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.
Monday, January 24, 2011
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.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
There Goes Our President, Re-writing History Again...
Remember "Bush-isms"? It was when George The Great Satan Junior would say something and then we'd get to watch it played over and over again at nauseau and get to hear about how not smart he is be. Well, this morning, I have the pleasure of sharing an "Obama-ism" with you:
"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.
The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.
Granted, The Master and Commander was in a room full of Mexicans, so you can expect him to do some pandering - after all, even Barbara Boxer might be on the chopping block this November, so there's some real fear goin' on out there - but, to throw them into the list of people that were here before America is a prime example of this President's view that the hard-working, law-abiding, American taxpayer should always come second to whatever group he is pandering to at the time.
Now, let me add some further items to the conversation that I think of when I hear this quote. The British? Yes, they were here. Technically, that was us before the revolution, there chief, though obviously you do not consider yourself to be among the "descendants" of those British subjects that attained their independence in the Revolution, even when, really, regardless of when you got here, if you are a citizen, in a way, you are. Another prime example of the logic this President shows time and time again where he is much more concerned about being a citizen of the world than of this country. By the way, have you apologized to the Queen for the Revolution yet? Clearly, America was just as much at fault there as we were for winning World War II.
Also, if the Mexicans were Mexicans before Mexico even existed, isn't that some racial profiling right there? Anyone who is of Hispanic descent that was born in North America is a "Mexican" right, regardless of when the nation of Mexico came into existence and regardless of whether or not people were actually living within the borders of a country called Mexico? Is that why you think that every person who was born in Mexico also has a right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of whether or not they respect our laws and want to be a part of this nation, not just a foreign national living and working in America, but whose loyalty ultimately remains to their home country?
And lastly, "We all shared the same land." Yes, that is your vision, isn't it? Where we all share everything and nobody owns anything and everybody owns everything. So, in your fantasy land, did the British and the Indians share the land? Did America and the Indians share the land? Are we still sharing it with them today? What about the wars that we fought with Spain and Mexico? Were we sharing the land with them during the wars? Would you have not fought those wars and simply explained how we should share the land and not fight over it?
Yes, my brown little minions, go forth and tell the people in the barrio that the Democrats will share their land and its opportunities with you, regardless of whether or not you came her legally, for you see, it is all our land together, a shared land with free healthcare, education and a whole bunch of things that were once considered opportunities you worked for, yet today are somehow magically entitled civil rights. Citizen and non-citizen, taxpayer and non-taxpayer, all living together in harmony, everyone with an equal share, regardless of what laws you break, regardless of how much more you take out of America than put back in...
"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.
The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.
Granted, The Master and Commander was in a room full of Mexicans, so you can expect him to do some pandering - after all, even Barbara Boxer might be on the chopping block this November, so there's some real fear goin' on out there - but, to throw them into the list of people that were here before America is a prime example of this President's view that the hard-working, law-abiding, American taxpayer should always come second to whatever group he is pandering to at the time.
Now, let me add some further items to the conversation that I think of when I hear this quote. The British? Yes, they were here. Technically, that was us before the revolution, there chief, though obviously you do not consider yourself to be among the "descendants" of those British subjects that attained their independence in the Revolution, even when, really, regardless of when you got here, if you are a citizen, in a way, you are. Another prime example of the logic this President shows time and time again where he is much more concerned about being a citizen of the world than of this country. By the way, have you apologized to the Queen for the Revolution yet? Clearly, America was just as much at fault there as we were for winning World War II.
Also, if the Mexicans were Mexicans before Mexico even existed, isn't that some racial profiling right there? Anyone who is of Hispanic descent that was born in North America is a "Mexican" right, regardless of when the nation of Mexico came into existence and regardless of whether or not people were actually living within the borders of a country called Mexico? Is that why you think that every person who was born in Mexico also has a right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of whether or not they respect our laws and want to be a part of this nation, not just a foreign national living and working in America, but whose loyalty ultimately remains to their home country?
And lastly, "We all shared the same land." Yes, that is your vision, isn't it? Where we all share everything and nobody owns anything and everybody owns everything. So, in your fantasy land, did the British and the Indians share the land? Did America and the Indians share the land? Are we still sharing it with them today? What about the wars that we fought with Spain and Mexico? Were we sharing the land with them during the wars? Would you have not fought those wars and simply explained how we should share the land and not fight over it?
Yes, my brown little minions, go forth and tell the people in the barrio that the Democrats will share their land and its opportunities with you, regardless of whether or not you came her legally, for you see, it is all our land together, a shared land with free healthcare, education and a whole bunch of things that were once considered opportunities you worked for, yet today are somehow magically entitled civil rights. Citizen and non-citizen, taxpayer and non-taxpayer, all living together in harmony, everyone with an equal share, regardless of what laws you break, regardless of how much more you take out of America than put back in...
Monday, September 20, 2010
Hitler's Ho 229 Could Have Had Us All Speaking German By 1950...
I have always said that you go through school, and they teach you some of the facts, but they certainly do not teach you the whole story. When they taught us that we were the first to land on the moon, they definitely did not tell us that it was thanks to the Nazi V-2 rocket program and a team of SS scientists that we pardoned and gave asylum to after World War II. Here is another piece of technology that the mythical "they" never want us to know about. It is the precursor to our own Stealth Bomber, Stealth Fighter, and even Cold War-era flying wing experimental aircraft. It is the Nazi Ho 229 bomber. The following is from an email that has been circulating on the internet, sent to me by my good friend Captain Hooker:
"Keep in mind, this aircraft was built in the 1940's. It resembles our Stealth bombers of today. Had Hitler got these into production sooner, the world wouldn't be what it is today.
With its smooth and elegant lines, this could be a prototype for some future successor to the stealth bomber. But this flying wing was actually designed by the Nazis 30 years before the Americans successfully developed radar-invisible technology. Now an engineering team has reconstructed the Horten Ho 229 from blueprints, with startling results.
Blast from the past: The full-scale replica of the Ho 229 bomber was made with materials available in the 40s.
Futuristic: The stealth plane design was years ahead of its time. It was faster and more efficient than any other plane of the period and its stealth powers did work against radar. Experts are now convinced that given a little bit more time, the mass deployment of this aircraft could have changed the course of the war.
The plane could have helped Adolf Hitler win the war. First built and tested in the air in March 1944, it was designed with a greater range and speed than any plane previously built and was the first aircraft to use the stealth technology now deployed by the U.S. in its B-2 bombers. Thankfully Hitler's engineers only made three prototypes, tested by being dragged behind a glider, and were not able to build them on an industrial scale before the Allied forces invaded.
From Panzer tanks through to the V-2 rocket, it has long been recognized that Germany's technological expertise during the war was years ahead of the Allies.
But by 1943, Nazi high command feared that the war was beginning to turn against them, and were desperate to develop new weapons to help turn the tide.
Nazi bombers were suffering badly when faced with the speed and maneuverability of the Spitfire and other Allied fighters. Hitler was also desperate to develop a bomber with the range and capacity to reach the United States .
In 1943 Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering demanded that designers come up with a bomber that would meet his requirements, one that could carry 1,000 kg over 1,000km flying at 1,000km/h.
A full scale replica of the Ho 229 bomber made with materials available in the 1940s at preflight.
A wing section of the stealth bomber. The jet intakes were years ahead of their time. Two pilot brothers in their thirties, Reimar and Walter Horten, suggested a flying wing design they had been working on for years. They were convinced that with its drag and lack of wind resistance such a plane would meet Goering's requirements.
Construction on a prototype was begun in Goettingen in Germany in 1944.
The center pod was made from a welded steel tube, and was designed to be powered by a BMW 003 engine. The most important innovation was Reimar Horten's idea to coat it in a mix of charcoal dust and wood glue.
Vengeful: Inventors Reimar and Walter Horten were inspired to build the Ho 229 by the deaths of thousands of Luftwaffe pilots in the Battle of Britain.
The 142-foot wingspan bomber was submitted for approval in 1944, and it would have been able to fly from Berlin to NYC and back without refueling, thanks to the same blended wing design and six BMW 003A or eight Junker Jumo 004B turbojets. They thought the electromagnetic waves of radar would be absorbed, and in conjunction with the aircraft's sculpted surfaces the craft would be rendered almost invisible to radar detectors. The plane was covered in radar absorbent paint with a high graphite content, which has a similar chemical make-up to charcoal. This was the same method eventually used by the U.S. in its first stealth aircraft in the early 1980s, the F-117A Nighthawk.
After the war the Americans captured the prototype Ho 229s along with the blueprints and used some of their technological advances to aid their own designs. But experts always doubted claims that the Horten could actually function as a stealth aircraft.
Now using the blueprints and the only remaining prototype craft, Northrop-Grumman (the defense firm behind the B-2) built a full-size replica of a Horten Ho 229.
Luckily for Britain, the Horten flying wing fighter-bomber never got much further than the blueprint stage above.
Thanks to the use of wood and carbon, jet engines integrated into the fuselage, and its blended surfaces, the plane could have been in London eight minutes after the radar system detected it. It took them 2,500 man-hours and $250,000 to construct, and although their replica cannot fly, it was radar-tested by placing it on a 50 ft articulating pole and exposing it to electromagnetic waves. The team demonstrated that although the aircraft is not completely invisible to the type of radar used in the war, it would have been stealthy enough and fast enough to ensure that it could reach London before Spitfires could be scrambled to intercept it.
If the Germans had had time to develop this aircraft, it could well have had an impact, says Peter Murton, aviation expert from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, in Cambridgeshire.
In theory the flying wing was a very efficient aircraft design, which minimized drag. It is one of the reasons that it could reach very high speeds in dive and glide modes and had such an incredibly long range.
The research was filmed for a forthcoming documentary on the National Geographic Channel."
"Keep in mind, this aircraft was built in the 1940's. It resembles our Stealth bombers of today. Had Hitler got these into production sooner, the world wouldn't be what it is today.
With its smooth and elegant lines, this could be a prototype for some future successor to the stealth bomber. But this flying wing was actually designed by the Nazis 30 years before the Americans successfully developed radar-invisible technology. Now an engineering team has reconstructed the Horten Ho 229 from blueprints, with startling results.
Blast from the past: The full-scale replica of the Ho 229 bomber was made with materials available in the 40s.
Futuristic: The stealth plane design was years ahead of its time. It was faster and more efficient than any other plane of the period and its stealth powers did work against radar. Experts are now convinced that given a little bit more time, the mass deployment of this aircraft could have changed the course of the war.
The plane could have helped Adolf Hitler win the war. First built and tested in the air in March 1944, it was designed with a greater range and speed than any plane previously built and was the first aircraft to use the stealth technology now deployed by the U.S. in its B-2 bombers. Thankfully Hitler's engineers only made three prototypes, tested by being dragged behind a glider, and were not able to build them on an industrial scale before the Allied forces invaded.
From Panzer tanks through to the V-2 rocket, it has long been recognized that Germany's technological expertise during the war was years ahead of the Allies.
But by 1943, Nazi high command feared that the war was beginning to turn against them, and were desperate to develop new weapons to help turn the tide.
Nazi bombers were suffering badly when faced with the speed and maneuverability of the Spitfire and other Allied fighters. Hitler was also desperate to develop a bomber with the range and capacity to reach the United States .
In 1943 Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering demanded that designers come up with a bomber that would meet his requirements, one that could carry 1,000 kg over 1,000km flying at 1,000km/h.
A full scale replica of the Ho 229 bomber made with materials available in the 1940s at preflight.
A wing section of the stealth bomber. The jet intakes were years ahead of their time. Two pilot brothers in their thirties, Reimar and Walter Horten, suggested a flying wing design they had been working on for years. They were convinced that with its drag and lack of wind resistance such a plane would meet Goering's requirements.
Construction on a prototype was begun in Goettingen in Germany in 1944.
The center pod was made from a welded steel tube, and was designed to be powered by a BMW 003 engine. The most important innovation was Reimar Horten's idea to coat it in a mix of charcoal dust and wood glue.
Vengeful: Inventors Reimar and Walter Horten were inspired to build the Ho 229 by the deaths of thousands of Luftwaffe pilots in the Battle of Britain.
The 142-foot wingspan bomber was submitted for approval in 1944, and it would have been able to fly from Berlin to NYC and back without refueling, thanks to the same blended wing design and six BMW 003A or eight Junker Jumo 004B turbojets. They thought the electromagnetic waves of radar would be absorbed, and in conjunction with the aircraft's sculpted surfaces the craft would be rendered almost invisible to radar detectors. The plane was covered in radar absorbent paint with a high graphite content, which has a similar chemical make-up to charcoal. This was the same method eventually used by the U.S. in its first stealth aircraft in the early 1980s, the F-117A Nighthawk.
After the war the Americans captured the prototype Ho 229s along with the blueprints and used some of their technological advances to aid their own designs. But experts always doubted claims that the Horten could actually function as a stealth aircraft.
Now using the blueprints and the only remaining prototype craft, Northrop-Grumman (the defense firm behind the B-2) built a full-size replica of a Horten Ho 229.
Luckily for Britain, the Horten flying wing fighter-bomber never got much further than the blueprint stage above.
Thanks to the use of wood and carbon, jet engines integrated into the fuselage, and its blended surfaces, the plane could have been in London eight minutes after the radar system detected it. It took them 2,500 man-hours and $250,000 to construct, and although their replica cannot fly, it was radar-tested by placing it on a 50 ft articulating pole and exposing it to electromagnetic waves. The team demonstrated that although the aircraft is not completely invisible to the type of radar used in the war, it would have been stealthy enough and fast enough to ensure that it could reach London before Spitfires could be scrambled to intercept it.
If the Germans had had time to develop this aircraft, it could well have had an impact, says Peter Murton, aviation expert from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, in Cambridgeshire.
In theory the flying wing was a very efficient aircraft design, which minimized drag. It is one of the reasons that it could reach very high speeds in dive and glide modes and had such an incredibly long range.
The research was filmed for a forthcoming documentary on the National Geographic Channel."
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Much Bigger Than A Single Report...
At the request of the Master and Commander, the Secretary of State has filed a report with the United Nations, stating that his administration is meeting the mandates of the UN's Human Rights Council through efforts that include filing a lawsuit to stop the state of Arizona from enforcing a law that was passed by its elected officials.
Like a number of my fellow Americans, I find it very disturbing that the Obama Administration is reporting one of our state governments to those jokers at the UN as a violator of human rights because of its enforcement of the nation's immigration laws within its borders. This is further proof that the Master and Commander is more concerned with what the world thinks, than what America's citizens think.
In explaining what is wrong with this filing by the Obama Administration, we must start by looking at what is wrong with the United Nations. While this organization does a lot of good in the world through the funding and resources of the world's industrialized nations, it also turns a blind eye to a hell of a lot of really bad things that go on in the world.
This misguided organization will put some of the world's worst human rights violators on its Human Rights Council in the interest of playing fair and making sure that everyone has a turn. The UN deploys peace-keeping forces that have orders to stand by and watch while horrible atrocities occur. The organization also gives an equal voice to some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, then turns around and views itself as righteous.
"Everyone gets to ride the merry-go-round at school today because it is only fair!" the UN exclaims. Rational Americans reply with disgust, "Even if little Johnny Iran is killing government protesters in the streets, he still gets a turn?!" The UN's answer..."Yes, of course."
Next, we must look at the United States, our long-standing engagement policy with the UN, and how the Obama Administration is changing that policy for the worse. The U.S. has a very strong track record of participation in the UN when it comes to putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to do good out there in the world, even at times, trying to steer this misguided organization to do the right thing.
We have also, however, had a very strong track record of not participating in a number of the organization's ridiculous propaganda programs, and most importantly, worked hard to ensure that the U.S. does not end up in a submissive position with the UN, something that has long been viewed as detrimental to our security.
To summarize, the United States has had a long-standing policy of involvement in the UN programs that actually make a difference in the world, yet at the same time, has shunned involvement in the organization's misguided propaganda programs that put giving all nations an equal voice above the importance of human rights and security.
All of that, my friends, like so many other things in our lives, is changing under the rule of the Master and Commander. Say what you want to about the Bush Administration, but one thing you cannot say is that at any point did that group of people put what the world thought of us before the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States of America.
You have to reserve that comment for the current administration. It started with a whirlwind tour of the world in the early days of his presidency with the Master and Commander going nation to nation, bowing in submission before world leaders, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and apologizing for such things as winning World War II and fighting the War on Terror. Today, it continues with this President bowing to the will of the world, making his own country and its people a secondary priority to world opinion by participating in the latest UN propaganda program.
This participation in UN propaganda is most recently apparent with the filing of a Universal Periodic Review report by the Obama Administration. Implemented in 2006 by the UN, this report that would have been viewed as a "suggestion" by the Bush administration was obviously viewed as a "requirement" by the one-worlders in Washington.
The UN "requires" every member nation to submit a report every four years on what they have done to "improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations." In addition to filing this report, which breaks from our long-standing policy of not buying into the UN's propaganda programs, the Master and Commander has reported that one of the things his administration has done to comply with the mandates of the UN Human Rights Council is file a lawsuit against the U.S. State of Arizona, seeking to stop the state from enforcing the recently-passed SB 1070 bill, allowing law enforcement officials to question the citizenship and immigration status of people within the state who are suspect of breaking the law.
The UN's Universal Periodic Review and its report are a prime example of a propaganda program. Each nation provides its own report and when looking at the UN's track record of human rights enforcement, it can clearly be seen that this program is nothing more than yet another propaganda piece in the UN's arsenal to win positive public opinion for itself around the world. What do you think China's communist party leaders are putting in their report? What do you think Iran is putting in its report? And even if Iran did own up and report "we're working on not killing people who protest the government anymore", do you think the UN is actually going to do something about it? Their track record definitely points to no.
Throughout the history of the UN, the U.S. has been a strong part of the organization when lives were on the line, but did not buy into their propaganda programs for a very good reason...the strength and security of our nation. The Master and Commander, obviously doesn't agree.
Not only is the current U.S. administration readily buying into the UN's Universal Periodic Review propaganda program, it is apparent that the administration is also willing to sacrifice the will, security, and welfare of its citizens in order to win positive world opinion from a world stage that includes the supporters of our enemies, including the United Nations.
Like a number of my fellow Americans, I find it very disturbing that the Obama Administration is reporting one of our state governments to those jokers at the UN as a violator of human rights because of its enforcement of the nation's immigration laws within its borders. This is further proof that the Master and Commander is more concerned with what the world thinks, than what America's citizens think.
In explaining what is wrong with this filing by the Obama Administration, we must start by looking at what is wrong with the United Nations. While this organization does a lot of good in the world through the funding and resources of the world's industrialized nations, it also turns a blind eye to a hell of a lot of really bad things that go on in the world.
This misguided organization will put some of the world's worst human rights violators on its Human Rights Council in the interest of playing fair and making sure that everyone has a turn. The UN deploys peace-keeping forces that have orders to stand by and watch while horrible atrocities occur. The organization also gives an equal voice to some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, then turns around and views itself as righteous.
"Everyone gets to ride the merry-go-round at school today because it is only fair!" the UN exclaims. Rational Americans reply with disgust, "Even if little Johnny Iran is killing government protesters in the streets, he still gets a turn?!" The UN's answer..."Yes, of course."
Next, we must look at the United States, our long-standing engagement policy with the UN, and how the Obama Administration is changing that policy for the worse. The U.S. has a very strong track record of participation in the UN when it comes to putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to do good out there in the world, even at times, trying to steer this misguided organization to do the right thing.
We have also, however, had a very strong track record of not participating in a number of the organization's ridiculous propaganda programs, and most importantly, worked hard to ensure that the U.S. does not end up in a submissive position with the UN, something that has long been viewed as detrimental to our security.
To summarize, the United States has had a long-standing policy of involvement in the UN programs that actually make a difference in the world, yet at the same time, has shunned involvement in the organization's misguided propaganda programs that put giving all nations an equal voice above the importance of human rights and security.
All of that, my friends, like so many other things in our lives, is changing under the rule of the Master and Commander. Say what you want to about the Bush Administration, but one thing you cannot say is that at any point did that group of people put what the world thought of us before the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States of America.
You have to reserve that comment for the current administration. It started with a whirlwind tour of the world in the early days of his presidency with the Master and Commander going nation to nation, bowing in submission before world leaders, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and apologizing for such things as winning World War II and fighting the War on Terror. Today, it continues with this President bowing to the will of the world, making his own country and its people a secondary priority to world opinion by participating in the latest UN propaganda program.
This participation in UN propaganda is most recently apparent with the filing of a Universal Periodic Review report by the Obama Administration. Implemented in 2006 by the UN, this report that would have been viewed as a "suggestion" by the Bush administration was obviously viewed as a "requirement" by the one-worlders in Washington.
The UN "requires" every member nation to submit a report every four years on what they have done to "improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations." In addition to filing this report, which breaks from our long-standing policy of not buying into the UN's propaganda programs, the Master and Commander has reported that one of the things his administration has done to comply with the mandates of the UN Human Rights Council is file a lawsuit against the U.S. State of Arizona, seeking to stop the state from enforcing the recently-passed SB 1070 bill, allowing law enforcement officials to question the citizenship and immigration status of people within the state who are suspect of breaking the law.
The UN's Universal Periodic Review and its report are a prime example of a propaganda program. Each nation provides its own report and when looking at the UN's track record of human rights enforcement, it can clearly be seen that this program is nothing more than yet another propaganda piece in the UN's arsenal to win positive public opinion for itself around the world. What do you think China's communist party leaders are putting in their report? What do you think Iran is putting in its report? And even if Iran did own up and report "we're working on not killing people who protest the government anymore", do you think the UN is actually going to do something about it? Their track record definitely points to no.
Throughout the history of the UN, the U.S. has been a strong part of the organization when lives were on the line, but did not buy into their propaganda programs for a very good reason...the strength and security of our nation. The Master and Commander, obviously doesn't agree.
Not only is the current U.S. administration readily buying into the UN's Universal Periodic Review propaganda program, it is apparent that the administration is also willing to sacrifice the will, security, and welfare of its citizens in order to win positive world opinion from a world stage that includes the supporters of our enemies, including the United Nations.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Why I Oppose The Mosque Near Ground Zero
I must admit that I agree more with the people who do not want the Muslim Community Center and Mosque built near Ground Zero than those who do. I do see Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point about being able to build what you want on the land that you own, and I do see the Master and Commander's view on religious freedom in America and the message it might send, though as I said yesterday, I highly disagree with his invocation of the Founding Fathers to make his point, and more importantly, disagree with his position on the issue.
But, do you know what else I see? I see why if your loved one was killed on 9/11/01, you might not want to have to walk by a Muslim Community Center and Mosque with a questionable background on the way to the "hallowed ground" of the World Trade Center to visit the 9/11 memorial, or just to spend some time in the general area that you know your loved one spent the last few minutes of their life.
Do some research, and you will find that there were, in fact, a number of Muslims that died as victims of the attacks, but even the highest most trustworthy estimates put that number at well under 100 of the almost 3,000 victims that perished that day. A much larger number of the victims were believers in Christ-based faiths and Judaism. While the conspiracy theorists, far-leaning thinkers, and honestly, U.S.-haters, do not want us classifying them as such, the 19 men that caused 9/11 considered themselves to be Muslim. Regardless of the merits and beliefs of Islam and how the religious beliefs of most Muslims (especially those here in the U.S.) greatly differ in belief from what was carried out on 9/11, all the evidence seems to point to the fact that these 19 guys considered themselves to be Muslim and considered themselves to be waging a holy war against America and its Christians and Jews. All that being said, you really can see how the families of the victims and a large number of Americans might not want that Muslim Community Center and Mosque built right there, just a couple blocks from Ground Zero. I tend to find myself agreeing with this point.
What I would like to know more about, however, in light of this debate that I am hearing, is the background and financing trail of this group that wants to build this Muslim Community Center and Mosque right there next to Ground Zero. So, show me that this is a 100% completely upstanding group of Muslims who do not believe in violence, and do not believe that the September 11th attacks were something that we had coming, and maybe you will sway me. It just seems right now, that the jury is still out on that.
Do they have ties to terrorist groups and does their money have ties to terrorist groups? It seems no one is able to give us a straight answer on that, including the people that want to build the mosque. The people who want this mosque most definietly do not seem to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that absolutely none of their money and support comes from extremist groups with an agenda. I do see that as a huge problem and a major part of this story, and my decision, which as I said, leans more towards the fact that this mosque should not be built there.
Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, they own the land and should be able to build what they want to on it by the letter of the law, and yes, Mr. Master and Commander, in that perfect little world that seems to only exist in your mind, we should live by the letter of the law in regards to religious freedom and what that means in America today, however, there are times when you need to look at things subjectively, regardless of what the laws say on paper. Isn't that what you believe about illegal immigration, Senor Obamos?
So, for now, I oppose the building of this mosque that close to Ground Zero. I understand the New York City Mayor's position, but disagree with it. I understand the President of The United States of America's position, but disagree with it, and will go as far as to say that I think he is speaking prematurely and has made a mistake that will cost him and his party some support from the American middle.
I understand what the separation is between the average everyday Muslim and these fanatical extremists, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there are not extremist Muslims with agendas still living and working in this country. And let's not forget what a small group of dedicated, like-minded people out to kill as many Americans as they can are capable of doing.
But, do you know what else I see? I see why if your loved one was killed on 9/11/01, you might not want to have to walk by a Muslim Community Center and Mosque with a questionable background on the way to the "hallowed ground" of the World Trade Center to visit the 9/11 memorial, or just to spend some time in the general area that you know your loved one spent the last few minutes of their life.
Do some research, and you will find that there were, in fact, a number of Muslims that died as victims of the attacks, but even the highest most trustworthy estimates put that number at well under 100 of the almost 3,000 victims that perished that day. A much larger number of the victims were believers in Christ-based faiths and Judaism. While the conspiracy theorists, far-leaning thinkers, and honestly, U.S.-haters, do not want us classifying them as such, the 19 men that caused 9/11 considered themselves to be Muslim. Regardless of the merits and beliefs of Islam and how the religious beliefs of most Muslims (especially those here in the U.S.) greatly differ in belief from what was carried out on 9/11, all the evidence seems to point to the fact that these 19 guys considered themselves to be Muslim and considered themselves to be waging a holy war against America and its Christians and Jews. All that being said, you really can see how the families of the victims and a large number of Americans might not want that Muslim Community Center and Mosque built right there, just a couple blocks from Ground Zero. I tend to find myself agreeing with this point.
What I would like to know more about, however, in light of this debate that I am hearing, is the background and financing trail of this group that wants to build this Muslim Community Center and Mosque right there next to Ground Zero. So, show me that this is a 100% completely upstanding group of Muslims who do not believe in violence, and do not believe that the September 11th attacks were something that we had coming, and maybe you will sway me. It just seems right now, that the jury is still out on that.
Do they have ties to terrorist groups and does their money have ties to terrorist groups? It seems no one is able to give us a straight answer on that, including the people that want to build the mosque. The people who want this mosque most definietly do not seem to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that absolutely none of their money and support comes from extremist groups with an agenda. I do see that as a huge problem and a major part of this story, and my decision, which as I said, leans more towards the fact that this mosque should not be built there.
Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, they own the land and should be able to build what they want to on it by the letter of the law, and yes, Mr. Master and Commander, in that perfect little world that seems to only exist in your mind, we should live by the letter of the law in regards to religious freedom and what that means in America today, however, there are times when you need to look at things subjectively, regardless of what the laws say on paper. Isn't that what you believe about illegal immigration, Senor Obamos?
So, for now, I oppose the building of this mosque that close to Ground Zero. I understand the New York City Mayor's position, but disagree with it. I understand the President of The United States of America's position, but disagree with it, and will go as far as to say that I think he is speaking prematurely and has made a mistake that will cost him and his party some support from the American middle.
I understand what the separation is between the average everyday Muslim and these fanatical extremists, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there are not extremist Muslims with agendas still living and working in this country. And let's not forget what a small group of dedicated, like-minded people out to kill as many Americans as they can are capable of doing.
Monday, August 16, 2010
"The writ of our founders must endure"
When speaking recently on the proposed Muslim Community Center and Mosque to be built near Ground Zero, The Master and Commander commented that "The writ of our founders must endure", referring, of course to, as he said, "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable".
First off, know that I don't want to go back in time and change anything - I am not saying that this country was founded incorrectly, that we need to fix it (though it would be nice to go back in time and have an America that was always free of slavery), but I do want us to think about something when we think of the Founding Fathers, and most definitely when we invoke their intentions with our fine nation during its initial creation in the context of furthering our political views today (I'm talking to you, Master and Commander).
Think along the lines of me not wanting to go back and change too many things because we will not end up with the same nation that we have today. Sure, there is room for improvement over history, but who knows what you'll end up with if you got back and start tampering with things.
That being said, however, can we all please remember that this nation was founded by a group of white, Christ-based faith believing, mostly slave-owning, straight (definitely in the closet if not) men, who, while progressive for their time in terms of their thinking on government, established a nation that did not allow women the right to vote or own land and allowed for a person to be enslaved in permanent bondage and servitude.
I personally am sick and tired of hearing how it was the intention of this group of men that all men and women of all races (literally every human being on the planet) should be equal in all regards, and should all have equal rights including a civil right to water, food, shelter and public services. I am not saying that I don't believe in this, and I am not saying that I do not want this nation to have those principles today, but what I am saying is let's not go back and revise history in our minds to think that the Founding Fathers, the guys who were at the Continental Congress, fought in the Revolution, and established the framework for the United States of America, believed in these same principles, because quite clearly, they did not.
If you go back and read what most of the founders of the United States of America were writing at the time, you will most definitely see that it was not their intention for non-Christ-based faiths, women voters, women land owners, and people of color to have an equal place in the country as them. White, Christ-fearing land owner, you're in and here's your ballot - all others, some other, lesser role of servitude, and don't bother coming to the polls on election day.
Again, let's stick to our values and what we know to be right, but can we all please stop portraying the Founding Fathers as saints, because quite frankly, they were far from it.
First off, know that I don't want to go back in time and change anything - I am not saying that this country was founded incorrectly, that we need to fix it (though it would be nice to go back in time and have an America that was always free of slavery), but I do want us to think about something when we think of the Founding Fathers, and most definitely when we invoke their intentions with our fine nation during its initial creation in the context of furthering our political views today (I'm talking to you, Master and Commander).
Think along the lines of me not wanting to go back and change too many things because we will not end up with the same nation that we have today. Sure, there is room for improvement over history, but who knows what you'll end up with if you got back and start tampering with things.
That being said, however, can we all please remember that this nation was founded by a group of white, Christ-based faith believing, mostly slave-owning, straight (definitely in the closet if not) men, who, while progressive for their time in terms of their thinking on government, established a nation that did not allow women the right to vote or own land and allowed for a person to be enslaved in permanent bondage and servitude.
I personally am sick and tired of hearing how it was the intention of this group of men that all men and women of all races (literally every human being on the planet) should be equal in all regards, and should all have equal rights including a civil right to water, food, shelter and public services. I am not saying that I don't believe in this, and I am not saying that I do not want this nation to have those principles today, but what I am saying is let's not go back and revise history in our minds to think that the Founding Fathers, the guys who were at the Continental Congress, fought in the Revolution, and established the framework for the United States of America, believed in these same principles, because quite clearly, they did not.
If you go back and read what most of the founders of the United States of America were writing at the time, you will most definitely see that it was not their intention for non-Christ-based faiths, women voters, women land owners, and people of color to have an equal place in the country as them. White, Christ-fearing land owner, you're in and here's your ballot - all others, some other, lesser role of servitude, and don't bother coming to the polls on election day.
Again, let's stick to our values and what we know to be right, but can we all please stop portraying the Founding Fathers as saints, because quite frankly, they were far from it.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Charlie Brown's B-17
Look carefully at the B-17 and note how shot up it is - one engine dead, tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose shot up. It was ready to fall out of the sky (this is a painting done by an artist from the description of both pilots many years later). Then realize that there is a German ME-109 fighter flying next to it. Now read the story below. I think you'll be surprised...
Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England. His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.
After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he "had never seen a plane in such a bad state". The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.
Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England. He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe. When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remaining members of his crew told their commanding officers all about the German pilot at their mission debriefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.
More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz Stigler was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.
They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.
When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, "I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute."
Both Brown and Stigler died in 2008.
While there are many hoaxes and false tales circulating in email and on the web, this story is true: http://www.snopes.com/military/charliebrown.asp
Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England. His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.
After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he "had never seen a plane in such a bad state". The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.
Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England. He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe. When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remaining members of his crew told their commanding officers all about the German pilot at their mission debriefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.
More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz Stigler was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.
They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.
When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, "I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute."
Both Brown and Stigler died in 2008.
While there are many hoaxes and false tales circulating in email and on the web, this story is true: http://www.snopes.com/military/charliebrown.asp
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Americans Owe Less...
You have no doubt heard by now, or perhaps have experienced first hand, that credit is a lot harder to come by than it was just a couple years ago. This may, in fact, not be such a bad thing for American consumers, forcing them to live within their means and drive down debt balances.
In March 2009, outstanding non-mortgage debt in the U.S. was $2.54 Trillion. By March 2010, that number had dropped to $2.45 Trillion. That's just about $9 Billion, but it is a good start in the right direction.
There have now been 18 straight months that have seen the level of revolving debt drop, with $935 Billion in March 2009, down to $853 Billion in March 2010.
Also, there are 16% less Americans that are 90 days behind or more on their credit cards today than a year ago, and 20% less that are 60 days behind or more on a car loan.
In March 2009, outstanding non-mortgage debt in the U.S. was $2.54 Trillion. By March 2010, that number had dropped to $2.45 Trillion. That's just about $9 Billion, but it is a good start in the right direction.
There have now been 18 straight months that have seen the level of revolving debt drop, with $935 Billion in March 2009, down to $853 Billion in March 2010.
Also, there are 16% less Americans that are 90 days behind or more on their credit cards today than a year ago, and 20% less that are 60 days behind or more on a car loan.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Can We Talk About Spending Cuts, Please?...
We are going to be hearing some fierce debate in the coming weeks, and perhaps months, about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. While I do see this as something that we should be debating, the fact remains that the expiration of these tax cuts, as they will be allowed to expire by The Master and Commander, will only affect the top three percent of households in the country. The problem with the equation, however, is that these are the three percent of households that run the small businesses that create the jobs that we need so badly right now. I am hearing from the Master and Commander's Money Manager that they are now, after record-setting spending and borrowing, concerned about the growing national debt, and believe that allowing these tax cuts on people making more than $250,000 a year to expire will help bring down the deficit. Perhaps it will, but I also believe that the expiration of these tax cuts may have an effect on job creation by enterpreneurs. There will be a change in their bottom line and that change could result in them becoming wary of creating new jobs. Unlike the federal government, most people spend less when their income is reduced.
While all of this debate about the tax cuts is needed, I would very much like to see our government leaders, especially those on a particular side of the aisle, talking more about spending cuts. Spending cuts? In the middle of the worst economic crisis in history, with less and less money coming in, you want us to spend less? Now, that's just crazy talk, stupid constituent! There are so, so many ways in which our local, state, and federal governments can cut down on their spending, much in the same way that they have all seen the rest of America do during this crisis. We are not holding the federal government and this administration to the spending cuts that we should be seeing.
For a great example of government waste, I recently read a story about an Orange Country resident who was issued and received by mail a bill from the U.S. IRS for 1-cent. Now, of course, this is a drop in the well, nothing compared to other spending, etc. etc., but it is a good concrete example of somewhere we could start - proof positive that there are places that we could cut wasteful spending - most likely proof positive that if we are seeing waste like this, there is also waste elsewhere that we could cut.
So, as we all get caught up in this debate on the tax cuts, let's watch for the slight of hand and these politicians try to take our eyes away from where we should be looking - forcing them to spend less and save more, just like the rest of us are doing.
While all of this debate about the tax cuts is needed, I would very much like to see our government leaders, especially those on a particular side of the aisle, talking more about spending cuts. Spending cuts? In the middle of the worst economic crisis in history, with less and less money coming in, you want us to spend less? Now, that's just crazy talk, stupid constituent! There are so, so many ways in which our local, state, and federal governments can cut down on their spending, much in the same way that they have all seen the rest of America do during this crisis. We are not holding the federal government and this administration to the spending cuts that we should be seeing.
For a great example of government waste, I recently read a story about an Orange Country resident who was issued and received by mail a bill from the U.S. IRS for 1-cent. Now, of course, this is a drop in the well, nothing compared to other spending, etc. etc., but it is a good concrete example of somewhere we could start - proof positive that there are places that we could cut wasteful spending - most likely proof positive that if we are seeing waste like this, there is also waste elsewhere that we could cut.
So, as we all get caught up in this debate on the tax cuts, let's watch for the slight of hand and these politicians try to take our eyes away from where we should be looking - forcing them to spend less and save more, just like the rest of us are doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)