The incoherent ramblings of a common sense king

The Long, Long Layoff

2010-02-18T06:27:00.000-08:00

As is abundantly clear, I have not posted in some time. I took some time to start a local online newspaper, which turned out to be far more time consuming than i could have ever imagined. This column will be started again shortly.

The Origins of Modern Christianity (or, Why We Celebrate Easter).

2009-10-07T08:31:00.000-07:00

The impact of many historical figures often grows substantially in hindsight, and the example of Constantine is ample evidence of this. Very few figures have had as great an impact on Christianity, and to be more specific, Catholicism. In fact, with regards to the Catholic religion specifically, it can be argued that the many impacts he had on ancient, and by extention modern, beliefs, have actually been more than those originating with Jesus himself.

The word “Catholic” literally means “universal”, and this was Constantine’s goal as Roman emperor; to unite his vast empire. At the time of his becoming emperor, the empire was divided among numerous sects; followers of the Egyptian god Isis; Christians who, despite decrees to the contrary, were often persecuted; and Jews. There is sufficient evidence that, although he would become known for his tolerance, Constantine had, from a young age, a hatred of all thing Jewish, and this contributed to some of the decisions he would make. For example, despite common belief he was a lifelong Christian, he was a devout follower of the sun god, and late in life, he ordered coins minted with his face on one side, and the on the other a depiction of his “companion, the unconquered Sol (sun)." In honor of the sun god, and arguably to anguish the Jewish population, he selected Sunday as the day of worship for this god, severely impacting the Jewish Sabbath.

Although some changes had already been made, the steps Constantine took to unify both pagan and Christian factions furthered the alienation of the Jews, and moved Christianity a good distance from the actual teachings of Jesus. Since there were factions forming in the Christian realm, he called to order the Council of Nicaea, which openly included bishops and monks from all ends of the empire. It was here that the trinity doctrine, despite vehement protests by a select few of the attendees, was adopted. Nowhere in the Gospels or in any account of Jesus teachings is this found, and there is no indication his close followers believed in the concept of three gods being one; it was however, very common in pagan beliefs. Additionally, the Passover celebration, which was lingering in Christianity, but a steadfast tenet of Judaism, became Easter. Endorsing this change, Constantine announced: "It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast [Easter] we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul . . . Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1979, second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525). Considering that Easter has nothing to do with Christianity, one can only wonder if the parents of the small children running around a yard have any clue that the practice they are enjoying was developed specifically to torment the Jewish people.

The sheer number of holidays and beliefs that were combined under Constantine are astounding. The very common depiction of the virgin mother Mary holding the baby Jesus originated with numerous earlier depictions of the pagan god Osiris holding Horus; initially the Christians did not even use original artwork, it being easier to worship borrowed Egyptian art while changing the names of the characters. And despite no biblical indications that Jesus even celebrated his birthday, and it not being a common practice by his followers immediately following his death, it became convenient to do so on December 25, since national celebrations were already happening to commemorate the birth of the sun for the winter solstice, a staple holiday for the pagans.

As is often the case with historical figures, the respect given Constantine for his tolerance and unification efforts is a byproduct of revisionist history. He deeply hated the Jewish people, and many of his religious and political decisions were based on this hatred. Despite claims that he was Christian, he actively participated in pagan beliefs and holidays, and did not actually become baptized as a Christian until his deathbed conversion. The modern day Christianity the world recognizes is far more a product of the religion Constantine implemented than any structure set up by Jesus, a combination of pagan and semi-Christian beliefs born out of political necessity and strong anti-Semitism.

Just too good for words.

2009-09-29T19:18:00.001-07:00

To Hell and Healthcare

2009-07-17T11:24:00.000-07:00

Once, as a boy, I was told a story about a man that walked on water. This man walked on water in a storm, and was so powerful, that when a member of a nearby boat tried to meet him on the water and began to sink, this man was able to rescue him. He simply reached out his hand, grabbed him, and saved him. The next day, my grandmother told me the story again, only this time added that this amazing man was able to heal a sick little girl at her own funeral, so easily that he even stated to mourners that she “was just sleeping.” That evening, my mother again repeated the story, adding that this amazing man could even raise the dead, including one that had passed away three whole days earlier. And every day after that, this story was repeated, so much so, and by so many trusted members of my family, that I began to believe it as true, and chose a few years later to live the rest of my life following this man.

This amazing man motivated me to go day after day, door to door telling others about his amazing powers, trying to show them that following this man was the only true way to happiness. Over and over, the door was slammed in my face, yet I still happily went to the next door, telling others how any life spent not serving this man was useless, a complete waste. In fact, I even told them of another person, an evil one that controlled all they did, even if they did not realize it, if they did not immediately listen to me, and begin following this amazing man that I so admired.

I spent my days thrilled that I was following this great man, and felt deep sorry for the lost that did not recognize his power. This man gave us all hope, a chance at a better life. This man had all the answers to life’s problems; life without him was a life of despair. I would put all of my trust in him, every second of my life devoted to convincing others to follow him. After all, who else could walk on water, and heal my every sickness, and even raise me from the dead. I would never need another, as this man was all I would ever need in my life.

Then I got the flu.

I didn’t go door to door that day.

My faith waned.

I went to the doctor.

Throughout the country, religious zealots tell us exactly the best way to live our lives. Be born again. Get baptized. Accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Get saved. Give your money to a church, and wear magic underwear. All these amazingly faithful minions, totally dependent on their religion, on Jesus, to solve all the worlds’ ills.

And yet as these same people complain about stem-cell research, about God’s creatures used for medical testing, about the horrific sins done in the name of science, they all line up like seniors at an early bird special for healthcare should they become sick. At the funeral of the faithful, one would hear wondrous things on how God needed another angel, how, for one individual, this was God’s time for him. And now, this amazing, faithful person was in heaven, singing with harps and eating chocolate, resting comfortably on a Sealy Posturpedic cloud.

Then why go to a doctor at all? Why put off such wonderment? Who turns down free, unlimited chocolate?

It is interesting that the evangelicals seen so intent on telling us of the wonders of heaven, yet, like the rest of us, so desperately want to put it off. How can they march outside the White House in protest of stem cell research, and then line up to receive the fruits of such an abomination? If they truly wanted to live the life of Christ, should not living past 33½ years of age be a real problem for them?

Medicine, a product of science, should be the enemy of the evangelical. The same people that believe in evolution, that we were once apes, treating the health of one of God’s chosen ones? Say it ain’t so. Just driving by a clinic should motivate these godlike ones to raise their hands and form the cross in protest, desperate to stave off any of the devils impurities. And if they truly believe they are on the road to a much better place; that only Jesus can ever save them from the darkness of this world, then maybe it’s time to but your life where your faith is.

So drop your healthcare insurance. It only makes sense. The average life expectancy in the time of Jesus was under 40, in what was one of the more advanced civilizations. Science has certainly extended that, but Gods true worshipers have no need of science. Drop your healthcare, and maybe then we can take your protests seriously. After all, why put off going to heaven, and all that chocolate?

As for me, I will keep my insurance. I would rather put off, as long as possible, my trip to hell.

Good Money After Bad - The Plight of the Community College System II

2009-07-16T11:51:00.000-07:00

The role of a solid education is to show its student his true ignorance; that beyond the common truths of adolescence lays a world which, no matter how much one tries, can never be fully realized or understood. The hope is maintained that this will instill a new curiosity, an ability to look at both sides of an issue and still realize that there remain countless more. Less important are the details; the facts one memorizes, the midterms, cramming, and GPA’s. These take a far distant second to the value one truly receives from a solid secondary education.

This is precisely the reason college professors need to be held to a higher standard. College cannot be a mere extension of high school, it must go much further. One’s own brilliance alone cannot qualify one as a professor, as a mere recitation of facts is a gross inadequacy. Sure there are exceptions, brilliant minds lecture at many universities, yet the professors that remain with the student throughout their lifetime are not the headliners, but the unknown geniuses, those that have developed and finely honed the skill of connecting with their pupils, viewing those before them as more than a simple number and SAT score, but as a wandering mind looking for, and expecting, direction. To those ascribed this responsibility, we need to expect more.

Community college is quite different than a privately funded one. Not only is it state supported, but a large percentage of the student depend on federal and state financial aid as well. Therefore, these are almost entirely taxpayer funded, which presents another lurking danger; the potential to become the mindless cash pit that is the DMV or other service oriented state run agencies. These agencies face one significant issue – how to adequately measure output. You may not like the service you receive at the DMV, but you have little alternative. Similarly, no matter the quality of a state or community college one may attend, more than likely the cost of a private institution is prohibitive, thus leaving few options.

Therefore, all opportunity to look at the output must be taken advantage of. One way to do this is to look at grades distributed by the professors as compared to others that have taught the same or similar classes. In an attempt to do this, I recently requested the grades given out over the past 3 semesters from Gateway Community College in New Haven, CT. The class selected was Composition 200, for two reasons – 1. I had taken it, and knew what it involved, and 2. That it is a crucial class for students looking to transfer their college credits to a 4 year school. Initially, this request was denied by every level of the administration, but thanks to a phone call from the Freedom of Information Bureau in Connecticut, it was finally released.

The results supported my initial hunch; that there would be a drastic disparity in grades, despite their being for the same class and the supposed similarity of the requirements for the class. One professor, Kerin Kelsey, distributed an average grade of 92, while another, Martha Hayes, over multiple classes gave an average of 73.3; despite that both were teaching the same class, Composition 200. Kelsey distributed no grades lower than a B-, while Hayes gave out no A’s, and 8 F’s, out of 37 students. Thus, in classes taught by Martha Hayes, over 20% of the students failed. It is important to remember that students, when selecting a class, base it almost solely on the schedule, and not who may be teaching the class. Most don't know the professors beforehand, and therefore have little if any idea that, despite the class having the same title, they can be drastically different in both difficulty and quality.

This discrepancy, however, cannot be blamed on the teachers; rather, one must take a closer look at those that allowed this to happen. In any business, this disparity would be a loud and very clear warning that something is off. Academic freedom may allow the methods used to differ, but not the overall information taught. So, in this case, either one of the professors’ methods are ineffective, or they are teaching something completely different from each other. So how does this go unnoticed?

When I was finally given this information, I was informed by the director of research that this was the first time anyone had even requested it. That those responsible for reviewing the performance of these professors had never asked for the grades distributed was a shock, however, this was soon tempered when the review process for tenured professors was explained.

Tenured professors are reviewed by department heads every 5 years. Quick, name another industry where this is the case. Drive-through workers at McDonalds are reviewed every 6 months, but those entrusted the education of the next generation have 60 months between assessments. More surprising is the review method, divided into 4 parts: self assessment, class observation by superior, the professors “professional plan”, and the supervisor’s assessment. Each of these can be discussed in more detail, but the fact is that the evaluation comes down to the opinion of the professor being reviewed and their immediate superior, who is often a personal friend and coworker, teaching the same or similar classes. That this is a joke needs not be said.

However, the greatest issue with this evaluation method is that it is completely devoid of any impartial parties, and even more significantly, the end user. In any service oriented situation, customer reviews are crucial, and greatly impactful, with good reason. An employee that contributes to unsatisfied customers will cost the business profit, and those that contribute well to client satisfaction will provide a boost to the bottom line. That a state school does not exist for profit does not mean the standard should be lower; that it is supported by tax dollars should make the demands even more stringent. That any university can offer a class where the grade received is based, not on ability and effort, but the professor teaching it, needs to take a closer look at its’ methods. But lacking any program that does look at these statistics, and lacks the desire to do so, it is difficult to see how this will ever change.

I am not suggesting that any of the professors mentioned here lose their position, but rather that the evidence available be analyzed as it would in any business, and that the tax dollars of the public be regarded as more valuable than they are currently being viewed, thus resulting in a better and more consistent education. I am in the unique position of having taken both of these professors, and know firsthand of their strengths and weaknesses in the classroom, or at least in the ones I happened to be in. Additionally, for a living, I am a management consultant, and spend my days analyzing the effectiveness of the message of the companies I consult with. I know that Professor Kelsey runs a class that is extremely enjoyed and looked forward to, and that she works especially well with the weaker students. However, one could hand in their math homework as a research paper and still get a B. Professor Hayes, on the other hand, desires greatly to push her student to higher levels, but lacks the ability to connect with her classroom and stay on a consistent message. Can both of these be improved? Absolutely. But if those entrusted with the responsibility to review the performance of these professors fail to do so adequately and willfully ignore the information and statistics so readily available to them, expecting positive results is a reach. Accountability in public academia is non-existent, and the dine-and-dash continues, the rather hefty price left to be paid for by the next generation.

Good Money After Bad - The Plight of the Community College System

2009-07-14T16:08:00.000-07:00

Today, the White house released a statement regarding President Obama’s new plan to provide an additional $12 billion into the Community College System, with a large part of it going toward financial aid programs. In the current economic climate, this is welcome news, as college enrollment, especially among the more cost effective Community Colleges, often increases exponentially. Additionally, students are not considered unemployed, therefore the all important unemployment rate can be effected positively, and as the economy betters, a larger group of qualified workers will be available.

But here we have another situation, similar to the healthcare issue, where throwing more cash at the problem is the presumed solution for what is nothing short of a broken system. For some, the community college is a welcome opportunity to achieve more than would have otherwise be available, and for the government to help this group is more than welcome. To be able to obtain an associate’s degree at a far reduced cost (almost half of a standard state school) and be able to transfer to complete a bachelors is a dream for those graduating from high school in difficult circumstances or for the adult returning to school. And for those, Mr. Obama, thank you.

However, the halls of the community colleges are filled with far more than those willing to work hard to achieve a dream. First, most insurance companies have provisions that state that children enrolled as a full time student can remain on their parents insurance throughout college, prompting large amount of applicants that are enrolled for this very reason alone. In what has become a classic “you can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink” scenario, classrooms, especially day classes, are often made up of individuals that have since proven their full time status to insurance companies, received financial aid, and now attend few, if any, lectures to say nothing of fulfilling assignments. In this respect, the community college is reduced to nothing more than an extension of high school, professors reduced to babysitters of a group of tremendously uninitiated 18 year-olds.

Additionally, unlike the majority of 4 year schools, including state colleges, community colleges are mandated by state statute to accept anyone with a high school diploma, no matter their transcript or results on a placement test. Thus, classes in existence, and often filled, are English 043 Writing: Paragraph to Essay, English 063 Writing: Intro to the Essay, and English 073: Academic Reading. None of these courses count for any degree, but are prerequisites to taking the higher level classes. Due to the ridiculously low academic standards at local high schools, these students have a high school diploma yet are essentially taking classes teaching the absolute basics that any intelligent eighth grader should already know well. Making matters far worse, in what is a horrifying statistic, recently the Dean of Academics at a Connecticut community college stated that just 25% of those enrolled in English043 received a C or better.

The result is a school that is difficult to take seriously. To call this a College but forcing it to take every student with a high school diploma, therefore unable to place any standard on its applicants, reduces the value of its output. A university should be a forum to interact with those wanting to learn, not with those looking to waste away eligible years of health insurance. High schools, paid for by the local municipalities (the state does some funding, depending on need), have simply been reduced to diploma factories, especially in predominantly urban areas, monitoring students until graduating age when they can be passed on to the community college, funded by the state and federal grants.

So the question begs an answer. Will these additional monies continue to be dispersed the way they are now, lacking any intelligent discretion? Will there be steps in place to change the system, working to find those that not only need a better education, but possess the will to obtain it? There are far more issue with the community college system that need to be addressed, and the standard political ploy of throwing more money at the problem will do little to fix what ails it.

Amendment 1.5

2009-07-09T08:56:00.001-07:00

Earlier this week, HBO aired Shouting Fire: Stories from the edge of free speech, a documentary detailing a few examples of the consequences of people simply speaking their mind. As with all HBO documentaries, it was especially well done, and as someone, like myself, that is a huge first amendment advocate, it was greatly enjoyable. However, in light of a great deal of research I have been doing on the collegiate system, especially in the area of tenure and academic freedom, I can see where what the first amendment really stands for is being greatly misconstrued.

A perfect example of this is the case of Ward Churchhill, fired for comments made in an essay regarding the victims of 9/11, referring to them as “little Eichmanns,” a reference to the Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann. The essay was written just days after the attack, but not made well known until Churchhill was scheduled to give a speech in New York in 2005, and a local paper published it. Once widely known, Churchhill faced widespread pressure from advocacy groups and the general public, and his position as professor, which he had held for over 30 years, seemed in danger.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. Despite those comments, and constant calls for Churchhills firing, the school went a different route, presumably to avoid a first amendment issue. They initiated an investigation into his entire body of work, culminating in plagiarism charges, and finally fired him. Churchhill filed suit, and eventually won a one dollar award for damages and no guarantee of his previous position; technically a victory, but a useless one at that.

Despite the questionable strategy used to hide the real motives behind the firing, there is no injustice in its actually happening. Unlike the cries from first amendment advocates, this is not a first amendment issue. Did he have a right to say how he felt? Absolutely. Did he, as a professor, have the academic freedom to say what he did? Possibly, but this was written, not in his professorial capacity, but as an essay for a newspaper. Additionally, while the first amendment allows the freedom of speech, it does not guarantee freedom from consequences of that speech.

Consider Don Imus. Calling the members of the Rutgers women basketball team “knappy headed ho’s” was undoubtedly inappropriate, but also was a right guaranteed to him by the constitution. The first amendment did not protect his job however, and he was fired when his superiors realized that keeping him on their airwaves would cost advertisers, and the pressure exerted by advocate groups was not worth fighting. In an intelligent business decision, he was let go, a consequence of his insensitive statements.

The difference between the two is simple. One took place in the for-profit public sector, and one took place in the surreal world of publicly funded academia, that zero-accountability machine that so many hide behind in the name of academic freedom. The university that employed Mr. Churchhill faced reduced enrollment and tremendous pressure from the past alumni, and therefore donations, as a result of his comments; dismissing him was the intelligent business decision. His right to free speech was not violated, and the universities right to impose consequences was made use of, certainly to his detriment. Free speech advocates use this example as a grave injustice, but this is simply a conclusion of the ignorant.

Constitutionally, Americans have the right to bear arms, but should that right be abused, there are consequences for it. Freedom of speech is guaranteed, and should it be misused, there are consequences for it. Mr. Churchhill was not held to a higher standard; rather, his being used to hiding behind academic freedom and the first amendment, he was surprised to be held to any standard. Freedom of speech is exactly that, and only that. The free speech without consequences amendment, as far as I know, has yet to be codified.

Criticize This

2009-06-29T17:15:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make. I saw, on the day it opened no less, Transformers. Now calm down. No, there was no gun to my head, I was not taking my ten year old cousin, and was not on a date with the nerdy chick from accounting. I saw it of my own free will. Actually, I wanted to see it.

And the truth is, it wasn’t that bad. In fact, it was pretty good, in a way that eating a Big Mac is pretty good. Compared to filet mignon, it sucks ass, but for what it is, it meets expectations. And Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is exactly what you would think: a loud, thunderous movie, instantly forgettable yet still worth the ticket price for the close to three hours of entertainment it provides. I laughed, I cried, and (ok well, I didn’t cry) I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Which is why the over-the-top negative reviews are interesting. The critics are making this out to be the second coming of Gigli, an experience so offensive that the Republicans should propose legislation against it (It's a joke Newt. Put the phone down). Matt Paris of the Chicago Tribune called it “A 150-minute simulation of life in a garbage disposal." Peter Travers of Rolling Stone pines that "Transformers: The Revenge of The Fallen is beyond bad, it carves out its own category of godawfulness." And no less that Roger Ebert, certainly past his prime but still well-respected, calls it “"...a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments." I cannot help but wonder where all this hostility stems from.

The real question is, what was expected? After all, it is titled “Transformers,” right? Now, I understand the merits of good moviemaking. Every year, I make it a point to see every Best Picture nominee, from the brilliant “Milk” to the over-rated “The Reader.” I even sat through that obnoxiously long “Benjamin Button” movie (on that note, Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett? Really? The best Brad can do is Cate Blanchett? Now, had Megan Fox been in her place….). And while I make no pretense of being an accomplished critic, I am a fairly good judge of the art of the motion picture, and appreciate when it is well done. There is no question the new “Transformers” Movie will not win best picture.

But, here’s the kicker. It wasn’t trying. It made no attempt to be an Oscar winner, or even a nominee. It wasn’t looking to be compared with The Piano or Driving Miss Daisy; it simply didn’t care. How this simple fact was overlooked by the so-called critics in unknown, but perhaps they simply chose to ignore it. In years past the critics served the vital role of setting our expectations of the picture; a useful tool used to determine if one should fork over the mortgage payment in exchange for two hours on a Saturday night. We found out the basics from respected reviews: what was the plot, who was in it, and is it worth seeing.

Today, things are different. Everyone with a blog is a critic. Even worse, they don’t even need to be writers, they just film a review and throw it up on youtube. The goal has gone from giving an objective look at a movie to standing out in a crowd of movie genius also-rans, a feat most often accomplished by giving the most outlandish review possible. The site Rotten Tomatoes, which monitors critic’s reactions to a film, offers a link to each review and an area where the average reader can comment on the review itself. Now we have critics of the critics. More importantly, bad reviews are money. The comments following a negative reviews far outnumber those following a positive one. Writing a biting, satirical review goes a lot farther in getting a critics once obscure name in the paper, forever to the detriment to the genuine critics that still exist.

Yet despite all the negative reviews, Transformers raked in 390 million dollars in its’ first five days worldwide. Perhaps the overwhelming negativity is reducing these “critics” to what they really should be: irrelevant.

Save a life, expect a suit.

2009-06-17T07:27:00.000-07:00

Reading pages and pages on the proposed healthcare reform options is a mind-numbing task, and leaves one sorely in need of ten minutes with a Dr. Seuss book, simply for the pleasure one derives from reading a complete work with the capacity to understand it. However, taking what one can, it seems difficult not to come to the conclusion that a government run health care plan is far from the best way to solve the issue. Unlike other entitlements and Medicare/caid, this would essentially be putting the government in the middle of the free market, and while regulating the market is a governmental responsibility, active participation needs to be avoided.

Rather than rush to provide healthcare for all, the focus should be making current healthcare more affordable, and thus exponentially more attainable. Certainly, the regulation of torts and malpractice litigation is a beginning. The regulation can be either on 1. the amount that can be awarded in specific cases, or 2. a cap on the lawyers fees paid. An attorney might think twice about the string of endless appeals available and the excessive costs of week long expert witness testimony if the most he or she could be paid is $100,000 as opposed to the standard third of ten million. Additionally , there should be a penalty to the attorney that takes on a frivolous lawsuit from any client with a bruise. No matter how insane the accusation, the hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceutical providers are all forced to spend millions in legal fees defending cases that never go anywhere, simply because some ambulance chasing lawyer decided to take a shot at getting a settlement. Should a regulatory board decide it was a frivolous attempt, the attorney, not the client, would be fined. The number of these brought to bear would be drastically decreased.

Additionally, regulating the amount a company that has developed a new drug would be able to charge for it exchange for more time with the exclusive rights for that drug is another option. Currently, someone that develops a new cancer medication has 7 years (the actual time varies) to recoup all of its development expenses before every company on the planet starts duplicating it. Thus, that medication is $120 a bottle. If however, the 7 years became 14, the retail price could be cut in half. Granted, the option that currently exists in year 8 of the ten dollar knock-off would disappear, but the exorbitant cost of medication would be greatly reduced overall.

Regulation, not an additional healthcare plan, would go much further in bringing healthcare to all Americans. Like any necessity, healthcare should be covered under strict governmental controls. If a company wants to charge a million bucks for a new TV, so be it. But a million for a syringe, not so much. Regulate costs and lawsuit payouts, eliminate frivolous legal action, and the overall cost will be greatly reduced, and fast.

About time....

2009-06-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

First of all, please excuse my recent absence from posting. I am working on a book regarding education and tenure, and it is an exciting yet time consuming process. However, thank god for the Freedom of Information Commission, as they work wonders with getting stonewalling deans to give the precious information they so dearly hold on to.

Iran

The turmoil in Iran should mean between little to nothing to the Obama agenda. While it would be nice to have a more accommodating leader in place, the fact is that all foreign policy in Iran is dictated by the Supreme Ruler, not the president, and the fact that Ahmadinejad is looked at as the decision maker is a testament to his political skills and the media’s desire to buy into his shtick. The commitment to work peaceably with Iran should not change, even if the outcome of the “democratic” election is questionable. We were prepared to work with him before; nothing changes now.

I have quite a few articles for this blog that are half written I will post in the next few weeks as I complete them, please excuse the content if it is at all dated.

Krugman and Me

2009-05-25T07:58:00.001-07:00

I have somewhat of a love/hate relationship with Paul Krugman. It started when I spent 28 bucks on Amazon for his Return of Depression Economics book, which turned out to be the size of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue and contained what was essentially a series of Wikipedia entries. Having read a previous book of his, this was a huge disappointment, but should not have been unexpected, considering the topic and speed at which publishers demand “relevant” books and articles. Today, however, the love has returned.
In his article entitled “State of Paralysis” in the New York Times Monday, in what is an indictment of the Republican Party in California, a simple, concise yet brilliant statement is made. “To be blunt: recent events suggest that the Republican Party has been driven mad by lack of power.” I could not have said that better myself. From insanely idiotic ads being released to passing resolutions calling the Democrats the “Democratic Socialist Party,” Republicans seem intent on becoming the party of choice for third-graders. The issues in California are far from being solved, or even attacked, because the Republicans refuse to work with their Republican governor, as they steadfastly refuse to raise any taxes. This brings new meaning to the term “cutting your nose to spite your face.”
Today, the “socialist” accusation you hear from the right following every new idea from the Democrats has become the new “your mother” retort, the ultimate insult from those with nothing intelligent left to say. “We need to change the vast amount of wealth going to the top 1 percent. “You’re a Socialist.” We need a rising tax system. “You’re a Socialist.” We need to go after the trillions of dollars sent overseas to avoid tax payments. “You’re a Socialist.” My grandmother is sick. “You’re a……” You get the point.
The scariest part of all of this is a point my new friend (again) Paul Krugman makes regarding the Republicans, and it is quite frankly, frightening.
“And that party still has 40 senators.”

No Professor Left Behind

2009-05-14T10:18:00.000-07:00

There are very few professions in America that have as little accountability as the teaching profession outside of private institutions. Private schools currently have a 9.8% firing rate, while teachers employed by the city or state that have achieved tenure enjoy a rate below half of one percent. No industry in the nation is even close to a number this low. While I applaud Obama’s desire to focus on education, simply throwing more cash at the issue will not improve it. Holding teachers accountable for their job performance, throughout their entire careers, is a huge step in the right direction.

A few years back, I decided, at age 29, to return to college to obtain the degree I never obtained. Being raised in a very religious atmosphere that went to great measures to downplay the importance of a college education, I was unaware once I left of the tremendous disadvantage I now had, and because of that disadvantage, combined with my interest in business and politics, I enrolled in community college. It was almost immediately that I realized the tremendous power and ability a good professor can have.

I can honestly say that had it not been for one professor, I would have dropped out within a month. Sitting in a roomful of 19-year-olds was somewhat humiliating as well as, in my opinion at the time, beneath me. Knowing little about college when I enrolled, I thought 4 years of political debate with fellow students and professors would be heaven. I had no real clue that years of prerequisites would be necessary, and sitting in math and basic writing classes that I viewed as a tremendous waste of time, especially when I also was self employed, I could think of the many, many additional, profitable activities I could be involved in.

More than anything else, two things stood out at me the first semester. First, that girls now routinely wore sweat pants to school, something I had rarely seen. That these sweatpants gave me something to read in the hallways was an added bonus. I no longer needed to wonder if her ass was “juicy,” it told me so right there. Amazing how long it would often take or how many times I could read just one word.

The second item was the huge, and I mean huge, disparity in the quality of teachers in just the 4 classes I was taking. On one hand, there were classes that were always filled with students; a class obviously looked forward to. These professors made what were often boring or difficult topics worth looking forward to. They were not always easy; in fact, I found that some of the easier professors often lost the interest of the students. It was the challenging ones, the professors that took the time to connect with their students, and then push them to think about the world differently. I am eternally thankful for one particular history professor that made a topic, one that initially I was not in love with, come alive, in part because of his enthusiasm for the topic, but also getting to know the students sitting before him.

In stark contrast were the very weak professors, where class size would gradually decline throughout the semester, and those that stuck it out were so overwhelmingly disillusioned that the quality of their education was non-existent. As I am not a trained teacher, I cannot pinpoint exactly what was wrong, however, What was evident was a complete lack of any connection with the students. This cannot be blamed on the topic; I had seen a class that hated algebra love the algebra professor, and do quite well. In fact, over time, I realized that this vast disparity in teacher quality existed within the same topic, as one English teacher was excellent, and in great demand, and another, with the same curriculum, was downright awful (and yes, I had her).

More than any other issue, this great disparity to teacher quality has motivated me to get involved in politics. That a professor or teacher on any level can achieve “tenure,” and have removed the greatest incentive to perform well that could exist, is simply wrong. If the typical worker in another industry can be fired for lack of performance, the standard at which we judge those teaching the next generation should be at least as high, beginning with the date of hire all the way to retirement. No job is as safe as that of a tenured teacher; even an elected official can be impeached. While there are certainly aspects of No Child Left Behind that can be argued against, that it at least takes some steps toward accountability should be applauded.

I cannot say I know where to begin to solve the problem, but that I will spend my political career working toward one. The power and influence that a teacher wields is significant, and no one should be applauded more than those that wield it well. But for those that don’t, something must be done. There must be a way to measure effectiveness, and a sound system to rectify a situation found lacking. I would have far less of an issue with throwing money at a system if it were not so broken.

Judging the Failure to Judge

2009-05-11T12:44:00.003-07:00

In light of the announced David Souter Supreme Court retirement, speculation has run rampant on who the potential replacement might be. President Obama, in his surprise appearance at a press conference immediately following Souter’s announcement, stated that he views the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples' hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes,” seemingly alluding to a desire to place a minority in the position. By many accounts, one of the more prominent and obvious candidates is Sonia Sotomayer, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in New York City, a level where every sitting Supreme court judge has come from. A Hispanic woman and liberal, she would certainly fill Obama’s desire for a minority, as well as serve as a candidate that would face little Republican opposition in the confirmation process. Although she was placed in her current position by President Bill Clinton, she was previously appointed to a federal bench by George H.W. Bush, her ability to work both sides of the political isle obvious. However, despite her substantial resume, one recent decision severely dampens her qualifications as a Supreme Court judge.

The decision at hand is Doninger v. Niehoff, which was presented before Circuit Judge Sotomayer as part of a three member appeals board. The case involves a 17 year old high school student who, upset about a decision by the school principal and superintendant with regards to the scheduling of a “battle of the bands” type event, used the term “douche bag” in describing, in particular, the superintendant Paula Schwartz and instigated calls to the school to “piss-off” the administration in a posting to her blog made from the privacy of her home. Once the school principal, Karissa Niehoff, became aware of the blog posting, she decided to approach the student, Avery Doniger, and inform her of three items she wanted done: first, apologize in writing to Schwartz, show a copy of the blog post to her mother, and finally, withdraw her candidacy for senior class secretary. Avery, who currently held a position on the student council and served as junior class secretary, complied with the first two demands, but refused the third. As a result, the principal refused to acknowledge Avery’s nomination to the position, effectively ending her attempt to run for the position. Interestingly, Avery still won the election as a write-in candidate, and the position was then given to the second place finisher.

The issue before Judge Sotomayer was an appeal made by Avery’s mother, Lauren Doninger, after the initial court ruled against her injunction to void the election results that her daughter, despite being nominated, was not allowed on the ballot. Here, an opportunity for the Sotomayer to make a strong statement on a larger issue was presented, yet quickly dismissed. In the decision, the conclusion states that while the judges “were sympathetic to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledge her belief that in this case “the punishment did not fit the crime.”” However, instead of making up for the previous decision, the court essentially ignored the issue, following up the previous statement with “we are not called upon……to decide whether the school officials in this case exercised their discretion wisely,” passing the buck on a very serious constitutional infringement. Certainly a judge with aspirations for a seat on the highest court in the land would not skirt such a large and politicized issue.

The role of the Supreme Court is, to put it bluntly, to make difficult, and often controversial, decisions. In the book The United States Supreme Court, editors Paul McCaffrey and Lynn Messina ascribe the court the “authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution.” There are few better examples of a case of a decision that should be reversed than Doniger v. Niehoff. At issue here is not simply the case of a child wanting her way, or an offended school administrator. At its’ core is a first amendment issue, opening the door for a precedent making decision, one that the Sotomeyer appellate court seemed to wish no part of. Cases that make it to the Supreme Court almost exclusively deal with Constitutional rights and the judges that hear such cases must be willing, if not eager, to make the difficult decision, a desire Sotomayer seems to lack.

A closer look at the decision in Doninger v. Niehoff reveals the importance of the decision that was so skillfully avoided. The decision states that “the Supreme Court has yet to speak on the scope of a school’s authority to regulate expression that, like Avery’s, does not occur on school grounds or at a school-sponsored event. We have determined, however, that a student may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even conduct occurring off school grounds, when this conduct “would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment,” at least when it was similarly foreseeable that the off- campus expression might also reach campus.” For a potential Supreme Court nominee to walk away from a First Amendment issue simply because the Supreme Court has not yet rules and set precedent is unforgivable. Make a fair ruling, and let the Supreme Court sit for an appeal.

The reaction of law professor Jonathan Turley, whose name has also been mentioned for the soon to be vacant seat, is noteworthy. On his website JonathanTurley.org, he writes “I do not like the email and I believe that it would have been entirely appropriate for Niehoff to call in the parents about such language and conduct. The parents should be the punishing authority in such matters. However, no one appointed Schwartz or Niehoff as the monitors of good citizenship outside of their school. Central to any definition of good citizenship is free speech and not social conformity.” Students have already been subject it increased search and seizure laws, as well as those that have removed a great deal of personal privacy, including the Safford Unified School District v. Redding case recently heard in the Court, which involved a strip search as a response to an uncorroborated accusation that she had possessed ibuprofen. For the appellate court to rule in favor of the initial ruling that failed to grant the injunction in Doninger v. Niehoff is a clear violation of the rights of Avery Doninger, removing her right to run for office simply for her opinion, which was stated off campus on a public website. A qualified Supreme Court nominee should jump at an opportunity to protect this obvious violation of free speech rights.

An interesting note to this is that it is not simply a case of someone voicing their opinion in an inappropriate way. Certainly the selection of the terms used in the initial blog post was questionable, but the fact is it was done outside of school, and if punishment was warranted, it would be done by the parents. But in this case, the punishment doled out by the school administration to remove Avery from the ballot was a response, not to an opinion being made public, but of a negative and potentially embarrassing opinion being made public. It is unlikely the reaction of the principal and superintendant would have been as strong should the blog entry have waxed poetic on the virtues of the administrators. That the content of one’s opinion could in any way disqualify him or her from running for office in a system supported by taxpayer funds is a gross violation of the Constitution. That this was missed by the Sotomayer court is inexcusable.

One of the initial factors in the decision to disallow the Doninger nomination by the school administration was the blog postings’ “encouragement of others to contact the central office “to piss [Schwartz] off more,” which was not considered appropriate language or behavior of a class officer. In the Sotomayer decision, a previous case, Bethel School District v Fraser was used as precedent to set the schools responsibility for “teaching students the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior.” Nothing can be more socially acceptable, and in fact necessary, than the right of any citizen to call on others to contact superiors in order to further an agenda. As a nation, Americans are bombarded daily with a call to action, the desperate need to contact Senators and Representatives to further the cause of gay rights, lower taxes, or any number of popular issues. It serves as an integral part of our society and governmental structure.

The Sotomayer court, in missing the opportunity to overturn the earlier ruling, creates a paradox. How can youths be encouraged to take part in the political system, to pay attention as they observe the political process on a national level, then, when personally involved, be stripped of the rights granted to those they have learned from? There can be no minimum age on constitutional rights, especially freedom of speech. Additionally, the response to the blog which encouraged others to call the school and question the administrators that Niehoff, who was away at a work-related event, was called back in to the school. Therefore, the freedom of speech issues raised with Avery also extends to those callers that, as citizens and taxpayers, have every right to be heard as well.

That Sotomayer chose to ignore these issues is questionable at best, reprehensible at worst. She may have been within her rights to walk away from this, but certainly fell well short of what we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. In an address made in 2002, William Rehnquist, the 16^th chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated “perhaps the best description of the office is to say that the Chief Justice has placed in his hands some of the tools which will enable him to be primus among the pares but his stature will depend on how he uses them.” As a judge at any level, an amazing amount of authority is held, the tools to determine the rights of others used, or not used, as they see fit. With each increasing rank, these tools increase in proficiency, the effects of every word and action becoming more far-reaching. Any candidate that might be considered for a position on the most powerful court in the land must be trusted to know exactly when and how to use the substantial power granted them.

It would seem inappropriate to judge a potential candidate on one case in what is undoubtedly thousands of decisions rendered. No one would wish this level of scrutiny on themselves. But there are few rights Americans hold as dear as freedom of speech. The right to share opinions, whether negative or positive, is essential in a country founded on this very principle. That a minor was prevented from running for an office she was nominated for because her use of questionable language is a situation in which we expect, in fact, demand, our judges to jump at an opportunity of rectification, to make right an obvious wrong. As President Obama weighs his options for this open seat on the Supreme Court, the consideration of Sonia Sotomayer should be discarded. Maybe, just maybe, this is something worthy of a call to one’s local representative.

A New Hope

2009-05-03T09:04:00.000-07:00

And as the Republican Party dissipates, a golden opportunity presents itself.

With the defection of Arlen Spector, who was never really a Republican anyway, and the imminent departure of the George H. W. Bush appointed Justice David Souter from the Supreme Court bench (granted, a liberal by many counts), it would seem the right is running out of options and fast. In fact, the sheer amount of missed opportunities they had to make an impact in the last 100 days is staggering, considering the substantial amount of activity by the Obama administration and the issues raised. For a party coming off 3 years of mandate-like defeats, the prior 100 days should have been a dream come true, a chance to attack every issue, much like a basketball team on a losing streak looking for every opportunity to end it. Yet despite the failure of non-activity and unintentional comic relief (yes you, Mike Steel), with the need for a new Justice, a golden opportunity presents itself.

The mother of all issues for the Right.

Abortion.

The gay marriage issue, long a Republican stronghold, has essentially been bypassed, thanks to Meghan McCain (who would have thunk it?) and the lack of political legs the Miss America fiasco developed, the legalizations of gay marriage throughout the states seems to be a foregone conclusion, a fight no longer worth fighting.

The same holds true for the “smaller government” stand, as Obama’s approval numbers stay steady in the mid 60’s. At a time that has seen big business run roughshod over the American dream, most Americans are convinced of the need for greater regulation and assistance to the middle class. The “Tea Parties” were essentially an irrelevant joke, noticed only in passing (in some cases, quite literally) on the evening news, or by the bought and paid for viewers of Fox News.

The only one left standing remains abortion.

There are few issues that fuel the flames of the right as much as right-to life. When life begins, who is responsible, what does God want, and what should the penalties be are all aspects that will be delved into in the next few months, leading up to the start of the October Supreme Court session. Even though only 51 votes are needed to sign off on a nominee, giving the Republicans virtually no chance outside of a public relations nightmare to block anyone that Obama might nominate, the abortion debate will no doubt be pushed to the forefront of national consciousness once again.

Truth be told, there is no real answer to the abortion debate, unlike the gay marriage issue. All humans are equal, and therefore all have the right to do as they please with regards to marriage. Fairly simple. Not so with abortion. When does life really begin? At conception? At birth? Who decides? Who would pay for a potential abortion? Should insurance cover it? Should the government for the poor? What about rape cases? If it were determined to be a crime, what is the punishment?

No matter where you stand on this most divisive issue, there are valid ideologies on both sides. And much like the Alito nomination a few years ago, it will be front and center of the news cycle this summer. No matter who replaces Judge Souter, it will be an issue that will not disappear anytime soon. But should the Republicans handle this as they have gay marriage, and basically every issue since the election, the Party as now constructed may never be the same.

A Simple Game of Chess

2009-04-28T08:05:00.000-07:00

As we approach the one hundred day mark of the Obama presidency, there will be no shortage of media critics, writing the comprehensive report card on issues they hardly understand, but whose singular ability to place a letter grade next to the President’s actions identifies them as an expert. And there exists no shortage of events and actions to grade. The beginning of this administration has been simply amazing in the amount it has done, whether good or bad, in response to an unfortunate number of issues. However, in looking back on all he has done, some of the more important and consequential decisions the President has made may involve actions he chose not to take.

On most international events, the world in general looks for the American response first, and then forms their own. This is to be expected considering our role as a world power. But the biggest change from this administration to the previous one, and many others, is the addition of a new option in responding to the actions of other sovereign nations.

Do nothing.

North Korea decided to send a rocket over Japan and into the ocean. They were warned not to by a variety of national organizations, yet ignored it. They were threatened with a variety of potential repercussions, to no avail. News corporations covered the event in great detail prior to, playing the “will they or wont they” guessing game, and exploded after the launch, it being one of the first of those 3 A.M. phone calls this president has been forced to field.

The only reason we are not still bombarded with front page headlines featuring North Korea is because Obama took a chess-like approach to the issue rather than a checkers one. Instead of looking at a simple proportional response, he looked 4-5 moves down the road, and realized no real good would come of an initial reaction. Despite the world waiting for a reaction, he realized that both china and Russia took a wait and see stance, and that any action, at least initially, would be going it alone. With the great strides made in our foreign relations, this would be greatly counter-productive, and would undo a substantial amount of the new goodwill he had received.

North Korea threatened, we warned them, they flipped us the bird. The previous administration would have declared war. President Obama, in looking at the big picture, wisely chose to do little. The ability to look multiple moves down the road is clearly what separates the new administration from the reactionary ones in the past. A slow reversal of our self-proclaimed role as world police will show substantial gains in our overseas relationships and how other nations view the united States, not to mention increase our national security, save American lives and much needed capital.

As we sit back to judge the arbitrary hundred days mark, remember that often the best actions are the ones left on the cutting room floor. Sometimes the road less traveled is better off not traveled at all.

The Motivation of Minds.

2009-04-23T09:35:00.000-07:00

It has been argued, from both sides of the political aisle, that escalating taxes on the rich serves as a disincentive to true innovation. The fact is, for the great innovators, money rarely played a role, and was, in many respects, simply a welcome by-product.

Consider Bill Gates. Certainly he spent an enormous amount of time and effort in creating the vision he had of a personal computer system available to all. It is hard for anyone to begrudge his success; it is truly the American dream. He possessed the intellect and will power to make something happen, and was somewhat fortunate that it was at the exact time that what he could provide the world was hungry for. For all his effort, the recent issue of Forbes puts his net worth at 40 billion, and that is down 18 billion from the year before. Certainly worthy of every accolade he receives.

But would Mr. Gates have worked less hard if he stood to gain only, say, 20 billion? Would he have taken more vacations, or done less research if he were only to make 10 billion? What if it was only 1 billion?

The great innovators are passionate about a concept or belief. They are willing to dedicate their lives to it, the great majority never reaching even a fraction of what Bill Gates has achieved.

To lower the scale a bit, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook (an idea that may have been stolen and resulted in a 65 million dollar settlement), was worth 1.5 billion in 2008, and as a result of the recession, saw that number drop to under 1 billion in 2009. When someone is worth that type of money, what difference does ½ billion make? If he so desires, he could never spend a day working again in his lifetime, never mind his children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes. The original goal was not to become insanely rich, but simply develop a platform for college students to communicate. Zuckerberg and his fellow students were not motivated by money, but simply excited by something new, a great innovation.

Making it more difficult to accumulate wealth, and thus easier for the general public to maintain a basic standard of living, will greatly increase the “innovation pool.” If we were to institute a rising tax scale that increased with income, and then, dare I say it, “re-distribute wealth” to the lower classes, the amount of great thinkers that would have the additional time and resources to develop these great ideas would increase. The creator of the next Facebook very well might be a middle aged man struggling with 2 jobs to provide healthcare for his family that will never see the time necessary to see his ideas reach fruition. And this has not gone unnoticed by those ready to take advantage of the situation. Today we are flooded with predatory “invention” companies charging fees to “patent” the ideas of those without the resources to make the most of them.

Truly great innovation is not motivated by the desire to get rich. In fact, most great minds never do achieve great wealth, despite the corporations they are working for seeing significant gains off their efforts. Great innovation is inspired by great curiosity, the desire of thinkers to explore the possibilities of building on the research of those before them. For insane amounts of wealth to end up in the hands of so few stifles the real possibilities that do exist, yet are hidden beneath the enormous cost of even a basic living.

Liberal, Yet Logical

2009-04-19T08:09:00.000-07:00

It is time for the releasing of the torture memos, and the torture of suspected terrorist story altogether, to be called what it really is.

The most overblown, media driven story in recent memory.

Going back a few years here, but was the fact that these tactics were being used really a shock to anyone? Did anyone believe that, in the pursuit of information that could affect national security and American lives, we restrained ourselves so as not to extend beyond, say, a Perry Mason style interrogation? Who are we kidding? Not only were we not surprised by it, we expected it, we wanted it. And, dare I say, we needed it. And despite all efforts to persuade otherwise, it will continue, as it always has. Just not in Guantanamo.

What is most interesting about the release this week of the terror memos is not the torture methods employed, but the safety measures applied to these methods. The time allotted, the exact manner, and extreme safety measures that were in place to prevent permanent injury, never mind death, were impressively protective. The same methods could not be in use for more than 30 days without additional approval, which was given once evidence was provided that the suspect had a high likelihood of having pertinent information. In every case, it was mandatory to have a physician and psychiatrist present, with full autonomy. A slap to the face could only be with fingers spread wide, and to a specific area. The accounts of “throwing people into walls” were true, but the fact that this was a flexible wall built in a special room, and again, done with physicians present, was hardly mentioned in the press.

Nothing in these memos (actually, report. They are long as hell and read something the back of a credit card application) is something we did not already know, save some minor details. What is impressive it the lengths gone to physically protect these “combatants,” the reports littered with the precautions taken and considered mandatory. These reports reduce what was a media firestorm to a log cabin fireplace, an unnecessarily exaggerated story thrown on the disaster that was the Bush administration. And considering the overwhelmingly damning evidence detailing the incompetence already, we failed to question the initial accounts of terror. The media and ACLU told us to be angry about it, that it was un-American, all while we gave it a passing, superficial display of shock to our friends over coffee at Starbucks.

These reports mean little, if anything. It gives away nothing that was not already known, and if this in some way aids the terrorists in their planning, then they are far less intelligent that we thought. These reports were met with the expectation of Jack Bauer-esque, kneecap busting torture, and were greatly disappointing to the general public. As much as we can pile on the previous administration, Jack Nicholson was right. Regarding these CIA agents doing what needs to be done, “we want them on that wall, we need them on that wall.” These “memos” do nothing to change that. This is not right-wing or left wing, its simple logic.

My Dear Republicans...

2009-04-17T08:21:00.001-07:00

I must say that, despite efforts to at least understand some of the standard Republican viewpoints with regard to taxes and size of government, I am left perplexed. Certainly vast differences can exist on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and religion, and these are legitimate differences of opinion and beliefs that have been, and will remain, difficult to reconcile. But the issues with regards to taxes, many of which seemed grounded strongly in myth, are mystifying.

That the rich should be taxed at a higher percentage than the poor is something that benefits the overwhelming majority of Americans. If this is the land of equal opportunity, it is necessary. The reason for this is simple. Money grows. Popular phrases such as “it takes money to make money” and “making my money work for me” are popular because there is a truth to them. It seems the goal of many Americans to make enough cash that they can live on interest. And for those that have worked hard to get to that point, more power to them. But some things cannot be ignored:

It was the system we have in the United States that allowed you to reach that point. Without the capitalist society we employ, it would have been impossible. What other country affords this? It only stands to reason that those that have succeeded to this point should give back proportionally.

Can we consider those that have reached the point that their fortunes now allow them to live on interest working for their money? No one believes that an individual that works hard should not have a comfortable living and retirement. But is a comfortable living and retirement for 2 lifetimes necessary? What about 5 lifetimes? 20 lifetimes? Half of the upper class in the United States inherited much of the fortune they have. No work whatsoever was necessary for these to have a lifestyle most of us can only imagine, and that fortune will continue to grow with minimal to no effort.

The interest that the upper class “earns” on its money comes from the middle and lower classes. Therefore, “money begets money.” New printed cash naturally flows to the deep end of the pool, even if directed to the shallow end. This leaves the middle and lower classes in a cycle it is nearly impossible to get out of.

In any society, all participants have roles. Valuing some of those roles as vastly superior contributes greatly to the disproportionate wealth. Which member of society is more valuable, the trash collector or baseball player? Based on income, the obvious answer is the athlete, but go a week or two without trash collection, and get back to me.

It needs to be far easier to pay bills and achieve a healthy standard of living, and more difficult to become rich. It’s that simple. Is this a societal problem? Absolutely. We admire Paris Hilton and whoever this week’s Barbie is on The Hills, instead of those that have dedicated themselves and earned what they have. We look at success as being the founder of websites such as Facebook or Plenty of Fish, those whose success can be, in a large way, attributed to luck. We actually look up to those that brag about making the most amount of money in the least amount of time.

What makes this phenomenon most amazing is that it leaves a great many middle class Americans fighting the Obama administration’s policy’s simply to keep the highly unlikely dream of hitting the jackpot of the uber-rich alive. Phrases like “the rich get richer” have been around for generations, but never have they been more true than the last 20 years. It’s time for drastic change. That the large percentage of wealth is now controlled by so few needs to be reversed. Every American deserves a chance at a comfortable life in exchange for hard work. The only way this is even remotely possible is a government led by an intelligent leader focused on fighting for everyone equally. If you are still determined to fight the system that will, for the vast majority of Americans, improve your financial future, in order to hold on to the pipe dream that you will become abundantly wealthy, keep having your Tea Parties.

But you’re better off buying a lottery ticket.

Tea Party Gone Wrong

2009-04-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

It was my great honor to not only attend, but greatly enjoy, a wonderful tea party earlier today.

Yes, that Tea Party.

I was able to find about an hour to visit the “Tea Party” in New Haven, CT. I know this was an Astroturf campaign, and the fact that I had even heard about it was due to Keith Olberman’s fascination with Fox News, causing him to poke fun at the fact that they were the only news organization (?) covering the rallies, and in fact, were outright promoting them. Nevertheless, I wanted to go. Maybe I would find the logical Republican. The one logical Republican.

Please allow me to catch my breath.

At most, there were 300-350 people standing around, holding signs, and being relatively quiet. Between patriotic songs by no name musicians blaring on the radio, a woman would yell into a microphone words that were simply read off the placards being held, generally something about Marxism or Socialism. Most disturbing was the signs that mentioned teabagging, as these were all held by what seemed like 15 year old girls, who were the only ones that looked excited to be there. That one adult could not see the irony, and perhaps illegality, in this is astounding. Needless to say, I found it entertaining.

I asked a few of the older protesters, all of which seemed to be veterans, what they were rallying for. All responded that Obama was destroying the country, and they were tired of taxes. Since I was committed to walking out with my nose intact, I barely responded, but am still left with a query. Unless all millionaires now dress in flannel, no one there saw any tax increases whatsoever. In fact, they are paying less. As I could not figure out the point of this gathering, I took my leave.

A few days prior, on meetup.com, I joined a group of Glenn Beck fans for shits and giggles. I had no intention of much interaction, but simply wanted to observe the posts and ideology (yeah I know, there isn’t one). I will now share with you the email interaction between one of the members and myself, as I just could not keep quiet:

Member 1: Thanks for going. I am sorry I had to work. You and everyone who attended were on my mind throughout the day. Do you have an estimate of how many attended? When I hear the news (ha!) cover it I want to know if they are lying. Thanks for being my voice when I could not speak!

Member 2: Sorry we missed you, I couldn't even guess but there was a lot! More than I thought would show. I'm happy we're taking this seriously. I wonder who might be losing a bit of sleep in Washington and every State tonight, or where ever they might be?

Member 3: Hi everyone! Thanks for coming out today, I think it was a great success. We stopped counting people at 1600, but the general consensus is almost 2000 at the height! Well done!

Me: There is no way I can be quiet about this. If you counted 1600, you must be the same that counted the attendance to the Million Man March or the Garth Brooks concert in Central Park. I was there for an hour, and at no point was there more than a few hundred, and some of those were walkers that are there every day at noon. And general consensus is that there were 2000? I feel your pain, but this is a joke.

Member 3: There were 2000, you have to count groups of 100 then guesstimate as you walk along, your being dishonest by saying a few hundred, there were 200 there at 10:30 Am have you ever ran an event or sold tickets to a show??? I have, I have ran several boxing events and 12 bodybuilding shows, 2000 people isn't that big of a crowd, the normal elevator fits 10! easy...

Me: Look, I wish it were true. Once I left, I returned to (the College around the corner), where those that did not know about the rally referred to it as a picnic. The road would certainly have been closed, or at least diverted, for 2000 people. Let’s not be revisionists a mere few hours after the fact. And suggesting that I cannot count because I have never sold tickets to a boxing match? Really? "2000 people isn't that big of a crowd, the normal elevator fits 10!"
Is this a joke?

Member 3: Ok to the rest stop regulars you hang with then, we here need not nor want a punk in the group and I have a personal mail if you want to discuss this face to face.

Apparently a face to face meeting through email is possible. Gotta love modern technology. After this, I stopped replying, as this was beyond idiotic. But how on earth is participating in a fraudulent “grassroots” campaign, where few if any of the protesters know what they are protesting, followed by the most inaccurate head count I have ever witnessed, going to help the party? This is laughable.

The truth is, I am starting to feel sorry for these people.

Columbine

2009-04-14T15:28:00.000-07:00

This is a simple post to direct you to a spectacular article on Columbine, 10 years after the fact. This is yet another example of how the general public reacts after any shocking incident, displaying an amazing gullibility to any story or so called account in the immediate aftermath, then allowing attention to waver by the time the real facts are determined. As catastrophic as this massacre was, there is a certain relief in now knowing what we do, that this was the result, not of some bullying, racism, or social inequality, but severely disturbed individuals.

The Pirates of Finance

2009-04-13T08:42:00.000-07:00

In what seemed like the longest standoff in U.S. History, Captain Phillips was safely rescued Easter Sunday, at the expense of 3 Somali “pirates.” Great. We, as a nation, have reason to be proud.

And really worried.

Not only does the U. S. military have a responsibility to protect the homeland, but many of our interests abroad. This cannot be debated; it is a necessity. But with this act of piracy, something hardly new to this region, we are spending resources on protecting those that 1. Willingly put themselves in harm’s way, and 2. Could, at additional cost, be protecting themselves.
The inherent dangers in this part of the world are no secret. Even before this particular act pushed it into the spotlight, stories on piracy were not uncommon on every news channel. Training is routinely done to prepare crews for a pirate attack. Nothing that happened in this case was a surprise.

When something of value is open to obvious danger, additional measures are taken. Armored cars are aptly named for a reason. Every day, vehicles carrying millions of dollars deliver to hundreds of banks under the protection of those with holstered weapons and extensive training, paid for by the banks that employ them. As necessary as the banking industry is to the economic state of the country, the government does not pay for this service. You and I do, in the form of bank and interest fees. It is, quite simply, a cost of doing business. Pretending that the danger of a robbery is not real will not make it go away, it must be taken seriously and accounted for.
The shipping industry has made a calculated risk. Last year, there were approximately 111 successful hijackings of ships in this region. Of the thousands of ships going through annually, this is a tiny percentage, something the industry has taken into account when calculating the potential cost of ransom fees vs. the cost of arming the ships. This is a conscious decision on how to deal with a very real and documented risk.

So why is the American public paying for military support of this private industry? If large banks suddenly decided to deliver cash in unarmed minivans, should the government be called on to provide security? If I, as a white man, decide to open a 24 hour bodega in Harlem, should I really be surprised if I am robbed? Or is it on me to pay for an armed guard at the door? If I choose not to have one, who is to blame when the obvious happens?

These companies have made conscious and calculated decisions, based solely on financial reasons, not to pay for armed guards, despite knowing that the unarmed or poorly armed ships are the exact target of the pirates. They then send these unarmed ships to the region most known for pirate activity, expecting that some will actually be hijacked, but because the percentage is low enough, it is fiscally worth the risk. Completely ignored is the fact that no insurance will come anywhere close to issuing a policy for the trip, for this exact reason. If something goes wrong, despite being expected, the Military serves as the ultimate insurance policy, with the taxpayer footing the enormous bill.

Just add the shipping industry to the list of bailout recipients.

From Here to Fraternity...

2009-04-04T11:57:00.000-07:00

With the Obama European Tour still in full effect, and with new tour dates recently added for France, China and Russia in the near future, it would seem the overall consensus is that the trip is a success. Almost every article written contains numerous quotes by foreign leaders praising Obama’s leadership style, as well as his ability to bring nations together and shepherd agreements. These were things that most Americans already knew. But the articles don’t stop there.

Despite the positive overseas reviews, the trip is being presented as all style/ no substance affair here in the states. Sure, the President looked good, and took positive steps for diplomacy, but was essentially turned down with the majority of his requests. His strong desire to have many of these countries push through stronger stimulus packages was overwhelmingly rejected. The 1 trillion that was agreed to will do little more than help some of the smaller countries survive the economic downturn that otherwise would have completely failed. But really, is falling short of all his goals really a failure?

Unfortunately, we all don’t get laid on every first date. Sometimes, we settle for a goodnight kiss, leaving the door open to “get some” in the future. Is that a failure? Since when is restoring diplomacy and even forming friendships with nations that had no love for us in the last eight years a disappointment? This is how success is achieved. Laying a foundation that allows the President to, at the very least, pick up the phone to France without being ignored or slammed down is a drastic improvement from what existed just a few months ago. Successfully delivering the message that we, as Americans, are not a country of arrogant exceptionalists, and are willing, in fact, eager, to work with the nations we share a planet with is reason enough to consider this trip quite the accomplishment.

And despite not walking away from this summit with every goal being checked off, the rest of the world at least now knows this: we can take rejection with dignity. Let’s not forget the hissy fit thrown by the Bush administration when the world was overwhelmingly, and rightfully so, against the war in Iraq. We essentially told them all to go screw themselves and established our Coalition of the Willing (you remember that, right? It was made up of some very powerful allies, like Poland, Morocco, my dog Skip, and the ant farm I had in 6th grade), went and lied to the UN, and then did whatever the hell we felt like. showing the world that we actually have respect for them is a huge step in the right direction, and brings us a lot closer to being able to check a few more of those boxes on our list.

The New Journalism

2009-03-26T11:18:00.001-07:00

With the collapse of the trademark Seattle newspaper last week, and the fall of similar ones throughout the country, the ushering in of the next generation of journalism has begun. The days of the huge story breaking after an overeager writer spends 10 months verifying hunches are a thing of the past, replaced by the quick headline that has become the trademark of the 24-hour news cycle. In the past, a journalist would raise a question, spend the time in legitimate research to answer the question, and then had a completed account that lived up to, not only his own personal standards, but often multiple editors that held the key to it actually being published. Not so much anymore.

The idea alone that there might be a story has become the story. Headlines are filled with what might be the case, the possibility of wrongdoing, the actual hunch. Once the headline is released, the reaction will determine whether the research and costs that would need to be expended to confirm the sources or delve deeper into the issue are warranted. The AIG mess is a perfect example of this "shoot from the hip" journalism. Release the story with few, if any, facts. “AIG to give 170 million in bonuses.” Great. Just enough information for the conspiracy starved, teetering on the edge of all out revolt audience really needs to jet right past inquisitive to flat-out pissed off. The hours’ worth of research needed to find out that it was government lawyers that signed off on these payments months ago with completely valid reasons, and that this decision to allow them more than likely saved millions in additional legal fees, just was not worth it until the reaction was determined. Additionally, can these payments even be called bonuses? Isn’t a bonus something paid beyond what the company is contractually obligated to pay? Since these payments were detailed in a contract, they cannot even be considered bonuses.

What makes this story an example of new journalism is that it is simply an extention of what the general public already knows. If some small bank out in West Bumblefuck accepted government bailout funds and then gave out a bonus, would anyone really care? There is no need or desire to go find the new story, the one that does not already have a place in the public consciousness. Everyone has already heard of AIG, making it a perfect target. Need a headline? Go to what is commonly known, and put it in a new light. If you’re really good, you don’t have to wait for the reaction, you simply tell the public what to feel. Introduce the story with words like anger, outrage, and greed. And just watch as everything falls in line. It is the easiest and least expensive way to manufacture ratings.

After succumbing to this manufactured rage, a group of enraged citizens filled a bus and went on a nice tour of the homes of the AIG executives to drop off a few letters. Surrounded by media that outnumbered them 2-1, they read the letter aloud for the camera before putting it in the mailbox in front of one particular mansion. Which outraged member of society was selected to read this letter? A part time high school coach earning $9,000 a year.

I wonder how many of his tax dollars went toward the bailout.

The AIG Debacle

2009-03-22T05:16:00.000-07:00

This is getting to be a bit much.

How far can this AIG mess go? It’s bad enough that the taxpayers handed over in excess of 180 billion to the financial giant, but nothing compares to what just happened. Not the fact that 200 million went out in bonuses. That’s an ethical issue to be debated in bars and living rooms throughout the country. That our congress insists on yet another inane kneejerk reaction to it is what we really should be upset about. Americans are protesting outside the homes of AIG executives, when it should be on the mall in Washington. It is simply another example of horrifically misguided anger on all sides of this mess, and serves as a blind diversion to the real issues at hand.

Why do we suddenly care about 200 million, hardly 1.5 percent of the amount given to AIG? These were contractual bonuses, and the inclusion in the original bailout of the provision that allowed them saved a small fortune in potential legal fees. Who in the world would not sue for their bonuses when it was clearly written into an employment contract? Lawyers would have a field day with this. Now, Chris Dodd must fight for his political life for doing exactly what some rather intelligent lawyer told him to (I am leaving out the little flop-flop of denial, however).

Isn’t the real issue, considering the global nature of AIG, the amount of the bailout that has been siphoned overseas? Not to mix the bailout with any stimulus package, but Americans have the right to believe that cash handed to a corporation in the U. S. should, at the very least, stay here. Since transparency has not yet (ever?) hit AIG, we have no idea. Whether the bailout was necessary is a debate left for those far more intelligent than I, but a high I.Q. is not necessary to realize that a politician handing out taxpayer dough has a responsibility to know exactly where it is going.

And I.Q. is the primary reason we should not have such a huge issue with these legally-mandated bonus payments. Economists all over the globe cannot fully understand, never mind explain, the AIG mess. Many of the executives responsible have since left the company, some not so voluntarily. It would be a very prudent move to keep as many of those involved, those that actually understand this disaster, in the rolodex. Concern needs to be paid on the return of the 180 billion, and if 200 million in bonus payments is the best shot we have at keeping the ones that can make that happen onboard, and also avoids the millions in additional legal fees we would have faced should Mr. Dodd left that one line out, then why would we fight this? If the employees can be coerced into voluntarily returning the cash, as some already have, great. Short of that, we need to just let this one go.

The Curious Case of A-theism v. Atheism.

2009-03-15T15:03:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of April, The atheist alliance will host their annual convention, featuring keynote speaker Richard Dawkins. While it is no secret that I am an atheist, and am a fan of Professor Dawkins, the logic of such a convention is puzzling. Atheists, in their fervor, have essentially created a new religion, with a unique theology and respected leaders. And it can be no wonder that in many circles, they are developing a very negative name for themselves.

I do not believe in god. I also do not believe in Zeus, Horus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although I find each of them extremely entertaining. This is simply a logical conclusion I have come to after a careful consideration of the current available evidence. There is certainly a chance I am wrong, and I would be pleasantly surprised at my death to find myself at a rather large, pearly gate (although I doubt I would be there long. I am sure a quick and permanent trip south would be in my future.) This conclusion makes me an “a-theist”, as in the opposite of a “theist”, or one that believes in a deity. And here is where a differentiation must be made.

An Atheist however, with a capital a, is a member of a religion that does not believe in a deity. It is very different. They will meet at conventions, hold weekly meetings, and make daily visits to websites to discuss something they do not believe in. They will march, plaster billboards and buses with their message, and welcome an all out argument. And they have, and look up to, leaders that give them clear direction on how to clarify their message to the public. In short, they have become what they so vehemently detest, an organized religion, based solely on something they do not believe in.

The fact is belief in god is not a real issue. There is nothing wrong with belief in any deity, or imaginary character. If believing in god helps you through a difficult time, or even just through the day, great. As children, many of us had imaginary friends that we swore by, often as an antidote for abuse or loneliness. There is no harm in this, and in many cases, it is encouraged. The issue is not belief in god; the real issue is the belief that god is using some of us to tell the others what to do. If all those that believed in god just stayed home on Sunday and read the bible, the world would be just fine. But go to church, and you learn to hate homosexuals and basically anyone that does not share your beliefs. Every religion feels strongly that theirs is the one god is using on this earth to spread his message, and thus all the others are false. Playing well with others takes on a whole new meaning when you are sure “the others” will all be spending eternity burning in hell.

Turning a-theism into the religion of Atheism it has become is disheartening to say the least, not to mention counter-productive. The logical, scientific approach that leads many to question the existence of god becomes buried beneath a new dogma created by the natural need of a leader to lead, and the individual thought that led one to become an atheist will quickly be replaced with the talking points provided by a what has become a new religion. It truly is an amazing phenomenon. The feeling of enlightenment and uniqueness in the great sea of humanity that one feels when finally finding a religion that speaks to them dissipates quickly, revealing the real need to be a part of something, a society, a community, a religion. That a religion could be based on non-belief should come as no surprise. Maybe Jesus was right. We are all just “sheep without a shepherd”, desperate to find one. Any one.

An Ode to Robin Hood

2009-03-09T08:12:00.000-07:00

One of the more common assaults by Republicans is the party-line chant of socialism. “Obama is taking from hard working Americans and giving it to those that don’t want to work.” I’ve even heard him referred to as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Yes, that same horrible Robin Hood, known by generations of children as one of the more evil characters throughout literature. But what is most obvious is that so few have any real idea what Obama’s policies truly are, and even worse, don’t want to.

Obama has not proposed any new taxes on anyone. He will simply allow the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. So taxes they would have paid 7 years ago would start up again. These will affect those making approximately $250,000.00 and over, and those would see rates grow from 35% to 38% on only the amount over the $250,000. For the slow among us, taxes do not affect what you already have. And it is entirely reasonable to believe that anyone making above a quarter million a year might have a few bucks in the bank; there are very few entry level jobs starting at that level. So the rich will pay a slightly higher percentage on the money that they do not yet have, after taking huge advantage the last few decades of the numerous tax breaks and loopholes afforded them to grow their fortunes.

Since the population in this tax bracket is miniscule, what are the majority of Republicans up in arms about? In her recent documentary “Right America, Wronged America”, Alexandra Pelosi (yes, you-know-who’s daughter) followed the McCain campaign bus from rally to rally, interviewing attendees. At one point, there is a plumber in an on-its-last-legs truck, with a sign on the side calling Obama a socialist. Near tears, he explains how he does not want his money taken from him and given to the man that only wants to work 2 or 3 days a week. Even after it was explained to him that was not the case, and that he would be in the group benefiting most, he remained in denial, not wanting to hear more.

Since the Reagan administration, we have been saddled with the “trickle-down” economic belief that the rich would somehow use that wealth to create jobs and grow the middle class. In the past, I would have referred to it as a theory, but it no longer deserves even that status. Expecting the rich to “spread the wealth around” is like asking Rush Limbaugh to turn down a cheeseburger. (By the way Rush, dieting is slimming. Wearing black isn’t). We have put our future in the welcoming arms of the upper class, and now have nothing to show for it. Brainwashed Republicans can cry out for smaller government all they want, but an intelligent White House is needed now more than ever.

America is not, and never has been, the land of equal rights. We were drastically behind many developed countries when it came to legal equality for women and African Americans. What we have been is the land of equal opportunity to get rich. No matter your color, creed or gender, if you could act, run fast or hit a baseball, we made you rich. If you could guess right in the stock market or lottery, we made you rich. It didn’t even matter if what you were good at was illegal. Hell, we made Jesse James a folk hero.

But work hard for a living, and we can make no promises. Be a great teacher, and we’ll let you pay bills, but no more. History is littered with accounts of the real labor that went into the building of our nation, and those workers were often left with little or nothing to show for it, while the Rockefellers and Vanderbilt’s had far more than they would need in a hundred lifetimes. Certainly they had admirable business ability, and are worthy of the recognition they have received, but is it more warranted than the very labor those fortunes were built on?

It should be easier in this country to make a living, and harder to make a fortune. And with the massive transfer of wealth this country has seen over recent decades, it will take a Robin Hood to get it done. For those not wanting their money to go to those not working, it is time to realize that 1. More than likely, no one is taking your money, and 2. There’s a good chance you will be getting some of it. And considering that most fortunes are passed down from previous generations, when was the last time you saw a rich person work? Do you really have an issue taking an extra 3% from Paris Hilton?

To Saudi, with love.

2009-02-14T10:43:00.000-08:00

Not that we, as Americans, have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their lives (but we will anyway, dammit), but this goes just too far. A Saudi woman, after accepting a ride from a man, was taken to his home; gang raped, and became pregnant. Her sentence? (Of course, she must have a punishment; she wasn’t smart enough to grow a dick) One year in prison, plus 100 lashes once the child is born. Just to be clear, this woman will go through childbirth in prison, then will have her hands tied above her while a guard whips her 100 times. For comparisons sake, a man caught smoking on a commercial flight was given 30 lashes for his crime, and an army officer that used his cell phone on a plane on an airplane was given 70 lashes. So, for the record, that’s

Smoking on plane...... 30 lashes

Cell phone on plane....... 70lashes

Getting gang raped and becoming pregnant............. One year in prison and 100 lashes

Oh, and.......Priceless

While we often categorize the terrorists as extremists, and therefore not indicative of the Muslim people as whole, the examples above are not of this group. These were judicial rulings handed down in a court of law; not by the same groups that flew planes into the towers or attack ships. There were no protests outside the courthouse, no ACLU to argue the case, no petitions signed, and no politician standing up for a change. This is the norm; and if there are those with reservations, they are certainly not going to put their lives on the line for the cause. It is simply a matter of social laws being dictated by religion.

And the issue of religious involvement came to the fore this week with the introduction of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. With the announcement, the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to be clear that this organization will work with all groups, “no matter their religious or political beliefs,” despite the fact that the majority of the council members are deeply rooted in religion. These include Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel for the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention; Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church; Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Corps; and Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, among others. This seems odd.

Certainly, one can understand the political reasons to maintain at least the illusion that one is working in the best interests of religion. Many have been the presidential candidates that have suddenly found god just prior to a run for higher office. However, this is a blatant disregard for separation of church and state. Ignoring the enormous cost of setting up this new “office” and the 11 actual offices and staff needed, this “office” the first step in the Obama re-election campaign for 2012. The 40 million evangelicals that could always be counted on by the Republican Party as guaranteed votes might think twice now that a Democrat has set up a religious office. If you thought he scored a mandate last November, you haven’t seen a thing yet.

The last thing we need is more religious influence in our government. However, we have gone a step further now by actively funding faith-based activities, using tax-payer dollars in the name of Christ. No matter how honorable the cause, it is just the next step on the road to abortion warranting jail time and homosexuality resulting in a death sentence. Seem far-fetched? Just how long do you think it will take for those 40 million votes to become 60 million? Or 80?

Come to think of it, maybe the fact that “faith-based” is in the title really doesn’t mean anything. I am sure there would be no issue getting the “White House Office of Atheist Affairs” started.

Just felt like posting this...

2009-02-12T08:09:00.000-08:00

I received this joke a while back, and since am working on 2 new postings, I decided to post this in the interim. Let me know what you think..

Why did the chicken cross the road?

SARAH PALIN: I'll find ya a reason and bring it to ya.

BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!

JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?

JOE BIDEN: I'm tired of walking on egg shells because of this chicken.

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?

AL GORE: I invented the chicken.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Did he cross it with a hare? Did he cross it with a bear? Did he check if the road was hot? I kinda doubt it, I think not! Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed, I've not been told. Just one more thing I have to say, it's been bugging me to this very day. If the chicken is a she, why do we keep saying HE?

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth? That's why they call it the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like "the other side". That chicken should not be crossing the road. It's as plain and as simple as that.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2009, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2009 This new platform is much more stable and will never cras##$%###.......reboot

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

SARAH PALIN: Because it could see Russia from there.

For all the panties in India

2009-02-11T07:31:00.000-08:00

A few weeks back, a radical group called the Sri Ram Sena (Lord Ram’s Army), took responsibility for an assault on several young women last month in a pub in Mangalore, a college town in the southern state of Karnataka. The group (think right wing Jerry Falwell conservatives) has fought against everything from couples kissing in Bollywood films to cheerleaders at sporting matches. An article in TimesOnline details the story, and I urge you all to read and support the cause. In just over a week, the Facebook page that was started in response to the attack has over 12,000 members, and is growing rapidly. A campaign for all members to send pink panties to the leader of the group on Valentines Day is simply brilliant. I will keep this blog updated with any new news on the story, and I applaud what may be one of the more effective non-violent social statements in recent memory.

Damn you to hell, Socialist!

2009-01-29T10:29:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, the Obama stimulus package passed the House 244-188, 11 of the dissenters being Democrats. While it remains to be seen what happens in congress, it seems to be a foregone conclusion it will pass. What is interesting are the numerous posts found, primarily written by Republicans, immediately after the vote was taken, that label this stimulus package as part of Obama’s “socialist” agenda. All of which begs the question: Do these people even know what socialism is? And if they did, would they react the same way?
It is interesting to note that there currently is only one openly socialist member of the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and he typically is lumped in with the Democrats for caucusing and a variety of assignments. What is even more interesting are those that have backed and endorsed him throughout his years in the House of Representatives, a list including Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and even Barack Obama. Seeing that some of the more popular politicians have campaigned for him, it is certainly worth an additional and closer look as to what this whole “socialism” thing really is.
The overriding foundation of socialism is that every member of a socialist society has an equal voice. The concept of the most attention going to the ones that can most afford it and/or give the most to a political campaign would be non-existent. Wages would be based on effort and hours, eliminating the drastic salary difference between, say, major league baseball players and 3rd grade teachers. While there are wide variations of ideas as to how this would be accomplished, it would include the state controlling major parts of industries that affect a large percentage of the population, such as power and water companies. Ideally, the government is elected democratically, thus serves as an extension of the people, giving the general population control of these industries.
Despite some obvious benefits, the general perception of a socialistic society is negative. Why? Seemingly because most seem to consider it a form of communism, which will always leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. The fact is, they are drastically different. Socialism says nothing of religion, and typically is not against the freedom of it (there are many socialist factions however, with varying views). Additionally, the end of a free market economic system is often perceived as an attack on human rights, a perception of which is debatable.
While it would have been political suicide for President Obama to admit this during the campaign, Senator McCain was correct with the accusation that Obama wanted to “spread the wealth around.” His timing was terrible, however, as the concept does not sound so bad in the current economic situation we now find ourselves in. But any plan to tax those making large incomes a greater amount than others, and then use that revenue in programs to assist the middle and lower class certainly has socialist aspects to it. Whether it is the right path or not would take a book to discuss, if not multiple volumes. It is time though, to reconsider the options that, in the past, we so quickly dismissed.

Lost in Gauntanamo....

2009-01-26T08:48:00.000-08:00

Before we even took a breath following the inauguration of our new President, the photos of numerous well decorated generals surrounding Obama as he signed the order closing Guantanamo and eliminating secret CIA prisons were plastered on every newspaper and website, a drastic reminder of the sweeping change facing former President Bush’s controversial policies. The event gave clear indication to a hungry nation that the new commander-in-chief would stand by his campaign promises, at least in this area, and gave weight to the incessant fundraising emails we continually receive from the Democratic Party.
However, closing the location where torture was performed will do little to end its occurrence. Simply shipping the prisoners overseas avoids a nightmarish public relations issue, and allows the old interrogation methods to continue unabated without the watchful eye of the general public. Many countries we consider allies have little to no guidelines on the use of torture, and do not face enough political pressure for that to change. Simply sending our dirty work overseas may work well politically in the short term, but in actuality falls well short of eliminating the issue. Closing GitMo is nothing short of a public relations ploy unless accompanied with a drastic overhaul, and specific consequences to those nations that fail to abide by them.
And what of the information we already have, much of which has been garnered by the use of illegal torture? Can this information be used at trial? If not, what becomes of the prisoner that cannot be convicted that has obvious yet unsubmittable evidence against him? Is he now free to walk the streets, or simply shipped back to become 2nd in charge at a Yemen terrorist camp?
An issue facing the Obama administration is to develop an intricate balance needed between the desire for increased transparency and the need for ambiguity in laying out what will be considered both legal and illegal in the acquisition of intelligence from prisoners. A step-by-step how-to manual will allow the enemy to prepare its members for the tactics that would be used, making it highly unlikely that they would ever be truly effective. However, not disclosing this would be seen as a return to the bush secrecy of the last eight years, opening the administration to immense criticism from both sides of the issue.
Certainly, the hands of the President are full. The issue of Guantanamo Bay is far from over, the executive order signed last week just the tip of the iceberg. It was a strong gesture, not only here but abroad, but lacks any significant weight without a real policy to back it up.

Can I pray to God from hell?

2009-01-24T09:07:00.000-08:00

Recently, while speaking in a class on the topic of the authenticity of the biblical account of Jesus, a class member, an older, African American woman, stood up and left the room. I continued on discussing the similarities between the Christian leader and the ancient Egyptian god Horus, and answering questions after. The woman then returned, and during the discussion, interrupted, announced that she could not, in good conscience, keep quiet, and proceeded to give her account of God speaking to her in a dream and whatnot, and concluded by, in no uncertain terms, announcing I was, in fact, going to hell. My reply was an explanation that while she walked out on my speech, I had in turn listened intently to every word she had spoken (including the much appreciated fortune telling sequence). From that point she remained silent, and class resumed.
Following the class, she approached and actually apologized for her condemnation of me, and explained why she had actually left the room. It seems that her religion orders her to leave when the topic turns to religion, and she willingly obliged. She was very kind in this discussion, and I give her credit for her ability to calm down and actually approach me.
But a question must be asked. Why would any human subject themselves to a rule that did not allow them to think for themselves? Is ones’ self respect so low that they no longer have this ability? And if it is believed, as it is in every major Christian religion, that God has given us free will, why would one disrespect God by refusing to use it? Does free will end after one selects a denomination?
No amount of logic could convince a reasonable person that there was a talking snake, or a man walked on water, or any human came to life after being dead for three days. If, however, at some moment of weakness or need, when ones’ ability to think logically were somehow altered, they were convinced of these things, to then submit to an inane rule that you must not speak with or listen to an opposing opinion, or anything that may cause you to question your faith in such beliefs, is nothing short of a shocking level of naiveté.
And how could any religion, working in the name of God, enforce this? It must be an extraordinary experience for a pastor, looking out every Sunday to a sea of drones, lacking the ability and even desire to think for themselves, as they spew idiotic, illogical babble to the starving masses. If it were just one man, alone, telling us of these supposed miracles, these fanciful stories, and he led his life by them, we would lock him away in a padded room. A few million believing the same insanities however, and we give them a city in Italy.

How to get your name in the paper (or How much publicity does a politician really need?)

2009-01-21T08:59:00.000-08:00

Since her selection by the Obama team months ago, it has been a foregone conclusion Hillary Clinton would have no real issue assuming her position as Secretary of State come inauguration day. All seemed well last week, when the nomination was backed with a 16-1 vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemingly easing the way through the Senate. With the overwhelming popularity of the new President, and a nation currently on an Obama-high, there exists not a single figure in Washington that would question the inevitability of the appointment.
Hold on just a minute. Just when we thought this “bi-partisan” concept might actually work, enter John Cornyn to pull us back to reality. Cornyn, the republican senator from Texas, is demanding a “full and open debate” to examine the source of funds donated to Bill Clinton’s foundation. Never mind that the Clinton Global Initiative brings together political and business leaders to develop poverty-relief solutions and raise money for education, health care and environmental projects, and let’s forget that the Clintons have already made huge concessions to the Obama team before she was selected for the post. What really matters is that now, being the lone dissenter, Senator Cornyn get his name mentioned in every article and news broadcast for the next two weeks fighting for a cause that no one has deemed worth fighting, no one wants to fight, and no one really cares about. In fact, fellow Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah echoed this sentiment particularly well. “I don’t think we should hold things up,” said Hatch. “Look, she’s going to be secretary of state, and I think we should support her.”
Mr. Cronyn, we appreciate your need to be seen and heard, and it is completely expected from our politicians. We would be shocked if it didn’t happen. But in a floundering economy, with a million worthwhile causes worth fighting for begging for attention, fighting a foregone conclusion is insanity. The cost of an additional Senate session allowing you more time to pander to the camera while rambling on about desperately needed donations going to a worthwhile cause that only you, in your infinite wisdom, have deemed “questionable” is not only regrettable but a complete misuse of the trust of those you represent. Save us, please, the time and money. We will be glad to give you attention, Mr. Senator, once you do something worthwhile.

The Marketing of Fear

2008-10-15T14:49:00.000-07:00

The concept of marketing fear, at first glance, may seem, to most onlookers, reprehensible. The idea of selling a concept, product, or idea by instilling any degree of alarm, whether real or imagined, simply for personal gain can carry with it many ethical, if not legal, consequences. However, applying the simple “chicken or egg” principle allows just a singular conclusion: nothing is successfully marketed without first having a market for it.
From something as simple as “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” as a means of increasing sales for fruit vendors, to unnerving commercials detailing home damage and even physical attacks following a potential break in to boost alarm sales; fear has long been a successful marketing ploy. The goal of most marketing is to manipulate instincts as opposed to reasoned decision making, and nothing does this more than fear. The advertising firm’s greatest nightmare is a reasoning, methodical consumer. Salesmen have mastered the “one meeting” close, so much so that most states have enacted a version of the “Right of Recision” law, enabling homeowners that were manipulated by fear to cancel a quickly signed contract. But while money is often at stake in marketing campaigns, the marketing of fear extends even more into the concept market. And nowhere is this more evident than the current war in Iraq.
It is interesting to look back on exactly how this war was marketed. On March 17, 2003, President Bush, while addressing the nation and laying out his reasons for attacking Iraq, emphatically stated the following:

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.”

Following this, he gave the then president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, 48 hours to either surrender or be invaded. This power had been granted by both the House of Representatives, where 77 of 100 voted for the war, and the Senate, in which 296 of 429 members agreed to giving the President this power. It goes without saying that those vote totals would be different if taken today.
But while hindsight is 20/20 looking back on a specific moment, the market of fear continues. Imagine for a moment if the American public and its representatives were not susceptible to such deceptive tactics. What if we as a nation had taken some time to confirm the statements we had heard? Support for the war swelled after Colin Powell a speech to the U.N. detailing firsthand accounts of Hussein developing biological weaponry and WMD’s. But where did this come from?
Accounts point, oddly enough, to a single source, codenamed “Curveball.” His real name, as we now know, is Rafid Alwan, an Iraqi national now living in Germany. Powell referred to him in that same speech to the U.N., as slides flashed behind him of satellite photos depicting the supposed locations of the weaponry. “The source is an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer, who supervised one of these facilities,” Powell stated to an enraptured audience. This speech, combined with a few nations vehement dissent (remember freedom fries?) polarized the nation, drawing it closer as a united voice behind the war. We failed to acknowledge the small voices in the crowd telling us to slow down and take a better look, and forged straight ahead into an insane conflict with no end in sight.
“Curveball,” however, was a fluke. In his book “Curveball: Lies, Spies, and a Con Man Who Caused a War,” Bob Drogin calls this “arguably the biggest intelligence failure in history.” Not only had much of the account been fabricated, but it was obtained by the U.S. through German intelligence, and not once had an American intelligence officer so much as even interviewed Alwan. All of the locations shown by Powell at that U.N. speech were ultimately inspected and turned up nothing. It all turned out to be an utter fraud. “After 9/11,” Drogin concludes, “what we heard from the authorities was that they had failed to connect the dots that led to that scandal. In this case, they made up the dots.”
Thus the question remains, who really is to blame? Is it really those that duped us, or did we allow it happen, perhaps even welcome it? What excuse can we as a nation possibly have for not asking questions? Put simply, fear. Fear causes simple logic, and even the most basic of queries, to be ignored. We were asked to ignore common sense, and willingly complied. And every business, organization, and politician will continue to do so, as long as we continue to welcome it.

And now for the snorting beer labels story

2007-07-26T13:56:00.000-07:00

Usually I use this forum to discuss, rant, yell about, issues in the news that are just sitting there weighing on my mind. This may not quite fit in that category, but I just don’t get it….When did the fact that something is cold become a selling point for anything other than a ski resort? Driving along Route 95 today I notice an ad for Bud Light featuring beer bottles turned upside down with the caption ”Flipping Cold”. Not “It tastes good”, or “You’ll get hot chicks in bikini’s” or even “Bud……Weis….eeeeeeer” with some weird-ass talking frogs on a log. Isn’t the fact that beer is cold a lot more dependant on the temperature of your refridgerator? So I get home and turn on some reality show about a tennis player picking a girl from a group of 20 year-olds and 40 year olds competing against each other (it’s a really odd phenomenon on this show. All of these attractive women, but there is something quirky about every one of their faces. Like a nose pointing too far upwards, or too much teeth, or they are just a bitch) and I grab a beer. And thank God I checked the label, for the mountains had turned blue!, assuring me that my beer was, in fact, cold. Whew. That was close. So as I sat down I wondered “If the label turns blue when it’s cold, is it scratch n’ sniff as well?” So I spent the rest of the evening looking as if I was snorting crack off a beer bottle watching tennis players chase hotties thinking of the next Maytag commercial that tells me how good the fridge tastes. I can’t believe I just snorted a beer label. I think it went to my head.

And now for something completely different......

2007-07-18T14:38:00.000-07:00

I just spent the last hour reading literally hundreds of submissions to the editors of a new website that should, hopefully, be up and running soon. Many were intelligent, funny and generally engaging; some were just brutal. In any event, I have come to one conclusion: It is far easier to respond to another’s opinion than to develop your own. In my years of writing, I have come to see, although begrudgingly, that there is more than one right answer to everything. No one starts off knowing this. As a child, everything our parents say is fact, until we realize how we were lied to about the whole Santa Clause debacle (yeah, finding out when your 7 years old from the 4 year old next door that Santa doesn’t exist really sucked. Thanks, mom. I just lived that down yesterday). It’s not until years later that we see, not only that there is more than one way to think about a topic, but that more than one is correct. But so often instead of doing the research, gathering facts, and coming to a logical conclusion on one’s own, we look for the first opinion we see and decide whether we agree or disagree with that opinion. So is an opinionated person one that has an opinion about a topic, or someone that has an opinion about another opinion? (I know that just set some record for the use of the word opinion, a fact of which I will get about a million editors reminding me.) It is far easier to critique a conclusion arrived at by another, which usually takes a matter of seconds to do, than to develop a good, valid opinion on our own. The opinions I respect don’t begin with “I think….” but, rather, the words “I have concluded….” presumably after much thought and research. (By the way, for the purposes of this blog, I am my own editor. I know I suck at it, and that is why in my other life I have a professional handling it. We have heard from a few volunteers for the position, and you may be getting a call soon, but not that so-called editor that called me an “ass-clown.” What’s that about? Ass.) Perhaps this explains the popularity of a Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. We enjoy either loving or hating them and the opinions they spew, but would never take the time or, perhaps, even care enough to think of our own. I think this might also explain the popularity of religion. How many, in the search for the answers to all the great questions of life, have even read the bible? Wouldn’t we just rather pick whatever opinion of the book we like best and sign up? How different would are life be if we stopped asking what others thought until after we considered the issue ourselves? What would we believe if there was no religion, but just the bible, prayer, and are own conclusions? And so I come back to reading all of these submissions. Try making me think. Not about how ridiculous or stupid or uninformed my opinion is, but give me something worth replacing my opinions with. I don’t need to be told how stupid I am. You write something worth reading, and I’ll come to that conclusion on my own.

Place your ad here!

2007-07-17T17:01:00.001-07:00

I must say I am amazed at the replies to some of my posts, but glad to see so many opinions out there. But regards the media and what is aired, lets make one thing perfectly clear: The audience ALWAYS decides what is broadcast. What is aired has nothing to do with decisions made by editors, producers or authors. Why are there Paris Hilton stories all over the place? Because we will watch. How is that known? Because just 3 months earlier, we watched the Anna Nicole Smith story every waking moment. Television stations are run by advertisers, no one else. In order to get an advertiser to buy time, a station needs ratings. To get ratings, they will use whatever tried and true means necessary. The ones that try something new are either called geniuses or are fired, depending on the outcome. What makes the steroid issue so interesting is that it DOES NOT PULL IN RATINGS. ESPN in the past has aired more than one 30 minute special on the topic; NOBODY WATCHED. News organizations can air Hilton and Lohan clips endlessly because it is well known they will get ratings. To say someone cares about a topic denotes that it moves them to a particular action. In the case of these no-talent tabloid stars, people are moved to watch, as indicated by the increase in ratings. With the steroids issue, no one is moved to watch, no one has stopped watching baseball, no one has stopped buying tickets. When the subject is broached on a radio talk show, it lasts for about a minute because no calls come in on the topic. Steroids in one of the few issues I can recall that is forced fed to us, slipped in between items we do care about (sports scores or Hilton stories), and provides the perfect time to get that second cup of coffee in the morning. While a normal reply to “I am sick of_________” is to turn the channel, steroids is the exception to that response. Show me the advertiser that wants his commercial to run during the “performance enhancing drugs” special, and I’ll change my opinion.

Thank you all!

2007-07-16T11:26:00.000-07:00

I want to take a moment to thank all that have replied to the posts either here on the blog or through email. We are working to get the new site up and running and all of your articles will be read as we search for the best talent out there. Just remember that we are not necessarily looking for a reply to one of my posts but rather a completely different look at the topic. Try to write as though you never read my original posting, and put a spin on it that is unique, and, most importantly, convincing. We have been amazed at the amount of replies, and we look forward to finding that work that will stand out for the website. Thank you!

Just shove the needle in my a** already

2007-07-16T06:46:00.000-07:00

This never ending issue of steroids in sports has been shoved down my throat now for at least the last 2 years. Every major news network runs almost hourly stories on it and ESPN is running this nonsense like a stock ticker. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the media reporting the news, even if it is as insignificant as say, a Paris Hilton story. But there is one huge difference between the steroids “scandal” and the Hilton joke; people care about the Hilton story. Every network ran, not only the story of her prison sentence, arrest, release, re-arrest, re-release, and mother-daughter hug; but also editorials on the internal debate to run those stories at all. The fact is they HAD to run this garbage. Why? Because we CARED. Why? I have no idea. All I know is that everyone I know was talking about it, and not just women and the gay community. On the golf course you hear “What do you think of the Paris arrest?” and at the gym “Do you think they over did it with the sentence?”. Everybody cared. There is no rhyme or reason to it, we just all love a train wreck, and this was it. The problem with the steroids thing is this: NOBODY CARES. Have you watched a major league game recently? The stadiums are packed. TV ratings are not just up, but WAY up. Barry Bonds was voted a starter by the fans in the All-Star game. While the media keeps gagging us on this steroid nonsense, we are busy changing the channel to watch Lindsay Lohan drive into trees. If these player want to keep sticking a needle in their arm and watch their heads blow up to the size of watermelons and their balls looking like M & M’s (the plain ones, cause those peanut ones are huge. Have you noticed that? When did they get so big?), fine. I don’t care. Just keep hitting balls out of the park, and I’ll keep watching and buying tickets. But to all those media outlets that want to keep running this crap the fact that I could care less won’t stop them. But eventually this will: No one else cares either.

The Supreme court ruling

2007-04-21T15:01:00.000-07:00

I have no choice after reading the ruling and many of the facts surrounding it to be puzzled. The Supreme Court voted this week to ban so-called (named so by it’s opponents) partial-birth abortions, despite the fact that abortions, though remaining a controversial topic, are legal. In this country, it is estimated 1.3 million abortions take place annually, while only a small portion of these are “partial-birth”. However, the details of this procedure are particularly gruesome. It entails a fetus being removed from its’ mother until only its’ head remains inside, then a hole is made in the head of the fetus, followed by a suction device which is inserted to suck out the brain, causing it’s head to collapse. No, really. It took me about 20 minutes to type that sentence, and I am not sure when I will be able to sleep again. That being said, it is still difficult to comprehend the decision, especially when one looks at the procedure of a more conventional abortion, which involves the entire fetus being suctioned out of the mother, thus suffocating. Both of these are so horrific that one wonders how many involved in this debate actually know and understand the details of either of these procedures. However, if one is legal, how can the other not be? Granted, typical abortions happen on or about the ninth week, while “partial–birth” ones are much later. But if we have already played the role of God and decided that a fetus having not been born is not yet worth being considered a “human” (and thus making it’s death murder), how can we decide one is so wrong while the other is perfectly acceptable? Both of these procedures are cringe-inducing nightmares, but now we are deciding between the lesser of two evils? Interestingly, the decision included 2 pages on the prospect of an abortion patient realizing later the details of this “partial-birth” procedure and feeling regret. So why is disclosure not the bigger issue here as opposed to prohibition? I have never been a proponent of abortion, and would never be in favor of having one if included in any decicion making process. However, the conclusions that others make is their business, and is to be taken up with their conscience. But now we have decision handed down that takes the authority out of the hands of God or an individual and puts it squarely in the hands of 9 people I have never met and hardly know. If abortion is legal, then it’s legal. If it’s not, it’s not. We can debate that issue all day. But don’t split hairs, especially when the way they are split are not based on any laws but rather political affiliations. If the conservatives believe it is wrong, based for the most part on religious reasons, should they not leave it up to God to judge our decisions? What is it about religious people that they feel so compelled to make, not only personal decisions, but to shove those decisions down everyone else’s throat as well? The decisions we make should have nothing to do with government so long as the health and safety of others is not impacted. So go worry about a war, handle the taxes, and pave the roads. No one needs you to make up their mind for them. In the off chance we want your opinion, we’ll ask.

Thanks, NBC

2007-04-19T12:25:00.000-07:00

So as the controversy regarding NBC showing the clips and pictures sent in by the Virginia Tech shooter continues to heat up faster than a born-again Christian at an abortion clinic, we are forced to ponder the following: What effect does showing these things really have? NBC has stated that it has helped answer the question as to why this act took place, and what was really happening inside the mind of young Cho Sueng-Hui. So that’s the reason? Like we didn’t know already he was a little crazy?Lets, just for a second, be honest. It was about one thing: ratings. That’s it. The FBI had asked that it not be aired, and if you really cared about the reasons behind the massacre, you would have complied. If your reason was anything other than ratings, why did you not share your little videos with your competing networks? I am sure Ms. Couric would have had no trouble airing them at all. Instead, CBS led Wednesday nights broadcast with the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, not that anyone watched anyway. You can certainly count your lucky stars that this nutjob decided to send you this little “package”, and while you were certainly free to use it as you wish, lets not pretend you give a damn about anything other that the Nielsons. All you did was give a bunch of grieving families a little more stress and agony, and delay their grieving process even further. Does anyone feel better after seeing this? What do we know now that we didn’t know before? What was so wrong with waiting a while before pounding this killers ugly face down our throats? Even so, after seeing this, what do we gain? Just this: The knowledge that there is no way at all to stop this from happening again. This boy had the attention of the legal system, had teachers recommending assistance, spent time with a psychiatrist, and showed, in writing through his scripts, his innermost thoughts. So all these clues were out there, but with no way to connect them, the puzzle was never complete enough to act apon. Haven’t we heard this before? The worst terrorist attact in our nations history could have been avoided if there had not been such an inability or unwillingness to share information between agencies. If a teacher goes to school authorities with a concern for a student, shouldn’t their investigation involve questioning other teachers as well? Or maybe even check with his roommates and classmates? Should a psychiatrist, concerned enough to realize suicidal tendencies, take at least a few minutes to check the opinions of others that know the individual? How many times can the buck be passed? While we cannot imply that this was the fault of anyone other than the shooter, certainly if we are charged with the responsibility with deciding the mental stability of a patient, or with the well-being of a student body, should that not involve a little more than checking a box on a medical form? A judge actually ordered outpatient mental health treatment for Mr. Sueng-Hui. Enforced by whom? We allow an obviously troubled individual back on the street, with no one responsible at all for the repercussions. If a doctor were to prescribe the wrong medication for a patient, causing perhaps one’s death, would they be responsible? Of course. But what if they prescribed no medication or treatment when it was needed? Are they now without blame? As long as there is a system, there will be cracks in the system. There will always be another Cho Sueng-Hui to fall between them. So, thanks NBC, for telling us what we already knew. I just could have waited a few days for the reminder.

Is this really what we have come to?

2007-04-18T07:07:00.000-07:00

It is just 2 days following the horrific events of Mondays Virginia Tech events, and it seems we have already moved on. This morning the headlines on yahoo.com had to do with tax extensions and presidential candidates, with hardly a mention of our troubled shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, and the tragedy. Perhaps, as we delve deeper into his life, we are afraid of what we will find. Stories of teachers pulling him from class and directing him to counseling after some admittedly deranged writing, the fact that he had few friends and signed his name with a question mark, and the ever present query as to why a man wanting to take his own life felt compelled to take so many others with him. It seems so incomprehensible, but is it really? The English major wrote of mothers with chainsaws and step-fathers killing step-sons, and an overwhelming desire by students to kill a teacher in his plays. This is shocking? If you were a teacher, and a student had turned in “Pulp Fiction” as a homework assignment, what would you think? Would you run to a counselor to get a young Mr. Tarantino help, or pay $10 bucks to go see the movie? Last weekend, “300”, a movie based a Frank Miller graphic novel, passed the $200 million mark in the US and has grossed over $400 million worldwide, despite some of the more deranged killings ever seen on screen. Did we miss the “warning signs”? And this is just the start. Every weekend features a new horror movie with more torture to “push the limits”, with lines, usually made up of, say, 18-24 year old males, stretching around the block to buy tickets. Are we really shocked that a 22 year old college student would write this way? No. We will hear those that will sadly state that they should have said something, or could have done more to help. He obviously had some serious issues which called for professional help. We know that now. But could we have admitted that beforehand? How could we sit through and be entertained by a movie like “Hostel”, which features clients paying upwards of $25,000 to torture and kill Americans with chainsaws for sport, and then question Mr. Seung-Hui’s writings that feature similar themes? These may just be movies, but they all started in someone’s mind, and that someone in now holding millions of our dollars for having “entertained” us. And is the fact that he was a loner bothersome? Living in a age of severely diminished social skills, where are best friends are Sanjaya and Jack Bauer, and Friday night is spent huddled over a laptop with an oversized cup of coffee, why are we surprised? The fact is, we’re not. There is no way to forsee this happening, especially when the line is so blurred. All the “warning signs” show us is that we can’t tell anymore the difference between a brilliant director or a serial killer, an incredibly creative mind or a student on the edge. If we really want to notice the warning signs, we have to change the way we are entertained, the way we look at art and creativity. Perhaps the recent events in Virginia will do that, but it is unlikely. This, for a while, may change the way we look at others, the way we look for warning signs. But for real change, we need to change the way we look……..in the mirror.

The whole Imus thing

2007-04-18T07:06:00.000-07:00

It has been awhile since I spent much time watching the news, at least on a so-called real news channel, not with John Stewart still on every night at 11. But I figured it had been way too long, like over 24 hours, since I had heard of any soldiers dying in Iraq or some stupid comments from the White House, so I tuned in. And while there were no dead bodies to show, there was what looked like a breathing cadaver plastered on every channel in the form of Don Imus, who apparently had said something that someone heard and then told someone who emailed some black female basketball player at Rutgers. That had to be what happened, since the odds of a 20 year old intelligent hard working African-american athlete at Rutgers even having a clue who Don Imus is are about the same as his wife marrying him for his looks. As I hear the details of this complete stupidity, I am forced to contemplate the most obvious question. Who the hell cares what Don Imus says? Are these girls really upset with what was said, or just pissed off at the 3, 285,058 members of the god-forsaken media that keep pounding them with questions every 3 seconds? There is no excuse for the idiotic comments in the first place, but it this really the first time it has happened? Imus has done this for years. Now we all care? The phrase that was used was “nappy-headed ho’s.” So as I see it, there are 2 groups that have any rights to be offended: first, the Rutgers women basketball team and their families; and second, actual nappy headed ho’s. And I am not really sure if the latter would speak up anyway. Instead of hearing from either of these groups, we get to hear the Reverends’ Sharpton and Jackson, both with those spotless records, yelling some insanity at every possible moment a camera is in front of them. I wonder, How much time did they spend talking with the young women before their respective public tirades? What gives them the right to demand the head of Imus, when these girls had not yet said a word? Did they realize that these comments, while incomprehensible, came from a man that has raised millions for children of every race imaginable? Not only did they ramble on like madmen, but looked even worse following the Rutgers press conference. Who needs the Rev’s as a voice of the African-american nation when you have C. Vivian Stringer and Essence Carson handling themselves with more grace and class than those two men have ever shown. In the face of an insane media outcry and a ridiculous amount of unwanted publicity, these 2 women stood out as examples of what all humans should be. Did all of this attention bother them? Of course. Would they rather have had the focus be on their remarkable tournament run, and their individual accomplishments as African American women? Absolutely. Did they wallow in self-pity because some idiot opened his mouth? Never. There was no question after that news conference that anything ever said about them could slow them down, no matter how popular the source. These women don’t need anyone to stand up for them, especially some media hungry self-appointed spokesmen. This is the most over-blown non-story in years, destroying the career of man that does far more good than harm, and putting amazing women in a completely unwarranted pressure filled mess. I don’t respect a black man for being black, I don’t respect a white man for being white. I respect those that work hard, have self-respect, and don’t let anything stand in the way of greatness. I respect the Rutgers womens basketball team.