William Shirer’s thirteen hundred page historical masterpiece - The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - is a must-read for any serious student of history or political science, but Shirer’s in-depth portrait of Adolf Hitler’s relationship with the German people can still leave a reader scratching his or her head with a gnawing question. How could such a large and intelligent populace fall victim to the spell of an utterly despicable sociopath and acquiesce to the murder of six million fellow human beings?
It’s a question worth considering as Americans today are faced with a Donald Trump candidacy that in many ways mimics Adolf Hitler’s ascendancy to power. While it is true that Hitler did not begin his political career by publicly calling for the extermination of six million Jews, signs of his maniacal future were plain to see for anyone wise enough to put two and two together. He surrounded himself with violent thugs, angrily threatened political opponents using language steeped in violence, vilified the German press, demonized Jews and immigrants as the source of Germany’s economic distress and preached a gospel of nationalism called Aryan supremacy. He alone would make Germany powerful again, a boastful Hitler proclaimed to crowds of eager followers looking to satisfy their thirst for national domination. To his growing list of admirers, the nuts and bolts of Hitler’s plan no longer mattered, even when it eventually lead to the murder of six million Jews.
Speed the tape forward ninety years, where another sociopath takes to the stage, and a golden haired Donald Trump delivers a remarkably similar performance for a modern-day populace filled with disaffected people and cynical voters. He surrounds himself with angry followers, threatens political opponents using language steeped in violence, vilifies the American press, demonizes Muslim and immigrants as the source of America’s distress and preaches a gospel of nationalism that demands the rest of the world genuflect before American supremacy. He alone will make America great again, Trump proclaims, and promises to jail his political opponent and summarily kill all relatives of those who would threaten the American way of life. When a man like Trump boasts that because of his status and power he can sexually violate women with impunity and kill somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and nothing would happen, such talk cannot be dismissed as locker room bravado. Only the worst of the worst brag about their cruelty!
Many good and decent people honestly believe that Hitler’s brand of carnage could not happen here in the United States, but history paints a different picture of what is truly possible in this land of the free and home of the brave. Historians on the subject of slavery estimate that over 1.8 million Africans were killed in the slave trade with America. During the gold rush years from 1849 to 1852, tens of thousands of Native Indians in California were slaughtered for their land and the mineral rights below while the federal government and the State of California acquiesced to the genocide. During World War II, American citizens of Japanese descent were summarily rounded up and interred in prison camps for no crime other than their ethnicity. Between 1882 and 1968, three thousand four hundred and forty-six (3,446) blacks were lynched in this country, many for nothing more than the color of their skin. Clearly, Americans are not immune to the self-destructive forces of evil and social injustice.
That is why a man like Trump must never be handed the reins of power. It is also why many influential conservatives in this country have publicly acknowledged that a Trump presidency represents an existential threat to our republic and they cannot in good conscience support him. Those conservatives recognize, as do many liberals, that Donald Trump displays all the markings of a third-world dictator who would cause irreparable damage to the principles upon which this Nation was founded.
Let’s hope that ninety years from now our great-grandchildren are not scratching their heads wondering why we ignored the warnings about Donald Trump. There are certainly plenty out there.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
STRAIGHT SHOOTING ABOUT GUNS
It’s almost impossible to have a level-headed conversation about guns in America these days, which is a shame because gun violence has spiraled out of control and all of us are paying a heavy price for it in some shape or fashion. If cooler heads prevailed, Americans could take steps to reduce gun violence while still protecting the rights guaranteed by our Second Amendment, but that would require people across our political spectrum to recognize the validity and concerns of those with opposing viewpoints. A good reality check wouldn’t hurt either. Unfortunately, there is a glaring absence of cooler heads in today’s political climate, so gun violence continues largely unabated and the only questions are when and where it will strike next.
The Second Amendment states as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Consider the following question: “Does the Second Amendment guarantee prisoners the right to bear arms in jail?” That sounds like a silly question, unless the person answering is an inmate who has experienced first-hand the danger posed by life in America’s jails. For those of us who haven’t, the answer to the question is an unqualified “No.” Denying firearms to prisoners is the right thing to do for obvious reasons, but one has to admit that the Second Amendment doesn’t contain language limiting the rights of prisoners. That means one of two things - either prisoners should be allowed to arm themselves or the rest of us must recognize that the rights afforded by the Second Amendment can be forfeited or subject to reasonable limitations under certain circumstances. Folks can quibble about what circumstances should trigger the forfeiture of gun ownership rights or what regulations of gun ownership are constitutionally reasonable, but any rational discussion must begin with the recognition that there are limits to what the Second Amendment guarantees.
In June of 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that was authored by the Court’s most conservative member, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch gun rights advocate. The Heller decision struck down several provisions of the District of Columbia’s firearm statute. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, gun control proponents bemoaned what they perceived as a loss of any chance for the government to curb gun violence. Gun rights proponents loudly proclaimed that Heller outlawed any government attempt to regulate firearms. Both sides were wrong.
As Justice Scalia explained in Heller: “…the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right is not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”
So what are the Second Amendment’s limitations and what actions can a government of the people take to curb gun violence? Again, Justice Scalia’s words in Heller offer guidance: “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.” A Supreme Court decision issued just last month expanded the list of approved prohibitions to include misdemeanor convictions for crimes of domestic violence.
Scalia’s Heller opinion went on to note that prohibitions against carrying concealed weapons were permissible under the Second Amendment, as were statutes prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and other “dangerous and unusual” weapons, including “M-16 rifles and the like.” Scalia also wrote: “Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”
After explaining the Court’s legal reasoning, Justice Scalia directed the District of Columbia to permit Mr. Heller to register his handgun [D.C. law requires registration of all firearms] and issue Heller a permit to carry it in his home. That’s an astonishing order coming from the late Justice’s gun rights pen, especially given the often made claim by gun rights advocates that registration of firearms is blatantly unconstitutional. Apparently, they and the conservative Justice Scalia were not of the same mind.
Scalia drove home this point when he closed the Heller decision by stating: “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem [gun violence], including some measures regulating handguns.”
Now that the Supreme Court has offered a clearer view of what’s possible and what’s not under the Second Amendment, take a moment to consider proposals that seek to limit the right of individuals on terrorist watch lists and “no fly” lists to acquire firearms. If laws that prohibit felons, perpetrators of domestic violence and the mentally ill pass constitutional muster because of a legitimate governmental and societal interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals deemed dangerous, then keeping firearms out of the hands of would-be terrorists and people who pose a danger to air travel would be permissible, too. It is imperative that citizens be provided with a mechanism for challenging their inclusion on such lists, but the legitimacy of barring people deemed dangerous from possessing firearms is a well-settled principle of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Politicians and gun advocates who claim otherwise are just plain wrong.
It is often claimed that the Second Amendment preserves the right to own firearms for the purpose of hunting, but the United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to hunt. The reason for that is an often overlooked fact – wild game belongs to the states. In the absence of federal endangered species protection, a state has the right to control the preservation of its animals as it sees fit. If a state wishes to bar the hunting of its animals, it can do so without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights. If a state wishes to regulate hunting, including the regulation of what weapons can be used by hunters it can do without violating any rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It cannot be disputed that our Nation has a time-honored tradition of hunting, but a tradition does not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected right simply because of the passage of time. Those were Justice Scalia’s words, not mine.
There are many in this Nation who espouse the view that our Second Amendment’s right to bear arms includes the right to violently overthrow our own citizen-elected government. This viewpoint has never been condoned by the United States Supreme Court, with good reason. It is highly dangerous and runs afoul of our Founders desire to form a more perfect union by the establishment of a representative form of government. From a practical standpoint, if preserving the right to violently overthrow our duly-elected government were the Second Amendment’s purpose, who would determine when violent insurrection is legitimate? Would it be the right of each individual to decide for themselves when it is okay to gun-down a government official or voter with opposing political views? To support such an interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right invites anarchy, the very situation the founders of our Republic were striving to prevent.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was never intended to be used as a weapon by one segment of the population to terrorize, murder and subjugate another. It was enacted as a measure of self-defense, but also subject to reasonable limitations and regulations. All too often we forget that an individual’s right to self-defense is no greater than our collective right to self-defense. An unarmed individual’s right to walk the street in safety is no less important than an armed individual’s right to do so. If reasonable limitations and regulations on firearms can help insure that balance, the Second Amendment does not stand in its way.
The Second Amendment states as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Consider the following question: “Does the Second Amendment guarantee prisoners the right to bear arms in jail?” That sounds like a silly question, unless the person answering is an inmate who has experienced first-hand the danger posed by life in America’s jails. For those of us who haven’t, the answer to the question is an unqualified “No.” Denying firearms to prisoners is the right thing to do for obvious reasons, but one has to admit that the Second Amendment doesn’t contain language limiting the rights of prisoners. That means one of two things - either prisoners should be allowed to arm themselves or the rest of us must recognize that the rights afforded by the Second Amendment can be forfeited or subject to reasonable limitations under certain circumstances. Folks can quibble about what circumstances should trigger the forfeiture of gun ownership rights or what regulations of gun ownership are constitutionally reasonable, but any rational discussion must begin with the recognition that there are limits to what the Second Amendment guarantees.
In June of 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that was authored by the Court’s most conservative member, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch gun rights advocate. The Heller decision struck down several provisions of the District of Columbia’s firearm statute. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, gun control proponents bemoaned what they perceived as a loss of any chance for the government to curb gun violence. Gun rights proponents loudly proclaimed that Heller outlawed any government attempt to regulate firearms. Both sides were wrong.
As Justice Scalia explained in Heller: “…the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right is not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”
So what are the Second Amendment’s limitations and what actions can a government of the people take to curb gun violence? Again, Justice Scalia’s words in Heller offer guidance: “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.” A Supreme Court decision issued just last month expanded the list of approved prohibitions to include misdemeanor convictions for crimes of domestic violence.
Scalia’s Heller opinion went on to note that prohibitions against carrying concealed weapons were permissible under the Second Amendment, as were statutes prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and other “dangerous and unusual” weapons, including “M-16 rifles and the like.” Scalia also wrote: “Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”
After explaining the Court’s legal reasoning, Justice Scalia directed the District of Columbia to permit Mr. Heller to register his handgun [D.C. law requires registration of all firearms] and issue Heller a permit to carry it in his home. That’s an astonishing order coming from the late Justice’s gun rights pen, especially given the often made claim by gun rights advocates that registration of firearms is blatantly unconstitutional. Apparently, they and the conservative Justice Scalia were not of the same mind.
Scalia drove home this point when he closed the Heller decision by stating: “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem [gun violence], including some measures regulating handguns.”
Now that the Supreme Court has offered a clearer view of what’s possible and what’s not under the Second Amendment, take a moment to consider proposals that seek to limit the right of individuals on terrorist watch lists and “no fly” lists to acquire firearms. If laws that prohibit felons, perpetrators of domestic violence and the mentally ill pass constitutional muster because of a legitimate governmental and societal interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals deemed dangerous, then keeping firearms out of the hands of would-be terrorists and people who pose a danger to air travel would be permissible, too. It is imperative that citizens be provided with a mechanism for challenging their inclusion on such lists, but the legitimacy of barring people deemed dangerous from possessing firearms is a well-settled principle of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Politicians and gun advocates who claim otherwise are just plain wrong.
It is often claimed that the Second Amendment preserves the right to own firearms for the purpose of hunting, but the United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to hunt. The reason for that is an often overlooked fact – wild game belongs to the states. In the absence of federal endangered species protection, a state has the right to control the preservation of its animals as it sees fit. If a state wishes to bar the hunting of its animals, it can do so without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights. If a state wishes to regulate hunting, including the regulation of what weapons can be used by hunters it can do without violating any rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It cannot be disputed that our Nation has a time-honored tradition of hunting, but a tradition does not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected right simply because of the passage of time. Those were Justice Scalia’s words, not mine.
There are many in this Nation who espouse the view that our Second Amendment’s right to bear arms includes the right to violently overthrow our own citizen-elected government. This viewpoint has never been condoned by the United States Supreme Court, with good reason. It is highly dangerous and runs afoul of our Founders desire to form a more perfect union by the establishment of a representative form of government. From a practical standpoint, if preserving the right to violently overthrow our duly-elected government were the Second Amendment’s purpose, who would determine when violent insurrection is legitimate? Would it be the right of each individual to decide for themselves when it is okay to gun-down a government official or voter with opposing political views? To support such an interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right invites anarchy, the very situation the founders of our Republic were striving to prevent.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was never intended to be used as a weapon by one segment of the population to terrorize, murder and subjugate another. It was enacted as a measure of self-defense, but also subject to reasonable limitations and regulations. All too often we forget that an individual’s right to self-defense is no greater than our collective right to self-defense. An unarmed individual’s right to walk the street in safety is no less important than an armed individual’s right to do so. If reasonable limitations and regulations on firearms can help insure that balance, the Second Amendment does not stand in its way.
Monday, March 14, 2016
BAH SOLOMON AND HIS PIGLETS
Bah Solomon is a self-employed pig farmer in the northwest province of Mbengwi in the African nation of Cameroon. He’s a short, scrawny fellow – a polar opposite to Mbah a Moute, a current NBA basketball player who hails from the same country, but Bah’s lack of height has not diminished his tenacity in working to improve his family’s lot or the zeal he exhibits in rooting for the Houston Rockets. 
Jobs are scarce in Mbenwgi, and were more so back in 2009 when Bah was struggling to find ways to support his wife and five children. That’s when somebody told Bah about an organization known as (GHAPE) – Grounded and Holistic Approach to People’s Empowerment. (GHAPE) is a non-profit microlending organization whose mission it is to make credit accessible to the bottom fifty percent (50%) of those living below the poverty line in various countries around the globe. (GHAPE) frequently partners with (KIVA), a non-profit microlending organization I support, to provide loans to impoverished people that would otherwise have no access to credit. Bah is one of those people.
Bah has a history in the pig raising business and in 2009, people encouraged him to seek a loan from (GHAPE) to raise his own pigs to provide for his family. Since then, Bah has slowly built his pig-raising enterprise with the help of three loans arranged through (GHAPE), and on each occasion he repaid the obligation while continuing to provide for his family’s needs. In the process of doing so, Bah has also developed good relationships with his customers and is known for providing a quality product. Now, through the (GHAPE) partnership with (KIVA), Bah is seeking a fourth loan of $275 to purchase more piglets for his operation. If you’re a member of either the (GHAPE) or (KIVA) microlending groups, or are interesting in joining one, check out Bah Solomon’s microlending request.
Jobs are scarce in Mbenwgi, and were more so back in 2009 when Bah was struggling to find ways to support his wife and five children. That’s when somebody told Bah about an organization known as (GHAPE) – Grounded and Holistic Approach to People’s Empowerment. (GHAPE) is a non-profit microlending organization whose mission it is to make credit accessible to the bottom fifty percent (50%) of those living below the poverty line in various countries around the globe. (GHAPE) frequently partners with (KIVA), a non-profit microlending organization I support, to provide loans to impoverished people that would otherwise have no access to credit. Bah is one of those people.
Bah has a history in the pig raising business and in 2009, people encouraged him to seek a loan from (GHAPE) to raise his own pigs to provide for his family. Since then, Bah has slowly built his pig-raising enterprise with the help of three loans arranged through (GHAPE), and on each occasion he repaid the obligation while continuing to provide for his family’s needs. In the process of doing so, Bah has also developed good relationships with his customers and is known for providing a quality product. Now, through the (GHAPE) partnership with (KIVA), Bah is seeking a fourth loan of $275 to purchase more piglets for his operation. If you’re a member of either the (GHAPE) or (KIVA) microlending groups, or are interesting in joining one, check out Bah Solomon’s microlending request.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
THE EMPORER’S SUBJECTS ARE WEARING NO CLOTHES
Yes it’s maddening, but on a different level there is also something very comforting about watching high and mighty Republican Senators expose themselves as hypocrites of the highest order in a naked grab for power. It’s a powerful reminder that underneath it all, they’re no better than the rest of us, just a bit more connected and a lot more full of themselves.
Americans had yet to pay respect to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when a host of Republican United States Senators, including two presidential candidates (Cruz & Rubio) and Pennsylvania’s own Pat Toomey, publicly expressed their intent to abdicate their constitutional responsibility to advise our President and consent to appoint a duly qualified jurist to take Scalia’s place on the high court. Not only have those Senators besmirched Scalia’s legacy of unwavering support for contextually interpreting our Constitution, they’ve also demonstrated they are unfit for public office. Were he still among us, Justice Scalia would have brutally eviscerated the suggestion that U.S. Senators renounce their constitutional obligation and swiftly called for their resignation, regardless of political affiliation.
Throughout his tenure on the bench, Justice Scalia disdained public officials who refused to fully execute the duties of their office. In February 2002, speaking at a death penalty conference at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and a week earlier at a similar symposium in Chicago, Justice Scalia defended his view that an originalist reading of the U.S. Constitution demanded that judges who refuse to perform their constitutional duty to impose the death penalty should resign their position immediately. Scalia reiterated that view on countless occasions during the years that followed and never retreated from that position in any Supreme Court opinion he authored.
Justice Scalia recognized that the potential for political gain or one’s personal beliefs do not justify or excuse the abdication of a constitutionally imposed responsibility, and he would never have approved of a wholesale betrayal of constitutional principles for political gain. To do so would justify the charge that Senate Republicans are unprincipled hypocrites of the highest order and that they have no appreciation or respect for the principles and obligations embodied in our Constitution.
The drafters of America’s Constitution wisely recognized that political winds ebb and flow, each according to its own merit, but only a constitution set in stone, with its attending rights and obligations could withstand the test of time. They also believed, and rightly so, that in order to insure the continuation of our republic as intended, those who pledge to uphold our constitutional form of government must fulfill their duty without exception or delay and without regard for their own personal or political beliefs.
Abraham Lincoln, America’s greatest Republican President once famously warned, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
Take heed, Republicans. Truer words have never been spoken!
Americans had yet to pay respect to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when a host of Republican United States Senators, including two presidential candidates (Cruz & Rubio) and Pennsylvania’s own Pat Toomey, publicly expressed their intent to abdicate their constitutional responsibility to advise our President and consent to appoint a duly qualified jurist to take Scalia’s place on the high court. Not only have those Senators besmirched Scalia’s legacy of unwavering support for contextually interpreting our Constitution, they’ve also demonstrated they are unfit for public office. Were he still among us, Justice Scalia would have brutally eviscerated the suggestion that U.S. Senators renounce their constitutional obligation and swiftly called for their resignation, regardless of political affiliation.
Throughout his tenure on the bench, Justice Scalia disdained public officials who refused to fully execute the duties of their office. In February 2002, speaking at a death penalty conference at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and a week earlier at a similar symposium in Chicago, Justice Scalia defended his view that an originalist reading of the U.S. Constitution demanded that judges who refuse to perform their constitutional duty to impose the death penalty should resign their position immediately. Scalia reiterated that view on countless occasions during the years that followed and never retreated from that position in any Supreme Court opinion he authored.
Justice Scalia recognized that the potential for political gain or one’s personal beliefs do not justify or excuse the abdication of a constitutionally imposed responsibility, and he would never have approved of a wholesale betrayal of constitutional principles for political gain. To do so would justify the charge that Senate Republicans are unprincipled hypocrites of the highest order and that they have no appreciation or respect for the principles and obligations embodied in our Constitution.
The drafters of America’s Constitution wisely recognized that political winds ebb and flow, each according to its own merit, but only a constitution set in stone, with its attending rights and obligations could withstand the test of time. They also believed, and rightly so, that in order to insure the continuation of our republic as intended, those who pledge to uphold our constitutional form of government must fulfill their duty without exception or delay and without regard for their own personal or political beliefs.
Abraham Lincoln, America’s greatest Republican President once famously warned, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
Take heed, Republicans. Truer words have never been spoken!
Friday, February 19, 2016
THE PASSING OF HARPER LEE
Harper Lee, the acclaimed author of To Kill a Mockingbird passed away today. The literary word has suffered the loss of a power voice of social consciousness, but her legacy will continue in the book that made her famous. I learned a great deal about justice and prejudice when I studied her book in both high school and college, and I’d like to think I’m a better person because of it.
MY TOP 100 FAVORITE MOVIES
Everybody has their own list of favorite movies. Here’s a list of my top 100:
A Beautiful Mind
A River Runs Through It
Amistead
Atonement
Becket
Begin Again
Ben Hur
Benjamin Buttons
Big
Black and White
Black Book
Bridge Over The River Kwai
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Captain Corelli’s Mandolin
Captain Phillips
Casablanca
Castaway
Chariots of Fire
Chicken Run
Chocolat
Cold Mountain
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Dances With Wolves
Dead Poet Society
Doctor Zhivago
Elizabethtown
E.T.
Field of Dreams
Finding Forrester
Forrest Gump
Fried Green Tomatoes
Girl Interrupted
Glory
Gone With the Wind
Good Will Hunting
Goodfellas
Great Expectations
Hoosiers
Hugo
Ida
In the Land of Milk and Honey
Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones: Quest for the Holy Grail
Interstellar
Invictus
Les Miserables
Lilies of the Field
Lincoln
Love Affair
Mary Poppins
Michael Clayton
My Fair Lady
National Treasure
Oblivion
Oh God
On Golden Pond
Open Range
Out of Africa
Pappillon
Philadelphia
Pleasantville
Pride and Prejudice
Redemption
REDS
Saving Private Ryan
Secretariat
Seven Years a Slave
Shakespeare in Love
Shindler’s List
Shoes of the Fisherman
Simon Birch
The Adjustment Bureau
The Age of Adaline
The American
The American President
The Book of Eli
The Dancer Upstairs
The Debt
The French Lieutenant’s Woman
The Godfather
The Great Gatsby
The Green Mile
The Intern
The Natural
The Reluctant Fundamentalist
The Shawshank Redemption
The Soloist
The Sound of Music
The Spitfire Grill
The Water Diviner
The Wind that Shakes the Barley
3:10 to Yuma
To Kill a Mockingbird
Unbroken
Unforgiven
Up
What Dreams May Come
Where the Heart Is
Winter’s Tale
Witness
A Beautiful Mind
A River Runs Through It
Amistead
Atonement
Becket
Begin Again
Ben Hur
Benjamin Buttons
Big
Black and White
Black Book
Bridge Over The River Kwai
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Captain Corelli’s Mandolin
Captain Phillips
Casablanca
Castaway
Chariots of Fire
Chicken Run
Chocolat
Cold Mountain
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Dances With Wolves
Dead Poet Society
Doctor Zhivago
Elizabethtown
E.T.
Field of Dreams
Finding Forrester
Forrest Gump
Fried Green Tomatoes
Girl Interrupted
Glory
Gone With the Wind
Good Will Hunting
Goodfellas
Great Expectations
Hoosiers
Hugo
Ida
In the Land of Milk and Honey
Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones: Quest for the Holy Grail
Interstellar
Invictus
Les Miserables
Lilies of the Field
Lincoln
Love Affair
Mary Poppins
Michael Clayton
My Fair Lady
National Treasure
Oblivion
Oh God
On Golden Pond
Open Range
Out of Africa
Pappillon
Philadelphia
Pleasantville
Pride and Prejudice
Redemption
REDS
Saving Private Ryan
Secretariat
Seven Years a Slave
Shakespeare in Love
Shindler’s List
Shoes of the Fisherman
Simon Birch
The Adjustment Bureau
The Age of Adaline
The American
The American President
The Book of Eli
The Dancer Upstairs
The Debt
The French Lieutenant’s Woman
The Godfather
The Great Gatsby
The Green Mile
The Intern
The Natural
The Reluctant Fundamentalist
The Shawshank Redemption
The Soloist
The Sound of Music
The Spitfire Grill
The Water Diviner
The Wind that Shakes the Barley
3:10 to Yuma
To Kill a Mockingbird
Unbroken
Unforgiven
Up
What Dreams May Come
Where the Heart Is
Winter’s Tale
Witness
Saturday, February 13, 2016
SCALIA REMEMBERED
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has not been dead for twenty-four hours yet and already conservatives across this country are tripping over themselves to canonize the Catholic jurist a saint, but from my perspective as a Christian liberal with a sense of compassion for my fellow human beings, a man like Scalia warrants none of the hype or respect that are being afforded him. His family and friends are mourning the loss of a beloved member of their family, and they should have our sympathy and prayers, but the death of a man with a heart as cold as stone is something I can neither celebrate nor mourn, just as I took no delight nor grieved at the death of Osama bin Laden.
You’ll get no argument from me that Scalia was a brilliant man, but history is filled with brilliant men who used their intellectual powers to the detriment of mankind’s advancement, and Scalia ranks right up with the cruelest of them. Some men brutalize with weapons. Scalia did so with words, using the power of his position to send innocent prisoners to their death, to marginalize the oppressed, to disenfranchise minorities, to attempt to deny medical care to the sick, to place firearms in the hands of would-be killers and to thwart efforts to create a clean environment in which mankind could flourish.
Scalia’s legacy is not a legacy worth celebrating. What it truly merits is contempt and derision! He wasted his God-given intellect, not in the defense of freedom and human development, but in defense of an ideology that spawned slavery and continues to support greed and human oppression. That is not a legacy that a lowly carpenter from Nazareth would lift up in celebration. It’s the kind of legacy that Jesus would lament. It’s been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. In Scalia’s case, the terrible waste is twice as bad, maybe more.
I’d say rest in peace, but he doesn’t deserve it!
You’ll get no argument from me that Scalia was a brilliant man, but history is filled with brilliant men who used their intellectual powers to the detriment of mankind’s advancement, and Scalia ranks right up with the cruelest of them. Some men brutalize with weapons. Scalia did so with words, using the power of his position to send innocent prisoners to their death, to marginalize the oppressed, to disenfranchise minorities, to attempt to deny medical care to the sick, to place firearms in the hands of would-be killers and to thwart efforts to create a clean environment in which mankind could flourish.
Scalia’s legacy is not a legacy worth celebrating. What it truly merits is contempt and derision! He wasted his God-given intellect, not in the defense of freedom and human development, but in defense of an ideology that spawned slavery and continues to support greed and human oppression. That is not a legacy that a lowly carpenter from Nazareth would lift up in celebration. It’s the kind of legacy that Jesus would lament. It’s been said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. In Scalia’s case, the terrible waste is twice as bad, maybe more.
I’d say rest in peace, but he doesn’t deserve it!
FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY
Let's face it! We're never going to solve the Social Security insolvency problem until we get this whole global warming thing under control. As long as the arctic ice is receding, there won't be enough room to set our old folks adrift on an ice floe and watch them float away into oblivion.
Actually, America doesn't have a Social Security problem. What it has in a political will problem. By that I mean that there are not enough political leaders who are willing to place their own political careers on the line to do what is necessary to honor America's long-standing social contract that was established to take care of our retirees and disabled citizens. The Social Security ledger sheet could be placed in order for the next hundred years without raising the current social security tax rate in one simple step: require citizens to pay social security tax on all their earned income, without exception.
Right now, a person who works a 40 hour per week minimum wage job earns $15,080 per year. The Social Security tax is 6.2%, and on an income of $15, 080, the wage-earner pays $935.00 in Social Security tax. Wage earners making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 and $60,000 per year pay the same 6.2% of their earned income (earned income = income from working) in Social Security Tax. So does every other wage earner making up to $113,700 per year in earned income.
This is where things get interesting…or unfair…depending on how you view the situation. Once a wage earner starts making more than $113,700 per year, the percentage of Social Security Tax that wage earner pays actually decreases, and the more a person is paid the lower the percentage a person pays. For example, the Social Security Tax rate on a person having earned income of one million dollars in a year is seven/tenths of one percent. In real numbers, a millionaire will pay $7,049 dollars per year in social security tax. When you compare the millionaire to the minimum wage worker, the millionaire makes 63 times more money, but only pays 7.5 times more Social Security tax. Where's the fairness in that system? Why should a guy working at a minimum wage job pay a higher social security tax rate than a guy earning a million dollar per year salary?
Social Security was created as a financial safety net, but for the wealthiest earners in our society, it's actually a financial windfall. Assume a millionaire pays $7,049 dollars into Social Security for forty (40) years. The millionaire will have paid $281,960 in social security tax over that time span. Now, assume that same individual collects social security for 20 years following their retirement. At the current top rate of $2,162 per month, the millionaire will have collected of total of $518,880 dollars. That's a tidy sum considering the millionaire already had forty million dollars in earned income. This is one place where Republicans never, ever talk about an across-the-board flat tax rate.
If one Social Security tax rate applied to all earned income, American would never have to worry about the insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. The baby boomer generation would come and go without bankrupting the security net that has protected seniors since the days of the Great Depression. This fix is not rocket science. It just takes something we're in short supply of lately: political will!
Actually, America doesn't have a Social Security problem. What it has in a political will problem. By that I mean that there are not enough political leaders who are willing to place their own political careers on the line to do what is necessary to honor America's long-standing social contract that was established to take care of our retirees and disabled citizens. The Social Security ledger sheet could be placed in order for the next hundred years without raising the current social security tax rate in one simple step: require citizens to pay social security tax on all their earned income, without exception.
Right now, a person who works a 40 hour per week minimum wage job earns $15,080 per year. The Social Security tax is 6.2%, and on an income of $15, 080, the wage-earner pays $935.00 in Social Security tax. Wage earners making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 and $60,000 per year pay the same 6.2% of their earned income (earned income = income from working) in Social Security Tax. So does every other wage earner making up to $113,700 per year in earned income.
This is where things get interesting…or unfair…depending on how you view the situation. Once a wage earner starts making more than $113,700 per year, the percentage of Social Security Tax that wage earner pays actually decreases, and the more a person is paid the lower the percentage a person pays. For example, the Social Security Tax rate on a person having earned income of one million dollars in a year is seven/tenths of one percent. In real numbers, a millionaire will pay $7,049 dollars per year in social security tax. When you compare the millionaire to the minimum wage worker, the millionaire makes 63 times more money, but only pays 7.5 times more Social Security tax. Where's the fairness in that system? Why should a guy working at a minimum wage job pay a higher social security tax rate than a guy earning a million dollar per year salary?
Social Security was created as a financial safety net, but for the wealthiest earners in our society, it's actually a financial windfall. Assume a millionaire pays $7,049 dollars into Social Security for forty (40) years. The millionaire will have paid $281,960 in social security tax over that time span. Now, assume that same individual collects social security for 20 years following their retirement. At the current top rate of $2,162 per month, the millionaire will have collected of total of $518,880 dollars. That's a tidy sum considering the millionaire already had forty million dollars in earned income. This is one place where Republicans never, ever talk about an across-the-board flat tax rate.
If one Social Security tax rate applied to all earned income, American would never have to worry about the insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. The baby boomer generation would come and go without bankrupting the security net that has protected seniors since the days of the Great Depression. This fix is not rocket science. It just takes something we're in short supply of lately: political will!
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
LIVING ONE’S POLITICAL VIEWS
Nothing stinks more than a political hypocrite.
If you’re opposed to abortions, don’t get one.
If you’re opposed to gay marriages, marry somebody of the opposite sex.
If you’re against paying taxes, don’t call the government when your home’s been burglarized, when your kitchen is on fire or expect government assistance when a hurricane has destroyed your home.
If you’re tired of paying for social programs that benefit the poor and needy, don’t apply for unemployment compensation when you lose your job and send back the social security checks when you retire.
If you want your kids to pray in school, remind them about the hundred times each day they can close their eyes and whisper a silent prayer.
If you’re against government regulations, regulate your own behavior so the government’s interference isn’t necessary.
If you want privacy for yourself, respect the privacy of others.
If you want to be treated with dignity, treat others with dignity.
If you’re tired of people making excuses for their faults, start by acknowledging your own.
If you value peace, stop killing others
If you’re opposed to abortions, don’t get one.
If you’re opposed to gay marriages, marry somebody of the opposite sex.
If you’re against paying taxes, don’t call the government when your home’s been burglarized, when your kitchen is on fire or expect government assistance when a hurricane has destroyed your home.
If you’re tired of paying for social programs that benefit the poor and needy, don’t apply for unemployment compensation when you lose your job and send back the social security checks when you retire.
If you want your kids to pray in school, remind them about the hundred times each day they can close their eyes and whisper a silent prayer.
If you’re against government regulations, regulate your own behavior so the government’s interference isn’t necessary.
If you want privacy for yourself, respect the privacy of others.
If you want to be treated with dignity, treat others with dignity.
If you’re tired of people making excuses for their faults, start by acknowledging your own.
If you value peace, stop killing others
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
OIL GOING BELLY-UP
Read today’s New York Times article “Stung by low oil prices, Companies face a Reckoning with Debt” and you’ll get a glimpse of what it’s like to be an oil company sitting on top of the world and then have its throne pulled from beneath it. The picture isn’t pretty, unless you’re one of those folks who’ve had to struggle at the pumps for the past two decades as fat-cat oil barons got rich and now you’re basking in affordable gasoline as the oil barons crawl their way toward bankruptcy. You’ll forgive me if I have no sympathy for the oil companies.
It’s kind of ironic that Sarah Palin’s “drill baby, drill” battle cry, which was so eagerly taken up by the proponents of big oil, has led the industry to ruinous overproduction. We liberals warned about the danger of following the advice of a woman who claimed to see Russia from her living room window, but I guess by golly that mamma grizzly magic was simply too much to resist.
And while I’m on a roll here, folks who were hoping to invest in the Keystone Pipeline should send a large thank-you note to President Obama for nixing the pipeline. The President’s action saved investors hundreds of millions of dollars that would have been piped down the drain as demand for oil dried up. Of course, Obama won’t get the credit he deserves from his critics, but history will prove he made the right decision.
It’s kind of ironic that Sarah Palin’s “drill baby, drill” battle cry, which was so eagerly taken up by the proponents of big oil, has led the industry to ruinous overproduction. We liberals warned about the danger of following the advice of a woman who claimed to see Russia from her living room window, but I guess by golly that mamma grizzly magic was simply too much to resist.
And while I’m on a roll here, folks who were hoping to invest in the Keystone Pipeline should send a large thank-you note to President Obama for nixing the pipeline. The President’s action saved investors hundreds of millions of dollars that would have been piped down the drain as demand for oil dried up. Of course, Obama won’t get the credit he deserves from his critics, but history will prove he made the right decision.
Monday, February 8, 2016
ZIKA ON THE DOORSTEP
I wish a debate moderator would ask the Republican presidential candidates how their version of limited government would respond to the Zika virus crisis that is standing on our Nation’s front porch and knocking on the door. Will Trump be erecting a mile-high mosquito net across our southern border to prevent the virus carriers from crossing into U.S. airspace? Since the virus is also sexually transmitted, will Cruz block government payments to any doctor who prescribes contraceptives? Will Carson require virus carriers to register? Would Christie quarantine them? Would Rubio deport anyone who sleeps with them? Would Carly Fiorina scowl at them and hope they run away? Those are questions I’d like to see answered, because the current outbreak of the Zika virus, like last year’s brush with Ebola in Africa, is a quickly spreading epidemic that could easily turn into a pandemic. If or when that happens, the type of government response that is offered by the United States will depend heavily on the philosophy of the President in charge of it.
We saw what a limited government response was like when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the gulf coast in August of 2005. President Bush’s idea of limited government failed to mobilize in advance of the hurricane and failed to respond to initial calls for federal emergency assistance. We’re seeing what limited government advocates – our Republican Congress – are doing today by refusing federal funds for the needed repairs to the Flint, Michigan water system. Never mind that thousands of Flint residents were poisoned by state advocates of limited government who deemed saving money more important than providing safe drinking water for their citizens.
If the United States offers a limited government response to the coming Zika epidemic, thousands of newborn children will suffer life-threatening medical conditions and eventually die from them. It won’t be pretty, but then again in this day and age, limited government never is.
We saw what a limited government response was like when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the gulf coast in August of 2005. President Bush’s idea of limited government failed to mobilize in advance of the hurricane and failed to respond to initial calls for federal emergency assistance. We’re seeing what limited government advocates – our Republican Congress – are doing today by refusing federal funds for the needed repairs to the Flint, Michigan water system. Never mind that thousands of Flint residents were poisoned by state advocates of limited government who deemed saving money more important than providing safe drinking water for their citizens.
If the United States offers a limited government response to the coming Zika epidemic, thousands of newborn children will suffer life-threatening medical conditions and eventually die from them. It won’t be pretty, but then again in this day and age, limited government never is.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
ALLISON LENZ, WELCOME TO OUR WORLD
It’s not very often that a liberal, small town blogger gets to announce an earth-shattering once-in-a-lifetime event, but last evening, at 9:41 p.m., Allison Scarlett Lenz entered this world and took her first breath, saw her first light and felt her mother’s warm touch for the first time. With Allison’s arrival, Sabrina Lenz became a mom, Travis Lenz became a dad (God help this world) and a host of welcoming family and friends were filled with the joy that only newborns bring. Welcome to our world, Allison. We’re very happy to see you!
p.s. mother and child both doing well!
p.s. mother and child both doing well!
EXPOSING THE VIPER’S BROOD
If you have not already seen the movie “Spotlight,” starring Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, Liev Schreiber and Brian d’Arcy James, go see it! It’s time and money well-spent. Spotlight is the behind-the-scenes story of The Boston Globe’s investigation of sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church and the systematic cover-up of that abuse by the Catholic hierarchy. The movie is both accurate and insightful in portraying the newspaper reporters who broke the original story as well as the church leaders and their lawyers who fought the Globe’s investigation and drive to bring the sexual abuse scandal to light. Spotlight is not just a well-crafted movie. It’s a piece of compelling social commentary and deserves any awards it musters.
I was thinking about Spotlight yesterday when I read that Peter Saunders, himself a victim of sexual abuse by a priest, resigned from his position on the Catholic Church’s papal commission on sexual abuse by the clergy. Saunders has been highly critical of what he perceived as “foot dragging” by the Vatican and the commission he departed when it came to acknowledging the true sources of the sexual abuse scandal and committing to concrete and effecting reform in the way victims are treated and their abusers are handled. It is sad that the Catholic Church continues on the ruinous path of denial. The effect of its foot dragging is the loss of moral authority.
You cannot turn a blind eye to the raping of thousands of children and then lay claim to a mantle of morality. There’s a reason why Jesus called the religious leaders of his day hypocrites and a vipers brood. The Pharisees and Sadducees, as they were known, spent countless hours denouncing the morality of those who didn’t conform to the dictates of the Hebrew religious elite, but those same leaders bore the poisonous fangs of a serpent without a trace of human compassion or warmth in their hearts. The Catholic Church today exhibits the same venomous tendencies as the Jewish clergy in Jesus’ day, and that is why it loses more members each day than it gains.
When a man like Peter Saunders throws in the towel, a man’s whose love for the Church remained strong despite having suffered sexual abuse by a priest, something is terribly wrong with the core of the Catholic Church and change is desperately needed.
The nuns in school always claimed that the laity was the Church. If that’s the case, the people in the pews have their work cut out for them.
I was thinking about Spotlight yesterday when I read that Peter Saunders, himself a victim of sexual abuse by a priest, resigned from his position on the Catholic Church’s papal commission on sexual abuse by the clergy. Saunders has been highly critical of what he perceived as “foot dragging” by the Vatican and the commission he departed when it came to acknowledging the true sources of the sexual abuse scandal and committing to concrete and effecting reform in the way victims are treated and their abusers are handled. It is sad that the Catholic Church continues on the ruinous path of denial. The effect of its foot dragging is the loss of moral authority.
You cannot turn a blind eye to the raping of thousands of children and then lay claim to a mantle of morality. There’s a reason why Jesus called the religious leaders of his day hypocrites and a vipers brood. The Pharisees and Sadducees, as they were known, spent countless hours denouncing the morality of those who didn’t conform to the dictates of the Hebrew religious elite, but those same leaders bore the poisonous fangs of a serpent without a trace of human compassion or warmth in their hearts. The Catholic Church today exhibits the same venomous tendencies as the Jewish clergy in Jesus’ day, and that is why it loses more members each day than it gains.
When a man like Peter Saunders throws in the towel, a man’s whose love for the Church remained strong despite having suffered sexual abuse by a priest, something is terribly wrong with the core of the Catholic Church and change is desperately needed.
The nuns in school always claimed that the laity was the Church. If that’s the case, the people in the pews have their work cut out for them.
SUPER BOWL PREDICTION
Panthers 35, Broncos 17
The aftermath:
Broncos 24, Panthers 10...just goes to show how little I know about football predictions!
The aftermath:
Broncos 24, Panthers 10...just goes to show how little I know about football predictions!
Friday, February 5, 2016
THE TWO REVOLUTIONS
“What’s wrong with a revolution?” ~ CNN Journalist, Anderson Cooper, questioning Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the February 3rd Town Hall debate with fellow Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders
Clinton’s response: “That’s for Senator Sanders to explain.”
My response: It depends on the kind of revolution you’re talking about. Figurative revolutions that bring about a significant improvement in the lives of an entire population are good things; literal revolutions that result in the senseless spilling of massive amounts of blood are not!
The current presidential campaign season has highlighted the fact that in America, two very distinct groups are seeking revolution, but the revolutions they promote involve diametrically opposing goals and the tools they employ could not be deemed more different. The idealistic youth at Wednesday’s Democratic Town Hall debate seek change in the way government responds to the needs of the people it represents and the instrument of their revolution is the ballot box. The other group promoting revolution is the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. Their goal is a crippled government that cannot respond to the needs of its people and the instrument of their revolution is the barrel of a gun.
I support the student’s call for a figurative revolution in the way government supports the right of its people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I find value in the notion that a government by the people, of the people and for the people is a government worth having. I cheer the enthusiasm of America’s idealistic youth, and I recognize that this Nation’s future success will depend in large measure on the progress those youth are able to obtain, but a word of caution is in order.
The revolutionaries of the far-right have an insatiable appetite for bloodshed and they are heavily armed, and itching for a fight.
We saw it in 2010 when the Tea Party’s loudest mouthpiece, Sarah Palin posted on her website the name of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords in the crosshairs of a rifle scope and then several months later a Tea Party sympathizer attempted to assassinate Giffords near Tucson, killing six and wounding thirteen others in the process. We saw it in 2014 when agents showed up to confiscate the cattle of Tea Party activist Cliven Bundy for non-payment of grazing fees owed to the citizens of the United States – that’s you and me. Hundreds of militiamen showed up with assault rifles, ready to gun-down the federal agents who were just doing their job. We just saw it again last month in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by Tea Party militia men who threatened to gun-down anyone who attempted to dislodge them. The fugitive LaVoy Finicum, a member of the group, tried to draw his gun on federal agents as were arresting him and he was killed in the process. That’s the kind of revolution Tea Party Republicans are seeking, the one brought about by the long barrel of a gun.
The next time somebody starts calling for a revolution, it’s wise to ask what kind they’re suggestion. It’s not wise to show up at a gunfight armed only with a ballot box.
Clinton’s response: “That’s for Senator Sanders to explain.”
My response: It depends on the kind of revolution you’re talking about. Figurative revolutions that bring about a significant improvement in the lives of an entire population are good things; literal revolutions that result in the senseless spilling of massive amounts of blood are not!
The current presidential campaign season has highlighted the fact that in America, two very distinct groups are seeking revolution, but the revolutions they promote involve diametrically opposing goals and the tools they employ could not be deemed more different. The idealistic youth at Wednesday’s Democratic Town Hall debate seek change in the way government responds to the needs of the people it represents and the instrument of their revolution is the ballot box. The other group promoting revolution is the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. Their goal is a crippled government that cannot respond to the needs of its people and the instrument of their revolution is the barrel of a gun.
I support the student’s call for a figurative revolution in the way government supports the right of its people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I find value in the notion that a government by the people, of the people and for the people is a government worth having. I cheer the enthusiasm of America’s idealistic youth, and I recognize that this Nation’s future success will depend in large measure on the progress those youth are able to obtain, but a word of caution is in order.
The revolutionaries of the far-right have an insatiable appetite for bloodshed and they are heavily armed, and itching for a fight.
We saw it in 2010 when the Tea Party’s loudest mouthpiece, Sarah Palin posted on her website the name of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords in the crosshairs of a rifle scope and then several months later a Tea Party sympathizer attempted to assassinate Giffords near Tucson, killing six and wounding thirteen others in the process. We saw it in 2014 when agents showed up to confiscate the cattle of Tea Party activist Cliven Bundy for non-payment of grazing fees owed to the citizens of the United States – that’s you and me. Hundreds of militiamen showed up with assault rifles, ready to gun-down the federal agents who were just doing their job. We just saw it again last month in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by Tea Party militia men who threatened to gun-down anyone who attempted to dislodge them. The fugitive LaVoy Finicum, a member of the group, tried to draw his gun on federal agents as were arresting him and he was killed in the process. That’s the kind of revolution Tea Party Republicans are seeking, the one brought about by the long barrel of a gun.
The next time somebody starts calling for a revolution, it’s wise to ask what kind they’re suggestion. It’s not wise to show up at a gunfight armed only with a ballot box.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
THE POWER OF ONE VOICE
Nobody was home this morning when I got into the shower. At some point between shampooing my hair and rinsing, I started singing a couple of bars from Nessun Dorma, an aria that’s part of Puccini’s opera Turandot. My wife and I saw a performance of Turandot this past weekend and I can’t seem to shake the music from my head. It’s a good thing nobody was home at the time, because my rendition of Nessun Dorma wouldn’t have been recognizable to anybody, except perhaps my wife, who’s suffered through eighteen years of hearing my off-key shower singing and has developed a good ear for bad voices.
While eating lunch I was reading an article on campaign financing and the author was lamenting the vast sums of money being pumped into this year’s presidential campaigns. When I came across the word “voice” in the article, I my first thought was about my shower singing and then I asked myself, how much power is in my voice? And from there, an even more interesting question arose – in a democracy, does it matter?
I can speak pretty forcefully when I have to, and I have the necessary linguistic and intellectual skills to deliver a very persuasive argument in the heat of any verbal battle, but even my voice will only travel so far, and I’m keenly aware of my tonal limitations. I can write, too, and though the number of readers of this blog is negligible, the Internet provides a platform for disseminating my views in case any dare to read them. My point is I’m expressing myself. My words have power, albeit in a limited sense, because very few are hearing them.
But what if I my words, or my voice for that matter, had more power? What if I could yell so loudly that nobody could hear anyone but me? What if I could drown out all other conversation except the conversation I wanted everyone to hear? What if the power behind my voice could stifle the voices of all opinions contrary to mine? What if I could somehow censor, or silence, or deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with my approval? Wouldn’t that be grand?
You’re probably mouthing the words or thinking, “No, it would not,” and I’m inclined to agree with you, at least the part of me that’s not self-centered or egotistical, but there is something that can accomplish all the above scenarios and we often don’t give it a second thought. What is it? Money!
The United States Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision several years ago ruled that money is a form of speech. It has a voice and the more money a person has the louder their voice becomes. In fact, a person with a large enough sum of money can have a voice so loud that it drowns out all conversation except the conversation that person wants everyone to hear. With enough money, a person can stifle the voices of all contrary opinions and deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with that person’s approval. The adage “money talks” has never been truer, and the people without money might as well be singing in the shower.
While eating lunch I was reading an article on campaign financing and the author was lamenting the vast sums of money being pumped into this year’s presidential campaigns. When I came across the word “voice” in the article, I my first thought was about my shower singing and then I asked myself, how much power is in my voice? And from there, an even more interesting question arose – in a democracy, does it matter?
I can speak pretty forcefully when I have to, and I have the necessary linguistic and intellectual skills to deliver a very persuasive argument in the heat of any verbal battle, but even my voice will only travel so far, and I’m keenly aware of my tonal limitations. I can write, too, and though the number of readers of this blog is negligible, the Internet provides a platform for disseminating my views in case any dare to read them. My point is I’m expressing myself. My words have power, albeit in a limited sense, because very few are hearing them.
But what if I my words, or my voice for that matter, had more power? What if I could yell so loudly that nobody could hear anyone but me? What if I could drown out all other conversation except the conversation I wanted everyone to hear? What if the power behind my voice could stifle the voices of all opinions contrary to mine? What if I could somehow censor, or silence, or deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with my approval? Wouldn’t that be grand?
You’re probably mouthing the words or thinking, “No, it would not,” and I’m inclined to agree with you, at least the part of me that’s not self-centered or egotistical, but there is something that can accomplish all the above scenarios and we often don’t give it a second thought. What is it? Money!
The United States Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision several years ago ruled that money is a form of speech. It has a voice and the more money a person has the louder their voice becomes. In fact, a person with a large enough sum of money can have a voice so loud that it drowns out all conversation except the conversation that person wants everyone to hear. With enough money, a person can stifle the voices of all contrary opinions and deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with that person’s approval. The adage “money talks” has never been truer, and the people without money might as well be singing in the shower.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
PUNXSUTAWNEY PHIL’S POLITICAL PROGNOSTICATION
America’s most famous prognosticating groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil crawled out of his burrow this morning and announced to the crowd of anxious onlookers that, given the current political climate and the dark shadow cast upon this Nation by GOP presidential candidates, there will be at least six more weeks of Cruz and Trump, and probably a great deal more.
The assembly of twenty thousand well-wishers gathered at the annual Punxsutawney Ground Hog Day festival. The crowd was initially in good cheer when Punxsutawney Phil emerged from his secluded burrow, grabbed a nearby microphone and proclaimed, “It’s a great day to be an American!” However, when the applause and cheers subsided and Punxsutawney Phil began speaking to the crowd about yesterday’s primary results in Iowa, the public mood turned noticeably darker.
“You’ve got to be kidding,” an elderly wheelchair-bound woman shouted from the front row. “What’s going to happen to my Medicare and Social Security check?”
“Gone to the highest campaign donor,” another man quickly yelled. A wave of anxiety covered the elderly people present as they realized that a Trump or Cruz presidency would mark the beginning of the end of government support for elderly programs and their safety net.
“What about my son?” a mother of a Marine Corp Lieutenant asked with concern in her voice. “Is he going back into another senseless war?”
“Looks that way,” Punxsutawney Phil responded. “Both Cruz and Trump are itching for a chance to send your son off to die. Enjoy the boy while you still can.” Two women standing nearby offered comfort to the Marine’s distressed mother who began crying uncontrollably.
A visibly anxious Hispanic woman in her mid-twenties raised her hand and asked the famous groundhog, “What will happen to my teen-aged brother who came to visit me last year to escape a Mexican drug cartel’s death contract?”
“He’ll be sent back, no questions asked!” the groundhog replied.
“But they’ll kill him!” the shaking woman replied.
“Your boy means nothing to Trump or Cruz,” Phil replied.
A bald woman stepped forward from the crowd and asked, “What about my chemo? I finally got health insurance through Obamacare and the chemo it pays for helps me stay alive. Will I be able to continue getting chemo treatment?”
“Start planning your funeral,” the Punxsutawney groundhog answered to the stunned crowd. “Neither Cruz nor Trump care about the sick.” With that, Punxsutawney Phil returned to his burrow. We can only hope he’s wrong.
The assembly of twenty thousand well-wishers gathered at the annual Punxsutawney Ground Hog Day festival. The crowd was initially in good cheer when Punxsutawney Phil emerged from his secluded burrow, grabbed a nearby microphone and proclaimed, “It’s a great day to be an American!” However, when the applause and cheers subsided and Punxsutawney Phil began speaking to the crowd about yesterday’s primary results in Iowa, the public mood turned noticeably darker.
“You’ve got to be kidding,” an elderly wheelchair-bound woman shouted from the front row. “What’s going to happen to my Medicare and Social Security check?”
“Gone to the highest campaign donor,” another man quickly yelled. A wave of anxiety covered the elderly people present as they realized that a Trump or Cruz presidency would mark the beginning of the end of government support for elderly programs and their safety net.
“What about my son?” a mother of a Marine Corp Lieutenant asked with concern in her voice. “Is he going back into another senseless war?”
“Looks that way,” Punxsutawney Phil responded. “Both Cruz and Trump are itching for a chance to send your son off to die. Enjoy the boy while you still can.” Two women standing nearby offered comfort to the Marine’s distressed mother who began crying uncontrollably.
A visibly anxious Hispanic woman in her mid-twenties raised her hand and asked the famous groundhog, “What will happen to my teen-aged brother who came to visit me last year to escape a Mexican drug cartel’s death contract?”
“He’ll be sent back, no questions asked!” the groundhog replied.
“But they’ll kill him!” the shaking woman replied.
“Your boy means nothing to Trump or Cruz,” Phil replied.
A bald woman stepped forward from the crowd and asked, “What about my chemo? I finally got health insurance through Obamacare and the chemo it pays for helps me stay alive. Will I be able to continue getting chemo treatment?”
“Start planning your funeral,” the Punxsutawney groundhog answered to the stunned crowd. “Neither Cruz nor Trump care about the sick.” With that, Punxsutawney Phil returned to his burrow. We can only hope he’s wrong.
Monday, February 1, 2016
THEY’LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS BY OUR…
When I was in eighth grade at St. Patrick’s Elementary School, I was very fond of the then-popular Christian song, They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love. It was a catchy tune easily played on guitars that I loved to hear, and it combined the social consciousness of the sixties with the timeless message of Christ’s social gospel. The song lyrics resonated with me back then and have ever since, and those words go a long way toward explaining why I consider myself a liberal with an affinity for the poor and the oppressed.
Sadly, a lot has changed since my elementary school years and I dare say that many Christians today are no longer known by their love. They’re known instead for their disdain for the poor, their callous indifference to the plight of refugees and their hard-hearted attitude toward the suffering of those who are sick and infirmed. They are known by their loathing of women seeking reproductive freedom and their intolerance of individuals who practice different faiths or no faith at all. They’re known by what they take and not the things they give, by their criticism and not their compassion and by their arrogance and not their humility. They are known by the bombs they drop and not the people they uplift, the sins they commit and not the righteousness they claim and by their practice of discrimination and not their profession of man’s equality.
It’s no wonder that much of Christianity today has become synonymous with hypocrisy of the highest order. How could it not when so many professed believers have rejected the central edict of Christianity - the command to love one another - in favor of selfish personal interests? They use to know Christians by their love, but not so much anymore. How sad!
Sadly, a lot has changed since my elementary school years and I dare say that many Christians today are no longer known by their love. They’re known instead for their disdain for the poor, their callous indifference to the plight of refugees and their hard-hearted attitude toward the suffering of those who are sick and infirmed. They are known by their loathing of women seeking reproductive freedom and their intolerance of individuals who practice different faiths or no faith at all. They’re known by what they take and not the things they give, by their criticism and not their compassion and by their arrogance and not their humility. They are known by the bombs they drop and not the people they uplift, the sins they commit and not the righteousness they claim and by their practice of discrimination and not their profession of man’s equality.
It’s no wonder that much of Christianity today has become synonymous with hypocrisy of the highest order. How could it not when so many professed believers have rejected the central edict of Christianity - the command to love one another - in favor of selfish personal interests? They use to know Christians by their love, but not so much anymore. How sad!
Sunday, January 31, 2016
VOICES OF GOD
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels and behaves. The medical Internet site – WebMD indicates that people with schizophrenia:
a) Hear or sometimes see things that aren’t there (hallucinations);
b) Often believe some things that aren’t true (delusions); and
c) May think that some people are trying to harm them (paranoia).
It’s not uncommon for individuals suffering from schizophrenia to report their belief that God spoke directly to them and instructed them to act in one way or another.
I am not a psychiatrist or even a medical doctor, but I have known several individuals who’ve suffered from schizophrenia and observed their conduct over a sufficiently lengthy period of time to have some idea of how the disorder affects their daily lives. That’s why I feel confident in asserting that many of today’s GOP presidential candidates are suffering from schizophrenia and somebody should seriously consider conducting scientific research to get to the bottom of the question why. Our Nation’s future viability may one day depend on it!
Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have all reported receiving explicit verbal instructions from God directing them to kill ISIL followers, abortion doctors and women choosing to terminate their pregnancies. Carly Fiorina is more circumspect about the message she received, but given her rabid attacks on the women’s health care provider, Planned Parenthood, it is clear that Fiorina believes she has been divinely instructed to wipe that organization off the map. God supposedly told Ben Carson to axe Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Scott Walker heard a revelation instructing him to go after labor unions, but since Scott dropped out of the presidential race, I’m not sure whether that counts or not.
Other GOP candidates have no problem believing things that aren’t true. Donald Trump thinks the Mexican government, the same government that can’t hold on to their prisoners or protect its citizens from the murderous rampages of drug cartels, is sufficiently organized to efficiently execute a sinister conspiracy to send its criminal element to the United States undetected. He also thinks that Sarah Palin was onto something when she declared last week that President Obama was behind her son’s assault on his girlfriend and PTSD that war-time soldiers contract. Ben Carson thinks climate change is a hoax on the same magnitude of the Apollo moon landing, and he should know because he’s a retired surgeon with an intimate knowledge of meteorology.
All of the GOP presidential hopefuls believe that Hillary and the liberals are out to get them…well, okay, that one is true so you got me there, but really, we don’t wish them any personal harm. We just don’t want them leading our country. Most of the Republican candidates think that Muslims as a whole are trying to destroy America, which is flat-out delusionary thinking, as is the notion that violence in America can be wiped out if we only add more guns to the mix. But, I digress. This is supposed to be about a serious mental health problem among presidential candidates, not guns. Where was I? Oh yes, paranoia. Liberals bent on destroying the fabric of America’s society has become a staple of the Republican presidential candidate’s diet, but that piece of trope couldn’t be further from the truth. We liberals breathe the same air as our more conservative counterparts, drink the same water, eat the same food (albeit in lesser quantities of caviar and foie gras) and have the same desires for health, safety and opportunities for personal and professional advancement. We think educating our children is the key to a better future and we believe that assisting those less fortunate than ourselves not only a noble pursuit, but a moral imperative for a free society. Liberals also believe that the government plays a vital role in providing for the mental health of its citizens, including GOP presidential candidates. God didn’t tell me to write that. I dreamed that up on my own.
a) Hear or sometimes see things that aren’t there (hallucinations);
b) Often believe some things that aren’t true (delusions); and
c) May think that some people are trying to harm them (paranoia).
It’s not uncommon for individuals suffering from schizophrenia to report their belief that God spoke directly to them and instructed them to act in one way or another.
I am not a psychiatrist or even a medical doctor, but I have known several individuals who’ve suffered from schizophrenia and observed their conduct over a sufficiently lengthy period of time to have some idea of how the disorder affects their daily lives. That’s why I feel confident in asserting that many of today’s GOP presidential candidates are suffering from schizophrenia and somebody should seriously consider conducting scientific research to get to the bottom of the question why. Our Nation’s future viability may one day depend on it!
Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have all reported receiving explicit verbal instructions from God directing them to kill ISIL followers, abortion doctors and women choosing to terminate their pregnancies. Carly Fiorina is more circumspect about the message she received, but given her rabid attacks on the women’s health care provider, Planned Parenthood, it is clear that Fiorina believes she has been divinely instructed to wipe that organization off the map. God supposedly told Ben Carson to axe Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Scott Walker heard a revelation instructing him to go after labor unions, but since Scott dropped out of the presidential race, I’m not sure whether that counts or not.
Other GOP candidates have no problem believing things that aren’t true. Donald Trump thinks the Mexican government, the same government that can’t hold on to their prisoners or protect its citizens from the murderous rampages of drug cartels, is sufficiently organized to efficiently execute a sinister conspiracy to send its criminal element to the United States undetected. He also thinks that Sarah Palin was onto something when she declared last week that President Obama was behind her son’s assault on his girlfriend and PTSD that war-time soldiers contract. Ben Carson thinks climate change is a hoax on the same magnitude of the Apollo moon landing, and he should know because he’s a retired surgeon with an intimate knowledge of meteorology.
All of the GOP presidential hopefuls believe that Hillary and the liberals are out to get them…well, okay, that one is true so you got me there, but really, we don’t wish them any personal harm. We just don’t want them leading our country. Most of the Republican candidates think that Muslims as a whole are trying to destroy America, which is flat-out delusionary thinking, as is the notion that violence in America can be wiped out if we only add more guns to the mix. But, I digress. This is supposed to be about a serious mental health problem among presidential candidates, not guns. Where was I? Oh yes, paranoia. Liberals bent on destroying the fabric of America’s society has become a staple of the Republican presidential candidate’s diet, but that piece of trope couldn’t be further from the truth. We liberals breathe the same air as our more conservative counterparts, drink the same water, eat the same food (albeit in lesser quantities of caviar and foie gras) and have the same desires for health, safety and opportunities for personal and professional advancement. We think educating our children is the key to a better future and we believe that assisting those less fortunate than ourselves not only a noble pursuit, but a moral imperative for a free society. Liberals also believe that the government plays a vital role in providing for the mental health of its citizens, including GOP presidential candidates. God didn’t tell me to write that. I dreamed that up on my own.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
LOOKING OUT FOR MEN’S HEALTH
Thank God for women like South Carolina Democrat, Mia McLeod, the state representative from Columbia who’s standing guard for men’s health concerns. Her efforts to promote the well-being of men in her state are nothing short of saintly, and I for one will tip my hat for the effort she has undertaken to insure that the male species not only survives, but flourishes sexually.
Why all the glowing accolades? Well, Representative McLeod has taken it upon herself to lead the fight against “priapism,” a malady that Wikipedia defines as “a potentially painful medical condition in which the erect penis does not return to its flaccid state, despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation, within four hours.” It’s an unfortunate side-effect of drugs like Cialis and Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction and the men who are unlucky and experience the side-effect of priapism will never get an erection again. If you’re a male, that’s not a pleasant thought. That’s where Mia McLoed enters the picture.
Ms. McLoed has introduced a measure in the South Carolina Legislature to insure than men are fully apprised of the risks of taking erectile dysfunction medication and the drugs’ tragic side effects and are properly educated concerning alternative treatment options, including the benefits of celibacy and other non-sexual lifestyles.
According to Representative McLoed’s proposal, men seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction would have to meet several conditions before having drugs like Viagra and Cialis prescribed, conditions that include, (a) waiting 24-hours before a prescription can be written; (b) submission of a notarized affidavit by a sexual partner attesting to the patient’s erectile dysfunction; (c) undergo an exam by a state-licensed sex therapist to document that the patient’s erectile dysfunction isn’t due solely to psychological factors; and (d) attend three therapy sessions within six months where the benefits of celibacy are discussed.
I imagine there will be critics of Ms. McLeod’s proposal (mostly men, I presume), but similar types of legislation regarding women’s reproductive health issues have breezed through the South Carolina Legislature and only a bunch of moronic hypocrites with legislative erectile dysfunction would prevent McLoed’s proposal from becoming the law of the land. Seriously, how hard could that be?
Why all the glowing accolades? Well, Representative McLeod has taken it upon herself to lead the fight against “priapism,” a malady that Wikipedia defines as “a potentially painful medical condition in which the erect penis does not return to its flaccid state, despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation, within four hours.” It’s an unfortunate side-effect of drugs like Cialis and Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction and the men who are unlucky and experience the side-effect of priapism will never get an erection again. If you’re a male, that’s not a pleasant thought. That’s where Mia McLoed enters the picture.
Ms. McLoed has introduced a measure in the South Carolina Legislature to insure than men are fully apprised of the risks of taking erectile dysfunction medication and the drugs’ tragic side effects and are properly educated concerning alternative treatment options, including the benefits of celibacy and other non-sexual lifestyles.
According to Representative McLoed’s proposal, men seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction would have to meet several conditions before having drugs like Viagra and Cialis prescribed, conditions that include, (a) waiting 24-hours before a prescription can be written; (b) submission of a notarized affidavit by a sexual partner attesting to the patient’s erectile dysfunction; (c) undergo an exam by a state-licensed sex therapist to document that the patient’s erectile dysfunction isn’t due solely to psychological factors; and (d) attend three therapy sessions within six months where the benefits of celibacy are discussed.
I imagine there will be critics of Ms. McLeod’s proposal (mostly men, I presume), but similar types of legislation regarding women’s reproductive health issues have breezed through the South Carolina Legislature and only a bunch of moronic hypocrites with legislative erectile dysfunction would prevent McLoed’s proposal from becoming the law of the land. Seriously, how hard could that be?
Friday, January 29, 2016
PERFECTLY TWISTED GOSSIP
This is a brief article about stories that will never appear in print, not because the stories lack redeeming social value, but because there is absolutely no factual basis to them. Still, I think it’s important to routinely stretch one’s own imagination muscles from time to time, and what better way is there to do that than by creating fictitious stories? Some would call that malicious gossip, but gossip never comes with an acknowledgement that the story is patently false, so I think I can dismiss that charge without difficulty. Here are a couple of stories I’d like to see written.
The first would be a salacious piece revealing that Josh Duggar was the “baby daddy” of Bristol Palin’s newest bundle of joy – Sailor Grace. I’ve seen photos of Josh and Bristol’s children and I swear the kids are a slitting image of each other. Obviously, that’s no substitute for DNA testing, but both Josh and Bristol have been known to engage in highly hypocritical sexual behavior after mouthing off about the virtues of abstinence, so there is a definite connection between the two.
The next article I’d like to see is an investigative piece that uncovers the fact that Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini is a cross-dresser. Who knew that under that scruffy gray beard and black turban he wears is the newest diamond-encrusted bodysuit from Victoria’s Secret Angel collection? I realize that nobody wants to get close enough to the Ayatollah to verify the accuracy of that kind of claim, but over the years the Ayatollah has shown an overactive interest in the style trends among Iranian women, so there’s cause to suspect that what’s on under the garb piques his interest, too.
Another juicy piece of journalism would explain how Michelle Obama is making a killing by investing in gun manufacturer stock. The story will claim that days after a school or church shooting occurs, when President Obama speaks out against gun violence or urges gun safety regulations, Michelle allegedly profits from the increase in gun sales and the jump in price of gun manufacturer stock. Everybody knows that a Democratic president is good news to the gun industry, so why shouldn’t the first couple profit from the nonsensical hysteria?
Did you know that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are cousins? Oh yeah, the Trump family tree has a few Russian limbs, that nobody in the clan likes to talk about – as if any family is immune. Just wanted you to know!
The first would be a salacious piece revealing that Josh Duggar was the “baby daddy” of Bristol Palin’s newest bundle of joy – Sailor Grace. I’ve seen photos of Josh and Bristol’s children and I swear the kids are a slitting image of each other. Obviously, that’s no substitute for DNA testing, but both Josh and Bristol have been known to engage in highly hypocritical sexual behavior after mouthing off about the virtues of abstinence, so there is a definite connection between the two.
The next article I’d like to see is an investigative piece that uncovers the fact that Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini is a cross-dresser. Who knew that under that scruffy gray beard and black turban he wears is the newest diamond-encrusted bodysuit from Victoria’s Secret Angel collection? I realize that nobody wants to get close enough to the Ayatollah to verify the accuracy of that kind of claim, but over the years the Ayatollah has shown an overactive interest in the style trends among Iranian women, so there’s cause to suspect that what’s on under the garb piques his interest, too.
Another juicy piece of journalism would explain how Michelle Obama is making a killing by investing in gun manufacturer stock. The story will claim that days after a school or church shooting occurs, when President Obama speaks out against gun violence or urges gun safety regulations, Michelle allegedly profits from the increase in gun sales and the jump in price of gun manufacturer stock. Everybody knows that a Democratic president is good news to the gun industry, so why shouldn’t the first couple profit from the nonsensical hysteria?
Did you know that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are cousins? Oh yeah, the Trump family tree has a few Russian limbs, that nobody in the clan likes to talk about – as if any family is immune. Just wanted you to know!
Thursday, January 28, 2016
NO PLAN FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
When Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder stepped up to the mike yesterday and declared that there’s no immediate plan to replace Flint, Michigan’s corroded lead pipes, despite the fact that toxic lead has been leaching from those pipes into homes and already poisoned thousands of Flint residents, he wasn’t saying anything about infrastructure that the public hasn’t heard before. There’s no real plan at any level of government to repair or replace our aging infrastructure.
Aging American infrastructure isn’t a new problem. It’s been well-documented and publicized. We already know there are over 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in America and 215 million people cross them daily. It’s no secret that 162,000 miles of highway in the United States are in need of resurfacing and/or reconstruction. The number of potholes out there probably reaches several hundred million. It’s been documented that thousands of miles of natural gas and water pipelines in cities and towns are in desperate need of replacement, but everywhere you go, the response is the same – there is no plan to correct the problem.
Why is that? Why can’t the most technologically advanced nation on the planet fix the stuff it relies on most?
The simple answer is money, but the harsher reality is our collective refusal to spend taxpayer dollars on something that benefits more than just ourselves. You see that refusal play out every time a politician summons the courage to propose a tax increase to spend on infrastructure repairs. He or she is immediately vilified as a looter of the public purse and unfit for public service. Last year, when Congressional leaders floated the idea of an increase in the federal gas tax to address our Nation’s crumbling bridges and highways, you would have thought the apocalypse was coming down upon them. Of course, under such withering criticism, not to mention the fear of not being re-elected, Congress kicked the can down the road for others to address, but that’s nothing new. They’ve been doing it for decades and the rest of us are content to keep our heads, and yes our wallets, buried in the sand. That’s why there’s no plan to fix our infrastructure before it collapses.
Okay, maybe that is the plan – watch it fall and see what happens!
Aging American infrastructure isn’t a new problem. It’s been well-documented and publicized. We already know there are over 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in America and 215 million people cross them daily. It’s no secret that 162,000 miles of highway in the United States are in need of resurfacing and/or reconstruction. The number of potholes out there probably reaches several hundred million. It’s been documented that thousands of miles of natural gas and water pipelines in cities and towns are in desperate need of replacement, but everywhere you go, the response is the same – there is no plan to correct the problem.
Why is that? Why can’t the most technologically advanced nation on the planet fix the stuff it relies on most?
The simple answer is money, but the harsher reality is our collective refusal to spend taxpayer dollars on something that benefits more than just ourselves. You see that refusal play out every time a politician summons the courage to propose a tax increase to spend on infrastructure repairs. He or she is immediately vilified as a looter of the public purse and unfit for public service. Last year, when Congressional leaders floated the idea of an increase in the federal gas tax to address our Nation’s crumbling bridges and highways, you would have thought the apocalypse was coming down upon them. Of course, under such withering criticism, not to mention the fear of not being re-elected, Congress kicked the can down the road for others to address, but that’s nothing new. They’ve been doing it for decades and the rest of us are content to keep our heads, and yes our wallets, buried in the sand. That’s why there’s no plan to fix our infrastructure before it collapses.
Okay, maybe that is the plan – watch it fall and see what happens!
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
WCO LIVE: Trump vs. Cruz – The “Brawl in St. Paul”
I am not a fan of professional wrestling, boxing or even the newest version of sanctioned violence – cage fighting, but I have to admit that I’d break down and subscribe to a pay-per-view event featuring a cage match between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, if only just to see which of them starts crying first. Seriously, it would be so worth the money, and I’m sure it would be a hell of a lot more entertaining than the GOP presidential debates have been. It could even be an educational experience, which is setting the bar kind of low given the level of intelligence that the GOP debates have showcased, but folks could finally see, first hand, how the candidate of their choice would react in a time of crisis. I’ll bet such an event would be very illuminating.
The obvious venue for a Trump/Cruz cage match would be St. Paul, Minnesota, because “Brawl in St. Paul” is too catchy a promotional phrase to pass up. Also, there’s the Jesse Ventura / wrestling / Minnesota connection to consider. Being the even-handed kind of guy that Ventura is, he could ref the match and keep both fighters from pulling something dirty, which you know Trump and Cruz would both do without a second thought.
Of course, to make this cage match the kind of match that folks would pay to see, both fighters would have to promise in advance, that whichever candidate looses the fight will withdraw from the GOP presidential sweepstakes; otherwise, there’d be no point watching two over-sized egos going toe-to-toe dressed in gym shorts. [Try erasing that thought from your memory] The Trump/Cruz cage match isn’t the perfect way to select the GOP presidential candidate, but it sure beats what we have now.
The obvious venue for a Trump/Cruz cage match would be St. Paul, Minnesota, because “Brawl in St. Paul” is too catchy a promotional phrase to pass up. Also, there’s the Jesse Ventura / wrestling / Minnesota connection to consider. Being the even-handed kind of guy that Ventura is, he could ref the match and keep both fighters from pulling something dirty, which you know Trump and Cruz would both do without a second thought.
Of course, to make this cage match the kind of match that folks would pay to see, both fighters would have to promise in advance, that whichever candidate looses the fight will withdraw from the GOP presidential sweepstakes; otherwise, there’d be no point watching two over-sized egos going toe-to-toe dressed in gym shorts. [Try erasing that thought from your memory] The Trump/Cruz cage match isn’t the perfect way to select the GOP presidential candidate, but it sure beats what we have now.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
ROUGH THEM UP OR KILL THEM; MAKES NO DIFFERENCE
I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay. It’s incredible? ~ Donald Trump, GOP presidential candidate at a rally in Sioux City, Iowa
You could say “the Donald” was simply bragging about the loyalty of his political supporters or you could say that Trump was joking about the scratch-your-head success his presidential campaign is enjoying, but anybody with a nose for sniffing out a tyrant will tell you that Trump stinks to high heaven. Only a would-be dictator would boast that he could get away with anything, including murder. If Trump wins the White House, anyone with a political opinion that differs from his ought to think twice about his or her mortality. Think I’m kidding? Think again.
Last month, Trump visited with right-wing commentator Bill O’Reilly in Mesa, Arizona. O’Reilly asked Trump if he was serious about a pledge Trump made earlier at a campaign rally to hunt down and kill the families of terrorists. I suppose O’Reilly figured that Trump would back-off the pledge to kill innocent women and children, but Trump was unmoved and unapologetic. “If you want to get terrorists,” Trump thundered, “you have to take out their families, too.”
At one particular Trump event last month, a protestor from the Black Lives Matter movement showed up to demonstrate against Trump’s trivialization of the racial concerns of black Americans. A group of Trump supporters forcibly removed the protestor from the rally. After the ejection, Trump told the crowd, “Maybe he should have been roughed up!” That’s classic Trump – always looking for somebody to beat-up!
American politics is a rough-and-tumble affair. It’s always been that way, and people come to expect that in the heat of political battle, words that go over the top are sometimes uttered. Decent candidates apologize for their unsavory remarks. The callous ones, like Donald Trump, don’t. In fact, Trump often repeats the same abhorrent declaration over and over again.
Donald Trump has made a career out of bullying and battering people in the business world, so it’s no surprise that he would carry that same attitude over to the political arena. Is that what Americans want – a bully-in-chief?
In a democracy, political candidates cross the line of what is morally acceptable when they start advocating violence against fellow citizens with opposing political opinions. Study any dictator, and you will discover their path to power was littered with similar exhortations and rhetoric. That’s why Donald Trump is such a threat to our democracy and could very well set us on the path to ruin. I hope it doesn’t come to that in America, but if it does, nobody can say we weren’t warned!
You could say “the Donald” was simply bragging about the loyalty of his political supporters or you could say that Trump was joking about the scratch-your-head success his presidential campaign is enjoying, but anybody with a nose for sniffing out a tyrant will tell you that Trump stinks to high heaven. Only a would-be dictator would boast that he could get away with anything, including murder. If Trump wins the White House, anyone with a political opinion that differs from his ought to think twice about his or her mortality. Think I’m kidding? Think again.
Last month, Trump visited with right-wing commentator Bill O’Reilly in Mesa, Arizona. O’Reilly asked Trump if he was serious about a pledge Trump made earlier at a campaign rally to hunt down and kill the families of terrorists. I suppose O’Reilly figured that Trump would back-off the pledge to kill innocent women and children, but Trump was unmoved and unapologetic. “If you want to get terrorists,” Trump thundered, “you have to take out their families, too.”
At one particular Trump event last month, a protestor from the Black Lives Matter movement showed up to demonstrate against Trump’s trivialization of the racial concerns of black Americans. A group of Trump supporters forcibly removed the protestor from the rally. After the ejection, Trump told the crowd, “Maybe he should have been roughed up!” That’s classic Trump – always looking for somebody to beat-up!
American politics is a rough-and-tumble affair. It’s always been that way, and people come to expect that in the heat of political battle, words that go over the top are sometimes uttered. Decent candidates apologize for their unsavory remarks. The callous ones, like Donald Trump, don’t. In fact, Trump often repeats the same abhorrent declaration over and over again.
Donald Trump has made a career out of bullying and battering people in the business world, so it’s no surprise that he would carry that same attitude over to the political arena. Is that what Americans want – a bully-in-chief?
In a democracy, political candidates cross the line of what is morally acceptable when they start advocating violence against fellow citizens with opposing political opinions. Study any dictator, and you will discover their path to power was littered with similar exhortations and rhetoric. That’s why Donald Trump is such a threat to our democracy and could very well set us on the path to ruin. I hope it doesn’t come to that in America, but if it does, nobody can say we weren’t warned!
Monday, January 25, 2016
CHECKMATE
The mufti of madness is at it again in Saudi Arabia. Yes, I’m talking about the same leader of religious clerics that educated Osama bin Laden, helped finance the September 11th hijackers and continue to inspire the sadistic soldiers of ISIL and other peddlers of human depravity. The muftis target this time: the game of Chess, a game that for many in Muslim culture is what Monopoly© is to Americans.
Never mind that the game of Chess came to prominence in 7th Century Persia, now the country of Iran, and spread across the entire Muslim world when Islamists conquered Persia during the middle part of that century. And never mind that over the past 1400 years, millions of Muslims have relaxed over Chess boards while smoking hookahs and sipping tea. For Saudi Arabia’s current Grand Mufti, Abdul Aziz al Sheikh, that history means nothing. The Grand Mufti has issued a fatwa (a Muslim religious edict) declaring the game of Chess to be the work of Satan and off-limits to those faithful to Allah. Just like that, a local peaceful pastime is flushed down the drain.
I have to wonder whether the blood-feud between the Shiites of Iran and the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia had something to do with the Grand Mufti’s sudden fatwa on Chess. After all, since Chess is viewed as coming to prominence out of Persia (Iran), there is a certain religious logic to the Mufti’s decision to label a game coming from Iran as apostate. It’s twisted logic to be sure, but at least it does provide an explanation that seems to make sense. Plus, the Mufti Sheikh is always preaching bloodshed. The game of Chess never draws a drop, so there’s that to consider.
I wonder if there’s a Muslim version of the game Monopoly©. If there is, expect that it will soon be banned, too.
Never mind that the game of Chess came to prominence in 7th Century Persia, now the country of Iran, and spread across the entire Muslim world when Islamists conquered Persia during the middle part of that century. And never mind that over the past 1400 years, millions of Muslims have relaxed over Chess boards while smoking hookahs and sipping tea. For Saudi Arabia’s current Grand Mufti, Abdul Aziz al Sheikh, that history means nothing. The Grand Mufti has issued a fatwa (a Muslim religious edict) declaring the game of Chess to be the work of Satan and off-limits to those faithful to Allah. Just like that, a local peaceful pastime is flushed down the drain.
I have to wonder whether the blood-feud between the Shiites of Iran and the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia had something to do with the Grand Mufti’s sudden fatwa on Chess. After all, since Chess is viewed as coming to prominence out of Persia (Iran), there is a certain religious logic to the Mufti’s decision to label a game coming from Iran as apostate. It’s twisted logic to be sure, but at least it does provide an explanation that seems to make sense. Plus, the Mufti Sheikh is always preaching bloodshed. The game of Chess never draws a drop, so there’s that to consider.
I wonder if there’s a Muslim version of the game Monopoly©. If there is, expect that it will soon be banned, too.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
STUDY CONFIRMS LONG-TERM NEUROLOGICAL RISKS
A team of research specialists at the Fellows Institute of Technology (FIT) released their findings earlier today from a comprehensive study they undertook to examine accumulated brain damage experienced by adult Republican voters after listening to the campaign rhetoric of presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The study results suggested a strong causal link between the amount of time study participants spent listening to the mentioned candidates and participants exhibiting signs of long-term memory deficit, loss of critical thinking skills and a significant increase in uncontrollably rude and obnoxious verbal outbursts.
The study, which involved magnetic imaging of 250 Republican brains as well as cognitive testing and oral interviews with each subject, provides valuable proof that repeatedly listening to campaign rhetoric of certain Republican candidates carries a substantial risk of suffering long-term neurological damage.
Results of the study will be published in the February 2016 issue of The Journal of Political Psychology and Voter Pandering.
“We commenced the study thinking that Trump and Cruz followers, as a whole, would exhibit lower I.Q. levels and limited rational thinking skills,” said B. Smart Sanders, Ph.D, one of the lead investigators in the study, “but we were shocked to see the sudden onset of long-term neurological defects in participants who had only been subject to Trump/Cruz rhetoric for as little as three hours.”
“You can suffer those ill effects from just watching the debates,” Ivory Towers, Ph.D, an assistant professor at FIT and co-author of the study explained. “I tell all of my students to go to the movies instead. They’ll learn more seeing The Force Awakens for a second time than tuning into the GOP debates.” Most liberal experts and pundits agree.
The study, which involved magnetic imaging of 250 Republican brains as well as cognitive testing and oral interviews with each subject, provides valuable proof that repeatedly listening to campaign rhetoric of certain Republican candidates carries a substantial risk of suffering long-term neurological damage.
Results of the study will be published in the February 2016 issue of The Journal of Political Psychology and Voter Pandering.
“We commenced the study thinking that Trump and Cruz followers, as a whole, would exhibit lower I.Q. levels and limited rational thinking skills,” said B. Smart Sanders, Ph.D, one of the lead investigators in the study, “but we were shocked to see the sudden onset of long-term neurological defects in participants who had only been subject to Trump/Cruz rhetoric for as little as three hours.”
“You can suffer those ill effects from just watching the debates,” Ivory Towers, Ph.D, an assistant professor at FIT and co-author of the study explained. “I tell all of my students to go to the movies instead. They’ll learn more seeing The Force Awakens for a second time than tuning into the GOP debates.” Most liberal experts and pundits agree.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
POVERTY, NOT MORAL DECAY DRIVES ABORTION DECISION
Renee Bracey Sherman authored an article yesterday on Aljazeera America’s website explaining why Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley should discuss and debate the issue of abortion as part of their campaigns. It was a thoughtful article, filed to coincide with the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, the case which guaranteed women the right to an abortion, and I’d recommend that everyone read it. The article can be found at http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/1/why-democrats-must-debate-abortion.html.
I applaud Ms. Sherman’s logic in writing that the candidates’ views are nuanced and citizens deserve to hear positions on all sides of the abortion issue. Right now, the only voices heard are the loudest and shrillest voices on the right, and all that shouting doesn’t advance the public’s understanding of the issue one iota. It’s time for reasonable voices on the left, hopefully at a much calmer level, to join the conversation.
One of the statistics that Ms. Sherman mentioned in her article is the fact that “two-thirds of the women in the United States who have an abortion are already parenting and live near or below the federal poverty level.” That fact illustrates why abortion in this Nation is primarily a poverty-related decision and not the product of a morally-depraved subset of our population as right-wing politicians and some in the clergy would have folks believe.
It’s easy for people to decry a woman’s decision to have an abortion when their own bellies are full and their primary concern in life is not where the next meal or shelter or dollar will come from. To a woman with children who’s already drowning or near-drowning under poverty’s crushing weight, having another child represents a burden of enormous magnitude that those with betters means often fail to appreciate. That’s why so many women already facing the poverty struggle choose abortion instead.
Abortion’s critics claim that it is a moral decision that our government should prohibit pregnant women from making, but there’s a large measure of hypocrisy in their argument, because they are very often the same critics of government attempts to make child rearing easier on parents. “Don’t give that woman welfare or food stamps,” the critic will complain, “because that will encourage her to pop out child after child,” as if women are merrily going through pregnancy and eighteen years of parenting just to game the system. But then in the next breath, that same welfare critic will decry that poor mother’s decision to terminate her pregnancy. What else can be concluded but that abortion critics who decry welfare are the most callous of them all?
I’d say that is an issue worthy of debate, and like the thesis of Ms. Sherman’s above-referenced article, I hope the Democratic presidential candidates engage in it.
I applaud Ms. Sherman’s logic in writing that the candidates’ views are nuanced and citizens deserve to hear positions on all sides of the abortion issue. Right now, the only voices heard are the loudest and shrillest voices on the right, and all that shouting doesn’t advance the public’s understanding of the issue one iota. It’s time for reasonable voices on the left, hopefully at a much calmer level, to join the conversation.
One of the statistics that Ms. Sherman mentioned in her article is the fact that “two-thirds of the women in the United States who have an abortion are already parenting and live near or below the federal poverty level.” That fact illustrates why abortion in this Nation is primarily a poverty-related decision and not the product of a morally-depraved subset of our population as right-wing politicians and some in the clergy would have folks believe.
It’s easy for people to decry a woman’s decision to have an abortion when their own bellies are full and their primary concern in life is not where the next meal or shelter or dollar will come from. To a woman with children who’s already drowning or near-drowning under poverty’s crushing weight, having another child represents a burden of enormous magnitude that those with betters means often fail to appreciate. That’s why so many women already facing the poverty struggle choose abortion instead.
Abortion’s critics claim that it is a moral decision that our government should prohibit pregnant women from making, but there’s a large measure of hypocrisy in their argument, because they are very often the same critics of government attempts to make child rearing easier on parents. “Don’t give that woman welfare or food stamps,” the critic will complain, “because that will encourage her to pop out child after child,” as if women are merrily going through pregnancy and eighteen years of parenting just to game the system. But then in the next breath, that same welfare critic will decry that poor mother’s decision to terminate her pregnancy. What else can be concluded but that abortion critics who decry welfare are the most callous of them all?
I’d say that is an issue worthy of debate, and like the thesis of Ms. Sherman’s above-referenced article, I hope the Democratic presidential candidates engage in it.
Friday, January 22, 2016
IT’S NOT THE CLOTHING, STUPID
I am not one to spend much time criticizing the press, unless it’s FOX News, and I’m not even sure FOX qualifies as a member of the press – it’s more a propaganda machine than anything – but I have a bone to pick with the media outlets who made a bigger story out of the $695 Bolero jacket that Sarah Palin was wearing when she took the stage in Tulsa, Oklahoma on Wednesday at a Donald Trump for President rally than the words that came spilling out of her mouth! Seriously, what is more important – the fact that Palin made excuses for her son and blamed President Obama for the fact that her son beat the crap out of his girlfriend and menaced the girlfriend with an assault rifle or the fact that Palin’s got money to burn on a glittering piece of cloth? The press as a whole dropped the ball in this instance. Shame on them!
Look, Sarah Palin’s breasts weren’t exposed at the Trump Rally. Her panties weren’t on display for the world to see, and as far as I could tell, the sales tag was not hanging from her jacket. Barring one of those ‘fashion disasters,’ what the former Alaskan governor was wearing should have been a non-issue.
The domestic violence excuses that spilled from Palin’s mouth, however, should have been front page news in every media outlet, but many treated Palin’s horrendous comments as merely a side-issue. Wow – talk about misplaced journalism.
Look, Sarah Palin’s breasts weren’t exposed at the Trump Rally. Her panties weren’t on display for the world to see, and as far as I could tell, the sales tag was not hanging from her jacket. Barring one of those ‘fashion disasters,’ what the former Alaskan governor was wearing should have been a non-issue.
The domestic violence excuses that spilled from Palin’s mouth, however, should have been front page news in every media outlet, but many treated Palin’s horrendous comments as merely a side-issue. Wow – talk about misplaced journalism.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE PALINS WHO EXCUSE IT
I thought I had heard everything crazy there was to be heard in the current presidential campaign, but then former GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin took to the stage in Tulsa, Oklahoma yesterday at a Donald Trump for President rally and dropped another whopper – President Obama was at fault for the beating Palin’s twenty-six year old son, Track put on his girlfriend on Monday.
If you haven’t heard the news, Track Palin was arrested and charged with assault, interfering with the report of domestic violence and possession of a firearm while intoxicated after he punched his girlfriend in the face, kicked her in the knee and menaced her with his AR-15 assault rifle. Track Palin is an Army veteran, with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan under his belt, so when Track decided to “put-a-hurting” on somebody much smaller and diminutive than him, the result was not going to be pretty. Monday’s battering of his girlfriend wasn’t either.
If you thought the story couldn’t get any worse, you’d be wrong!
As I mentioned earlier, Track’s mom, Sarah Palin decided to enter the fray, blaming Track’s physically and mentally abusive, and yes, criminal behavior on none other than the President of the United States, Barack Obama. She told the crowd of Trump supporters in Tulsa that her son’s violent behavior was the direct result of a President who, according to her narrative, doesn’t appreciate our Nation’s combat troops. Yeah, you read that right. Barack Obama is the reason Track Palin beat up his girlfriend. Could domestic violence excuses get any crazier?
According to the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, a woman gets beaten every nine seconds in the United States. Three women will be murdered by a current or former male partner here every day. Over 4.7 million women are beaten in some manner by intimate partners every year. These are just United States statistics. The numbers world-wide are staggering. Seventy percent of women around the globe will experience physical and/or sexual abuse by an intimate partner during their lifetimes. According to Sarah Palin, all that violence can be laid at the feet of Barack Obama.
Is it any wonder that the violence continues unabated? Can we truly expect people to open their eyes to the immense scope of domestic violence and the suffering it inflicts when people with notoriety such as Palin make such outlandish excuses? I doubt it. Until people like Palin stop placing the blame for domestic violence on anybody but the abuser, the beatings and rapes and murders will go on forever.
If you haven’t heard the news, Track Palin was arrested and charged with assault, interfering with the report of domestic violence and possession of a firearm while intoxicated after he punched his girlfriend in the face, kicked her in the knee and menaced her with his AR-15 assault rifle. Track Palin is an Army veteran, with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan under his belt, so when Track decided to “put-a-hurting” on somebody much smaller and diminutive than him, the result was not going to be pretty. Monday’s battering of his girlfriend wasn’t either.
If you thought the story couldn’t get any worse, you’d be wrong!
As I mentioned earlier, Track’s mom, Sarah Palin decided to enter the fray, blaming Track’s physically and mentally abusive, and yes, criminal behavior on none other than the President of the United States, Barack Obama. She told the crowd of Trump supporters in Tulsa that her son’s violent behavior was the direct result of a President who, according to her narrative, doesn’t appreciate our Nation’s combat troops. Yeah, you read that right. Barack Obama is the reason Track Palin beat up his girlfriend. Could domestic violence excuses get any crazier?
According to the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, a woman gets beaten every nine seconds in the United States. Three women will be murdered by a current or former male partner here every day. Over 4.7 million women are beaten in some manner by intimate partners every year. These are just United States statistics. The numbers world-wide are staggering. Seventy percent of women around the globe will experience physical and/or sexual abuse by an intimate partner during their lifetimes. According to Sarah Palin, all that violence can be laid at the feet of Barack Obama.
Is it any wonder that the violence continues unabated? Can we truly expect people to open their eyes to the immense scope of domestic violence and the suffering it inflicts when people with notoriety such as Palin make such outlandish excuses? I doubt it. Until people like Palin stop placing the blame for domestic violence on anybody but the abuser, the beatings and rapes and murders will go on forever.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
IS BERNIE THE MAN FOR CATS AND DOGS?
Dear Bernie…
I have been observing your presidential campaign with a mixture of curiosity and questioning, and as a lifelong Democrat and unapologetic liberal I haven’t made up my mind who I’ll be voting for when the Pennsylvania primary rolls around. I am, however, fully committed to supporting whichever candidate emerges from our party primary and will do so to the best of my capacity.
It is my belief that there is a substantial constituency that is being ignored in this year’s presidential campaign; one that includes voters across the political spectrum and one which I think you could reach if you were willing to make proposals for their benefit. The constituency I refer to is pet owners.
Every year during tax season, millions of federal filers quip that it would be nice if they could deduct the cost of keeping their family pet. It’s a comment I hear from every dog or cat owner who has me prepare their return. Wouldn’t it be nice if a presidential candidate like you championed a $100 tax credit for anyone who adopted a dog or cat from an approved animal abuse shelter, plus an additional $100 tax credit for individuals and families that own a dog or cat?
I recognize that, at first glance, such a proposal may sound trite in comparison to the plethora of more pressing issues facing our Nation, but I think that a large part of your appeal is the connection you’ve been able to establish with ordinary folks. They believe you understand and appreciate their concerns. The same could be said of pet owners, especially if you were viewed as a candidate who championed the benefit of pet ownership and indicated a desire to advance legislation to help defray the cost of that ownership, albeit with a rather modest tax credit.
Studies have shown that pet ownership lengthens life expectancy, has a positive impact on overall geriatric health and increases the period of time that senior citizens are able to remain living in their own homes. Those benefits represent a substantial financial savings to the public purse, and better still, are widely accepted for producing those benefits. I would contend that a relatively modest pet owner tax credit would be received with the same positive approval as spending money for meals-on-wheels does. All such a proposal needs is the right advocate.
A loyal liberal,
Steve
p.s. My son, Noah says hello! He’s a big Bernie fan.
I have been observing your presidential campaign with a mixture of curiosity and questioning, and as a lifelong Democrat and unapologetic liberal I haven’t made up my mind who I’ll be voting for when the Pennsylvania primary rolls around. I am, however, fully committed to supporting whichever candidate emerges from our party primary and will do so to the best of my capacity.
It is my belief that there is a substantial constituency that is being ignored in this year’s presidential campaign; one that includes voters across the political spectrum and one which I think you could reach if you were willing to make proposals for their benefit. The constituency I refer to is pet owners.
Every year during tax season, millions of federal filers quip that it would be nice if they could deduct the cost of keeping their family pet. It’s a comment I hear from every dog or cat owner who has me prepare their return. Wouldn’t it be nice if a presidential candidate like you championed a $100 tax credit for anyone who adopted a dog or cat from an approved animal abuse shelter, plus an additional $100 tax credit for individuals and families that own a dog or cat?
I recognize that, at first glance, such a proposal may sound trite in comparison to the plethora of more pressing issues facing our Nation, but I think that a large part of your appeal is the connection you’ve been able to establish with ordinary folks. They believe you understand and appreciate their concerns. The same could be said of pet owners, especially if you were viewed as a candidate who championed the benefit of pet ownership and indicated a desire to advance legislation to help defray the cost of that ownership, albeit with a rather modest tax credit.
Studies have shown that pet ownership lengthens life expectancy, has a positive impact on overall geriatric health and increases the period of time that senior citizens are able to remain living in their own homes. Those benefits represent a substantial financial savings to the public purse, and better still, are widely accepted for producing those benefits. I would contend that a relatively modest pet owner tax credit would be received with the same positive approval as spending money for meals-on-wheels does. All such a proposal needs is the right advocate.
A loyal liberal,
Steve
p.s. My son, Noah says hello! He’s a big Bernie fan.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
COUNT ME OUT IN 2016
Fellow countrymen! Fellow countrywomen! Fellow country bumpkins! At this time I would like to announce that I shall not be seeking the office of President of the United States in 2016! After much soul-searching, I’ve decided that the last thing I want to do is spend the next eleven months raising a couple of hundred million dollars in campaign contributions in order to land a job that pays four hundred thousand dollars a year. The financial numbers just don’t add up.
I’ve engaged upon an extensive self-evaluation and concluded that there are enough personal flaws in me to keep a therapist busy for the next three hundred years. I don’t need an opposition party spending millions to broadcast my shortcomings over national television and radio. Furthermore, the overabundant supply of skeletons in my closet would likely overshadow any reasonable discussion of the merits of my platform.
To be truthful, I hold at least one view on a wide range of issues that would probably alienate almost the entire population. As a result my chances of actually being elected are probably somewhere less than zero.
Forget the fancy position papers. Toss political correctness to the wind. Here’s what I think and why I couldn’t be elected!
Gun violence in this country is not going to stop until we enact sensible gun-control legislation. If it means rewriting the second amendment to curtail the right of individuals to own firearms, so be it! That ought to shoot my chance of corralling the N.R.A. vote!
I view Farm subsidies as nothing more than farm welfare. If the prevailing attitude in this Nation is that individuals should make it one their own without government assistance, what makes farmers think they are any different? It strikes me as a bit hypocritical for the farm belt folk to complain about government spending on social programs for the poor yet clamor loudly for government farm support. I’d advocate the elimination of all farm subsidies and the agricultural vote would wilt in the fields. The same goes for corporate welfare and the business vote.
On the issue of abortion, I’m pro-choice. It’s not that I think abortion is a good thing. In fact, I think the opposite is true, but I don’t think the government should involve itself in a woman’s reproductive decisions. Plus, adding a million women each year to our prison population isn’t economically beneficial or wise. I think proper reproductive education and making contraceptives available to everyone is a safer, less expensive and far more effective way to reduce the number of abortions in America. That should eliminate the Catholic vote!
And while I’m on the subject of Catholics, I guess I ought to weigh in on the priest sexual abuse scandal. If I were in charge I’d tell the Catholic Church to enact a zero-tolerance past, present and future policy immediately or face having churches and funds seized on federal racketeering charges for supporting illegal activities. To me, priests who sexually terrorize children are no different than foreign terrorists. The people or institutions that enable and protect priests ought to expect the same treatment as people or institutions that aid and harbor foreign terrorists. That eliminates the Bishops’ vote.
On the foreign policy front, I think Israeli settlements in the West bank should be vacated immediately—I didn’t say dismantled. My reasons are part legal and part strategic. The land upon which West bank settlements have been built was not part of the country of Israel the United Nations created in 1948 and allowing Israeli citizens to annex that territory is illegal. The United States cannot support an ally’s flagrant violation of international law that prohibits one country’s annexation of another by force. On the strategic front, what better way to put the Palestinian population on the road to recovery than by providing them with the infrastructure of Israeli settlements? There goes the Jewish vote!
I also believe that Palestinians should start concentrating on producing something other than suicide bombers and smoke and give up the notion of returning to land in Israel proper. Palestinian parents ought to teach something other than hatred of Israelis and provide their children with positive activities. I’ve never met a well-adjusted person who spent their entire childhood throwing stones at soldiers, dodging bullets and idolizing suicide bombers. If Palestinians want their kids to experience peace, they’re going to have to start teaching it at home. That would blow my chances with Palestinian voters!
I believe that black lives matter and that institutional racism must be address in all its latent forms and eradicated from the social fabric of our society. I also believe that African Americans share responsibility for promoting racial harmony and respect for persons of all colors. Blacks hating whites is just as damaging as whites hating blacks. I’d probably lose the black vote before I could sing “Amen”.
When it comes to immigration, I favor amnesty for all who have already made it into the United States and have remained law-abiding and who can demonstrate making a contribution to the advancement of our society. However, I also favor the building of a wall around the State of Texas (not just along the Texas/Mexico border) to prevent individuals living in that state from infecting the rest of this Nation with whatever Ebola-like virus caused voters in Texas to elect Ted Cruz to public office. That eliminates my chance of carrying Texas.
I also favor the revival of a hearty federal inheritance tax. If an heir moans because he or she only inherits six million dollars instead of ten, I’d tell them to go get a real job and try living for a month on a minimum wage salary. There goes the rich heir vote.
Finally, in case I missed anyone, please be advised that I would raise taxes on everyone to fully support military personnel. In my view, if citizens expect members of our armed forces to put their lives on the line if necessary to defend this Nation, then citizens have a corresponding duty to open their wallets in support of soldiers during their service and veterans and their families after they come home. That would pretty much alienate me from the no new taxes crowd.
In closing, I’d just like to thank all my would-be supporters for turning out today to hear me speak…Where is everybody?
I’ve engaged upon an extensive self-evaluation and concluded that there are enough personal flaws in me to keep a therapist busy for the next three hundred years. I don’t need an opposition party spending millions to broadcast my shortcomings over national television and radio. Furthermore, the overabundant supply of skeletons in my closet would likely overshadow any reasonable discussion of the merits of my platform.
To be truthful, I hold at least one view on a wide range of issues that would probably alienate almost the entire population. As a result my chances of actually being elected are probably somewhere less than zero.
Forget the fancy position papers. Toss political correctness to the wind. Here’s what I think and why I couldn’t be elected!
Gun violence in this country is not going to stop until we enact sensible gun-control legislation. If it means rewriting the second amendment to curtail the right of individuals to own firearms, so be it! That ought to shoot my chance of corralling the N.R.A. vote!
I view Farm subsidies as nothing more than farm welfare. If the prevailing attitude in this Nation is that individuals should make it one their own without government assistance, what makes farmers think they are any different? It strikes me as a bit hypocritical for the farm belt folk to complain about government spending on social programs for the poor yet clamor loudly for government farm support. I’d advocate the elimination of all farm subsidies and the agricultural vote would wilt in the fields. The same goes for corporate welfare and the business vote.
On the issue of abortion, I’m pro-choice. It’s not that I think abortion is a good thing. In fact, I think the opposite is true, but I don’t think the government should involve itself in a woman’s reproductive decisions. Plus, adding a million women each year to our prison population isn’t economically beneficial or wise. I think proper reproductive education and making contraceptives available to everyone is a safer, less expensive and far more effective way to reduce the number of abortions in America. That should eliminate the Catholic vote!
And while I’m on the subject of Catholics, I guess I ought to weigh in on the priest sexual abuse scandal. If I were in charge I’d tell the Catholic Church to enact a zero-tolerance past, present and future policy immediately or face having churches and funds seized on federal racketeering charges for supporting illegal activities. To me, priests who sexually terrorize children are no different than foreign terrorists. The people or institutions that enable and protect priests ought to expect the same treatment as people or institutions that aid and harbor foreign terrorists. That eliminates the Bishops’ vote.
On the foreign policy front, I think Israeli settlements in the West bank should be vacated immediately—I didn’t say dismantled. My reasons are part legal and part strategic. The land upon which West bank settlements have been built was not part of the country of Israel the United Nations created in 1948 and allowing Israeli citizens to annex that territory is illegal. The United States cannot support an ally’s flagrant violation of international law that prohibits one country’s annexation of another by force. On the strategic front, what better way to put the Palestinian population on the road to recovery than by providing them with the infrastructure of Israeli settlements? There goes the Jewish vote!
I also believe that Palestinians should start concentrating on producing something other than suicide bombers and smoke and give up the notion of returning to land in Israel proper. Palestinian parents ought to teach something other than hatred of Israelis and provide their children with positive activities. I’ve never met a well-adjusted person who spent their entire childhood throwing stones at soldiers, dodging bullets and idolizing suicide bombers. If Palestinians want their kids to experience peace, they’re going to have to start teaching it at home. That would blow my chances with Palestinian voters!
I believe that black lives matter and that institutional racism must be address in all its latent forms and eradicated from the social fabric of our society. I also believe that African Americans share responsibility for promoting racial harmony and respect for persons of all colors. Blacks hating whites is just as damaging as whites hating blacks. I’d probably lose the black vote before I could sing “Amen”.
When it comes to immigration, I favor amnesty for all who have already made it into the United States and have remained law-abiding and who can demonstrate making a contribution to the advancement of our society. However, I also favor the building of a wall around the State of Texas (not just along the Texas/Mexico border) to prevent individuals living in that state from infecting the rest of this Nation with whatever Ebola-like virus caused voters in Texas to elect Ted Cruz to public office. That eliminates my chance of carrying Texas.
I also favor the revival of a hearty federal inheritance tax. If an heir moans because he or she only inherits six million dollars instead of ten, I’d tell them to go get a real job and try living for a month on a minimum wage salary. There goes the rich heir vote.
Finally, in case I missed anyone, please be advised that I would raise taxes on everyone to fully support military personnel. In my view, if citizens expect members of our armed forces to put their lives on the line if necessary to defend this Nation, then citizens have a corresponding duty to open their wallets in support of soldiers during their service and veterans and their families after they come home. That would pretty much alienate me from the no new taxes crowd.
In closing, I’d just like to thank all my would-be supporters for turning out today to hear me speak…Where is everybody?
Monday, January 18, 2016
BOX TOP$ FOR EDUCATION
Early last week, I was sitting at a stoplight when a blue recycling bin on the curb next to my car caught my attention. The bin was one of fifteen to twenty similar bins set out by the residents in that block for collection, and it was overflowing with cardboard cereal boxes and other recyclable material. I’m a big fan of recycling, and it pleased me that most of the recycling bins were filled to the brim, but the bin that originally caught my attention contained things that had no business in a recycling bin, or even a trash can for that matter. What were they? Box Top$ for Education!
For those of you who aren’t familiar with what I’m referring to, Box Top$ for Education are small postage-sized coupons that are located on the packaging of a vast array of supermarket products, the most notable being General Mills cereals, Betty Crocker baking products and Ziploc items. Scott brand products and Progresso soups carry them, too. To the purchasers of those items, the Box Top$ for Education coupons might appear worthless, but to a school – public, charter or parochial, those coupons are worth ten cents apiece. Campbell soups have Labels for Education labels on their products. Those labels are worth ten cents, too.
Do you intentionally throw out money in the trash? I know I don’t, but every time one of those Box Top$ for Education coupons or Education labels gets tossed out on the curb, that’s exactly what somebody is doing. If that somebody is you, listen up. Find a spot in that junk drawer in your kitchen and start saving those Box Top$ for Education and Labels for Education coupons. When you accumulate a pile, find a neighbor kid who’s in school and have him or her take the coupons to the school office. The bag I sent to school last week contained forty dollars worth of coupons. In the interest of full disclosure, that included coupons others gave me, but the local schools still get forty dollars that otherwise could have gone out with the trash.
At first glance, Box Top$ for Education might seem like a poor topic for a progressive blog, but here’s the thing. If we want our children to learn to be conserve resources and raise their social consciousness, we’ve got to start out with the little things, because small stuff heaped on small stuff eventually becomes a mountain. Every week, hundreds groan in editorial columns around the country that school taxes are too high and the cost of education is too expensive. Whenever I read stuff like that, I wonder how many dimes are discarded in that writer’s recycling bin that could have gone to a school instead.
Many parents of baby boomers lived through the Great Depression. Conserving resources became embedded in their bones. Average folks born in later years had an easier upbringing, and unfortunately, the need to scrimp and save slowly fell by the wayside. In the wake of our Nations’ recent recession, it’s become clear that a renewed focus on conserving fiscal resources is a necessity. It’s also clear that properly educating our children is an expensive proposition. If we want to achieve both, we’ve got to begin with the small stuff, and not tossing out dimes in the trash seems like a good place to start.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with what I’m referring to, Box Top$ for Education are small postage-sized coupons that are located on the packaging of a vast array of supermarket products, the most notable being General Mills cereals, Betty Crocker baking products and Ziploc items. Scott brand products and Progresso soups carry them, too. To the purchasers of those items, the Box Top$ for Education coupons might appear worthless, but to a school – public, charter or parochial, those coupons are worth ten cents apiece. Campbell soups have Labels for Education labels on their products. Those labels are worth ten cents, too.
Do you intentionally throw out money in the trash? I know I don’t, but every time one of those Box Top$ for Education coupons or Education labels gets tossed out on the curb, that’s exactly what somebody is doing. If that somebody is you, listen up. Find a spot in that junk drawer in your kitchen and start saving those Box Top$ for Education and Labels for Education coupons. When you accumulate a pile, find a neighbor kid who’s in school and have him or her take the coupons to the school office. The bag I sent to school last week contained forty dollars worth of coupons. In the interest of full disclosure, that included coupons others gave me, but the local schools still get forty dollars that otherwise could have gone out with the trash.
At first glance, Box Top$ for Education might seem like a poor topic for a progressive blog, but here’s the thing. If we want our children to learn to be conserve resources and raise their social consciousness, we’ve got to start out with the little things, because small stuff heaped on small stuff eventually becomes a mountain. Every week, hundreds groan in editorial columns around the country that school taxes are too high and the cost of education is too expensive. Whenever I read stuff like that, I wonder how many dimes are discarded in that writer’s recycling bin that could have gone to a school instead.
Many parents of baby boomers lived through the Great Depression. Conserving resources became embedded in their bones. Average folks born in later years had an easier upbringing, and unfortunately, the need to scrimp and save slowly fell by the wayside. In the wake of our Nations’ recent recession, it’s become clear that a renewed focus on conserving fiscal resources is a necessity. It’s also clear that properly educating our children is an expensive proposition. If we want to achieve both, we’ve got to begin with the small stuff, and not tossing out dimes in the trash seems like a good place to start.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
EVIL EMPIRE DOWNSIZING
Oh, my gosh! Did you hear the news? Walmart is downsizing, as in shuttering the doors of two hundred and sixty-nine so-called under-performing locations. Of course, I’m suspicious. When it comes to Walmart, I’m always suspicious. I wonder how many of those stores harbored union sympathizers, or worse – wage and hour whistle blowers? Is there a minimum wage avoidance angle I haven’t considered? Like I said, I’m suspicious.
None of the closing stores are in Pennsylvania, mind you – that’s where I live – but its shocking news nonetheless. What if I wanted to drive down to the Port Covington Drive Walmart in Baltimore for crew socks at 2:45 in the morning? Nobody would be sitting at the door to greet me. The place would be dark; with only a few mangled shopping carts left in the parking lot to serve as evidence of a bygone empire. I wonder whether burnt-out shells of delivery trucks will be found out back, just like Imperial Cruisers were trashed in the desert sand in the latest Star Wars movie – The Force Awakens. Here’s a tip. Don’t waste your money looking for another Walmart. Go see the movie instead.
“We don’t take these closings lightly,” Doug McMillon, the president and CEO of Walmart told the world as part of the “Evil Empire’s” press announcement, his voice dripping with sympathy ordinarily reserved for Ewoks and rebel scum. Doug is the Darth Vader of Walmart, minus some of the traditional powers of the Dark Side reserved for a Sith Lord, but he can eliminate thousands of employees with the stroke of a pen, and even the real Darth Vadar wasn’t that powerful. Oh sure, he had the Death Star, but in the end the Death Star got blown apart, thanks in part to poor construction and design by the labor force. Apparently, their laborers weren’t union-trained.
Still, there’s a tinge of sadness that accompanies the Walmart news. Think about all those blue-haired greeters who will suddenly find themselves in the unemployment line. It’s tough for the seventies crowd to find a job, especially when their arthritis in the knee is flaring. Would-be employers are always wondering about their stamina, or whether they’ll show up for work on time, like they’ve got anything else to do! Still, many seniors have to work. They need the extra income for food and medicine, because…well…let’s face it, the richest one percent isn’t interested in shelling out a few more tax dollars to support senior entitlement programs. You know how those seniors are, always sitting around and complaining about the weather and their knees.
The Walmart press release says that 16,000 employees will be impacted by the closings, but many will be offered positions at nearby locations. That sounds nice on the surface, but with the current glut of baby-boomers on the market, you got to figure the writing is on the wall for grandma. When Walmart lays her off, that’s pretty much the end of her work history. No offense, grandma. It’s just business!
None of the closing stores are in Pennsylvania, mind you – that’s where I live – but its shocking news nonetheless. What if I wanted to drive down to the Port Covington Drive Walmart in Baltimore for crew socks at 2:45 in the morning? Nobody would be sitting at the door to greet me. The place would be dark; with only a few mangled shopping carts left in the parking lot to serve as evidence of a bygone empire. I wonder whether burnt-out shells of delivery trucks will be found out back, just like Imperial Cruisers were trashed in the desert sand in the latest Star Wars movie – The Force Awakens. Here’s a tip. Don’t waste your money looking for another Walmart. Go see the movie instead.
“We don’t take these closings lightly,” Doug McMillon, the president and CEO of Walmart told the world as part of the “Evil Empire’s” press announcement, his voice dripping with sympathy ordinarily reserved for Ewoks and rebel scum. Doug is the Darth Vader of Walmart, minus some of the traditional powers of the Dark Side reserved for a Sith Lord, but he can eliminate thousands of employees with the stroke of a pen, and even the real Darth Vadar wasn’t that powerful. Oh sure, he had the Death Star, but in the end the Death Star got blown apart, thanks in part to poor construction and design by the labor force. Apparently, their laborers weren’t union-trained.
Still, there’s a tinge of sadness that accompanies the Walmart news. Think about all those blue-haired greeters who will suddenly find themselves in the unemployment line. It’s tough for the seventies crowd to find a job, especially when their arthritis in the knee is flaring. Would-be employers are always wondering about their stamina, or whether they’ll show up for work on time, like they’ve got anything else to do! Still, many seniors have to work. They need the extra income for food and medicine, because…well…let’s face it, the richest one percent isn’t interested in shelling out a few more tax dollars to support senior entitlement programs. You know how those seniors are, always sitting around and complaining about the weather and their knees.
The Walmart press release says that 16,000 employees will be impacted by the closings, but many will be offered positions at nearby locations. That sounds nice on the surface, but with the current glut of baby-boomers on the market, you got to figure the writing is on the wall for grandma. When Walmart lays her off, that’s pretty much the end of her work history. No offense, grandma. It’s just business!
Saturday, January 16, 2016
THE LAND OF NO LAWYER
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney, and to have that attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you free of charge.
Those are the standard Miranda warnings, the rights and guarantees all individuals have pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a 1966 case before the United States Supreme Court known as Miranda vs. Arizona, the Court ruled that before an individual in police custody can be questioned by the police, that individual has to be advised by the police that he or she had the above-referenced rights. Any evidence provided or statements made by an individual in the absence of Miranda warnings are inadmissible in a court of law.
The right to an attorney mentioned in the standard Miranda warnings is part of a set of guarantees set forth in the Sixth Amendment, which includes the following language, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” In 1963, in the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright, the United Stated State Supreme Court ruled that all indigent defendants charged with a felony have the right to have an attorney appointed to represent them, free of charge, and paid for by the state that seeks to prosecute them.
Since the Supreme Court’s Gideon decision, as it has come to be known, every state and territory under the jurisdiction of the United States has provided what are known as public defenders (free lawyers) to indigent defendants to comply with the above-stated requirements of the Sixth Amendment, except one – the state of Louisiana. That’s because the Louisiana Legislature, controlled by fiscally conservative Republicans I might add, has decided not to provide sufficient funding for the public defender’s office in New Orleans where an overwhelming majority of the state’s criminal cases are handled. The result is that hundred, perhaps thousands of indigent defendants charged with felonies are imprisoned without the opportunity to have their detention challenged by an attorney. To rectify this injustice, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal court the other day against the State of Louisiana and its Legislature.
It’s popular amongst a certain crowd (most notably law-and-order Republicans with their hands on the public purse strings) to condemn the notion of appropriating taxpayer dollars to guarantee that an accused has access to the rights guaranteed by our Federal Constitution, unless it’s a fellow Republican politician in the dock, but there is no higher responsibility for a Legislature than doing everything in their power to uphold Constitutional rights. Clearly, the Louisiana Legislature has thumbed its nose at the Sixth Amendment long enough and the federal courts will intervene to force compliance with its guarantees. No man or woman should be above the law, and you can add a Legislature to that list as well.
Those are the standard Miranda warnings, the rights and guarantees all individuals have pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a 1966 case before the United States Supreme Court known as Miranda vs. Arizona, the Court ruled that before an individual in police custody can be questioned by the police, that individual has to be advised by the police that he or she had the above-referenced rights. Any evidence provided or statements made by an individual in the absence of Miranda warnings are inadmissible in a court of law.
The right to an attorney mentioned in the standard Miranda warnings is part of a set of guarantees set forth in the Sixth Amendment, which includes the following language, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to…have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” In 1963, in the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright, the United Stated State Supreme Court ruled that all indigent defendants charged with a felony have the right to have an attorney appointed to represent them, free of charge, and paid for by the state that seeks to prosecute them.
Since the Supreme Court’s Gideon decision, as it has come to be known, every state and territory under the jurisdiction of the United States has provided what are known as public defenders (free lawyers) to indigent defendants to comply with the above-stated requirements of the Sixth Amendment, except one – the state of Louisiana. That’s because the Louisiana Legislature, controlled by fiscally conservative Republicans I might add, has decided not to provide sufficient funding for the public defender’s office in New Orleans where an overwhelming majority of the state’s criminal cases are handled. The result is that hundred, perhaps thousands of indigent defendants charged with felonies are imprisoned without the opportunity to have their detention challenged by an attorney. To rectify this injustice, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal court the other day against the State of Louisiana and its Legislature.
It’s popular amongst a certain crowd (most notably law-and-order Republicans with their hands on the public purse strings) to condemn the notion of appropriating taxpayer dollars to guarantee that an accused has access to the rights guaranteed by our Federal Constitution, unless it’s a fellow Republican politician in the dock, but there is no higher responsibility for a Legislature than doing everything in their power to uphold Constitutional rights. Clearly, the Louisiana Legislature has thumbed its nose at the Sixth Amendment long enough and the federal courts will intervene to force compliance with its guarantees. No man or woman should be above the law, and you can add a Legislature to that list as well.
Friday, January 15, 2016
THE BALLS OF TED CRUZ
Sonny Weaver Jr. is a fictional character in the 2014 movie Draft Day. He’s the general manager of a team in the National Football League - the Cleveland Browns. One of Sonny’s responsibilities is making the decision on who to select on draft day from among the hundreds of college football players who have declared their intent to enter the NFL’s draft. Sonny’s team acquires the very first pick in the draft, and much of the movie revolves around Sonny’s decision on who to select. Sonny likes a player named Vontae Mack, but once his team acquires the first pick in the draft, he is suddenly in a position to acquire the much-hyped quarterback, Bo Callahan. At that point, Sonny tasks the team’s security director who is also a detective to find out as much as he can about Bo Callahan’s character.
The detective later returns and tells Sonny a story he’s heard about Bo. A general manager (GM) of another football team that was considering drafting Bo sent Bo a playbook to read with a one-hundred dollar bill taped to the last page of the playbook. During a subsequent interview, when the GM asks Bo whether he’s read the playbook or not, Bo says he did but doesn’t mention finding the hundred-dollar bill, so the general manager knows he lied about reading the playbook. At that point, the GM confronts Bo about the hundred-dollar bill and Bo replies, “Oh yeah, good one guys. Good one,” sticking with the story that he’d read the playbook, but just forgot about the money.
“He’s the only guy who lied about reading the playbook,” the detective tells Sonny Weaver Jr., “and then had the balls to lie about the lie.”
I was thinking about that movie clip yesterday after reading a New York Times investigative article that revealed that GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz had secured a million-dollar ($1,000,000) loan from Goldman Sachs in 2012 to help finance his campaign to become a U.S. Senator for Texas. Cruz failed to disclose that loan on campaign finance reports that are required by law to be filed with the Federal Election Commission. When confronted with the evidence of his failure, Cruz responded by saying that his failure to report the loan was an “inadvertent oversight,” as if owing somebody a million bucks is one of those things a person is likely to forget when filling out a federal election document that asks if you owe anybody money, and if so, to who and how much.
If a person pulls that crap when trying to get a bank loan, that’s called bank fraud; if they mail that form it’s also mail fraud, and if they electronically file that form, that’s wire fraud. Hundreds of guys are currently sitting in federal prisons for committing those same offenses, and most of them claimed “inadvertent oversight,” too. Perhaps their mistake was not running for president.
The irony of Cruz’ loan is that his wife worked for Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s largest banks and venture capital firms, and Cruz campaigned on a populist platform decrying Wall Street’s back-room deals between big-money interests that played a central role in causing the Great Recession of 2008. It sure wouldn’t have looked good to Texas voters during his campaign if it was discovered that Cruz made his own back-room deal with Wall Street – talk about hypocrisy - so Cruz “inadvertently” omitted mention of the million dollar loan on his federal election disclosure form.
Now, Cruz lies about the lie with his claim of inadvertent oversight. All I can say is that the guy has some set of balls!
The detective later returns and tells Sonny a story he’s heard about Bo. A general manager (GM) of another football team that was considering drafting Bo sent Bo a playbook to read with a one-hundred dollar bill taped to the last page of the playbook. During a subsequent interview, when the GM asks Bo whether he’s read the playbook or not, Bo says he did but doesn’t mention finding the hundred-dollar bill, so the general manager knows he lied about reading the playbook. At that point, the GM confronts Bo about the hundred-dollar bill and Bo replies, “Oh yeah, good one guys. Good one,” sticking with the story that he’d read the playbook, but just forgot about the money.
“He’s the only guy who lied about reading the playbook,” the detective tells Sonny Weaver Jr., “and then had the balls to lie about the lie.”
I was thinking about that movie clip yesterday after reading a New York Times investigative article that revealed that GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz had secured a million-dollar ($1,000,000) loan from Goldman Sachs in 2012 to help finance his campaign to become a U.S. Senator for Texas. Cruz failed to disclose that loan on campaign finance reports that are required by law to be filed with the Federal Election Commission. When confronted with the evidence of his failure, Cruz responded by saying that his failure to report the loan was an “inadvertent oversight,” as if owing somebody a million bucks is one of those things a person is likely to forget when filling out a federal election document that asks if you owe anybody money, and if so, to who and how much.
If a person pulls that crap when trying to get a bank loan, that’s called bank fraud; if they mail that form it’s also mail fraud, and if they electronically file that form, that’s wire fraud. Hundreds of guys are currently sitting in federal prisons for committing those same offenses, and most of them claimed “inadvertent oversight,” too. Perhaps their mistake was not running for president.
The irony of Cruz’ loan is that his wife worked for Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s largest banks and venture capital firms, and Cruz campaigned on a populist platform decrying Wall Street’s back-room deals between big-money interests that played a central role in causing the Great Recession of 2008. It sure wouldn’t have looked good to Texas voters during his campaign if it was discovered that Cruz made his own back-room deal with Wall Street – talk about hypocrisy - so Cruz “inadvertently” omitted mention of the million dollar loan on his federal election disclosure form.
Now, Cruz lies about the lie with his claim of inadvertent oversight. All I can say is that the guy has some set of balls!
Thursday, January 14, 2016
“EL CHAPO” LIVING THE DREAM…IN A DUMP
If you haven’t seen the NBC News clip about the place where Mexico’s most famous fugitive, the notorious drug kingpin, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, was captured last week by soldiers from the Mexican Navy, you ought to take a gander at its website and feast your eyes on the sumptuous surroundings that drug money will buy south of the border.
When I first heard that “El Chapo” was captured by the Mexican Navy, I figured he was probably motoring around the Pacific Ocean off the coast in a luxurious yacht with a few kilos of cocaine on board. I was wrong. “El Chapo” was holed-up in a condo with a few of his posse and enough Tex-Mex take-out to last a month or two. You should check out the website.
Okay, I’ll spare you the effort. The place where “El Chapo” was found hiding was a dump. I mean it – an absolute dump. The condo wouldn’t have qualified for Section 8 housing here in America, and it appeared that the maid hadn’t cleaned since Reagan occupied the White House. The condo itself was just a step above an inner-city crack house, but that’s not saying much. You’d think that the richest drug dealer in Mexico could afford a half-way decent safe house, but I suppose with Mexico’s entire military on his tail and a price on his head, it was probably tough to find a trustworthy realtor.
There’s something very gratifying about seeing a super-wealthy guy like “El Chapo,” who was personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the U.S. and Mexico, being reduced to living in a place of such squalor that even a respectable mouse wouldn’t have touched it. What will be even more gratifying, however, is when "El Chapo" is reduced to spending the rest of his life in a nine by thirteen foot cell. Maybe then folks will start calling him “El Cheapo,” because that’s just about all he’ll be able to afford.
When I first heard that “El Chapo” was captured by the Mexican Navy, I figured he was probably motoring around the Pacific Ocean off the coast in a luxurious yacht with a few kilos of cocaine on board. I was wrong. “El Chapo” was holed-up in a condo with a few of his posse and enough Tex-Mex take-out to last a month or two. You should check out the website.
Okay, I’ll spare you the effort. The place where “El Chapo” was found hiding was a dump. I mean it – an absolute dump. The condo wouldn’t have qualified for Section 8 housing here in America, and it appeared that the maid hadn’t cleaned since Reagan occupied the White House. The condo itself was just a step above an inner-city crack house, but that’s not saying much. You’d think that the richest drug dealer in Mexico could afford a half-way decent safe house, but I suppose with Mexico’s entire military on his tail and a price on his head, it was probably tough to find a trustworthy realtor.
There’s something very gratifying about seeing a super-wealthy guy like “El Chapo,” who was personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the U.S. and Mexico, being reduced to living in a place of such squalor that even a respectable mouse wouldn’t have touched it. What will be even more gratifying, however, is when "El Chapo" is reduced to spending the rest of his life in a nine by thirteen foot cell. Maybe then folks will start calling him “El Cheapo,” because that’s just about all he’ll be able to afford.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
WHERE IS ALLEN D. CORS WHEN THE CORONER CALLS?
Where is Allen D. Cors when the Lumberton, North Carolina coroner comes a calling, especially when the call is to collect a three-year-olds corpse, the product of a self-inflicted gunshot wound when the kid discovers a loaded 9-millimeter handgun at his father’s store?
Mr. Cors is the current president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), and it has become somewhat of a macabre tradition in this country that anytime a firearm tragedy occurs, the NRA president or one of its spokespersons jumps up on the nearest soapbox and starts spouting off with the same worn-out message that more guns, not less, are needed to curb the endless stream of violent deaths – usually about thirty thousand a year in America – that come from the end of a gun. Isn’t it strange that Cors and his cohorts are never at the scene of a heart-wrenching death, handing grieving family members and friends a souvenir firearm as a memento of their loved-ones passing? If the idea sounds repugnant, that’s because it is, just as it is unspeakably cruel and heartless for members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas to show up at a soldier’s funeral and shout hate messages at the soldier’s grieving family.
The NRA and the Westboro Baptist bunch are entitled to their opinions and their ideology, but both are masters at ignoring the pain and suffering their cause inflicts on the lives of ordinary folks who go about their business every day, and just want to be left alone without worrying about whether a stray bullet will hit them or not. Compassion is not rocket science, but you do have to want to make it a part of your character, and neither Cors nor the NRA has demonstrated any desire to move in that direction.
There’s a reason why police and emergency medical personnel, as a whole, are always advocating for sensible gun regulations. They see, first hand, the blood and the carnage and the raw outpouring of grief that flows from the families of gunshot victims like molten lava from the mouth of a volcano. The fire burns their souls, and no amount of water will quench their pain. Only a person without compassion could witness such an event and not hear the cries for sensible change, but Cors and his ilk never show up at the scene to witness the horrors their work propagates. I’d like to think that’s due to fear, or maybe the possibility of having to confront the true costs in terms of human misery of their endeavors, but I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s nothing more than callous indifference, the way Nazi soldiers stood by and watched millions of Jew heading to the ovens. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
On the other hand, maybe it is good thing that Cors and his followers are always absent from the scene. The last thing that people in pain should have to endure is another display of human callousness, and it really doesn’t matter whether the person being callous is holding a gun or not.
Mr. Cors is the current president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), and it has become somewhat of a macabre tradition in this country that anytime a firearm tragedy occurs, the NRA president or one of its spokespersons jumps up on the nearest soapbox and starts spouting off with the same worn-out message that more guns, not less, are needed to curb the endless stream of violent deaths – usually about thirty thousand a year in America – that come from the end of a gun. Isn’t it strange that Cors and his cohorts are never at the scene of a heart-wrenching death, handing grieving family members and friends a souvenir firearm as a memento of their loved-ones passing? If the idea sounds repugnant, that’s because it is, just as it is unspeakably cruel and heartless for members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas to show up at a soldier’s funeral and shout hate messages at the soldier’s grieving family.
The NRA and the Westboro Baptist bunch are entitled to their opinions and their ideology, but both are masters at ignoring the pain and suffering their cause inflicts on the lives of ordinary folks who go about their business every day, and just want to be left alone without worrying about whether a stray bullet will hit them or not. Compassion is not rocket science, but you do have to want to make it a part of your character, and neither Cors nor the NRA has demonstrated any desire to move in that direction.
There’s a reason why police and emergency medical personnel, as a whole, are always advocating for sensible gun regulations. They see, first hand, the blood and the carnage and the raw outpouring of grief that flows from the families of gunshot victims like molten lava from the mouth of a volcano. The fire burns their souls, and no amount of water will quench their pain. Only a person without compassion could witness such an event and not hear the cries for sensible change, but Cors and his ilk never show up at the scene to witness the horrors their work propagates. I’d like to think that’s due to fear, or maybe the possibility of having to confront the true costs in terms of human misery of their endeavors, but I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s nothing more than callous indifference, the way Nazi soldiers stood by and watched millions of Jew heading to the ovens. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
On the other hand, maybe it is good thing that Cors and his followers are always absent from the scene. The last thing that people in pain should have to endure is another display of human callousness, and it really doesn’t matter whether the person being callous is holding a gun or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)