The impetus for today's argument comes courtesy of Vladimir Putin once again showing the world his @ss, and daring anyone to do something about it.
The manner in which he went about it this time was to lift the *self-imposed* ban Russia had on delivering its S-300 missile system to Iran. The Russians had originally struck a deal with the Iranians to deliver the system in 2007, but kowtowed to international pressure, chiefly put forth by the United States and Israel.
Unfortunately for Israel, the man currently occupying the White House is not nearly as strong of an ally as the man who was there, so that same level of support may not be counted upon. While Israel remains our strongest ally in the region, their friendship has been at the least, taken for granted over the past several years.
To compound the problem, our President sees no big deal in allowing the Iranians to continue on with their nuclear program, because it's obviously peaceful, and would never be utilized for nefarious purpose like destroying Israel. This despite the fact that their previous President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on the record calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, and this despite the fact that the Iranians have the 4th largest proven reserves of oil (5x as much as the United States, and only trailing Venezuela, Canada, and Saudi Arabia.) Current Iranian President Hassan Rouhini has not made any public statements that would suggest he is in agreement with Ahmadinejad, but he is only guaranteed to stay in office until 2017 (assuming he stays alive.), when Ahmadinejad is eligible to run for office again.
So when Ahmadinejad returns to power in 2017, it may be with a nuclear program capable of producing weapons grade material, and a weapon system that will make it impossible for Israel (or any other nation) to take down the nuclear program. Not only that, but the S-300 missile system is capable of hitting targets in northern Israel, including aircraft.
The questions now on the board are what steps will Israel take in order to ensure her survival, and will the U.S. back her strongest ally in the region if conflict develops? As of this moment, it has been 6 weeks since a rocket/missile has been launched at Israel, a nearly unheard of streak, and something that could be viewed as a positive idea. If Iran gets the S-300 missile system from Iran, will there ever be another rocket free day in Israel?
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Sonnenzio on a line from Shakespeare
Sonnenzio on a line from Shakespeare
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun
for the sun, in all its brilliance, could not compare
with the beauty that radiates transparently from within her soul
cutting a wide swathe through whatever area she may tread
The old mare that I keep about the house
and trot out with great fanfare for social events
her eyes are worn and she has grown weary
people still stare, but for all the wrong reasons
but what good are the traits of my mistress
if they are not shared with the world at large
from the waterways of Laredo to the mountains of Katahdin
the stares that she draws are tallied
She is a rare treat, I know, for a man my age
there are many that dream of walking on this stage
The sonnenizio was invented in Florence in the thirteenth century by Vanni Fucci as an irreverent form whose subject was usually the impossibility of everlasting love. Dante retaliated by putting Fucci into the seven chasm of the Inferno as a thief. Originally composed in hedecasyllabics, the sonnenizio gradually moved away from metrical constraints and began to tackle a wider variety of subject matter. The sonnenizio is fourteen lines. It opens with a line from someone else's sonnet, repeats a word from that line in each succeeding line of the poem, and closes with a rhymed couplet.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
"You'll Never Leave Harlan Alive"
In just about 3 hours' time, the lights will go out on Harlan County, Kentucky for the final time as FX's Justified concludes its 6 season run. Through its first 77 episodes, it has delivered each and every time it took to the airwaves. Crafty storytelling, and cunning dialogue (delivered with aplomb by the fantastic Walton Goggins et al) as Raylan Givens (Timothy Olyphant) continued his struggle to get out of Kentucky and get on with his life just about anywhere else in the world. Standing in his way of walking away is the down but never beaten Boyd Crowder (Goggins) and on-again, off-again love interest Ava Crowder (Joelle Carter.) If I was a bit smarter, or had studied harder during psychology classes, I would expound on the fact that the three primary characters really are very similar in how they approach life, and it's only a matter of choices and circumstance that has determined which side of the law (indeed if there is any difference any more) they find themselves on.
Despite all of the marvelous work that has been done on the show, the show has not been without its critics, nor has it received the hardware that one might expect from Emmy voters. Sure enough, Margo Martindale won a supporting actress award in 2011 for her portrayal of 'Mags Bennett' during season 2, and Jeremy Davies picked up a Outstanding Guest Actor Emmy in 2012, but that's all.
Part of the reason, perhaps, for this dearth of Emmy victories is timing, as Justified had the misfortune of running up against the equally brilliant Breaking Bad, which seemingly won every single award fathomable during its run. This season, in the final shot for the creative parties who turned Elmore Leonard's short story "Fire in the Hole" in to one of the best shows this century will run in to the albatross of an intentionally prolonged Mad Men, whom Emmy voters are likely to load up with awards, because 'everyone' loves that show. (In my opinion, that show jumped the proverbial shark sometime during its season 6, but that's only an opinion. There are those that have threatened to bludgeon me for that thought.) So it will go that one of the great shows to grace our television shows will go out without ever receiving the proper acclaim that it has deserved. (Through 3 seasons, at least, Olyphant was able to keep his cool about that. I'm not certain what he may still be that calm as he continues to be shut out, but somehow I'd guess he still manages to sleep at night.)
As if that wasn't enough, critics and 'fans' alike have near-universally beat season 5 in to the ground. Smart critics who have watched season 6 come around have managed to couch their previous comments by stating that "I was one who was critical of season 5, but even then, it was still better than 98% of everything else on television..." People who have had critical thoughts like that are used to spoon-fed story and for all I know, may be incapable of seeing the big picture, or are unwilling to trust that someone (or in this case, a whole group of talented someones) might know what they're doing better than a viewer or even a professional critic may be able to decipher. Part of the fun of this six season journey for me, at least, has been watching how the writers, actors, and everyone connected to the show would continue to spin the story in a fresh way. Without one doubt in my mind, I firmly believe they delivered on it, and for all the accolades and positive press that season 6 has received, absolutely none of it would have been possible with what most critics have labeled a 'terrible' season 5. The stories developed within the season 5 timeline were absolutely essential to position the three primary characters for exactly where they needed to be for season 6, and how each character would interact with the other, culminating in episode 10 "Trust", when Ava shoots Boyd and makes off with the $10 million he had just absconded with from Markham. It was simply brilliant, and Raylan 'allowing' Ava to 'escape' set up the final three episodes of the season to see which of them would come out victorious.
All I know heading in to tonight's finale is that it wouldn't appear all 3 of them will make it out alive, and which relationship will be repaired (if any.) If Raylan lives, it seems likely that Boyd will have to die, unless Boyd saves Raylan from an attack by Ava. Ava's options are to either die or end up in prison, so she should be a driving force in how the episode unfolds. I'm prepared to be thrilled, and expect to fight off a tear, knowing that such a show like this may not come along again in this lifetime, though I'm certain there will be those that will try. It is a genuine story, woven in back woods and mountains of a place many will not visit, but through the magic of Justified, will feel as if they spent a long portion of their lives there. Our television landscape grows a bit dimmer tonight.
Despite all of the marvelous work that has been done on the show, the show has not been without its critics, nor has it received the hardware that one might expect from Emmy voters. Sure enough, Margo Martindale won a supporting actress award in 2011 for her portrayal of 'Mags Bennett' during season 2, and Jeremy Davies picked up a Outstanding Guest Actor Emmy in 2012, but that's all.
Part of the reason, perhaps, for this dearth of Emmy victories is timing, as Justified had the misfortune of running up against the equally brilliant Breaking Bad, which seemingly won every single award fathomable during its run. This season, in the final shot for the creative parties who turned Elmore Leonard's short story "Fire in the Hole" in to one of the best shows this century will run in to the albatross of an intentionally prolonged Mad Men, whom Emmy voters are likely to load up with awards, because 'everyone' loves that show. (In my opinion, that show jumped the proverbial shark sometime during its season 6, but that's only an opinion. There are those that have threatened to bludgeon me for that thought.) So it will go that one of the great shows to grace our television shows will go out without ever receiving the proper acclaim that it has deserved. (Through 3 seasons, at least, Olyphant was able to keep his cool about that. I'm not certain what he may still be that calm as he continues to be shut out, but somehow I'd guess he still manages to sleep at night.)
As if that wasn't enough, critics and 'fans' alike have near-universally beat season 5 in to the ground. Smart critics who have watched season 6 come around have managed to couch their previous comments by stating that "I was one who was critical of season 5, but even then, it was still better than 98% of everything else on television..." People who have had critical thoughts like that are used to spoon-fed story and for all I know, may be incapable of seeing the big picture, or are unwilling to trust that someone (or in this case, a whole group of talented someones) might know what they're doing better than a viewer or even a professional critic may be able to decipher. Part of the fun of this six season journey for me, at least, has been watching how the writers, actors, and everyone connected to the show would continue to spin the story in a fresh way. Without one doubt in my mind, I firmly believe they delivered on it, and for all the accolades and positive press that season 6 has received, absolutely none of it would have been possible with what most critics have labeled a 'terrible' season 5. The stories developed within the season 5 timeline were absolutely essential to position the three primary characters for exactly where they needed to be for season 6, and how each character would interact with the other, culminating in episode 10 "Trust", when Ava shoots Boyd and makes off with the $10 million he had just absconded with from Markham. It was simply brilliant, and Raylan 'allowing' Ava to 'escape' set up the final three episodes of the season to see which of them would come out victorious.
All I know heading in to tonight's finale is that it wouldn't appear all 3 of them will make it out alive, and which relationship will be repaired (if any.) If Raylan lives, it seems likely that Boyd will have to die, unless Boyd saves Raylan from an attack by Ava. Ava's options are to either die or end up in prison, so she should be a driving force in how the episode unfolds. I'm prepared to be thrilled, and expect to fight off a tear, knowing that such a show like this may not come along again in this lifetime, though I'm certain there will be those that will try. It is a genuine story, woven in back woods and mountains of a place many will not visit, but through the magic of Justified, will feel as if they spent a long portion of their lives there. Our television landscape grows a bit dimmer tonight.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
What To Do With Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
A verdict was reached, and in news that will surprise no one, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty on all 30 counts leveled against for his active participation in the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15th, 2013. The fact that the jury even left the room to reach that decision shows a level of professionalism I cannot guarantee I would have been capable of achieving.
The defense for Tsarnaev, provided by Judy Clarke, was never about proving her client not guilty. Under no circumstance was that going to happen. Instead, as she has done countless times before (Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and Jared Lee Loughner, for starters), she laid the groundwork to attempt to steer the jury away from sentencing her client to death when that phase of the trial begins next week.
For me, death would be too good for Tsarnaev, in repayment of the havoc he created and the lives that he took. Also, I don't trust that the death penalty would be carried out in a timely manner, either, and perhaps never. He doesn't deserve to be treated that well.
Instead, I offer this solution to save both time and money: Set Tsarnaev 'free' on the steps of the courthouse, two days after alerting the public to the fact that you were going to do so. I recommend a high noon drop. The authorities who set him 'free' would simply walk away from the scene, and then whatever happens, happens. If by some miracle he manages to escape the angry mob and get himself out of the country, well that's +1 for the bad guys. More likely is that the mob catches him, and goes medieval on him. If that occurs, the authorities would simply come pick up the body, and everyone would return to their homes, lessons hopefully learned.
The defense for Tsarnaev, provided by Judy Clarke, was never about proving her client not guilty. Under no circumstance was that going to happen. Instead, as she has done countless times before (Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and Jared Lee Loughner, for starters), she laid the groundwork to attempt to steer the jury away from sentencing her client to death when that phase of the trial begins next week.
For me, death would be too good for Tsarnaev, in repayment of the havoc he created and the lives that he took. Also, I don't trust that the death penalty would be carried out in a timely manner, either, and perhaps never. He doesn't deserve to be treated that well.
Instead, I offer this solution to save both time and money: Set Tsarnaev 'free' on the steps of the courthouse, two days after alerting the public to the fact that you were going to do so. I recommend a high noon drop. The authorities who set him 'free' would simply walk away from the scene, and then whatever happens, happens. If by some miracle he manages to escape the angry mob and get himself out of the country, well that's +1 for the bad guys. More likely is that the mob catches him, and goes medieval on him. If that occurs, the authorities would simply come pick up the body, and everyone would return to their homes, lessons hopefully learned.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
"The Science Is Proven"
The impetus for today's argument comes from an article by Christopher Booker of The Telegraph (UK). It also come from such notable other times throughout history when "the science is proven" has been shouted from the rooftops.
For instance:
The amount of 'knowledge' we have regarding global climate change is likely still in its nascent stage. I say that not as a scientist, but as an observer of the world, and with at least an average amount of intelligence. The world is between 10,000 and 15,000,000,000 years old, depending on your belief system. At the outside, we may have reliable records for approximately 1,000 years (I'd say that figure is closer to 300 years, but that is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.) There is no way in the world, even with all of the technological advances we've made in the last 150 years that we can reliably determine anything outside of that time period, and as our weather forecasters are wont to show us, predicting anything more than 7-10 in to the future is a guess, too.
This is not to say that there is not good science going on with regard to the changes are climate has undergone, and may continue to undergo. Nicholas Lewis has more knowledge about climate change factors in his little pinky than I do in my whole body, but I put myself in *good* company there, because none of our politicians who are creating laws and vast new bureaucracies to combat a problem we don't even know exists yet. Make no mistake, the reason for all of the pseudo-science that goes on in Washington, D.C. is strictly financial. Always follow the money. Al Gore knew how to rabble-rouse to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (while being one of the biggest propagators of carbon emissions going) and a Nobel Prize in 2007. He never let science get in the way of his ability to earn a dollar.
The fact remains- we know so little about how how our Earth works, let alone how the cosmos and other places far off affect our day-to-day life. Actual scientists are collecting that data, and at some future time, they may know what is going on, but we have not reached that point yet. The science, despite what you may have heard on Pennsylvania Avenue, is not proven. There is still much to learn, and no amount of rhetoric makes that so. Neither does withholding federal emergency preparedness monies to states that do not kowtow to your way of thinking. In fact, I would think that such a policy would serve to prove the point that the science is not settled, so you are using political power to brow beat others in to supporting your belief system. How very scientific of you. Don't engage in debate, simply postulate and wave at bleating sheep, while our economic world grinds to a halt.
For a fun-to-read guide on how one could actually go about destroying the Earth, I suggest reading Sam Hughes' blog How to Destroy the Earth. Small spoiler: raising the global temperature by 2 degrees Celsius doesn't make the list. In fact, if you read far enough down, you may come to the understanding that warmer temperatures may save the Earth, after all.
For instance:
- The earth is the center of the universe
- Four humors control the human body
- Blacks are genetically inferior
- The moon is made of cheese
- The earth is flat
- We can actually prove the big bang occurred
The amount of 'knowledge' we have regarding global climate change is likely still in its nascent stage. I say that not as a scientist, but as an observer of the world, and with at least an average amount of intelligence. The world is between 10,000 and 15,000,000,000 years old, depending on your belief system. At the outside, we may have reliable records for approximately 1,000 years (I'd say that figure is closer to 300 years, but that is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.) There is no way in the world, even with all of the technological advances we've made in the last 150 years that we can reliably determine anything outside of that time period, and as our weather forecasters are wont to show us, predicting anything more than 7-10 in to the future is a guess, too.
This is not to say that there is not good science going on with regard to the changes are climate has undergone, and may continue to undergo. Nicholas Lewis has more knowledge about climate change factors in his little pinky than I do in my whole body, but I put myself in *good* company there, because none of our politicians who are creating laws and vast new bureaucracies to combat a problem we don't even know exists yet. Make no mistake, the reason for all of the pseudo-science that goes on in Washington, D.C. is strictly financial. Always follow the money. Al Gore knew how to rabble-rouse to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (while being one of the biggest propagators of carbon emissions going) and a Nobel Prize in 2007. He never let science get in the way of his ability to earn a dollar.
The fact remains- we know so little about how how our Earth works, let alone how the cosmos and other places far off affect our day-to-day life. Actual scientists are collecting that data, and at some future time, they may know what is going on, but we have not reached that point yet. The science, despite what you may have heard on Pennsylvania Avenue, is not proven. There is still much to learn, and no amount of rhetoric makes that so. Neither does withholding federal emergency preparedness monies to states that do not kowtow to your way of thinking. In fact, I would think that such a policy would serve to prove the point that the science is not settled, so you are using political power to brow beat others in to supporting your belief system. How very scientific of you. Don't engage in debate, simply postulate and wave at bleating sheep, while our economic world grinds to a halt.
For a fun-to-read guide on how one could actually go about destroying the Earth, I suggest reading Sam Hughes' blog How to Destroy the Earth. Small spoiler: raising the global temperature by 2 degrees Celsius doesn't make the list. In fact, if you read far enough down, you may come to the understanding that warmer temperatures may save the Earth, after all.
Friday, April 3, 2015
It's High Hypocrisy Day
The impetus for today's argument comes from the fact that I work in the public school system. However, I did not work today. Why? you may ask, and justifiably so. There were no teacher conferences, there were no parent meetings, there wasn't even a meeting about standardized testing, and just as amazingly, there was no snow on the ground.
So why is there no school? It's Good Friday.
If you say it real fast, you'll miss the hypocrisy in it, so let me slow it down for you just a bit.
The public school systems, who nearly without fail bow down to the notion of separation of church from state in every other manner, are taking a day off that can only be described as a religious holiday, and they're not even bothering to make something up to cover it?
How can this be?
Now mind you, I wholly support students and teachers having the option of not going to school today so that they may take part in religious ceremonies as their beliefs dictate. Of course, I have deeply held religious beliefs. That's not what's occurring here, however. It's just a naked grab of a day off for those that work in various school systems.
How is this tolerated?
How can on one hand school administrators (and to be fair, I'm 100% positive it's not all administrators, but there are enough of them that I don't feel bad lumping them all together) and teachers expressly forbid the mention of anything that may touch upon the Judeo-Christian faith, but on the other hand take a day off for one of the Holiest, if not the Holiest day of the year? What possible justification could there be for this?
In a conversation with a friend, he posited that perhaps the teachers and administrators would spend their paid day off organizing picket lines against such a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. I expected he was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but just for fun, I drove around to various school districts today and did not see one single protest going down. I was disappointed, to say the least, but I figured perhaps I didn't venture far enough away to find the valiant, honor bound protesters, so I turned to the Internet and looked for organized protests there. Once again, I was disappointed. I could not one instance of a protest happening within the confines of the Bay State.
In one of the most predictable things to ever have happen, Liberals want to take what they want (a day off) while denying others a basic freedom (religion.) The more things change, the more they stay the same.
So why is there no school? It's Good Friday.
If you say it real fast, you'll miss the hypocrisy in it, so let me slow it down for you just a bit.
The public school systems, who nearly without fail bow down to the notion of separation of church from state in every other manner, are taking a day off that can only be described as a religious holiday, and they're not even bothering to make something up to cover it?
How can this be?
Now mind you, I wholly support students and teachers having the option of not going to school today so that they may take part in religious ceremonies as their beliefs dictate. Of course, I have deeply held religious beliefs. That's not what's occurring here, however. It's just a naked grab of a day off for those that work in various school systems.
How is this tolerated?
How can on one hand school administrators (and to be fair, I'm 100% positive it's not all administrators, but there are enough of them that I don't feel bad lumping them all together) and teachers expressly forbid the mention of anything that may touch upon the Judeo-Christian faith, but on the other hand take a day off for one of the Holiest, if not the Holiest day of the year? What possible justification could there be for this?
In a conversation with a friend, he posited that perhaps the teachers and administrators would spend their paid day off organizing picket lines against such a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. I expected he was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but just for fun, I drove around to various school districts today and did not see one single protest going down. I was disappointed, to say the least, but I figured perhaps I didn't venture far enough away to find the valiant, honor bound protesters, so I turned to the Internet and looked for organized protests there. Once again, I was disappointed. I could not one instance of a protest happening within the confines of the Bay State.
In one of the most predictable things to ever have happen, Liberals want to take what they want (a day off) while denying others a basic freedom (religion.) The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)