Monday, August 3, 2015
Defund Planned Parenthood
Tonight (August 3rd, 2015) the U.S. Senate will be voting on a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. If you've been living under a rock for the past few weeks, feel free to watch this video to find out what all the hub-bub is about. As is always the case with politics, there are many sides to consider, and the most important one (at least for sitting Senators) is what the voting public's thoughts are on an issue. If you've got the time, call your U.S. Senator and ask them to defund Planned Parenthood, which may help curtail the practice of dissecting aborted babies for further profit. You may also ask them to put pressure on the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation in to their operations.
So please call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to vote to defund Planned Parenthood.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
The Iran *Deal*
When one makes a deal, there usually is some give and take on the issue. I might like a little more here, you might wish to take a little more there, and we'll end up somewhere near the middle, theoretically.
After today's announced *deal* with Iran, it's quite clear that President Obama never took even a basic level negotiating class. Hell, he didn't bother even watching some YouTube videos of people who actually know how to negotiate. In short, these are the official gains that Iran garnered, while getting to remain a breeding zone for future terrorists:
Having given away everything, including the front door keys to the White House, you'd expect that Obama might have asked for a small token of appreciation in return, no? Like perhaps the return of the 4 American citizens (Robert Levinson - 2007, Amir Hekmati - 2011, Saeed Abedini - 2012, and Jason Rezaian) that Tehran has held hostage? No dice on that front, sorry. In fact, Obama thinks you are a moron, perhaps a traitor, if you dare proffer a question asking why the hostages were not released. Below is the transcript of CBS reporter Major Garrett and Obama's exchange:
I've written previously that on his best day, Obama might be Neville Chamberlain. In light of this *deal*, I must make a full apology to Chamberlain's corpse and any of his progeny that are still alive. I could not be more sorry for having drug Neville's name through the mud by comparing Obama to him. Obama, on his best day, is a terrorist sympathizer who believes that America is the most evil force going. Further, it is his apparent goal to eliminate the air of American superiority, and indeed, the reality of it as well.
Now that we're kowtowing to terrorist regimes, is there any further we can fall as a nation?
After today's announced *deal* with Iran, it's quite clear that President Obama never took even a basic level negotiating class. Hell, he didn't bother even watching some YouTube videos of people who actually know how to negotiate. In short, these are the official gains that Iran garnered, while getting to remain a breeding zone for future terrorists:
- We'll never know what previous violations of international agreement Iran committed with regard to their nuclear program. Why? Apparently Obama and other world leaders didn't want to offend the terrorists who are in charge of Iran's government. Or maybe they just believed it to be bad manners to ask about such insignificant matters.
- Legitimization of Iran's nuclear program, in that this new *deal* provides them a pathway to become a nuclear power within the next decade, with our blessing. Whether or not the Iranians care to wait that long remains to be seen, but it must be disconcerting to our *closest* ally in the region, Israel, that Obama (and other 'leaders') essentially signed off on Iran's stated goal of destroying the Israeli state.
- Iran gains access to tens of Billions of dollars in international sanctions relief without doing a damn thing. You know, kind of like a parting gift to game show losers, except Iran absolutely was the biggest winner today. All the pretty language in the *deal* that claims anything like Iran having to keep the promises it made in the agreement mean absolutely nothing, because the signees of the agreement are the ones who will be checking up on Iran (and yes, Iran is part of that cartel), and there is no earthly reason for them to admit to making a wicked googily. None whatsoever.
- Iran will have the ability to Heisman international inspectors, with little to no repercussions. This is unconscionably horrific *negotiating*. We are now going to trust the people who for the last 35 plus years have been one of the largest, if not the largest centers of state-sponsored terrorism. Apparently that's not a big deal in today's world, and is so 20th century.
- In case anyone has forgotten, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is eligible to run for President of Iran again in 2017. This is the man who denies the Holocaust ever occurred, and has talked openly about ending the Jewish state. Next time he's in charge, he'll have nuclear weapons. Thanks a lot, Obama.
- Arms embargoes and missile embargoes (why there's a separate timeline, I don't know) are so constricting. The solution to that problem is to eliminate them for Iran. So within 5 years' time, the arms embargo against Iran will be gone, and in 8 years, so to will the missile embargo.
- All normal trade, including banking and investment, are back in play. Capitalists may not delight in this as much as they might have if they didn't have to worry about their new trade partner dropping a nuclear weapon on their back door, but hey, it'll be one Hell of a party, I'm sure.
Having given away everything, including the front door keys to the White House, you'd expect that Obama might have asked for a small token of appreciation in return, no? Like perhaps the return of the 4 American citizens (Robert Levinson - 2007, Amir Hekmati - 2011, Saeed Abedini - 2012, and Jason Rezaian) that Tehran has held hostage? No dice on that front, sorry. In fact, Obama thinks you are a moron, perhaps a traitor, if you dare proffer a question asking why the hostages were not released. Below is the transcript of CBS reporter Major Garrett and Obama's exchange:
Major Garrett: As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran - three held on trumped up charges according to your administration, one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all of the fanfare around this [nuclear] deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for, in relation to these four Americans?
And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It was perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations, making the Pentagon feel you've left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?
President Obama: I've got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content, as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails - Major, that's nonsense. And you should know better. I've met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody's content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.
Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. Suddenly, Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans (emphasis added) by holding these individuals - makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. And by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing just as hard to get these folks out. That's why those issues are not connected, but we are working every single day to try to get them out and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families.What the heck other concessions could Obama have possibly thought that the Iranians were going to ask for? Was he worried that he might draw dog sitting duties when Iranian leaders took a vacation? That is patently the stupidest statement ever uttered by an American President in my lifetime, without question.
With respect to the Chairman's testimony, to some degree I already answered this with Carol. We are not taking the pressure off Iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. As I just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo this particular new UN resolution, not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular UN resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see Iran engaged in those activities - whether it's six years from now or 10 years from now.
So, we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact part of my pitch to the GCC countries, as well as to Prime Minister Netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that Iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like Hezbollah, and as I just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners.
I've written previously that on his best day, Obama might be Neville Chamberlain. In light of this *deal*, I must make a full apology to Chamberlain's corpse and any of his progeny that are still alive. I could not be more sorry for having drug Neville's name through the mud by comparing Obama to him. Obama, on his best day, is a terrorist sympathizer who believes that America is the most evil force going. Further, it is his apparent goal to eliminate the air of American superiority, and indeed, the reality of it as well.
Now that we're kowtowing to terrorist regimes, is there any further we can fall as a nation?
Monday, July 13, 2015
Where Do We Draw the Line At Offensive?
Nearly a month ago, a psychotic, white male killed 9 black parishioners as they worshiped at Emmanual African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. It was and is a horrific incident that members of that community will deal with for the rest of their lives.
However, it is also something that raised a couple of interesting ideas, and buried the story that should have been looked at. What I've seen over the past month is not a focus on the murderer, or the 9 church members whose lives were so callously taken. No, rather the focus has been on the Confederate flag. Why? Because it's offensive and a symbol of oppression.
That's fine, and if state /local governments or citizen groups want to get on with dispensing of the Confederate flag in public areas, that is their prerogative, and they should do it if they feel it is right.
However, the notion of oppression is a bit open-ended, as are the symbols that may represent them. The swastika is a symbol that is most often associated with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis during WWII era Germany, but it has been around for thousands of years prior to that in a variety of religious uses in a myriad of different religions throughout the world. By no means am I comparing the Confederate flag with the swastika, but mostly because the Confederate flag (the "battle flag") does not have a history that has anything to do with anything outside of the Confederacy, and the South's attempt to withdraw from the Union.
However, if it's oppressive symbols that hurt people's feelings, or bring about thoughts of former terrible regimes and people who have done harm in the world, what of the Union Jack, the very symbol of our former Colonial ancestors (and current ally) Great Britain? Others might also argue that the U.S. Stars and Stripes could be labeled as a symbol of oppression as well, if looked at from certain group's perspective. Should both of those flags be banned within our border, so as to not offend people and remind them of the oppressive regimes who used them as their symbol of power?
More important to me is that real issues are being ignored, while the Confederate flag story is running through state houses and news outlets, littering the landscape with details that are in fact not at all enlightening, nor helpful. If there are those who think that the Confederacy was right to enslave black Americans, there's not much to be done to help that kind of stupid. If there are those that observe it as a historical remnant of states fighting for their way of life (however morally reprehensible they may be) and their right to withdraw from the Union, that may not be as offensive, or as stupid as the prior group, but it still may be time for those people to join the 21st century, where states are looking to withdraw from the Union for a host of different reasons that may be looked back on by future generations as equally stupid.
The big problem I have with all of this is how the issue has now become political, in the most negative way possible. Democrat members of Congress are using the issue as a way to hold up budget battles with Republicans, instead of doing their jobs and looking out for what is best for the American people, and again, no talk is occurring about the shooter, or the victims' families who are dealing with their grief. Instead, political groups are once again taking a tragedy and couching it in a way to push forth an agenda. This is wrong, and should not be allowed to occur, but with a complacent media and 'leaders' who care only about their own fortune, that is not what happens here, or anywhere there is a tragedy.
Then there are those who would look to affect even greater gun control laws, in order to make society 'safer'. Of course, the problem with that is those who would seek to murder in this way are not ones who are going to follow laws. They'll simply buy their guns illegally, or they'll use other means to create the havoc they are seeking to achieve.
Mira Thompson, Daniel Simmons, Sr., Clementa Pinckney, Depayne Middleton, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Cynthia Hurd, and Tywanza Sanders all deserve better than that.
However, it is also something that raised a couple of interesting ideas, and buried the story that should have been looked at. What I've seen over the past month is not a focus on the murderer, or the 9 church members whose lives were so callously taken. No, rather the focus has been on the Confederate flag. Why? Because it's offensive and a symbol of oppression.
That's fine, and if state /local governments or citizen groups want to get on with dispensing of the Confederate flag in public areas, that is their prerogative, and they should do it if they feel it is right.
However, the notion of oppression is a bit open-ended, as are the symbols that may represent them. The swastika is a symbol that is most often associated with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis during WWII era Germany, but it has been around for thousands of years prior to that in a variety of religious uses in a myriad of different religions throughout the world. By no means am I comparing the Confederate flag with the swastika, but mostly because the Confederate flag (the "battle flag") does not have a history that has anything to do with anything outside of the Confederacy, and the South's attempt to withdraw from the Union.
However, if it's oppressive symbols that hurt people's feelings, or bring about thoughts of former terrible regimes and people who have done harm in the world, what of the Union Jack, the very symbol of our former Colonial ancestors (and current ally) Great Britain? Others might also argue that the U.S. Stars and Stripes could be labeled as a symbol of oppression as well, if looked at from certain group's perspective. Should both of those flags be banned within our border, so as to not offend people and remind them of the oppressive regimes who used them as their symbol of power?
More important to me is that real issues are being ignored, while the Confederate flag story is running through state houses and news outlets, littering the landscape with details that are in fact not at all enlightening, nor helpful. If there are those who think that the Confederacy was right to enslave black Americans, there's not much to be done to help that kind of stupid. If there are those that observe it as a historical remnant of states fighting for their way of life (however morally reprehensible they may be) and their right to withdraw from the Union, that may not be as offensive, or as stupid as the prior group, but it still may be time for those people to join the 21st century, where states are looking to withdraw from the Union for a host of different reasons that may be looked back on by future generations as equally stupid.
The big problem I have with all of this is how the issue has now become political, in the most negative way possible. Democrat members of Congress are using the issue as a way to hold up budget battles with Republicans, instead of doing their jobs and looking out for what is best for the American people, and again, no talk is occurring about the shooter, or the victims' families who are dealing with their grief. Instead, political groups are once again taking a tragedy and couching it in a way to push forth an agenda. This is wrong, and should not be allowed to occur, but with a complacent media and 'leaders' who care only about their own fortune, that is not what happens here, or anywhere there is a tragedy.
Then there are those who would look to affect even greater gun control laws, in order to make society 'safer'. Of course, the problem with that is those who would seek to murder in this way are not ones who are going to follow laws. They'll simply buy their guns illegally, or they'll use other means to create the havoc they are seeking to achieve.
Mira Thompson, Daniel Simmons, Sr., Clementa Pinckney, Depayne Middleton, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Cynthia Hurd, and Tywanza Sanders all deserve better than that.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
The 4th of July, Global Warming, and Other Thoughts
This past Saturday (the 4th of July), I was acting exactly the same as many other Americans - hanging with family and friends, gorging myself on copious amounts of delightful foods, and watching fireworks explode in the night sky. Here's what was going on in other parts of the world, but close enough to the U.S. to cause concern, or at least it should.
That's right, Russian President was once again testing the limits, and harkened back to Top Gun times by sending a pair of Tupolev Tu-95s (which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons) approximately 55 miles off the coast of Alaska before they were scurried away by the might of two F-16s. A half an hour after that incident, (11 a.m. ET), another pair of Tupolev Tu-95s were found hanging out off the coast of central CA (again, not within U.S. airspace). They, too, were sent packing, but it is disconcerting that they were found there, and even moreso given that this occurred just two years ago, on July 4th, 2013.
Then there's ISIS, who of late have been getting their @sses handed to them by ----- and ----- (not so much the U.S., but that's more leadership's fault than that of our hard-working soldiers.), who are still murdering people in new and even more horrific ways than previously done. These are the people, you'll recall, that Obama infamously called the J.V. team.
Despite those items, and many more that are far too horrific to even let the public know about (Honestly, if these are the things that we know, can you imagine how terrible the things are that are being kept from us?), our *President* has insisted more than once that the greatest threat to our nation and planet is "Global Warming". He has insisted that the "Science is Proven", and there are a fair amount of sycophants and leeches who are willing to spout the company line, so long as they are kept in federal funding.
Often, views from the opposing side are shouted down because they are considered the 'minority view', or such thoughts would only be spoken by 'climate deniers', something no *true* scientist could ever be charged with.
Imagine my the giddy feeling that coursed through my veins when by happenstance, I stumbled across this article/video. The speaker is Ivar Giaever, late a member of American Physical Society, until 2011 when he resigned in protest to this statement put forth by the group:
My favorite moments in the video are when espouses the fact that nothing in science is incontrovertible, and making the analogy of Global Warming apologists being a new *religion*. I enjoyed these points, because they are ones that I have used in debates with members of that particular sect, and now I have a scientist, world-reknown, at that, to back my statements. It really is exhilarating. Then there were the moments when he called Obama 'ridiculous' and stated that he was 'dead wrong' on Global Warming.
I might not stop smiling for a week.
That's right, Russian President was once again testing the limits, and harkened back to Top Gun times by sending a pair of Tupolev Tu-95s (which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons) approximately 55 miles off the coast of Alaska before they were scurried away by the might of two F-16s. A half an hour after that incident, (11 a.m. ET), another pair of Tupolev Tu-95s were found hanging out off the coast of central CA (again, not within U.S. airspace). They, too, were sent packing, but it is disconcerting that they were found there, and even moreso given that this occurred just two years ago, on July 4th, 2013.
Then there's ISIS, who of late have been getting their @sses handed to them by ----- and ----- (not so much the U.S., but that's more leadership's fault than that of our hard-working soldiers.), who are still murdering people in new and even more horrific ways than previously done. These are the people, you'll recall, that Obama infamously called the J.V. team.
Despite those items, and many more that are far too horrific to even let the public know about (Honestly, if these are the things that we know, can you imagine how terrible the things are that are being kept from us?), our *President* has insisted more than once that the greatest threat to our nation and planet is "Global Warming". He has insisted that the "Science is Proven", and there are a fair amount of sycophants and leeches who are willing to spout the company line, so long as they are kept in federal funding.
Often, views from the opposing side are shouted down because they are considered the 'minority view', or such thoughts would only be spoken by 'climate deniers', something no *true* scientist could ever be charged with.
Imagine my the giddy feeling that coursed through my veins when by happenstance, I stumbled across this article/video. The speaker is Ivar Giaever, late a member of American Physical Society, until 2011 when he resigned in protest to this statement put forth by the group:
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.His audience was the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting, and his statements are huge for several reasons. First, he is a man who allegedly supported Obama as he campaigned to become President back in 2007 - 08. Secondly, he is an unquestioned man of science, one whose opinion can not simply be discounted as an example of a 'climate denier'. Third, it re-opens the debate with regard to what is 'proven' science, and what is still up for grabs. Most importantly, to me at least, is that it should allow Obama to move on from this topic and get back to what's really important - protecting the American people.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
My favorite moments in the video are when espouses the fact that nothing in science is incontrovertible, and making the analogy of Global Warming apologists being a new *religion*. I enjoyed these points, because they are ones that I have used in debates with members of that particular sect, and now I have a scientist, world-reknown, at that, to back my statements. It really is exhilarating. Then there were the moments when he called Obama 'ridiculous' and stated that he was 'dead wrong' on Global Warming.
I might not stop smiling for a week.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Why Can't Rachel Dolezal Identify As Black?
A couple of weeks ago, Rachel Dolezal caused a sensation when she told Matt Lauer that she 'identified as black'. The problem, for most of us, at least, is that her skin tones would tend to suggest a far whiter ancestry, which her parents confirmed her heritage as Chech, Swedish, German, and a smattering of Native American.
To be clear, I find Dolezal's argument to be facetious, not to say stupid. Of course she's not black, which is not to say that she was not doing a good job for the NAACP in Spokane. She may well have been, but apparently, that's not what the issue is. The issue is her race, and what/whom determines it.
Perhaps in a year of 'change', Dolezal simply assumed that it was what one thought of oneself that determined what one was. Case in point, Bruce Jenner, former Gold Medal Olympian, the biggest man's man going, and one of the most famous athletes in the world back in the day. Jenner decided that he was a woman, and the world, for the most part, went along with it. ESPN went so far as to give Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award stating in part:
If that was the case, she would have done well to examine the case of Riley Weston, who in 1998 lost her writing gig with Touchstone Television when it was revealed that she was 32, not the 19 she had claimed to be. Weston was genetically blessed enough that this ruse was easily accomplished, until her star began to shine too brightly.
It's also possible that Dolezal was taking her lead from former President Bill Clinton, who identified as the nation's 'first black' President. In fact, Clinton was honored by the Congressional Black Congress for being just that. At the ceremony Clinton said "I am happy in Harlem and I am honored to be thought of as the first black president." Congressman John Lewis said of Clinton "He understands the hopes and dreams and the frustration of African- Americans. We identify with him and he can identify with us."
So perhaps the big mistake that Dolezal made was not getting an important enough person to give her permission to identify as black. If that had occurred, then she may not have all the problems she is currently going through.
Then again, in a year in which a CAT wins the National Hero Dog Award, anything and everything is on the table. Unfortunately for Dolezal, her story is not compelling enough, and it doesn't fit any storyline that the media or politicians are trying to force down our throats.
To be clear, I find Dolezal's argument to be facetious, not to say stupid. Of course she's not black, which is not to say that she was not doing a good job for the NAACP in Spokane. She may well have been, but apparently, that's not what the issue is. The issue is her race, and what/whom determines it.
Perhaps in a year of 'change', Dolezal simply assumed that it was what one thought of oneself that determined what one was. Case in point, Bruce Jenner, former Gold Medal Olympian, the biggest man's man going, and one of the most famous athletes in the world back in the day. Jenner decided that he was a woman, and the world, for the most part, went along with it. ESPN went so far as to give Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award stating in part:
This year, we are proud to honor...Jenner embracing her identity and doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue about progress and acceptance.In light of that Award, it might be easy to understand why Dolezal could think that one only had to put forth what they 'believed' they were, and they would be universally accepted.
If that was the case, she would have done well to examine the case of Riley Weston, who in 1998 lost her writing gig with Touchstone Television when it was revealed that she was 32, not the 19 she had claimed to be. Weston was genetically blessed enough that this ruse was easily accomplished, until her star began to shine too brightly.
It's also possible that Dolezal was taking her lead from former President Bill Clinton, who identified as the nation's 'first black' President. In fact, Clinton was honored by the Congressional Black Congress for being just that. At the ceremony Clinton said "I am happy in Harlem and I am honored to be thought of as the first black president." Congressman John Lewis said of Clinton "He understands the hopes and dreams and the frustration of African- Americans. We identify with him and he can identify with us."
So perhaps the big mistake that Dolezal made was not getting an important enough person to give her permission to identify as black. If that had occurred, then she may not have all the problems she is currently going through.
Then again, in a year in which a CAT wins the National Hero Dog Award, anything and everything is on the table. Unfortunately for Dolezal, her story is not compelling enough, and it doesn't fit any storyline that the media or politicians are trying to force down our throats.
This
year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and
doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue
about progress and acceptance. - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf
his
year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and
doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue
about progress and acceptance. - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf
his
year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and
doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue
about progress and acceptance. - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Is Taylor Swift the Most Powerful Woman in the World?
In the world today, there are currently 22 women who are the leaders of their nations, with Chancellor Angela Merkel having the longest tenure. She took power on November 22, 2005.
On that same date, Taylor Swift's major label debut album was nearly a full year away (it would hit the world on October 24th, 2006.) Since that time, Swift has released 4 more studio albums that have hit #1 on the Billboard chart, sold over 40 million albums across the globe and she has topped 130 million digital downloads of her songs. She has also toured nearly non-stop, selling out venues everywhere and anywhere that hosts artists. Merkel has chaired the G8, and in 2013 was named the world's most powerful woman by Forbes magazine.
However, for all she has done, nothing that Merkel has done in her long career can compete with what Swift did this week, without even releasing a new album.
Earlier this month, Apple announced that they would be jumping in to the streaming music business, launching 24 hour a day radio stations that would allow for paid subscribers and 'free accounts'. The new venture is scheduled to start on June 30th, and to garner attention and subscribers, Apple announced new users would receive the service for 'free' for 3 months. What was not as widely publicized was the fact that Apple also would not pay artists for their music that they played.
Enter Taylor Swift, who took umbridge with this maneuver by Apple. She penned an open letter to Apple stating her decision to not allow her latest release, 1989, to be part of Apple's streaming service, because she felt it would unfairly deprive artists, in particular new or less 'famous' artists of revenue. She noted that with 5 studio albums in hand, along with a world tour, she is more than able to pay her bills and tuck money away for a rainy day, but new artists could not afford such a period of time without being paid. She closed her letter by stating:
I first saw Swift's letter yesterday (06-21-2015.) Less than 24 hours later, Apple changed course, and precisely as Swift asked them to do, announced that they would pay artists per stream, even during the promotional period. This is a huge victory for struggling artists, and puts Swift squarely in the driver's seat for the title "Most Powerful Woman in the World". The next time Merkel takes down an $800 Billion behemoth in under 500 words, she can feel free to re-apply for the title. Until such time, it's Swift's.
On that same date, Taylor Swift's major label debut album was nearly a full year away (it would hit the world on October 24th, 2006.) Since that time, Swift has released 4 more studio albums that have hit #1 on the Billboard chart, sold over 40 million albums across the globe and she has topped 130 million digital downloads of her songs. She has also toured nearly non-stop, selling out venues everywhere and anywhere that hosts artists. Merkel has chaired the G8, and in 2013 was named the world's most powerful woman by Forbes magazine.
However, for all she has done, nothing that Merkel has done in her long career can compete with what Swift did this week, without even releasing a new album.
Earlier this month, Apple announced that they would be jumping in to the streaming music business, launching 24 hour a day radio stations that would allow for paid subscribers and 'free accounts'. The new venture is scheduled to start on June 30th, and to garner attention and subscribers, Apple announced new users would receive the service for 'free' for 3 months. What was not as widely publicized was the fact that Apple also would not pay artists for their music that they played.
Enter Taylor Swift, who took umbridge with this maneuver by Apple. She penned an open letter to Apple stating her decision to not allow her latest release, 1989, to be part of Apple's streaming service, because she felt it would unfairly deprive artists, in particular new or less 'famous' artists of revenue. She noted that with 5 studio albums in hand, along with a world tour, she is more than able to pay her bills and tuck money away for a rainy day, but new artists could not afford such a period of time without being paid. She closed her letter by stating:
We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.Back in 1994, one of the biggest musical acts in the world, Pearl Jam, launched a campaign against ticketmaster due to what they felt were unfair practices by the ticket seller. There were campaigns, Congressional hearings, and Pearl Jam even staged their own short-lived tour all to no avail, but a year and a half later, Ticketmaster crushed Pearl Jam, and there has been no substantive movement against them in the nearly 20 years since.
I first saw Swift's letter yesterday (06-21-2015.) Less than 24 hours later, Apple changed course, and precisely as Swift asked them to do, announced that they would pay artists per stream, even during the promotional period. This is a huge victory for struggling artists, and puts Swift squarely in the driver's seat for the title "Most Powerful Woman in the World". The next time Merkel takes down an $800 Billion behemoth in under 500 words, she can feel free to re-apply for the title. Until such time, it's Swift's.
Monday, June 1, 2015
The CA Union Shell Game
The impetus for today's argument comes from this article published in the L.A. Times that lays out the argument of Rusty Hicks, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, to allow exemptions for unionized employers with regard to the new, mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage that was implemented.
The main reason for these exemptions, so Hicks' argument goes, is that workers who are unionized and their employees should be allowed to set their rate of pay at whatever they see fit. Normally, I'd be in lock step with Hicks, because after all, this is America, and one of our fundamental rights should be the ability to determine what our own value is in the free market.
However, in this instance, I'm going to take umbrage with Hicks and his union cohorts, for this simple reason: they were the ones who fought tooth and nail to make sure that the minimum wage was approved. As is always the case, it was cloaked with words of caring for the poor, the underprivileged, none of whom would ever be associated with organized labor. What a joke.
Having worked in various union shops, I can say without question that the only thing that labor leaders care about is the amount of union dues they collect so that they can line their own pockets with fatter salaries. This would be fine, because this is also the American way- get paid as much as you can without violating the law. The big difference here is that once a shop is unionized, workers' rights go out the window. There is nearly never an opportunity for someone to come in and work in an union shop unless they first join the union and pay dues.
In today's age, I find it nearly impossible that anyone, anywhere who is working a legal job is in need of a union. Union leaders come up with great slogans and rally people against corporate big wigs, but they never take the time to mention that they are part of that power structure. They are the 1%, and will continue to be so, as long as there are new recruits in to the system to pay dues. Without that, the system collapses. If time allowed, an analogy to our Social Security crisis could be made, but we'll save that for another day.
So Hicks and his union cohorts force through a minimum wage hike, all the while pretending that it is to benefit the workers that they 'represent'. Once the initiative goes through, and 'private' businesses are subject to the law, the union leaders then petition for an exemption that will allow unionized companies to pay a sub-minimum wage to their employees. Who might benefit from this scenario?
Unions, of course, along with their 'leaders'. By increasing the 'minimum' wage to such a ridiculous level, if unions are given an exemption, companies would be foolish to not allow their businesses to unionize, because it will allow them to keep their labor costs down. The net result is that there is no real gain for the average worker, but there is a money transfer from the lower level (the "99%") to the upper levels (union leaders, or the "1%".)
The rhetoric won't play out that way, because the union leadership is not as dumb as most of the nation is. They'll spin how great a deal it is for their workers, and the members will parrot what they're told, because just like in 1984, it's what you do. You do what is asked of you, and never question why your leaders can't seem to move you forward. This is nothing more than a shell game, and the big losers in the equation are the employees who thought their lot might somehow be improved.
The main reason for these exemptions, so Hicks' argument goes, is that workers who are unionized and their employees should be allowed to set their rate of pay at whatever they see fit. Normally, I'd be in lock step with Hicks, because after all, this is America, and one of our fundamental rights should be the ability to determine what our own value is in the free market.
However, in this instance, I'm going to take umbrage with Hicks and his union cohorts, for this simple reason: they were the ones who fought tooth and nail to make sure that the minimum wage was approved. As is always the case, it was cloaked with words of caring for the poor, the underprivileged, none of whom would ever be associated with organized labor. What a joke.
Having worked in various union shops, I can say without question that the only thing that labor leaders care about is the amount of union dues they collect so that they can line their own pockets with fatter salaries. This would be fine, because this is also the American way- get paid as much as you can without violating the law. The big difference here is that once a shop is unionized, workers' rights go out the window. There is nearly never an opportunity for someone to come in and work in an union shop unless they first join the union and pay dues.
In today's age, I find it nearly impossible that anyone, anywhere who is working a legal job is in need of a union. Union leaders come up with great slogans and rally people against corporate big wigs, but they never take the time to mention that they are part of that power structure. They are the 1%, and will continue to be so, as long as there are new recruits in to the system to pay dues. Without that, the system collapses. If time allowed, an analogy to our Social Security crisis could be made, but we'll save that for another day.
So Hicks and his union cohorts force through a minimum wage hike, all the while pretending that it is to benefit the workers that they 'represent'. Once the initiative goes through, and 'private' businesses are subject to the law, the union leaders then petition for an exemption that will allow unionized companies to pay a sub-minimum wage to their employees. Who might benefit from this scenario?
Unions, of course, along with their 'leaders'. By increasing the 'minimum' wage to such a ridiculous level, if unions are given an exemption, companies would be foolish to not allow their businesses to unionize, because it will allow them to keep their labor costs down. The net result is that there is no real gain for the average worker, but there is a money transfer from the lower level (the "99%") to the upper levels (union leaders, or the "1%".)
The rhetoric won't play out that way, because the union leadership is not as dumb as most of the nation is. They'll spin how great a deal it is for their workers, and the members will parrot what they're told, because just like in 1984, it's what you do. You do what is asked of you, and never question why your leaders can't seem to move you forward. This is nothing more than a shell game, and the big losers in the equation are the employees who thought their lot might somehow be improved.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Memorial Day Should Be Kept Sacred
For many, Memorial Day is the official beginning of the coming summer season. Long weekends, bar-b-ques, trips to the beach or other destinations are all part of the excitement. Retailers and others take advantage of the holiday as a way to push a sale and increase their profits, and really there's nothing wrong with any of that, except it completely misses the point of the day.
Memorial Day officially came in to existence courtesy of General Orders #11,issued by Commander-in-Chief John A. Logan on May 5th, 1868 in order to commemorate those who had fallen in defense of our nation during the Civil War. Eventually it was extended as a way to remember any and all who gave their life in defense of our nation and its principles in any war.
Not surprisingly, our awesome leaders in Congress share a great load of the burden for Memorial Day decreasing in significance for the general public outside of the fact that it provides most with a three day weekend. In 1968, they passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, the sole purpose of which was to guarantee more three day weekends for federal employees (super-hard workers that they all are, they deserve more time off, always.) By removing it from its traditional May 30th slot, Congress basically stated that focusing on the memory of our war dead is not what's important, it's convenience for the citizens who are still alive.
I'm in no position to cast stones at anyone who doesn't celebrate Memorial Day in the way it was designed to be, because I rarely focus on it, but I recently read that about 1,000 men and women who fought for the U.S. during WWII died each and every single day, and that really got to me. According to online sources, and the last American who participated in World War 1 (Frank Woodruff Buckles) died in 2011 at age 110. There were of late two other confirmed (and two unverified) soldiers from Great Britain who were still alive. While it may be true that we have been in conflicts and wars since then, there has been greater than average political dissension regarding those, and I fear that the genuine purpose of the holiday may disappear forever when the last of our Patriots who fought for our freedoms and our way of life in WWII pass away if we don't recognize them and it while they are still with us.
There was a move, however minor, that was passed via a resolution in 2000 called The National Moment of Remembrance, in which we as a nation are asked to stop what we are doing at 3 p.m. and consider those who sacrificed all that they had that we might remain free. It's not much, but if it should occur to you to think for just a minute, then perhaps there is still a chance of returning this Day to its true reason for existing.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Israel Redux
The impetus for today's argument comes courtesy of Vladimir Putin once again showing the world his @ss, and daring anyone to do something about it.
The manner in which he went about it this time was to lift the *self-imposed* ban Russia had on delivering its S-300 missile system to Iran. The Russians had originally struck a deal with the Iranians to deliver the system in 2007, but kowtowed to international pressure, chiefly put forth by the United States and Israel.
Unfortunately for Israel, the man currently occupying the White House is not nearly as strong of an ally as the man who was there, so that same level of support may not be counted upon. While Israel remains our strongest ally in the region, their friendship has been at the least, taken for granted over the past several years.
To compound the problem, our President sees no big deal in allowing the Iranians to continue on with their nuclear program, because it's obviously peaceful, and would never be utilized for nefarious purpose like destroying Israel. This despite the fact that their previous President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on the record calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, and this despite the fact that the Iranians have the 4th largest proven reserves of oil (5x as much as the United States, and only trailing Venezuela, Canada, and Saudi Arabia.) Current Iranian President Hassan Rouhini has not made any public statements that would suggest he is in agreement with Ahmadinejad, but he is only guaranteed to stay in office until 2017 (assuming he stays alive.), when Ahmadinejad is eligible to run for office again.
So when Ahmadinejad returns to power in 2017, it may be with a nuclear program capable of producing weapons grade material, and a weapon system that will make it impossible for Israel (or any other nation) to take down the nuclear program. Not only that, but the S-300 missile system is capable of hitting targets in northern Israel, including aircraft.
The questions now on the board are what steps will Israel take in order to ensure her survival, and will the U.S. back her strongest ally in the region if conflict develops? As of this moment, it has been 6 weeks since a rocket/missile has been launched at Israel, a nearly unheard of streak, and something that could be viewed as a positive idea. If Iran gets the S-300 missile system from Iran, will there ever be another rocket free day in Israel?
The manner in which he went about it this time was to lift the *self-imposed* ban Russia had on delivering its S-300 missile system to Iran. The Russians had originally struck a deal with the Iranians to deliver the system in 2007, but kowtowed to international pressure, chiefly put forth by the United States and Israel.
Unfortunately for Israel, the man currently occupying the White House is not nearly as strong of an ally as the man who was there, so that same level of support may not be counted upon. While Israel remains our strongest ally in the region, their friendship has been at the least, taken for granted over the past several years.
To compound the problem, our President sees no big deal in allowing the Iranians to continue on with their nuclear program, because it's obviously peaceful, and would never be utilized for nefarious purpose like destroying Israel. This despite the fact that their previous President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on the record calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, and this despite the fact that the Iranians have the 4th largest proven reserves of oil (5x as much as the United States, and only trailing Venezuela, Canada, and Saudi Arabia.) Current Iranian President Hassan Rouhini has not made any public statements that would suggest he is in agreement with Ahmadinejad, but he is only guaranteed to stay in office until 2017 (assuming he stays alive.), when Ahmadinejad is eligible to run for office again.
So when Ahmadinejad returns to power in 2017, it may be with a nuclear program capable of producing weapons grade material, and a weapon system that will make it impossible for Israel (or any other nation) to take down the nuclear program. Not only that, but the S-300 missile system is capable of hitting targets in northern Israel, including aircraft.
The questions now on the board are what steps will Israel take in order to ensure her survival, and will the U.S. back her strongest ally in the region if conflict develops? As of this moment, it has been 6 weeks since a rocket/missile has been launched at Israel, a nearly unheard of streak, and something that could be viewed as a positive idea. If Iran gets the S-300 missile system from Iran, will there ever be another rocket free day in Israel?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)