw005g/2011/02/03/britains_war_on_poverty_through_corn_laws_and_food

The intent behind these laws was twofold. First, the Establishment wanted to prevent the poor from reproducing and the felt that by making conditions harsh, they could thereby limit their numbers. Second, and related to the first, were the over-riding political concerns of the Establishment. Aristocrats in Britain were horrified by the excesses seen in Europe during the French Revolution and the class warfare and social upheaval experienced in that nation and throughout the continent from 1789-1815. The British Aristocracy was determined to control and "manage" the poor by all means necessary, lest they become too numerous, too potent and too radicalized to control.

Their solution, in the form of the Poor Laws, would have a monumental impact on the British Isles. It would depopulate the countryside and force people out of agriculture and into the hands of heavy industry. It would also have grave repurcussions in Ireland, which was then directly ruled by the British crown. When a disease called the "blight" impacted Ireland's potato crops, the Irish peasantry found itself with little to eat. The Poor Laws, which made private and public charity illegal, caused a massive famine and hundreds of thousands of Irish died as a result, with millions immigrating to the United States and South America.

The carnage of the famine would have wide-ranging consequences and would serve to embolden the left in Britain for decades to come.

The American Elite is similarly oppressive toward the poor and dispossessed in our country. They also seem to have a great fear of large groups of people camping out in parks and receiving free food handouts, especially since the potent Occupy Wall Street protests of a few months back.

As such, we can see these new "Poor Laws" in their proper light. They are not just a blatant attack on the poor, but also, perhaps, a subtle pre-emptive attack on future OWS protests in our nations largest cities?

Perhaps they are the first wave of new laws to come, pretexturally justified on the basis of salt and caloric intake, safety and dignity, but in reality passed for reasons altogether different and wholly political, social and economic in nature?

Read these three articles and enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This, about New York City...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

_{Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYCBans Food Donations To The Homeless}

Has The Mayor Totally Eaten Away At The Public's Desire To Do Good?

March 19, 2012 8:33 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

It’s the “no bagels for you” edict.

“I can’t give you something that’s a supplement to the food you already have? Sorry that’s wrong,” Richter said.

Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a “cholent” or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless.

Richter said he was stunned. He said his family has eaten the same food forever and flourished.

“My father lived to 97; my grandfather lived to 97, and they all enjoyed it and somehow we’re being told that this is no good and I think there is a degree of management that becomes micromanagement and when you cross that line simply what you’re doing is wrong,” Richter said.

But Mayor Bloomberg, a salt-aholic himself, was unapologetic.

“For the things that we run because of all sorts of safety reasons, we just have a policy it is my understanding of not taking donations,” Bloomberg said.

Told that his administration recently enacted the policy, the mayor was Grinch-like.

“If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

Richter said that over the years he’s delivered more than two tons of food to the homeless. He said Mayor Bloomberg is eating away at his ability to do good.

The ban on food donations was made by an inter-agency task force that includes the departments of Health and Homeless Services.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This, about Philadelphia...

---------------------------------------

_{City To Ban Street-Corner Feedings of Homeless}

_{March 14, 2012 11:30 PM}

By Mike Dunn and Walt Hunter

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has announced a ban on the feeding of large numbers of homeless and hungry people at sites on and near the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

Mayor Nutter is imposing the ban on all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on city parkland, including Love Park and the Ben Franklin Parkway, where it is not uncommon for outreach groups to offer free food.

Nutter says the feedings lack both sanitary conditions and dignity.

“Providing to those who are hungry must not be about opening the car trunk, handing out a bunch of sandwiches, and then driving off into the dark and rainy night,” Nutter said.

The city’s leading homeless advocate, Project Home’s Sister Mary Scullion, voiced tentative support for the mayor’s announcement. She said the mayor is “between a rock and a hard place” on the issue of outdoor feedings.

“I really want to thank the mayor for this courageous … this is not an easy position. But I do think it’s a great opportunity,” Scullion said.

Among the groups unhappy with the mayor’s announcement is Brian Jenkins of Chosen 300 Ministries, a homeless outreach group that does both indoor and outdoor feedings.

“The fact that city of Philadelphia is saying now that the homeless don’t have the right to eat on the Ben Franklin Parkway or eat around Center City is a clear violation of civil rights,” Jenkins explained. “It says that people that have … can eat in a certain place. But people that have not, can’t.”

Nutter’s aides will work with the homeless groups to encourage more indoor feedings.

In the meantime, the groups will be allowed to offer food on the north apron of City Hall, provided they register with the city.

The ban on parkland feedings takes effect in 30 days. Groups that violate the outdoor feeding ban would face two warnings and then a nominal $150 fine.

Nutter says large family gatherings in the park are not affected by the ban.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/03/14/nutter-announces-ban-on-outdoor-feeding-of-homeless/

------------------------

Third Article: From Infowars.

(note: the Las Vegas ordinance mentioned is a few years old and was probably aimed at preventing the homeless from interfering with the city's tourism industry; many laws in Nevada are intentionally designed with the aim of furthering the state's powerful gaming and hotel lobby. As such, the Vegas example wouldn't apply to the OWS pretext I mention throughout this article. On the other hand, the pretextural justifications and rhetoric used by Las Vegas and its municipal ordinances will no doubt be examined by other municipalities throughout the nation as they engage in similar actions, albeit for other purposes).

------------------------------

_{Feeding The Homeless BANNED In Major Cities All Over America}

The Economic Collapse
Thursday, March 22, 2012

What would you do if you came across someone on the street that had not had anything to eat for several days? Would you give that person some food? Well, the next time you get that impulse you might want to check if it is still legal to feed the homeless where you live.

Sadly, feeding the homeless has been banned in major cities all over America. Other cities that have not banned it outright have put so many requirements on those that want to feed the homeless (acquiring expensive permits, taking food preparation courses, etc.) that feeding the homeless has become “out of reach” for most average people. Some cities are doing these things because they are concerned about the “health risks” of the food being distributed by ordinary “do-gooders”. Other cities are passing these laws because they do not want homeless people congregating in city centers where they know that they will be fed. But at a time when poverty and government dependence are soaring to unprecedented levels, is it really a good idea to ban people from helping those that are hurting?

This is just another example that shows that our country is being taken over by control freaks. There seems to be this idea out there that it is the job of the government to take care of everyone and that nobody else should even try.

But do we really want to have a nation where you have to get the permission of the government before you do good to your fellow man?

It isn’t as if the government has “rescued” these homeless people. Homeless shelters all over the nation are turning people away each night because they have no more room. There are many homeless people that are lucky just to make it through each night alive during the winter.

Sometimes a well-timed sandwich or a cup of warm soup can make a world of difference for a homeless person. But many U.S. cities have decided that feeding the homeless is such a threat that they had better devote law enforcement resources to making sure that it doesn’t happen.

This is so twisted. In America today, you need a “permit” to do almost anything. We are supposed to be a land of liberty and freedom, but these days government bureaucrats have turned our rights into “privileges” that they can revoke at any time.

The following are some of the major U.S. cities that have attempted to ban feeding the homeless….

Philadelphia

Mayor Nutter recently banned feeding homeless people in many parts of Philadelphia where homeless people are known to congregate….

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has announced a ban on the feeding of large numbers of homeless and hungry people at sites on and near the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

Mayor Nutter is imposing the ban on all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on city parkland, including Love Park and the Ben Franklin Parkway, where it is not uncommon for outreach groups to offer free food.

Nutter says the feedings lack both sanitary conditions and dignity

Orlando

Last June, a group of activists down in Orlando, Florida were arrested by police for feeding the homeless in defiance of a city ordinance….

Over the past week, twelve members of food activist group Food Not Bombs have been arrested in Orlando for giving free food to groups of homeless people in a downtown park. They were acting in defiance of a controversial city ordinance that mandates permits for groups distributing food to large groups in parks within two miles of City Hall. Each group is allowed only two permits per park per year; Food Not Bombs has already exceeded their limit. They set up their meatless buffet in Lake Eola knowing that they would likely be arrested as a result.

Houston

Down in Houston, a group of Christians was recently banned from distributing food to the homeless, and they were told that they probably would not be granted a permit to do so in the future even if they applied for one….

Bobby and Amanda Herring spent more than a year providing food to homeless people in downtown Houston every day. They fed them, left behind no trash and doled out warm meals peacefully without a single crime being committed, Bobby Herring said.

That ended two weeks ago when the city shut down their “Feed a Friend” effort for lack of a permit. And city officials say the couple most likely will not be able to obtain one.

“We don’t really know what they want, we just think that they don’t want us down there feeding people,” said Bobby Herring, a Christian rapper who goes by the stage name Tre9.

Dallas

Dallas has also adopted a law which greatly restricts the ability of individuals and ministries to feed the homeless….

A Dallas-area ministry is suing the city over a food ordinance that restricts the group from giving meals to the homeless.

Courts dismissed Dallas’ request for a summary judgment last week, saying the case, brought up by pastor Don Hart (in video above) may indeed be a violation of free exercise of religion, as protected by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the blog Religion Clause reported.

In the court filing, the ministry leaders argue that their Christian faith requires them to share meals with the homeless (Jesus did!) and that the requirement that even churches and charities provide toilets, sinks, trained staff and consent of the city keeps them from doing so.

Las Vegas

A few years ago, Las Vegas became the first major U.S. city to specifically pass a law banning the feeding of homeless people….

Las Vegas, whose homeless population has doubled in the past decade to about 12,000 people in and around the city, joins several other cities across the country that have adopted or considered ordinances limiting the distribution of charitable meals in parks. Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.

But the Las Vegas ordinance is believed to be the first to explicitly make it an offense to feed “the indigent.”

That law has since been blocked by a federal judge, and since then many U.S. cities have been very careful not to mention “the indigent” or “the homeless” by name in the laws they pass that are intended to ban feeding the homeless.

New York City

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be “nutritious” enough.

Yes, this is really true.

The following is from a recent Fox News article….

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.

Can you believe that?

The bureaucrats are officially out of control.

The Walking Dead

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:03:30 -0400

Science fiction tells us more about ourselves than we would like.

For example, in the 1950s, science fiction was all about aliens invading America from the sky. They used death rays, destroyed entire cities and engaged in "body snatching" and brain-washing to conquer America.

Sociologists say that America's obsession with UFO science fiction in the 1950s reflected our anxiety and apprehension regarding the Cold War, the Soviet Union and our fears of nuclear war.

Today, there is a new science fiction craze, namely, zombies.

What does this craze say about American society?

A few things.

First, it says we are terrified about things falling apart, about the collapse of order, civilization, community and the like. We are apprehensive about the collapse of fire departments, police departments, governments, garbage collection, the rise of anarchy and the like, things brought on by numerous years of GOP/corporate benign neglegt. Its beginning to impact our collective unconscious. We fear for the collapse of our society.

Second, perhaps the rise of apocolyptic literature, of which zombie movies and comics are but a part, is indicative of America's declining role in the world and the coming anarchy and destabilization that our Power Elite claims will come in the wake of our eclipse. Sort of like the Dark Ages that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire? Perhaps the Apocolyptic Literature and Zombie craze speaks to these underlying concerns?

Third, perhaps the Zombie craze represents an underlying racial concern. As America and Europe experience increasing numbers of third world immigration, perhaps the zombie craze speaks to the underlying fears of white westerners who irrationally feel overwhelmed and outnumbered by "hordes of savages" who seek to consume and kill all in their path, unrestrained by traditional notions of civility or morality? In this sense, the zombie movie and comic phenomenon could be perpetuated by an underlying racial angst, despite the multicultural cast that comprises such films.

Fourth, perhaps the zombie craze represents an overwhelming popular fear of capitalism and consumer culture, and the attendent behaviors of consumerism and objectification? Perhaps Zombies represent our fear of masses of people only concerned with mass, ravenous consumption? Of using us as a means to an end, rather than an end in of itself? Perhaps zombies represent shopping mall consumerism, as Romero so aptly argued in his movie, "Day of the Dead?" That zombies are mindless, drone-like consumers, wishing for nothing more than the satiation of their immediate instinctual impulses, deprived of their higher, civilizing impulses?

Fifth, perhaps the zombie craze is a covert way of furthering the survivalist movement? I hear people all the time talk about how they are preparing for the zombie apocolypse and how they are buying guns, knives, armor, provisions and the like. Perhaps this is a code for preparing for a race riot or the like? I don't know. Perhaps its all of the above and then some.

What I can say is that I absolutely love this series on AMC. I read the comics religiously and follow the show religiously.

I think Rick was totally justified in killing Shane.

I think Dale was the most awesome guy in the group. He is the one who kept them human. Without Dale, they would become indistinguishable from the zombies, who are all about killing and eating, survival and consumption. Humanity must mean more than this. Dale shows us this. I am glad Rick realizes this.

The battle between Rick and Dale ended through both of their deaths. Dale made the more lasting impact.

As Season 3 comes around and we meet the Governor, we will see where Shane's style of leadership will get people, in terms of losing their humanity.