Saturday, August 15, 2015
Blinders
(written on 02.16.2009)
My froward heart has allowed itself to be deceived
by a steady stream of feckless platitudes
it has confused pinchbeck emotion for love
casting a penumbra over my eyes
my brain, easily distracted, is blind
to the obdurate reality swirling about
(a result that in hindsight is easy to portend)
In a Gadarene rush I am pulled to the precipice
fortunately, the cacophony ring in my ears
prevents me from realizing the peril below
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Republicans Are Aiming At the Wrong Target
Living in Massachusetts, one thing that nearly never comes up is a person's thoughts on a GOP campaign of any sort, let alone a Presidential debate 15 months in front of the next election. As a conservative/Republican it made my heart flutter to hear this conversation in this liberal bastion. That one of the participants was a proponent of Chris Christie was disheartening, but still, the conversation occurred, and it's a bit of progress.
I mention this only because many of the Republican candidates for nomination have set as their target Hillary Clinton, and I have to ask this all important question: Why? Clinton makes John McCain and/or Mitt Romney look wholly electable. In fact, the only *Republicans* who might have a problem with Clinton if she were to be the Democrats' nominee would be Jeb Bush or Chris Christie. Any other Republican running for the nomination would mop the floor up with Clinton, because she has absolutely nothing to stand on, outside of the fact that her husband was once President.
Unless of course we're counting the multitude of scandals that are waiting to bring her down.
While many of the Republican candidates have done a better than expected job of getting their message out, stating how they would compare to Clinton in a theoretical showdown. First off, any polling data that is 15 months out is beyond irrelevant, especially when you consider that data is being collected during the summer time, when 98% of the populace is paying exactly 0 attention and their choices are based solely on whoever's name happened to pop up on the news that day.
If the GOP is collectively going to go after a candidate vying for the Democrat's nod, then they should focus on Bernie Sanders (a candidate who is actually resonating with voters at the moment), or Joe Biden. Sure, it'd be fair to note that Biden is essentially the Chester A. Arthur of the 21st century, but it's also important to note that Arthur served as President of the United States of America for over 3 1/2 years. Yes, it took a would-be assassin's bullet and the bungling of his doctors to kill Presdient James Garfield, but strange things happen in politics. Even an Al Gore run at the Presidency would be a bigger threat to Republicans recapturing the White House in 2016 than Hillary Clinton.
The biggest reason is Clinton's own belief that she is too big to fail, despite the fact that she proved in 2008 she could, and did fail spectacularly, as Obama beat her down for the D's nomination. She has a John McCain sense of entitlement, based on the belief that each of them has spent so much of their lives in *public* 'service' that they deserve pretty much whatever they want. They're both morons, and fools to boot, which is further reason for Republicans to spend their energy away from Clinton.
Perhaps last evening's revelation that the FBI may be criminally investigating Clinton will be enough to forestall any time being wasted in tonight's "debate" on the Clinton candidacy. If she continues to be the bar that Republicans aim at, they will fall short in their attempt to gain access to the White House.
I mention this only because many of the Republican candidates for nomination have set as their target Hillary Clinton, and I have to ask this all important question: Why? Clinton makes John McCain and/or Mitt Romney look wholly electable. In fact, the only *Republicans* who might have a problem with Clinton if she were to be the Democrats' nominee would be Jeb Bush or Chris Christie. Any other Republican running for the nomination would mop the floor up with Clinton, because she has absolutely nothing to stand on, outside of the fact that her husband was once President.
Unless of course we're counting the multitude of scandals that are waiting to bring her down.
While many of the Republican candidates have done a better than expected job of getting their message out, stating how they would compare to Clinton in a theoretical showdown. First off, any polling data that is 15 months out is beyond irrelevant, especially when you consider that data is being collected during the summer time, when 98% of the populace is paying exactly 0 attention and their choices are based solely on whoever's name happened to pop up on the news that day.
If the GOP is collectively going to go after a candidate vying for the Democrat's nod, then they should focus on Bernie Sanders (a candidate who is actually resonating with voters at the moment), or Joe Biden. Sure, it'd be fair to note that Biden is essentially the Chester A. Arthur of the 21st century, but it's also important to note that Arthur served as President of the United States of America for over 3 1/2 years. Yes, it took a would-be assassin's bullet and the bungling of his doctors to kill Presdient James Garfield, but strange things happen in politics. Even an Al Gore run at the Presidency would be a bigger threat to Republicans recapturing the White House in 2016 than Hillary Clinton.
The biggest reason is Clinton's own belief that she is too big to fail, despite the fact that she proved in 2008 she could, and did fail spectacularly, as Obama beat her down for the D's nomination. She has a John McCain sense of entitlement, based on the belief that each of them has spent so much of their lives in *public* 'service' that they deserve pretty much whatever they want. They're both morons, and fools to boot, which is further reason for Republicans to spend their energy away from Clinton.
Perhaps last evening's revelation that the FBI may be criminally investigating Clinton will be enough to forestall any time being wasted in tonight's "debate" on the Clinton candidacy. If she continues to be the bar that Republicans aim at, they will fall short in their attempt to gain access to the White House.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
So Kiss States' Rights Goodbye
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:
In this decision, the majority of the Supremes determined that the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution superseded the powers granted to the states in the 10th amendment. On one point, and one point only, I would agree with them, however, the amendment has nothing to do with what was in front of the Court that day.
The 14th amendment was the second of 3 amendments collectively known as the "Reconstruction Amendments", and they were passed in 1865 (13th), 1868 (14th), and 1870 (15th.) For the Court to assert that these laws apply to gay marriage is ridiculous on its face for any number of reasons, no less than the fact gay marriage was not a topic of discussion at that point in time in U.S. History, nor was homosexuality in any real manner of speaking, despite the fact that there anti-sodomy laws on the books dating to the 1600s. It was not until post-1880 that these laws began to be really enforced, and even then, the focus wasn't an anti-gay stance, but rather one that was specifically anti-sodomy, regardless of the sex of the members engaged, according to Margot Canaday, in her review of William Eskridge's Dishonorable Passion for The Nation magazine.
A further reason it is ridiculous for the Court to have reached such a decision is because it requires the Court to step outside of its Constitutionally appointed role in government, which is to essentially uphold the rule of law. Its role is not to interpret and reinvent the Constitution as it sees fit their particular political leaning at the moment. Extending the 14th amendment past its intended goal is absurd, and is without question a usurpation of powers. To the amendment, which reads as follows:
It is also important to note that in provision 2, the right to vote was extended to all men, ages 21+. This was underscored when the 15th amendment was passed:
Women would have to wait until the 19th amendment for their chance to vote, to vote without having to potentially pay a poll tax the 24th amendment, and those who were aged 18 - 20 would have to wait until amendment 26.
The point is, the Constitution is not some malleable, living document that can be changed on a whim. It should be, and was designed to be, the bedrock upon which our society was built. If something about it needs to be changed, their is a proper course of action (pass a new amendment.) Don't believe me? Let's ask two Founding Fathers who were instrumental in the writing of the Constitution. First, George Washington's thoughts on how and when the Constitution's might be changed:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In the two hundred and twenty odd years since that amendment was ratified, it has generally been understood that meant that what the Feds claimed as theirs was theirs, and anything else was to be decided by the states at their discretion. Chief Justice John Roberts explained as much in his opinion (page 10) for the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL
v
. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL
Roberts:
However, that doesn't mesh with what the Supreme Court recently decided in the OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The Federalist No. 45, at 293
(J. Madison).
In this decision, the majority of the Supremes determined that the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution superseded the powers granted to the states in the 10th amendment. On one point, and one point only, I would agree with them, however, the amendment has nothing to do with what was in front of the Court that day.
The 14th amendment was the second of 3 amendments collectively known as the "Reconstruction Amendments", and they were passed in 1865 (13th), 1868 (14th), and 1870 (15th.) For the Court to assert that these laws apply to gay marriage is ridiculous on its face for any number of reasons, no less than the fact gay marriage was not a topic of discussion at that point in time in U.S. History, nor was homosexuality in any real manner of speaking, despite the fact that there anti-sodomy laws on the books dating to the 1600s. It was not until post-1880 that these laws began to be really enforced, and even then, the focus wasn't an anti-gay stance, but rather one that was specifically anti-sodomy, regardless of the sex of the members engaged, according to Margot Canaday, in her review of William Eskridge's Dishonorable Passion for The Nation magazine.
A further reason it is ridiculous for the Court to have reached such a decision is because it requires the Court to step outside of its Constitutionally appointed role in government, which is to essentially uphold the rule of law. Its role is not to interpret and reinvent the Constitution as it sees fit their particular political leaning at the moment. Extending the 14th amendment past its intended goal is absurd, and is without question a usurpation of powers. To the amendment, which reads as follows:
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.
2. 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.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Points 1 - 4 list out exactly what it is that the amendment is looking to achieve, point 5 says who has the power to enforce the law through legislation. You'll note that there is no mention of gay marriage, nor is there any mention of the U.S. Supreme Court having the authority to enforce or alter the amendment. Why? Because it's not their job, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
It is also important to note that in provision 2, the right to vote was extended to all men, ages 21+. This was underscored when the 15th amendment was passed:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Women would have to wait until the 19th amendment for their chance to vote, to vote without having to potentially pay a poll tax the 24th amendment, and those who were aged 18 - 20 would have to wait until amendment 26.
The point is, the Constitution is not some malleable, living document that can be changed on a whim. It should be, and was designed to be, the bedrock upon which our society was built. If something about it needs to be changed, their is a proper course of action (pass a new amendment.) Don't believe me? Let's ask two Founding Fathers who were instrumental in the writing of the Constitution. First, George Washington's thoughts on how and when the Constitution's might be changed:
...Changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people. If in the opinion of the people, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any way particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though in this one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.Thomas Jefferson would write in 1803:
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.The Court's decision overstepped its bounds, and put our Nation on the path to oligarchy. The question is not whether or not gay marriage should have become law, but rather the means that goal was achieved. Instead of putting in the hard work of achieving a Constitutional amendment, gay rights 'activists' chose the short cut of going to the courts. Instead of thinking of long-term consequences, they thought only of their own short-term desires, and the Supremes kowtowed to pressure from which they are supposed to be immune. This was a disaster for our nation, in ways that may not yet have been imagined.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Defund Planned Parenthood
Tonight (August 3rd, 2015) the U.S. Senate will be voting on a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. If you've been living under a rock for the past few weeks, feel free to watch this video to find out what all the hub-bub is about. As is always the case with politics, there are many sides to consider, and the most important one (at least for sitting Senators) is what the voting public's thoughts are on an issue. If you've got the time, call your U.S. Senator and ask them to defund Planned Parenthood, which may help curtail the practice of dissecting aborted babies for further profit. You may also ask them to put pressure on the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation in to their operations.
So please call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to vote to defund Planned Parenthood.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
The Iran *Deal*
When one makes a deal, there usually is some give and take on the issue. I might like a little more here, you might wish to take a little more there, and we'll end up somewhere near the middle, theoretically.
After today's announced *deal* with Iran, it's quite clear that President Obama never took even a basic level negotiating class. Hell, he didn't bother even watching some YouTube videos of people who actually know how to negotiate. In short, these are the official gains that Iran garnered, while getting to remain a breeding zone for future terrorists:
Having given away everything, including the front door keys to the White House, you'd expect that Obama might have asked for a small token of appreciation in return, no? Like perhaps the return of the 4 American citizens (Robert Levinson - 2007, Amir Hekmati - 2011, Saeed Abedini - 2012, and Jason Rezaian) that Tehran has held hostage? No dice on that front, sorry. In fact, Obama thinks you are a moron, perhaps a traitor, if you dare proffer a question asking why the hostages were not released. Below is the transcript of CBS reporter Major Garrett and Obama's exchange:
I've written previously that on his best day, Obama might be Neville Chamberlain. In light of this *deal*, I must make a full apology to Chamberlain's corpse and any of his progeny that are still alive. I could not be more sorry for having drug Neville's name through the mud by comparing Obama to him. Obama, on his best day, is a terrorist sympathizer who believes that America is the most evil force going. Further, it is his apparent goal to eliminate the air of American superiority, and indeed, the reality of it as well.
Now that we're kowtowing to terrorist regimes, is there any further we can fall as a nation?
After today's announced *deal* with Iran, it's quite clear that President Obama never took even a basic level negotiating class. Hell, he didn't bother even watching some YouTube videos of people who actually know how to negotiate. In short, these are the official gains that Iran garnered, while getting to remain a breeding zone for future terrorists:
- We'll never know what previous violations of international agreement Iran committed with regard to their nuclear program. Why? Apparently Obama and other world leaders didn't want to offend the terrorists who are in charge of Iran's government. Or maybe they just believed it to be bad manners to ask about such insignificant matters.
- Legitimization of Iran's nuclear program, in that this new *deal* provides them a pathway to become a nuclear power within the next decade, with our blessing. Whether or not the Iranians care to wait that long remains to be seen, but it must be disconcerting to our *closest* ally in the region, Israel, that Obama (and other 'leaders') essentially signed off on Iran's stated goal of destroying the Israeli state.
- Iran gains access to tens of Billions of dollars in international sanctions relief without doing a damn thing. You know, kind of like a parting gift to game show losers, except Iran absolutely was the biggest winner today. All the pretty language in the *deal* that claims anything like Iran having to keep the promises it made in the agreement mean absolutely nothing, because the signees of the agreement are the ones who will be checking up on Iran (and yes, Iran is part of that cartel), and there is no earthly reason for them to admit to making a wicked googily. None whatsoever.
- Iran will have the ability to Heisman international inspectors, with little to no repercussions. This is unconscionably horrific *negotiating*. We are now going to trust the people who for the last 35 plus years have been one of the largest, if not the largest centers of state-sponsored terrorism. Apparently that's not a big deal in today's world, and is so 20th century.
- In case anyone has forgotten, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is eligible to run for President of Iran again in 2017. This is the man who denies the Holocaust ever occurred, and has talked openly about ending the Jewish state. Next time he's in charge, he'll have nuclear weapons. Thanks a lot, Obama.
- Arms embargoes and missile embargoes (why there's a separate timeline, I don't know) are so constricting. The solution to that problem is to eliminate them for Iran. So within 5 years' time, the arms embargo against Iran will be gone, and in 8 years, so to will the missile embargo.
- All normal trade, including banking and investment, are back in play. Capitalists may not delight in this as much as they might have if they didn't have to worry about their new trade partner dropping a nuclear weapon on their back door, but hey, it'll be one Hell of a party, I'm sure.
Having given away everything, including the front door keys to the White House, you'd expect that Obama might have asked for a small token of appreciation in return, no? Like perhaps the return of the 4 American citizens (Robert Levinson - 2007, Amir Hekmati - 2011, Saeed Abedini - 2012, and Jason Rezaian) that Tehran has held hostage? No dice on that front, sorry. In fact, Obama thinks you are a moron, perhaps a traitor, if you dare proffer a question asking why the hostages were not released. Below is the transcript of CBS reporter Major Garrett and Obama's exchange:
Major Garrett: As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran - three held on trumped up charges according to your administration, one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all of the fanfare around this [nuclear] deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for, in relation to these four Americans?
And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It was perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations, making the Pentagon feel you've left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?
President Obama: I've got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content, as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails - Major, that's nonsense. And you should know better. I've met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody's content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.
Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. Suddenly, Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans (emphasis added) by holding these individuals - makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. And by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing just as hard to get these folks out. That's why those issues are not connected, but we are working every single day to try to get them out and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families.What the heck other concessions could Obama have possibly thought that the Iranians were going to ask for? Was he worried that he might draw dog sitting duties when Iranian leaders took a vacation? That is patently the stupidest statement ever uttered by an American President in my lifetime, without question.
With respect to the Chairman's testimony, to some degree I already answered this with Carol. We are not taking the pressure off Iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. As I just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo this particular new UN resolution, not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular UN resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see Iran engaged in those activities - whether it's six years from now or 10 years from now.
So, we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact part of my pitch to the GCC countries, as well as to Prime Minister Netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that Iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like Hezbollah, and as I just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners.
I've written previously that on his best day, Obama might be Neville Chamberlain. In light of this *deal*, I must make a full apology to Chamberlain's corpse and any of his progeny that are still alive. I could not be more sorry for having drug Neville's name through the mud by comparing Obama to him. Obama, on his best day, is a terrorist sympathizer who believes that America is the most evil force going. Further, it is his apparent goal to eliminate the air of American superiority, and indeed, the reality of it as well.
Now that we're kowtowing to terrorist regimes, is there any further we can fall as a nation?
Monday, July 13, 2015
Where Do We Draw the Line At Offensive?
Nearly a month ago, a psychotic, white male killed 9 black parishioners as they worshiped at Emmanual African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. It was and is a horrific incident that members of that community will deal with for the rest of their lives.
However, it is also something that raised a couple of interesting ideas, and buried the story that should have been looked at. What I've seen over the past month is not a focus on the murderer, or the 9 church members whose lives were so callously taken. No, rather the focus has been on the Confederate flag. Why? Because it's offensive and a symbol of oppression.
That's fine, and if state /local governments or citizen groups want to get on with dispensing of the Confederate flag in public areas, that is their prerogative, and they should do it if they feel it is right.
However, the notion of oppression is a bit open-ended, as are the symbols that may represent them. The swastika is a symbol that is most often associated with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis during WWII era Germany, but it has been around for thousands of years prior to that in a variety of religious uses in a myriad of different religions throughout the world. By no means am I comparing the Confederate flag with the swastika, but mostly because the Confederate flag (the "battle flag") does not have a history that has anything to do with anything outside of the Confederacy, and the South's attempt to withdraw from the Union.
However, if it's oppressive symbols that hurt people's feelings, or bring about thoughts of former terrible regimes and people who have done harm in the world, what of the Union Jack, the very symbol of our former Colonial ancestors (and current ally) Great Britain? Others might also argue that the U.S. Stars and Stripes could be labeled as a symbol of oppression as well, if looked at from certain group's perspective. Should both of those flags be banned within our border, so as to not offend people and remind them of the oppressive regimes who used them as their symbol of power?
More important to me is that real issues are being ignored, while the Confederate flag story is running through state houses and news outlets, littering the landscape with details that are in fact not at all enlightening, nor helpful. If there are those who think that the Confederacy was right to enslave black Americans, there's not much to be done to help that kind of stupid. If there are those that observe it as a historical remnant of states fighting for their way of life (however morally reprehensible they may be) and their right to withdraw from the Union, that may not be as offensive, or as stupid as the prior group, but it still may be time for those people to join the 21st century, where states are looking to withdraw from the Union for a host of different reasons that may be looked back on by future generations as equally stupid.
The big problem I have with all of this is how the issue has now become political, in the most negative way possible. Democrat members of Congress are using the issue as a way to hold up budget battles with Republicans, instead of doing their jobs and looking out for what is best for the American people, and again, no talk is occurring about the shooter, or the victims' families who are dealing with their grief. Instead, political groups are once again taking a tragedy and couching it in a way to push forth an agenda. This is wrong, and should not be allowed to occur, but with a complacent media and 'leaders' who care only about their own fortune, that is not what happens here, or anywhere there is a tragedy.
Then there are those who would look to affect even greater gun control laws, in order to make society 'safer'. Of course, the problem with that is those who would seek to murder in this way are not ones who are going to follow laws. They'll simply buy their guns illegally, or they'll use other means to create the havoc they are seeking to achieve.
Mira Thompson, Daniel Simmons, Sr., Clementa Pinckney, Depayne Middleton, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Cynthia Hurd, and Tywanza Sanders all deserve better than that.
However, it is also something that raised a couple of interesting ideas, and buried the story that should have been looked at. What I've seen over the past month is not a focus on the murderer, or the 9 church members whose lives were so callously taken. No, rather the focus has been on the Confederate flag. Why? Because it's offensive and a symbol of oppression.
That's fine, and if state /local governments or citizen groups want to get on with dispensing of the Confederate flag in public areas, that is their prerogative, and they should do it if they feel it is right.
However, the notion of oppression is a bit open-ended, as are the symbols that may represent them. The swastika is a symbol that is most often associated with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis during WWII era Germany, but it has been around for thousands of years prior to that in a variety of religious uses in a myriad of different religions throughout the world. By no means am I comparing the Confederate flag with the swastika, but mostly because the Confederate flag (the "battle flag") does not have a history that has anything to do with anything outside of the Confederacy, and the South's attempt to withdraw from the Union.
However, if it's oppressive symbols that hurt people's feelings, or bring about thoughts of former terrible regimes and people who have done harm in the world, what of the Union Jack, the very symbol of our former Colonial ancestors (and current ally) Great Britain? Others might also argue that the U.S. Stars and Stripes could be labeled as a symbol of oppression as well, if looked at from certain group's perspective. Should both of those flags be banned within our border, so as to not offend people and remind them of the oppressive regimes who used them as their symbol of power?
More important to me is that real issues are being ignored, while the Confederate flag story is running through state houses and news outlets, littering the landscape with details that are in fact not at all enlightening, nor helpful. If there are those who think that the Confederacy was right to enslave black Americans, there's not much to be done to help that kind of stupid. If there are those that observe it as a historical remnant of states fighting for their way of life (however morally reprehensible they may be) and their right to withdraw from the Union, that may not be as offensive, or as stupid as the prior group, but it still may be time for those people to join the 21st century, where states are looking to withdraw from the Union for a host of different reasons that may be looked back on by future generations as equally stupid.
The big problem I have with all of this is how the issue has now become political, in the most negative way possible. Democrat members of Congress are using the issue as a way to hold up budget battles with Republicans, instead of doing their jobs and looking out for what is best for the American people, and again, no talk is occurring about the shooter, or the victims' families who are dealing with their grief. Instead, political groups are once again taking a tragedy and couching it in a way to push forth an agenda. This is wrong, and should not be allowed to occur, but with a complacent media and 'leaders' who care only about their own fortune, that is not what happens here, or anywhere there is a tragedy.
Then there are those who would look to affect even greater gun control laws, in order to make society 'safer'. Of course, the problem with that is those who would seek to murder in this way are not ones who are going to follow laws. They'll simply buy their guns illegally, or they'll use other means to create the havoc they are seeking to achieve.
Mira Thompson, Daniel Simmons, Sr., Clementa Pinckney, Depayne Middleton, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Cynthia Hurd, and Tywanza Sanders all deserve better than that.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
The 4th of July, Global Warming, and Other Thoughts
This past Saturday (the 4th of July), I was acting exactly the same as many other Americans - hanging with family and friends, gorging myself on copious amounts of delightful foods, and watching fireworks explode in the night sky. Here's what was going on in other parts of the world, but close enough to the U.S. to cause concern, or at least it should.
That's right, Russian President was once again testing the limits, and harkened back to Top Gun times by sending a pair of Tupolev Tu-95s (which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons) approximately 55 miles off the coast of Alaska before they were scurried away by the might of two F-16s. A half an hour after that incident, (11 a.m. ET), another pair of Tupolev Tu-95s were found hanging out off the coast of central CA (again, not within U.S. airspace). They, too, were sent packing, but it is disconcerting that they were found there, and even moreso given that this occurred just two years ago, on July 4th, 2013.
Then there's ISIS, who of late have been getting their @sses handed to them by ----- and ----- (not so much the U.S., but that's more leadership's fault than that of our hard-working soldiers.), who are still murdering people in new and even more horrific ways than previously done. These are the people, you'll recall, that Obama infamously called the J.V. team.
Despite those items, and many more that are far too horrific to even let the public know about (Honestly, if these are the things that we know, can you imagine how terrible the things are that are being kept from us?), our *President* has insisted more than once that the greatest threat to our nation and planet is "Global Warming". He has insisted that the "Science is Proven", and there are a fair amount of sycophants and leeches who are willing to spout the company line, so long as they are kept in federal funding.
Often, views from the opposing side are shouted down because they are considered the 'minority view', or such thoughts would only be spoken by 'climate deniers', something no *true* scientist could ever be charged with.
Imagine my the giddy feeling that coursed through my veins when by happenstance, I stumbled across this article/video. The speaker is Ivar Giaever, late a member of American Physical Society, until 2011 when he resigned in protest to this statement put forth by the group:
My favorite moments in the video are when espouses the fact that nothing in science is incontrovertible, and making the analogy of Global Warming apologists being a new *religion*. I enjoyed these points, because they are ones that I have used in debates with members of that particular sect, and now I have a scientist, world-reknown, at that, to back my statements. It really is exhilarating. Then there were the moments when he called Obama 'ridiculous' and stated that he was 'dead wrong' on Global Warming.
I might not stop smiling for a week.
That's right, Russian President was once again testing the limits, and harkened back to Top Gun times by sending a pair of Tupolev Tu-95s (which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons) approximately 55 miles off the coast of Alaska before they were scurried away by the might of two F-16s. A half an hour after that incident, (11 a.m. ET), another pair of Tupolev Tu-95s were found hanging out off the coast of central CA (again, not within U.S. airspace). They, too, were sent packing, but it is disconcerting that they were found there, and even moreso given that this occurred just two years ago, on July 4th, 2013.
Then there's ISIS, who of late have been getting their @sses handed to them by ----- and ----- (not so much the U.S., but that's more leadership's fault than that of our hard-working soldiers.), who are still murdering people in new and even more horrific ways than previously done. These are the people, you'll recall, that Obama infamously called the J.V. team.
Despite those items, and many more that are far too horrific to even let the public know about (Honestly, if these are the things that we know, can you imagine how terrible the things are that are being kept from us?), our *President* has insisted more than once that the greatest threat to our nation and planet is "Global Warming". He has insisted that the "Science is Proven", and there are a fair amount of sycophants and leeches who are willing to spout the company line, so long as they are kept in federal funding.
Often, views from the opposing side are shouted down because they are considered the 'minority view', or such thoughts would only be spoken by 'climate deniers', something no *true* scientist could ever be charged with.
Imagine my the giddy feeling that coursed through my veins when by happenstance, I stumbled across this article/video. The speaker is Ivar Giaever, late a member of American Physical Society, until 2011 when he resigned in protest to this statement put forth by the group:
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.His audience was the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting, and his statements are huge for several reasons. First, he is a man who allegedly supported Obama as he campaigned to become President back in 2007 - 08. Secondly, he is an unquestioned man of science, one whose opinion can not simply be discounted as an example of a 'climate denier'. Third, it re-opens the debate with regard to what is 'proven' science, and what is still up for grabs. Most importantly, to me at least, is that it should allow Obama to move on from this topic and get back to what's really important - protecting the American people.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
My favorite moments in the video are when espouses the fact that nothing in science is incontrovertible, and making the analogy of Global Warming apologists being a new *religion*. I enjoyed these points, because they are ones that I have used in debates with members of that particular sect, and now I have a scientist, world-reknown, at that, to back my statements. It really is exhilarating. Then there were the moments when he called Obama 'ridiculous' and stated that he was 'dead wrong' on Global Warming.
I might not stop smiling for a week.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Why Can't Rachel Dolezal Identify As Black?
A couple of weeks ago, Rachel Dolezal caused a sensation when she told Matt Lauer that she 'identified as black'. The problem, for most of us, at least, is that her skin tones would tend to suggest a far whiter ancestry, which her parents confirmed her heritage as Chech, Swedish, German, and a smattering of Native American.
To be clear, I find Dolezal's argument to be facetious, not to say stupid. Of course she's not black, which is not to say that she was not doing a good job for the NAACP in Spokane. She may well have been, but apparently, that's not what the issue is. The issue is her race, and what/whom determines it.
Perhaps in a year of 'change', Dolezal simply assumed that it was what one thought of oneself that determined what one was. Case in point, Bruce Jenner, former Gold Medal Olympian, the biggest man's man going, and one of the most famous athletes in the world back in the day. Jenner decided that he was a woman, and the world, for the most part, went along with it. ESPN went so far as to give Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award stating in part:
If that was the case, she would have done well to examine the case of Riley Weston, who in 1998 lost her writing gig with Touchstone Television when it was revealed that she was 32, not the 19 she had claimed to be. Weston was genetically blessed enough that this ruse was easily accomplished, until her star began to shine too brightly.
It's also possible that Dolezal was taking her lead from former President Bill Clinton, who identified as the nation's 'first black' President. In fact, Clinton was honored by the Congressional Black Congress for being just that. At the ceremony Clinton said "I am happy in Harlem and I am honored to be thought of as the first black president." Congressman John Lewis said of Clinton "He understands the hopes and dreams and the frustration of African- Americans. We identify with him and he can identify with us."
So perhaps the big mistake that Dolezal made was not getting an important enough person to give her permission to identify as black. If that had occurred, then she may not have all the problems she is currently going through.
Then again, in a year in which a CAT wins the National Hero Dog Award, anything and everything is on the table. Unfortunately for Dolezal, her story is not compelling enough, and it doesn't fit any storyline that the media or politicians are trying to force down our throats.
To be clear, I find Dolezal's argument to be facetious, not to say stupid. Of course she's not black, which is not to say that she was not doing a good job for the NAACP in Spokane. She may well have been, but apparently, that's not what the issue is. The issue is her race, and what/whom determines it.
Perhaps in a year of 'change', Dolezal simply assumed that it was what one thought of oneself that determined what one was. Case in point, Bruce Jenner, former Gold Medal Olympian, the biggest man's man going, and one of the most famous athletes in the world back in the day. Jenner decided that he was a woman, and the world, for the most part, went along with it. ESPN went so far as to give Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award stating in part:
This year, we are proud to honor...Jenner embracing her identity and doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue about progress and acceptance.In light of that Award, it might be easy to understand why Dolezal could think that one only had to put forth what they 'believed' they were, and they would be universally accepted.
If that was the case, she would have done well to examine the case of Riley Weston, who in 1998 lost her writing gig with Touchstone Television when it was revealed that she was 32, not the 19 she had claimed to be. Weston was genetically blessed enough that this ruse was easily accomplished, until her star began to shine too brightly.
It's also possible that Dolezal was taking her lead from former President Bill Clinton, who identified as the nation's 'first black' President. In fact, Clinton was honored by the Congressional Black Congress for being just that. At the ceremony Clinton said "I am happy in Harlem and I am honored to be thought of as the first black president." Congressman John Lewis said of Clinton "He understands the hopes and dreams and the frustration of African- Americans. We identify with him and he can identify with us."
So perhaps the big mistake that Dolezal made was not getting an important enough person to give her permission to identify as black. If that had occurred, then she may not have all the problems she is currently going through.
Then again, in a year in which a CAT wins the National Hero Dog Award, anything and everything is on the table. Unfortunately for Dolezal, her story is not compelling enough, and it doesn't fit any storyline that the media or politicians are trying to force down our throats.
This
year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and
doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue
about progress and acceptance. - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf
his
year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and
doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue
about progress and acceptance. - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf
his
year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and
doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue
about progress and acceptance. - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Is Taylor Swift the Most Powerful Woman in the World?
In the world today, there are currently 22 women who are the leaders of their nations, with Chancellor Angela Merkel having the longest tenure. She took power on November 22, 2005.
On that same date, Taylor Swift's major label debut album was nearly a full year away (it would hit the world on October 24th, 2006.) Since that time, Swift has released 4 more studio albums that have hit #1 on the Billboard chart, sold over 40 million albums across the globe and she has topped 130 million digital downloads of her songs. She has also toured nearly non-stop, selling out venues everywhere and anywhere that hosts artists. Merkel has chaired the G8, and in 2013 was named the world's most powerful woman by Forbes magazine.
However, for all she has done, nothing that Merkel has done in her long career can compete with what Swift did this week, without even releasing a new album.
Earlier this month, Apple announced that they would be jumping in to the streaming music business, launching 24 hour a day radio stations that would allow for paid subscribers and 'free accounts'. The new venture is scheduled to start on June 30th, and to garner attention and subscribers, Apple announced new users would receive the service for 'free' for 3 months. What was not as widely publicized was the fact that Apple also would not pay artists for their music that they played.
Enter Taylor Swift, who took umbridge with this maneuver by Apple. She penned an open letter to Apple stating her decision to not allow her latest release, 1989, to be part of Apple's streaming service, because she felt it would unfairly deprive artists, in particular new or less 'famous' artists of revenue. She noted that with 5 studio albums in hand, along with a world tour, she is more than able to pay her bills and tuck money away for a rainy day, but new artists could not afford such a period of time without being paid. She closed her letter by stating:
I first saw Swift's letter yesterday (06-21-2015.) Less than 24 hours later, Apple changed course, and precisely as Swift asked them to do, announced that they would pay artists per stream, even during the promotional period. This is a huge victory for struggling artists, and puts Swift squarely in the driver's seat for the title "Most Powerful Woman in the World". The next time Merkel takes down an $800 Billion behemoth in under 500 words, she can feel free to re-apply for the title. Until such time, it's Swift's.
On that same date, Taylor Swift's major label debut album was nearly a full year away (it would hit the world on October 24th, 2006.) Since that time, Swift has released 4 more studio albums that have hit #1 on the Billboard chart, sold over 40 million albums across the globe and she has topped 130 million digital downloads of her songs. She has also toured nearly non-stop, selling out venues everywhere and anywhere that hosts artists. Merkel has chaired the G8, and in 2013 was named the world's most powerful woman by Forbes magazine.
However, for all she has done, nothing that Merkel has done in her long career can compete with what Swift did this week, without even releasing a new album.
Earlier this month, Apple announced that they would be jumping in to the streaming music business, launching 24 hour a day radio stations that would allow for paid subscribers and 'free accounts'. The new venture is scheduled to start on June 30th, and to garner attention and subscribers, Apple announced new users would receive the service for 'free' for 3 months. What was not as widely publicized was the fact that Apple also would not pay artists for their music that they played.
Enter Taylor Swift, who took umbridge with this maneuver by Apple. She penned an open letter to Apple stating her decision to not allow her latest release, 1989, to be part of Apple's streaming service, because she felt it would unfairly deprive artists, in particular new or less 'famous' artists of revenue. She noted that with 5 studio albums in hand, along with a world tour, she is more than able to pay her bills and tuck money away for a rainy day, but new artists could not afford such a period of time without being paid. She closed her letter by stating:
We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.Back in 1994, one of the biggest musical acts in the world, Pearl Jam, launched a campaign against ticketmaster due to what they felt were unfair practices by the ticket seller. There were campaigns, Congressional hearings, and Pearl Jam even staged their own short-lived tour all to no avail, but a year and a half later, Ticketmaster crushed Pearl Jam, and there has been no substantive movement against them in the nearly 20 years since.
I first saw Swift's letter yesterday (06-21-2015.) Less than 24 hours later, Apple changed course, and precisely as Swift asked them to do, announced that they would pay artists per stream, even during the promotional period. This is a huge victory for struggling artists, and puts Swift squarely in the driver's seat for the title "Most Powerful Woman in the World". The next time Merkel takes down an $800 Billion behemoth in under 500 words, she can feel free to re-apply for the title. Until such time, it's Swift's.
Monday, June 1, 2015
The CA Union Shell Game
The impetus for today's argument comes from this article published in the L.A. Times that lays out the argument of Rusty Hicks, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, to allow exemptions for unionized employers with regard to the new, mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage that was implemented.
The main reason for these exemptions, so Hicks' argument goes, is that workers who are unionized and their employees should be allowed to set their rate of pay at whatever they see fit. Normally, I'd be in lock step with Hicks, because after all, this is America, and one of our fundamental rights should be the ability to determine what our own value is in the free market.
However, in this instance, I'm going to take umbrage with Hicks and his union cohorts, for this simple reason: they were the ones who fought tooth and nail to make sure that the minimum wage was approved. As is always the case, it was cloaked with words of caring for the poor, the underprivileged, none of whom would ever be associated with organized labor. What a joke.
Having worked in various union shops, I can say without question that the only thing that labor leaders care about is the amount of union dues they collect so that they can line their own pockets with fatter salaries. This would be fine, because this is also the American way- get paid as much as you can without violating the law. The big difference here is that once a shop is unionized, workers' rights go out the window. There is nearly never an opportunity for someone to come in and work in an union shop unless they first join the union and pay dues.
In today's age, I find it nearly impossible that anyone, anywhere who is working a legal job is in need of a union. Union leaders come up with great slogans and rally people against corporate big wigs, but they never take the time to mention that they are part of that power structure. They are the 1%, and will continue to be so, as long as there are new recruits in to the system to pay dues. Without that, the system collapses. If time allowed, an analogy to our Social Security crisis could be made, but we'll save that for another day.
So Hicks and his union cohorts force through a minimum wage hike, all the while pretending that it is to benefit the workers that they 'represent'. Once the initiative goes through, and 'private' businesses are subject to the law, the union leaders then petition for an exemption that will allow unionized companies to pay a sub-minimum wage to their employees. Who might benefit from this scenario?
Unions, of course, along with their 'leaders'. By increasing the 'minimum' wage to such a ridiculous level, if unions are given an exemption, companies would be foolish to not allow their businesses to unionize, because it will allow them to keep their labor costs down. The net result is that there is no real gain for the average worker, but there is a money transfer from the lower level (the "99%") to the upper levels (union leaders, or the "1%".)
The rhetoric won't play out that way, because the union leadership is not as dumb as most of the nation is. They'll spin how great a deal it is for their workers, and the members will parrot what they're told, because just like in 1984, it's what you do. You do what is asked of you, and never question why your leaders can't seem to move you forward. This is nothing more than a shell game, and the big losers in the equation are the employees who thought their lot might somehow be improved.
The main reason for these exemptions, so Hicks' argument goes, is that workers who are unionized and their employees should be allowed to set their rate of pay at whatever they see fit. Normally, I'd be in lock step with Hicks, because after all, this is America, and one of our fundamental rights should be the ability to determine what our own value is in the free market.
However, in this instance, I'm going to take umbrage with Hicks and his union cohorts, for this simple reason: they were the ones who fought tooth and nail to make sure that the minimum wage was approved. As is always the case, it was cloaked with words of caring for the poor, the underprivileged, none of whom would ever be associated with organized labor. What a joke.
Having worked in various union shops, I can say without question that the only thing that labor leaders care about is the amount of union dues they collect so that they can line their own pockets with fatter salaries. This would be fine, because this is also the American way- get paid as much as you can without violating the law. The big difference here is that once a shop is unionized, workers' rights go out the window. There is nearly never an opportunity for someone to come in and work in an union shop unless they first join the union and pay dues.
In today's age, I find it nearly impossible that anyone, anywhere who is working a legal job is in need of a union. Union leaders come up with great slogans and rally people against corporate big wigs, but they never take the time to mention that they are part of that power structure. They are the 1%, and will continue to be so, as long as there are new recruits in to the system to pay dues. Without that, the system collapses. If time allowed, an analogy to our Social Security crisis could be made, but we'll save that for another day.
So Hicks and his union cohorts force through a minimum wage hike, all the while pretending that it is to benefit the workers that they 'represent'. Once the initiative goes through, and 'private' businesses are subject to the law, the union leaders then petition for an exemption that will allow unionized companies to pay a sub-minimum wage to their employees. Who might benefit from this scenario?
Unions, of course, along with their 'leaders'. By increasing the 'minimum' wage to such a ridiculous level, if unions are given an exemption, companies would be foolish to not allow their businesses to unionize, because it will allow them to keep their labor costs down. The net result is that there is no real gain for the average worker, but there is a money transfer from the lower level (the "99%") to the upper levels (union leaders, or the "1%".)
The rhetoric won't play out that way, because the union leadership is not as dumb as most of the nation is. They'll spin how great a deal it is for their workers, and the members will parrot what they're told, because just like in 1984, it's what you do. You do what is asked of you, and never question why your leaders can't seem to move you forward. This is nothing more than a shell game, and the big losers in the equation are the employees who thought their lot might somehow be improved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)