Why the Ghaza blockade should end!

This post has been a long time coming. Ever since last December actually, where I've given hints of it on my twitter account. I just never got around to writing it, but today is as good a day as any I guess. So there goes it: I think it's time to lift the trade blockade off of Ghaza.

Ok, before you say what you are going to say, I know. I know. Hamas is still in control, and they were voted in by the Palestinian people, and Yeah yeah yeah. Chill out, and listen, ok? And if by the end of this, it doesn't make sense to you, feel free to tell me how much of an idiot I am in the comments section (otherwise, where is the fun, right?). Agreed? Ok, let's go.

Ever since Hamas was voted into power in Ghaza as a protest vote against Fatah (the same reason why the MB won so many seats in the Egyptian parliamentary elections), and democracy in the Palestinian territories has suffered a major blow. The blow became a full on gushing head wound the moment Hamas started its coup, and kicked the Fatah people out, create what got immediately dubbed Hamastan. And ever since that day, the blockade went up and stayed up, and some of us, including me, cheered, thinking it was a fitting punishment for big bad Hamas, and that soon enough there would be a second election, I even hoped for an open revolt, where the Palestinian people would throw out Hamas from power on its fat Jihady ass. In the throngs of our self-righteous indignation and punishment, we forgot that Hamas, now that it is in power, was going to do what every islamist organization in power would do: Destroy the democratic institutions that brought them there, and clamp down to solidify their power big time. And that's what they did.

Stories started trickling out from Ghaza: Hamas beating and arresting Fatah supporters or member, Hamas breaking into the houses of ex Fatah supporters and seizing the weapons there, Hamas stopping the sales of Alcohol all over the Ghaza strip, Hamas demanding control over reporters and what they report, Hamas trying to enforce law and order Islamic style. And as the blockade intensified, and the people got really hungry, Hamas started being the big daddy figure: Every aid shipment would get seized by them and distributed by them; the rest of the food and guns that would get smuggled into Ghaza would do so in tunnels controlled by Hamas, and thus placing more of people's livelihood in their hands. Slowly, but surely, a picture started being drawn: Hamas was surviving, and are using the blockade to make the people- who had no choice thanks to the blockade- more dependent on them. In essence, the anti-Hamas world managed to give Hamas every tool it ever needed to survive, and even strive, with donations coming in from all over the world to "save Ghaza", which, as you can guess by now, went into Hamas' pockets, and some of which back into the hands of the Palestinian population to buy support. Still, the big hope was the upcoming elections, which-even though there was very little hope of having it being realistically democratic at this point- would have such a public outpouring of voters who want change that they would kick Hamas out of Power. Hamas, knowing this, refused to renew and broke the ceasefire before the election with a month, and the rest is history.

Now, given the history and the current political climate in Ghaza, it is safe to say that democracy is dead, and that Hamas is instituting a theocracy. In other words: an Islamist dictatorship, just like the one in Sudan, or Iran or the one that sparked the civil war in Algeria (Not as bad as Afghanistan yet, mind you). And since this is the case, then the people in Ghaza should receive the same kind of sympathy and support that we give to people who are forced to live under Islamist dictatorships, because like it or not, this is the current reality in Ghaza.

Now, as I previously mentioned, the siege has helped entrench the islamist dictatorship in Ghaza, because there is no private market for goods. Without a private market for goods, there are no independent economic power centers. Independent economic power centers are important because they will finance dissent movements. If your livelihood is dependent on Hamas, you know that you can't dissent, or you won't get to eat. But if food is readily available in the market separately from them, and if the economic conditions are well and good, then people will be dissenting more in the open. The people wouldn't accept the islamist bullshit restrictions that Hamas placed on their lives. They will have the funds to run counter propaganda campaigns and form underground opposition groups, they will money to buy weapons to resist the theocracy that took away their freedom, and put them all a hostage in the high stakes political game that was the last Ghaza war.

So, in essence, if you want to get rid of Hamas, you don't use aerial bombings, you don't use IDF ground incursions, and you don't place an economic blockade. What you do is 1) lift the siege of Ghaza , 2) with the condition that fair, internationally monitored elections be held 3 months after the blockade is lifted. Just give the Ghaza two months of free trade and non-Hamas dependence, and I guarantee you will see open and visible opposition against Hamas in the streets.

Some of you are naturally skeptical, and will think that I am overestimating the amount of hatred in the Ghaza strip against the Hamas rule, but I am not. Fine, don't believe me: Check this poll out by Ynet news:

In Gaza, the poll put Hamas at 28 percent against 33.6 percent for Abbas' Fatah.

And if that's not good enough, since Ynet are lying Zionist jews, how about one conducted by the Palestinian center for Public Opinion, where:

(40.6 %) are in favor of Fateh, (31.4 %) of Hamas.

And

(51.3 %) of the Palestinians are of the opinion that Hamas is navigating the country towards the wrong direction, (46 %) believe Fateh is doing that.

Hamas has lost the public opinion war. In a fair election they would be out on their asses. But no fair elections could take place in Ghaza under the current conditions. Empower the people of Ghaza to have an economic base and resiliency to stand up to the thugs in charge, help them get their democracy back, and I assure you that Hamas would be done with politically before 2010. And hey, if you are having security concernes, don't allow the people to travel out as long as Hamas is in power. Just allow goods to come in. Just allow the Ghazans to live, so that they can tell Hamas to fuck off forever.

Your other alternative is the current masturbatory exercise called the "ceasefire brokerd by the Egyptian government". The best case scenario would entail Hamas and Fatah joining up in some stupid totalitarian fated to fail "unity government", which will fall apart sooner or later and the current scenario will repeat itself. Or, in the worst case scenario, such a unity government succeeds, and you can kiss democracy in Ghaza and the Palestinian territories goodbye forever. After all, we would have a national unity government, why would there need be any elections anymore? And the bonus? Hamas would stay in power forever. How good does that sound?

Since neither one of those last two options sounds even remotely pleasant to me, let's stick to what works: Lift the economic blockade on Ghaza immedietly, under the conditions that a fair and internationally monitored elections would take place anywhere between 3 to 6 months, during which a ceasefire would be held. Parliamentary elections would be held first, followed by Presidential elections. Even if Hamas cheats, we would've provided with the Ghaza residents with enough economic power and money to start an effective resistence against Hamas, something they can't do at all under the current conditions. Oh, also there is the whole looking humanitarian thing and lifting the suffering of the Palestinian people, which can't be a bad PR move for Egypt or Israel at this point. It won't hurt, at least.

What do you think? Who is with me?

On Double-standards

Sully provided us with this quote yesterday:

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.
A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side … The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them" — George Orwell

He says that the person who originally posted it wanted to make a statement on Ghaza, but that he feels it applies to The US of the Bush adminstration. I am not going to debate either statements, and you are welcome to do si if you will. I am just amazed that someone as smart as those two men haven't figured out the golden rule of humanity yet. And if you didn't either, allow  me to let you in on the secret:

We, all of us, are simply making it up as we go. We always have, and we always will. There are no real rules, fixed or elastic.

That is all!

On Hoder

First of all, let me inform you that I have a deep personal dislike to Hossein Darakshan, also known as Hoder, because I think him a scheming, opprutunistic hypocritical two-faced douchebag of a human being. Naturally I am biased, because he did maliciously hurt a dear friend of mine, Lisa Goldman, and he is a huge turncoat and traitor to many in the Iranian activist scene and blogsphere, and has been spending the good part of his previous couple of years trying to appease and court the favor of the Islamic republic of Iran, even announcing that he would like to get his education funded by them. His ass-kissing is also fueled by his very-public and publicity generating visit to Israel, where he was celebrated by leftist jews eager to build bridges of understanding and dialogue between them and the Iranians, but failed to gain funding for his online project of building a masturbatory website linking Tehren to Tel-aviv, that would've also included a nice salary for him as the runner of such project, and "official breaker of taboos and walls of hate". Nope, me don't like him, so much so that when I heard the news of him getting arrested in his last visit in Iran, on charges of espionage for Israel, I let out a hearty laugh, thinking that the piece of shit  finnaly got what was coming to him. I also knew that I wasn;t the only one thinking that, given the Iranian blogsphere severe reluctance to rally around him or help create a decent "Free Hoder" campaign urging his release. Some even have stated that his arrest did not matter, and welcomed his departure. All was well in the world, Justice has beens erved, Karma balanced and all this crap. So why was there something bothering me about this?

And then I rememberd: The guy was arrested by the Iranian republic. For Espionage. FOR ISRAEL. Even if we ignore that last part, the man was arrested, no doubtly for his writing and activism. Since when did that not matter? Since when are our campaigns for releasing dissidents based on our personal like or dislike of said dissidint? I mean, sure he was a giant asshole, but really, is the damage that he enacted worth one week spent in an Iranian Jail? The man will probably be hanged for treason, for something that is the epitome of a trumpt-up charge, and we are debating whether or not we should stand by him? You think I liked Alaa when I started the campaign to free him? The guy was always obnoxious to me,  and always bad-mouthing me behind my back, and I knew that even if I did participate in his campaign and helped release him, he would still be a dick to me, because his dislike of me had ideological roots, and wasn;t absed upon personal interaction. And he was. So what? I don't regret it, and would do it again in a heartbeat, because principles matter. And even if all of my beliefs change, there is one I can not give up on, and that's every human's right to freedom of speech, even if they are brown-nosing assholes.

So yes, please, Free Hoder. Sign me up for that cause, even if it means he will become a bigger celebrity if he gets out. Sign me up, and sign up as well, even if the people advocating it are people- like me- you have serious fundemntal disagreements with. You should sign up too, because Freedom of speech is not about popularity. If you can deisgn a webiste, if you can help out with banner-designs, if you can do anything to help, please do, and let's get him out, and then bash him later as long as we wish. Ok?

Gotta love the Daily news

Egypt's leading english-langauge rag news paper has published another fantastic article, this time on women in marriages that end up getting destoryed because the Husbends ending up catching "the Gay" later on in life. Please note two things in the article: 1) the absence of mentioning of lesbians, cause girl on girl action is, well, not really a problem for us here in Chauvinism land, and 2) the fact that they are talking about therapy for gayness. Wait, cause this is great. You are going to love this part:

While some specialists believe that marriage is the best “cure” for homosexual men who seek help, others stress that, on the contrary, before they take this step, they should seek the right therapy.

Translation: Some specialists are complete and utter irresponsible morons who think that men who like other men should marry women,so, that, eh,, they can ruin their lives forever? As for the other specialists who think that they should seek therapy, well:

“The therapy would depend on what type of homosexual the patient is and the degree of his homosexuality,” said Osama Shaeer, an andrologist at Cairo University’s Faculty of Medicine. “From a psychiatric viewpoint, there is the ‘ego-dystonic’ type who rejects his abnormal tendencies and the ‘ego-syntonic’ type who doesn’t wish to change.

Ok, fine, I will bite. so how are we going to cure the ego-dystonic ones? 

“As andrologists we take little interest in their psychological makeup as that remains the domain of the psychiatrist,” said Shaeer. “But we could interfere mostly with the passive ‘ego-dystonic’ by providing him with an ‘erectile implant’ that’s surgically planted within the penis to help him achieve a proper erection because some of the ‘ego-dystonics’ — active or passive — do experience erectile dysfunction as they start the act with a woman. But I’d like to note that the role played by the wife is always important.”

Ok, please re-read that paragraph again, and note the idea behind the tehrapy. The men, who can't achieve an erection with a woman cause he is not attracted to her (but probably gets fine erections with other men), should have a surgically planted erectile implant so that he can force his dick to get hard when he is about to have sex with a creature that doesn't turn him on? That's the proposed therapy? Brilliant. Utterly so.

You know, I am not exactly someone who will marsh the streets for gay rights, but it is my belief that people should just be happy with who they are, and that others should just give up on the notion that they can make people "better", whatever that may mean. I say let the gay men be gay and out and happy, because that means more straight- or god willing, bisexual- women for us. Those men didn't chose this, so let them be. Why make their lives even more miserable with therapy ideas that don't make a lick of sense?

It could happen here

I just saw Persepolis, and I am in awe.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, you need to check out either the Graphic Novels by Marjane Starpi by that same name or the 2007 Oscar nominated film (the one I am talking about right now). I read the books before and just saw the movie yesterday, and the movie has literally blown my mind. Filmed in Pencil-drawn black and white animation, the movie takes us into the story of Marjane during her childhood as the Shah is about to fall, through living with the Aftermath of the Iranian revolution and the newly founded Islamic regime. The animation-which is an odd choice in the age of 3D generic crap- is really what makes this film special, especially that its dark feel adds to the stark brutality of the scenes of violence or its aftereffects. The use of black and white and shadows only  gives Persepolis the feel and quality of film noir. When its dark, its the stuff of nightmares, especially for someone like me, but when its humorous, it is silly, lighthearted and uplifting; such are the contradictions of this film. I mean, this is the kind of film that is austere in many ways and yet boasts a
sequence in which the heroine sings “Eye of the Tiger” in broken
English. How could you not love that? (Also, the dream sequence between Marjane, God and Marx, well, that's the stuff of greatness).

The movie chronicles Satrapi's efforts to reconcile the Iran she loves with a country upended by war and extremism, and it is a tribute to one young woman's stubborn resilience and a
reminder that people are people, regardless of how their governments
may want them to behave, and how people inherently understand the essence of evil presented to them by those ruling them, even if they do share the same or similar beliefs to them. I literally cringed at the scene where Marjane's maid was crying while holding the key the authorities gave to her 14 year old boy, telling him that it's the "Key to Heaven" if he choses to join the army and die a martyr, because I can see this getting deployed here, easily, if for whatever reason we are ruled by Islamists who might feel like starting a war with Israel and we started to lose badly. What's even scarier, I can see it working.

But if there is one thing that did break my heart upon viewing the movie for a second time, it's the assurances of Marjane's great Marxist Uncle, as the revolution stops being about getting rid of the Shah and starts slowly but surely become about installing a far worse theocratic regime. I could see every single marxist or leftist friend I know here who fights for the right of the MB and who believes himself to be in the same boat with them sitting just like him in a chair, re-assuring everyone that there is "no need to worry. It will get better. Half of the country is illiterate. It's normal and natural for them to vote for islamic rule", until the very next scene, where the new regime decided that they need to get rid of all the other enemies of the old regime, and arrested the man again, only executing him this time. And while I might think of those friends of mine as naive, idealistic or misguided, I wouldn't ever want them dead. But then again, I don't have the audacity or the arrogance of ever claiming to represent what God wants us to be like. Even my Ego has its limits.

The question of the movie becomes immediately that of: What does one do in such a situation? Marjane's family is obviously well-off, educated, westernized and mostly secular, something that I can relate to greatly, and they find themselves suddenly surrounded by uneducated bearded men who believe in their absolute moral authority to do as they damn well please, no matter what the consequences- even if the consequences are the destruction of a country. What does one do in such a situation? The obvious solution – to stay away from Iran, or whatever your respective country may be – isn't easy, and the movie emphasizes that above all else. The
predominant theme of Persepolis is not war or repression but the pull
of home, no matter one's location. That home can be a state of mind, and that it follows you everywhere. And this rings true to me. As much as I am horrified of the direction my country is taking, I can't find myself able to leave it, even when presented the opportunity last year by a reader I am very grateful to. I love this country, I think it's beautiful, and I believe it to be mine. Why would I ever leave it to those who only see it as some part of a greater empire, whether Arabic or Islamic? The more and more you deal with Islamists, the less scary they get, because you realize that you are facing the morally and intellectually bankrupt whose only weapon is fear. But they are such cowards themselves, that they can't ward off or face off against anyone who stands up to them without threatening them outwards with violence. And if that day comes and they rule this land, well, I have a feeling that they will have to kill me and thousands and thousands like me, because we won't shut up and they will have no answer than that provided via a sword. There will be blood, no two ways about it.

Thank God we are not there..

…yet! 

Hitchens on Rowan Williams

The drunk Brit has a point!

(I should have a Hitchens category) 

The Mo Teddy Photo Essay

 So, this old british teacher lady decided one day to have her kids vote on naming a Teddy Bear…

 …which the kids decided to name "Mohamed"…..

 Which pissed off all of those people to the point of asking for her head…

 

 …and got her coward of a Boss to fire her ass and say he had nothing to do with her…

 

 ..and managed to get her 15 days in jail and a deportation sentencing (instead of 40 lashes mind you) , all because she asked kids to name a teddy bear… 

 

 ..so you will all forgive me when I find it kind of hard to to believe, that this Teddy bear is part of some plot to insult Islam and make muslims look bad..

 

 …when Muslims always manage to do such a fantastic job all on their own!

Just trying to give credit where credit is due y'all!

PS: apologies for using this photo essay- which will probably insult the intelligence of many readers of this blog- to try to make my point. After watching this unfold for the past few days I've come to the conclusion that there are for more retarded people in the world then I ever imagined, so I figured a simplified photo essay with not too many words might just do the trick. Gotta reach out to them, man, they are too many to kill. Unless we remove the safety warnings off of everything and have the problem work itself out. Ahh, one can only dream!  

Understanding Suicide-bombing through Halo 3

An interesting perspective:

Whenever I find myself under attack by a wildly superior player, I
stop trying to duck and avoid their fire. Instead, I turn around and
run straight at them. I know that by doing so, I'm only making it
easier for them to shoot me — and thus I'm marching straight into the
jaws of death. Indeed, I can usually see my health meter rapidly
shrinking to zero.

But at the last second, before I die, I'll whip out a sticky plasma
grenade — and throw it at them. Because I've run up so close, I almost
always hit my opponent successfully. I'll die — but he'll die too, a
few seconds later when the grenade goes off. (When you pull off the
trick, the game pops up a little dialog box noting that you killed
someone "from beyond the grave.")

It was after pulling this maneuver a couple of dozen times that it
suddenly hit me: I had, quite unconsciously, adopted the tactics of a
suicide bomber — or a kamikaze pilot.

It's not just that I'm willing to sacrifice my life to kill someone
else. It's that I'm exploiting the psychology of asymmetrical warfare.

Because after all, the really elite Halo players don't want
to die. If they die too often, they won't win the round, and if they
don't win the round, they won't advance up the Xbox Live rankings. And
for the elite players, it's all about bragging rights.

I, however, have a completely different psychology. I know I'm the underdog; I know I'm probably going to get killed anyway. I am never going to advance up the Halo 3 rankings, because in the political economy of Halo, I'm poor.

Specifically, I'm poor in time. The best players have
dozens of free hours a week to hone their talents, and I don't have
that luxury. This changes the relative meaning of death for the two of
us. For me, dying will not penalize me in the way it penalizes them,
because I have almost no chance of improving my state. I might as well
take people down with me.

Or to put it another way: The structure of Xbox Live creates a world
composed of two classes — haves and have-nots. And, just as in the
real world, some of the disgruntled have-nots are all too willing to
toss their lives away — just for the satisfaction of momentarily
halting the progress of the haves. Since the game instantly resurrects
me, I have no real dread of death in Halo 3.

But before you get all outraged.. 

I do not mean, of course, to trivialize the ghastly, horrific impact
of real-life suicide bombing. Nor do I mean to gloss over the
incredible complexity of the real-life personal, geopolitical and
spiritual reasons why suicide bombers are willing to kill themselves.
These are all impossibly more nuanced and perverse than what's
happening inside a trifling, low-stakes videogame.

But the fact remains that something quite interesting happened to me because of Halo.
Even though I've read scores of articles, white papers and books on the
psychology of terrorists in recent years, and even though I have (I
think) a strong intellectual grasp of the roots of suicide terrorism,
something about playing the game gave me an "aha" moment that I'd never
had before: an ability to feel, in whatever tiny fashion, the strategic logic and emotional calculus behind the act.

I get what he is talking about. Do you? 

Sandmonkey Wisdom: 29/11/2007

When dealing with people who have hair-trigger tempers, it's entirely advisable not to walk on eggshells around them, because eventually, sooner or later, they will lose it and throw their ever so expected and vintage hissy-fit. A better way to deal with things is to NOT walk on eggshells and actively engage in screaming matches with them for the following 3 reasons: 1) They sometimes fake it to get their way knowing that most people would rather back down then deal with them, so don't let them get away with it , 2) It will save you the stress of trying to placate the incredibly unreasonable and dramatic and 3) If you are gonna get yelled at anyway, you might as well engage of some yelling of your own.

Just saying.. 

The end of lying

For those who don't know, I am a techno-phile. Facing new technology, I go all Ga-ga like a little child and point to my new newly wanted toy and go "Me WANNTSSSS", to like, no one in particular but me, since i have to buy my own toys now (damn you adulthood). So naturally I am very positive on new technology and gadgets, and am always finding excuses ways to buy new ones. All you need is find me a cool new feature, and I am sold. The Ultimate consumer in many ways. And one of the areas I am most affected about this is cell-phones. If I am to change cell-phones, I have to get me the newest, coolest, sexiest, most state of the art cell-phone. After all, it has to be worth adding all those numbers I have to the new one, otherwise my lazy ass won't do it. Anyway, this whole introduction was to drive in one major point to you: I LOVE TECHNOLOGY and almost never oppose it. However, there is this new feature in my new phone, that, well, is slightly freaking me out.

My new phone comes with the 2 G video conferencing technology, which means that the cell doesn't only come with one camera phone, but two: One for taking pictures of other things with, and the other to take a picture of your face when talking, in case you want to video-call someone. And it is that feature that concerns me the most. Remember how they used to say that camera Phones will end privacy as we know it? Well, those video-call phones are a harbinger of a different era: it will end lying on the phone as we know it.

This won't happen over-night of course, but the moment the technology starts coming out in newer models, more people will start the use it, which will create a demand for it, make it cheaper to make and easier to install in newer cheaper cell-phones aimed at the greater public's consumption (just like camera-phones. The cheapest phone now has one.). Eventually Video-calling will be the standard way to call people, and therin lies the problem: How will you lie to people over the phone anymore?

For example, when you want to skip work for the day, how are you to lie on the phone to your Boss or co-worker and claim to be sick, when one look at your face in the camera will reveal just how much you are faking it to them? Or, let's say that you are an egyptian girl and you have a curfew, and your parents call you to wonder where you are at and you are at some boy's house. Standard procedure is to go to the balcony, claim you are in a car getting home and there is traffic, while in fact you don't plan to leave for a few more minutes. Well, that procedure will end, cause they will be able to see that you are not in a car, and that you are in some apartment instead and its late at night, and , well, that your ass will be toast when you get home.

Hell, what if you are a guy who hides his political activism from his family, and they call you and you pick up un-noticengly in the middle of a demonstration, well, how ar u to claim that you are just passing next to one, when they will be able to see that you are actually standing and participating in one? Or the friend of yours that you want to ditch on tonight's outing, but can't do it unpolitely, so you claim to be home studieing while you are actually hanging out with the friends already; it used to be enough to tell ur friends to keep quiet till you end the phone call, now you have to leave the entire room out of fear that he might spot one of them in the camera. It goes on and on and on…and I am sure you can add your own examples from your own life and the lives of those around you, the same way I have used one from my life and 3 from my friends' in those past paragraphs. 

Just imagine the possibilities here: we are entering an era without lying-or at least, with reduced lying- over cell-phones. Those of you who don't lie will have no problems, but those of you who have jealous or suffocating spouses or significant others, controlling parents, annoying friends and  over-demanding bosses will be screwed. There will be no escape and no reprieve. No more excuses! Imagine that! and also imagine how many relationships this will strain or end. I am sure it won't be long until some people will refuse to use the technology ( women who just woke up come to mind strongly on that front) or continue using older models, which will be their only option to retain a semblence of privacy, and, ehh, their ability to lie over the phone. They probably won't have no other choice, because you know the cell phone people will keep making them better and cheaper, and a purer, more honest world will come out of it. A world with less lying! Just imagine what that will be like! 

Technology is a dangerous dangerous thing! 

Jack Bauer controls the american population

He influences the public, makes army personall torture detainees, makes republicans wistfully wonder about when they will have a real Jack Bauer, and all kinds of other crap! There is a whole article on it, try to follow the logic: all I got was "24 is fucking everything up in america"!

hmm… 

I will give it one thing: The show does make torture seem a bit normal and part of the day's (more like hour's) work. Whether or not some people can not differntiate between fact and fiction like 24, that is not the show's responsibility. Retarded people will always exist, and blaming their existance and behavior on the show they are imitating is clear and utter bullshit, otherwise we will have to cancel every drama there is on TV that may have some controversial elements in it that stupid people might imitate!

Or am I being a tad simplistic here?