The impetus for today's argument is the senseless murders of NYC police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu yesterday (12.20.2014), but it is something that has been building over the last couple of decades. The loss of life simply does not mean as much in our society it ought to, regardless of race, creed, religion, or any other marker that we care to create. People kill each other, and for the most part, do not expect to face any type of consequences, at least not anything that puts a crimp in their lifestyle.
We've been told #BlackLives matter, which they do (though not enough for any form of protest when any of the 2,245 blacks were killed by another black person in 2013, according to government statistics.) We've also had other camps weigh in and post that #WhiteLives matter, and so do #CopLives matter. Not nearly enough people, however, have focused on the fact that #AllLives matter.
It's been bandied about that the reason for this is that the 'gangsta' lifestyle is glorified in various media, which may play a part in it. Others have decried violent video games, and like-minded movies and television programs. These are certainly options, too, but not the main cause, in my opinion.
In the movie Tombstone, one of the great movies of the last 25 years, there is a scene that takes place down by the creek. Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) has just led a successful attack against "Curly" Bill Brocious, and his band of Cowboys. Following its conclusion, Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) has a conversation with 'Turkey Creek' Jack Johnson (Buck Taylor), 'Texas' Jack Vermillion (Peter Sherayko), and McMasters (Michael Rooker) in which the thought is expressed that Earp is going after the Cowboys to gain revenge for attacks on his brothers and their families.
Holliday replied "Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after, it's the reckoning." The use of reckoning in this instance would reflect the thought of judging someone or multiple persons for actions previously taken.
This is what is sadly lacking in our modern society. Criminals commit heinous crimes of all sort, and the immediate response by many groups is to defend the criminal, pointing to their upbringing and 'lack of opportunity' as the reason that they have committed their crimes. While I won't argue that the denigration of the nuclear family may lead some down the path of Evil, it cannot be used as a crutch for crimes committed against fellow citizens.
What it comes down to is there is no personal responsibility, no accountability for actions. It's time to fix that. The big problem with our legal system is activist judges who do not sentence criminals to the proper reckoning, especially violent criminals. I would favor a much more strict punishment scale:
Public execution for anyone who kills in cold blood (not self-defense, which is wholly supported), along with all rapists, and persons who abuse children sexually. The reason for the execution is not revenge, as Holliday noted, because no amount of punishment will bring a person back to life or restore a person's sense of self. Rather, it is to eliminate from the public persons who would commit such crimes, so they are not able to commit them once again. What has been seen time and again is criminals who are released from prison go back out in to society and commit more crimes. That is a losing proposition for the good people in our world.
The reason the executions should be made public is so that there is public notice of the consequences of a person's actions. When executions are done behind closed doors, there is not the same connection for the public, nor can we be as certain that there is not a nefarious purpose on the state's side with terminating another human life. It is an undertaking that should be taken with the most serious reservations, but at the time the decision is made, there should be no turning back.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Monday, December 15, 2014
Stupid Is As Stupid Does, the MA Edition
The impetus for today's belated argument is the finding of an advisory commission in Massachusetts that suggests that top public officials in MA are 'underpaid'. Mind, this discovery was made despite the fact that MA is currently facing a budget deficit in the neighborhood of $400 million, which some of the elected officials who will see huge pay raises must account for.
The basis for this increase in public office holders' salary is the fact that 1,254 other state employees who earn more than the governor's current $151,800 (11th in the entire U.S. for governor pay), and quite simply, that's not enough. Plus, the governor's salary is only in the neighborhood of 8% of the salary of major corporation CEOs. This would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that nearly every single person who will benefit from the proposed pay raises is a (D) who has at one point in time or another espoused the belief that corporate CEOs are akin to the Devil, and should be denigrated at every available opportunity.
I would think that in light of our current budget crisis here in the Bay State, the proper move would not to be to hand out raises to those who are unworthy, but rather to hand out salary decreases to those 1%ers walking around on the public dole, most of whom have never worked an honest day in their lives (I apologize to the handful of public employees that earn above $152,000 who actually do something to help the general public.), and again, many who have decried how unfair it is that job producers and creators earn the salaries that they do.
The good news for the citizenry of MA is that outgoing (D) governor Deval Patrick has already stated that he will not sign the bill authorizing the pay increases until the (D) legislature agrees to the spending cuts he sent down to them, which they have thus far not agreed to. Incoming (R) governor Charlie Baker had this to say with regard to the ridiculous pay increases:
The basis for this increase in public office holders' salary is the fact that 1,254 other state employees who earn more than the governor's current $151,800 (11th in the entire U.S. for governor pay), and quite simply, that's not enough. Plus, the governor's salary is only in the neighborhood of 8% of the salary of major corporation CEOs. This would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that nearly every single person who will benefit from the proposed pay raises is a (D) who has at one point in time or another espoused the belief that corporate CEOs are akin to the Devil, and should be denigrated at every available opportunity.
I would think that in light of our current budget crisis here in the Bay State, the proper move would not to be to hand out raises to those who are unworthy, but rather to hand out salary decreases to those 1%ers walking around on the public dole, most of whom have never worked an honest day in their lives (I apologize to the handful of public employees that earn above $152,000 who actually do something to help the general public.), and again, many who have decried how unfair it is that job producers and creators earn the salaries that they do.
The good news for the citizenry of MA is that outgoing (D) governor Deval Patrick has already stated that he will not sign the bill authorizing the pay increases until the (D) legislature agrees to the spending cuts he sent down to them, which they have thus far not agreed to. Incoming (R) governor Charlie Baker had this to say with regard to the ridiculous pay increases:
The people of Massachusetts deserve a state government that is as thrifty as they are and now is not the time to award pay raises when a significant budget deficit is forcing cuts to many programs and services."It will be interesting to see how this battle over nearly unwarranted raises plays out in the remaining days of 2014.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
The impetus for today's argument is a man so stupid, I feel horrible even linking to the story about him, but I will, to avoid the legal entanglements that would come about if I did not.
Our idiot's name is George Prior, and sitting back and looking at this from a totally unbiased, uninvolved point of view, it's quite clear that George is either seeking attention (+1 for him, if that's so, because I'm sure he'll make a boatload of cash from his venture) or it's a cry for help. I'm going to think as many positive thoughts about the man as I can, and assume it is the latter.
George's 'experiment' follows in the footsteps of Morgan Spurlock who gained international fame with his mockumentary SuperSize Me, in which he consumed nothing but McDonald's worst foods for 30 days and saw his health fall apart. Spurlock gained his 15 minutes' worth of fame, and millions of dollars, to boot, but his angle was eventually disproved by 54 year old science teacher John Cisna, who actually managed to lose 37 pounds while consuming nothing but McDonald's for the same period of time.
Fortunately for Prior's run at fame, I cannot conceive of a way that someone might prove that consuming 10 cans of Coke in a day is a benefit for their bodies. Of course, as Prior himself states "Everyone knows it wouldn't be healthy to drink ten cokes a day." Uh, yeah.
Of course, Prior decided to press on with this thought:
Secondly, who the heck has the time or body capacity to consume the amount of liquids that he seems to believe is the typical American day? Even consuming 10 cans of Coke seems like a bit of a stretch, unless you're trying to prove a 'point', as it means knocking back one can for every 1 hour and 48 minutes you are awake, assuming an 18-hour day. That's ridiculous.
Life is a series of choices, and for those who choose to drink 10 cans a Coke a day while eating the greasiest, fattest foods that McDonald's (or another fast food chain) has to offer, without exercising, I have some 'news' for you: your body is not going to be in good shape, regardless of what the exterior vessel may look like. If you want to be fit, it's important to consider not only what you eat/drink, but how the manner in which you exercise (here's a hint: just do it, whatever 'it' may be.) If you choose to lead a sedentary lifestyle while consuming terrible foods, your are not going to be as healthy as you may like, but that will be through your own choices, no one else's.
Our idiot's name is George Prior, and sitting back and looking at this from a totally unbiased, uninvolved point of view, it's quite clear that George is either seeking attention (+1 for him, if that's so, because I'm sure he'll make a boatload of cash from his venture) or it's a cry for help. I'm going to think as many positive thoughts about the man as I can, and assume it is the latter.
George's 'experiment' follows in the footsteps of Morgan Spurlock who gained international fame with his mockumentary SuperSize Me, in which he consumed nothing but McDonald's worst foods for 30 days and saw his health fall apart. Spurlock gained his 15 minutes' worth of fame, and millions of dollars, to boot, but his angle was eventually disproved by 54 year old science teacher John Cisna, who actually managed to lose 37 pounds while consuming nothing but McDonald's for the same period of time.
Fortunately for Prior's run at fame, I cannot conceive of a way that someone might prove that consuming 10 cans of Coke in a day is a benefit for their bodies. Of course, as Prior himself states "Everyone knows it wouldn't be healthy to drink ten cokes a day." Uh, yeah.
Of course, Prior decided to press on with this thought:
That's true, perhaps you're only drinking four Cokes, but if you add in the two glasses of orange juice, the two sweetened coffee drinks from Starbucks, the 16-ounce Odwalla drink, the two 'healthy' brand ice teas and the $9 fruit smoothie you waited 10 minutes in life for, you've made my 10 Cokes look like child's play.First of all, I spent the better part of a decade eating a pound of pasta (or more) a day, chasing it down with a half gallon of orange juice. The thought that OJ (or pasta, for that matter) is unhealthy is one that I was unable to prove in my years of 'trying' (the truth was I really like OJ, and pasta is quick, delicious, and nutritious.) It's fair to note, I did exercise (running, walking, or weightlifting) in one form or another five days a week during that stretch. My weight remained constant, and my blood pressure and pulse were excellent.
Secondly, who the heck has the time or body capacity to consume the amount of liquids that he seems to believe is the typical American day? Even consuming 10 cans of Coke seems like a bit of a stretch, unless you're trying to prove a 'point', as it means knocking back one can for every 1 hour and 48 minutes you are awake, assuming an 18-hour day. That's ridiculous.
Life is a series of choices, and for those who choose to drink 10 cans a Coke a day while eating the greasiest, fattest foods that McDonald's (or another fast food chain) has to offer, without exercising, I have some 'news' for you: your body is not going to be in good shape, regardless of what the exterior vessel may look like. If you want to be fit, it's important to consider not only what you eat/drink, but how the manner in which you exercise (here's a hint: just do it, whatever 'it' may be.) If you choose to lead a sedentary lifestyle while consuming terrible foods, your are not going to be as healthy as you may like, but that will be through your own choices, no one else's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)