In the wake of what is going on in Wisconsin and starting to spill over into other states, Jefferey H. Anderson makes a truly great point in his article, "Why Public Unions are Fundamentally Different from Private Ones". In his article, Anderson points out that a private employee union bargains with its employer for a share of a profit, while a public employee union bargains against the taxpayer for a potentially boundless sum of money that is not limited by something as trivial and pesky as profit. A private union understands that there may not be profit in an economic downturn, but a public union does not concern itself with such triviality and wants its share regardless of if the government, funded by the taxpayer, is ending up in the black at the end of the fiscal year, or if the government is losing money hand over fist.
State governments are working on behalf of the taxpayers to try to reach some sort of compromise in regards to what the states have promised public union workers and what the states (we the taxpayers) can actually afford. As we have seen a number of times in this economic downturn, governments need to suspend certain programs and ways of doing business in order to deal with budget gaps and to get us through this economic crisis. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together, and we are all going to have to make some concessions.
Workers in the private sector, for the most part, work longer hours at regular pay, contribute a much higher percentage of their own healthcare and benefit costs, and go without many of the guaranteed perks that unionized public sector workers do, including, most notably, the fact that private sector employees usually earn pay increases and bonuses through performance reviews, while many public sector workers are guaranteed them in their union contracts, regardless of performance and skill level. Teacher tenure and the fact that a really bad teacher can keep their job regardless of performance is a prime example of this.
I disagree with this entirely and think it is time for a change in how governments deal with unions, time for a change in how public unions operate, and time for private sector workers and taxpayers to stop having to bear a bigger economic burden and career challenges than private sector workers whose pay comes from the taxpayer. While I would compromise at the two groups having to bear an equal burden, I would even go as far as to say that the worker whose pay comes from the taxpayer should bear an even bigger burden than the worker whose pay comes from the private sector when it comes to making concessions in an economic downturn, and when it comes to footing the bill for their own sector to operate.
What will eventually bring about the economic downfall of the this country will be the point at which all of the entitlement programs, all of the people who get something from the government, finally overwhelm the system by outweighing all of the people that are not taking anything from the government, the people that are paying into the system. The number of people reliant upon government for their very survival is continuing to grow and our system cannot sustain this pattern indefinitely. Either taxes will need to be increased, or we will continue to borrow until we reach a point at which, as a nation, we can no longer pay our loans. All that the government (and through government, the taxpayer) is asking public union workers to do is to be aware of this fact, be aware of the economic situation, and make some of the very same concessions that private sector employees are having to make. Government is attempting to get us through these tough economic conditions and is looking to public union workers to be realistic and think beyond just themselves and the union, but for the current greater good of the citizenry. That seems like a reasonable request to me.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Taking The Day Off At The Taxpayer's Expense
Just like a Reese's peanut butter cup, Wisconsin has recently seen the coming together of my two favorite things...protestors and teachers...
As Milwaukee Public School teachers left their classrooms to march in Madison Friday, they likely earned more than $3 million to not teach students in Wisconsin’s largest school district.
In Madison, the school district was closed for three days after hundreds of teachers engaged in a mass sick-out so they could attend protest rallies at the State Capitol. That could cost the district $2.7 million.
Late Sunday night Madison Metropolitan School District administration announced their schools would be shut down yet one more day, at a possible cost of more than $900,000.
Many of the absent teachers converged on the Capitol to protest a bill which would alter their compensation packages and make changes in government employee unions’ ability to collectively bargain on issues other than wages.
While some have speculated that the absent teachers will see their pay docked, that may not be the case if they provide a doctor’s note. Due to collective bargaining rules currently in place, the absences could be considered excused and the teachers would be paid for their protesting.
That possibility took on added significance as the MacIver News Service broke the story Saturday that several doctors in lab coats were handing out medical excuse notes to passers by, without examining their so-called patients.
If all the teachers in Milwaukee and Madison are paid for the days missed, the protest related salaries for just the state’s two largest districts would exceed $6.6 million dollars.
Using a figure of $100,005 for average teacher compensation in MPS and an average yearly workload of 195 days, these teachers cost approximately $513 per day in salary and benefits to employ. Spread over 5,960.3 full-time licensed teachers in the district, this adds up to $3,057,634 in daily expenses.
The average teacher’s total compensation in Madison is $74,912, according to the Department of Public Instruction. Each day costs $384.16 per teacher. The district has 2,370 teachers.
These figures don’t include administrators and support staff, many of which got an unexpected paid days off thanks to the week’s protests .
As Milwaukee Public School teachers left their classrooms to march in Madison Friday, they likely earned more than $3 million to not teach students in Wisconsin’s largest school district.
In Madison, the school district was closed for three days after hundreds of teachers engaged in a mass sick-out so they could attend protest rallies at the State Capitol. That could cost the district $2.7 million.
Late Sunday night Madison Metropolitan School District administration announced their schools would be shut down yet one more day, at a possible cost of more than $900,000.
Many of the absent teachers converged on the Capitol to protest a bill which would alter their compensation packages and make changes in government employee unions’ ability to collectively bargain on issues other than wages.
While some have speculated that the absent teachers will see their pay docked, that may not be the case if they provide a doctor’s note. Due to collective bargaining rules currently in place, the absences could be considered excused and the teachers would be paid for their protesting.
That possibility took on added significance as the MacIver News Service broke the story Saturday that several doctors in lab coats were handing out medical excuse notes to passers by, without examining their so-called patients.
If all the teachers in Milwaukee and Madison are paid for the days missed, the protest related salaries for just the state’s two largest districts would exceed $6.6 million dollars.
Using a figure of $100,005 for average teacher compensation in MPS and an average yearly workload of 195 days, these teachers cost approximately $513 per day in salary and benefits to employ. Spread over 5,960.3 full-time licensed teachers in the district, this adds up to $3,057,634 in daily expenses.
The average teacher’s total compensation in Madison is $74,912, according to the Department of Public Instruction. Each day costs $384.16 per teacher. The district has 2,370 teachers.
These figures don’t include administrators and support staff, many of which got an unexpected paid days off thanks to the week’s protests .
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
As Promised, More On My Correspondence With A Presidential Candidate
As promised, today I would like to share my response to Dee Neveu's email:
Hello, Mrs. Neveu,
I must tell you that I am very impressed that you took the time to write to me personally after you were informed of my blog posting. Your care and attention to detail is most definitely something to be admired. Please be assured that it was not my attempt to make light of your efforts, nor your campaign, but quite to the contrary, I am impressed with the message that you are trying to send to the American people regarding the fact that we should be looking to non-career politicians when it comes time to choose our leaders. I was most definitely not attempting to lump you in with another group of candidates, but was simply providing to my readers some information on the 5 lesser-known candidates that I had read about in recent news articles.
I myself would like to see our next President be, as you say, "an average citizen" and not a career politician that is beholden to special interest donors and political parties. Let me also assure you that while it may be the case that you are viewed by some Americans, as you said, to be "the wrong race group, wrong gender, wrong social class," I most definitely do not see you as being any of those things. I want our next President to be a caring, involved, understanding American who has worked hard and experienced the same things that the rest of us have, regardless of race, gender, or social class. I do truly wish you the very best of luck with your campaign and hope that you are successful in showing America that we need to look for better options when it comes to electing our political leaders.
As for my sarcasm, it is never intended to offend, but as those who know me can attest, is my sometimes failing attempt at humor. I apologize if I have offended you in any way, but please note that it was not my intention. Also, please know, that my sarcasm was not directed at you, but most definitely at our current President.
As for my "high horse", please be assured that I am product of the public school system in California whose first job at 15 was bagging groceries and sweeping floors, and I've worked long, hard hours ever since for what we have. We are a middle class family that has spent the past 100 years doing our best to make the best life possible for ourselves in a place where our grandparents worked in the fields as children, allowing us the opportunities they never had through their own hard work.
Regarding your views on the issues that you provided for me in your correspondence, I think I would most definitely agree with you much more often than we would disagree. I really hope that you have the opportunity to get those common sense views out in front of the American people between now and election day.
With my utmost respect and regard,
William L. Savastano
And also as promised, here is Dee's follow up response to me:
Hello Mr. Savastano,
Thank you very much, you are very kind to have taken the time to read my note, and reply back with such thoughtful words. I certainly appreciate your communication, you are a decent and respectable person.
After reading your note, I'm glad that we both politically agree. No, I'm not offended by what you wrote in your article, in fact I got a good laugh out of the article, and so did my family and friends. Your not alone, ABC News also gave me a similar review without first speaking to me.
I really do believe that media and the public should know about all candidates, of course the popular known "big wigs", but also should those who are unknown, like myself, whether "nutty" or not. I think that it is good to hear what each candidate's intentions (policies) would be. Of course, there are candidates who fit the mould for being absolutely "nuts" in character and beliefs, but hey they should have an opportunity to be heard before being judged. Hey, you never know if a "diamond" can be found in the "rough", something that would be the best thing discovered, although it might be out of the realm a bit. I believe if we don't "venture" out some, we can never "discover" better possibilities.
Keep writing Mr. Savastano, because at least you have been fair in "digging" up the unknowns that need to be heard too, and then judged. Hey, some attention is better than none at all (smile).
As for myself, trust me, I'm well aware how "crazy" this is for me to be trying such a venture. Sometimes, I think to myself..."am I nuts to think that America could be ready for my type of revolution". In any event, I researched for almost a year about the position, and consulted with family and friends, who although supportive, believe that I won't get too far, because truth is I'm "unusual" of a candidate, not the typical character of "royalty/celebrity". However, I went way out to set things up to be a candidate, and I'm one to just put my best foot forward, for whatever it is worth, so long as I know that I really tried to do the best of my ability, and if it doesn't work, well I certainly did try.
For the record, a lot of what I think is really great for America, at least I think so, and so do those that I do manage to talk to in the public in person. I don't mention all of my ideas or thoughts on my Website, just the "unusual" stuff, because current politics do change up a lot. Sometimes, the folks at the top who "rule" over us, don't really understand our needs, and so they don't make us very happy most times. I'm not saying that they are horrible, because I believe that they too are doing their best, even if it isn't what we really want. Problem is that they don't really listen to us "little" citizens, who elect them into office to work for us, once they get the spot, they forget us and their promises. A lot of them too, love the "good" life that they are provided with the public's money. I can't speak for other Candidates (known or unknown), but I was never wrapped up in too much material wealth, sounds "crazy" I'm sure. For instance, I really wouldn't want to live in the White House for many reasons....1. its too big for my small family, and could "perhaps" save money of having small families live there, and instead use it to fundraise for America's needed budget, 2. I enjoy visiting museums, which to me is the White House, but I don't find it a cozy thought to live in a museum, just not my style for comfort, 3. When I read about the history of the White House, there were a lot of deaths in that place, those that aren't really mentioned to the public unless you read it all on your own by digging back (not just some of the Presidents, but also children, women, etc.) thats kind of "creepy" to me, and so no, I don't desire to live in the White House, but I would love to help my Country, which seems to be needing a lot of help these days. As I said to you, if you read the Constitution...the President's job is the best to get, if you can, Congress is different, although they all seem to have time to play "golf" (smile).
Anyway, it is impossible for me to win this venture, I'm sure, but Mr. Savastano I'll do my best and stay for as long as I can, if nothing else, it will be an experience. Thank you so much again for caring to write back to me, it means a lot. Please continue to write your articles, its wonderful to have someone like you out there for the average citizen, and you do have a great sense of humor, I enjoy your articles.
PS: My thought on the situation in Egypt. Although, I understand that the President had a hard time saying anything because of past benefits in foreign policy with Egypt with Mubarak, but reality is I would have told him to "leave Egypt" because it is evident that the citizens don't want him in charge of them anymore. I can't understand why Mubarak wouldn't have left once it got that violent over there for him, and he still hasn't left, but he certainly needs to go...."nuts", maybe he thinks the citizens will change their mind (smile).... if it were me, I would have left already.
My thought on the Patriotic Act (which is due for extending)... I'm in the middle, I understand that citizens feel that their human rights are a bit violated and there is profiling in the current Act, but lets also face it, America will never be the same again after 911 and we need to be safe. I don't care for big Government, but we do need some. The current Patriotic Act has some good stuff, and some stuff that they can perhaps change a bit. Well, lets see what our current politians will do with this Act up for review.
Please put me on your list when you write your articles. I'm new on Facebook too. Good luck to you also in your career.
Have a great day,
Deonia (Dee) Neveu
"A Real Vote For The People"
www.DeoniaNeveu.com
As I stated yesterday, I was really impressed with Dee's attention to detail and personal exchange with me on her candidacy and the issues facing America today. I agree whole-heartedly with Dee that we need some political candidates that are not life-long politicians, but actual hard-working, everyday Americans who have been where the people have been.
Hello, Mrs. Neveu,
I must tell you that I am very impressed that you took the time to write to me personally after you were informed of my blog posting. Your care and attention to detail is most definitely something to be admired. Please be assured that it was not my attempt to make light of your efforts, nor your campaign, but quite to the contrary, I am impressed with the message that you are trying to send to the American people regarding the fact that we should be looking to non-career politicians when it comes time to choose our leaders. I was most definitely not attempting to lump you in with another group of candidates, but was simply providing to my readers some information on the 5 lesser-known candidates that I had read about in recent news articles.
I myself would like to see our next President be, as you say, "an average citizen" and not a career politician that is beholden to special interest donors and political parties. Let me also assure you that while it may be the case that you are viewed by some Americans, as you said, to be "the wrong race group, wrong gender, wrong social class," I most definitely do not see you as being any of those things. I want our next President to be a caring, involved, understanding American who has worked hard and experienced the same things that the rest of us have, regardless of race, gender, or social class. I do truly wish you the very best of luck with your campaign and hope that you are successful in showing America that we need to look for better options when it comes to electing our political leaders.
As for my sarcasm, it is never intended to offend, but as those who know me can attest, is my sometimes failing attempt at humor. I apologize if I have offended you in any way, but please note that it was not my intention. Also, please know, that my sarcasm was not directed at you, but most definitely at our current President.
As for my "high horse", please be assured that I am product of the public school system in California whose first job at 15 was bagging groceries and sweeping floors, and I've worked long, hard hours ever since for what we have. We are a middle class family that has spent the past 100 years doing our best to make the best life possible for ourselves in a place where our grandparents worked in the fields as children, allowing us the opportunities they never had through their own hard work.
Regarding your views on the issues that you provided for me in your correspondence, I think I would most definitely agree with you much more often than we would disagree. I really hope that you have the opportunity to get those common sense views out in front of the American people between now and election day.
With my utmost respect and regard,
William L. Savastano
And also as promised, here is Dee's follow up response to me:
Hello Mr. Savastano,
Thank you very much, you are very kind to have taken the time to read my note, and reply back with such thoughtful words. I certainly appreciate your communication, you are a decent and respectable person.
After reading your note, I'm glad that we both politically agree. No, I'm not offended by what you wrote in your article, in fact I got a good laugh out of the article, and so did my family and friends. Your not alone, ABC News also gave me a similar review without first speaking to me.
I really do believe that media and the public should know about all candidates, of course the popular known "big wigs", but also should those who are unknown, like myself, whether "nutty" or not. I think that it is good to hear what each candidate's intentions (policies) would be. Of course, there are candidates who fit the mould for being absolutely "nuts" in character and beliefs, but hey they should have an opportunity to be heard before being judged. Hey, you never know if a "diamond" can be found in the "rough", something that would be the best thing discovered, although it might be out of the realm a bit. I believe if we don't "venture" out some, we can never "discover" better possibilities.
Keep writing Mr. Savastano, because at least you have been fair in "digging" up the unknowns that need to be heard too, and then judged. Hey, some attention is better than none at all (smile).
As for myself, trust me, I'm well aware how "crazy" this is for me to be trying such a venture. Sometimes, I think to myself..."am I nuts to think that America could be ready for my type of revolution". In any event, I researched for almost a year about the position, and consulted with family and friends, who although supportive, believe that I won't get too far, because truth is I'm "unusual" of a candidate, not the typical character of "royalty/celebrity". However, I went way out to set things up to be a candidate, and I'm one to just put my best foot forward, for whatever it is worth, so long as I know that I really tried to do the best of my ability, and if it doesn't work, well I certainly did try.
For the record, a lot of what I think is really great for America, at least I think so, and so do those that I do manage to talk to in the public in person. I don't mention all of my ideas or thoughts on my Website, just the "unusual" stuff, because current politics do change up a lot. Sometimes, the folks at the top who "rule" over us, don't really understand our needs, and so they don't make us very happy most times. I'm not saying that they are horrible, because I believe that they too are doing their best, even if it isn't what we really want. Problem is that they don't really listen to us "little" citizens, who elect them into office to work for us, once they get the spot, they forget us and their promises. A lot of them too, love the "good" life that they are provided with the public's money. I can't speak for other Candidates (known or unknown), but I was never wrapped up in too much material wealth, sounds "crazy" I'm sure. For instance, I really wouldn't want to live in the White House for many reasons....1. its too big for my small family, and could "perhaps" save money of having small families live there, and instead use it to fundraise for America's needed budget, 2. I enjoy visiting museums, which to me is the White House, but I don't find it a cozy thought to live in a museum, just not my style for comfort, 3. When I read about the history of the White House, there were a lot of deaths in that place, those that aren't really mentioned to the public unless you read it all on your own by digging back (not just some of the Presidents, but also children, women, etc.) thats kind of "creepy" to me, and so no, I don't desire to live in the White House, but I would love to help my Country, which seems to be needing a lot of help these days. As I said to you, if you read the Constitution...the President's job is the best to get, if you can, Congress is different, although they all seem to have time to play "golf" (smile).
Anyway, it is impossible for me to win this venture, I'm sure, but Mr. Savastano I'll do my best and stay for as long as I can, if nothing else, it will be an experience. Thank you so much again for caring to write back to me, it means a lot. Please continue to write your articles, its wonderful to have someone like you out there for the average citizen, and you do have a great sense of humor, I enjoy your articles.
PS: My thought on the situation in Egypt. Although, I understand that the President had a hard time saying anything because of past benefits in foreign policy with Egypt with Mubarak, but reality is I would have told him to "leave Egypt" because it is evident that the citizens don't want him in charge of them anymore. I can't understand why Mubarak wouldn't have left once it got that violent over there for him, and he still hasn't left, but he certainly needs to go...."nuts", maybe he thinks the citizens will change their mind (smile).... if it were me, I would have left already.
My thought on the Patriotic Act (which is due for extending)... I'm in the middle, I understand that citizens feel that their human rights are a bit violated and there is profiling in the current Act, but lets also face it, America will never be the same again after 911 and we need to be safe. I don't care for big Government, but we do need some. The current Patriotic Act has some good stuff, and some stuff that they can perhaps change a bit. Well, lets see what our current politians will do with this Act up for review.
Please put me on your list when you write your articles. I'm new on Facebook too. Good luck to you also in your career.
Have a great day,
Deonia (Dee) Neveu
"A Real Vote For The People"
www.DeoniaNeveu.com
As I stated yesterday, I was really impressed with Dee's attention to detail and personal exchange with me on her candidacy and the issues facing America today. I agree whole-heartedly with Dee that we need some political candidates that are not life-long politicians, but actual hard-working, everyday Americans who have been where the people have been.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Humbly Surprised When One Of The Presidential Candidates Responds To My Article
Much to my surprise, not too long after publishing my article on Thursday, January 26th, "Who's Runnin' in 2012?", I heard from one of the Presidential candidates that was featured. Quite frankly, the most realistic of the five candidates, Deonia (Dee) Neveu took the time to write to me personally, and I just wanted to share our correspondence with you, as it was quite a great experience for me that my humble article actually reached the eyes of someone like Dee, who is taking the time out of her life to try to make a difference in American politics. I must say that I found Dee to be very well-spoken on the issues, and pleasantly in-line with what I think a lot of us are looking for in a Presidential candidate. Here is what Dee wrote to me:
Dear Mr. William L. Savastano,
I personally didn't catch your Article about me, but someone else I know did and sent it to me.
Thanks for the moment of attention you gave me in your article regarding Candidates for 2012. Although you were kind, you were also sarcastic. I see how you lumped me in with "Vampires and Drug Addicts - weirdos for President.
I know its crazy to see me even attempt to be a President for the United States, lets face it, I'm the wrong race group, wrong gender, wrong social class, and to top it all off no political experience, I'm certainly "out of the box" for what we are used to having for a Leader. Although, I'm no where saying I'm as good as Jesus, but folks back then saw him as a poor Jew, who wasn't from the type of what they were accustomed to for a leader, and disqualified him as well. Of course, you can only get my point here if your a Christian, and if not I can give you some non-Christian examples. It's wrong and its ignorant to constantly judge a book by its cover. You should read the book first, and be sure you understand its content first before placing your judgement.
First and foremost, I may not have political experience, but I've had to live as an average citizen and be affected by "experienced" politicians. Most all the "experienced" politicians come up through the "same school of thought and character", and they really are limited on how they see and resolve issues for us, because a lot of them haven't lived as average, and if they ever have, they forgot where they once "came from". The current politicians are really all about themselves and not about everyone, the door is "shut" to outsiders. I want to also tell you that common sense is not something always taught or learned in school, sometimes its innate, and you either have it or you don't. Just because a citizen is unknown or hasn't gone to an "ivy league" school doesn't mean that they don't have better common sense than those put at the top and exposed for their social and educational status.
Until citizens have had enough "fake" speeches and empty promises by the current leaders, and if you want "real change", then you'll have to search for something "outside of the box" to add variety, and have more choices, otherwise we'll always complain and have "politics as usual", which aren't you sick of already?
If nothing more, the Constitution allows me to at least try to apply to be a political leader, and it is my natural born American right, if I choose to exercise it. Whether you agree or not with someones leadership qualifications, everyone who applies is not a "nut". In the Constitution qualifications are minimum for the Presidency - do I need to quote them to you, or have you read the Constitution? In fact, the President doesn't have as much power as those in Congress. Those in Congress can be younger, and don't have to be American born, and they are actually the ones to "declare" war, not the President, he can ask for it, but it has to be approved by Congress. Our Government was set up with "checks and balances", and we fought away from the "crown-elite", and so there is opportunity for Americans, but of course not everyone is interested in being a political leader, so don't knock down those that apply, who qualify in accordance to the Constitution.
Back in 1872 Victoria Woodall, a White woman, was a Candidate to be President, and back then women didn't have voting rights, and to top it off she appointed Frederick Douglas as her Vice President, a Black man. Imagine how "nuts" they thought she was, but I see her as courageous because she was "out of the box" and dared to promote real change. Of course, she didn't win, and we still keep these old standards in place and writeoff unique Candidates and keep "politics as usual", and as you can see it hasn't made much of a better America today.
Anyway, as you mentioned--my website doesn't really talk about too many current issues but instead give some "bizarre" thought or what you would consider "crazy", not creative ideas, for example, I'm not interested in living in the White House, but hey look at the brighter side, someone who doesn't want to live in the White House would cost the public less money, and we can use the House to gain money instead by fundraising for America. Hey, America will soon find itself desperate for unique ideas to gain revenue again. The current Government leaders, not to say that they are horrible, but they always talk about either cutting or raising taxes as a solution to everything and/or for everyone else, but not for themselves personally.
Now, I've spent a tremendous amount of time trying to prove my character to you Mr. Savastano, and I could have spent it on more meaningful topic, like my thought on current issues. I won't sit here and tell you I'm an expert in everything, because I'm not, but I think I have some good thoughts and ideas. For one thing in regards to the Healthcare Bill, I do like parts of it, but not all of it, and therefore I believe that some of it should be Repealed. I read some of the Healthcare Bill, enough to see that it isn't all good for us Americans. Some policies in the Healthcare Bill don't even deal with healthcare, just pure Government regulation on too much stuff. I could be wrong, but personally, I don't think that President Obama really read that entire Bill before signing it. Here is one more point on my view, I don't believe that it makes any sense at all to cut funding for our defense department (military), why, because we are in war situations already, and more to come, and that is an area that needs to be in top shape and well funded. Even though I am somewhat Anti-war, I believe if your going to engage in any fighting, then you better fight hard and do your thing, or don't bother to make the attempt. These are just some of my "nutzy" thoughts for you to consider.
Anyway, if your interested in talking to me any further, you know how to reach me, but that is of course, if you can come off your "high horse" to talk to an unknown Mom like myself, who is a Candidate for 2012. Oh, and by the way, being a Mom is not a loose or bad qualification to possess. You came from a woman, and women are the real backbones of this Country. Have a great day Mr. Savastano.
Peace Be With You,
Deonia (Dee) Neveu
"A Real Vote For The People"
www.DeoniaNeveu.com
I truly hope that you find Dee's response to me as exciting and intriguing as I did. I quite honestly really got a kick out of it. I hope that by sharing my correspondence with Dee, it will help others to see just how important it is to pay attention to the issues and involve themselves in the political process. Tomorrow, I will share with you my response to Dee and her response, in turn, to me.
Dear Mr. William L. Savastano,
I personally didn't catch your Article about me, but someone else I know did and sent it to me.
Thanks for the moment of attention you gave me in your article regarding Candidates for 2012. Although you were kind, you were also sarcastic. I see how you lumped me in with "Vampires and Drug Addicts - weirdos for President.
I know its crazy to see me even attempt to be a President for the United States, lets face it, I'm the wrong race group, wrong gender, wrong social class, and to top it all off no political experience, I'm certainly "out of the box" for what we are used to having for a Leader. Although, I'm no where saying I'm as good as Jesus, but folks back then saw him as a poor Jew, who wasn't from the type of what they were accustomed to for a leader, and disqualified him as well. Of course, you can only get my point here if your a Christian, and if not I can give you some non-Christian examples. It's wrong and its ignorant to constantly judge a book by its cover. You should read the book first, and be sure you understand its content first before placing your judgement.
First and foremost, I may not have political experience, but I've had to live as an average citizen and be affected by "experienced" politicians. Most all the "experienced" politicians come up through the "same school of thought and character", and they really are limited on how they see and resolve issues for us, because a lot of them haven't lived as average, and if they ever have, they forgot where they once "came from". The current politicians are really all about themselves and not about everyone, the door is "shut" to outsiders. I want to also tell you that common sense is not something always taught or learned in school, sometimes its innate, and you either have it or you don't. Just because a citizen is unknown or hasn't gone to an "ivy league" school doesn't mean that they don't have better common sense than those put at the top and exposed for their social and educational status.
Until citizens have had enough "fake" speeches and empty promises by the current leaders, and if you want "real change", then you'll have to search for something "outside of the box" to add variety, and have more choices, otherwise we'll always complain and have "politics as usual", which aren't you sick of already?
If nothing more, the Constitution allows me to at least try to apply to be a political leader, and it is my natural born American right, if I choose to exercise it. Whether you agree or not with someones leadership qualifications, everyone who applies is not a "nut". In the Constitution qualifications are minimum for the Presidency - do I need to quote them to you, or have you read the Constitution? In fact, the President doesn't have as much power as those in Congress. Those in Congress can be younger, and don't have to be American born, and they are actually the ones to "declare" war, not the President, he can ask for it, but it has to be approved by Congress. Our Government was set up with "checks and balances", and we fought away from the "crown-elite", and so there is opportunity for Americans, but of course not everyone is interested in being a political leader, so don't knock down those that apply, who qualify in accordance to the Constitution.
Back in 1872 Victoria Woodall, a White woman, was a Candidate to be President, and back then women didn't have voting rights, and to top it off she appointed Frederick Douglas as her Vice President, a Black man. Imagine how "nuts" they thought she was, but I see her as courageous because she was "out of the box" and dared to promote real change. Of course, she didn't win, and we still keep these old standards in place and writeoff unique Candidates and keep "politics as usual", and as you can see it hasn't made much of a better America today.
Anyway, as you mentioned--my website doesn't really talk about too many current issues but instead give some "bizarre" thought or what you would consider "crazy", not creative ideas, for example, I'm not interested in living in the White House, but hey look at the brighter side, someone who doesn't want to live in the White House would cost the public less money, and we can use the House to gain money instead by fundraising for America. Hey, America will soon find itself desperate for unique ideas to gain revenue again. The current Government leaders, not to say that they are horrible, but they always talk about either cutting or raising taxes as a solution to everything and/or for everyone else, but not for themselves personally.
Now, I've spent a tremendous amount of time trying to prove my character to you Mr. Savastano, and I could have spent it on more meaningful topic, like my thought on current issues. I won't sit here and tell you I'm an expert in everything, because I'm not, but I think I have some good thoughts and ideas. For one thing in regards to the Healthcare Bill, I do like parts of it, but not all of it, and therefore I believe that some of it should be Repealed. I read some of the Healthcare Bill, enough to see that it isn't all good for us Americans. Some policies in the Healthcare Bill don't even deal with healthcare, just pure Government regulation on too much stuff. I could be wrong, but personally, I don't think that President Obama really read that entire Bill before signing it. Here is one more point on my view, I don't believe that it makes any sense at all to cut funding for our defense department (military), why, because we are in war situations already, and more to come, and that is an area that needs to be in top shape and well funded. Even though I am somewhat Anti-war, I believe if your going to engage in any fighting, then you better fight hard and do your thing, or don't bother to make the attempt. These are just some of my "nutzy" thoughts for you to consider.
Anyway, if your interested in talking to me any further, you know how to reach me, but that is of course, if you can come off your "high horse" to talk to an unknown Mom like myself, who is a Candidate for 2012. Oh, and by the way, being a Mom is not a loose or bad qualification to possess. You came from a woman, and women are the real backbones of this Country. Have a great day Mr. Savastano.
Peace Be With You,
Deonia (Dee) Neveu
"A Real Vote For The People"
www.DeoniaNeveu.com
I truly hope that you find Dee's response to me as exciting and intriguing as I did. I quite honestly really got a kick out of it. I hope that by sharing my correspondence with Dee, it will help others to see just how important it is to pay attention to the issues and involve themselves in the political process. Tomorrow, I will share with you my response to Dee and her response, in turn, to me.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Let Rahm Run...So We Can Kick His Ass!
I have never liked Rahm Emanuel, and I truly hope he loses his bid to become the mayor of Chicago. I am glad that he is gone from Washington and will not miss him, though his replacement, William Daley is just another Chicago politican in the White House, a former Chase Executive Committee member, who while the President hates bank executives, obviosuly loves this freakin' guy!
I do, however, as much as I think he's a total DB, think that Rahm Emanuel should be allowed to run in that mayoral race. See, in order to run for mayor in Chicago, you are supposed to have lived in the city in the past year. Well, Emanual was living in Washington, working at the White House. Two voters have brought a suit against Emanuel, stating that he is not eligible to run for mayor due to that "lived in the city in the past year" clause, but I think while well-meaning, that clause was put in place for obvious reasons and should also be nullified in certain circumstances.
If someone has shown that they have a history of living in the city, but have not lived there in the past year because they have been serving in a higher office, or serving in the armed forces, or serving a worthwhile cause that has taken them out of the city, the should still be allowed to run for mayor.
Again, while I don't like this guy, he quite clearly has earned the right to run for mayor of the city of Chicago. We should let him on the ballot and then kick his ass, not pursue this chicken-shit way of winning. We are better than that.
I do, however, as much as I think he's a total DB, think that Rahm Emanuel should be allowed to run in that mayoral race. See, in order to run for mayor in Chicago, you are supposed to have lived in the city in the past year. Well, Emanual was living in Washington, working at the White House. Two voters have brought a suit against Emanuel, stating that he is not eligible to run for mayor due to that "lived in the city in the past year" clause, but I think while well-meaning, that clause was put in place for obvious reasons and should also be nullified in certain circumstances.
If someone has shown that they have a history of living in the city, but have not lived there in the past year because they have been serving in a higher office, or serving in the armed forces, or serving a worthwhile cause that has taken them out of the city, the should still be allowed to run for mayor.
Again, while I don't like this guy, he quite clearly has earned the right to run for mayor of the city of Chicago. We should let him on the ballot and then kick his ass, not pursue this chicken-shit way of winning. We are better than that.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Who's Runnin' In 2012?
The field of Presidential hopefuls for 2012 is starting to take shape. While many of the expected big-name candidates are still doing their dance of acting like a shy girl on prom night, some of the more colorful candidates are already well on their way with their campaigns.
One such candidate is Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, a self-proclaimed vampire that not only drinks the blood of his girlfriend and mistresses two times a week, but says "Certain criminals, instead of being put in jail, they should be brutally tortured and impaled. Upon them being found guilty of their crimes I'll beat them, torture them, dismember them and decapitate them." Sharkey adds, "I won't be bullied, I won't be blackmailed. Criminals and terrorists will fear me along with corrupt law enforcement officials. I will not tolerate crime or terrorism."
Game over! Can I have my ballot now? My decision is made! I see The Impaler has read my platform on crime, punishment and keeping the peace! Well, I must admit I adapted it from Vlad Tepes, Prince of Wallachia's platform, but a good idea is a good idea, right?
When asked about his chances of winning, Sharkey comments that basically with as bad a candidate as Sarah Palin is, and with how much people hate her, he's a much lesser evil in comparison.
Another notable candidate that has already filed his application to run for President in 2012, is Miami Beach resident Raphael Herman. Herman has run for mayor of Miami Beach six times and claims that fraudulent election results are the only cause of his six-time losing streak. Most notable about Herman is that he is not a naturally born U.S. citizen. When asked about the President having to have been born in the U.S., he claims he has evidence that President Barak Obama was actually born in Kenya and will use that evidence to cite precedence when he is elected President. "I was not born in America. I was born in Israel, but you see [President Barack Obama] wasn't born in this country either. I have his birth certificate."
Deonia "Dee" Neveu, a mother of five from Virginia has also filed her paperwork for her presidential bid. She seems to be wanting to point out to Americans who are misguidedly looking for a President with a wealth of experience that the constitution doesn't actually call for any type of political experience, and in fact, believes that the constitution was written so that any American could give becoming President a shot. "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself," says Neveu. "I don't want to live in the White House. "I would like to use a part of the White House to host fundraising events for America." Well, at least she has more political experience that our current President did when he began his campaign, right?
A reformed heavy drug user (from California, of course) who has found God, Mosheh Thezion is also running for President in 2012, though he is saying right up front that he doesn't like how he looks when he smiles, so we can expect not to see any smiles on the campaign trail. "They'll just dig it up anyway," said Thezion. "I hate politicians who lie. I tell the truth, I have nothing to hide, why would I want to hide something?" Seems like Thezion equates smiling to lying, doesn't he? I bet he was a huge fan of George the Great Satan Junior! Thezion follows up his statement that he used to use "pounds and pounds" of marijuana, cocaine, meth and alcohol before "giving up his sinful ways" by saying, "I grew up a loose liberal which is why I'm a conservative today." As I have always said, a liberal is a conservative that either hasn't hit rock bottom in their liberal ways, been the victim of a crime, or simply come to their senses yet.
Thezion also says that he will "abolish the Internal Revenue Service" and "pay off the entire national debt, permanently." I like how that sounds. Maybe I can get vampire guy to agree to the same financial policy.
Rounding out our cavalcade of interesting Presidential hopefuls is Rutherford B. Hayes, not to be confused with the 19th president of the United States by the same name. Rutherford says, "The current administration is engulfed with socialists, communists, and marxists as well as insatiable condescending egos." Yes, and birds go tweet!
We've still got a long way to go before we start widdlin' down the pack and see if the vampire, Israeli, inexperienced mom, or guy with the same name as the 19th President, can give the likes of The Master & Commander, Mrs. Once Rodham-Clinton Now Just Clinton, The Lady Who Really Liked To Say The Word Maverick Last Time, and clear great choice Mitt Romney a run for their money. Either way, maybe we shouldn't be so closed-minded when it comes to platforms, America. Just because you're a total nut job doesn't mean you shouldn't be setting U.S. policy. I mean, hell, we let Pelosi do it, and The Impaler isn't nearly quite as frightening....
One such candidate is Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, a self-proclaimed vampire that not only drinks the blood of his girlfriend and mistresses two times a week, but says "Certain criminals, instead of being put in jail, they should be brutally tortured and impaled. Upon them being found guilty of their crimes I'll beat them, torture them, dismember them and decapitate them." Sharkey adds, "I won't be bullied, I won't be blackmailed. Criminals and terrorists will fear me along with corrupt law enforcement officials. I will not tolerate crime or terrorism."
Game over! Can I have my ballot now? My decision is made! I see The Impaler has read my platform on crime, punishment and keeping the peace! Well, I must admit I adapted it from Vlad Tepes, Prince of Wallachia's platform, but a good idea is a good idea, right?
When asked about his chances of winning, Sharkey comments that basically with as bad a candidate as Sarah Palin is, and with how much people hate her, he's a much lesser evil in comparison.
Another notable candidate that has already filed his application to run for President in 2012, is Miami Beach resident Raphael Herman. Herman has run for mayor of Miami Beach six times and claims that fraudulent election results are the only cause of his six-time losing streak. Most notable about Herman is that he is not a naturally born U.S. citizen. When asked about the President having to have been born in the U.S., he claims he has evidence that President Barak Obama was actually born in Kenya and will use that evidence to cite precedence when he is elected President. "I was not born in America. I was born in Israel, but you see [President Barack Obama] wasn't born in this country either. I have his birth certificate."
Deonia "Dee" Neveu, a mother of five from Virginia has also filed her paperwork for her presidential bid. She seems to be wanting to point out to Americans who are misguidedly looking for a President with a wealth of experience that the constitution doesn't actually call for any type of political experience, and in fact, believes that the constitution was written so that any American could give becoming President a shot. "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself," says Neveu. "I don't want to live in the White House. "I would like to use a part of the White House to host fundraising events for America." Well, at least she has more political experience that our current President did when he began his campaign, right?
A reformed heavy drug user (from California, of course) who has found God, Mosheh Thezion is also running for President in 2012, though he is saying right up front that he doesn't like how he looks when he smiles, so we can expect not to see any smiles on the campaign trail. "They'll just dig it up anyway," said Thezion. "I hate politicians who lie. I tell the truth, I have nothing to hide, why would I want to hide something?" Seems like Thezion equates smiling to lying, doesn't he? I bet he was a huge fan of George the Great Satan Junior! Thezion follows up his statement that he used to use "pounds and pounds" of marijuana, cocaine, meth and alcohol before "giving up his sinful ways" by saying, "I grew up a loose liberal which is why I'm a conservative today." As I have always said, a liberal is a conservative that either hasn't hit rock bottom in their liberal ways, been the victim of a crime, or simply come to their senses yet.
Thezion also says that he will "abolish the Internal Revenue Service" and "pay off the entire national debt, permanently." I like how that sounds. Maybe I can get vampire guy to agree to the same financial policy.
Rounding out our cavalcade of interesting Presidential hopefuls is Rutherford B. Hayes, not to be confused with the 19th president of the United States by the same name. Rutherford says, "The current administration is engulfed with socialists, communists, and marxists as well as insatiable condescending egos." Yes, and birds go tweet!
We've still got a long way to go before we start widdlin' down the pack and see if the vampire, Israeli, inexperienced mom, or guy with the same name as the 19th President, can give the likes of The Master & Commander, Mrs. Once Rodham-Clinton Now Just Clinton, The Lady Who Really Liked To Say The Word Maverick Last Time, and clear great choice Mitt Romney a run for their money. Either way, maybe we shouldn't be so closed-minded when it comes to platforms, America. Just because you're a total nut job doesn't mean you shouldn't be setting U.S. policy. I mean, hell, we let Pelosi do it, and The Impaler isn't nearly quite as frightening....
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Why Is Polygamy Illegal? What's Our Deal?
Yesterday's look at marriage, civil unions, the church, and the state have quite naturally lead me to another side of the argument. It is a side of the argument that most people dismiss as the right wing nut jobs just coming up with a right field reason for marriage to remain between one man and one woman, but I honestly want to give the argument its due.
Like I said yesterday, how about we have marriages be the union from God and the church, and civil unions be the unions granted by the state? We let the churches decide what they consider to be a marriage, and we let the people and the government decide what they consider to be a civil union.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a marriage is between one man and one woman, which for the most part, is how most religions define marriage. Now, let’s also say, for the sake of argument, that a civil union could be between one man and one woman, and one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Marriage would be defined by the moral doctrine of the church, and civil unions would be defined by the legal doctrine of the state. I argue, however, if the state can allow a civil union between two consensual parties, why then, can it not allow a civil union between three or more consensual parties? A business entity can exist with more than just two people, so why not a civil union?
We could only allow someone to be a member of one civil union at a time, regardless of how many people are in that civil union. We wouldn't allow bigamy, (I mean, we're not animals) but that being said, if our civil unions are only governed by the state, why not allow them for three or four, or more people? Consenting adults, all taxpayers, not living off the state in any way, law-abiding, good people, living together in the same home - truly a collective. The gender make-up, totally up to the people involved.
Did I just ruffle your feathers there? Did all of you forward thinking, open-minded, environmentally-conscious, ahead-of-the-curve when it comes to living right people just stop agreeing with me? What's the problem? You want conservatives to be more open-minded, so what is more open-minded than polygamy? In America, it would simply be one of our civil unions that exists beyond just two people.
We have tax tables for single people, tax tables for joined couples, tax tables for joined couples with children, so why not have a tax table for the trio, quarter, quintet, sextet, and so on? Granted, it might get a little crowded at the court house, or in a hospital room that is just for the patient and their spouses, but hey, we can deal with that on a case by case basis.
All right, America, I await your schooling on all the reasons why a civil union can be between ANY TWO PEOPLE, but cannot be between ANY THREE OR MORE PEOPLE?...
Like I said yesterday, how about we have marriages be the union from God and the church, and civil unions be the unions granted by the state? We let the churches decide what they consider to be a marriage, and we let the people and the government decide what they consider to be a civil union.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a marriage is between one man and one woman, which for the most part, is how most religions define marriage. Now, let’s also say, for the sake of argument, that a civil union could be between one man and one woman, and one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Marriage would be defined by the moral doctrine of the church, and civil unions would be defined by the legal doctrine of the state. I argue, however, if the state can allow a civil union between two consensual parties, why then, can it not allow a civil union between three or more consensual parties? A business entity can exist with more than just two people, so why not a civil union?
We could only allow someone to be a member of one civil union at a time, regardless of how many people are in that civil union. We wouldn't allow bigamy, (I mean, we're not animals) but that being said, if our civil unions are only governed by the state, why not allow them for three or four, or more people? Consenting adults, all taxpayers, not living off the state in any way, law-abiding, good people, living together in the same home - truly a collective. The gender make-up, totally up to the people involved.
Did I just ruffle your feathers there? Did all of you forward thinking, open-minded, environmentally-conscious, ahead-of-the-curve when it comes to living right people just stop agreeing with me? What's the problem? You want conservatives to be more open-minded, so what is more open-minded than polygamy? In America, it would simply be one of our civil unions that exists beyond just two people.
We have tax tables for single people, tax tables for joined couples, tax tables for joined couples with children, so why not have a tax table for the trio, quarter, quintet, sextet, and so on? Granted, it might get a little crowded at the court house, or in a hospital room that is just for the patient and their spouses, but hey, we can deal with that on a case by case basis.
All right, America, I await your schooling on all the reasons why a civil union can be between ANY TWO PEOPLE, but cannot be between ANY THREE OR MORE PEOPLE?...
Monday, January 24, 2011
Marriage, Civil Unions, The Church & The State
With all that seems to be going on right now in the great state of Taxifornia with the budget and taxes, it would seem that the ol' "gay marriage" debate has taken a bit of a back seat for now. I'm honestly quite comfortable with that as it seems that when the issue flares up, people really tend to stop looking at it rationally and let emotions get the best of them.
I'd like to take this pause to put together something that I had been planning on posting for quite some time, yet have not had a chance to get around to doing. How about we stoke the fire a bit?
I believe that most conservatives have a very good, black and white understanding of something. Let me explain. I have a marriage to my wife that is in place because we, based on our religious beliefs, held a ceremony in which we, in the eyes of God, joined together in a marriage. I also have a civil union to my wife that is in place because the person who performed our ceremony is also a state-appointed officiator of civil unions sponsored by the County of Orange, and by proxy, the state of Taxifornia. It is a very simple concept, and quite honestly, goes very well with the idea of the separation of church and state. Our marriage applies to all of the religious beliefs that we have - the afterlife, together forever, adultery, sins, etc., and our civil union applies to all of the stately legality - our legal obligations to each other and to the state that will exist throughout our union, as well as the legal obligations we have to each other if we split up and the legal obligations we have to each other pertaining to any children we might have together. Do you see how there are two separate things going on at the same time here? Our marriage is governed by our moral obligations and our civil union is governed by our legal obligations. I say that as a nation, we really should start looking at these as two separate things that occur concurrently.
Now, I am going to divert from the conservative pack here, but in the interest of finding a solution to our problem, let me say that when it comes to civil unions granted by the state, I am all for them. I am even all for them if we are talking about two men or two women wanting to enter into a civil union. I truly believe that this is a matter of state and should be governed by the state, and as such, any two people, regardless of gender, even transgendered, should have the same exact rights as everyone else in their civil unions. Two men and/or two women who have the same civil union certificate that my wife and I have should have the same exact rights granted by the state that we do.
One problem, however, that we need to fix before moving forward with our separation of church and state is that I do not have a "civil union" certificate issued by the state, but a "marriage" certificate. The state should not be allowed to issue such a thing as a "marriage" certificate. It should be called a "civil union" certificate, issued just like a business license, or any other state document. This should be issued regardless of gender and religion, again, just like any other state document. A "marriage" certificate, to run concurrently with a "civil union" certificate, should be issued by the church that performed the ceremony.
Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to morality, let's deal with and seek an audience with religion. When it comes to legality, let's deal with and seek an audience with the state. Let's have a separation there. The religions do not get to dictate to the state who can have a civil union, and the state cannot dictate to the religions what they consider to be a marriage.
If the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state in the literal sense, then why is it that the act of joining two people together in a court house in the eyes of the state carries the same name as the act of joining two people together in a church in the eyes of God? I argue that they should not be called the same thing, as they are truly two completely separate things. Should we not all be getting civil unions at the court house and marriages in a church? I can go through a ceremony at a church, but if it is not performed by someone licensed by the state, then my civil union is not valid to the state. The marriage is valid to the church and to God, but the civil union does not occur unless the ceremony has the approval of the state by means of the ceremony being performed by a state-approved agent. Does it not make sense, then that a civil union could be an agreement by two members of the same sex? It's a legal agreement witnessed by a state-appointed agent. Makes sense to me.
But, then, what also makes sense to me, is that if I am getting married in a church, or being married by an agent of the church, should not that marriage adhere to the traditional definition of one man and one women that the religion adheres to? That also seems to make sense to me. So, man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the church, marriage - Man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the state, civil union - Man and woman who have done both, either in a ceremony performed by one person with both church and state ordainment, or two people, one with church credentials and one with state credentials, or at two separate ceremonies - in the eyes of the church and God, marriage - in the eyes of the state, civil union.
It all boils down to a game of semantics, then, doesn't it? Now, mind you, I am saying that a man and woman with a civil union should have the same exact rights and privileges that a man and man or woman and woman have through their civil unions. Now, if the semantics are important and we need to start talking about what the churches themselves call the joining of two people who are the same sex, then isn't that a matter for the church, and not a matter for the state? Isn't that what you wanted in the first place? Separation of church and state. If two men or two women can convince the Catholic church to marry them, then hey, more power to you, but that should have nothing to do with my ballot, my courts, and my government. If a man and a woman, and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, all have the same rights under the civil unions that are issued by the state, then at the state level, and honestly, even at the federal level, the argument should be over. You can call it whatever you want to, but legally, they should all be civil unions that are issued by the state. Anything beyond a civil union should be between people and the churches, not people and the state. Like I said, separation of church and state.
I'd like to take this pause to put together something that I had been planning on posting for quite some time, yet have not had a chance to get around to doing. How about we stoke the fire a bit?
I believe that most conservatives have a very good, black and white understanding of something. Let me explain. I have a marriage to my wife that is in place because we, based on our religious beliefs, held a ceremony in which we, in the eyes of God, joined together in a marriage. I also have a civil union to my wife that is in place because the person who performed our ceremony is also a state-appointed officiator of civil unions sponsored by the County of Orange, and by proxy, the state of Taxifornia. It is a very simple concept, and quite honestly, goes very well with the idea of the separation of church and state. Our marriage applies to all of the religious beliefs that we have - the afterlife, together forever, adultery, sins, etc., and our civil union applies to all of the stately legality - our legal obligations to each other and to the state that will exist throughout our union, as well as the legal obligations we have to each other if we split up and the legal obligations we have to each other pertaining to any children we might have together. Do you see how there are two separate things going on at the same time here? Our marriage is governed by our moral obligations and our civil union is governed by our legal obligations. I say that as a nation, we really should start looking at these as two separate things that occur concurrently.
Now, I am going to divert from the conservative pack here, but in the interest of finding a solution to our problem, let me say that when it comes to civil unions granted by the state, I am all for them. I am even all for them if we are talking about two men or two women wanting to enter into a civil union. I truly believe that this is a matter of state and should be governed by the state, and as such, any two people, regardless of gender, even transgendered, should have the same exact rights as everyone else in their civil unions. Two men and/or two women who have the same civil union certificate that my wife and I have should have the same exact rights granted by the state that we do.
One problem, however, that we need to fix before moving forward with our separation of church and state is that I do not have a "civil union" certificate issued by the state, but a "marriage" certificate. The state should not be allowed to issue such a thing as a "marriage" certificate. It should be called a "civil union" certificate, issued just like a business license, or any other state document. This should be issued regardless of gender and religion, again, just like any other state document. A "marriage" certificate, to run concurrently with a "civil union" certificate, should be issued by the church that performed the ceremony.
Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to morality, let's deal with and seek an audience with religion. When it comes to legality, let's deal with and seek an audience with the state. Let's have a separation there. The religions do not get to dictate to the state who can have a civil union, and the state cannot dictate to the religions what they consider to be a marriage.
If the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state in the literal sense, then why is it that the act of joining two people together in a court house in the eyes of the state carries the same name as the act of joining two people together in a church in the eyes of God? I argue that they should not be called the same thing, as they are truly two completely separate things. Should we not all be getting civil unions at the court house and marriages in a church? I can go through a ceremony at a church, but if it is not performed by someone licensed by the state, then my civil union is not valid to the state. The marriage is valid to the church and to God, but the civil union does not occur unless the ceremony has the approval of the state by means of the ceremony being performed by a state-approved agent. Does it not make sense, then that a civil union could be an agreement by two members of the same sex? It's a legal agreement witnessed by a state-appointed agent. Makes sense to me.
But, then, what also makes sense to me, is that if I am getting married in a church, or being married by an agent of the church, should not that marriage adhere to the traditional definition of one man and one women that the religion adheres to? That also seems to make sense to me. So, man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the church, marriage - Man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the state, civil union - Man and woman who have done both, either in a ceremony performed by one person with both church and state ordainment, or two people, one with church credentials and one with state credentials, or at two separate ceremonies - in the eyes of the church and God, marriage - in the eyes of the state, civil union.
It all boils down to a game of semantics, then, doesn't it? Now, mind you, I am saying that a man and woman with a civil union should have the same exact rights and privileges that a man and man or woman and woman have through their civil unions. Now, if the semantics are important and we need to start talking about what the churches themselves call the joining of two people who are the same sex, then isn't that a matter for the church, and not a matter for the state? Isn't that what you wanted in the first place? Separation of church and state. If two men or two women can convince the Catholic church to marry them, then hey, more power to you, but that should have nothing to do with my ballot, my courts, and my government. If a man and a woman, and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, all have the same rights under the civil unions that are issued by the state, then at the state level, and honestly, even at the federal level, the argument should be over. You can call it whatever you want to, but legally, they should all be civil unions that are issued by the state. Anything beyond a civil union should be between people and the churches, not people and the state. Like I said, separation of church and state.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Tax Hikes & Spending Cuts The Taxxy Brown Way...
I will give you, as I have said many-a-time before, it was most definitely time for Arnie to go. I would have much rather seen, however, a legitimate business woman as our new Taxifornia Taxernor than lifetime politician and union whipping boy Taxxy Brown. If this were a Presidential election, we would have just re-elected Jimmy Carter. Way to go, Taxifornia!
So, now, that the issue of Taxernor is settled until we can try to get a business person in there again, let's talk about the main reason that I am concerned about Taxxy Brown...taxes. Sure, we'd all like to pay nothing (and hey! half of you actually do!), and I realize that we do need to pay something so that we can fund our infrastructure, military, and what-not, but for those of us that are in that 50% that do pay taxes, should we not undertake the initiative to try to keep as much of the money that we earn that the other 50% get to pay - nothing? It may not be a reality, but at least it gives us something to shoot for, right?
That being said, I must also say that Taxxy Brown is at least, unlike most Spendocrats, willing to cut some spending, taking a step closer to at least getting the 50% who pay no income taxes to help foot the bill as well. He as also said that he is going to take his tax increases to the voters, so we will see if that actually happens.
What taxes are going to get raised and what spending is going to get cut if Taxxy Brown gets his way? A lot of programs are going to be reduced, and the temporary tax hikes implemented by the Taxinator will be kept in place for another five years! Five years?! Yep, five years!:
Income: A 0.25 percent surcharge on each personal income tax rate, which would generate $3.2 billion in the next 18 months. But, if your personal income tax rate is zero, does that mean you have to pay 0.25 percent? What do you think?
Dependents: A reduction in the tax credit for dependents from $227 to $99, for $1.9 billion over 18 months.
Sales tax: A 1 percentage point increase in the state sales tax - from 5 to 6 percent, bringing in $4.5 billion over 12 months.
Licenses: An increase in vehicle license fees from 0.65 percent of a car's value to 1.15 percent, bringing in $1.3 billion over 12 months.
Proposed spending and service reductions
Among Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed solutions to help close a $25 billion deficit are the following:
Cell phones: The state pays for about 96,000 cell phones for state workers. Brown would cut that number by at least 50 percent.
State vehicles: State workers use about 13,600 state-owned cars, pickups and vans, not including about 12,000 used in public safety. Only cars needed for critical functions would be kept.
Cal Fire: In the many wildland areas that have been developed, emergency response would be transferred from state firefighters to local firefighters. State firefighters would be cut from four workers per engine to three.
State jobs: 57,000 workers would get 10 percent pay cuts, and hundreds of state jobs would be eliminated as the state transfers more responsibilities to counties in foster care, incarceration and social services.
Redevelopment agencies: Redevelopment agencies would be phased out to save billions of dollars, although they would be allowed to finish existing projects. The money saved would first go to the general fund and in future years would be given to schools, cities and counties.
Courts: A permanent reduction of $200 million annually for the state's courts.
Governor's office: A 25 percent reduction in spending, or $4.5 million cut.
Parks: State parks would lose $11 million more in funds, requiring continued park closures.
Medi-Cal: Benefits would be capped, with limits placed on prescriptions (six per month per recipient ) - unless they are lifesaving - hearing aids ($1,510 a year) and durable medical equipment ($1,604 a year). Co-payments of $5 would be required for most visits. Doctor's visits would be limited to 10 per year.
Disabled and elderly: California is one of the few states that provide day care centers for disabled and elderly adults who might otherwise be in nursing homes; Brown would eliminate this program altogether to save $176 million in 2011-12.
Healthy Families: Fewer than 1 million children receive medical insurance under this program because their families do not qualify for Medi-Cal. Brown would eliminate the vision benefit and increase premiums and co-payments.
So, that's the laundry list that Taxxy Brown is going to propose. We'll have to see if it makes it to the ballot, and what he is going to do when voters shoot it down...
So, now, that the issue of Taxernor is settled until we can try to get a business person in there again, let's talk about the main reason that I am concerned about Taxxy Brown...taxes. Sure, we'd all like to pay nothing (and hey! half of you actually do!), and I realize that we do need to pay something so that we can fund our infrastructure, military, and what-not, but for those of us that are in that 50% that do pay taxes, should we not undertake the initiative to try to keep as much of the money that we earn that the other 50% get to pay - nothing? It may not be a reality, but at least it gives us something to shoot for, right?
That being said, I must also say that Taxxy Brown is at least, unlike most Spendocrats, willing to cut some spending, taking a step closer to at least getting the 50% who pay no income taxes to help foot the bill as well. He as also said that he is going to take his tax increases to the voters, so we will see if that actually happens.
What taxes are going to get raised and what spending is going to get cut if Taxxy Brown gets his way? A lot of programs are going to be reduced, and the temporary tax hikes implemented by the Taxinator will be kept in place for another five years! Five years?! Yep, five years!:
Income: A 0.25 percent surcharge on each personal income tax rate, which would generate $3.2 billion in the next 18 months. But, if your personal income tax rate is zero, does that mean you have to pay 0.25 percent? What do you think?
Dependents: A reduction in the tax credit for dependents from $227 to $99, for $1.9 billion over 18 months.
Sales tax: A 1 percentage point increase in the state sales tax - from 5 to 6 percent, bringing in $4.5 billion over 12 months.
Licenses: An increase in vehicle license fees from 0.65 percent of a car's value to 1.15 percent, bringing in $1.3 billion over 12 months.
Proposed spending and service reductions
Among Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed solutions to help close a $25 billion deficit are the following:
Cell phones: The state pays for about 96,000 cell phones for state workers. Brown would cut that number by at least 50 percent.
State vehicles: State workers use about 13,600 state-owned cars, pickups and vans, not including about 12,000 used in public safety. Only cars needed for critical functions would be kept.
Cal Fire: In the many wildland areas that have been developed, emergency response would be transferred from state firefighters to local firefighters. State firefighters would be cut from four workers per engine to three.
State jobs: 57,000 workers would get 10 percent pay cuts, and hundreds of state jobs would be eliminated as the state transfers more responsibilities to counties in foster care, incarceration and social services.
Redevelopment agencies: Redevelopment agencies would be phased out to save billions of dollars, although they would be allowed to finish existing projects. The money saved would first go to the general fund and in future years would be given to schools, cities and counties.
Courts: A permanent reduction of $200 million annually for the state's courts.
Governor's office: A 25 percent reduction in spending, or $4.5 million cut.
Parks: State parks would lose $11 million more in funds, requiring continued park closures.
Medi-Cal: Benefits would be capped, with limits placed on prescriptions (six per month per recipient ) - unless they are lifesaving - hearing aids ($1,510 a year) and durable medical equipment ($1,604 a year). Co-payments of $5 would be required for most visits. Doctor's visits would be limited to 10 per year.
Disabled and elderly: California is one of the few states that provide day care centers for disabled and elderly adults who might otherwise be in nursing homes; Brown would eliminate this program altogether to save $176 million in 2011-12.
Healthy Families: Fewer than 1 million children receive medical insurance under this program because their families do not qualify for Medi-Cal. Brown would eliminate the vision benefit and increase premiums and co-payments.
So, that's the laundry list that Taxxy Brown is going to propose. We'll have to see if it makes it to the ballot, and what he is going to do when voters shoot it down...
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
GobiernoUSA.gov
One of the ideals that I still remain steadfast in, and most likely will for the foreseeable future, is that just how a nation has a flag, a national symbol, a national anthem, and so on, so should a nation have an official language. As many of you are currently reading this musing in my native American tongue of English (or American English to the English) could probably guess, I propose that our official language in the USA should be English. I propose that no child graduate from high school in the United States without at least a remidial command of the English language (I know we say that now, but I mean, really, actually be able to speak English), and more importantly, I think that any interaction you have with the federal, state, and local government should be in English.
So, you're saying to yourself, I've been reading Old Man Savastano's rantings for years, and this is nothing new, so why the re-hash on making English the official language of the USA?
Well, I bought a new computer and was cleaning up the pre-supplied "Favorites" that Microsoft thinks I will need and one of the folders is "Websites For United States", and in that folder is one familiar web site, "USA.gov" and the one unfamiliar web site, "GobiernoUSA.gov". Go on, check it out. http://www.gobiernousa.gov. It is so nice to see the American taxpayer paying for twice the web site because we, as a nation, have never really had the balls to pick an official language, even though we all have known for quite some time which one it should be.
How much of our tax dollars go to creating web sites and printing things in other languages? Should not part of the process of being naturalized be that you can do so in English? Oh, wait, hold on a second, it is part of the process. You DO need to have a basic command of the English language in order to pass our naturalization tests. So, why then, would you need a U.S. government website in Spanish? Oh yeah, that's right. We can't forget to take care of our uninvited guests as well. I mean, when you throw a party and people that you have never even met before and don't seem to know anyone you invited just happen to show up, you offer them a drink and a seat, don't you? Quite clearly, in America we do, and to top it off, we make sure that we offer you those bebidas and sillas en Espanol because though you have no respect for our laws, we still want you to feel right at home...
So, you're saying to yourself, I've been reading Old Man Savastano's rantings for years, and this is nothing new, so why the re-hash on making English the official language of the USA?
Well, I bought a new computer and was cleaning up the pre-supplied "Favorites" that Microsoft thinks I will need and one of the folders is "Websites For United States", and in that folder is one familiar web site, "USA.gov" and the one unfamiliar web site, "GobiernoUSA.gov". Go on, check it out. http://www.gobiernousa.gov. It is so nice to see the American taxpayer paying for twice the web site because we, as a nation, have never really had the balls to pick an official language, even though we all have known for quite some time which one it should be.
How much of our tax dollars go to creating web sites and printing things in other languages? Should not part of the process of being naturalized be that you can do so in English? Oh, wait, hold on a second, it is part of the process. You DO need to have a basic command of the English language in order to pass our naturalization tests. So, why then, would you need a U.S. government website in Spanish? Oh yeah, that's right. We can't forget to take care of our uninvited guests as well. I mean, when you throw a party and people that you have never even met before and don't seem to know anyone you invited just happen to show up, you offer them a drink and a seat, don't you? Quite clearly, in America we do, and to top it off, we make sure that we offer you those bebidas and sillas en Espanol because though you have no respect for our laws, we still want you to feel right at home...
Monday, January 17, 2011
Mercedes-Benz Sees 15.3% Growth In 2010
According to an official statement from Stuttgart, relayed to me through BenzInsider.com, Mercedes-Benz has reportedly managed a year-on-year worldwide sales growth of 15.3 percent. This figure is due largely to the demand from the Chinese market as well as in the United States.
Over the past year, Mercedes-Benz totaled 1.16 million vehicles sold, which subsequently allowed Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz’s parent company, to exceed its projections that involved a 10-percent growth across the board from Mercedes-Benz to Maybach, the uber-luxury vehicle brand, to Smart, with its compact urban cars. Overall, Daimler was able to sell 1.26 million vehicles from the three makes—a 12 percent increase from 2009′s numbers.
“Last year was a complete success for us,” stated Dieter Zetsche, Daimler AG chairman and the head of Mercedes-Benz Cars. “We have grown stronger as the world-wide market for passenger cars and as a result can win market share.”
While the annual increase is very impressive on its own, the consistency by which this growth was achieved is also quite amazing. Globally, Mercedes-Benz was able to experience double-digit growth on a monthly basis. In China, Mercedes-Benz experienced exceeded double of their annual sales from 2009. In the US, sales increased by 14 percent over the year.
Aside from the numbers showing Mercedes-Benz’s strong year, the sales growth is a reflection of the global automotive market’s recovery, particularly the premium or luxury car segment. These figures are clear indicators of the rebounding market. Zetsche says the brand can start 2011 with confidence, thanks to a competitive product range and numerous new products.”.
Over the past year, Mercedes-Benz totaled 1.16 million vehicles sold, which subsequently allowed Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz’s parent company, to exceed its projections that involved a 10-percent growth across the board from Mercedes-Benz to Maybach, the uber-luxury vehicle brand, to Smart, with its compact urban cars. Overall, Daimler was able to sell 1.26 million vehicles from the three makes—a 12 percent increase from 2009′s numbers.
“Last year was a complete success for us,” stated Dieter Zetsche, Daimler AG chairman and the head of Mercedes-Benz Cars. “We have grown stronger as the world-wide market for passenger cars and as a result can win market share.”
While the annual increase is very impressive on its own, the consistency by which this growth was achieved is also quite amazing. Globally, Mercedes-Benz was able to experience double-digit growth on a monthly basis. In China, Mercedes-Benz experienced exceeded double of their annual sales from 2009. In the US, sales increased by 14 percent over the year.
Aside from the numbers showing Mercedes-Benz’s strong year, the sales growth is a reflection of the global automotive market’s recovery, particularly the premium or luxury car segment. These figures are clear indicators of the rebounding market. Zetsche says the brand can start 2011 with confidence, thanks to a competitive product range and numerous new products.”.
Friday, January 14, 2011
56-Year-Old Cross Ruled Unconstitutional
I honestly do get the argument about the separation of church and state, but for people to sit here today and say that the Christian-based beliefs of the Founding Fathers did not play a role in thier lives and the founding of the United States of America is blatant history revision. I, for one, refuse to support that revision to this nation's history, despite the fact that you're only going to catch me in church a handful of times per decade.
The continuing movement to remove all reference to religion in this country may seem like a good idea to the intellectual elite who look down upon the believers, but trust me, folks, if we just flat out did away with religion as suggested by the Bill Mahers of the world, the ensuing hell on earth with no religious consequences would make you start praying for a return of religion.
As I have said many times before, as long as your beliefs do not harm others, then go right ahead and believe what you want. If Jewish and Muslim symbols offend you because you are a Christian, then you weren't really paying attention in church, were you? Flip that statement for all the competing religions, and for the non-believer. If you don't believe, then believers should not have a beef with you. It should be your choice. But, that should also mean that the non-believers should not have a beef with believers.
With all of that being said, then you may see why I find it very bothersome to read that a war memorial cross in a San Diego public park was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court because the court says it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion.
It would seem some whiny non-believer who wants to rid the nation of all religious symbolism outside of an actual religious building is getting their way, and I think that it is sad to see the whining of the few being held in higher regard than the will of the many.
This case struck me as nothing more than modern-day, revisionist history, non-believer whining. It involved the nut-job "Judges" at the anything-goes 9th U.S. Distrcit Court of Appeals and a cross that has been in a park, honoring Korean War Veterans for 56 years. 56 years, in the same spot, doing the same thing, just being a cross in a park, a symbol of honor to the men and women who died in service to their country. Then, comes along the non-believer whiner who can't just keep their non-beliefs to themselves, but ironically, as they complain the believers do, must force their non-beliefs on the believers.
Is there really so little good in your life, so little to be happy about that you have to take up a fight against a cross sitting in a park? Really? Why do we listen to these whack-jobs, America? Why are we giving them a voice that is louder than the voice of reason?
The continuing movement to remove all reference to religion in this country may seem like a good idea to the intellectual elite who look down upon the believers, but trust me, folks, if we just flat out did away with religion as suggested by the Bill Mahers of the world, the ensuing hell on earth with no religious consequences would make you start praying for a return of religion.
As I have said many times before, as long as your beliefs do not harm others, then go right ahead and believe what you want. If Jewish and Muslim symbols offend you because you are a Christian, then you weren't really paying attention in church, were you? Flip that statement for all the competing religions, and for the non-believer. If you don't believe, then believers should not have a beef with you. It should be your choice. But, that should also mean that the non-believers should not have a beef with believers.
With all of that being said, then you may see why I find it very bothersome to read that a war memorial cross in a San Diego public park was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court because the court says it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion.
It would seem some whiny non-believer who wants to rid the nation of all religious symbolism outside of an actual religious building is getting their way, and I think that it is sad to see the whining of the few being held in higher regard than the will of the many.
This case struck me as nothing more than modern-day, revisionist history, non-believer whining. It involved the nut-job "Judges" at the anything-goes 9th U.S. Distrcit Court of Appeals and a cross that has been in a park, honoring Korean War Veterans for 56 years. 56 years, in the same spot, doing the same thing, just being a cross in a park, a symbol of honor to the men and women who died in service to their country. Then, comes along the non-believer whiner who can't just keep their non-beliefs to themselves, but ironically, as they complain the believers do, must force their non-beliefs on the believers.
Is there really so little good in your life, so little to be happy about that you have to take up a fight against a cross sitting in a park? Really? Why do we listen to these whack-jobs, America? Why are we giving them a voice that is louder than the voice of reason?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Who Is To Blame? Let's Do A Better Job Of Figuring That Out
At least you never disappoint in being completely and totally predictable, mainstream media. Quite literally, even before the suspect in the Arizona shooting was identified, already blame was being placed on political discourse and specific people other than the shooter. Journalism, this is a prime example of why I left a promising career in you very early on. As I came to realize that facts and the truth were actually very subjective things to you, I sought a career elsewhere.
Honestly, I was holding out hope for you that you weren't going to once again fly off the handle, dive into the deep end, and sensationalize why this horrible tragedy happened, but as usual, journalism, you have proven to us all once again that ratings and sensationalism will always trump responsible reporting. The Founding Fathers saw your role as so important in our society that it is protected by the constitution. Today, however, journalism, you are no longer earning that privilege.
Yesterday, as the whack-job who committed this horrible crime was still playing his twisted game with society and the government in court, I read and heard story after story and heard plea after plea about how the political discourse and rhetoric of the day was to blame for this incident. I'd like to say that I am doing my best to see it, but honestly, journalism, I can't say that I am trying that hard, because I just don't see it.
This is a classic case of a complete and total psychopath who was determined to make his mark on the world somehow, no matter how heinous an act it took. He knew his life was destined for obscurity and set out to shock us all.
Journalism isn't alone in this, though. The politicians are also chiming in with just as much fervor to support the ridiculous. I mean no disrespect to the people who have died, those who were injured, and their families, but to simply blame this all on political discourse and what we perceive as an elevated level of it here in America today is simply inaccurate in this case.
This self-appointed "revolutionary" was going to strike out against the world, regardless of what was going on around him. It was simply a matter of him choosing a high-profile victim, then picking what he felt was the right time and place. This is the classic MO of all of these whack-jobs in the past. Take a minute and think back to all of the assassinations and assassination attempts that you have ever seen in a documentary or news story, or read about somewhere, and you will find that this one is no different.
Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to political discourse are some of the most important concepts that have made America such a wonderful nation. We have the right to speak out against the government and we have the right to question the policies of whoever happens to be making the laws at the time, regardless of their political party and beliefs. While I would never think to downplay this tragedy and how saddened I am by it, I am also bothered by the fact that journalists, politicians, and some Americans are misidentifying the cause of this incident in misguided attempts to change and dull political discourse to a level of their liking. I just do not think it is a good idea to tamper with something that has worked so well in this nation since its founding.
The thought that doing away with political discourse will somehow keep something like this from happening again is as crazy as never going outside because you might get hurt, or never driving in a car because you might get in an accident. We better not say that healthcare reform sucks, or that we don't like Nancy Pelosi, or that we think taxes are too high, because there might be some whack-job out there who is going to hear that and then go on a shooting spree. Well, you better do away with high school all-together, then, America, because you now have to make sure that there isn't a single high school student in the entire country that is ever teased or heckled or excluded so that we can ensure that something like this never happens again.
I am not saying that we shouldn't learn from what happened in Tucson, but I am saying that we need to be learning the right lessons and not fabricating politically-motivated rhetoric about political rhetoric. Let's look at why this whack-job was still walking the streets, and why he was able to buy a gun and ammunition despite obvious warning signs. Let's make sure that he was not part of a larger group of people, and truly acted alone. Quit blaming political discourse and look at what was really going on here. Look at what we could have done to avoid this by getting this kid off the streets when there were clear warning signs that something like this was coming, not how we can use this tragedy to make American politics more comfortable for those who don't want to be bothered by the discourse and just want the easy answers - the easy road.
Honestly, I was holding out hope for you that you weren't going to once again fly off the handle, dive into the deep end, and sensationalize why this horrible tragedy happened, but as usual, journalism, you have proven to us all once again that ratings and sensationalism will always trump responsible reporting. The Founding Fathers saw your role as so important in our society that it is protected by the constitution. Today, however, journalism, you are no longer earning that privilege.
Yesterday, as the whack-job who committed this horrible crime was still playing his twisted game with society and the government in court, I read and heard story after story and heard plea after plea about how the political discourse and rhetoric of the day was to blame for this incident. I'd like to say that I am doing my best to see it, but honestly, journalism, I can't say that I am trying that hard, because I just don't see it.
This is a classic case of a complete and total psychopath who was determined to make his mark on the world somehow, no matter how heinous an act it took. He knew his life was destined for obscurity and set out to shock us all.
Journalism isn't alone in this, though. The politicians are also chiming in with just as much fervor to support the ridiculous. I mean no disrespect to the people who have died, those who were injured, and their families, but to simply blame this all on political discourse and what we perceive as an elevated level of it here in America today is simply inaccurate in this case.
This self-appointed "revolutionary" was going to strike out against the world, regardless of what was going on around him. It was simply a matter of him choosing a high-profile victim, then picking what he felt was the right time and place. This is the classic MO of all of these whack-jobs in the past. Take a minute and think back to all of the assassinations and assassination attempts that you have ever seen in a documentary or news story, or read about somewhere, and you will find that this one is no different.
Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to political discourse are some of the most important concepts that have made America such a wonderful nation. We have the right to speak out against the government and we have the right to question the policies of whoever happens to be making the laws at the time, regardless of their political party and beliefs. While I would never think to downplay this tragedy and how saddened I am by it, I am also bothered by the fact that journalists, politicians, and some Americans are misidentifying the cause of this incident in misguided attempts to change and dull political discourse to a level of their liking. I just do not think it is a good idea to tamper with something that has worked so well in this nation since its founding.
The thought that doing away with political discourse will somehow keep something like this from happening again is as crazy as never going outside because you might get hurt, or never driving in a car because you might get in an accident. We better not say that healthcare reform sucks, or that we don't like Nancy Pelosi, or that we think taxes are too high, because there might be some whack-job out there who is going to hear that and then go on a shooting spree. Well, you better do away with high school all-together, then, America, because you now have to make sure that there isn't a single high school student in the entire country that is ever teased or heckled or excluded so that we can ensure that something like this never happens again.
I am not saying that we shouldn't learn from what happened in Tucson, but I am saying that we need to be learning the right lessons and not fabricating politically-motivated rhetoric about political rhetoric. Let's look at why this whack-job was still walking the streets, and why he was able to buy a gun and ammunition despite obvious warning signs. Let's make sure that he was not part of a larger group of people, and truly acted alone. Quit blaming political discourse and look at what was really going on here. Look at what we could have done to avoid this by getting this kid off the streets when there were clear warning signs that something like this was coming, not how we can use this tragedy to make American politics more comfortable for those who don't want to be bothered by the discourse and just want the easy answers - the easy road.
Monday, January 10, 2011
These Are The Days When I Am Proud...
I had a post all ready to go for today, but with the events that occurred this weekend, I would think it remiss of me to not to divulge that the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords is weighing heavily on my wind when I think about politics. In the wake of such a tragedy, how amazing is it that the system does not break down and the whack-job who perpetrated this act of terrorism in his own backyard is going to walk into a courtroom and begin the long process of bringing him to justice. While I personally am anxious to see that justice enacted much more swiftly that it will occur, I just had to comment on how this is one of the wonderfully right things in America. No matter how bad the mob wants to enact vengeance, cooler heads prevail and the justice system is looked to instead.
In another shining example of something that is right with America, just a week ago, the transfer of power in the House of Representatives went off without a hitch. Again, another blatantly right thing with America and our system of government. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot that we need to fix, but there are some things that are still working just as wonderfully as they were centuries ago.
This heartbreaking story of tragedy and heroism is also sadly, so very American. This story embodies the wonderful rights that are granted to us by the constitution - the right to have access to our government, the right to assemble, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms - gone so horribly wrong at the hands of one of our own. It is so hard to see such promising and accomplished lives cut short by such an unaccomplished, waste of a human being.
These are the times, however, when America shows her true colors. When the accused, no matter how heinous the crime, still gets their day in court. When we come together, despite the beliefs that may divide us, to comfort, honor, and respect. When we put aside our differences, even if just for a short while, to do the right thing. These are the days when I am proud of you, America.
In another shining example of something that is right with America, just a week ago, the transfer of power in the House of Representatives went off without a hitch. Again, another blatantly right thing with America and our system of government. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot that we need to fix, but there are some things that are still working just as wonderfully as they were centuries ago.
This heartbreaking story of tragedy and heroism is also sadly, so very American. This story embodies the wonderful rights that are granted to us by the constitution - the right to have access to our government, the right to assemble, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms - gone so horribly wrong at the hands of one of our own. It is so hard to see such promising and accomplished lives cut short by such an unaccomplished, waste of a human being.
These are the times, however, when America shows her true colors. When the accused, no matter how heinous the crime, still gets their day in court. When we come together, despite the beliefs that may divide us, to comfort, honor, and respect. When we put aside our differences, even if just for a short while, to do the right thing. These are the days when I am proud of you, America.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
"How Gay Is The Removal Of Captain Honors From Command? It's So Gay..."
The problem with the average American civilian is that their idea of staying current on what is going on in the world is when they buy into the PC-driven-crap served up by the media during the one or two times per month that they are actually paying attention to the news. Even with our nation fighting two wars and still in the midst of the worst economy in three generations, the average American civilian still has it so good that they can find the time to participate in ridiculous crusades like the one that relieved Captain Owen P. Honors of his command for the content of his XO Movie Night intro videos that were made to boost morale and provide a bit of humor to the sailors under his command that spend months away from home in America's war zones.
I just finished watching a 12-minute, partially-bleeped out version of the video that the Virginia-Pilot compiled for viewing on YouTube, and honestly, while the humor in it is juvenile and crude, I can honestly say that I was not offended, especially when I think on the context in which these videos were made.
Imagine that you are spending months on end away from your family, stuck on an aircraft carrier, continually working and continually aware that at any moment, the wars that America is fighting could be at your door step. So, to try to keep your mind off of things and give you a couple of hours away from it all, the closed-circuit TV on the ship runs a movie. To try to boost the humor and enhance the "movie-going" experience, further taking your mind off of war, duty, and work, the ship's XO, who in addition to his long list of responsibilities, is charged with keeping up the morale of the sailors on the ship, recruits some of his fellow sailors and throws together what he and his cohorts believe are funny little pieces of humor.
The XO gets to seem more personable and approachable, the sailors helping create the movies get a bit of a break and get to have some fun and everyone watching gets a laugh. It is clear when you are watching this video that the intention of the XO Movie Night intro videos created by Captain Honors was to boost morale and be funny, to add some levity to the very serious work that the sailors of the U.S.S. Enterprise undertook each and every day during his stint as XO.
It also becomes very clear that it was not his intention to alienate, discriminate, or do anything more than poke a little fun. America, you have forgotten how to laugh! You are too concerned with the possibility of hurting someone's feelings and adhering to a ridiculous PC standard that none of us can have any fun anymore.
The problem that media sources had with these videos, as is stated in the articles I read, were that the videos were "lewd and homophobic". I will give you that they are a bit lewd, and of course, more lewd to some of the more sensitive souls in America, but they were shown on-board an aircraft carrier during a tour of duty on which everyone was an adult who was there of their own free will.
Watching the XO's intro videos was also not mandatory. Anyone who might have been offended was free not to watch. Have we gotten so PC that looking away and not watching is no longer an option? Are we simply left with nothing being able to even exist anymore? Everyone is not going to like everything all of the time.
As for the videos being "homophonic", I think I honestly went into watching this video thinking that the "gay" jokes would be a lot worse than they were. I think I have seen and heard far worse on just any normal cable channel out there. There is definitely nothing in this videos that you cannot see during prime time network television on any given night.
After having watched the video, I really find it a stretch to call it "homophobic". The videos have same-sex couples in the ship's showers with what the people who made the movies honestly thought was funny commentary, and every once in a while then-XO Honors calls his meeker alter ego (played by himself) "gay" or "faggot".
If the simple use of these two words offends you, then you might not like the video, but is that enough to cost a career Navy man who has led tour after tour year after year his job? I am sorry, oh sensitive American souls, but I just don't think so. If these videos were so bad, how in the world are we just hearing about them now, years after they were made? This is nothing more than years-after-the-fact PC political wrangling.
The video has the word "fuck" in it a lot, which I understand can also be offensive to some, but to say that I have never heard that very word at ANY of the jobs that I have ever had would be quite a ridiculous statement. In my personal opinion, sometimes the situation just calls for that particular word over all others.
You might not agree, but what makes me wrong and you right? In Honors' defense, the video that is out there shows a montage of the use of the word "fuck" over the course of years crammed into a minute or so. Again, if the word "fuck" offends you, I apologize, but to scapegoat one person for it's common use in American society today, regardless of their position, is completely ridiculous. I also say the same goes for the use of the word "gay". I say "gay" all the time and you can freely go ask any of my gay friends how homophobic they think I am.
I also find it very fishy (how offensive to fish!) that this is all happening right after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. I'm not saying that homophobia doesn't exist in the military, but I just do not think that these videos are an example of it. I think that the press and the navy couldn't find a good post-repeal story to show that they are championing the cause and settled for the persecution of Captain Honors instead.
It is so sad to see such a prestigious and respected organization as the U.S. Navy, an organization that I have always held in such high regard, bow to the ridiculous pressure of a few people that found these videos offensive in the face of an overwhelming majority that obviously did not.
For Captain Honors to be reprimanded for these videos, given the centuries-long tradition of humor just like what is depicted in these videos within the U.S. Navy, and given the man's years of dedicated service and leadership, is not only hypocritical, a prime example of overly-PC-thugery, but also, in accordance with what I said earlier about there sometimes only being one word that can described something, quite gay.
I just finished watching a 12-minute, partially-bleeped out version of the video that the Virginia-Pilot compiled for viewing on YouTube, and honestly, while the humor in it is juvenile and crude, I can honestly say that I was not offended, especially when I think on the context in which these videos were made.
Imagine that you are spending months on end away from your family, stuck on an aircraft carrier, continually working and continually aware that at any moment, the wars that America is fighting could be at your door step. So, to try to keep your mind off of things and give you a couple of hours away from it all, the closed-circuit TV on the ship runs a movie. To try to boost the humor and enhance the "movie-going" experience, further taking your mind off of war, duty, and work, the ship's XO, who in addition to his long list of responsibilities, is charged with keeping up the morale of the sailors on the ship, recruits some of his fellow sailors and throws together what he and his cohorts believe are funny little pieces of humor.
The XO gets to seem more personable and approachable, the sailors helping create the movies get a bit of a break and get to have some fun and everyone watching gets a laugh. It is clear when you are watching this video that the intention of the XO Movie Night intro videos created by Captain Honors was to boost morale and be funny, to add some levity to the very serious work that the sailors of the U.S.S. Enterprise undertook each and every day during his stint as XO.
It also becomes very clear that it was not his intention to alienate, discriminate, or do anything more than poke a little fun. America, you have forgotten how to laugh! You are too concerned with the possibility of hurting someone's feelings and adhering to a ridiculous PC standard that none of us can have any fun anymore.
The problem that media sources had with these videos, as is stated in the articles I read, were that the videos were "lewd and homophobic". I will give you that they are a bit lewd, and of course, more lewd to some of the more sensitive souls in America, but they were shown on-board an aircraft carrier during a tour of duty on which everyone was an adult who was there of their own free will.
Watching the XO's intro videos was also not mandatory. Anyone who might have been offended was free not to watch. Have we gotten so PC that looking away and not watching is no longer an option? Are we simply left with nothing being able to even exist anymore? Everyone is not going to like everything all of the time.
As for the videos being "homophonic", I think I honestly went into watching this video thinking that the "gay" jokes would be a lot worse than they were. I think I have seen and heard far worse on just any normal cable channel out there. There is definitely nothing in this videos that you cannot see during prime time network television on any given night.
After having watched the video, I really find it a stretch to call it "homophobic". The videos have same-sex couples in the ship's showers with what the people who made the movies honestly thought was funny commentary, and every once in a while then-XO Honors calls his meeker alter ego (played by himself) "gay" or "faggot".
If the simple use of these two words offends you, then you might not like the video, but is that enough to cost a career Navy man who has led tour after tour year after year his job? I am sorry, oh sensitive American souls, but I just don't think so. If these videos were so bad, how in the world are we just hearing about them now, years after they were made? This is nothing more than years-after-the-fact PC political wrangling.
The video has the word "fuck" in it a lot, which I understand can also be offensive to some, but to say that I have never heard that very word at ANY of the jobs that I have ever had would be quite a ridiculous statement. In my personal opinion, sometimes the situation just calls for that particular word over all others.
You might not agree, but what makes me wrong and you right? In Honors' defense, the video that is out there shows a montage of the use of the word "fuck" over the course of years crammed into a minute or so. Again, if the word "fuck" offends you, I apologize, but to scapegoat one person for it's common use in American society today, regardless of their position, is completely ridiculous. I also say the same goes for the use of the word "gay". I say "gay" all the time and you can freely go ask any of my gay friends how homophobic they think I am.
I also find it very fishy (how offensive to fish!) that this is all happening right after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. I'm not saying that homophobia doesn't exist in the military, but I just do not think that these videos are an example of it. I think that the press and the navy couldn't find a good post-repeal story to show that they are championing the cause and settled for the persecution of Captain Honors instead.
It is so sad to see such a prestigious and respected organization as the U.S. Navy, an organization that I have always held in such high regard, bow to the ridiculous pressure of a few people that found these videos offensive in the face of an overwhelming majority that obviously did not.
For Captain Honors to be reprimanded for these videos, given the centuries-long tradition of humor just like what is depicted in these videos within the U.S. Navy, and given the man's years of dedicated service and leadership, is not only hypocritical, a prime example of overly-PC-thugery, but also, in accordance with what I said earlier about there sometimes only being one word that can described something, quite gay.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Taxifornia Police Officers Can Now Search Your Cell Phone Without A Warrant
I have long made the argument that if the government and law enforcement want to listen in on my cell phone conversations, they can feel free to do so because they are not going to find anything interesting. My biggest argument against it would be that it would be a waste of taxpayer money for them to take the time to do so. Also, I would hope that if they are going to listen to my cell phone calls, they at least obtain a warrant, thus following proper channels and the law.
What if, however, it came down to a police officer wanting to search the actual contents of my cell phone for incriminateing evidence? Again, they are not going to find anything, but now we are no longer talking about a conversation flowing in the air waves, but something that I carry around with me in my pocket. Quite clearly, they would need to obtain a warrant to go through the contents of my cell phone, right? Well, according to the champions of individual civil liberties, the Taxifornia Supreme Court, no, they do not. Just how an officer can search your person if they suspect you of a crime, they can now, in Taxifornia at least, search the contents of your cell phone.
I agree that, for the most part, the law abiding have nothing to worry about in terms of being incriminated by the contents of their cell phone, but if a corrupt officer has your phone, who knows what they could put on there. Crooked cops have been known to plant drugs, so why not plant incriminating evidence on your cell phone?
I have always viewed the need for the police to obtain a search warrant as a check and balance to the authority of the arresting officers by the courts. Was this check and balance of the power of the police not the reason that the Founding Fathers added the Fourth Amendment to the constitution? When we start doing away with the obtaining of warrants prior to search, we are removing the check and balance that was the intention of the Fourth Amendment. Without search warrants obtained from a judge, we are removing the oversight of the conduct of the police by the court.
What if, however, it came down to a police officer wanting to search the actual contents of my cell phone for incriminateing evidence? Again, they are not going to find anything, but now we are no longer talking about a conversation flowing in the air waves, but something that I carry around with me in my pocket. Quite clearly, they would need to obtain a warrant to go through the contents of my cell phone, right? Well, according to the champions of individual civil liberties, the Taxifornia Supreme Court, no, they do not. Just how an officer can search your person if they suspect you of a crime, they can now, in Taxifornia at least, search the contents of your cell phone.
I agree that, for the most part, the law abiding have nothing to worry about in terms of being incriminated by the contents of their cell phone, but if a corrupt officer has your phone, who knows what they could put on there. Crooked cops have been known to plant drugs, so why not plant incriminating evidence on your cell phone?
I have always viewed the need for the police to obtain a search warrant as a check and balance to the authority of the arresting officers by the courts. Was this check and balance of the power of the police not the reason that the Founding Fathers added the Fourth Amendment to the constitution? When we start doing away with the obtaining of warrants prior to search, we are removing the check and balance that was the intention of the Fourth Amendment. Without search warrants obtained from a judge, we are removing the oversight of the conduct of the police by the court.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Return, Even If Partially, To A System Of Checks And Balances
One great reason to look forward to 2011 is that we will see a return, even if partially, to the system of checks and balances in that putrid cesspool of ridiculous spending known as Washington, D.C. that the Founding Fathers (yep, I’m still going to call them that in 2011) put in place for a very good reason.
2011 will hopefully see a time when we are not voting for bills on Monday that we are going to get around to having a chance to read next Tuesday; a time when there is a small voice that can say, “Hey, wait a minute, why don’t we wait a minute?” instead of cramming and ramming piece after piece of legislation through voting in the 11th hour when everyone is distracted by the flashy lights and Christmas songs and not really watching what is going on over in Crazy Town.
Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer actually gets to see the cavalcade of foundational system change for the sake of creating a new world order finally stop, or at least slow to a reasonable pace. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees these m-f-ing hot air balloons actually quit with the god damned earmarks like they’ve been promising. When even Tea Party candidates are taking earmarks, it’s not time to change the system, it is time to wipe the damned slate clean and just start over.
Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees the Congress and the Executive Branch curtail the reckless and fruitless spending and spend what is needed, where and when it is actually needed. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees less and less “Change The World” and a whole hell-of-a lot more “Creating Jobs” and “Jump-Starting The Economy.”
I know that you elected him so that you could get your free healthcare and your car note paid without having to actually go out and get a job, or for your papeles, or your mama’s papeles, but it is time for all of us – both those of you who voted for him and those of us who didn’t – to come together to expect this President to deliver on his promises on job creation, boosting the economy, and reducing government spending and the deficit.
I say the two years of playing in the sandbox with your buddies is rightly ended, and now it is time to come in and get to work. He wants Republicans and Democrats to work together? I say we do just that and start holding him accountable to those promises – not the ones where he promised everyone who doesn't pay any income taxes even more free shit, but the ones where he promised to enact actual change on this economy and that damned town he’s been living in for the past two years.
2011 will hopefully see a time when we are not voting for bills on Monday that we are going to get around to having a chance to read next Tuesday; a time when there is a small voice that can say, “Hey, wait a minute, why don’t we wait a minute?” instead of cramming and ramming piece after piece of legislation through voting in the 11th hour when everyone is distracted by the flashy lights and Christmas songs and not really watching what is going on over in Crazy Town.
Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer actually gets to see the cavalcade of foundational system change for the sake of creating a new world order finally stop, or at least slow to a reasonable pace. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees these m-f-ing hot air balloons actually quit with the god damned earmarks like they’ve been promising. When even Tea Party candidates are taking earmarks, it’s not time to change the system, it is time to wipe the damned slate clean and just start over.
Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees the Congress and the Executive Branch curtail the reckless and fruitless spending and spend what is needed, where and when it is actually needed. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees less and less “Change The World” and a whole hell-of-a lot more “Creating Jobs” and “Jump-Starting The Economy.”
I know that you elected him so that you could get your free healthcare and your car note paid without having to actually go out and get a job, or for your papeles, or your mama’s papeles, but it is time for all of us – both those of you who voted for him and those of us who didn’t – to come together to expect this President to deliver on his promises on job creation, boosting the economy, and reducing government spending and the deficit.
I say the two years of playing in the sandbox with your buddies is rightly ended, and now it is time to come in and get to work. He wants Republicans and Democrats to work together? I say we do just that and start holding him accountable to those promises – not the ones where he promised everyone who doesn't pay any income taxes even more free shit, but the ones where he promised to enact actual change on this economy and that damned town he’s been living in for the past two years.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Good Riddance To The Taxinator! You Turned Out To Be A Damned Politician After All...
I would like to thank the Taxinator for giving us, the idiots who voted for him, one last slap in the face while he is on his way out the door. Whenever one of these politicians, especially the ones that claim that they are not really politicians, is on their way out of office, they always take the time to cast a few pardons here and there, regardless of whether or not they are deserved. In most cases, they are to friends of friends and colleagues of colleagues, and friends and/or colleagues of money-givers and future business partners.
Yesterday, the Taxinator did a favor for Father Of The Year Fabian Nunez and his murdering son, Esteban. Nunes is the rightfully disgraced former head Democrat in Sacramento who is now a business partner of the Taxinator's chief political advisory firm.
Raise your hand if you took part in a murder in college. Now, raise your hand if you got to plead your murder charge down to 16 years and didn't have to stand trial because your daddy was the Democratic Speaker of the House in Taxifornia when it came time for you to pay for your crime.
Now, raise your hand if your daddy was able to befriend a Democrat in Republicans' clothing who happened to be governor and on his last day in office got your sentence cut down to seven years.
Look, only one person in the entire state has his hand up! Oh, and don't go crying special treatment, Taxifornia murderers who are serving your full terms. According to the politicians, Esteban Nunez was subject to the same fair-for-everyone Taxifornia justice system as you.
I also love that Arnie (who, thank all of the powers in the universe will no longer be the the Taxinator by the end of the day today) didn't even have the balls to let the family of the young man that Esteban Nunez helped murder know about the reduction in sentence either in person, or through lackey communication.
Fred Santos, the father of Luis Santos, had to hear it from reporters when asked how he felt about it.
Arnie ran on the platform that he was not a typical politician and probably somewhere in that steroid-encrusted brain of his still thinks that he is not, but this last minute back-door deal to reduce the sentence of a cold-blooded murderer tells me a different story. Sometimes, it would seem, the non-politician can turn out to be an even worse politician than the self-admitted politicians. Good riddance to yet another lying, cheating, despicable Taxifornia politician.
Yesterday, the Taxinator did a favor for Father Of The Year Fabian Nunez and his murdering son, Esteban. Nunes is the rightfully disgraced former head Democrat in Sacramento who is now a business partner of the Taxinator's chief political advisory firm.
Raise your hand if you took part in a murder in college. Now, raise your hand if you got to plead your murder charge down to 16 years and didn't have to stand trial because your daddy was the Democratic Speaker of the House in Taxifornia when it came time for you to pay for your crime.
Now, raise your hand if your daddy was able to befriend a Democrat in Republicans' clothing who happened to be governor and on his last day in office got your sentence cut down to seven years.
Look, only one person in the entire state has his hand up! Oh, and don't go crying special treatment, Taxifornia murderers who are serving your full terms. According to the politicians, Esteban Nunez was subject to the same fair-for-everyone Taxifornia justice system as you.
I also love that Arnie (who, thank all of the powers in the universe will no longer be the the Taxinator by the end of the day today) didn't even have the balls to let the family of the young man that Esteban Nunez helped murder know about the reduction in sentence either in person, or through lackey communication.
Fred Santos, the father of Luis Santos, had to hear it from reporters when asked how he felt about it.
Arnie ran on the platform that he was not a typical politician and probably somewhere in that steroid-encrusted brain of his still thinks that he is not, but this last minute back-door deal to reduce the sentence of a cold-blooded murderer tells me a different story. Sometimes, it would seem, the non-politician can turn out to be an even worse politician than the self-admitted politicians. Good riddance to yet another lying, cheating, despicable Taxifornia politician.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
2011 Is Finally Here, So What Are You Going To Do About It?
I hope that I am one of the first to welcome you to 2011, a year that I think most of us are hoping is going to truly be the best year for all of us, at least in the past few years. For me, there is no room to complain about 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or 2007, and so on, really, but believe me when I say that I feel and agree with your sentimental optimism, America, in hoping that we all have a fantastic 2011.
If you’re working right now, then I hope you find yourself still working on 1/1/2012, and all of the days in-between. If you’re looking for work, I really hope this is the year that you find it – that you remember 2011 as the year that turned it all around. I think I can speak with confidence when I say that anyone I know that can have a hand in keeping the economy going, creating jobs, and getting us back on track, is going to continue working just as hard to make that happen this year as they were back in that dreaded year of yesteryear, 2010.
While not all of us had a particularly bad 2010, I know that the general sentiment about the year is that most people are happy to see it gone. I also tend to join in that point of view, if no reason other than I am hoping we see an even better 2011 for all of us.
For me, the trying years were 2004, 2005, and 2006, but again, looking back from where I sit today, there is truly no room for me to complain about those years. Good things still happened in those years, and I think even in the most trying of years for us, we can still find some good things. 2011, for me, is marking the year in which I stop reflecting back upon those trying years (other than to learn their lessons) and second-guessing what I could have done to change them, and instead, look forward to the milestones of the coming year.
2011 will see this missive turn 10 years old. How amazing is that? 2011 will mark the ever-lucky 13th year since I met my beautiful wife. 2011 marks the 23rd year that I will spend with some of my dearest friends. 2011 will mark the 26th year I am somebody’s older brother, the 6th year that someone will be calling me “Uncle” and the 4th year someone will be calling me “Nino”. That’s “Godfather” to you non-Spanish-speakers like me, and to people with Italian last names, it’s kind of a big deal.
While we all have to be mindful of our past, I think the lesson to take from the death of 2010, and to a lesser extent, from each New Year’s Day, is that this particular day really marks a time in which we need to turn our sights away from the past and look to the future. New Year’s Day marks a time to begin anew – to refresh our life-long goals and set an even stronger course than we pursued the year before. I hope that you will all join me in using today to do just that.
If you’re working right now, then I hope you find yourself still working on 1/1/2012, and all of the days in-between. If you’re looking for work, I really hope this is the year that you find it – that you remember 2011 as the year that turned it all around. I think I can speak with confidence when I say that anyone I know that can have a hand in keeping the economy going, creating jobs, and getting us back on track, is going to continue working just as hard to make that happen this year as they were back in that dreaded year of yesteryear, 2010.
While not all of us had a particularly bad 2010, I know that the general sentiment about the year is that most people are happy to see it gone. I also tend to join in that point of view, if no reason other than I am hoping we see an even better 2011 for all of us.
For me, the trying years were 2004, 2005, and 2006, but again, looking back from where I sit today, there is truly no room for me to complain about those years. Good things still happened in those years, and I think even in the most trying of years for us, we can still find some good things. 2011, for me, is marking the year in which I stop reflecting back upon those trying years (other than to learn their lessons) and second-guessing what I could have done to change them, and instead, look forward to the milestones of the coming year.
2011 will see this missive turn 10 years old. How amazing is that? 2011 will mark the ever-lucky 13th year since I met my beautiful wife. 2011 marks the 23rd year that I will spend with some of my dearest friends. 2011 will mark the 26th year I am somebody’s older brother, the 6th year that someone will be calling me “Uncle” and the 4th year someone will be calling me “Nino”. That’s “Godfather” to you non-Spanish-speakers like me, and to people with Italian last names, it’s kind of a big deal.
While we all have to be mindful of our past, I think the lesson to take from the death of 2010, and to a lesser extent, from each New Year’s Day, is that this particular day really marks a time in which we need to turn our sights away from the past and look to the future. New Year’s Day marks a time to begin anew – to refresh our life-long goals and set an even stronger course than we pursued the year before. I hope that you will all join me in using today to do just that.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Illegal Immigration & The DREAM Act
I admittedly have failed to comment properly on my feelings and position on the so-called DREAM Act and the reason why I am opposed to it. This has not been due to a lack of position, but, in fact, due to my inability to craft a piece that did my position justice.
In short, I feel that EVERY FOREIGN-BORN person should go through the SAME path to U.S. citizenship. Seems fair, doesn't it? If everyone follows the law, then everyone is on equal footing at the time they start the process. Should you get special consideration and get an easier path to citizenship because you have already been living here for many years, using our public education system and social services? The only scenario by which that could happen would be if you were violating U.S. Immigration law, so the answer to that question should be a resounding, "No!"
My position on this piece of legislation also stems from my view on illegal immigration, and my belief that you should receive punishment for breaking the law, not a reward, especially a reward of preferential treatment. Rather than rehash my own personal view on illegal immigration, I would like to provide for you the following excerpt from "Two Californias" by Victor Hanson.
This excerpt below is from Hanson's larger piece on his experiences while traveling through California's once-rich Central Valley, Hanson's home soil, commenting on the desolate wasteland of poverty and welfare-state conditions that the valley has now become due to overregulation and illegal immigration.
This piece holds a special personal significance to me because of my own family's tie in the first half of the 1900s to agriculture, not in the Central Valley, but right here, in Orange County, where four generations ago, my forbearers took the LEGAL path to citizenship:
Fresno’s California State University campus is embroiled in controversy over the student body president’s announcing that he is an illegal alien, with all the requisite protests in favor of the DREAM Act. I won’t comment on the legislation per se, but again only note the anomaly. I taught at CSUF for 21 years. I think it fair to say that the predominant theme of the Chicano and Latin American Studies program’s sizable curriculum was a fuzzy American culpability. By that I mean that students in those classes heard of the sins of America more often than its attractions. In my home town, Mexican flag decals on car windows are far more common than their American counterparts.
I note this because hundreds of students here illegally are now terrified of being deported to Mexico. I can understand that, given the chaos in Mexico and their own long residency in the United States. But here is what still confuses me: If one were to consider the classes that deal with Mexico at the university, or the visible displays of national chauvinism, then one might conclude that Mexico is a far more attractive and moral place than the United States.
So there is a surreal nature to these protests: something like, “Please do not send me back to the culture I nostalgically praise; please let me stay in the culture that I ignore or deprecate.” I think the DREAM Act protestors might have been far more successful in winning public opinion had they stopped blaming the U.S. for suggesting that they might have to leave at some point, and instead explained why, in fact, they want to stay. What is it about America that makes a youth of 21 go on a hunger strike or demonstrate to be allowed to remain in this country rather than return to the place of his birth?
I think I know the answer to this paradox. Missing entirely in the above description is the attitude of the host, which by any historical standard can only be termed “indifferent.” California does not care whether one broke the law to arrive here or continues to break it by staying. It asks nothing of the illegal immigrant — no proficiency in English, no acquaintance with American history and values, no proof of income, no record of education or skills.
It does provide all the public assistance that it can afford (and more that it borrows for), and apparently waives enforcement of most of California’s burdensome regulations and civic statutes that increasingly have plagued productive citizens to the point of driving them out.
How odd that we over-regulate those who are citizens and have capital to the point of banishing them from the state, but do not regulate those who are aliens and without capital to the point of encouraging millions more to follow in their footsteps. How odd — to paraphrase what Critias once said of ancient Sparta — that California is at once both the nation’s most unfree and most free state, the most repressed and the wildest.
I think Hanson makes some fantastically valid points here. While I understand that illegal immigration and the DREAM Act can be very emotional subjects for quite a large number of people living here in the United States, both citizen and non-citizen alike, I think that a good deal of the people who fall on my side of the fence on this issue are troubled mostly by two factors. This group of people's widespread inability to first admit, then hold themselves accountable for violating the law of the land in which they so desire to live, and secondly, what seems to be more of an allegiance to the place in which they do not want to live than to the place in which they do want to live.
When American citizens break the law, we pay fines or get to live in one of our many taxpayer-funded state or federal correctional institutions. Should it not be the case for the non-citizen who knowingly violated U.S. immigration law?
While it is not my intention to ruffle feathers, but my intention to get people on both sides of the argument to think rationally about this issue, I must ask the question. "If Mexico is so fantastic, why are you here in the United States? If you love Mexico so so very much, why did you not stay and try to fix it - try to fight to make your beloved homeland a better place, even if it is just in your neighborhood, or home town? Why do you fly the Mexican flag above the U.S. flag, yet make the choice to live in the country whose flag you fly below the flag of that nation that you chose to not live in anymore?"
These are not rhetorical questions, mind you. These are questions that many of the people that are being flagged as "racists" for opposing illegal immigration and the DREAM Act genuinely would like to have answered by the people on the opposite side of the argument.
Before you get on your soap box and start yelling out charges of elitism and racism, think on one thing - something that Hanson touches on in his article. If you are playing any game, any sport, in the world in which you are on a team, would you not want the person sitting or standing next to you to have an allegiance to your team above all other teams? Would you not want them playing their heart out just as much as you for your team and not have an underlying allegiance to the other team?
Now, consider, that you are not just playing a game, but you are ensuring the future of the greatest democracy to ever exist in the history of mankind - securing its future for your children, your loved ones, securing it for all the good that nation does in the world. Wouldn't you want the person standing next to you to have an allegiance above all others to your nation, and not some other nation? This is what America wants of her citizens, and I do not think it to be an unreasonable request.
If you watch a documentary on people taking the legal path to citizenship, you will see that there is a point in the immigration process where they are asked to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America above all other nations in the world, including the nation which they have left to come to America. You will see that the people making this pledge take that part of the process very seriously - that they labor on it and give it much thought - they struggle with it, but in most cases, they make that pledge. Most notably, you will see by their emotions, that their pledge is genuine.
The illegal immigrant has never had to make that pledge. They have never actually had to contemplate that choice between allegiance to their home country and ours. They get to straddle the fence. They get to live here while their true loyalty remains elsewhere. We are letting them skip a very important and noteworthy step in joining our team. I do not think it is wrong for Americans to want the people living in this country to not be allowed to skip that step.
We have a legal immigration process in place that has served this nation for quite some time. A legal immigration process that does not reward violation of that process, but in fact, deters violation. Many of us believe that our nation is best served by keeping things that way. That's not elitism, and that's not racism. That, my friends, is American Patriotism, and that, my friends, is what we want from those of you who make the choice to join our team...AMERICAN patriotism.
Not only are you incorrect in thinking that most of those who oppose illegal immigration and the DREAM Act do not want you to be able to join the team, but I believe you would find that most of us actually want you on the team. All we are asking is that you join the team according to the rule book - the same rule book that we are going to expect you to follow once you are a member of the team. You are asking us to believe that you are going to follow that rule book when you and yours have already broken its rules. Do you see how that might be of concern to us? Sadly, I don't think that you do.
Dennis Miller said it best when he commented, "We don't mind you joining the party, we just want you to sign the guest book so we know who's here." Again, it's not that Americans don't want you to join the team, we just want you to do it the right way, and we want you to be dedicated 100% to our team. I don't think that is too much to ask.
In short, I feel that EVERY FOREIGN-BORN person should go through the SAME path to U.S. citizenship. Seems fair, doesn't it? If everyone follows the law, then everyone is on equal footing at the time they start the process. Should you get special consideration and get an easier path to citizenship because you have already been living here for many years, using our public education system and social services? The only scenario by which that could happen would be if you were violating U.S. Immigration law, so the answer to that question should be a resounding, "No!"
My position on this piece of legislation also stems from my view on illegal immigration, and my belief that you should receive punishment for breaking the law, not a reward, especially a reward of preferential treatment. Rather than rehash my own personal view on illegal immigration, I would like to provide for you the following excerpt from "Two Californias" by Victor Hanson.
This excerpt below is from Hanson's larger piece on his experiences while traveling through California's once-rich Central Valley, Hanson's home soil, commenting on the desolate wasteland of poverty and welfare-state conditions that the valley has now become due to overregulation and illegal immigration.
This piece holds a special personal significance to me because of my own family's tie in the first half of the 1900s to agriculture, not in the Central Valley, but right here, in Orange County, where four generations ago, my forbearers took the LEGAL path to citizenship:
Fresno’s California State University campus is embroiled in controversy over the student body president’s announcing that he is an illegal alien, with all the requisite protests in favor of the DREAM Act. I won’t comment on the legislation per se, but again only note the anomaly. I taught at CSUF for 21 years. I think it fair to say that the predominant theme of the Chicano and Latin American Studies program’s sizable curriculum was a fuzzy American culpability. By that I mean that students in those classes heard of the sins of America more often than its attractions. In my home town, Mexican flag decals on car windows are far more common than their American counterparts.
I note this because hundreds of students here illegally are now terrified of being deported to Mexico. I can understand that, given the chaos in Mexico and their own long residency in the United States. But here is what still confuses me: If one were to consider the classes that deal with Mexico at the university, or the visible displays of national chauvinism, then one might conclude that Mexico is a far more attractive and moral place than the United States.
So there is a surreal nature to these protests: something like, “Please do not send me back to the culture I nostalgically praise; please let me stay in the culture that I ignore or deprecate.” I think the DREAM Act protestors might have been far more successful in winning public opinion had they stopped blaming the U.S. for suggesting that they might have to leave at some point, and instead explained why, in fact, they want to stay. What is it about America that makes a youth of 21 go on a hunger strike or demonstrate to be allowed to remain in this country rather than return to the place of his birth?
I think I know the answer to this paradox. Missing entirely in the above description is the attitude of the host, which by any historical standard can only be termed “indifferent.” California does not care whether one broke the law to arrive here or continues to break it by staying. It asks nothing of the illegal immigrant — no proficiency in English, no acquaintance with American history and values, no proof of income, no record of education or skills.
It does provide all the public assistance that it can afford (and more that it borrows for), and apparently waives enforcement of most of California’s burdensome regulations and civic statutes that increasingly have plagued productive citizens to the point of driving them out.
How odd that we over-regulate those who are citizens and have capital to the point of banishing them from the state, but do not regulate those who are aliens and without capital to the point of encouraging millions more to follow in their footsteps. How odd — to paraphrase what Critias once said of ancient Sparta — that California is at once both the nation’s most unfree and most free state, the most repressed and the wildest.
I think Hanson makes some fantastically valid points here. While I understand that illegal immigration and the DREAM Act can be very emotional subjects for quite a large number of people living here in the United States, both citizen and non-citizen alike, I think that a good deal of the people who fall on my side of the fence on this issue are troubled mostly by two factors. This group of people's widespread inability to first admit, then hold themselves accountable for violating the law of the land in which they so desire to live, and secondly, what seems to be more of an allegiance to the place in which they do not want to live than to the place in which they do want to live.
When American citizens break the law, we pay fines or get to live in one of our many taxpayer-funded state or federal correctional institutions. Should it not be the case for the non-citizen who knowingly violated U.S. immigration law?
While it is not my intention to ruffle feathers, but my intention to get people on both sides of the argument to think rationally about this issue, I must ask the question. "If Mexico is so fantastic, why are you here in the United States? If you love Mexico so so very much, why did you not stay and try to fix it - try to fight to make your beloved homeland a better place, even if it is just in your neighborhood, or home town? Why do you fly the Mexican flag above the U.S. flag, yet make the choice to live in the country whose flag you fly below the flag of that nation that you chose to not live in anymore?"
These are not rhetorical questions, mind you. These are questions that many of the people that are being flagged as "racists" for opposing illegal immigration and the DREAM Act genuinely would like to have answered by the people on the opposite side of the argument.
Before you get on your soap box and start yelling out charges of elitism and racism, think on one thing - something that Hanson touches on in his article. If you are playing any game, any sport, in the world in which you are on a team, would you not want the person sitting or standing next to you to have an allegiance to your team above all other teams? Would you not want them playing their heart out just as much as you for your team and not have an underlying allegiance to the other team?
Now, consider, that you are not just playing a game, but you are ensuring the future of the greatest democracy to ever exist in the history of mankind - securing its future for your children, your loved ones, securing it for all the good that nation does in the world. Wouldn't you want the person standing next to you to have an allegiance above all others to your nation, and not some other nation? This is what America wants of her citizens, and I do not think it to be an unreasonable request.
If you watch a documentary on people taking the legal path to citizenship, you will see that there is a point in the immigration process where they are asked to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America above all other nations in the world, including the nation which they have left to come to America. You will see that the people making this pledge take that part of the process very seriously - that they labor on it and give it much thought - they struggle with it, but in most cases, they make that pledge. Most notably, you will see by their emotions, that their pledge is genuine.
The illegal immigrant has never had to make that pledge. They have never actually had to contemplate that choice between allegiance to their home country and ours. They get to straddle the fence. They get to live here while their true loyalty remains elsewhere. We are letting them skip a very important and noteworthy step in joining our team. I do not think it is wrong for Americans to want the people living in this country to not be allowed to skip that step.
We have a legal immigration process in place that has served this nation for quite some time. A legal immigration process that does not reward violation of that process, but in fact, deters violation. Many of us believe that our nation is best served by keeping things that way. That's not elitism, and that's not racism. That, my friends, is American Patriotism, and that, my friends, is what we want from those of you who make the choice to join our team...AMERICAN patriotism.
Not only are you incorrect in thinking that most of those who oppose illegal immigration and the DREAM Act do not want you to be able to join the team, but I believe you would find that most of us actually want you on the team. All we are asking is that you join the team according to the rule book - the same rule book that we are going to expect you to follow once you are a member of the team. You are asking us to believe that you are going to follow that rule book when you and yours have already broken its rules. Do you see how that might be of concern to us? Sadly, I don't think that you do.
Dennis Miller said it best when he commented, "We don't mind you joining the party, we just want you to sign the guest book so we know who's here." Again, it's not that Americans don't want you to join the team, we just want you to do it the right way, and we want you to be dedicated 100% to our team. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Three Million-Dollar Questions...
Senior Business Writer for LifeInc. on Today, Allison Linn, recently reported on a study conducted by the RAND corporation, USC, and the University of Michigan in which middle-aged couples were asked the following three questions:
•If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease?
•If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get?
•Let’s say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years?
Couples in which both people answered the questions correctly had an average net worth of $1.7 million, while couples where neither could answer these questions correctly had an average net worth of $200,000.
So, when you are out there searching for your lifetime mate, make sure you have these questions handy!
In case you need some help, the answers are: 100, $400,000 and $242.
•If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease?
•If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get?
•Let’s say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years?
Couples in which both people answered the questions correctly had an average net worth of $1.7 million, while couples where neither could answer these questions correctly had an average net worth of $200,000.
So, when you are out there searching for your lifetime mate, make sure you have these questions handy!
In case you need some help, the answers are: 100, $400,000 and $242.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
An America Where We Watch A Man's Home Burn Over A $75 Tax Bill
You'd expect King George to let one of the colonists' homes burn over money owed to the crown in 1773, but a local American government letting a constituent's home burn over $75 in unpaid fire taxes in 2010?
I was truly at a loss for words when I read about this happening. Imagine the sight...in an America where since 9/11, we have elevated the firefighter up to a well-deserved position of heroism and the embodiment of all that is good with America, firefighters literally standing and watching a home burn over $75. A man lost his home, all of his possessions, and even worse, witnessed his three dogs and cat burn to death as his home went up in flames. Again, all over $75.
Gene Cranick, who lives in a rural area outside the city limits of South Fulton, Tennessee is required to pay $75 per year to be covered by the South Fulton Fire Department. While Gene had paid the $75 for the previous two years, he claims to have forgotten to pay it this year. So, when Gene's home caught fire and the South Fulton Fire Department arrived on scene, the "firefighters" literally refused to fight the fire that was engulfing his home. They laid a water line around a neighbor's home, who had paid the $75, to ensure that Cranick's fire did't spread, but as for Cranick, he was on his own.
I cannot think of a more un-American story that I have read in a long time, though I must say, America, my definition of you is rapidly changing because of stories like this.
I would like my America to have firefighters like the men and women who risked their lives on 9/11, like the men and women who risk their lives day in and day out in this country everyday. I do not want my America to have firefighters that make me think of Fahrenheit 451 and a government that would let your home burn to the ground, let your pets burn to death, all over $75...all over what you owe the government.
I'll spare you the tirade over America's changing landscape and how if we keep on this course, the government will one day tell us when we can go to the bathroom, but you can see what I am getting at here.
$75? Firemen standing around, watching a man's home burn to the ground and his animals being killed. Here? In my America? Over $75?
The only good part of the story is that Gene's son, Timothy, went down to the fire house to lodge a complaint and ended up punching Fire Chief David Wilds in the face. Sorry, Chief, you had that one coming. Let's hope the judge goes easy on Timothy and takes into consideration the special circumstances of the case.
I also take issue with what City Manager Jeff Vowell had to say about the situation: "I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do. It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
I am really hoping that City Manager Jeff Vowell lives outside city limits at one point and forgets to pay his $75 so we can see how "regrettable" he feels that situation ends up being.
I tried to send a comment to the city on their website, but it seems server traffic may be keeping the messages from getting through. Or, the city has grown tired of criticism and disabled certain methods of contacting them.
The message I wanted to send was: "I hope that you relish in the negative publicity and public outcry that your city and its local government have earned from the rest of America. The first question that popped into my head is whether or not your "fire" department would have acted to extinguish the fire had Mr. Cranick paid you in cash there on the scene. Had I been standing there, I'd have paid the $75 for him. To allow the destruction of Mr. Cranick's property and the deaths of his animals over $75 is absolutely ridiculous. Your city, it's local government and your policies are a wildly apt example of what is wrong with America today. You should all be very proud of yourselves. You embody everything that America should NOT be."
I still find this all so unbelievable and wrong.
I was truly at a loss for words when I read about this happening. Imagine the sight...in an America where since 9/11, we have elevated the firefighter up to a well-deserved position of heroism and the embodiment of all that is good with America, firefighters literally standing and watching a home burn over $75. A man lost his home, all of his possessions, and even worse, witnessed his three dogs and cat burn to death as his home went up in flames. Again, all over $75.
Gene Cranick, who lives in a rural area outside the city limits of South Fulton, Tennessee is required to pay $75 per year to be covered by the South Fulton Fire Department. While Gene had paid the $75 for the previous two years, he claims to have forgotten to pay it this year. So, when Gene's home caught fire and the South Fulton Fire Department arrived on scene, the "firefighters" literally refused to fight the fire that was engulfing his home. They laid a water line around a neighbor's home, who had paid the $75, to ensure that Cranick's fire did't spread, but as for Cranick, he was on his own.
I cannot think of a more un-American story that I have read in a long time, though I must say, America, my definition of you is rapidly changing because of stories like this.
I would like my America to have firefighters like the men and women who risked their lives on 9/11, like the men and women who risk their lives day in and day out in this country everyday. I do not want my America to have firefighters that make me think of Fahrenheit 451 and a government that would let your home burn to the ground, let your pets burn to death, all over $75...all over what you owe the government.
I'll spare you the tirade over America's changing landscape and how if we keep on this course, the government will one day tell us when we can go to the bathroom, but you can see what I am getting at here.
$75? Firemen standing around, watching a man's home burn to the ground and his animals being killed. Here? In my America? Over $75?
The only good part of the story is that Gene's son, Timothy, went down to the fire house to lodge a complaint and ended up punching Fire Chief David Wilds in the face. Sorry, Chief, you had that one coming. Let's hope the judge goes easy on Timothy and takes into consideration the special circumstances of the case.
I also take issue with what City Manager Jeff Vowell had to say about the situation: "I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do. It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
I am really hoping that City Manager Jeff Vowell lives outside city limits at one point and forgets to pay his $75 so we can see how "regrettable" he feels that situation ends up being.
I tried to send a comment to the city on their website, but it seems server traffic may be keeping the messages from getting through. Or, the city has grown tired of criticism and disabled certain methods of contacting them.
The message I wanted to send was: "I hope that you relish in the negative publicity and public outcry that your city and its local government have earned from the rest of America. The first question that popped into my head is whether or not your "fire" department would have acted to extinguish the fire had Mr. Cranick paid you in cash there on the scene. Had I been standing there, I'd have paid the $75 for him. To allow the destruction of Mr. Cranick's property and the deaths of his animals over $75 is absolutely ridiculous. Your city, it's local government and your policies are a wildly apt example of what is wrong with America today. You should all be very proud of yourselves. You embody everything that America should NOT be."
I still find this all so unbelievable and wrong.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Use Of Nazi Symbolism In Today's America...
Let me tell you a little bit about Germany's Nazi party and some of what they accomplished while in power.
Some of this is going to be difficult to hear, perhaps even difficult to comprehend, but I challenge anyone to prove to me what I am about to tell you as not being the complete and utter truth.
Upon entering the abandoned mine shafts that served as the final gold reserves for the Nazis, allied troops discovered wooden crates that contained millions of human teeth with gold fillings that had been pried from the corpses of concentration camp victims.
U-boat enlisted men towards the end of the war were wearing socks made from fabric that was strengthened with human hair shaved from the heads of concentration camp victims.
Much of what we know today regarding the effects of temperature shock on the human body was discovered by concentration camp doctors who experimented with freezing cold and scalding hot water tanks and human guinea pigs.
Early in the war, the German Nazi party called on Jewish families to surrender their more expensive possessions for the good of the party and the state, but when Nazi controllers felt the donated items were not of enough value, each corner house in Jewish neighborhoods was made an example of by having two males dragged from the house and shot in the street.
Nazi concentration camp doctors would inject prisoners with different chemicals to measure the human body's tolerance levels to these chemicals and learn how much of each chemical it took to kill a person. Even women and children were injected with lethal amounts of chemicals.
Jewish men in Poland were offered the opportunity to make a decision...whether they would want to watch their wife, or their teenage daughter, be gang-raped by SS soldiers, but they had to chose one.
During the liberation of France, any priests caught assisting the allies by German soldiers were executed upon their capture.
The Nazi regime symbolized so much of evil, of pain, of suffering...the Nazi regime symbolizes the very worst that man can do to his fellow man. That is why it turns my stomach when I see people in this country on both sides depicting our politicians as Hitler, or plastering swastikas all over their protest signs.
It is obvious through the use of Nazi symbolism in this country’s current political climate that most Americans truly do not understand the atrocities that are represented by this symbolism. We are better than this, America.
Some of this is going to be difficult to hear, perhaps even difficult to comprehend, but I challenge anyone to prove to me what I am about to tell you as not being the complete and utter truth.
Upon entering the abandoned mine shafts that served as the final gold reserves for the Nazis, allied troops discovered wooden crates that contained millions of human teeth with gold fillings that had been pried from the corpses of concentration camp victims.
U-boat enlisted men towards the end of the war were wearing socks made from fabric that was strengthened with human hair shaved from the heads of concentration camp victims.
Much of what we know today regarding the effects of temperature shock on the human body was discovered by concentration camp doctors who experimented with freezing cold and scalding hot water tanks and human guinea pigs.
Early in the war, the German Nazi party called on Jewish families to surrender their more expensive possessions for the good of the party and the state, but when Nazi controllers felt the donated items were not of enough value, each corner house in Jewish neighborhoods was made an example of by having two males dragged from the house and shot in the street.
Nazi concentration camp doctors would inject prisoners with different chemicals to measure the human body's tolerance levels to these chemicals and learn how much of each chemical it took to kill a person. Even women and children were injected with lethal amounts of chemicals.
Jewish men in Poland were offered the opportunity to make a decision...whether they would want to watch their wife, or their teenage daughter, be gang-raped by SS soldiers, but they had to chose one.
During the liberation of France, any priests caught assisting the allies by German soldiers were executed upon their capture.
The Nazi regime symbolized so much of evil, of pain, of suffering...the Nazi regime symbolizes the very worst that man can do to his fellow man. That is why it turns my stomach when I see people in this country on both sides depicting our politicians as Hitler, or plastering swastikas all over their protest signs.
It is obvious through the use of Nazi symbolism in this country’s current political climate that most Americans truly do not understand the atrocities that are represented by this symbolism. We are better than this, America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)