The impetus of today's argument is the unfortunate, tragic death of Mr. James Foley, who was beheaded in the Syrian desert by ISIS terrorists*. His death may have finally woken those who currently in power here in the U.S. to the real threat that ISIS presents in a way that nothing else to this point has done.
It was just 7 months ago that our current President and his administration dismissed ISIS as being nothing more than the "JV" of terrorist networks. If the President and his administration could have kept that sentiment in-house, it might have been one thing. Taking that statement to the press and letting the entire world know that is your perspective seems rather foolish, however. Even if the statement is true, I don't know that the analogy really works. Is there really such a thing as a "JV" terrorist? The only difference that exists (possibly) between ISIS in January and other more well-known terrorist groups is the matter of resources. What doesn't change is the fact that members of each group despise and hate America and other Western nations simply because we exist.
This is a fact that those in power, and those who voted those in to power here in the U.S. seem unwilling to accept. They like to believe that negotiations might achieve something with people who have deep, strong convictions on this issue. Perhaps it is because our own politicians are so weak-willed and malleable that they assume that 'leaders' in other parts of the world are of the same ilk. Unfortunately, for our citizens and government officials, it isn't true in this situation, and many others like it. Terrorists don't necessarily worry about bad press, or how it affects their poll rankings.
Unfortunately, our politicians do, and so they make rather short-sighted policy decisions based on how they think the voters will react to them. This is not leadership, it is pandering. Pandering to an informed electorate is one thing, but our society has reached a state that is such that if an opinion can't be made in a 6 second video or there isn't a catchy tag line, no one pays attention to it. People are so busy following the latest reality television 'stars' to pay attention to the politicians they vote for (if they bother to take the time to get out and vote.) The aftermath of that is you end up with a 'community organizer' taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
To be fooled once, as was the case in 2008, aided and abetted by the press, is one thing. To repeat that same mistake 4 years later because of hubris and an unwillingness to admit that you were wrong in your previous vote is simply stupid. Granted, the Republican Party made it as easy as they could for people to make these two mistakes by running out the two candidates for President that they have in the last two elections, but the nation would have been far better off if everyone voted for Mickey Mouse (I did not, but I also did not vote for anyone on the Presidential ballot the last two elections. My guys lost in the primaries.) Instead, voters doubled down on a man who managed to do nothing but enrich his friends and cohorts.
Video of the horrific death of James Foley is widely circulating on the Internet. I have not watched this video, nor do I have any intention to do so. I also respect 100% the reasoning why the family would want to have the video in all forms removed from any place it might exist. However, I also believe it is important for the video to remain within the public domain, because it may help to serve as a reminder to those who vote for a candidate simply because it's the 'cool' thing to do. Elections have consequences, and the death of James Foley is one of those unintended consequences. Let us hope that there are no more.
*Of course the tag terrorists is all a matter of perspective. Being an American citizen, I see anyone who threatens to overthrow the U.S. and has murdered, in one of the most barbaric fashions imaginable, a U.S. citizen as the bad guys (while threatening to do the same to another U.S. citizen they have kidnapped.) By their very actions, they are terrorists, coming from this worldview. It's wholly possible that they don't view themselves that way, and those that follow them don't believe they fit that description. They may assign that tag to the Americans and other Western nations.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Suicide Is Not Painless
Contrary to what the lyrics of M*A*S*H*'s theme song might lead one to believe, suicide in fact is not painless (the song originated in the movie version of M*A*S*H*.) Suicide is painful, because whether or not the person who commits the act experiences the release that he/she seeks, that doesn't solve the problem for the family, friends, and others who are left behind in the wake of the tragedy.
I come to this topic because earlier this week, Hollywood actor Robin Williams decided to take his own life, a horrifying act, for sure, but also one that is cowardly and selfish. How else can it be explained? I apologize for the coarseness of my opinion, but I find it very hard to find much sympathy for a man who had as much talent as Williams did, as many admirers, and at one point at least, as much money as he did. None of those resources are a guarantee to avoid depression, from which he suffered, according to media reports, nor is it a guarantee of happiness, but many people without those resources manage to somehow get through the day.
I cannot begin to contemplate the state of mind one must be in, before contemplating suicide. It's something I simply cannot fathom. However, I'd like to think that if you are a person in that situation, and you are thinking about ending your own life, you would have exhausted every single last resource at your disposal before cashing out permanently, because it's a mistake you can't come back from. Death is permanent, regardless of what the "good people" of Alcor sold Ted Williams on in the early part of this century.
One comment that I saw from Williams' wife was something to the effect of "We should not focus on Robin's death." That's absolute bull, we should absolutely focus on his death. Why would a man who had so much going for him act in such a selfish manner? It is a question that needs to be evaluated. Further, just as much as professional athletes are 'role models' for children because of the limelight they are placed in, so are actors and actresses as well. Young people look up to Hollywood stars because they are famous, good looking, and generally well off. When someone in that manner chooses death over battling through life's struggles, what message does that send to the youth of the nation (world?)
In the end, Robin Williams made a tragic, final mistake, for whatever the reason he may have had. He chose to ignore family, friends, and associates who undoubtedly would have come to his aid at a moment's notice. It may have seemed like a painless act in the moment for him (though I can't imagine how), but the devastation he left behind (as is the case whenever someone chooses this route, whether an everyday citizen, or someone who is 'rich' and famous.) will be felt for years and generations to come. His wife, children, and future grandchildren will be forced to carry on without his being around to help guide them in any way. That is their loss, and its one that he bears responsibility for.
So while I understand the outpouring of sadness that has accompanied Williams' death, I believe it is misdirected, or at least parts of it are. Williams' family, not Williams' memory, are who are most in need. Williams chose to exit this life, and its pains, rather than soldier on with those that he loved most. It's devastating for them. It was a cowardly and selfish act by him.
I come to this topic because earlier this week, Hollywood actor Robin Williams decided to take his own life, a horrifying act, for sure, but also one that is cowardly and selfish. How else can it be explained? I apologize for the coarseness of my opinion, but I find it very hard to find much sympathy for a man who had as much talent as Williams did, as many admirers, and at one point at least, as much money as he did. None of those resources are a guarantee to avoid depression, from which he suffered, according to media reports, nor is it a guarantee of happiness, but many people without those resources manage to somehow get through the day.
I cannot begin to contemplate the state of mind one must be in, before contemplating suicide. It's something I simply cannot fathom. However, I'd like to think that if you are a person in that situation, and you are thinking about ending your own life, you would have exhausted every single last resource at your disposal before cashing out permanently, because it's a mistake you can't come back from. Death is permanent, regardless of what the "good people" of Alcor sold Ted Williams on in the early part of this century.
One comment that I saw from Williams' wife was something to the effect of "We should not focus on Robin's death." That's absolute bull, we should absolutely focus on his death. Why would a man who had so much going for him act in such a selfish manner? It is a question that needs to be evaluated. Further, just as much as professional athletes are 'role models' for children because of the limelight they are placed in, so are actors and actresses as well. Young people look up to Hollywood stars because they are famous, good looking, and generally well off. When someone in that manner chooses death over battling through life's struggles, what message does that send to the youth of the nation (world?)
In the end, Robin Williams made a tragic, final mistake, for whatever the reason he may have had. He chose to ignore family, friends, and associates who undoubtedly would have come to his aid at a moment's notice. It may have seemed like a painless act in the moment for him (though I can't imagine how), but the devastation he left behind (as is the case whenever someone chooses this route, whether an everyday citizen, or someone who is 'rich' and famous.) will be felt for years and generations to come. His wife, children, and future grandchildren will be forced to carry on without his being around to help guide them in any way. That is their loss, and its one that he bears responsibility for.
So while I understand the outpouring of sadness that has accompanied Williams' death, I believe it is misdirected, or at least parts of it are. Williams' family, not Williams' memory, are who are most in need. Williams chose to exit this life, and its pains, rather than soldier on with those that he loved most. It's devastating for them. It was a cowardly and selfish act by him.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Liberals Only Care About Their Agenda, Not What the Rule of Law Actually Is
The impetus for today's initial argument comes to us from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The soon-to-be world famous Mary's Gourmet Diner found themselves in a bit of a pickle, because a certain atheist group (the Freedom From Religion Foundation) got all hot and bothered by Mary's "prayer" discount, as IJReview tells us.
In their threat, the FFRF stated that Mary's Gourmet Diner was violating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by granting a 15% discount to customer who were seen observing a moment of prayer or silence before eating their delicious meal.
Here was Mary's take on what the discount was for:
Of course, that's simply not true. The Civil Rights Act, a product of the vision of President John F. Kennedy (possibly the last decent national political figure to come out of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) and his successor, President Lyndon Johnson dealt in the main with ensuring that persons of all race, color, religion, sex, or national origin were treated equally, but the main focus (as it should have been at that time) was with regard to the racial divide that was still present in our country at that time.
While there is a clause that dictates that a public establishment (which Mary's is) must provide a full and equal enjoyment clause within the Act, it again was more focused toward racial equality rather than any other lesser detail. If Mary's had stated you had to say 3 Hail Marys prior to consumption of the customer's meal, that would be discrimination. As by Mary's own words, it was not limited to a Judeo-Christian mindset, or any other specific religion. It didn't even have to be prayer (even if it was listed on the receipt that way, probably for efficiency, and to keep from having to ask the customer what they were doing during their moments of silence.)
The difference between Athiests and persons of Faith is that a person of Faith generally couldn't care less what another person believes, as long as it doesn't personally injure them. (Lunatic, fringe members of major religions attempt to bastardize this point, but that is through their own misinterpretations of the religions they claim to espouse.) Atheists, on the other hand, are always spoiling for a fight. It seems as if their day isn't complete unless they've infringed on someone else's rights. Too often, as unfortunately was the case in this instance, the persons they are bullying (man, I can't wait for someone to file charges against one of these groups under all of the new anti-bullying laws that are spreading throughout the land) give in, because it's simply easier than to deal with those who seek to oppress.
To the member(s) of the FFRF: get a life. If someone's business practice is offending you because of their belief systems, it's a real simple solution: don't support their business, regardless of how good a business they may run. Or better yet, at least in this instance: say a little prayer to yourself, the only true god you really serve.
In their threat, the FFRF stated that Mary's Gourmet Diner was violating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by granting a 15% discount to customer who were seen observing a moment of prayer or silence before eating their delicious meal.
Here was Mary's take on what the discount was for:
There's a lot of craziness going on in regard to the 15% discount. I will not respond to all the posts. I will say that it is not a "policy", it's a gift we give at random to customers who take a moment before their meal. This could be prayer or just a moment to breathe & push the busyness of the world away. Who you talk to or meditate on etc. is your business. I have lived in a 3rd world country, there are people starving. We live in a country with an abundance of beautiful food. I NEVER take that for granted. It warms my heart to see people with an attitude of gratitude. Prayer, meditation or just breathing while being grateful opens the heart chakra. It's good for everyone!!!! Thanks to my local community for your support...you know who I am. As for all the people posting negative comments about me & my restaurant who have never met me or been to the restaurant, thanks for sharing, it's your right to speak out, just as it is mine. Peace, love & happy eating!!!!Whatever her reason was for issuing the "prayer" discount, those words should have been enough to shut down any threats by the FFRF. Of course, they're a liberal hate group, so that's never the end of the story. Instead, they chose to press forward, insisting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being violated.
Of course, that's simply not true. The Civil Rights Act, a product of the vision of President John F. Kennedy (possibly the last decent national political figure to come out of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) and his successor, President Lyndon Johnson dealt in the main with ensuring that persons of all race, color, religion, sex, or national origin were treated equally, but the main focus (as it should have been at that time) was with regard to the racial divide that was still present in our country at that time.
While there is a clause that dictates that a public establishment (which Mary's is) must provide a full and equal enjoyment clause within the Act, it again was more focused toward racial equality rather than any other lesser detail. If Mary's had stated you had to say 3 Hail Marys prior to consumption of the customer's meal, that would be discrimination. As by Mary's own words, it was not limited to a Judeo-Christian mindset, or any other specific religion. It didn't even have to be prayer (even if it was listed on the receipt that way, probably for efficiency, and to keep from having to ask the customer what they were doing during their moments of silence.)
The difference between Athiests and persons of Faith is that a person of Faith generally couldn't care less what another person believes, as long as it doesn't personally injure them. (Lunatic, fringe members of major religions attempt to bastardize this point, but that is through their own misinterpretations of the religions they claim to espouse.) Atheists, on the other hand, are always spoiling for a fight. It seems as if their day isn't complete unless they've infringed on someone else's rights. Too often, as unfortunately was the case in this instance, the persons they are bullying (man, I can't wait for someone to file charges against one of these groups under all of the new anti-bullying laws that are spreading throughout the land) give in, because it's simply easier than to deal with those who seek to oppress.
To the member(s) of the FFRF: get a life. If someone's business practice is offending you because of their belief systems, it's a real simple solution: don't support their business, regardless of how good a business they may run. Or better yet, at least in this instance: say a little prayer to yourself, the only true god you really serve.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Jimmy Carter is the Dumbest Man to Ever Set Foot in the Oval Office
Although I suppose I may be jumping to conclusions. It's possible that Jimmy Carter is simply the most (willfully) ignorant man who has ever set foot in the Oval Office. He might also just be the most senile man who has ever set foot in the Oval Office. If he's none of those, and he also isn't the Dumbest man ever to set foot in the Oval Office, then he's the biggest anti-Semite who's ever set foot in the Oval Office, and yes, I know what a broad statement that is.
How else can his most recent piece for ForeignPolicy.com be explained? In it, he toes around the issue of responsibility for the tragedies that have been occurring in the Middle East for approximately the last month or so, but does so in a way that shades Israel as the bad guy. If only Israel would stop trying to eliminate the persons who are attempting to its existence, then the world would be a better place, or so Mr. Carter's thought process seems to suggest.
I suppose it's possible that Mr. Carter has never got around to reading the charter of Hamas, and if that's the case, then we can attribute his article to intentional ignorance. I've read it, and I'm not even a former President trying to keep myself in the spotlight by pretending like I have a new solution to a problem that dates back several millennia. Especially when I don't have a viable solution.
Articles like the one that Carter chose to write and publish are one of the reasons why former Presidents should simply fade in to the background when their time in office has passed, and allow the next generation of 'leaders' make decisions as they see fit. If Carter was interested in advising the current President, or even members of Congress, that would be one thing. He could meet with them in private and discuss his thoughts, and perhaps with a meeting of so many 'great' minds, a real solution would come about. Mind, I don't think it's likely, but it would be a far better solution than the one Carter has proffered at this point in history.
Or if Carter is really interested in having his voice heard, he should run for President again. After all, his first tenure was such a disaster that he became the first President in 48 years to not be re-elected (Of course, since that time, George H.W. Bush has followed in his footsteps.)
How else can his most recent piece for ForeignPolicy.com be explained? In it, he toes around the issue of responsibility for the tragedies that have been occurring in the Middle East for approximately the last month or so, but does so in a way that shades Israel as the bad guy. If only Israel would stop trying to eliminate the persons who are attempting to its existence, then the world would be a better place, or so Mr. Carter's thought process seems to suggest.
I suppose it's possible that Mr. Carter has never got around to reading the charter of Hamas, and if that's the case, then we can attribute his article to intentional ignorance. I've read it, and I'm not even a former President trying to keep myself in the spotlight by pretending like I have a new solution to a problem that dates back several millennia. Especially when I don't have a viable solution.
Articles like the one that Carter chose to write and publish are one of the reasons why former Presidents should simply fade in to the background when their time in office has passed, and allow the next generation of 'leaders' make decisions as they see fit. If Carter was interested in advising the current President, or even members of Congress, that would be one thing. He could meet with them in private and discuss his thoughts, and perhaps with a meeting of so many 'great' minds, a real solution would come about. Mind, I don't think it's likely, but it would be a far better solution than the one Carter has proffered at this point in history.
Or if Carter is really interested in having his voice heard, he should run for President again. After all, his first tenure was such a disaster that he became the first President in 48 years to not be re-elected (Of course, since that time, George H.W. Bush has followed in his footsteps.)
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
The Problem With Student Loans (and other "Free" College Money)
Having recently completed my time at University, I feel that I have some slight insight in to the problem (s) that are caused by the "free" money that the federal and various state governments. My academic journey led me through junior college before I moved on to a 4 year program, and while I greatly appreciate the fact that there was federal and state financial aid available to me, the reason that I needed it (or more accurately, partly needed it) was due to the high cost of a post-high school education. Even by choosing to go through junior college before moving on to my chosen 4 year program.
Here is where we encounter the first problem with all the available government money. The 4 year school I attended (a public college) has seen its tuition increase about 400% over the preceding decade. The junior college I attended at least doubled in that same time frame.
To be clear: I am perfectly satisfied with the education I received at both institutions. They were top-notch experiences, and the amount I learned expanded my brain power exponentially.
Given that, was my educational 200 or 400% greater than what students earned 10 years ago? I find it to be highly unlikely. However, students will spend the money, because they are able to get financial aid, often with a heaping helping of federal guaranteed loans, which leads us to the second big problem with governmental aid: unsecured student debt.
During my college odyssey, I took out approximately $33,000 in federal loans. Do you want to know the process I had to go through to receive those funds? I simply had to "sign" my name on the dotted line (it was an e-form, so the signing was more ceremonial than literal.) No one asked about my actual prospects, they didn't even bother to check my GPA (which was actually pretty good, but still) or check references to see if I was good for the debt. The fact that I was enrolled in school was all they needed to clear me for tens of thousands of dollars of new debt.
It's not an exact parallel, but those that can recall 5-6 years ago when the home mortgage crisis struck this nation might see where I'm heading with this point. It's well and good to assume that student borrowers will pay back their debts ASAP, and in fact, the government takes steps to make that happen 6 months after someone has graduated or terminated their educational. There are several sub-problems within this problem.
We'll start with the biggie: the student is unable to find a job, period. I know how this goes, I've spent the last 12 weeks since my graduation looking for a job (I did find a temporary position for one month in that stretch working at a school.) I reached out to everyone I knew, I went through two separate staffing agencies, I filled out applications, filled out more applications, and sent emails to anyone and everyone who I thought might have a position open. My hard work was finally rewarded today: Tomorrow I begin a gig earning a whopping $9/ hour, and no, this is not a food service position where I can hope to earn some extra scratch. That's it, except for the mandatory overtime Saturdays (which I thought violated federal or state law, but apparently it does not, except in certain circumstances. I believe this may be one of them, but I'm not sure I have enough pull yet to point that out to the company, I haven't even earned a penny yet.)
Which leads to the second problem: Student borrowers who are determined to not earn enough money after the 6 month grace period (or at any period during their repayment period, based on family size and AGI) can file for hardship and have their debt repayment pushed off. Of course, this may lead to further interest being accumulated, but that's only helpful (to the government) if said funds are ever recovered, and if the expense it takes to recover said funds does not outweigh the net profit on the money lent out.
A tertiary problem with all of this federal aid for students was something I witnessed much more during my junior college time: students would 'attend' class just long enough to receive their refund check from the 'excess' financial aid they had received which was always in the form of extra loan money that was to be used for "living expenses". Listen, I'm not castigating those that found this loophole to help make their lives easier, but seeing as they stopped attending class, one has to wonder what their plans for that cash is, and if they were that desperate to gain those funds, how the government ever plans to recoup them.
Lastly (for today, at least), is this thought: all of this available aid leads many students and would be students to choose an educational path that is not necessarily proper for them. I chose to go the juco route because quite frankly, it was cheaper. Many students and their parents are not willing to do that and insist on attending a 4 year school for the entirety of their schooling career, often to the students' demise, as they are not necessarily prepared for the workload, or to be living away from home at that point in life.
This ties in with what I saw occur a couple of times during my first semester at the 4 year school I went to: professors admonishing, in a rather specific way the fact that many 'students' (one professor labeled it at 15%, I think he was being kind) weren't really qualified to be attending college. Based on the actions of the students in those classes, I had to agree with those assessments. It may simply have been a case of students not being capable in any different number of ways to handle coursework. It may also be that many students spent far more time looking at their smart phones than listening to lectures. I'd point the finger at those showing up hungover or stoned, but I think that's something that's been going on as long as their has been college on this continent, at least. Nonetheless, a goodly portion of those type of 'students' would not attend college if not for the easy government money. Whether or not this is good for the individual student, I can't say. What I do know is that it would be far better for the students who actually care about learning if there was less of those type 'students' in classes, and it would be better for the nation's bottom line, too.
Here is where we encounter the first problem with all the available government money. The 4 year school I attended (a public college) has seen its tuition increase about 400% over the preceding decade. The junior college I attended at least doubled in that same time frame.
To be clear: I am perfectly satisfied with the education I received at both institutions. They were top-notch experiences, and the amount I learned expanded my brain power exponentially.
Given that, was my educational 200 or 400% greater than what students earned 10 years ago? I find it to be highly unlikely. However, students will spend the money, because they are able to get financial aid, often with a heaping helping of federal guaranteed loans, which leads us to the second big problem with governmental aid: unsecured student debt.
During my college odyssey, I took out approximately $33,000 in federal loans. Do you want to know the process I had to go through to receive those funds? I simply had to "sign" my name on the dotted line (it was an e-form, so the signing was more ceremonial than literal.) No one asked about my actual prospects, they didn't even bother to check my GPA (which was actually pretty good, but still) or check references to see if I was good for the debt. The fact that I was enrolled in school was all they needed to clear me for tens of thousands of dollars of new debt.
It's not an exact parallel, but those that can recall 5-6 years ago when the home mortgage crisis struck this nation might see where I'm heading with this point. It's well and good to assume that student borrowers will pay back their debts ASAP, and in fact, the government takes steps to make that happen 6 months after someone has graduated or terminated their educational. There are several sub-problems within this problem.
We'll start with the biggie: the student is unable to find a job, period. I know how this goes, I've spent the last 12 weeks since my graduation looking for a job (I did find a temporary position for one month in that stretch working at a school.) I reached out to everyone I knew, I went through two separate staffing agencies, I filled out applications, filled out more applications, and sent emails to anyone and everyone who I thought might have a position open. My hard work was finally rewarded today: Tomorrow I begin a gig earning a whopping $9/ hour, and no, this is not a food service position where I can hope to earn some extra scratch. That's it, except for the mandatory overtime Saturdays (which I thought violated federal or state law, but apparently it does not, except in certain circumstances. I believe this may be one of them, but I'm not sure I have enough pull yet to point that out to the company, I haven't even earned a penny yet.)
Which leads to the second problem: Student borrowers who are determined to not earn enough money after the 6 month grace period (or at any period during their repayment period, based on family size and AGI) can file for hardship and have their debt repayment pushed off. Of course, this may lead to further interest being accumulated, but that's only helpful (to the government) if said funds are ever recovered, and if the expense it takes to recover said funds does not outweigh the net profit on the money lent out.
A tertiary problem with all of this federal aid for students was something I witnessed much more during my junior college time: students would 'attend' class just long enough to receive their refund check from the 'excess' financial aid they had received which was always in the form of extra loan money that was to be used for "living expenses". Listen, I'm not castigating those that found this loophole to help make their lives easier, but seeing as they stopped attending class, one has to wonder what their plans for that cash is, and if they were that desperate to gain those funds, how the government ever plans to recoup them.
Lastly (for today, at least), is this thought: all of this available aid leads many students and would be students to choose an educational path that is not necessarily proper for them. I chose to go the juco route because quite frankly, it was cheaper. Many students and their parents are not willing to do that and insist on attending a 4 year school for the entirety of their schooling career, often to the students' demise, as they are not necessarily prepared for the workload, or to be living away from home at that point in life.
This ties in with what I saw occur a couple of times during my first semester at the 4 year school I went to: professors admonishing, in a rather specific way the fact that many 'students' (one professor labeled it at 15%, I think he was being kind) weren't really qualified to be attending college. Based on the actions of the students in those classes, I had to agree with those assessments. It may simply have been a case of students not being capable in any different number of ways to handle coursework. It may also be that many students spent far more time looking at their smart phones than listening to lectures. I'd point the finger at those showing up hungover or stoned, but I think that's something that's been going on as long as their has been college on this continent, at least. Nonetheless, a goodly portion of those type of 'students' would not attend college if not for the easy government money. Whether or not this is good for the individual student, I can't say. What I do know is that it would be far better for the students who actually care about learning if there was less of those type 'students' in classes, and it would be better for the nation's bottom line, too.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Our Border Conundrum Is Also a Constitutional Crisis
It was a little over 3 weeks ago that the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick stated that he would help out his friend. Who is the governor's friend, you may ask? Oh, just the man that currently occupies the White House, no big deal. Governor Patrick likes to help out his friends, and that is an admirable thing to do.
Of course, most of us don't have friends in such high places as Governor Patrick does, but friends are friends, regardless of their perceived place in the world.
As it's not quite time for Governor Patrick's friend to vacate the premises of the White House (at least not for another 900 days, 14 hours as of this writing), we know he wasn't helping tape up boxes for the big move back to Chicago. So how was Governor Patrick looking to help out his good friend?
By attempting to stash 1,000 illegal aliens that the President invited in to the country, in clear violation of his Constitutional duties (fret not, other states didn't even have the option of 'volunteering'. See: Louisiana, Texas, California, and Arizona, for starters.)
One might assume that since Governor Patrick had invited the lawbreakers to the Commonwealth, he'd at least put them up at his homestead in Milton. You'd think wrong, however. Governor Patrick is only a man charged with making decisions, not living with the consequences of those actions.
He decided to offer up Westover Air Force Base in Chicopee (the western portion of the Commonwealth) and Camp Edwards military base on Cape Cod (the far eastern part of the Commonwealth.) instead.
Leaders of those two communities were non-plussed, to say the least, despite Patrick's assurances that the "children" (only 25% of those that are entering the nation illegally at most are children traveling alone.) will be vaccinated, secured on the bases, fed, and educated there, too, all on the federal government's dime (the very same federal government that is currently 17.639 TRILLION Dollars {$17,638,604,149,993.63 and is adding $2,730,000,000.00 worth of new debt each and every day.})
Because we have nothing else to worry about here in this country. Our unemployment rate is 6.2% (which is a joke. What that does not take in to consideration is all of the people who have simply given up trying to find work. Real unemployment would come in at no less than 13% if the Feds used real numbers.), our education systems are running fine and dandy, and there's no major crisis going on anywhere in the world with any of our allies.
No, life is just a day at the beach right now, and we should all be soaking up the sunshine and enjoying our picnic baskets.
Of course, none of that is true. Our nation is literally falling apart at the seams, and this manufactured 'crisis' (unlike the genuine, real crisis that has been going on at VA Centers the nation over. It's not like those centers take care of our soldiers who put their lives on the line. Oh? They do? Still, it's much better that they wait years for treatment than an illegal alien who is a potential future voter for a specific political party follow the law.)
I put quotation makes around crisis, for a couple of specific reasons. 1.) The 25% or so of the nearing 200,000 illegal aliens that have crossed our southern border are coming from (according to various news reports) Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica and other southern points. The distance allegedly transversed is in the neighborhood of 1,400 miles on the short end (approximately the length of the eastern seaboard of the United States) to upwards of 2,000 miles. On their own. With no help from anyone else. Which is, of course, a joke.
Our current President has stated he intends to take care of the 'immigration problem' with his phone an his pen. I'm imaging that one or both of those instruments was put to use in order to allow for the 'safe' passage of these illegal aliens (both children and adults) through multiple countries borders. He did this in clear violation of not only the Constitution as an entire document, but in violation of his own Presidential duties and oath, which reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This President has decided that defending our border, our very nationhood, is something that is of no concern to him. What is important is pulling in future voters who know where their bread has been buttered (by those that would break federal and state laws.)
Of course, the worse downside to our new open border policy, is that there is no stopping anyone who sees fit to make their way up through Central America to points north, regardless of their citizenry, as this report dictates. In a world as small as the one we live in thanks to technology, it won't take long for those numbers to swell to the numbers we are currently seeing come in from Central American nations. This puts the nation at risk for more terrorist attacks, and perhaps just as frightening, those who may be carriers of the Ebola virus that is running rampant through sections of the world right now.
Our government, in particular our President and our Senate (who decided to go home for a much earned* break rather than work with the House to find a solution to the created problem) have once again exposed Americans to unneeded risk. They have done so under the guise of helping those that are less fortunate, while pretending they have no political aims for any of these people. It's flabbergasting, to say the least. One slightly more cynical than I might infer that they're trying to tear the Nation down from within.
Of course, most of us don't have friends in such high places as Governor Patrick does, but friends are friends, regardless of their perceived place in the world.
As it's not quite time for Governor Patrick's friend to vacate the premises of the White House (at least not for another 900 days, 14 hours as of this writing), we know he wasn't helping tape up boxes for the big move back to Chicago. So how was Governor Patrick looking to help out his good friend?
By attempting to stash 1,000 illegal aliens that the President invited in to the country, in clear violation of his Constitutional duties (fret not, other states didn't even have the option of 'volunteering'. See: Louisiana, Texas, California, and Arizona, for starters.)
One might assume that since Governor Patrick had invited the lawbreakers to the Commonwealth, he'd at least put them up at his homestead in Milton. You'd think wrong, however. Governor Patrick is only a man charged with making decisions, not living with the consequences of those actions.
He decided to offer up Westover Air Force Base in Chicopee (the western portion of the Commonwealth) and Camp Edwards military base on Cape Cod (the far eastern part of the Commonwealth.) instead.
Leaders of those two communities were non-plussed, to say the least, despite Patrick's assurances that the "children" (only 25% of those that are entering the nation illegally at most are children traveling alone.) will be vaccinated, secured on the bases, fed, and educated there, too, all on the federal government's dime (the very same federal government that is currently 17.639 TRILLION Dollars {$17,638,604,149,993.63 and is adding $2,730,000,000.00 worth of new debt each and every day.})
Because we have nothing else to worry about here in this country. Our unemployment rate is 6.2% (which is a joke. What that does not take in to consideration is all of the people who have simply given up trying to find work. Real unemployment would come in at no less than 13% if the Feds used real numbers.), our education systems are running fine and dandy, and there's no major crisis going on anywhere in the world with any of our allies.
No, life is just a day at the beach right now, and we should all be soaking up the sunshine and enjoying our picnic baskets.
Of course, none of that is true. Our nation is literally falling apart at the seams, and this manufactured 'crisis' (unlike the genuine, real crisis that has been going on at VA Centers the nation over. It's not like those centers take care of our soldiers who put their lives on the line. Oh? They do? Still, it's much better that they wait years for treatment than an illegal alien who is a potential future voter for a specific political party follow the law.)
I put quotation makes around crisis, for a couple of specific reasons. 1.) The 25% or so of the nearing 200,000 illegal aliens that have crossed our southern border are coming from (according to various news reports) Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica and other southern points. The distance allegedly transversed is in the neighborhood of 1,400 miles on the short end (approximately the length of the eastern seaboard of the United States) to upwards of 2,000 miles. On their own. With no help from anyone else. Which is, of course, a joke.
Our current President has stated he intends to take care of the 'immigration problem' with his phone an his pen. I'm imaging that one or both of those instruments was put to use in order to allow for the 'safe' passage of these illegal aliens (both children and adults) through multiple countries borders. He did this in clear violation of not only the Constitution as an entire document, but in violation of his own Presidential duties and oath, which reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This President has decided that defending our border, our very nationhood, is something that is of no concern to him. What is important is pulling in future voters who know where their bread has been buttered (by those that would break federal and state laws.)
Of course, the worse downside to our new open border policy, is that there is no stopping anyone who sees fit to make their way up through Central America to points north, regardless of their citizenry, as this report dictates. In a world as small as the one we live in thanks to technology, it won't take long for those numbers to swell to the numbers we are currently seeing come in from Central American nations. This puts the nation at risk for more terrorist attacks, and perhaps just as frightening, those who may be carriers of the Ebola virus that is running rampant through sections of the world right now.
Our government, in particular our President and our Senate (who decided to go home for a much earned* break rather than work with the House to find a solution to the created problem) have once again exposed Americans to unneeded risk. They have done so under the guise of helping those that are less fortunate, while pretending they have no political aims for any of these people. It's flabbergasting, to say the least. One slightly more cynical than I might infer that they're trying to tear the Nation down from within.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Put Down the Chocolate!!
I try not to read about government intrusions in to private citizens lives, because invariably, it raises my blood pressure. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but nonetheless, it is something that I try to avoid, for fear that one time I may not be able to calm myself down.
The Wall Street Journal helped increase my bp, temporarily, at least, when they published this article detailing how public schools in 32 states have decided to eliminate popular school fund raisers such as bake sales, candy bar sales, and good gravy! Girl Scout Cookie sales.
The reason behind this change is the 2010 federal law (spurred on by Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign) Hunger Free Kids Act.
Now I'm sure as is the case with with all onerous federal legislation, there was a good thought that began the process of this law coming in to being. In fact, there was a stellar one: youth obesity had quadrupled over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, legislators chose the easy path of regulating what food stuffs may be sold as fundraiser for various school needs.
The best (at least better) solution would have been much more complicated, and it would have upset certain segments of people. The real reason that there is more obese children in this nation now than there was in 1984, or 1994, or likely 2004 has nothing at all do with what types of foods children are eating, and everything to do with how much time they spend playing. Actual real, live playing, not electronic device playing.
There are many reasons that children play less: little to no time for recess, ditto physical education, less money for school sports, parents more fearful of the dangers that are presented in the world today, and on and on. There is some genuinely good reasons within that list, particularly if you're family happens to live in a high crime area.
The biggest reason, outside of schools refusing to lengthen their school day so that there is time for play is family. It is far easier for parents or guardians to encourage their children to play on their electronic devices than it is to go out in the yard and play with their children or take them to the park to do the same. That would take genuine effort, and let's be honest, there's simply no time for that in today's helter-skelter world. Parents have many things to do, including playing with their own electronic devices.
Listen: I have no problem at all with technological advances. I don't even have a huge problem with parents abandoning their children to these devices. In some instances, it's probably a step forward, parenting wise. The big problem that I have is government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. It's not the government's responsibility to legislate what people can and cannot eat, or what (legal) food products may be sold, even at schools.
The government's job in situations such as these should be to provide opportunities for those that are most effected. In this instance, the solution is simple one that will prove difficult to implement. Short of lengthening the school day which many (not all) educators would be opposed to, schools can redistribute the time they are allotted. I'd immediately eliminate all 'study' sessions for high stakes testing. This would be easy to do, because two seconds before that, I'd eliminate all high stakes tests. As I've previously noted, they're absolutely useless in terms of educating students, and just as importantly, they're useless in assessing student learning.
Of course, government solutions are never common sense ones. Unless the government is able to interfere with people's lives, or steal more of the citizenry's money, it's a wasted day from their point of view.
The Wall Street Journal helped increase my bp, temporarily, at least, when they published this article detailing how public schools in 32 states have decided to eliminate popular school fund raisers such as bake sales, candy bar sales, and good gravy! Girl Scout Cookie sales.
The reason behind this change is the 2010 federal law (spurred on by Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign) Hunger Free Kids Act.
Now I'm sure as is the case with with all onerous federal legislation, there was a good thought that began the process of this law coming in to being. In fact, there was a stellar one: youth obesity had quadrupled over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, legislators chose the easy path of regulating what food stuffs may be sold as fundraiser for various school needs.
The best (at least better) solution would have been much more complicated, and it would have upset certain segments of people. The real reason that there is more obese children in this nation now than there was in 1984, or 1994, or likely 2004 has nothing at all do with what types of foods children are eating, and everything to do with how much time they spend playing. Actual real, live playing, not electronic device playing.
There are many reasons that children play less: little to no time for recess, ditto physical education, less money for school sports, parents more fearful of the dangers that are presented in the world today, and on and on. There is some genuinely good reasons within that list, particularly if you're family happens to live in a high crime area.
The biggest reason, outside of schools refusing to lengthen their school day so that there is time for play is family. It is far easier for parents or guardians to encourage their children to play on their electronic devices than it is to go out in the yard and play with their children or take them to the park to do the same. That would take genuine effort, and let's be honest, there's simply no time for that in today's helter-skelter world. Parents have many things to do, including playing with their own electronic devices.
Listen: I have no problem at all with technological advances. I don't even have a huge problem with parents abandoning their children to these devices. In some instances, it's probably a step forward, parenting wise. The big problem that I have is government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. It's not the government's responsibility to legislate what people can and cannot eat, or what (legal) food products may be sold, even at schools.
The government's job in situations such as these should be to provide opportunities for those that are most effected. In this instance, the solution is simple one that will prove difficult to implement. Short of lengthening the school day which many (not all) educators would be opposed to, schools can redistribute the time they are allotted. I'd immediately eliminate all 'study' sessions for high stakes testing. This would be easy to do, because two seconds before that, I'd eliminate all high stakes tests. As I've previously noted, they're absolutely useless in terms of educating students, and just as importantly, they're useless in assessing student learning.
Of course, government solutions are never common sense ones. Unless the government is able to interfere with people's lives, or steal more of the citizenry's money, it's a wasted day from their point of view.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Defending Pearl Jam Against an Uneducated Attack
Today's argument is an attempt to refute this article (please don't read the article. I'll hit the highlights for you, I promise.) by an author who is so beneath contempt I won't even list his name. The rally cry of his article is this: Pearl Jam is the most boring band of the last 20 years.
For those who have never had the pleasure of listening to Pearl Jam, you simply cannot understand what a ridiculous statement this is. Even if you haven't been living under a rock for the last 20 years, and it's just never tickled your fancy to make your way to a Pearl Jam show (or the exponential rise in ticket price has kept you away), you still could not fathom what a tremendous band they are.
I've seen Pearl Jam 6 times live in my life, and I've never once regretted it. Not even the time I drove to Montreal to scalp a ticket, and spent most of the show getting bear hugged by an overly enthusiastic (and less than sober) fan. Who also was twice as big as I was. I like Pearl Jam so much that I even overlook their political views, which clash with my own, to say the least. They create and perform brilliant music, and that is what I look to them for.
When the moron who wrote the article linked to above (although not that I consider it, he's actually somewhat of a mad genius. He tapped into a rabid fan base who has spent many collective hours reading his worthless article, increasing his view count, and making it appear as if he has much broader influence than he actually does.) penned his thoughts, he could only have been thinking two separate thoughts: 1.) I want to show the world exactly how stupid I am or 2.) I'm going to be famous (infamous is the word he was actually looking for) when all of those die-hard Pearl Jam fans find out what I wrote.
I believe he succeeded on both fronts, if the comments section of the article is any indication.
The author of the article closes out his introductory paragraph with this "brilliant" zinger:
Sure, Eddie Vedder may not throw himself willy-nilly into the hands of his adoring fans, nor he necessarily climb to the rafters each time the band plays "Porch", but those aren't necessary. What is necessary is the music, and few have excelled for as long a period of time, as consistently, as Pearl Jam has.
For many musical 'fans', including the author of the anti-PJ diatribe we're discussing today, Pearl Jam ceased making music following the release of Vitalogy. What it is about this album that engendered so many people to dislike not only the album, but the band, but it is what occurred. Of the 14 tracks on the album, I can think of only 4 that might be slightly off-putting for those who "loved" Ten and Vs. and they are: 'Pry, To' (and it only last one minute and three seconds), 'Bugs' (a hilarious accordion-based tune), 'Aye Davanita' (a quirky jam with no real lyrics to speak of), and 'Hey Foxymophandlemama, That's Me' (a song, which I have no shame in admitting, frightens the heck out of me. I stopped listening to it whenever I listen to Vitalogy after about the 3rd time I listened to the disc all the way through. I'm not smart enough to figure out what's going on in this song, nor do I care.) The other 10 tracks on the album are awesome, as long as you like music, and in particular rock music.
Since Vitalogy, Pearl Jam has released 7 studio albums (plus a "B" sides album, along with a greatest hits compilation) and countless hundreds of live 'bootleg' albums. Each and every one of them is as brilliant as the next, and unlike the author of the article, I've listened to them. They're not boring, they rock. As to the charges that Pearl Jam stole their act from bigger, better bands: It's ludicrous. History shows that tens of bands followed in Pearl Jam's footsteps, to the point of mimicking lead singer Eddie Vedder's vocalizations whilst singing. Pearl Jam, nor any serious music fan would not say that the band has not been influenced by bands that came before them, but such is the cycle of music. What they've done is make the influences their own, and they have always, always made sure to pay homage to their musical forebears, which is all that anyone can ask.
Whether or not someone likes Pearl Jam is irrelevant, but for someone to claim they are 'boring' is offensive to me, first as a fan of the band, but further, as a fan of good music.
For further proof of the band's brilliance, check out their Unplugged performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdr6eF2kVow
For those who have never had the pleasure of listening to Pearl Jam, you simply cannot understand what a ridiculous statement this is. Even if you haven't been living under a rock for the last 20 years, and it's just never tickled your fancy to make your way to a Pearl Jam show (or the exponential rise in ticket price has kept you away), you still could not fathom what a tremendous band they are.
I've seen Pearl Jam 6 times live in my life, and I've never once regretted it. Not even the time I drove to Montreal to scalp a ticket, and spent most of the show getting bear hugged by an overly enthusiastic (and less than sober) fan. Who also was twice as big as I was. I like Pearl Jam so much that I even overlook their political views, which clash with my own, to say the least. They create and perform brilliant music, and that is what I look to them for.
When the moron who wrote the article linked to above (although not that I consider it, he's actually somewhat of a mad genius. He tapped into a rabid fan base who has spent many collective hours reading his worthless article, increasing his view count, and making it appear as if he has much broader influence than he actually does.) penned his thoughts, he could only have been thinking two separate thoughts: 1.) I want to show the world exactly how stupid I am or 2.) I'm going to be famous (infamous is the word he was actually looking for) when all of those die-hard Pearl Jam fans find out what I wrote.
I believe he succeeded on both fronts, if the comments section of the article is any indication.
The author of the article closes out his introductory paragraph with this "brilliant" zinger:
it seems that mediocre rock bands, like ugly buildings, become respectable if they stick around long enough.To the best of my knowledge, in one form or another, I've listened to every song that Pearl Jam has released or performed at some in time or another. I'll grant there may be some obscure live covers that I haven't had the opportunity to hear yet, but I've heard their catalog in its entirety either via a studio release, seeing the songs performed live, or listening to recorded versions of their live performances. That band, in a word, rocks, and age hasn't taken anything off of their fastball.
Sure, Eddie Vedder may not throw himself willy-nilly into the hands of his adoring fans, nor he necessarily climb to the rafters each time the band plays "Porch", but those aren't necessary. What is necessary is the music, and few have excelled for as long a period of time, as consistently, as Pearl Jam has.
For many musical 'fans', including the author of the anti-PJ diatribe we're discussing today, Pearl Jam ceased making music following the release of Vitalogy. What it is about this album that engendered so many people to dislike not only the album, but the band, but it is what occurred. Of the 14 tracks on the album, I can think of only 4 that might be slightly off-putting for those who "loved" Ten and Vs. and they are: 'Pry, To' (and it only last one minute and three seconds), 'Bugs' (a hilarious accordion-based tune), 'Aye Davanita' (a quirky jam with no real lyrics to speak of), and 'Hey Foxymophandlemama, That's Me' (a song, which I have no shame in admitting, frightens the heck out of me. I stopped listening to it whenever I listen to Vitalogy after about the 3rd time I listened to the disc all the way through. I'm not smart enough to figure out what's going on in this song, nor do I care.) The other 10 tracks on the album are awesome, as long as you like music, and in particular rock music.
Since Vitalogy, Pearl Jam has released 7 studio albums (plus a "B" sides album, along with a greatest hits compilation) and countless hundreds of live 'bootleg' albums. Each and every one of them is as brilliant as the next, and unlike the author of the article, I've listened to them. They're not boring, they rock. As to the charges that Pearl Jam stole their act from bigger, better bands: It's ludicrous. History shows that tens of bands followed in Pearl Jam's footsteps, to the point of mimicking lead singer Eddie Vedder's vocalizations whilst singing. Pearl Jam, nor any serious music fan would not say that the band has not been influenced by bands that came before them, but such is the cycle of music. What they've done is make the influences their own, and they have always, always made sure to pay homage to their musical forebears, which is all that anyone can ask.
Whether or not someone likes Pearl Jam is irrelevant, but for someone to claim they are 'boring' is offensive to me, first as a fan of the band, but further, as a fan of good music.
For further proof of the band's brilliance, check out their Unplugged performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdr6eF2kVow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)