Dear Summer

From March 16, 2011, but it seems necessary with the weather that has been harassing MA of late:

Dear Summer
Please return fast
I promise not to waste days
as I have in years past

even when drops of rain
should fall

they will be celebrated

your recall is correct
that I have long berated
puddles that gather
when there's a game
that I'd rather see completed

but I'm desperate
so I promise
there'll be no complaints
if only you'll save me
from this snowy hell

beautiful days
under bright blue skies
shall be met with
thunderous applause
as I spin myself in to
a heat-induced haze

I long for nights
when I can laze about
and watch stars
plummet from the sky
granting wishes
with their descent

and if random hail and lightning
should befall us
I shan't hold you responsible
and will accept it as one of those things

even if it's a day at the beach
or a barbeque interrupted
I shan't lay blame at your feet
but will instead chalk it up
as thing that sometimes occur
whilst looking forward to the next day
knowing that it should be resplendent

Dear Summer
I miss you so
please return to me
pronto

A Benefit of Being a Minority Party Member

The impetus for today's argument comes from the fact that I live in one of the most liberal (read: chock full o' Democrats) states in the Union, while maintaining a Conservative world view.  Most days, particularly election days, are far more difficult than they would be if I lived in a state that is more Red.  Texas for instance. Perhaps even Florida, or Idaho.  Nearly anywhere that isn't here, for that matter.

There are days, though, when it is almost worth all of that, just to see the look on people's face when politics are brought up.  Bernie Sanders' campaign had people beating the streets for him today, each wearing a bright, shiny new pin stating their support for the candidate that the Democrat machine wishes would simply go away.  Or die.  Whichever one makes it easier to foist Ms. Clinton on to the general public as their *official* candidate, much like the RNC did with John McCain in 2008.  Call it the lifetime *achievement* award for political parties.  Why either party would want to do that, I have no idea, neither candidate is viable in a general election, but I digress.

I had two separate encounters with Sanders' supporters today.  The first one came on my daily constitutional (the dated, noun definition), but my look of disdain as I saw their shiny pins kept them from engaging me.  The second occurred hours later, as I was leaving my place of residence.  There was a younger gentleman, and an older one, too.  Both of them were consulting (I'm assuming) voter lists.  Strange to me was the fact that they were intentionally ignoring residences that I knew contained minority voters, given the rhetoric that I always read/hear about in the media.  Because of this, I may have stared at them as they moved their way down the street a little longer than I would have done otherwise, which encouraged the older gentleman to call out to me.  His words were:

I hope I can depend on your vote for Bernie Sanders.

 I laughed at him before I said anything.  Immediately I realized how rude that might be perceived, so I responded with "No, sorry, you can't."  Not content to leave well enough alone, I couldn't stop my mouth from continuing on, when he looked back at me with an inquiring look upon his face.  It may also have been simple confusion, I didn't stop to ask.  I continued by saying "I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only candidate on the party.  He is by far the worst candidate running for President this election cycle."

The man looked as if I had mortally wounded him with my words.  He had no direct reply for me, but I could (just barely) hear him when he replied to his younger cohort "He must be a F*@%ing Republican."

It could have been worse, I suppose.  He could have accused me of supporting Ms. Clinton.  That would have been hurtful.

So while Massachusetts will be an afterthought come November (it's been 32 years since the state cast its delegates with a Republican Presidential candidate), but in the moment, with *contested* primaries for both *major* political parties, it's a more interesting place to be.  Even as a supporter of the minority party.

Corporate Slave

Tethered to this desk
held back by life's burdens
the question remains
How to break free?

Who among us is really free?
No one comes the resounding echo
We are all slaves in this world
Controlled by inner impulses

The proleterian pretend to

        have a choice
The ignorant assume that they do
The truly brave admit their faults
and thus relinquish their bonds

The Pope Says Trump "Isn't Christian"

Yesterday, the Pope took time out of his busy travel schedule to say this about Presidential *candidate* Donald Trump:

A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian.

My words of advice for His Holiness come courtesy of Ice Cube:

You better check yo self before you wreck yo self

 I understand that the Pontiff may have an exalted opinion of himself, but I would not think that he would be so full of himself that he would decide to cast Trump to the Lake of Fire all on his own.  Most traditional Christians would assume that God Himself would make that decision.  One would hope that the Pope has not elevated himself to that stature.

One might also question the hypocrisy of His Holiness when it comes to walls, considering that his place of residence, Vatican City, is surrounded by walls. 

While I may not believe that Trump fully understands how our Constitution works, the words he proffers with regarding to protecting the citizens he would serve (whether he believes them or not is open for discussion) is something that is not un-Christian.  It's simply understanding that our world is a changing place, and that a nation has a right to protect its sovereign borders.

If the Pope wants to himself in American politics, perhaps it would be best if he abdicated the Papacy, moved to the United States, and got involved in the political structure at the lay level.  If he's not willing to do that, then perhaps he should simply keep his mouth shut, instead of looking to influence our political nation from afar.

Our Lost Moral Compass

The impetus for today's discussion comes from a conversation that I had with a friend a few weeks before Christmas.  Before moving along any further, it is important to note this:  my friend are diametrically opposed when it comes to most things political.  I strongly suspect he voted for Obama, and I know that Bernie Sanders is his preferred Presidential candidate for 2016.  That being said, he is an otherwise wonderful person who cares about his family and friends.

Our conversation happened in the wake of another *mass* shooting that had recently gone down.  In the wake of it, there was another outpouring of anti-gun hysteria.  He felt it was just another example of blaming something that really had nothing to do with the issue.  He pointed back to the 1980s when people blamed music, and to the 1990s when *violent* video games were to blame for all of society's ills.  Given the amount of legally owned weapons in the U.S. (some 200 million, according to reports), and the fact that most gun incidents are perpetrated by criminals, not law abiding citizens, he felt this was just the scapegoat du jour.  I happened to agree with him.


Our conversation then moved towards determining what the problem was, and we came up with a solution:  we have simply lost our moral bearings.  We didn't delve in to specifics, mostly because I deflected the conversation away from it, but it seemed a truth too large to ignore.  When a people have no moral compass, the only thing that matters is what they feel is most important in the moment.  Often, that is themselves.  "Generation me", as a friend of mine has dubbed it.

There could be many moments in our nation's history that would point to a loss of our moral compass, but for me, there is one moment that is so horrendous, I think it's as good of a starting point as any.  That date is January 22nd, 1973.  For those who are aware, that is the day that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision that forever changed the landscape of the United States.

There are a couple of legal problems with Roe.  First, it took an activist Court to state that abortion would be allowed as the law of the land.  In order to do this, they had to completely invent clauses of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the text of which reads:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

They used 'due process' to come up with 'privacy' which was then translated in to 'murder of unborn children'.  To say the least, the original intent was not Honored, nor could any reasonable person infer that such a right is given, unlike the cases of using the 14th amendment to confer citizenship on to so-called *anchor babies*.  The amendment was part of the "Reconstruction amendments" (13 - 15), the original intent of which was to protect the rights of newly freed black, male slaves.  And also, in fine print "kill all the babies".  It was probably written in invisible ink, which is why it took all the way until 1973 for a decision to be reached.

Notwithstanding the Court abusing their Constitutional powers, a second problem exists with the decision, and that is how it is has been interpreted through the years.  The Court's intent had been to write a decision that was narrowly focused.  Whether they failed to do so, or whether is has simply been misinterpreted during the ensuing 43 years, I don't know.  It also doesn't matter.  The net result is that it was made alright in the eyes of the legal system to murder unborn children.

How could there not be a loss of a country's moral compass once such a decision has been rendered?

Others may argue that we lost our way prior to that point, and still others may say it came at a later date.  It doesn't matter at this point, we've clearly lost our way, and until we regain our moral compass, we could write enough laws to fill the entire Library of Alexendria, and we can't hope to gain back our footing.  We may have already gone past the point of no return, and our Nation could be in the midst of its death throes.