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.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Michael Moore Is a Passive-Aggressive, Self-Promoting D-Bag...
...but anyone with a brain already knew that.
The impetus for today's argument comes from a series of tweets and posts that Mr. Michael Moore put out over the weekend. Ostensibly, he was only talking about his uncle who was murdered during WWII by a Japanese sniper when he said that "we were taught that snipers were cowards." He went on to say that only a coward would kill another person through the skills of a sniper.
Without getting too far in to the insanity of Moore's attempts to defend himself, I have to ask, what is the line that makes someone a coward when they are engaged in war? He seems to indict all snipers, including Chris Kyle, the subject of Clint Eastwood's latest project American Sniper as cowards, despite his words to the contrary. He also took the time to state that Jesse James (who killed many men, and in many ways could be seen as a home grown 'terrorist', in the strictest sense of the word) was not a scoundrel, but rather it was the man (Robert Ford) that backshot James who was the 'bad guy'. Of course, Ford didn't 'snipe' James, but shot him in the back, as an alleged confident. How Moore makes a connection between what Ford did, what James Earl Ray (the man who shot Martin Luther King, Jr., the act that Moore was allegedly referencing, and only that one. If you believe the pompous ass.), and what Chris Kyle did as a soldier fighting an enemy of the United States is beyond me, but I can say that it is completely without tact and is below a dignified man to have made such statements. Fortunately enough for Moore, he is not a dignified man, but is rather a despicable human being who will doing anything to further his own agenda.
As disgusted as I am with Moore's antics, one can't help admire the way he managed to remind the public that he still exists, and to get himself intertwined with a much more accomplished movie maker (Eastwood) while tying his name to the biggest film of the season. As morally reprehensible as his actions are, they further his brand, and make him more of a god-like figure in the deluded minds of his followers. Of course, none of them are intelligent enough to realize that he puts in to practice methods of persons (capitalists, of which he is a leader) that they all believe he hates. It would be comical, if he wasn't such a schmuck.
The impetus for today's argument comes from a series of tweets and posts that Mr. Michael Moore put out over the weekend. Ostensibly, he was only talking about his uncle who was murdered during WWII by a Japanese sniper when he said that "we were taught that snipers were cowards." He went on to say that only a coward would kill another person through the skills of a sniper.
Without getting too far in to the insanity of Moore's attempts to defend himself, I have to ask, what is the line that makes someone a coward when they are engaged in war? He seems to indict all snipers, including Chris Kyle, the subject of Clint Eastwood's latest project American Sniper as cowards, despite his words to the contrary. He also took the time to state that Jesse James (who killed many men, and in many ways could be seen as a home grown 'terrorist', in the strictest sense of the word) was not a scoundrel, but rather it was the man (Robert Ford) that backshot James who was the 'bad guy'. Of course, Ford didn't 'snipe' James, but shot him in the back, as an alleged confident. How Moore makes a connection between what Ford did, what James Earl Ray (the man who shot Martin Luther King, Jr., the act that Moore was allegedly referencing, and only that one. If you believe the pompous ass.), and what Chris Kyle did as a soldier fighting an enemy of the United States is beyond me, but I can say that it is completely without tact and is below a dignified man to have made such statements. Fortunately enough for Moore, he is not a dignified man, but is rather a despicable human being who will doing anything to further his own agenda.
As disgusted as I am with Moore's antics, one can't help admire the way he managed to remind the public that he still exists, and to get himself intertwined with a much more accomplished movie maker (Eastwood) while tying his name to the biggest film of the season. As morally reprehensible as his actions are, they further his brand, and make him more of a god-like figure in the deluded minds of his followers. Of course, none of them are intelligent enough to realize that he puts in to practice methods of persons (capitalists, of which he is a leader) that they all believe he hates. It would be comical, if he wasn't such a schmuck.
Friday, January 16, 2015
9/11 Thoughts From 2012: This Happened
This Happened
September 11, 2012 at 9:32pm
On
December 8th, 1941 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a
speech in which he stated that "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date
which will live in infamy" (listen to the audio here: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5166/)
with regard to the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. It was a powerful
speech, one that closed with FDR stating "But always will our whole
nation remember the character of the onslaught against us."Within one
hour's time, Congress had passed a declaration of war that plunged the
U.S. headlong in to WWII, and the rest became our history.I think about
that quote a lot every year as we approach and pause to honor the
victims and heroes of September 11, 2001. I think about it, because I
know far fewer people who take even a moment out of their day in
remembrance of the thousands of Americans who lost their lives on
December 7, 1941.
Seventy years hence, and the actions of that day are nearly forgotten, and with each member of the Greatest Generation that passes, we lose more of our physical contact to the horrors of that day.
September 11th is nowhere near that point. In fact, I think that thanks to social media, the realization of what actually occurred may be stronger than at any point since the first couple of years after it happened. To all of us now, it would seem inconceivable that the horrors of that day could ever be forgotten, but I'm confident that those who were alive when the Pearl Harbor attacks occurred.
To the men and women who read the news of the murders that occurred at Auschwitz and other German concentration camps, it would have seemed impossible that 70 years in to the future, there would be those who would deny that such camps ever existed.
History is often malleable, memories are fleeting, services such as YouTube and news organizations are subject to censorship at the whim of whomever controls government. I don't expect anyone who lived through the terror of that day to ever forget the images that they saw, or the loss of life and family they may have gone through.
I do think it is important to say that this happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKZqqSI9-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY&feature=fvwrel
It's important that it is done without political or religious connotations, because that is not what is important on this date. This day should always exclusively be about the loss that we suffered as a nation, and as individuals throughout the nation. We should never forget those who perished, nor should we forget those who risked everything to save strangers. It is a day that should be kept hallow. Politicians should not be allowed to use anything that occurred on that day for political gain, and those that attempt to do so should be tossed from office.
It is a day that belongs to Americans, and while the feeling of loss should never go away, there is also reason for celebration. We still stand, through it all.
It is a day for Americans, wherever we may be, wherever we may have come from, to come together. It is a day we must never forget.
Seventy years hence, and the actions of that day are nearly forgotten, and with each member of the Greatest Generation that passes, we lose more of our physical contact to the horrors of that day.
September 11th is nowhere near that point. In fact, I think that thanks to social media, the realization of what actually occurred may be stronger than at any point since the first couple of years after it happened. To all of us now, it would seem inconceivable that the horrors of that day could ever be forgotten, but I'm confident that those who were alive when the Pearl Harbor attacks occurred.
To the men and women who read the news of the murders that occurred at Auschwitz and other German concentration camps, it would have seemed impossible that 70 years in to the future, there would be those who would deny that such camps ever existed.
History is often malleable, memories are fleeting, services such as YouTube and news organizations are subject to censorship at the whim of whomever controls government. I don't expect anyone who lived through the terror of that day to ever forget the images that they saw, or the loss of life and family they may have gone through.
I do think it is important to say that this happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKZqqSI9-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY&feature=fvwrel
It's important that it is done without political or religious connotations, because that is not what is important on this date. This day should always exclusively be about the loss that we suffered as a nation, and as individuals throughout the nation. We should never forget those who perished, nor should we forget those who risked everything to save strangers. It is a day that should be kept hallow. Politicians should not be allowed to use anything that occurred on that day for political gain, and those that attempt to do so should be tossed from office.
It is a day that belongs to Americans, and while the feeling of loss should never go away, there is also reason for celebration. We still stand, through it all.
It is a day for Americans, wherever we may be, wherever we may have come from, to come together. It is a day we must never forget.
9/11 Thoughts from 2011: Dear Terrorists
Dear Terrorists
September 11, 2011 at 11:07pm
It was only one year ago that I was lamenting over what I perceived to
be the lack of caring and the apparent short term memory problems that I
believed our nation to be suffering with regard to the events of
09/11/2001. Not too long ago, I feared the same thing, that perhaps 10
years might have become the statute of limitations for tragedy in our
high-speed world, and in that thought, I made the same mistake that I
believe that the original terrorists made when they attacked us, and
those who continue to look to do harm to us make, too.
Dear Terrorists, I am quite certain that you believed that you struck a great victory against the United States on 09/11/2001. Surely watching one of our greatest cities suffer the loss of 3000 or so lives stolen from us, and the aftermath for all the families who personally had to deal with the thought and reality that their mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, sisters and brothers were never going to come home again. They had to deal with the reality that their lives had been extinguished by an Evil that we as Americans tend to try and be intentionally naive to. We will make excuses, we will flat out deny, and we will even outright defend those that we know may be causing harm, as long as we put it in the context that it is happening somewhere else, not here, not to us. You shook that belief, and in so doing, thought that we would collapse and perhaps you would not have to deal with us anymore, except as you saw fit with regard to more terrorist action.
I don't think that with the benefit of hindsight, 10 years hence, you would have anticipated us to still be standing, divided as we may be, with your "leader" and many other high-ranking members of your organization dead. We will continue to come for you, not because we chose this battle, but because your brought this battle to our shores and forced us to recognize that in a global community, there really isn't any such thing as "over there" anymore. Not when jet planes can be hijacked and flown anywhere in the world and utilized as a rocket to decimate structures. We do not choose to put our young men and women in harm's way, but we do so because your actions have made it necessary, and we do so hoping that God may protect and return them all home safely to us. We look forward to the day when they all can come home and we do not have to continue to fight this long, protracted war, that in this moment, seems to have no end in sight. We fight you "over there" with the hope that we will never have to fight you "here", and we remain vigilant against future attacks. If you so chose, you could count that as a 'victory' for your side, that we have had to let go of some of our willful naiveté, so that we may not ever deal with such catastrophic loss again, but I would think that even you, dear terrorists, would have to agree that is a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Dear Terrorists, what you took for weakness was more of picture of our Laissez-faire lifestyle. When you look at us, you see a nation divided, one that will see us pitted against each other for the slightest advantage, and I can only assume that your thoughts were that we would be easily exploited. Of course, in doing so, you failed to follow the most simple adage that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. True enough, if you follow our news in any way, you see a nation that often times is at each other's throats, quite literally. What you failed to realize, however, is how quickly we would circle our wagons once attacked. You failed to recognize the power of the American spirit, and what that truly means. It is understandable, I have lived here my entire life, and as noted at the beginning, I even doubt it sometimes, but if you watch carefully, it always reappears. We love nothing more than to celebrate rebirth and hope for a reason to pull together, even as it appears we are driving ourselves further apart.
Dear Terrorists, perhaps the most grievous mistake you made, following your attacks, was to assume that this would be the end of American civilization. You failed to recognize that by ordering these attacks, you would give us cause to come together, for comfort and for strength. Left to our own devices, we would not likely have sought you out. We had no interest in killing any of you or your followers, even if we publicly (or privately) disagreed with your actions in other parts of the world. By attacking us here, by forcing our nation to become part of those that can lay claim to having been a victim of international terrorists, you brought us together. It is tragic, it is sad, but it is true. There is not an American today who did not pause for at least one moment to consider what happened on our shores 10 years ago, and to think about the sacrifice that those in our armed forces and their families continue to make on a daily basis, in order to ensure that we never have to survive another day such as that. That was a magnificent failure on your part.
Today, on the 10th anniversary of the most tragic days we have seen, our nation again pulled together. We did so on many levels, whether it be a parade/memorial service/dedication in one of our small towns, up to and through all levels of government. At our sports arenas the nation over, there were ceremonies to honor those that died, and for those who survived and must continue on. The stories of those who sacrificed and risked their own lives in order to attempt to save others at the World Trade Center site, to those who knowingly gave their lives on Flight 93, in order to avoid even more destruction on the ground below. These people are our heroes, and while we may not know all their names specifically, we know of their actions, and we honor their sacrifice, and we celebrate in the best ways we know how.
Dear Terrorists, in closing, I urge you to consider all the death that has come on both sides due to your decisions that led to 09/11/2001. As Americans, we are a forgiving society. Again, if you turn to history, you will see that with time, we generally will forgive any enemy, no matter the harm that may have been caused by them. You could start with the English, whom we fought two wars with in a span of 40 years, and move along through our own Civil War and in to WWI and WWII. When it was called upon, our nation fought, but just as soon as we could, we laid down arms and began the process of rebuilding. It might be a special situation with you, dear terrorists, given all the harm and pain that you have caused, but I am confident in us as Americans, that we would eventually forgive even the Evil that you rained down on us. We continue to fight, because it is necessary, because your actions demand it, but if given the opportunity, we would just as soon peace. It suits us better.
Dear Terrorists, the onus is on you. This is a fight that exists because of your actions, because of the path that you chose. In so doing, you tied our fates together. You may think that you have the will to outlast us, that eventually we will cave and we give in. I promise that is not the case, for so many different reasons. We will fight as long as we must, and we will not quit until we are sure of our security. We will never forget your actions of those day, nor will we ever forgive them, because they are unforgivable. That which has transpired since can be forgiven, though. We will remember those that we lost, the lives that were cut short, and we will aid those that were left behind. We are America, and that is how we roll. For as long as the sun is set in the sky, we shall continue to be the beacon of shining light for this world. It is a responsibility we may not always seem to take seriously, but we really do. I promise you.
Dear Terrorists, lay down you arms, so that we may do the same.
Dear Terrorists, I am quite certain that you believed that you struck a great victory against the United States on 09/11/2001. Surely watching one of our greatest cities suffer the loss of 3000 or so lives stolen from us, and the aftermath for all the families who personally had to deal with the thought and reality that their mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, sisters and brothers were never going to come home again. They had to deal with the reality that their lives had been extinguished by an Evil that we as Americans tend to try and be intentionally naive to. We will make excuses, we will flat out deny, and we will even outright defend those that we know may be causing harm, as long as we put it in the context that it is happening somewhere else, not here, not to us. You shook that belief, and in so doing, thought that we would collapse and perhaps you would not have to deal with us anymore, except as you saw fit with regard to more terrorist action.
I don't think that with the benefit of hindsight, 10 years hence, you would have anticipated us to still be standing, divided as we may be, with your "leader" and many other high-ranking members of your organization dead. We will continue to come for you, not because we chose this battle, but because your brought this battle to our shores and forced us to recognize that in a global community, there really isn't any such thing as "over there" anymore. Not when jet planes can be hijacked and flown anywhere in the world and utilized as a rocket to decimate structures. We do not choose to put our young men and women in harm's way, but we do so because your actions have made it necessary, and we do so hoping that God may protect and return them all home safely to us. We look forward to the day when they all can come home and we do not have to continue to fight this long, protracted war, that in this moment, seems to have no end in sight. We fight you "over there" with the hope that we will never have to fight you "here", and we remain vigilant against future attacks. If you so chose, you could count that as a 'victory' for your side, that we have had to let go of some of our willful naiveté, so that we may not ever deal with such catastrophic loss again, but I would think that even you, dear terrorists, would have to agree that is a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Dear Terrorists, what you took for weakness was more of picture of our Laissez-faire lifestyle. When you look at us, you see a nation divided, one that will see us pitted against each other for the slightest advantage, and I can only assume that your thoughts were that we would be easily exploited. Of course, in doing so, you failed to follow the most simple adage that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. True enough, if you follow our news in any way, you see a nation that often times is at each other's throats, quite literally. What you failed to realize, however, is how quickly we would circle our wagons once attacked. You failed to recognize the power of the American spirit, and what that truly means. It is understandable, I have lived here my entire life, and as noted at the beginning, I even doubt it sometimes, but if you watch carefully, it always reappears. We love nothing more than to celebrate rebirth and hope for a reason to pull together, even as it appears we are driving ourselves further apart.
Dear Terrorists, perhaps the most grievous mistake you made, following your attacks, was to assume that this would be the end of American civilization. You failed to recognize that by ordering these attacks, you would give us cause to come together, for comfort and for strength. Left to our own devices, we would not likely have sought you out. We had no interest in killing any of you or your followers, even if we publicly (or privately) disagreed with your actions in other parts of the world. By attacking us here, by forcing our nation to become part of those that can lay claim to having been a victim of international terrorists, you brought us together. It is tragic, it is sad, but it is true. There is not an American today who did not pause for at least one moment to consider what happened on our shores 10 years ago, and to think about the sacrifice that those in our armed forces and their families continue to make on a daily basis, in order to ensure that we never have to survive another day such as that. That was a magnificent failure on your part.
Today, on the 10th anniversary of the most tragic days we have seen, our nation again pulled together. We did so on many levels, whether it be a parade/memorial service/dedication in one of our small towns, up to and through all levels of government. At our sports arenas the nation over, there were ceremonies to honor those that died, and for those who survived and must continue on. The stories of those who sacrificed and risked their own lives in order to attempt to save others at the World Trade Center site, to those who knowingly gave their lives on Flight 93, in order to avoid even more destruction on the ground below. These people are our heroes, and while we may not know all their names specifically, we know of their actions, and we honor their sacrifice, and we celebrate in the best ways we know how.
Dear Terrorists, in closing, I urge you to consider all the death that has come on both sides due to your decisions that led to 09/11/2001. As Americans, we are a forgiving society. Again, if you turn to history, you will see that with time, we generally will forgive any enemy, no matter the harm that may have been caused by them. You could start with the English, whom we fought two wars with in a span of 40 years, and move along through our own Civil War and in to WWI and WWII. When it was called upon, our nation fought, but just as soon as we could, we laid down arms and began the process of rebuilding. It might be a special situation with you, dear terrorists, given all the harm and pain that you have caused, but I am confident in us as Americans, that we would eventually forgive even the Evil that you rained down on us. We continue to fight, because it is necessary, because your actions demand it, but if given the opportunity, we would just as soon peace. It suits us better.
Dear Terrorists, the onus is on you. This is a fight that exists because of your actions, because of the path that you chose. In so doing, you tied our fates together. You may think that you have the will to outlast us, that eventually we will cave and we give in. I promise that is not the case, for so many different reasons. We will fight as long as we must, and we will not quit until we are sure of our security. We will never forget your actions of those day, nor will we ever forgive them, because they are unforgivable. That which has transpired since can be forgiven, though. We will remember those that we lost, the lives that were cut short, and we will aid those that were left behind. We are America, and that is how we roll. For as long as the sun is set in the sky, we shall continue to be the beacon of shining light for this world. It is a responsibility we may not always seem to take seriously, but we really do. I promise you.
Dear Terrorists, lay down you arms, so that we may do the same.
9/11 Thoughts from 2010: Still Standing
Still Standing
September 11, 2010 at 11:59pm
The one and only positive that could be drawn from the destruction that
was rained down on our nation on 09.11.2001 was the way that for one
brief moment, we as Americans stood as a unified nation, looking to lend
a helping hand or offer a shoulder to cry on for those who were most
affected by the tragedy. It would have been a far more beautiful
moment, if not for the tragedy and horror that stood as the backdrop for
our nation. While it was a terrible blow to our nation, and most
specifically to those who lost family members or friends, it
accomplished something that those who perpetrated that unspeakable act
could not have foreseen, it brought us together, regardless of race,
religion, or political orientation, we stood united. True, some of it
may have simply been an act (think political 'leaders'), but I refuse to
believe that average Americans were false in their sentiment. I had grown concerned moreso than ever that we were fulfilling Eddie Vedder's words of becoming a "nation of amnesiacs", and that 09.11.2001 was fading from our collective memories. Between a fanatical preacher threatening to burn copies of the Koran, and the group looking to build a mosque in the literal shadow of where the twin towers once stood, it seemed that we had lost our course, and we were well on our way to allowing ourselves to be divided over what in the grand scheme of things are fairly trivial matters, while not focusing on what should matter most: those who were murdered in that atrocious act, and our brave soldiers who spend every day protecting our freedom and preserving our safety here at home.
Then today came, and it seemed everywhere I turned, there was recollections of memories of that day, and well wishes for those who were lost, and those they left behind, and I will admit freely, I was heartened. Seeing signs in rememberance of that day, and the South Hadley fire department proudly, triumphantly hanging our flag, it said to me that we were still here, we are still one, even if we don't always agree, even if at times we may want to literally battle each other, we're still here. We took the best shot that those who sought to destroy us had to offer, and still, we are here; they attempted to alter our daily lives by instilling fear, and we are still here. We Still Stand.
Perhaps we are not of the same Oneness that we were in the weeks and months after that attack, but for the most part, the citizens of this country still want the same thing: the best life they can provide for their family and a safe place to live. The fact that we are able to have discourse and disagree and call each other names without fear of being imprisoned or simply disappearing from the known face of the planet is a cause for celebration. We are a great nation, a great civilization, perhaps the best and brightest this planet has ever known, and great nations are generally not taken out by an outside foe, but rather through failed internal policies. Let us hope and pray that we always choose the correct course to keep our nation great, and more importantly, let the day never come that we should ever forget those that were lost, and how all of our lives were inevitably changed.
Friday, January 2, 2015
A Modest Proposal For a New Constitutional Amendment
The impetus for today's argument comes from my considering the upcoming 114th Congress, and the harm (or if we're lucky, 'good') they might get up to over the next two years.
The problem many politicians have (politicians of all parties) is that they tend to run on one platform, but they get to Washington, D.C. and forget all about the promises they made to get themselves elected. Nearly as often, they end up going back not only on their campaign promises, but they violate our U.S. Constitution along the way, suffering no consequences except possibly not being re-elected.
Voters have few options when things like this occur, except to vote out the offending official, and hope that their luck is better with the next candidate.
My modest proposal to fix that problem is this:
Now, assuming that my amendment could drum up the necessary support to become law, there would be only two possible outcomes: Politicians would straighten up and actually do the jobs that they are Constitutionally required to do. The alternate is that we would need to come up with a new system for replacing politicians who insist on violating the U.S. Constitution, because the impracticality of holding several national elections a year might grow a bit tiresome.
I don't expect that my proposal will gather much steam on Capitol Hill, but perhaps if it is brought to the people, we can add amendment number 28 to our Constitution before the 115th session of Congress takes a seat.
The problem many politicians have (politicians of all parties) is that they tend to run on one platform, but they get to Washington, D.C. and forget all about the promises they made to get themselves elected. Nearly as often, they end up going back not only on their campaign promises, but they violate our U.S. Constitution along the way, suffering no consequences except possibly not being re-elected.
Voters have few options when things like this occur, except to vote out the offending official, and hope that their luck is better with the next candidate.
My modest proposal to fix that problem is this:
Any member of the U.S. Congress, or any person serving as President or Vice-President of the United States who either votes for a bill, or signs a bill in to law that violates any portion of the U.S. Constitution shall be removed from office forthwith.So for instance, when former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made this statement regarding the passage of Obamacare:
We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is inside of it...It's probably a good indication that anyone voting for such a bill (and anyone signing it in to law) is going to violate one principle of the U.S. Constitution or another. When that happens, each and every person who is responsible for said bill's passage should be removed from office. My proposed amendment would do exactly that.
Now, assuming that my amendment could drum up the necessary support to become law, there would be only two possible outcomes: Politicians would straighten up and actually do the jobs that they are Constitutionally required to do. The alternate is that we would need to come up with a new system for replacing politicians who insist on violating the U.S. Constitution, because the impracticality of holding several national elections a year might grow a bit tiresome.
I don't expect that my proposal will gather much steam on Capitol Hill, but perhaps if it is brought to the people, we can add amendment number 28 to our Constitution before the 115th session of Congress takes a seat.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
The Time has Come To Bring Back Public Executions
The impetus for today's argument is the senseless murders of NYC police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu yesterday (12.20.2014), but it is something that has been building over the last couple of decades. The loss of life simply does not mean as much in our society it ought to, regardless of race, creed, religion, or any other marker that we care to create. People kill each other, and for the most part, do not expect to face any type of consequences, at least not anything that puts a crimp in their lifestyle.
We've been told #BlackLives matter, which they do (though not enough for any form of protest when any of the 2,245 blacks were killed by another black person in 2013, according to government statistics.) We've also had other camps weigh in and post that #WhiteLives matter, and so do #CopLives matter. Not nearly enough people, however, have focused on the fact that #AllLives matter.
It's been bandied about that the reason for this is that the 'gangsta' lifestyle is glorified in various media, which may play a part in it. Others have decried violent video games, and like-minded movies and television programs. These are certainly options, too, but not the main cause, in my opinion.
In the movie Tombstone, one of the great movies of the last 25 years, there is a scene that takes place down by the creek. Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) has just led a successful attack against "Curly" Bill Brocious, and his band of Cowboys. Following its conclusion, Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) has a conversation with 'Turkey Creek' Jack Johnson (Buck Taylor), 'Texas' Jack Vermillion (Peter Sherayko), and McMasters (Michael Rooker) in which the thought is expressed that Earp is going after the Cowboys to gain revenge for attacks on his brothers and their families.
Holliday replied "Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after, it's the reckoning." The use of reckoning in this instance would reflect the thought of judging someone or multiple persons for actions previously taken.
This is what is sadly lacking in our modern society. Criminals commit heinous crimes of all sort, and the immediate response by many groups is to defend the criminal, pointing to their upbringing and 'lack of opportunity' as the reason that they have committed their crimes. While I won't argue that the denigration of the nuclear family may lead some down the path of Evil, it cannot be used as a crutch for crimes committed against fellow citizens.
What it comes down to is there is no personal responsibility, no accountability for actions. It's time to fix that. The big problem with our legal system is activist judges who do not sentence criminals to the proper reckoning, especially violent criminals. I would favor a much more strict punishment scale:
Public execution for anyone who kills in cold blood (not self-defense, which is wholly supported), along with all rapists, and persons who abuse children sexually. The reason for the execution is not revenge, as Holliday noted, because no amount of punishment will bring a person back to life or restore a person's sense of self. Rather, it is to eliminate from the public persons who would commit such crimes, so they are not able to commit them once again. What has been seen time and again is criminals who are released from prison go back out in to society and commit more crimes. That is a losing proposition for the good people in our world.
The reason the executions should be made public is so that there is public notice of the consequences of a person's actions. When executions are done behind closed doors, there is not the same connection for the public, nor can we be as certain that there is not a nefarious purpose on the state's side with terminating another human life. It is an undertaking that should be taken with the most serious reservations, but at the time the decision is made, there should be no turning back.
We've been told #BlackLives matter, which they do (though not enough for any form of protest when any of the 2,245 blacks were killed by another black person in 2013, according to government statistics.) We've also had other camps weigh in and post that #WhiteLives matter, and so do #CopLives matter. Not nearly enough people, however, have focused on the fact that #AllLives matter.
It's been bandied about that the reason for this is that the 'gangsta' lifestyle is glorified in various media, which may play a part in it. Others have decried violent video games, and like-minded movies and television programs. These are certainly options, too, but not the main cause, in my opinion.
In the movie Tombstone, one of the great movies of the last 25 years, there is a scene that takes place down by the creek. Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) has just led a successful attack against "Curly" Bill Brocious, and his band of Cowboys. Following its conclusion, Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) has a conversation with 'Turkey Creek' Jack Johnson (Buck Taylor), 'Texas' Jack Vermillion (Peter Sherayko), and McMasters (Michael Rooker) in which the thought is expressed that Earp is going after the Cowboys to gain revenge for attacks on his brothers and their families.
Holliday replied "Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after, it's the reckoning." The use of reckoning in this instance would reflect the thought of judging someone or multiple persons for actions previously taken.
This is what is sadly lacking in our modern society. Criminals commit heinous crimes of all sort, and the immediate response by many groups is to defend the criminal, pointing to their upbringing and 'lack of opportunity' as the reason that they have committed their crimes. While I won't argue that the denigration of the nuclear family may lead some down the path of Evil, it cannot be used as a crutch for crimes committed against fellow citizens.
What it comes down to is there is no personal responsibility, no accountability for actions. It's time to fix that. The big problem with our legal system is activist judges who do not sentence criminals to the proper reckoning, especially violent criminals. I would favor a much more strict punishment scale:
Public execution for anyone who kills in cold blood (not self-defense, which is wholly supported), along with all rapists, and persons who abuse children sexually. The reason for the execution is not revenge, as Holliday noted, because no amount of punishment will bring a person back to life or restore a person's sense of self. Rather, it is to eliminate from the public persons who would commit such crimes, so they are not able to commit them once again. What has been seen time and again is criminals who are released from prison go back out in to society and commit more crimes. That is a losing proposition for the good people in our world.
The reason the executions should be made public is so that there is public notice of the consequences of a person's actions. When executions are done behind closed doors, there is not the same connection for the public, nor can we be as certain that there is not a nefarious purpose on the state's side with terminating another human life. It is an undertaking that should be taken with the most serious reservations, but at the time the decision is made, there should be no turning back.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Stupid Is As Stupid Does, the MA Edition
The impetus for today's belated argument is the finding of an advisory commission in Massachusetts that suggests that top public officials in MA are 'underpaid'. Mind, this discovery was made despite the fact that MA is currently facing a budget deficit in the neighborhood of $400 million, which some of the elected officials who will see huge pay raises must account for.
The basis for this increase in public office holders' salary is the fact that 1,254 other state employees who earn more than the governor's current $151,800 (11th in the entire U.S. for governor pay), and quite simply, that's not enough. Plus, the governor's salary is only in the neighborhood of 8% of the salary of major corporation CEOs. This would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that nearly every single person who will benefit from the proposed pay raises is a (D) who has at one point in time or another espoused the belief that corporate CEOs are akin to the Devil, and should be denigrated at every available opportunity.
I would think that in light of our current budget crisis here in the Bay State, the proper move would not to be to hand out raises to those who are unworthy, but rather to hand out salary decreases to those 1%ers walking around on the public dole, most of whom have never worked an honest day in their lives (I apologize to the handful of public employees that earn above $152,000 who actually do something to help the general public.), and again, many who have decried how unfair it is that job producers and creators earn the salaries that they do.
The good news for the citizenry of MA is that outgoing (D) governor Deval Patrick has already stated that he will not sign the bill authorizing the pay increases until the (D) legislature agrees to the spending cuts he sent down to them, which they have thus far not agreed to. Incoming (R) governor Charlie Baker had this to say with regard to the ridiculous pay increases:
The basis for this increase in public office holders' salary is the fact that 1,254 other state employees who earn more than the governor's current $151,800 (11th in the entire U.S. for governor pay), and quite simply, that's not enough. Plus, the governor's salary is only in the neighborhood of 8% of the salary of major corporation CEOs. This would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that nearly every single person who will benefit from the proposed pay raises is a (D) who has at one point in time or another espoused the belief that corporate CEOs are akin to the Devil, and should be denigrated at every available opportunity.
I would think that in light of our current budget crisis here in the Bay State, the proper move would not to be to hand out raises to those who are unworthy, but rather to hand out salary decreases to those 1%ers walking around on the public dole, most of whom have never worked an honest day in their lives (I apologize to the handful of public employees that earn above $152,000 who actually do something to help the general public.), and again, many who have decried how unfair it is that job producers and creators earn the salaries that they do.
The good news for the citizenry of MA is that outgoing (D) governor Deval Patrick has already stated that he will not sign the bill authorizing the pay increases until the (D) legislature agrees to the spending cuts he sent down to them, which they have thus far not agreed to. Incoming (R) governor Charlie Baker had this to say with regard to the ridiculous pay increases:
The people of Massachusetts deserve a state government that is as thrifty as they are and now is not the time to award pay raises when a significant budget deficit is forcing cuts to many programs and services."It will be interesting to see how this battle over nearly unwarranted raises plays out in the remaining days of 2014.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
The impetus for today's argument is a man so stupid, I feel horrible even linking to the story about him, but I will, to avoid the legal entanglements that would come about if I did not.
Our idiot's name is George Prior, and sitting back and looking at this from a totally unbiased, uninvolved point of view, it's quite clear that George is either seeking attention (+1 for him, if that's so, because I'm sure he'll make a boatload of cash from his venture) or it's a cry for help. I'm going to think as many positive thoughts about the man as I can, and assume it is the latter.
George's 'experiment' follows in the footsteps of Morgan Spurlock who gained international fame with his mockumentary SuperSize Me, in which he consumed nothing but McDonald's worst foods for 30 days and saw his health fall apart. Spurlock gained his 15 minutes' worth of fame, and millions of dollars, to boot, but his angle was eventually disproved by 54 year old science teacher John Cisna, who actually managed to lose 37 pounds while consuming nothing but McDonald's for the same period of time.
Fortunately for Prior's run at fame, I cannot conceive of a way that someone might prove that consuming 10 cans of Coke in a day is a benefit for their bodies. Of course, as Prior himself states "Everyone knows it wouldn't be healthy to drink ten cokes a day." Uh, yeah.
Of course, Prior decided to press on with this thought:
Secondly, who the heck has the time or body capacity to consume the amount of liquids that he seems to believe is the typical American day? Even consuming 10 cans of Coke seems like a bit of a stretch, unless you're trying to prove a 'point', as it means knocking back one can for every 1 hour and 48 minutes you are awake, assuming an 18-hour day. That's ridiculous.
Life is a series of choices, and for those who choose to drink 10 cans a Coke a day while eating the greasiest, fattest foods that McDonald's (or another fast food chain) has to offer, without exercising, I have some 'news' for you: your body is not going to be in good shape, regardless of what the exterior vessel may look like. If you want to be fit, it's important to consider not only what you eat/drink, but how the manner in which you exercise (here's a hint: just do it, whatever 'it' may be.) If you choose to lead a sedentary lifestyle while consuming terrible foods, your are not going to be as healthy as you may like, but that will be through your own choices, no one else's.
Our idiot's name is George Prior, and sitting back and looking at this from a totally unbiased, uninvolved point of view, it's quite clear that George is either seeking attention (+1 for him, if that's so, because I'm sure he'll make a boatload of cash from his venture) or it's a cry for help. I'm going to think as many positive thoughts about the man as I can, and assume it is the latter.
George's 'experiment' follows in the footsteps of Morgan Spurlock who gained international fame with his mockumentary SuperSize Me, in which he consumed nothing but McDonald's worst foods for 30 days and saw his health fall apart. Spurlock gained his 15 minutes' worth of fame, and millions of dollars, to boot, but his angle was eventually disproved by 54 year old science teacher John Cisna, who actually managed to lose 37 pounds while consuming nothing but McDonald's for the same period of time.
Fortunately for Prior's run at fame, I cannot conceive of a way that someone might prove that consuming 10 cans of Coke in a day is a benefit for their bodies. Of course, as Prior himself states "Everyone knows it wouldn't be healthy to drink ten cokes a day." Uh, yeah.
Of course, Prior decided to press on with this thought:
That's true, perhaps you're only drinking four Cokes, but if you add in the two glasses of orange juice, the two sweetened coffee drinks from Starbucks, the 16-ounce Odwalla drink, the two 'healthy' brand ice teas and the $9 fruit smoothie you waited 10 minutes in life for, you've made my 10 Cokes look like child's play.First of all, I spent the better part of a decade eating a pound of pasta (or more) a day, chasing it down with a half gallon of orange juice. The thought that OJ (or pasta, for that matter) is unhealthy is one that I was unable to prove in my years of 'trying' (the truth was I really like OJ, and pasta is quick, delicious, and nutritious.) It's fair to note, I did exercise (running, walking, or weightlifting) in one form or another five days a week during that stretch. My weight remained constant, and my blood pressure and pulse were excellent.
Secondly, who the heck has the time or body capacity to consume the amount of liquids that he seems to believe is the typical American day? Even consuming 10 cans of Coke seems like a bit of a stretch, unless you're trying to prove a 'point', as it means knocking back one can for every 1 hour and 48 minutes you are awake, assuming an 18-hour day. That's ridiculous.
Life is a series of choices, and for those who choose to drink 10 cans a Coke a day while eating the greasiest, fattest foods that McDonald's (or another fast food chain) has to offer, without exercising, I have some 'news' for you: your body is not going to be in good shape, regardless of what the exterior vessel may look like. If you want to be fit, it's important to consider not only what you eat/drink, but how the manner in which you exercise (here's a hint: just do it, whatever 'it' may be.) If you choose to lead a sedentary lifestyle while consuming terrible foods, your are not going to be as healthy as you may like, but that will be through your own choices, no one else's.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Bernie Sanders' Ignorance
The impetus for today's argument comes from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' Twitter account. Two days ago he had this message for the American people. In this message, he attacked the Walton family, and their business, Wal-Mart ultimately because of their own success and living the American Dream.
His post was designed to do only one thing: inspire class warfare between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. There is no other reason for him to make such a statement, especially in light of what else was going on around our nation on that day. As I have noted on other occasions, envy is a terrible sin, and while Senator Sanders certainly has nothing to be envious (he is in the upper portion of the 1%ers) of, he knows by stirring the pot, especially at this time of year, will draw his base to him.
To begin with, Senator Sanders' annual salary is no less than $174,000, paid courtesy of the U.S. citizenry. He also has access to a fully funded pension and health care program that no citizen could ever hope to acquire, again, and a host of other benefits, all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Instead of being grateful for his good fortune in life, he chooses to attack those that have created jobs (over 2,000,000 worldwide) and opportunities for others. What has the *good* Senator done of late outside of create division amongst the populace? Surely he has not done anything about the ever-increasing unemployment numbers (the government released numbers are such blatant lies they're not really worth commenting on.), or the fact that our nation is under attack from outside (and sadly, internal) persons who are looking to destroy our nation just because. It's a real easy thing to sit back and cast stones at those that have succeeded instead of working to make others' lives better.
The *good* Senator also took the time to attack Wal-Mart because so many of their employees are on government welfare programs. If the Senator bothered to look at the mangled government statistics, he'd note that over 1/7 of our legal population is on some form of government welfare program or another. A major reason for this is because of the actions that Sanders and many of his belief system.
As I noted in a different context, jobs like Wal-Mart gigs are not intended to be a lifelong career. Each of us should aspire to do something beyond the simple phrase of "Your total is $123.56." Jobs, or at least the majority of jobs at places such as Wal-Mart are not intended to raise a family on. In reality, they're not designed to make even a single person rich. There simply isn't a reason to, because the jobs are for the most part replaceable. Employees who show aptitude and a desire to move on are presented with opportunities to do so. Why? Because it makes sense for companies, regardless of their name, to promote from within when there are deserving employees.
The other thought to consider is a two-fold one: part of the Wal-Mart model is to provide the lowest prices available to its customers. This in turn allows those who have less means afford more things (groceries, durable items, *luxury* items) than they otherwise would be able to. Instead of denigrating the Wal-Mart model, Senator Sanders should see how it could be applied to his chosen profession.
He should also be thankful that voters are easily confused, and his 1%er salary is guaranteed as long as he continues to rail against the 'evil' rich, while pretending like he is not one of them.
His post was designed to do only one thing: inspire class warfare between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. There is no other reason for him to make such a statement, especially in light of what else was going on around our nation on that day. As I have noted on other occasions, envy is a terrible sin, and while Senator Sanders certainly has nothing to be envious (he is in the upper portion of the 1%ers) of, he knows by stirring the pot, especially at this time of year, will draw his base to him.
To begin with, Senator Sanders' annual salary is no less than $174,000, paid courtesy of the U.S. citizenry. He also has access to a fully funded pension and health care program that no citizen could ever hope to acquire, again, and a host of other benefits, all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Instead of being grateful for his good fortune in life, he chooses to attack those that have created jobs (over 2,000,000 worldwide) and opportunities for others. What has the *good* Senator done of late outside of create division amongst the populace? Surely he has not done anything about the ever-increasing unemployment numbers (the government released numbers are such blatant lies they're not really worth commenting on.), or the fact that our nation is under attack from outside (and sadly, internal) persons who are looking to destroy our nation just because. It's a real easy thing to sit back and cast stones at those that have succeeded instead of working to make others' lives better.
The *good* Senator also took the time to attack Wal-Mart because so many of their employees are on government welfare programs. If the Senator bothered to look at the mangled government statistics, he'd note that over 1/7 of our legal population is on some form of government welfare program or another. A major reason for this is because of the actions that Sanders and many of his belief system.
As I noted in a different context, jobs like Wal-Mart gigs are not intended to be a lifelong career. Each of us should aspire to do something beyond the simple phrase of "Your total is $123.56." Jobs, or at least the majority of jobs at places such as Wal-Mart are not intended to raise a family on. In reality, they're not designed to make even a single person rich. There simply isn't a reason to, because the jobs are for the most part replaceable. Employees who show aptitude and a desire to move on are presented with opportunities to do so. Why? Because it makes sense for companies, regardless of their name, to promote from within when there are deserving employees.
The other thought to consider is a two-fold one: part of the Wal-Mart model is to provide the lowest prices available to its customers. This in turn allows those who have less means afford more things (groceries, durable items, *luxury* items) than they otherwise would be able to. Instead of denigrating the Wal-Mart model, Senator Sanders should see how it could be applied to his chosen profession.
He should also be thankful that voters are easily confused, and his 1%er salary is guaranteed as long as he continues to rail against the 'evil' rich, while pretending like he is not one of them.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
History Repeats Itself In Furgeson
The impetus for today's argument is the stupidity that is currently going on in Ferguson, Missouri.
Before we delve too far in to this, it is time we revisit a scene from the not too distant past:
March 3, 1991. Yes, that's right, the night of the infamous Rodney King arrest/beating. The video evidence suggests fairly strongly that the LAPD may have gone overboard in their attempts to bring King into submission. Watching the video, there definitely appears to be one officer who is intent on striking King as many times as he could. Whether it was necessary for that many strikes, only the officers on the scene, and Rodney King would have known. That beating and arrest would eventually lead to the the LAPD officers being tried and acquitted by a jury trial for their alleged excessive use of force. A subsequent federal trial, for violations of Rodney King's civil rights led to the convictions of officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, each of whom was sentenced to 30 months in federal detention.
In between those two trials, however, is what needs to be discussed. Within 62 minutes of the officers' initial not guilty, LA had erupted in riots that would eventually lead to the death of 54 innocent persons and the destruction or theft of over $1 Billion in property. Most of the deaths that occurred were minorities, specifically citizens of Korean and Latino ancestry, though there were exceptions. Reginald Denny was one of the major ones, because there was video footage of him in his tractor trailer, being pulled out by a group of black men who proceeded to beat him with a claw hammer and a cement cinder block, fracturing his skull in 91 places. There were no riots for Denny, though he did pick up the nickname Reginald Denty from news media and his daughter alike.
A more direct connection perhaps to the death of Michael Brown in Missouri is that of one Gil Collar at the University of Alabama in 2012. Collar, who was a white freshman, was shot dead by a campus police officer who happened to be black. Because the person who was killed was white, it allowed for the legal process to occur in a manner that should have occurred. Was it sad that the campus officer felt the need to shoot Collar dead? Of course it was, and is. Was the officer in fear for his personal safety? He believed he was, and based on the evidence, so do I. Collar acted in a manner far less aggressive than what it has been reported that Mike Brown did in his encounter with Darren Wilson, but nonetheless, he had forced the officer to retreat, and like Brown, he continued to charge at the officer who fired a fatal shot.
My question goes out to Michael Brown's mother who stated moments after Wilson was not indicted "Burn this bitch down!" and to President Obama who stated that he understood that some Americans would be 'deeply disappointed, even angered' that Wilson was charged. While we're at it, let's ask the 'Reverend' Al Sharpton exactly what the Hell it is he does to help promote racial unity in this nation (that last one's just a joke. There's no money or power with unity, just happiness for all. Sharpton is only interested in his own personal happiness and welfare.), and it's this: Where were you when Collar was shot dead? Better yet, where were you when Brendan Tevlin was brutally murdered by Ali Muhammad Brown as part of his nationwide spree of domestic violence?
Brown's mother (who should be charged for her role in helping to incite further rioting) at least can lay claim to being a person who is in grief over what she perceives to be a lack of accountability on the part of the grand jury. Where do Obama's opinions come from, and what end is he attempting to gain with his choice of words. Certainly it is not about unity, and if I was reading between the lines, I'd think that he was giving a nod and a wink to the violence that he knew would soon erupt on the streets of Ferguson. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not leadership. It is kowtowing to the dregs in the hope of gaining some political hand.
Back to Jackson, though, and why he doesn't feel the need to show up at the other incidents that I mentioned above: That's right, there's no money and no looting there, so there's nothing to get all up tight about, and that's the bullshit of this situation, and any other one like it. However, just as was the case in LA, so it is in Ferguson, or anywhere else an event like this might occur: Once looting and violent rioting begins, any claim of caring about the person who is deceased (whether the death is justified or not) loses credibility. At that point in time, persons that are involved are nothing more than privateers looking to cash in on a deteriorating situation.
There's no other way to parse it but to say it comes down to personal responsibility, something this nation is sadly lacking at this point in our history (it's been a steady downhill trajectory for at least the last 80 years on many fronts.) Every action, no matter how indefensible, is someone else's fault. It simply isn't true. Actions have consequences, some that are unintended, and others that may prove fatal. The lesson that should be learned is that when a police officer tells you to stop and get to the ground you listen. You know why? They've got the guns! They've got the authority to use their weapons in a legal manner if you put their life in peril, (and they should have that right.) Whether we agree with it or not, they are the people who are responsible for protecting not only the citizenry, but themselves.
Are mistakes made? Of course. Are their officers (of all color) who take advantage of their position in any number of ways? That goes without saying. Are there those that are pompous, pretentious, and in general tools? Yep. Still, the majority of officers of the law are in their jobs either because they truly care about the communities they live in or because they look forward to their pension after a relatively short time protecting the streets. Most are not bad people, though our individual experiences may cause us to see otherwise.
**Of course, if we all just listened to Chris Rock, then we'd have a lot less to worry about in our lives.
Before we delve too far in to this, it is time we revisit a scene from the not too distant past:
March 3, 1991. Yes, that's right, the night of the infamous Rodney King arrest/beating. The video evidence suggests fairly strongly that the LAPD may have gone overboard in their attempts to bring King into submission. Watching the video, there definitely appears to be one officer who is intent on striking King as many times as he could. Whether it was necessary for that many strikes, only the officers on the scene, and Rodney King would have known. That beating and arrest would eventually lead to the the LAPD officers being tried and acquitted by a jury trial for their alleged excessive use of force. A subsequent federal trial, for violations of Rodney King's civil rights led to the convictions of officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, each of whom was sentenced to 30 months in federal detention.
In between those two trials, however, is what needs to be discussed. Within 62 minutes of the officers' initial not guilty, LA had erupted in riots that would eventually lead to the death of 54 innocent persons and the destruction or theft of over $1 Billion in property. Most of the deaths that occurred were minorities, specifically citizens of Korean and Latino ancestry, though there were exceptions. Reginald Denny was one of the major ones, because there was video footage of him in his tractor trailer, being pulled out by a group of black men who proceeded to beat him with a claw hammer and a cement cinder block, fracturing his skull in 91 places. There were no riots for Denny, though he did pick up the nickname Reginald Denty from news media and his daughter alike.
A more direct connection perhaps to the death of Michael Brown in Missouri is that of one Gil Collar at the University of Alabama in 2012. Collar, who was a white freshman, was shot dead by a campus police officer who happened to be black. Because the person who was killed was white, it allowed for the legal process to occur in a manner that should have occurred. Was it sad that the campus officer felt the need to shoot Collar dead? Of course it was, and is. Was the officer in fear for his personal safety? He believed he was, and based on the evidence, so do I. Collar acted in a manner far less aggressive than what it has been reported that Mike Brown did in his encounter with Darren Wilson, but nonetheless, he had forced the officer to retreat, and like Brown, he continued to charge at the officer who fired a fatal shot.
My question goes out to Michael Brown's mother who stated moments after Wilson was not indicted "Burn this bitch down!" and to President Obama who stated that he understood that some Americans would be 'deeply disappointed, even angered' that Wilson was charged. While we're at it, let's ask the 'Reverend' Al Sharpton exactly what the Hell it is he does to help promote racial unity in this nation (that last one's just a joke. There's no money or power with unity, just happiness for all. Sharpton is only interested in his own personal happiness and welfare.), and it's this: Where were you when Collar was shot dead? Better yet, where were you when Brendan Tevlin was brutally murdered by Ali Muhammad Brown as part of his nationwide spree of domestic violence?
Brown's mother (who should be charged for her role in helping to incite further rioting) at least can lay claim to being a person who is in grief over what she perceives to be a lack of accountability on the part of the grand jury. Where do Obama's opinions come from, and what end is he attempting to gain with his choice of words. Certainly it is not about unity, and if I was reading between the lines, I'd think that he was giving a nod and a wink to the violence that he knew would soon erupt on the streets of Ferguson. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not leadership. It is kowtowing to the dregs in the hope of gaining some political hand.
Back to Jackson, though, and why he doesn't feel the need to show up at the other incidents that I mentioned above: That's right, there's no money and no looting there, so there's nothing to get all up tight about, and that's the bullshit of this situation, and any other one like it. However, just as was the case in LA, so it is in Ferguson, or anywhere else an event like this might occur: Once looting and violent rioting begins, any claim of caring about the person who is deceased (whether the death is justified or not) loses credibility. At that point in time, persons that are involved are nothing more than privateers looking to cash in on a deteriorating situation.
There's no other way to parse it but to say it comes down to personal responsibility, something this nation is sadly lacking at this point in our history (it's been a steady downhill trajectory for at least the last 80 years on many fronts.) Every action, no matter how indefensible, is someone else's fault. It simply isn't true. Actions have consequences, some that are unintended, and others that may prove fatal. The lesson that should be learned is that when a police officer tells you to stop and get to the ground you listen. You know why? They've got the guns! They've got the authority to use their weapons in a legal manner if you put their life in peril, (and they should have that right.) Whether we agree with it or not, they are the people who are responsible for protecting not only the citizenry, but themselves.
Are mistakes made? Of course. Are their officers (of all color) who take advantage of their position in any number of ways? That goes without saying. Are there those that are pompous, pretentious, and in general tools? Yep. Still, the majority of officers of the law are in their jobs either because they truly care about the communities they live in or because they look forward to their pension after a relatively short time protecting the streets. Most are not bad people, though our individual experiences may cause us to see otherwise.
**Of course, if we all just listened to Chris Rock, then we'd have a lot less to worry about in our lives.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Perhaps Obama Is Trying to Get Himself Impeached...
The impetus for today's argument was going to be the President's unilateral decision from last Thursday whereby he decided that he was Emperor*, and he could magically allow 5 million** illegal aliens to stay in this country, no problem.*** That will still be the foundation and major argument throughout, but as I sat down to write, a new thought popped in to my head:
Back to the original impetus for today's post, though: Presidential authority, and how exactly laws are created in this country (or at the least, how they are supposed to be created.) Allegedly, upon exiting from the Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government had been designed for the new country, to which he answered "A Republic, if you can keep it." Whether or not the story is true, the sentiment remains the same: our Nation was founded not as a Tyranny, not as a Dictatorship, nor a Monarchy, not even a Democracy, as so many wrongly believe, but as a Republic. This is an important distinction, it truly is.
A Republican form of government, as set up by our forefathers, has a system of checks and balances, with powers spread out throughout the different branches of government. It is designed to be a representative form of government, meaning that while the citizenry is not entitled to make the decisions, it is within their powers to elect officials that will represent their opinions. The American public did just that the first Tuesday of November 2014, but our King decided that the citizens he ostensibly represents were too stupid for their own good. No, he must act on his own to set an agenda that is not only wrong, but illegal.
Now I understand that the Constitution can be a bit wordy, and perhaps reading the entire document seemed a bit onerous to our Golfer-in-Chief. That's fair enough, but the Internet is a wildly powerful, amazing resource. If our G-i-C had simply typed in the words "how does a bill become a law" he would have found these results. IF he had scrolled down to the 11th link (I can't believe it's that far down) he would have found this easy-to-watch video that clearly describes the entire process within 3 minutes.
The 2:45 mark fairly well sums it all up: "It's not easy to become a bill, is it?" This is something that Obama has not ever had to deal with, what with everything of import in his adult life simply being handed to him because of who he is, rather than on the basis of any real qualifications.
Now that the Emperor has made his move, it will be up to the Republicans to use whatever legal means they have to stop this assault on U.S. sovereignty, along with its Constitution. IF Obama had merely consulted Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution he would have found these words:
If that is your thought process, you are too blind to have read anything previous, so please, carry on. The most nefarious idea that could be thought of is that Obama is determined to destroy America, and this is yet another attempt by him to further bankrupt our economy. It's possible, but I'm still hopeful that he has not gone that far off the deep end. Rather, I choose to believe that his endgame is to ensure that there will be an increased pool of voters who owe their fortunes and their votes to candidates of Obama's and his minions choosing. In so doing, he would hope to swing Congressional districts, along with Senate seats, and Electoral College votes to the Democratic party. That is as nefarious as I hope he has become, but it is criminal nonetheless.
The time has come for impeachment, whether or not a conviction can be achieved, and whether or not it is something that Obama himself may hope occurs. It is the right thing to do, and given the repercussions if nothing happens, the time to act is now.
*I know someone who has been calling him "The Emperor Without Clothes" since he was first a candidate for President. It makes me chuckle to see it in print and popping up everywhere else now.
**5 million is such a low ball estimate it's almost not worth arguing, but it is important to note that within the last 2 years, it was acknowledged that the number ranged anywhere from 12-30 million. Am I really supposed to believe that 7-25 million illegals have been deported?
***You have to admire the man's moxie. After President Clinton saw his fortunes change during the 1994 Congressional election, he wisely decided to move towards the center, and work with the Republican-led Congress. Of course, Clinton still had the 1996 election to look forward to, while Obama's final day in office will be the 3rd week of January, 2017.
****For the record, Obama spending the rest of his term on a golf course would be the best thing he could for this country.
What if Obama is looking to be impeached?Granted, it's not a fully formed thought yet, but it is something to consider. Impeachment could easily be achieved in the House, but the conviction would never come from the Senate, there simply aren't enough votes there. The positive side for Obama would be that he could begin accusing his Republican detractors of being on a 'witch hunt', and that may rally his base to his side over the final two years of his term, which he desperately needs. Then again, the President spent most of his Saturday in a golfing foursome with former N.Y. Yankee Derek Jeter, so it's possible he just doesn't give a damn about anything right now.****
Back to the original impetus for today's post, though: Presidential authority, and how exactly laws are created in this country (or at the least, how they are supposed to be created.) Allegedly, upon exiting from the Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government had been designed for the new country, to which he answered "A Republic, if you can keep it." Whether or not the story is true, the sentiment remains the same: our Nation was founded not as a Tyranny, not as a Dictatorship, nor a Monarchy, not even a Democracy, as so many wrongly believe, but as a Republic. This is an important distinction, it truly is.
A Republican form of government, as set up by our forefathers, has a system of checks and balances, with powers spread out throughout the different branches of government. It is designed to be a representative form of government, meaning that while the citizenry is not entitled to make the decisions, it is within their powers to elect officials that will represent their opinions. The American public did just that the first Tuesday of November 2014, but our King decided that the citizens he ostensibly represents were too stupid for their own good. No, he must act on his own to set an agenda that is not only wrong, but illegal.
Now I understand that the Constitution can be a bit wordy, and perhaps reading the entire document seemed a bit onerous to our Golfer-in-Chief. That's fair enough, but the Internet is a wildly powerful, amazing resource. If our G-i-C had simply typed in the words "how does a bill become a law" he would have found these results. IF he had scrolled down to the 11th link (I can't believe it's that far down) he would have found this easy-to-watch video that clearly describes the entire process within 3 minutes.
The 2:45 mark fairly well sums it all up: "It's not easy to become a bill, is it?" This is something that Obama has not ever had to deal with, what with everything of import in his adult life simply being handed to him because of who he is, rather than on the basis of any real qualifications.
Now that the Emperor has made his move, it will be up to the Republicans to use whatever legal means they have to stop this assault on U.S. sovereignty, along with its Constitution. IF Obama had merely consulted Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution he would have found these words:
...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...Obama clearly missed the boat on that one. For a man convinced that he is always the smartest man in the room (perhaps he's often alone?), it doesn't seem like something that could have been done by accident, it must be with intent. Bearing that in mind, the question becomes what is the end game for this action. Are we to believe that Obama truly cares for all of these illegal aliens (a decent enough portion who have committed serious felonies) and their well-being?
If that is your thought process, you are too blind to have read anything previous, so please, carry on. The most nefarious idea that could be thought of is that Obama is determined to destroy America, and this is yet another attempt by him to further bankrupt our economy. It's possible, but I'm still hopeful that he has not gone that far off the deep end. Rather, I choose to believe that his endgame is to ensure that there will be an increased pool of voters who owe their fortunes and their votes to candidates of Obama's and his minions choosing. In so doing, he would hope to swing Congressional districts, along with Senate seats, and Electoral College votes to the Democratic party. That is as nefarious as I hope he has become, but it is criminal nonetheless.
The time has come for impeachment, whether or not a conviction can be achieved, and whether or not it is something that Obama himself may hope occurs. It is the right thing to do, and given the repercussions if nothing happens, the time to act is now.
*I know someone who has been calling him "The Emperor Without Clothes" since he was first a candidate for President. It makes me chuckle to see it in print and popping up everywhere else now.
**5 million is such a low ball estimate it's almost not worth arguing, but it is important to note that within the last 2 years, it was acknowledged that the number ranged anywhere from 12-30 million. Am I really supposed to believe that 7-25 million illegals have been deported?
***You have to admire the man's moxie. After President Clinton saw his fortunes change during the 1994 Congressional election, he wisely decided to move towards the center, and work with the Republican-led Congress. Of course, Clinton still had the 1996 election to look forward to, while Obama's final day in office will be the 3rd week of January, 2017.
****For the record, Obama spending the rest of his term on a golf course would be the best thing he could for this country.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
On His Best Day, Obama Is Neville Chamberlain
The impetus for today's argument came as I was running through *leaders* in the modern era who have tremendously failed those that they were supposed to protect and serve. Chamberlain's antics during WWII as he continually kowtowed to Adolph Hitler while pompously declaring "peace for our time". History has properly placed Chamberlain in the lower echelons of national leaders. Obama in due course will find his way there, too, despite whatever he may think he will do.
Where to begin with the travesty that has befallen our nation over the last 6 years or so. Perhaps, in the words of Mr. Eko I will "begin at the beginning". Upon hisascensiontohisthrone election to the highest public office known in the world, Obama was supposed to be a man who was a "great uniter". He earned this reputation based on his life-long passion for doing whatever the heck it was he did in Chicago ("Community Organizing", according to his resum'e, whatever that may mean.), and by voting "present" more often than not. He achieved his Senate seat partly due to *his* people torpedoed Jack Ryan's campaign.
Chamberlain's major crime (and it was a wicked googily) was thinking that he could negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolph Hitler. Obviously, that was a colossal failure, and the world eventually paid the price, as it was drawn in to its second world war within a quarter of a century.
Still, the world was able to recover in no small part thanks to the strong leadership of Winston Churchill, and the backing of the United States (amongst other nations.)
Obama's misdeeds go far beyond what even Chamberlain did, for a couple of different reasons. First off, Chamberlain was determined to hold on to power. This is not a good thing, by any means, but it at least explains his reasoning behind his actions. Many of Obama's misdeeds have occurred well past his second inauguration, which demands the question of why would he go to such lengths to jeopardize not only his legacy, but the lives and liberty of the American public he allegedly represents.
A short list of recent activity includes his announcement that he fully intends to (illegally) grant amnesty to persons who have violated our national laws and willfully broke in to our country. These illegal aliens have secured many rights, some that actual U.S. citizens are unable to secure for themselves, all because of a lax national security policy being pushed by our Commander-in-Chief.
Another item on the recent short list would be the release of former U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi who spent 214 days in a Mexican jail, because Obama was apparently too busy to pick up a phone and ask Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to give Tahmooressi a helping hand. Instead, a coalition of private citizens, lawmakers, Dr. Alberto Pinzón Picaseño, and fortunately, the presiding judge in his case, Judge Victor Octavio Luna Escobedo, he was finally set free. Another in a series of sterling examples of Obama's disdain for our military service men and women.
I've spent many thousands of words describing my thoughts and opinions on the debacle that is Obamacare, but even I could never have envisioned the utter cajones that has gone on with the Jonathan Gruber mess. If that process hadn't completely screwed over our nation, I'd be laughing a lot more than I am right now.
However, the most egregious mistake that he has made (thusfar) in his tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the complete lack of seriousness he has given to the war that is being prosecuted on American soil, as well as that of many of our allies (Canada, England, and Israel, amongst others.)
Now I use the term "war", because while it may not be a legally binding, U.S. Congress-approved action, war is being made against the United States, and our very way of life. Much more maddening than Congress' inability to do anything of consequence regarding the topic (though one can hope that the November elections may change that a bit) is Obama's refusal to accept that anything needs to occur. He continues to treat each individual incident as if it were a 'lone wolf' type of deal, and often times does not bother to offer the slightest public words of encouragement to those who have lost loved ones. This is inexcusable.
The lone wolf argument loses credibility when multiple attacks, from the same base of people, happen on a world wide stage against select portions of the populace. By any definition of war, that is it what we are facing: persons who are looking to kill, injure, and destroy our citizenry, simply because they are American. If Obama does nothing else with his remaining time in office, it should be to secure the citizens that he is sworn to protect from enemies both within our borders, and those who make their way here for the sole purpose of wreaking havoc.
Of course, if the man follows through with any type of firm leadership on this issue, it will be the first time in 6 years that has occurred, so I'm not going to hold my breath. How I imagine the rest of his term playing out is exactly the same way the front part of it has gone: him with a pouty face complaining that if only all of the stupid people in this country would let him do exactly what he wanted to, he'd be happy at least.
I also figure he's good to shave another stroke or two off of golf score, to boot, which is something to brag on. Never has a more un-athletic man come in to office, but by the time he heads back to Illinois, he might just be good enough to make the celebrity golf tour. That's Change we can believe in.
Where to begin with the travesty that has befallen our nation over the last 6 years or so. Perhaps, in the words of Mr. Eko I will "begin at the beginning". Upon his
Chamberlain's major crime (and it was a wicked googily) was thinking that he could negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolph Hitler. Obviously, that was a colossal failure, and the world eventually paid the price, as it was drawn in to its second world war within a quarter of a century.
Still, the world was able to recover in no small part thanks to the strong leadership of Winston Churchill, and the backing of the United States (amongst other nations.)
Obama's misdeeds go far beyond what even Chamberlain did, for a couple of different reasons. First off, Chamberlain was determined to hold on to power. This is not a good thing, by any means, but it at least explains his reasoning behind his actions. Many of Obama's misdeeds have occurred well past his second inauguration, which demands the question of why would he go to such lengths to jeopardize not only his legacy, but the lives and liberty of the American public he allegedly represents.
A short list of recent activity includes his announcement that he fully intends to (illegally) grant amnesty to persons who have violated our national laws and willfully broke in to our country. These illegal aliens have secured many rights, some that actual U.S. citizens are unable to secure for themselves, all because of a lax national security policy being pushed by our Commander-in-Chief.
Another item on the recent short list would be the release of former U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi who spent 214 days in a Mexican jail, because Obama was apparently too busy to pick up a phone and ask Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to give Tahmooressi a helping hand. Instead, a coalition of private citizens, lawmakers, Dr. Alberto Pinzón Picaseño, and fortunately, the presiding judge in his case, Judge Victor Octavio Luna Escobedo, he was finally set free. Another in a series of sterling examples of Obama's disdain for our military service men and women.
I've spent many thousands of words describing my thoughts and opinions on the debacle that is Obamacare, but even I could never have envisioned the utter cajones that has gone on with the Jonathan Gruber mess. If that process hadn't completely screwed over our nation, I'd be laughing a lot more than I am right now.
However, the most egregious mistake that he has made (thusfar) in his tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the complete lack of seriousness he has given to the war that is being prosecuted on American soil, as well as that of many of our allies (Canada, England, and Israel, amongst others.)
Now I use the term "war", because while it may not be a legally binding, U.S. Congress-approved action, war is being made against the United States, and our very way of life. Much more maddening than Congress' inability to do anything of consequence regarding the topic (though one can hope that the November elections may change that a bit) is Obama's refusal to accept that anything needs to occur. He continues to treat each individual incident as if it were a 'lone wolf' type of deal, and often times does not bother to offer the slightest public words of encouragement to those who have lost loved ones. This is inexcusable.
The lone wolf argument loses credibility when multiple attacks, from the same base of people, happen on a world wide stage against select portions of the populace. By any definition of war, that is it what we are facing: persons who are looking to kill, injure, and destroy our citizenry, simply because they are American. If Obama does nothing else with his remaining time in office, it should be to secure the citizens that he is sworn to protect from enemies both within our borders, and those who make their way here for the sole purpose of wreaking havoc.
Of course, if the man follows through with any type of firm leadership on this issue, it will be the first time in 6 years that has occurred, so I'm not going to hold my breath. How I imagine the rest of his term playing out is exactly the same way the front part of it has gone: him with a pouty face complaining that if only all of the stupid people in this country would let him do exactly what he wanted to, he'd be happy at least.
I also figure he's good to shave another stroke or two off of golf score, to boot, which is something to brag on. Never has a more un-athletic man come in to office, but by the time he heads back to Illinois, he might just be good enough to make the celebrity golf tour. That's Change we can believe in.
Monday, November 3, 2014
MA Ballot Question #4
The last of the four ballot questions that will appear tomorrow (Tuesday, November 4th) is by far the most perplexing to me. Its summary is far too long for my tiny little blog, but this is how the question will appear:
A YES VOTE would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.
I honestly don't know what to make of this law, which means my default vote is no. Anything that the government (and in particular, the government in MA) is telling me is a 'good' thing, is most likely a nefarious plot to steal my soul, or perhaps something even worse than that. If you haven't caught on to the theme yet, let me spell it out for you: never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, trust anyone in a position of power within the Commonwealth of MA, regardless of theirs or your own personal political leanings. Always, always go against the establishment.
I'm also having a hard time understanding exactly who needs this benefit. Until my current job working within the school system, any position I have had, my employer had a system for awarding sick time, usually along the line of a full week's worth of time per year (which is all the new law allows any one person to use.) There must be a special interest group that is interested in having this law passed, but I'm not certain who it is. Question #4 gets a no vote from me, and I highly recommend that all persons voting do likewise.
QUESTION 4: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Earned Sick Time for Employees
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?A YES VOTE would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.
I honestly don't know what to make of this law, which means my default vote is no. Anything that the government (and in particular, the government in MA) is telling me is a 'good' thing, is most likely a nefarious plot to steal my soul, or perhaps something even worse than that. If you haven't caught on to the theme yet, let me spell it out for you: never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, trust anyone in a position of power within the Commonwealth of MA, regardless of theirs or your own personal political leanings. Always, always go against the establishment.
I'm also having a hard time understanding exactly who needs this benefit. Until my current job working within the school system, any position I have had, my employer had a system for awarding sick time, usually along the line of a full week's worth of time per year (which is all the new law allows any one person to use.) There must be a special interest group that is interested in having this law passed, but I'm not certain who it is. Question #4 gets a no vote from me, and I highly recommend that all persons voting do likewise.
MA Ballot Question #3
As noted in parts 1 & 2, this series of posts is due to our upcoming election. Voters in other states will have the Honor of determining what direction our Nation will head at the Federal level. In Massachusetts, those elections have already been determined (it will be an all Democrat delegation, once again.) The major excitement for MA voters, then, is the ballot questions that are available to us.
Question 3 reads thusly:
The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.
This is yet another ballot question that if you think about it in a logical manner without actually reading the question will lead you to vote exactly the opposite way that you intend to. It is important, as always, to be careful with such questions.
The jobs that the ads discuss (anywhere from 3,000 - 10,000 jobs, depending on the ad) are a joke. There will be a negligent amount of long-term, middle class type jobs. The beneficiaries of this bill are the unions who will have short term project work to tide them over for an election cycle or two. The losers if this bill becomes law is nearly everyone else (excepting, of course, political big wigs and insiders who stand to make a killing off of the coming casinos.)
If this was 1989 instead of 2014, the ideas of casinos saving the economy might make sense. Back then, people had disposable income. Back then, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun weren't but a twinkle in the eye of anyone. Now, however, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the United States (and 3rd largest in the world) and Moehgan Sun isn't that far behind. Despite that, they are a nearly combined $3.5 Billion in debt. I'm sure there's plenty of business reasons for the debt, but the fact remains, we have been in a national recession for going on 6 years, our unemployment rate (regardless of what goverment reports will state) is at least double digits, and people simply do not have the pocket money to consistently spend it at a casino.
Add to this the increased crime that casino cities and towns face, problematic traffic, and a general decline in the valuations of homes anywhere near a casino, and this ballot issue is a loser, too. Massachusetts should focus its attention on something it has long been good at: innovative technologies and advancing education. A YES vote lets the legislature and casino backers know the real values of our communities, while a no vote will further destroy what is already a fragile economy here in the Bay State.
Question 3 reads thusly:
QUESTION 3: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?SUMMARY
This proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races.The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.
This is yet another ballot question that if you think about it in a logical manner without actually reading the question will lead you to vote exactly the opposite way that you intend to. It is important, as always, to be careful with such questions.
The jobs that the ads discuss (anywhere from 3,000 - 10,000 jobs, depending on the ad) are a joke. There will be a negligent amount of long-term, middle class type jobs. The beneficiaries of this bill are the unions who will have short term project work to tide them over for an election cycle or two. The losers if this bill becomes law is nearly everyone else (excepting, of course, political big wigs and insiders who stand to make a killing off of the coming casinos.)
If this was 1989 instead of 2014, the ideas of casinos saving the economy might make sense. Back then, people had disposable income. Back then, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun weren't but a twinkle in the eye of anyone. Now, however, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the United States (and 3rd largest in the world) and Moehgan Sun isn't that far behind. Despite that, they are a nearly combined $3.5 Billion in debt. I'm sure there's plenty of business reasons for the debt, but the fact remains, we have been in a national recession for going on 6 years, our unemployment rate (regardless of what goverment reports will state) is at least double digits, and people simply do not have the pocket money to consistently spend it at a casino.
Add to this the increased crime that casino cities and towns face, problematic traffic, and a general decline in the valuations of homes anywhere near a casino, and this ballot issue is a loser, too. Massachusetts should focus its attention on something it has long been good at: innovative technologies and advancing education. A YES vote lets the legislature and casino backers know the real values of our communities, while a no vote will further destroy what is already a fragile economy here in the Bay State.
MA Ballot Question #2
As noted in part 1, today's arguments are brought to us by tomorrow's (November 4th's) elections. Ballot question #2's summary is far too long to bother posting here, but this is the link if you care to read the diatribe.
A YES VOTE would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.
This attempt at expanded 'recycling' is nothing more than a blatant cash grab by the MA legislature. The man (It's always a man) who most recently proposed this idea had to forcibly restrain himself from laughing when he admitted that he expected the state to see a boon from the unreturned bottles to the tune of millions of dollars. Again, if you want to give a politician extra money for nothing, and expect any good to come out of it, you're only one of two kind of people.
The down side of this question is that it gets mixed up with people who genuinely see it as a way to help build up our recycling programs (which are mandatory in many cities and towns across the Commonwealth) and to help preserve the environment. It's about neither, it's only about the money. It's almost always about the money.
A NO vote shows good common sense, and forces the legislature to create a new revenue stream to rob its citizens. A yes vote shows that your are stuck on ideology, or that you're a government worker. There is, unfortunately, no in between on this issue.
QUESTION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Expanding the Beverage Container Deposit Law
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?A YES VOTE would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.
This attempt at expanded 'recycling' is nothing more than a blatant cash grab by the MA legislature. The man (It's always a man) who most recently proposed this idea had to forcibly restrain himself from laughing when he admitted that he expected the state to see a boon from the unreturned bottles to the tune of millions of dollars. Again, if you want to give a politician extra money for nothing, and expect any good to come out of it, you're only one of two kind of people.
The down side of this question is that it gets mixed up with people who genuinely see it as a way to help build up our recycling programs (which are mandatory in many cities and towns across the Commonwealth) and to help preserve the environment. It's about neither, it's only about the money. It's almost always about the money.
A NO vote shows good common sense, and forces the legislature to create a new revenue stream to rob its citizens. A yes vote shows that your are stuck on ideology, or that you're a government worker. There is, unfortunately, no in between on this issue.
MA Ballot Question #1
The impetus for today's arguments is due to the fact that tomorrow (November 4th, 2014) our great nation will head to the polls to elect our *leaders*. In Massachusetts, that generally means looking at the ballot, chuckling, and then writing in the name of your best friend or closest relative. While it's true that Charlie Baker would appear to have the governorship in hand (unless he screws up in the next 24 hours), it's really a position that holds no power, unless he goes Obama and simply (illegally) issues executive orders for the next 4 years. Elsewise, it's going to be a real boring 4 years for Charlie as he watches the MA legislature (comprised of something like 943% Democrats) do whatever the Hell they want as they know they'll always get elected in this state. For Pete's sake, we kept electing Ted Kennedy and he murdered a woman! If the democrats had their way, they would have kept electing him even after he died, and continued to cast his vote for him in D.C.
However, I digress. The first question really is as straight forward as ballot questions come in MA, and it will look something like this when you get your ballot tomorrow:
A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gas tax be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding the gas tax.
Giving a politician money is like giving an arsonist a book of matches: sooner or later, you know they'll both burn through whatever you give them. As the law stands now, Democrats (and it is democrats, because they are like Communists in Cuba: they control everything.) don't even have to bother to go on record to reach in to our wallets and purses, they simply have to wait for the inflation numbers to be announced (and yes, I believe the government would rig the inflation numbers in order to increase our tax burden.) and then they get another pile of money each time someone heads to the pump. There is no accountability at all with how the law is currently written, only access to more cash at every turn.
A YES vote on question 1 would at the least force legislators to go on the record in favor of raising our taxes. In my opinion, this is one of the more onerous taxes on the books, there is absolutely no reason to allow this law to continue on as it is.
A no vote states very clearly that you are either a: a government employee or b: don't give a damn about anything. Do the right thing- vote yes and bring accountability back to tax hikes.
However, I digress. The first question really is as straight forward as ballot questions come in MA, and it will look something like this when you get your ballot tomorrow:
QUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Eliminating Gas Tax Indexing
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?SUMMARY
This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gasoline tax, which was 24 cents per gallon as of September 2013, (1) be adjusted every year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index over the preceding year, but (2) not be adjusted below 21.5 cents per gallon.A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gas tax be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding the gas tax.
Giving a politician money is like giving an arsonist a book of matches: sooner or later, you know they'll both burn through whatever you give them. As the law stands now, Democrats (and it is democrats, because they are like Communists in Cuba: they control everything.) don't even have to bother to go on record to reach in to our wallets and purses, they simply have to wait for the inflation numbers to be announced (and yes, I believe the government would rig the inflation numbers in order to increase our tax burden.) and then they get another pile of money each time someone heads to the pump. There is no accountability at all with how the law is currently written, only access to more cash at every turn.
A YES vote on question 1 would at the least force legislators to go on the record in favor of raising our taxes. In my opinion, this is one of the more onerous taxes on the books, there is absolutely no reason to allow this law to continue on as it is.
A no vote states very clearly that you are either a: a government employee or b: don't give a damn about anything. Do the right thing- vote yes and bring accountability back to tax hikes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)