Friday, January 31, 2014

THE LONELY LIFE OF A LIBERAL BLOGGER IN SPACE

Today I feel like one of the Voyager spacecrafts that was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida in 1977. The little spacecraft is still broadcasting news reels from Earth to the far reaches of space, but it’s unclear whether anybody is listening. Maybe in a thousand years or so somebody on another world will pick up the signal and wonder what it means, but we’ll probably never know whether our message got through or not.

Judging by the number of hits this blog gets on a daily basis, I’m kind of skeptical that anybody out there is picking up the signal. A couple of weeks ago I posted a piece on Justin Bieber and got over 300 hits in one day. That was my all-time record. Still, I’m going to try to persevere this year. Maybe one day my writing will be the Dead Sea Scroll for a future generation. I can only hope

Thursday, January 30, 2014

WHERE FAILURE CANNOT BE AN OPTION

It’s not very reassuring to hear that 92 out of the 500 military personnel charged with operating America’s nuclear warheads at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana were caught cheating on their proficiency and readiness exams. In fact, it’s downright alarming. The soldiers involved were supposed to be the best of the best; the cream of the crop that stood as America’s best defense against nuclear annihilation, and now we come to find out that scores of them don’t even know what they’re doing. For years, Americans have been obsessed with worry over al-Qaeda’s desire to detonate a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil, but if what has happened at Malmstrom is indicative of the state of our military as a whole, then al-Qaeda is the least of our concerns.

Ordinarily, you can expect to hear of an isolated cheating incident or two on a college campus after a frat holds a “kegger” on the night before final exams, but not in the U.S. military that regularly holds itself up as the world’s most capable fighting force. Even a peacenik like me recognizes the danger of that kind of ineptitude, and every voice in America, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, young or old, or rich or poor must join together to demand that the lack of discipline and readiness among our nuclear warhead guardians must end at once.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

CONGRESSMAN GRIMM IS ABOVE THE LAW

It must be nice to be New York's Republican Representative, Michael Grimm. He got to threaten to kill a reporter last night, in the halls of Congress no less, with the entire incident recorded on video, and the Capital Police didn’t do a damn thing about it. Neither did the Republican House leadership. Apparently, making terroristic threats is a perk of Congressman Grimm’s position.

After the conclusion of President Obama’s state of the union message, reporter Michael Scotto of NY1 asked Congressman Grimm for a comment about an FBI investigation into the Congressman’s campaign finance funds. Grimm got mad about the reporter’s change of topics and threatened Scotto by saying, “You ever do that again, I’ll throw you off the [expletive] balcony.” When Scotto responded by stating that he thought his question was a fair question, Grimm continued to threaten the reporter.

“No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough,” Grimm said. “I’ll break you in half. Like a boy!”

I’ll admits that congressional politicians are granted a certain amount of oratorical license when they’re on the floor of their respective chambers, but that license does not extend to public areas and it certainly does not entail the right to issue threats of physical violence. For those unfamiliar with Congressional balconies, a person thrown from one would surely die!

They say that nobody is above the law, but that’s bullshit. Congressman Michael Grimm is above the law, and last night he proved it!

LANE CLOSURES NOT CONFINED TO NEW JERSEY

If you think lane closures are only in vogue at the New Jersey Governor’s office, think again! The entire Republican Party has been infected with the lane closure bug, and the infection makes Chris Christie’s George Washington Bridge fiasco look like child’s play. The G.O.P. wants to close the poor student’s free lunch lane, the needy family food stamp lane at the grocery store, the sick person’s lane to the hospital, the homosexual’s lane to the benefits of marriage, the minority’s lane to the voting box, the immigrant’s lane to citizenship, the consumer’s lane to redress in the courts, the worker’s lane to a livable minimum wage and the retiree’s lane to a secure retirement.

On the other hand, Republicans have gone to great lengths to keep open the lanes to a gun purchase, the lanes for campaign donors to make contributions and the lanes for lobbyists to ply their causes at free lunches.

Is it any wonder that our Nation’s traffic has come to a virtual halt?

Monday, January 27, 2014

THE QUESTIONS WE OUGHT TO ASK OURSELVES

1. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE PATRIOTIC?

2. IS PATRIOTISM GOOD?

3. WERE THE GERMAN NAZIS WHO MURDERED SIX MILLION JEWS DURING WORLD WAR II PATRIOTIC GERMANS?

4. FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY CALLED PATTY SHEEHAN AND HER FOLLOWERS UNPATRIOTIC TRAITORS WHO GAVE AIDE AND COMFORT TO ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES. PATTY WAS AN ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST WHOSE SON WAS KILLED IN THE IRAQ WAR. PATTY AND A GROUP OF FOLLOWERS PROTESTED THE IRAQ WAR ON A ROAD LEADING TO FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH'S AUSTIN TEXAS RANCH. WAS THE VICE-PRESIDENT RIGHT? WAS PATTY AN UNPATRIOTIC TRAITOR?

5. DOES PROTEST MAKE ONE UNPATRIOTIC?

6. ARE THE AMISH PATRIOTIC? IS THEIR WAY OF LIFE UNAMERICAN?

7. DOES THE AMISH LACK OF PATRIOTISM JUSTIFY THEIR BEING CALLED TRAITORS?

8. WHICH IS OF GREATER VALUE TO A COUNTRY: SECURITY OR LIBERTY?

9. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WROTE: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." ARE FRANKLIN'S WORDS OUTDATED?

10. DOES RELIGION BELONG IN AMERICAN POLITICS?

11. ARE THERE ANY RELIGIONS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM AMERICAN POLITICS?

12. DOES MAN POSSESS CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AS QUOTED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? (Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness)

13. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOK OF LEVITICUS, CHAPTER 19 – VERSES 33 & 34: "When an alien resides with you in your land, do not molest him. You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as yourself… I, the Lord, am your God." WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT TODAY'S IMMIGRATION DEBATE?

14. MANY AMERICANS THINK THAT WE SHOULD DECLARE AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION. SHOULD WE DITCH THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN?

15. WHO DECIDES WHAT IS AND ISN'T MORAL?

16. HITLER TOLD THE GERMAN PEOPLE THAT IT WAS MORALLY JUST TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS. WERE THOSE WHO BELIEVED HITLER'S ASSERTION AND FOLLOWED HIS ORDERS ACTING JUSTLY?

17. IMAGINE THAT YOU OWN A SUBWAY RESTAURANT. ARE THERE ANY CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH I'D BE JUSTIFIED IN BREAKING INTO YOUR RESTAURANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND DESTROYING ALL YOUR FOOD?

18. WHAT IF I WAS MAD AT PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR TRYING TO REQUIRE EVERYBODY TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. WOULD THAT JUSTIFY THE DESTRUCTION?

19. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, MASSIVE RIOTS WERE STAGED IN A SUBURB OF LONDON. PROTESTORS THERE WERE MAD ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS SHOOTING AN UNARMED MAN. THE PROTESTERS LOOTED MANY BUSINESSES AND DESTROYED A LOT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. IS IT MORALLY JUST FOR PROTESTERS WHO ARE ANGRY AT THE GOVERNMENT TO DESTROY PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A MEANS OF PROTEST?

20. IN 1773, A GROUP OF COLONISTS IN MASSACHUSETTS BOARDED A PRIVATE BOAT OWNED BY THE EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY AND DUMPED ITS PRIVATELY OWNED CARGO OF TEA INTO THE BOSTON HARBOR. WE CALL THAT THE BOSTON TEA PARTY. WHY AREN'T WE DENOUNCING THOSE BANDITS AS COMMON THIEVES INSTEAD OF REVERING THEM AS GLORIFIED FREEDOM FIGHTERS? THEY WERE, AFTER ALL, DESTROYING PRIVATE PROPERTY!

21. ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, FOLLOWERS OF OSAMA BIN LADEN TOOK CLOSE TO 3,000 AMERICAN LIVES IN THEIR ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL. OVER THE PAST 11 YEARS, MORE THAN 20,000 AMERICAN CHILDREN HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THEIR OWN HOMES BY ABUSIVE FAMILY MEMBERS. THAT IS NEARLY SEVEN TIMES THE NUMBER KILLED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH AND FOUR TIMES THE NUMBER OF SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. IT IS ROUTINELY CLAIMED THAT AL QAIDA IS THE NUMBER ONE THREAT TO AMERICANS. IS THAT TRUE?

22. WHICH IS WORSE, TO ABORT A HUMAN FETUS OR TO STARVE A CHILD ONCE IT IS BORN?

23. WHICH IS WORSE, VOTING FOR A POLITICIAN WHO VOTES TO ALLOW HUMAN FETUS' TO BE ABORTED OR VOTING FOR A POLITICIAN WHO VOTES TO WITHHOLD FOOD AND ALLOW CHILDREN TO STARVE?

24. I'VE HEARD NUMEROUS VETERANS SAY THAT THEY WOULD DIE FOR THE AMERICAN FLAG AND THAT BURNING AN AMERICAN FLAG IS SACRILEGIOUS. IS THAT TRUE?

25. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING AN AMERICAN FLAG IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND THE HEBREWS HAVING A GOLDEN CALF IN THEIR HOLY TENT IN THE DESERT?

26. WHAT DO YOU MEAN TO SAY WHEN YOU UTTER THE WORDS, “GOD BLESS AMERICA?”

27. WHERE DOES THE REST OF THE WORLD FIT INTO THAT REQUEST?

28. ARE AMERICANS EXCEPTIONAL? IF SO, IN WHAT WAY?

29. IF YOU FOUND A DIAMOND ENGAGEMENT RING THAT TURNED OUT TO BE WORTH SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THERE WERE NO MARKINGS ON THE RING INDICATING THE OWNER’S NAME, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IT?

Sunday, January 26, 2014

INSTITUTIONAL CRUELTY

Institutional cruelty isn’t something that that gets a lot of recognition these days, but it’s out there and I wish it would get the kind of broad attention it deserves. Take the John Peter Smith Hospital in El Paso, Texas for example. That’s the hospital that put Erick Munoz and his family through hell by refusing to honor Erick’s wife, Marlise’s Advance Medical Directive to remove her brain-dead corpse from life-support equipment. Nobody, let alone a family grieving from the loss of a loved one, should be forced to resort to legal action to get a hospital to honor a legitimate medical directive, nor should any grieving family have to suffer the indignity of having a hospital refuse to release a corpse to further the hospital’s own agenda. That’s institutional cruelty.

In 2009, Sister Margaret Mary McBride of the Sisters of Mercy was an administrator on the ethics board at the Saint Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. A pregnant patient at the hospital was diagnosed with severe pulmonary hypertension and the Hospital’s doctors indicated that the pregnant woman would surely die if her pregnancy was allowed to continue. An abortion was the only procedure that would spare the woman’s life. Sister McBride joined in the Hospital’s ethics board’s decision to authorize the abortion. The abortion was performed and the woman lived. Subsequently, Bishop Olmstead of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix excommunicated Sister McBride for her decision. That’s institutional cruelty.

Several years ago, a guy I knew was enrolled in a three-month trainee program at a local company. The guy had been unemployed for two years and the trainee program was his best chance of securing a meaningful job in his field of expertise. One of the requirements of the company’s trainee program was that a trainee could not refuse any work during the three-month probation period or incur any absences, including any absences for illness. That meant that the company could insist a trainee work on any of three shifts, plus work on Saturdays and Sundays. My friend’s wife was diagnosed with cancer a week after the trainee program began, but the company refused my friend’s request to adjust his shift so he could take his wife for treatment. That’s institutional cruelty.

There are plenty of similar stories out there that are just as maddening. Feel free to share yours.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

BEATING A DEAD HORSE

Yesterday, a student at South Carolina State University was shot and killed on campus. Today, three people were shot and killed (including the murder suspect) at a mall in Columbia, Maryland. The killings continue at a torrid pace, and I have to wonder how many people will die until we wake up and recognize that the love affair Americans have with guns is a big part of the problem? Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m beating a dead horse!

Earlier this week the University of California, San Francisco released the results of a study its researchers conducted on firearm use in suicides and murders. The study’s results indicated that suicide risks were significantly increased and homicide rates were moderately increased in households where a gun was present. If you’re a gun rights advocate, it’s easy to dismiss those findings because, let’s face it, using a firearm in an attempt to commit suicide or kill somebody makes it more likely that death will occur. That’s part of why the risk of suicide and homicide is higher in households with guns, but there’s another part of the equation that critics of gun control refuse to acknowledge – the lower levels of impulse control and heightened rates of aggression that gun owners exhibit over their unarmed counterparts. Those two factors are really at the heart of the matter. That’s why I say that hotheads shouldn’t own guns.

Most states have laws that prohibit people who’ve had mental health commitments from possessing firearms. Those statutes resulted from the recognition that individuals suffering with mental illness represent a greater danger to themselves and others if they are permitted to possess firearms. Speaking as a person who’s dealt with my own mental health issues, I can state with absolute certainty that I wouldn’t be alive today had I owned a firearm during the lowest depths of my depression. That’s why I recognize that certain gun control laws are both prudent and necessary.

Almost all states also have laws prohibiting youngsters from owning firearms, and barring the use of firearms by juveniles, except under the supervision of an adult. Those laws reflect the fact that juvenile reasoning is still in its developmental stage and very often, juveniles lack the impulse control that is necessary for safe firearm ownership.

Unfortunately, those same laws don’t apply to adult wing-nuts and hotheads, many of whom continue to wreak havoc on our urban landscape with reckless abandon…and the killing continues!


Friday, January 24, 2014

ADORING FANS AT THE GATE

I recently spoke with a friend of mine who runs a therapy group at a women's prison. During our chat, she lamented the fact that many of the inmates she counsels end up re-offending because they lack an adequate support system when they're released from jail. Without strong back-up, she explained, released inmates quickly become frustrated and overwhelmed by the social and economic barriers that ex-cons encounter outside prison walls. When that occurs, many of the former inmates slide back into the negative behavior patterns that got them locked up in the first place. It’s a vicious cycle.

I was reminded of that conversation today as I was reading and watching various media accounts of pop star Justin Bieber’s overnight entanglement with police in Miami Beach, Florida. The entanglement resulted in charges being filed against Bieber for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, drag racing on a public street and resisting arrest. After being detained at the Turner Guillford Knight Correctional Center, Bieber was taken before a judge who set bail in the amount of $2,500. Bieber then posted bail and was released. Outside the correctional center, Bieber was greeting by hundreds of adoring fans who waved, held up signs and screamed excitedly at their musical idol. Bieber responded to the outpouring of support by emerging through the sunroof of the vehicle he was traveling home in and waving to crowd of well-wishers.

As I was watching a video clip of Bieber’s release from jail, I was reminded of the huge disparity that exists in our treatment of the “haves” and the “have-nots” who get released from our criminal justice system. Bieber was met at the release gate by hundreds of well-wishers. A lot of women my friend counsels get picked up by their pimp or drug dealer. Bieber drove home to a luxury mansion. Many other inmates go home to an eviction notice hanging on their door. None of Bieber’s upcoming concerts or paid appearances have been cancelled, but most other inmates can’t even get a job interview at Wal-Mart, let alone land a full-time, minimum wage position. In the entertainment industry, a rap sheet is often viewed as a badge of honor. In the real working world, it’s frequently a death sentence dooming an ex-con to failure.

I hope Justin Bieber learned something constructive from last night’s brush with the law, but I doubt it. That’s the jaded me talking, or maybe the realist that recognizes that the wealthy and entitled live by a different set of rules…and it burns me up to see the “have-nots” treated with scorn while the “haves” go right on thumbing their noses at those trapped under their feet.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS

The answers to yesterday's question are Viagra and Cialis! That's right, the performance enhancing drugs you'll find most advertised during every televised sporting event in the United States are Viagra and Cialis. Isn't it ironic that American sports fans jeer the loudest when athletes like Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez use performance enhancing drugs, yet celebrate the use of those same drugs in their own lives? I'll bet less than 5% of U.S. sports fans can identify the drugs that Lance and Alex took, but 99.9% could identify Viagra and Cialis and why they're used.

I recognize there's a difference between people's sex lives and professional sports, but when drugs are used to enhance performance in one sphere it's kind of difficult to vilify their use in another. That's a mixed message that can confuse some athletes, especially given that most are young and feel more driven to achieve success. This is not a justification for athletes using performance enhancing drugs. It's just a recognition that the matter is not as black and white as some like to claim.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

A ONE-QUESTION P.E.D SPORTS QUIZ

Listen-up sports fans. It’s time to test your knowledge about the link between sports in America and PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs). Are you ready? (Hint: have you read enough articles about Alex Rodriguez doping suspension?) Are you sure? (Hint: have you written down the names of the drugs Alex was taking?) Okay, here we go!

Name the two must-used performance enhancing drugs connected with the sports world? The answer will be found in tomorrow’s blog.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

HUNTING FOR WITCHES

The other day on NBC’s Meet the Press talk show, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani came to the defense of New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie over what Giuliani claimed was a partisan witch hunt. He was referring to the George Washington Bridge lane-closure fiasco that has been haunting Governor Christie over the past several weeks, along with claims that the Christie administration abused its power by denying Hurricane Sandy relief funds to areas controlled by the Governor’s political opponents. Mayor Giuliani charged that the New Jersey legislative investigation of these matters was not unbiased and suggested that the Democrat leading the inquiry should step aside.

Is Giuliani for real? Does he really think there’s any such thing as an unbiased legislative investigation? I certainly hope not, because that would mean he’s gone over the deep end, and I’ve always liked the guy.

Let’s face it, legislative investigations are always partisan affairs. That’s the nature of the beast. Whichever party controls the strings of legislative power strives to keep that power, and the most effective spell for smearing a political opponent is a legislative committee investigation. I’m not suggesting that’s a good thing. I’m just saying that’s the way it is.

Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have not been beating a dead horse during their Benghazi Embassy attack investigation because they really think there are security lessons to be learned by our flawed response during the attack. Nor have those same GOP legislators been dragging out their investigation into the ATF’s ‘Fast and Furious’ gun-running fiasco because they want to limit the number of guns in America. What’s really driving both investigations is the Republican desire to smear President Obama and his Democratic administration. That’s just how the game of politics is played these days.

And let’s not ignore the role both parties play in providing their opponents with reason to conduct witch hunts. After all, if you keep a boiling caldron in the middle of the room and a collection of broomsticks and potions on the wall, you’re kind of setting yourself up to be burned at the stake.

Legislative committee investigations remind me of lunches at Hogwarts. Two warring camps are seated in the same room at separate tables, but everybody has a wand and they’re itching to use it.

Expelliarmus!

Monday, January 20, 2014

IS PUTIN GAY?

Is Russian President Vladimir Putin gay? Seriously, am I the only one who thinks that Russia’s “homophobe-in-chief” may actually be a closet homosexual?

Look, it really doesn’t make any difference to me. I campaign regularly for homosexual equality, support an open and affirming religious denomination (the United Church of Christ) and openly acknowledge that I am a diehard liberal Democrat who believes that the law must be blind when it comes to sexual orientation. Otherwise, equality is just an empty mantra!

Still, I wonder about Putin.

First, there the line in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” If you swap out the word “lady” and insert “Putin,” that pretty much sums up the argument. Putin spends so much of his time bashing homosexuals that it seems like Shakespeare might have inadvertently hit upon something.

Next, there’s Putin’s proclivity for running around without his shirt. Yeah, I realize this argument is a patently stereotypical and totally unfair characterization of gay men, and I hope all my gay friends will forgive my transgression, but damn if a shirtless Putin doesn’t look like a model for a gay magazine cover. You’d be hard-pressed to find a buffer president anywhere!

Then, there’s the brouhaha surrounding French President, Francois Hollande and his alleged affair with French actress Julie Gayet. What’s that have to do with Putin? Well, nothing, except have you seen Francois Hollande? If a short, pudgy, over-the-hill French guy like Hollande could get a hottie like Julie Gayet to drape over his arm, not to mention the gorgeous Valerie Trierweiler who resides with Hollande at the Presidential Palace, you’d think that a guy like Putin could have a bevy of beauties swooning heavily in his wake, but the Russian President has showed no such interest in the fairer sex.

Plus, it’s not like Putin has found religion or has fallen under the spell of the Christian right-wing evangelical movement. Putin’s regime is an atheist regime and there’s little reason to think that a religious conversion is in the cards.

Finally, I find it difficult to believe that the man who could rattle off the number of American nuclear warheads pointed at his homeland would believe that homosexuality is Russia’s greatest threat. It just doesn’t fit into the greater scheme of Russian politics. So I ask myself – what gives? What’s driving Putin’s sudden focus on the sexual preferences of the Russian people?

And the only answer I can come up with is that Putin is gay, and he doesn’t want to admit it.

I rest my case.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

YEAH...YOU READ THAT RIGHT

Penis Pumps Waste Medicare Millions: Inspector General

According to a story posted on MSNBC by NBC staff writer, Daniel Arkin, from 2006 through 2011, Medicare paid out $172.4 million dollars in claims for penis pumps so 478,000 old farts could continue having sex. Apparently, there were a lot of seniors out there who didn’t know it was time to quit.

Wal-Mart Manager Fired After Chase to Stop Beer Theft

Well, technically it was a beer robbery. An assistant manager at a Titusville Wal-Mart tried to get the license plate of two men who stole more than a dozen cases of beer from the store. He jumped into the bed of the robbers’ pick-up truck and the robbers then drove off and took him on a 15-minute high-speed trip. Eventually, the assistant manager got away and the police apprehended the beer thieves, but Wal-Mart wasn’t happy about the assistant manager’s zeal and gave him the axe.

Italian Nun Gives Birth; Claims She Didn’t Know She Was Pregnant

A Salvadorean nun living in a convent in Reiti, Italy, gave birth last Wednesday to a bouncing baby boy. The convent where the nun was living claimed that she didn’t know she was pregnant until she was admitted to the hospital. The larger question ought to be – Who’s the baby daddy? Sounds like a case for Maury Povich.

Oregon Fugitive Arrested in Montana After 15-year Manhunt

I never realized that it took so long to go from Oregon to Montana. I know you’d have to travel through Idaho, which is a barren, God-forsaken place where one can easily become lost and disoriented (i.e. Idaho Senators Crapo & Risch), but taking 15 years is a bit much. Maybe that’s why they called it a manhunt. A woman on a hunt would have asked for directions.

Clapper Declassifies More NSA Documents after Obama Speech

per FOX news)…I’ve been clapping my hands for the past 15 minutes, and although the lights keep going on and off, I still don’t see any declassified documents. Can somebody help me out here?

Target Hacker Used Over-The-Counter Malware

That headline basically means that Target’s security is so lax that even a 5-year old could breach it. If the Evil Empire wasn’t so busy firing managers for chasing stolen beer and its hourly workers for demanding fair pay, I might have suggested breaking my own boycott, but that’s not going to happen. From now on, I’ll have a cash-only policy at Target.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

KILLING HIM HARSHLY

Ohio officials claimed that this past Thursday’s execution of convicted killer, Dennis McGuire would not be done in a manner that constituted cruel and unusual punishment, a penalty banned by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The two-drug cocktail that officials planned to use during McGuire’s execution by lethal injection was supposed to bring about his death quickly and painlessly. At least, that's what the state of Ohio claimed in briefs filed by its Attorney General in both federal and state court proceedings when McGuire challenged Ohio’s procedure for carrying out the death penalty. Unfortunately, McGuire’s execution was anything but quick and painless.

According to witnesses who observed the execution, including two of McGuire’s adult children and several newspaper reporters, McGuire gasped for air and made loud snorting noises for somewhere between between 15 and 19 minutes after Ohio’s experimental two-drug cocktail was administered.

That scenario was exactly what McGuire’s lawyer predicted during arguments before various courts as he was trying to block McGuire’s execution, but the courts and Ohio’s governor refused to listen. Moreover, the assistant attorney general representing Ohio had the audacity to suggest that it was perfectly acceptable for McGuire to suffer pain during the procedure. What’s next? Is torture to become an acceptable part of the death penalty process?

It has always been my belief that, at best, the death penalty is a foolish proposition, and at worst, it’s altogether cruel and unjust. I see no worthwhile purpose in needlessly terminating the life of another human being when a life behind bars would serve as a greater punishment. That said, if a state is going to have the death penalty on its books, it ought to recognize that the penalty is a deprivation of life, not torture followed by death.

States have stopped using the hangman’s noose, the electric chair and the gas chamber as methods for carrying out the death penalty. That’s because people came to recognize that those methods involved inflicting several pain and suffering upon the condemned before death occurred, and in many cases, that suffering amounted to torture. McGuire’s death proved that Ohio’s two-drug cocktail amounted to torture, too. It must be banned immediately!

Friday, January 17, 2014

LOOKING BACK AT PRESIDENTIAL PREJUDICE

Prior to the commencement of a jury trial, prospective jurors are screened to insure they can make a fair and impartial determination of guilt without allowing preconceived notions or biases to interfere with their task. Our constitutional framework deems the decision to adjudge another man or woman’s guilt too important to be undertaken by individuals who are unable to fairly and impartially evaluate evidence. That’s because the stakes are too high for both the accused and for the safety of our society. During the testimony portion of a trial, witnesses are also cross-examined by attorneys to question the basis of their knowledge, to probe for inconsistencies in their testimony, to uncover motives to lie and to reveal prejudices and biases that thwart the search for the truth.

The same principles should have been applied when former President George W. Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq. Ever since America and its allies invaded Iraq and found that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat to America’s safety, people have debated whether President Bush lied to the American people about the decision to go to war. Diehard liberals felt he did. Diehard conservatives maintain that he did not. It’s also possible that the truth lies somewhere in the nebulous middle.

Diehard beliefs aside, one question Americans should be asking is whether President Bush allowed his own personal prejudices and biases to interfere with his ability to make a fair and impartial evaluation of the evidence about Saddam Hussein and Iraq that was set before him. Did those prejudices override his ability to think critically?

The decision to send hundreds of young men and women to their death in a war zone, not to mention causing the death of thousands of innocent civilians in the process, demanded strict scrutinizing of any evidence used to justify the determination to go to war. Preconceived prejudices and biases had no legitimate place in the midst of such a review when the lives of countless individuals were at stake.

That President Bush had preconceived notions and prejudices cannot be denied. Saddam Hussein once supported a plot to kill the President’s father. Barely weeks after taking office in his inaugural State of the Union message the President labeled Iraq and Saddam in particular as part of an “axis of evil” that America must confront. Paul O’Neill, a widely respected member of the President’s cabinet confirmed that at the first national security meeting after he took the oath of office, President Bush’s focus was finding evidence against Iraq. Regardless of the wisdom of the subsequent invasion, it is clear that Iraq was in the President’s cross-hairs from day one. Mind you, I’m not saying President Bush’s prejudices were unreasonable, only that they existed.

Is it reasonable for the son of a murder victim to sit on the jury adjudicating the murder suspect’s guilt? Of course, not! That’s because it’s widely recognized that the judgments of people are often clouded by their prejudices, biases and preconceived notions.

In the bloody aftermath of the war in Iraq, we now know that the assumptions used to justify the war were false and the evidence used to make those assumptions deeply flawed. That finding was not just made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. A Republican controlled Senate Committee reached the same conclusion.

However, just because former President Bush relayed information to the American people, later found to be false, does not necessarily mean he lied. A lie is making a statement one knows to be untrue. Many Bush supporters argued that the President was simply duped by bureaucrats who overstated intelligence and provided skewed analysis. They maintained that the President actually believed what he said was true and therefore, he did not lie. It’s a good point worth remembering. I’ll explain why later.

Supporters of President Bush also applauded him as a man of decisive action. Granted, decisiveness is a valuable leadership skill, but many a leader has led his subjects down the path of ruin when critical analysis was abandoned in favor of what was labeled decisive. The head of a pack of lemmings that leads his group over a cliff is no doubt decisive, but his followers are not spared the fatal consequences of that decisiveness. The battlefields of history are littered with the remains of those who acted first without thinking.

One of the beauties of a democracy and our republic in particular, is that it affords its citizens the right to choose their own leaders. In the 2000 presidential election the winner was a perennial C-student who boasted afterwards to an English reporter that he wasn’t being paid to think in nuances, but rather to tell the American people what he believed. If that’s the case, President Bush essentially confirmed that Americans lowered the intellectual bar when they voted for him, a man who didn’t think, but just talked.

It shouldn’t have surprised anybody then that President Bush was either unwilling or intellectually unable to ask the critical questions necessary to properly evaluate the evidence about Iraq laid out before him, or to determine that the assumptions being made by his underlings were flawed. In President Bush’s mind, he wasn’t being paid to engage in critical thinking or ask questions, he was only paid to let the American people know what was on his mind! That’s why when then C.I.A. director George Tenet told the President that the evidence on Iraq was, “a slam dunk”, the President didn’t bother to ask why.

Millions of Americans were willing to risk their lives and the lives of their children on President Bush’s lack of thought and inquisition. They wanted a president who didn’t think and just talked. Just for the record, I wasn’t one of them!

Thursday, January 16, 2014

A MARIJUANA-INDUCED SWAN DIVE

One of my college roommates, a kid named Larry spent his 21st birthday getting high on marijuana. Later that evening, Larry and his car took a swan-dive off the Pennsylvania turnpike out near Breezewood. Larry was killed instantly. The coroner’s report later confirmed that Larry was stoned when his car left the highway.

I learned of Larry’s death from a couple who had spent that day partying and getting high with him. They were devastated and couldn’t stop crying long enough to relate all that had happened during their last few hours with him. They watched Larry walk out the door not knowing that it would be the last time they saw him alive.

In the midst of that conversation, it struck me that neither of the two people who had gotten high with Larry were feeling any remorse or sympathy for the heart-breaking loss Larry’s family were experiencing. Instead, they were lamenting their own loss, the loss of a fun-loving partying buddy. To be honest, the whole conversation left me numb.

Alcohol and drugs weren't my thing when I was in college, but I did attend a few parties with Larry when he was my roommate and he always made sure the host knew beforehand to have a soft drink or two available for me. If somebody criticized my refusal to smoke marijuana, he was always the first to step in and verbally defend me. He didn’t agree with my choices, but he respected my right to choose. I felt the same way about him. I still do.

I’m not going to use marijuana whether it’s legalized or not, but if it is, there will be more swan-dives off the turnpike, more families lamenting the loss of loved ones and more tears. That’s not something I’d recommend choosing.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

GUNS OFF-SCREEN

After the mass killings in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado on July of 2012, an NRA (National Rifle Association) official was quoted as saying that the victims in that theater shooting would have been much safer had they been carrying weapons, too. The official suggested that the theater death toll would have been much lower had everybody in the auditorium been armed. I’m not sure how having more crossfire would have lessened the danger or saved lives in a darkened theater, but movies are famous for asking viewers to suspend their belief in reality, so I guess the NRA is entitled to that suspension, too.

I’m bringing up that subject because this past Monday, a retired police officer, Curtis Reeves, Jr. was attending a movie in Wesley Chapel, Florida when a guy seated in front of him was texting on his cell phone as previews for future movies were being shown. Reeves told the man to stop. When that didn’t work, Reeves complained to the theater personnel, who apparently didn’t resolve the problem. After a second encounter with the texting patron, Reeves shot and killed the man, and wounded the man’s wife, too.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “Hot heads with guns don’t mix!”

Adding more hotheads or guns to the equation won’t work either.

THE BIEBER OMELETTE

Justin Bieber should be glad he lives in Calabasas, California instead of Callisburg, Texas. In Callisburg, the neighbors don’t call the cops when somebody is standing on their front lawn throwing eggs at their homes. Instead, they stick the barrel of their shotgun out a front window and wait for the coroner to cart off the egg thrower to the morgue. That’s called defending one’s castle, and in Texas it carries about the same weight as the Holy Bible.

I’m not sure why Bieber thought that egging his next door neighbor’s home was a neighborly thing to do; maybe it had something to do with the cocaine the police found in his residence yesterday morning. Whatever the case, I do know that he’s lucky he’s going to be sued for $20,000 in damages instead of his estate coughing up $20,000 for a funeral. Oh, I know…in Calabasas $20,000 doesn’t buy more than a pine box, but seriously, who’d want to show up at a funeral for a guy who traded his life for a few minute of egg tossing? I wouldn’t bother!

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

ANOTHER TAKE ON THE CHRISTIE BRIDGE SCANDAL

While nearly everybody is chirping about the political ramifications of the George Washington Bridge scandal hounding New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie and his administration, few are paying attention to the real problem. While the question of who ordered the bridge lane closures that caused a traffic disaster, and who knew what and when, are raging in the press and around Washington water coolers, a potentially catastrophic disaster is being largely ignored. I’m talking about the fact that the George Washington Bridge is structurally deficient. Yeah, repairs are currently being made, but maybe the lane closures were really a blessing in disguise. Only God knows for sure!

The George Washington Bridge is one of America’s oldest, yet busiest bridges. It’s also on the government’s list of structures requiring major upgrades in order to prevent a catastrophic bridge collapse from happening. Over two hundred thousand vehicles cross the George Washington Bridge every day, and if one day it collapses and leads to the deaths of thousands of people, politically-motivated lane closings will be the least of everybody’s problems.

The real scandal is the deteriorating state of our Nation’s bridges!

Monday, January 13, 2014

DESEAN JACKSON...MEET WILLIE SUTTON

Willie Sutton, the famed early 20th century bank robber was credited with explaining why he robbed banks with the following retort – “Because that’s where the money is!” Although Willie is credited with having stolen over two million dollars during his illustrious career as a bank robber, he also spent nearly half his life in jail. Accumulating a large amount of money doesn’t always equate with being smart.

Last week, the home of Philadelphia Eagle’s star wide receiver, DeSean Jackson was burglarized and whoever hit the Jackson residence walked away with jewelry, a handgun and over a quarter of a million dollars in cash. That’s right, a quarter of a million dollars in cash!

Who keeps a quarter of a million dollars in cash in their house? Well, apparently DeSean Jackson does. Hasn’t he heard there’s such a thing as a bank? I guess not!

Jackson earned $6.75 million dollars from the Philadelphia Eagles football team this past season, or $421,875 per game. That’s a nice chunk of change if you can find the work, but you’d think a guy pulling in that kind of money would have more sense than leaving a quarter of a million dollars laying round the house. That’s just begging for a guy like Willie Sutton to pay him a visit. In fact, somebody did.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

A THOUGHT OR TWO ON DEATH

In my 6th year at Saint Patrick’s Elementary School, I became an altar boy. It was a milestone in my Catholic school training. As an altar boy, I served at Masses, weddings and funerals by holding candles, crosses, Bibles, and on occasion, the water, wine and bread used to celebrate the Catholic Eucharistic Feast. Sometimes, I even got to ring bells at Mass. That was my favorite part of the job.

One morning, the Pastor of my church called our school principal and requested that I and one of my friends be excused from class, because the Pastor needed two altar boys to serve at a funeral that day. My friend and I were delighted to escape the confines of our classroom, even though it meant attending a somber funeral. After the funeral Mass was concluded, the attendees in the church loaded into cars and made their way in a funeral procession to the cemetery where the deceased was to be interred. My friend and I rode with the Pastor. On the way to the cemetery, he instructed us that our job was to stand on either side of him at the grave site holding candles. Our instructions were easy and I didn’t think there would be any problems at the grave site. Was I wrong!

In the midst of the graveside service, while the Pastor was reciting prayers next to the coffin, the wife of the deceased suddenly stood up and threw herself upon the coffin. She started pounding her fists on the metal box and began screaming.

“He’s alive! He’s alive! He’s calling to me! Open the coffin!” The widow wailed. “Open the coffin. He’s alive! He can’t breathe! My husband can’t breathe!”

The Pastor must have realized that I was on the very of cracking a smile, or worse – chuckling, and he shot me a glance that conveyed the warning that I might be dead if I did. I didn’t crack that day, but I’ve never forgotten that death has a way of affecting some people; and it’s next to impossible for some of them to let go of their loved ones.

The recent death of Jahi McMath is a case in point. The doctors have proclaimed the girl “brain dead,” because there is no brain activity occurring in the little girl’s body. The family, however, refuses to concede the 13 year old girl’s death, because the girl’s heart and lungs continue to function while connected to life support equipment. According to the medical community, when Jahi McMath is eventually removed from the life-support equipment, her heart and lungs will stop immediately.

I believe that Jahi McMath has died. Her brain ceased functioning weeks ago, and although our scientific equipment can keep her heart and lungs functioning, the essence of Jahi McMath no longer inhabits this Earth.

When I think of the McMath family I think of that screaming widow at the graveside service. She wanted to believe with all her heart that a miracle had occurred, but death was ultimately not denied its bounty. It’s the same with Jahi McMath. May Jahi rest with Peace…and may Peace be with her family, too.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

WHEN IN ROME...

When in Rome, do as the Romans do! - St. Ambrose

In my freshman year in college, the first chapter of the Sociology 101 class textbook I bought contained a story about a researcher who went to an Eskimo village to study the natives and their culture. The leader of the Eskimo village hosted a dinner to celebrate the researcher’s arrival, and after the meal was concluded, the host offered his wife to have sex with the researcher as a welcoming present. The researcher was offended by the host’s offer and rejected the gift with outright scorn, which in turn caused the host to become so enraged that he killed the researcher on the spot. The point of that story, that the norms and mores of people from different cultures should be understood and respected, even if shocking or different from our own, was not lost on me. I can’t say the same for a couple of recent newsmakers.

Devyani Khobragade was a diplomat from India posted at the Indian Consulate in New York City. On December 12, 2013, she was arrested by federal authorities in New York and charges of visa fraud and making false statements were filed against her. According to the charging documents, when Khobragade attempted to get a visa for a woman in India that she wanted to bring to America to work as her housekeeper, she lied about the amount of money she was intending to pay the housekeeper and submitted a fabricated employment contract to federal authorities. Then, when the visa was issued and the housekeeper came to America, Khobragade forced the housekeeper to work 90 hours per week and paid her $2.00 per hour for that work.

After the federal authorities arrested Khobragade, she was strip-searched and subjected to a body-cavity search at a police station, despite her protestation that she was a diplomat from India with full diplomatic immunity. The officers also refused to contact the Indian mission to ascertain whether Khobragade had diplomatic status or not, as they were required by law and international treaty to do.

As the above-referenced events transpired, respect for the norms and values of others were thrown out the window.

Khobragade ignored the fact that here in the United States, we demand that workers be paid a minimum wage and take seriously statements made on official government documents. The norms of Indian society might be accepting of Khobragade’s actions given her high social status and important government position, but in America, a person’s position or social status is not a justification for her behavior. Just ask Martha Stewart.

Authorities here in America ignored Indian values, too. We may strip search our female prisoners and subject them to body-cavity probes, but Indians don’t, and they consider it an appalling affront to their Nation’s sense of dignity that we would subject one of their high-level female representatives to what they believe is barbaric treatment. Don’t forget, India is a land where rape victims are frequently ostracized in society, and being sexually violated carries an extra stigma. In Indian society, a claim of authority must also be treated with absolute respect, and for our officials to summarily dismiss Khobragade’s claim of a diplomatic status amounted to an insult of the highest order.

Why did these situations occur? The answer is simple. Both sides ignored the values and norms of the other parties involved. They did not treat the customs and mores of others with the respect those values deserved.

I remember our class discussion about the irate Eskimo and the disgusted researcher. Some students argued that perhaps the Eskimo and the researcher were simply ignorant about the other’s set of values. The Professor leaned toward both parties believing that their own values took precedence. He pointed out that it’s easy to elevate one’s own values over another when that person thinks they’re more important or entitled than the other person. I think that’s why respect for others is such a healthy thing to practice. Without it, bad stuff happens, and when the dust settles, nobody wins.

Friday, January 10, 2014

A CHEAPER LEGISLATURE DOES NOT INSURE A BETTER ONE

Pennsylvania's House of Representatives recently passed a bill reducing the size of Pennsylvania’s legislature, but the state Senate hasn't taken up the measure yet so there's no guarantee it will pass in its current form. That's a good thing, because the House bill is akin to buying generic toilet paper. The money savings seems like a good idea when you’re in the supermarket checkout line, but when you’re done sitting on the toilet seat you suddenly recognize that cheaper doesn’t mean better. Plus, cheaper isn’t always cheaper in the long run, especially if you have to use up half a roll of the bargain brand to finish the job. You get my drift!

Reflecting the will of the people in the running of state government is supposed to be the job of the Pennsylvania legislature, and it would be worthwhile if that job could be accomplished with a minimum of taxpayer expense, but the simple act of reducing the size of our legislature without additional safeguards in place will not result in a better legislature – only a cheaper one.

The only way to insure our legislature is both cheaper and reflects the will of the people is to require all legislative districts, or as many as possible, to have equal numbers of voters from each major political party. That would result in far fewer safe legislative districts and significantly decrease the powers of fringe-based ideology that currently strangles government and prevents the true will of the people from being heard.

Ask yourself this question: Would you support a smaller legislature if it meant the political party you support would lose power and become a minority party? If your answer is yes, then I’m with you, but if your answer is no, then I have to assume that for you, reducing legislature size is really about preserving power, and not saving money or making government more reflective of the will of the people. Remember, cheaper doesn’t always mean better, and that applies to government, too.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

IS WASTE TOLERABLE?

How much waste is tolerable? Seriously, is there a limit to how much waste we’re willing to accept as a cost of doing something beneficial? Or, let’s put it differently – should we refuse to undertake an endeavor simply because waste is a partial byproduct?

Take paper, for example. Depending on the process used by a paper production plant, the waste created during paper production include dioxins (the most lethal human-released toxins in existence), carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxide, mercury, nitrates, methanol, benzene, hydrogen sulfide and chloroform. Most, if not all of those compounds cause death in some quantity. Should we not manufacture paper simply because harmful waste is a byproduct of its manufacturing process?

Another good example is plastic. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, plastics account for thirteen (13%) percent of municipal landfill waste. Should plastics be banned from our society due to the enormous environmental waste it causes?

The reason I posed those questions is because I think the answers to them would be useful in guiding this nation toward a reasonable solution to the current national unemployment compensation crisis.
Last week, approximately 1.1 million long-term unemployed Americans lost federal unemployment compensation benefits because the Republican-led House of Representatives refused to vote to extend those payments. Several million additional Americans will lose benefits within the next three months if the House continues with its opposition. Many of those Americans are the chief breadwinners in their families, so millions more will suffer the effects of those lost benefits.

As I’ve been following coverage on this issue in various media outlets. I’ve also been scrutinizing the viewer comments posted in on-line forums maintained by those outlets. From what I’ve seen, most objections to extending long-term unemployment compensation benefits fall within one of three arguments: (1) American needs smaller government; (2) borrowing to provide unemployment compensation makes America weaker; and (3) the long-term unemployed are lazy and deserve no help from the rest of society.

The first argument I view as somewhat delusional. It is fueled by a nostalgic belief that returning America’s government to the size of that institution in 1776 will somehow usher in a utopian era of peace and prosperity. That would never work. The government of George Washington would not have been able to deal with regulation of America’s current military needs, nuclear power, environmental threats, a globally connected financial industry, an international food supply chain, drugs and health care or the support of tens of millions of poor and retired citizens. While government can always get leaner, a bare-bones version would spell social and economic disaster.

The second argument, that borrowing to provide unemployment compensation makes us weaker contains a kernel of truth, but what proponents of that view fail to acknowledge is that providing no unemployment compensation makes us even weaker than borrowing to do so. That’s because while borrowing has a cost (additional principle & interest on the national debt), allowing unemployment compensation to lapse without jobs for those in line to receive that compensation means millions lose their homes, their pensions and investments. Those individuals cease being contributors to the U.S. economy. Instead, they become an additional burden.

The final argument, and the one most given for not extending unemployment compensation, is that the long term unemployed are lazy and do not deserve the help. Never mind that said claim has never been proven to be true. Still, large numbers of Americans believe it and that’s that! Everybody seems to know at least one person who’s doesn’t seem motivated to find a new job, and I personally know a few people like that, too, but a lot of Americans are quick to extrapolate their knowledge of one malingerer to conclude that all the unemployed are similarly lazy. That’s plain stupidity.

That said, I do agree there’s waste in the unemployment compensation system. The problem is that finding and eliminating that waste is virtually impossible in a system as large and unwieldy as our current system is. The system’s critics respond that the only solution is to eliminate the entire system. That’s where they and I part paths. I agree that waste is an inherent feature of our unemployment compensation system, but I also believe that there’s a level of waste that we should be willing to incur because the benefits derived from our unemployment compensation system outweigh the cost we pay for waste. We accept a certain level of waste from paper and plastic production as a cost of reaping the benefits that paper and plastics afford. We can do the same for unemployment compensation.

That doesn’t mean we ignore the waste in our unemployment compensation system. In the same way paper and plastic producers work round the clock to lessen the waste in their own manufacturing systems, so too should our government work continuously to reduce the waste in our distribution of government benefits. A leaner and more efficient system benefits everyone, but just because waste exists in our unemployment compensation system doesn’t justify destroying it. Not now! Not tomorrow! Not ever!

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

UTAH VERSUS GAY MARRIAGE

I don’t know how the United States Supreme Court will eventually rule in the state of Utah’s appeal over the gay marriage question, but in my book, state-sanctioned discrimination has no place in a country where equality and liberty for all are bedrock principles.

Opponents of same-sex marriages frequently assert that such marriages threaten the traditional concept of male-female unions, but that claim defies common sense. Heterosexual spouses are not going to abandon their opposite-sex marriages in droves to become part of same-sex unions. Human sexuality doesn't operate that way. Writing in the mid-year, 2010 edition of the Journal of Comparative Family Studies, researchers Kelly Campbell and David Wright noted that roughly one-fourth of American spouses are unfaithful at some point during their marriages. If those infidelity statistics are true, then the biggest threat to traditional marriages is opposite-sex partners, not the same-sex ones.

I respect the fact that there are many who oppose the concept of same-sex marriages on religious grounds. I would point out, however, that those individuals can remain true to their beliefs by simply marrying opposite-sex partners. What's not fair is forcing homosexuals who do not share their religious belief or sexual orientation to miss-out on the privileges and benefits that a marital relationship affords. Freedom of religious belief is not a license to force others to act in accordance with a believer's religion.

The success of a marriage depends on the bond of commitment, not the sexuality of the partners. The institution of marriage has survived for centuries, not because it was comprised of one man and one woman, but because it was entered into by two individuals with shared affection for each other's well-being and a desire to work together to make a better life. Same-sex marriages are no different, and their success makes the institution of marriage stronger, just like the successful heterosexual ones.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

HATEFUL WINGNUTS GUNNING FOR THE GOVERNMENT

TSA officer Gerardo Hernandez went to work this past November 1st at the Los Angeles Airport. It would be his last day on the job. It would also be his last day on earth, thanks to a hate-filled gunman bent on carrying the "patriot" anti-government message to its ultimate conclusion: death to those who work in government.

On April 19, 1995, Timothy MacVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, many of whom where government workers, and injured 450 more.

On February 18, 2010, Andrew Stacks flew his Piper Dakota plane into an Internal Revenue Service office in Austin, Texas, killing himself and IRS office manager Vernon Hunter. Thirteen other individuals were injured, two of them severely.

On January 8, 2011, Jared Lee Loughner shot U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in the head at point-blank range during a constituent meeting she was holding in Tucson, Arizona. Loughner killed federal District Court Chief Judge John Roll, Rep. Giffords' staffer, Gabe Zimmerman and a nine year old girl, Christina Taylor-Green. Fourteen other people were wounded during that same shooting spree.

On November, 11, 2011, Oscar Ortega-Hernandez of Idaho Falls, Idaho fired shots at windows in the White House in an attempt to assassinate President Obama.

On September 16, 2013, Aaron Alexis killed twelve and injured three additional workers at the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters at the Washington Ship Yard in Washington, D.C.

The grim history continues…

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND GUNS

I was recently asked whether I thought people had a Second Amendment right to bring guns to public meetings. I said no. Here’s why:

In the days of the Wild West, laws prohibiting guns in town were as common as cows. That's because the prospectors, trappers and cowboys who passed through were mostly interested in drinking and gambling, and the townsfolk prudently recognized that allowing hotheads to carry firearms in town was a greater threat to public safety than the natives roaming the hills outside of town. Of course, back then cooler heads and common sense prevailed over Second Amendment ideology, which was pretty remarkable considering that the Wild West got that name because it was mostly a lawless region.

The settlers living out West didn't view in-town gun laws as infringing upon their Second Amendment right to bear arms. People who wanted to hunt were free to hunt with a firearm. People who wanted to protect themselves were free to protect themselves with a firearm. The townsfolk simply demanded that those activities be done away from places where normal people congregated, because in their experience, that's where normal people were most likely to get harmed by wing-nuts with weapons. The same holds true today. Firearms have no place at public gatherings.

STICKING OUR HEADS IN THE SAND

According to the National Vital Statistics Report issued by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, over thirty-two thousand people in America were killed in 2011 by firearms. During that same year, a report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that 73,883 Americans suffered non-fatal injuries caused by firearms. With car safety rising and gun violence escalating, it's been predicted that by 2015, firearm fatalities in America will surpass traffic fatalities for the first time in our nation's history.

How long can we tolerate sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that firearm violence is not a public health issue, when billions of dollars are spent treating injuries caused by firearms and billions more are spent dealing with the aftermath? To put this matter in perspective, the American Cancer Society estimated that 39,520 women in America died of breast cancer in 2011, and today we're in the midst of a nationwide pink campaign to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to support research to fight that deadly disease. How much does our federal government spend to study gun violence as a public health issue? Zilch! That's right, zilch!

In fact, ever since John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan and the Brady gun bill gained national attraction, gun rights advocates in Congress have silently inserted provisions in virtually every spending bill prohibiting any agency of the federal government from funding research on gun violence as a public health issue. Talk about ignorance in action! It's time we Americans put an end to Congressional-mandated stupidity and start seeking answers to tough questions regarding gun violence. For thirty-two thousand Americans, their lives may very well depend on it.

Monday, January 6, 2014

ONE SIZE FITS ALL IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE DOES NOT WORK

Should school districts suspend all students who make hand gestures in school that mimic a gun as part of a zero tolerance policy? I don’t think so.

Every event that calls for discipline in the life of a youngster is a teachable moment. What form of discipline a parent and/or authority figure employs goes a long way toward determining what lesson the child takes from that situation. Consider a boy who has just burned his finger from getting too close to a flame. You could hold out another of his fingers to the flame, and he would learn what it takes to be sadistic. You could beat the boy and he would learn how to be cruel. You could laugh at the boy’s mistake, and he would learn how to take pleasure from another person’s pain. You could tell the boy to turn off his tears and suck up his pain, and he would learn to be hard-hearted. You could mock the boy and he would learn how to inflict emotional pain with unkind words. You could embarrass the boy by broadcasting his misdeed, and he will learn how to humiliate. You could simply turn away and ignore the moment, and the boy would learn how to not care for the well-being of another individual. Or, you could tend to the boy’s burn, sympathize with his pain, explain why his actions were harmful and he will learn right from wrong and know that he is valued, even when he has done something wrong.

The zero tolerance violence policy enacted by legislatures and carried out by school district across this Nation is well-intended, but a one-size-fits-all approach frequently goes beyond the amount of discipline necessary to address a particular student’s need. When that occurs, children learn the wrong lesson and the goal of education – the development of a well-rounded, healthy student, is defeated.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

APARTHEID'S NEW ALLIES

Lost in all the world-wide publicity surrounding former South African President Nelson Mandela’s funeral last month was the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided against attending Mandela’s memorial service citing security costs as the reason. Israel almost sent nobody to represent its country, but at the last minute Knesset (Israel’s legislature) Speaker Yuli Edelstein journeyed to South Africa to pay Israel’s respect. Apparently, Edelstein’s security didn’t cost that much.

It is altogether fitting that Netanyahu would refuse to attend Mandela’s funeral. Mandela was a man who poured his very soul into tearing down the pillars of apartheid in South Africa, while Netanyahu has poured his soul into building up the shameful walls of apartheid in Israel. Israelis and Israeli law now treat Arabs and Palestinians living in Israel in the same manner as South Africa’s former white regime treated South African blacks for decades under its system of apartheid. For pro-apartheid Netanyahu to pay respect to anti-apartheid Mandela would have been the height of hypocrisy, but what does that say about the United States? We’re Israel’s staunchest ally and chief financial supporter!

LET THEM PRAY

In spite of our Constitution’s language supporting the notion of separation of church and state, I think all politicians and elected officials should pray at the beginning of every public meeting they attend. I just wish their prayers were silent ones, because quite frankly, I’ve heard enough “God Bless America” invocations to last a lifetime and I doubt the self-serving drivel that passes for public prayer these days would convince the Almighty that we are anything but hypocrites when it comes to working toward the common good. Yeah, you can call me jaded and disillusioned, but at least I’m not blinded by public displays of religiosity that so many of our leaders and elected officials use these days to cloak their own greed and self-interest.

Take the so-called “War on Christmas” that Sarah Palin was ranting about several weeks ago. Palin was bemoaning efforts to remove Christian crèches from public property and suggested that it was an affront to the true meaning of Christmas, yet when asked whether over-commercialization was also part of the “War on Christmas,” she didn’t even blink when suggesting that it was actually part of God’s glorious plan.

You see, Palin was astute enough to recognize that the Almighty doesn’t vote or contribute to the political action committees that are near and dear to her, so when it came time to choose between the Almighty or political and business interests, she chose the latter. Sadly, when politicians advocate for public prayer, more often than not they’re doing the same thing. Their prayers are little more than bait-and-switch propositions, and the rest of us are meant to play the fools. So, go ahead. Let them pray and make a spectacle of their empty words. Empty words mean nothing!

Saturday, January 4, 2014

WAKE UP AMERICA

There’s a measure of irony in the fact that America’s invasion of Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to ancient Babylon has ended with Al-Qaeda insurgents taking over the Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi and declaring those areas to be the independent Islamic State of Iraq. The very people the Bush Administration, and more specifically former Vice-President Dick Cheney, said would welcome American liberators with open arms are now using their newly opened arms to ally themselves with America’s sworn enemy, the Al-Qaeda network of the late Osama bin Laden. Pardon me for saying so, but America’s hubris has brought this failure upon our self. Hopefully, we’ll learn our lesson and act more rationally the next time.

For example, after rebels started a civil war last year against Syria’s dictator, Bashar Assad, conservative Republicans spent that last eight months lambasting the Obama administration for refusing to aid the rebel’s fight by supplying weapons and logistical support. The late-night CSPAN airways were filled with Congressional Republicans denouncing our President as a coward and an unfit commander-in-chief over his refusal to intervene in Syria. However, within the past two months, as proof of atrocities committed by Syrian Rebels have started to be documented by foreign press observers, and the Rebel’s connections with Al-Qaeda has been confirmed, it would appear that Republican conservatives were once again ready to lead America into another trap of hopeless quick-sand. Thank God the Obama Administration was not so trigger-happy!

Many Americans find comfort in silly notions like the world is black and white, that we are the good guys and any who resist us are bad, and that if given the freedom to choose, people will choose our way of life and government, but that’s not how the world works. The world is mostly gray. Our friends sometimes do bad things and our enemies sometimes do good things. Freedom isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, and life under a despot can often be safer than life in the land of the free. Even today, amidst all the violence and death occurring in Iraq, per capita, more people are being gunned down here in America on a daily basis than they are over there. Apparently safety, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, too!

LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT

Hezbollah hates Israel.
Syria hates Israel.
Iran hates Israel.
Al-Qaeda hates Israel.
Sunnis hate Israel.
Shiites hate Israel.
Everybody in the Middle East hates Israel.
Everybody in Israel hates everybody in the Middle East.
Iran loves Hezbollah.
Iran loves Syria.
Syria loves Hezbollah.
Syria loves Iran.
Hezbollah loves Syria.
Hezbollah loves Iran.
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are Shiites.
Shiites hate Sunnis.
Sunnis hate Shiites.
Syrian rebels are Sunnis.
Al-Qaeda is Sunni.
Sunnis hate Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
Saddam Hussein was a Sunni.
Iraqis are mostly Shiite.
Shiites love Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
Saddam Hussein hated the United States.
Iran hated Saddam Hussein.
Iran hates the United States.
Syria hates the United States.
Hezbollah hates the United States.
Al-Qaeda hates the United States.
Syrian rebels now hate the United States.
Syrian Rebels now love Al-Qaeda.
Hezbollah hates Al-Qaeda.
Iran hates Al-Qaeda.
Syria hates Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda hates Iran.
Al-Qaeda hates Syria.
Al-Qaeda hates Hezbollah.
Syrian Rebels hate Iran.
Syrian rebels hate Syria.
Syrian rebels hate Hezbollah.
The United States hates Al-Qaeda.
The United States hates Iran.
The United States hates Syria.
The United States hates Hezbollah.
That’s why there will never be peace in the Middle East?

Friday, January 3, 2014

FEEDING A PACK OF WOLVES

It should surprise nobody that a brutal dictator, who would allow millions of his own people to languish near starvation, would also personally supervise a horrible atrocity like feeding live human beings to a pack of ravenous dogs. According to China’s Wen Wei Po newspaper, that’s exactly what North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un did last month when he oversaw the execution of his own uncle, Kim Song Thaek.

The dictator’s uncle, formerly viewed as the second most powerful person in North Korea, was removed from his post during the second week of December after being charged with crimes that the North Korean regime described as sedition, having delusions of grandeur, womanizing and drug use. Experts on the reclusive North Korean regime claim that the actual reason for Kim Song Thaek’s ouster and execution was that his nephew felt threatened by his uncle’s stature among the North Korean elite and believed that his uncle’s stature jeopardized his own grip on power. Killing off Thaek and a group of his closest lieutenants was the quickest solution Kim Jong Un could find to end the perceived threat.

Putting aside the question of whether Kim Song Thaek’s death sentence was justified or not, the report of Kim Jong Un’s sadism in personally supervising the feeding of his uncle to a pack of ravenous dogs while his uncle was still alive, can leave nobody in doubt that the North Korean dictator is nothing less than pure evil.

According to the Chinese newspaper that first reported the incident, Kim Jong Un had his uncle and several of his uncle’s closest aides stripped naked and thrown into a large cage occupied by 120 ravenous dogs that had been starved for five days before the grotesque execution. The North Korean dictator and three hundred officials in his regime then watched as the pack of dogs ripped apart living flesh and bone and devoured all of the sentenced prisoners…and we thought Michael Vick’s dog-fighting days were despicable.

The unspeakable horror that was Kim Song Thaek’s manner of death cannot be kept silent, as the world must recognize that Kim Jong Un's lust for power knows no limit. He is guilty of crimes against humanity. Hopefully, one day he will be forced to answer for his crimes.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

QUACK...QUACK...QUACK...

It’s a shame that homophobia, bigotry and hedonistic greed sells to such a large swath of people here in America, but ignorance abounds and the prospect of curbing its growth is sadly rather slim. Take the recent controversy surrounding Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the clan on A & E network’s wildly popular show, Duck Dynasty. Phil launched into an anti-gay and racist rant during a GQ magazine interview. The revelation of the contents of that interview initially touched off a wave of public condemnation that prompted the A & E network to suspend Phil from the show. However, Phil’s suspension caused an even louder uproar among fans of the show and supporters of Phil’s way of thinking, and so the A & E network reversed its prior decision and Phil’s tenure as a star on Duck Dynasty will continue. Money matters over principle, because the forces of ignorance and bigotry in America are far stronger than the forces reason and civility.

From 1962 to 1971, a television show, The Beverly Hillbillies enjoyed widespread popularity among America’s TV-viewing audience. The show featured hillbilly couple, Jed and Granny Clampet, who became millionaires overnight when Jed found oil on their property. The couple moved to California with their two young adult children and tried to assimilate with the jet-set crowd of Beverly Hills, with very limited success. The Clampet clan were the sixties version of Phil Robertson’s clan on Duck Dynasty, with one very critical difference – Jed and Granny were respectful to a fault of the people who surrounded them. Jed and Granny were loveable television characters because they maintained their simple, respectful values in a millionaire neighborhood awash in decadence and pretentious neighbors. They never denigrated people who were different from them. Their message was one of ‘live and let live’ inclusion. Jed frequently scratched his head and said that he didn’t understand a particular person’s behavior, but then he’d shrug his shoulders and treated the person as if they were part of his family. When somebody mocked Granny or her back woods manner, she ignored the insult and responded with a simple outpouring of generosity and neighborly concern. It never struck Jed or Granny to be cruel or judgmental. It wasn’t in their blood.

Sadly, Jed and Granny’s values are not honored in today’s Duck Dynasty culture, where non-judgmental civility is trampled by an angry hoard of people who insist that bigotry, racism and homophobia are a God-given right. I used to think that a majority of Americans were better than this, but now I see that I was wrong!

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Happy New Year, Everyone! It’s tradition to start the new-year by making resolutions, so this is my list for the upcoming year:

1. Publish my book, Raising Laughter on the Funny Farm;
2. Lose fifty (50) pounds;
3. Take better care of my gardens;
4. Be more patient;
5. Double the time I spend laughing;
6. Send out more birthday cards;
7. Give more;
8. Watch less television;
9. Drink more water;
10. Go fishing.

Good luck with your own list!