Did you hear? Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (really don't get that name, but hey -- whatcha gonna do?) was arrested. The silly little man thought he could get away with mocking Mohammed. Not on THIS President's watch!! No, siree... I mean, the Obama administration tried first to get YouTube to remove the offending piece... and that didn't work. I guess the power just isn't quite there. But the US Attorney's office can and did arrest the nasty piece of work who made the film! Granted, they had to figure out some sort of charge they could use... how about violation of parole? Great!
Nakoula's been a bad, bad boy before. Using aliases, dealing drugs, stealing money... he knows how to get things done. So apparently he's a parolee. Lots of rules by which to live for this man. And, apparently, he's not supposed to have access to the internet as one of his terms - nor is he allowed to use aliases. (Seems a teensy silly to me, but whatever.) So they nail him for the use of an alias and haul him off. He gets in front of a judge for his preliminary and the judge rules that he be held without bail. For a parole violation?? Seriously? Apparently so.
The judge decided that Nakoula has a pattern of deception and that he represents a danger to the community. Frankly, so does everyone in Washington DC, but I digress.
So here's the picture I see. A goober of a man doesn't like Islam. (I don't care for Islam as a religion either, but I'm not as big a goober.) He decides to make fun of it with a film which is posted over the summer, and is admittedly done in poor taste. He apparently doesn't like his name and uses a plethora of other names under which to conduct all manner of business. (Really, considering his given name, one can hardly blame the man on this point.)
In September, a number of Muslims attack our embassy in Libya, killing our ambassador along with others. For some reason, the film is brought up as the lightning rod causing the entire thing.
The Obama administration tries to strong arm google and has no success. They then go after Mr. Goober and lock him up. Now the whole cast and crew for the low budget film are going public with how upset they are, how they were duped into making the film, that they had no idea it was made to make fun of Islam, etc... Apparently, the film was originally going to be about "how things were 2000 years ago in Egypt." And do you know why these actors and actresses are so vocally protesting? I'll bet it's because they're afraid of being knifed in the street due to their involvement.
I don't believe that the unrest in the middle east is because of this stupid film. That's just the most ludicrous theory I have ever heard in my life. I do believe, though, that Americans are afraid of what the Muslims can and will do. Even our current administration is either afraid of the Muslims or complicit in their actions.
In what way, pray tell, is Nakoula a "danger to the community" except for what other actions some Muslims might take because of Nakoula's behavior? Frankly, the fact that so many Americans are willing to blame this goober of a man for the bad behavior of so many Muslims is the really frightening thing. Allowing ourselves to be controlled by a volatile minority is foolish. Stifling free speech because there are some people out there who might start a riot if you say the wrong thing is terrible policy. And locking a man up on a parole violation with no bail is way over the top.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Arab Winter
So I've heard talk from some people about what's going on in the Arab world... a dead US Ambassador, an accusation of "hate speech" because of a film made (that's hardly worthy even of being called a "film"), how it all comes together and who or what is to blame. The talk goes something like this: Hate speech is bad... so bad, actually, that even if they aren't the ones who are committing acts of violence, they are (at least partially) to blame for any violence that ensues. Therefore, if we only stop the haters, everybody could just get along.
I have, to say the least, a few problems with this line of thinking. While the folks voicing these opinions certainly mean well, it seems a bit naive and one-sided.
First of all, the idea that the movie makers are the haters inciting violence and if they would just stop making movies the violence would stop is naive. The violence in the Muslim world started LOOOOOONNNG before that movie was even dreamt up by the producers. It could, in fact, be argued that the movie producers thought of the movie idea because of the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam -- if we wanted to argue in that fashion (which we really don't).
The idea is one-sided because this idea is not mentioned by the same people when, say, an abortion clinic is bombed (okay, not that this is really happening much anymore, but still -- roll with me on this). These same people wouldn't ever say that the doctor's actions (i.e., killing unborn children) incited the violence -- so don't they share the blame? Or, another example would be rape. Would these same people ever say that a woman who was scantily clad incited her rapist? Of course not. OR... what if some moron opened fire on some employees of Bill Maher, saying that his hate speech was just too much and they had to kill him? Could it be said that Bill Maher actually shares the blame for this action? I really don't think that they would argue such a thing.
The reason they wouldn't argue in that way is two-fold. First of all, they don't find Bill Maher's speech to be totally offensive. I happen to find the man repulsive and full of hate, but many people don't see him that way -- and that's okay. The other reason they wouldn't argue that way is because the argument makes no sense. Seriously. Nobody is responsible for my actions but me. Nobody can make me do something. I am a person who operates with my own free will. Likewise, nobody can make the Arab people do something stupid -- regardless of how stupid or offensive something is. And believe me, that movie was certainly offensive. I'm not anything close to a Muslim and I was offended by the preview. Of course, I'm also offended by the history of Islam -- which doesn't help.
Yes, I said it. I am offended by Islam. There you go. And not only that, but Islam is totally offended by me. I'm not a Muslim. They tend to find that offensive -- or they're supposed to, anyway. See, here's the thing. It doesn't matter that I'm offended. And it shouldn't matter that they're offended. Our western civilization demands that we play nice. In fact, some of us demand so strongly that they say it's our fault the other side is playing seriously dirty if we didn't play nicely enough. I don't buy it -- and here's why... the Arab "civilization" (I use the term loosely) doesn't demand any such thing. No playing nice, no respecting of differences, not even a "you deserve to exist, too." Uh-uh.
So... I can play nice - for the most part. But I can't pretend not to find Islam offensive. I just do. And I can't accept the idea that it's anybody's fault but the Arabs' that Arabs are running around killing people and burning down our embassies. I'm sorry -- but that's just not an idea to which I can subscribe.
I have, to say the least, a few problems with this line of thinking. While the folks voicing these opinions certainly mean well, it seems a bit naive and one-sided.
First of all, the idea that the movie makers are the haters inciting violence and if they would just stop making movies the violence would stop is naive. The violence in the Muslim world started LOOOOOONNNG before that movie was even dreamt up by the producers. It could, in fact, be argued that the movie producers thought of the movie idea because of the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam -- if we wanted to argue in that fashion (which we really don't).
The idea is one-sided because this idea is not mentioned by the same people when, say, an abortion clinic is bombed (okay, not that this is really happening much anymore, but still -- roll with me on this). These same people wouldn't ever say that the doctor's actions (i.e., killing unborn children) incited the violence -- so don't they share the blame? Or, another example would be rape. Would these same people ever say that a woman who was scantily clad incited her rapist? Of course not. OR... what if some moron opened fire on some employees of Bill Maher, saying that his hate speech was just too much and they had to kill him? Could it be said that Bill Maher actually shares the blame for this action? I really don't think that they would argue such a thing.
The reason they wouldn't argue in that way is two-fold. First of all, they don't find Bill Maher's speech to be totally offensive. I happen to find the man repulsive and full of hate, but many people don't see him that way -- and that's okay. The other reason they wouldn't argue that way is because the argument makes no sense. Seriously. Nobody is responsible for my actions but me. Nobody can make me do something. I am a person who operates with my own free will. Likewise, nobody can make the Arab people do something stupid -- regardless of how stupid or offensive something is. And believe me, that movie was certainly offensive. I'm not anything close to a Muslim and I was offended by the preview. Of course, I'm also offended by the history of Islam -- which doesn't help.
Yes, I said it. I am offended by Islam. There you go. And not only that, but Islam is totally offended by me. I'm not a Muslim. They tend to find that offensive -- or they're supposed to, anyway. See, here's the thing. It doesn't matter that I'm offended. And it shouldn't matter that they're offended. Our western civilization demands that we play nice. In fact, some of us demand so strongly that they say it's our fault the other side is playing seriously dirty if we didn't play nicely enough. I don't buy it -- and here's why... the Arab "civilization" (I use the term loosely) doesn't demand any such thing. No playing nice, no respecting of differences, not even a "you deserve to exist, too." Uh-uh.
So... I can play nice - for the most part. But I can't pretend not to find Islam offensive. I just do. And I can't accept the idea that it's anybody's fault but the Arabs' that Arabs are running around killing people and burning down our embassies. I'm sorry -- but that's just not an idea to which I can subscribe.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Not Writer's Block
I'll admit it -- I've been terrible about posting. And it's certainly not that I have writer's block. There are more subjects to blog on right now than any one person could possibly cover. Between the Akin debacle (oh, the horrors), the Republican National Convention (Really? You think that's going to inspire me?), the Democratic National Convention (so many speeches, so little time), and various political commercials... I honestly don't know where to begin.
I suppose I should preface this with letting everyone know that I've decided I need to put my best foot forward from now on. I will be working on my tone.
Let's start with Akin, shall we? Yes, let's... and all the while I will chant in my head, "Tone... watch your tone..." What was that man thinking?!? Silly question, really. Obviously, he was thinking some really stupid thoughts. I guess that old saying has a bit of truth to it... "better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." I read what Akin said from numerous -- yea, numerous -- sources. Frankly, one would expect a bit of spin to be added to anything stupid said by any Republican anywhere. On this one, however, no spin necessary. It was abysmally dumb. Please, as I write this, keep in mind that I am staunchly pro-life, not to be swayed by even a rape claim, albeit a completely legitimate one. (Oy, the attachment of legitimate to the word rape is so politically volatile.) My thoughts on rape and abortion go something like this: A fetus (baby) is a valuable human life regardless of the circumstances of its conception. A woman is a valuable human life regardless of her circumstances or her choices. That a woman can and possibly would choose a second violation in an effort to cancel out the first makes me very sad indeed. Sad for the woman who will live with that choice for the rest of her life, and will doubtlessly be affected by it. Honestly, the idea that a woman's body has some supernatural ability to differentiate between sperm implanted forcefully vs. willingly is so ludicrous I think it doesn't even deserve rebuttal.
On the the Republican National Convention. I don't like Mitt Romney. No secret there. (Tone... remember the tone...) He might be a very nice man at home. His wife says he is, and I assume that we can take her word on that. Michelle Obama says Barack Obama is very nice at home, too, and I am willing to take her at her word. How nice one is or isn't at home isn't really something that is going to get me to feel comfortable voting for him, though. Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate. I would say that this makes me feel more comfortable voting for Mitt, but it doesn't, so I won't. I don't have anything against Paul Ryan. He's probably perfectly nice at home, too. And his politics are certainly more in line with mine than Mitt's are. I see the choice of him as running mate, however, as a political move on Romney's part - designed to make me feel more comfortable voting for Romney. I still don't like Romney. I would say that I'm absolutely certain the Republican party has better choices they could have nominated for President of the United States, but the Republican party doesn't want better choices - nor do they want to listen to the people, as evidenced by their convention.
Let it be known that I am NOT A RON PAUL FAN. (Tone...) I'm not a groupie. I actually shy away from him based on what I see from the people who follow him. Any time someone has a following which treats that someone like he's the only way to save the world, I'm beyond skeptical. I purposefully, whether wrongly or not, turn the other way, wanting no involvement whatsoever. But... I have to say, the actions of the Republican party in regards to Ron Paul and his various followers around the country has been despicable. Really, what is the reason for not reading off the votes that he got? It looked petty and nasty. And, frankly, it looked like a power play that was unwise, to put it mildly (and with a nice tone).
I find myself drifting further and further away from the Republican party based on the actions of the leadership there. Sadly, however, I feel forced to vote Republican anyway because I'm certainly not drifting in the direction of the Democrats. What is a girl to do?
I guess this brings me to the Democratic National Convention, held in my own neck of the woods -- Charlotte, NC. I actually live outside the city by a better-than-reasonable distance, leaving me entirely unaffected by the convention traffic, the protesting, and all the general silliness that went on in the city. I did, however, happen to catch some snippets of the convention online. And isn't it just grand that we can torture ourselves in this way? At our fingertips... at any time of day... we can expose ourselves to all manner of irritation by just a click of a button. And this is what I have done.
I must say, I was fascinated by the fact that the Democrat party appears to be suffering from the same crisis of personality as the Republican party. I got to see the Democrats, just like the Republicans, completely disregard the will of their people. Basically, the story was this -- The Democrat platform, for whatever reason, left out mention of God, support for Israel, and the idea that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Not wanting to miss an opportunity, the Republicans loudly pointed this fact out to the American people. A bit of backpedaling was done, and a motion was made on the floor at the Democrat convention to add back in these three things. Rules were explained (non-debatable motion, 2/3 vote required), verbal votes taken, and - much to the chair's surprise - it was far from unanimous. It sounded to be about 50/50. Confusion on his face, he took the vote again. (Maybe the people didn't understand... maybe they were confused... maybe one side will get louder...) Both sides got louder the second time around, leaving another approximately 50/50 vote. The poor man serving as chair was befuddled beyond belief. Obviously, this motion was needed for politics -- and he was told that it should pass. But it didn't. A woman came up to him and spoke after which he called for a vote a third time. Again -- about 50/50. After the third vote, he said what was "required" of him, "In the opinion of the chair 2/3 have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen." He said this to boos... and more boos... to which he waved his arms as he spoke.
The Republicans have seized on this story as, "The Democrats are booing God!!" Frankly, I'm exhausted by all the middle school garbage. (Tone... I'm working on it, people, but they make it so hard!) The Democrats in the room weren't booing God, per se. They were booing the fact that the vote was not taken seriously. There was NOT a 2/3 vote in the affirmative. The will of the people was being disregarded, and this is not how a democratic society is supposed to work. They were angry for good reason -- and not at God (since the people voting against God probably don't believe in Him in the first place). They were angry at their leaders -- for disregarding their voice. Frankly, if the Republicans hadn't just done the exact same thing, they could have seized on the story as "Democrats disregard the will of the people -" and been quite successful. But I guess that's what happens when you go first... you don't get to go back and have a do-over because you know the other side is going to make a whopper of a mistake.
Annnnnnnd.... my cynicism grows.
I'm going to need more than a middle school pep rally to get me back into the swing of things. I'm actually going to have to have some people of character in charge. Just... not another "messiah for the people," please. I think we've had enough of that already.
I suppose I should preface this with letting everyone know that I've decided I need to put my best foot forward from now on. I will be working on my tone.
Let's start with Akin, shall we? Yes, let's... and all the while I will chant in my head, "Tone... watch your tone..." What was that man thinking?!? Silly question, really. Obviously, he was thinking some really stupid thoughts. I guess that old saying has a bit of truth to it... "better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." I read what Akin said from numerous -- yea, numerous -- sources. Frankly, one would expect a bit of spin to be added to anything stupid said by any Republican anywhere. On this one, however, no spin necessary. It was abysmally dumb. Please, as I write this, keep in mind that I am staunchly pro-life, not to be swayed by even a rape claim, albeit a completely legitimate one. (Oy, the attachment of legitimate to the word rape is so politically volatile.) My thoughts on rape and abortion go something like this: A fetus (baby) is a valuable human life regardless of the circumstances of its conception. A woman is a valuable human life regardless of her circumstances or her choices. That a woman can and possibly would choose a second violation in an effort to cancel out the first makes me very sad indeed. Sad for the woman who will live with that choice for the rest of her life, and will doubtlessly be affected by it. Honestly, the idea that a woman's body has some supernatural ability to differentiate between sperm implanted forcefully vs. willingly is so ludicrous I think it doesn't even deserve rebuttal.
On the the Republican National Convention. I don't like Mitt Romney. No secret there. (Tone... remember the tone...) He might be a very nice man at home. His wife says he is, and I assume that we can take her word on that. Michelle Obama says Barack Obama is very nice at home, too, and I am willing to take her at her word. How nice one is or isn't at home isn't really something that is going to get me to feel comfortable voting for him, though. Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate. I would say that this makes me feel more comfortable voting for Mitt, but it doesn't, so I won't. I don't have anything against Paul Ryan. He's probably perfectly nice at home, too. And his politics are certainly more in line with mine than Mitt's are. I see the choice of him as running mate, however, as a political move on Romney's part - designed to make me feel more comfortable voting for Romney. I still don't like Romney. I would say that I'm absolutely certain the Republican party has better choices they could have nominated for President of the United States, but the Republican party doesn't want better choices - nor do they want to listen to the people, as evidenced by their convention.
Let it be known that I am NOT A RON PAUL FAN. (Tone...) I'm not a groupie. I actually shy away from him based on what I see from the people who follow him. Any time someone has a following which treats that someone like he's the only way to save the world, I'm beyond skeptical. I purposefully, whether wrongly or not, turn the other way, wanting no involvement whatsoever. But... I have to say, the actions of the Republican party in regards to Ron Paul and his various followers around the country has been despicable. Really, what is the reason for not reading off the votes that he got? It looked petty and nasty. And, frankly, it looked like a power play that was unwise, to put it mildly (and with a nice tone).
I find myself drifting further and further away from the Republican party based on the actions of the leadership there. Sadly, however, I feel forced to vote Republican anyway because I'm certainly not drifting in the direction of the Democrats. What is a girl to do?
I guess this brings me to the Democratic National Convention, held in my own neck of the woods -- Charlotte, NC. I actually live outside the city by a better-than-reasonable distance, leaving me entirely unaffected by the convention traffic, the protesting, and all the general silliness that went on in the city. I did, however, happen to catch some snippets of the convention online. And isn't it just grand that we can torture ourselves in this way? At our fingertips... at any time of day... we can expose ourselves to all manner of irritation by just a click of a button. And this is what I have done.
I must say, I was fascinated by the fact that the Democrat party appears to be suffering from the same crisis of personality as the Republican party. I got to see the Democrats, just like the Republicans, completely disregard the will of their people. Basically, the story was this -- The Democrat platform, for whatever reason, left out mention of God, support for Israel, and the idea that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Not wanting to miss an opportunity, the Republicans loudly pointed this fact out to the American people. A bit of backpedaling was done, and a motion was made on the floor at the Democrat convention to add back in these three things. Rules were explained (non-debatable motion, 2/3 vote required), verbal votes taken, and - much to the chair's surprise - it was far from unanimous. It sounded to be about 50/50. Confusion on his face, he took the vote again. (Maybe the people didn't understand... maybe they were confused... maybe one side will get louder...) Both sides got louder the second time around, leaving another approximately 50/50 vote. The poor man serving as chair was befuddled beyond belief. Obviously, this motion was needed for politics -- and he was told that it should pass. But it didn't. A woman came up to him and spoke after which he called for a vote a third time. Again -- about 50/50. After the third vote, he said what was "required" of him, "In the opinion of the chair 2/3 have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen." He said this to boos... and more boos... to which he waved his arms as he spoke.
The Republicans have seized on this story as, "The Democrats are booing God!!" Frankly, I'm exhausted by all the middle school garbage. (Tone... I'm working on it, people, but they make it so hard!) The Democrats in the room weren't booing God, per se. They were booing the fact that the vote was not taken seriously. There was NOT a 2/3 vote in the affirmative. The will of the people was being disregarded, and this is not how a democratic society is supposed to work. They were angry for good reason -- and not at God (since the people voting against God probably don't believe in Him in the first place). They were angry at their leaders -- for disregarding their voice. Frankly, if the Republicans hadn't just done the exact same thing, they could have seized on the story as "Democrats disregard the will of the people -" and been quite successful. But I guess that's what happens when you go first... you don't get to go back and have a do-over because you know the other side is going to make a whopper of a mistake.
Annnnnnnd.... my cynicism grows.
I'm going to need more than a middle school pep rally to get me back into the swing of things. I'm actually going to have to have some people of character in charge. Just... not another "messiah for the people," please. I think we've had enough of that already.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Mumbling, Meandering, Melancholy Musing
I suffer from PF -- "political fatigue." Seriously, folks, it's not bad enough that my choices are between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney this go-round. We also have to be subjected to the usual ridiculous ads (Mitt Romney killed my wife and doesn't know and doesn't care...) as well as news articles on topics that are old, tired, and crazy or completely blown out of proportion.
Is there any good reason for the statement of the restaurant chain owner of Chick Fil A to occupy the attention of the media for well over a week? The media couldn't have helped that restaurant chain more if they were trying -- and I don't think they were trying.
The sad fact is that we live in a country divided almost evenly. About half the population tends to lean left and the other half tends to lean right. Each election is a crap shoot - you really just don't know what's going to happen. Both sides bend over backwards, insanely contorting themselves, to try and make a point that will stick with the people who don't pay attention otherwise.
Is there some ground on which people can agree? Not really... apparently. One would wish that we could all agree to disagree respectfully and with a measure of dignity, but that doesn't appear to be possible, either. It would be nice (and far more productive) if we could argue the issues based on fact and reason instead of pointing our fingers and shouting, "Liar liar pants on fire," or vilifying those who disagree as "evil," "Hitler," or other now-meaningless jibes.
Should the practice of abortion be legal? Should we have same sex marriage in the US? Should crazy people be allowed to protest the funerals of anybody? Should we have a nationalized health care system in which care is rationed differently from how it's rationed now? Should the country continue to spend, spend, spend even though the money isn't there? Is spending the money nationally going to make money for the country? Is it the government's job to put people to work? Can the government perform such a function and if so, how?
These are all issues needing to be discussed, not only by the politicians (heaven help us when they start up), but by voters all across the country. The problem is that very few voters are capable of having a rational, intelligent conversation about such topics. Having an opinion is easy... having an informed opinion is a bit more work.
I've heard it said numerous times that voting is not only a right, it's an obligation... a duty. But it doesn't do anyone any good if a bunch of uninformed boobs go to the voting booth and vote. I think the mantra needs to change. An informed, intelligent vote is a citizen's duty. If you're not going to do the work of informing yourself, you have no business in the voting booth. If you cannot intelligently discuss the issues facing the country (which means being able to articulate your viewpoint instead of simply attacking the other side), then it's your patriotic duty to stay home.
Is there any good reason for the statement of the restaurant chain owner of Chick Fil A to occupy the attention of the media for well over a week? The media couldn't have helped that restaurant chain more if they were trying -- and I don't think they were trying.
The sad fact is that we live in a country divided almost evenly. About half the population tends to lean left and the other half tends to lean right. Each election is a crap shoot - you really just don't know what's going to happen. Both sides bend over backwards, insanely contorting themselves, to try and make a point that will stick with the people who don't pay attention otherwise.
Is there some ground on which people can agree? Not really... apparently. One would wish that we could all agree to disagree respectfully and with a measure of dignity, but that doesn't appear to be possible, either. It would be nice (and far more productive) if we could argue the issues based on fact and reason instead of pointing our fingers and shouting, "Liar liar pants on fire," or vilifying those who disagree as "evil," "Hitler," or other now-meaningless jibes.
Should the practice of abortion be legal? Should we have same sex marriage in the US? Should crazy people be allowed to protest the funerals of anybody? Should we have a nationalized health care system in which care is rationed differently from how it's rationed now? Should the country continue to spend, spend, spend even though the money isn't there? Is spending the money nationally going to make money for the country? Is it the government's job to put people to work? Can the government perform such a function and if so, how?
These are all issues needing to be discussed, not only by the politicians (heaven help us when they start up), but by voters all across the country. The problem is that very few voters are capable of having a rational, intelligent conversation about such topics. Having an opinion is easy... having an informed opinion is a bit more work.
I've heard it said numerous times that voting is not only a right, it's an obligation... a duty. But it doesn't do anyone any good if a bunch of uninformed boobs go to the voting booth and vote. I think the mantra needs to change. An informed, intelligent vote is a citizen's duty. If you're not going to do the work of informing yourself, you have no business in the voting booth. If you cannot intelligently discuss the issues facing the country (which means being able to articulate your viewpoint instead of simply attacking the other side), then it's your patriotic duty to stay home.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Blame Bush Part Infinity
Anybody else tired of hearing our current sitting President blame the last one?
The GSA (General Services Administration) apparently went crazy on a conference in 2010 -- spending over $800,000 on their good times near Vegas. Obama's reaction? "Don't look at me... look at what Bush did!" Seriously. Very much like our national debt... his response to the current issues with spending and the national debt? "Bush did it, too!"
I'm not kidding. Their argument was literally that the cost of the conference increased mightily under George W. Bush. Here are the facts: Conference in 2004: $93,000. In 2006: $323,855. In 2008: $655,025. (Is your blood boiling yet? Should be... George W. Bush's administration sure loved to spend our money...) Obama's administration in 2010? $840,616.
Obama's argument is a little like a small child who was caught eating the chocolate cake out of the cupboard. He was just going at it... and he points to his brother who also has chocolate on his face and says, "He ate some, too!!!"
Yes, Bush did it. It made us mad. Bailouts and high spending irritate the tar out of me, no matter who is responsible. But stop pointing your dirty fingers at the Bush administration as a way to justify your own bad behavior. It's juvenile, it's unattractive, and it's stupid.
Short rant today -- but there's really not much else to say on that.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Up Is Down, Black Is White, Wrong Is Right
Sometimes the news makes me tired. Tired, I tell you! Okay, and maybe a little bit riled up. Maybe if I didn't get so worked up, I would have some energy left when I finished reading.
Seriously, though... where to begin?
There is, of course, the news about health care and the Supreme Court. The mainstream news media are working hard to work it so that whatever happens, somehow they can turn it to Obama's favor. The NYT appears to be somewhat irritated that the court even took the case, citing all the cases the court is hearing in the next few weeks followed by the statement, "It can seem that the court is prepared to decide every major controversy in American life."
Also in the New York Times, there is an article by Gina Kolata (published April 2, 2012 "The ABC's of the Health Care Law and Its Future") which "defines" the law as:
It's a series of policies and regulations and subsidies and mandates. That's the reason it's so complex. It builds on an incoherent medical system with all kinds of public and private insurance and tries to patch the holes. And it affects different groups of americans in different ways at different times.
But it is transformative. If it is implemented, it would be the most important health care law since the enactment of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. It brings us closer to the ideal that all Americans should have access to care regardless of income or health status.
If I may pick this apart on a separate rant for just a moment... Why in the world would we want to "build on" something that's incoherent? The definition of incoherent, as relates to a system, is "internally inconsistent; illogical." Well, HEY. Let's build on that, shall we?? Actually, sounds like something the government would typically do, which is why everything they touch turns to something nasty.
Also, I have to point out that all Americans DO have access to care (and even many non-Americans living in America). Because the other argument that is continually put forward is that it's not "fair" for some people to simply go to the ER and receive their health care and force others to pay for it.
President Obama climbed up on his high horse to squeak out some "stern language" to the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon. Ha! Stern language... that's funny. President Obama doesn't (shouldn't) have any influence over court proceedings. And yet there he is... saying that his health care law will be "over.... UPHELD." Yes, he seriously did almost offer up "overturned" before he self corrected.
He also claimed that overturning this law would be "unprecedented" and an "extraordinary step." Funny stuff, coming from someone who prides himself on being a professor of constitutional law... Roe V. Wade, anyone? Of course, he would have been remiss to not point out that judges are not elected (no... they're appointed by the President -- two on the bench were appointed by his highness himself). The dude's got some chutzpa, I'll give him that... not a lot of wisdom in what he says and does -- but the stupid things he says are usually full of gall.
And speaking of gall... here we go, again on Monday (Obama had a very busy Monday):
"It's worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism."
Woot Woot!!
Of course, he also sort of entered the national stage with a speech on how his entrance was going to turn back the tides and reverse global warming, etc... It's too bad he limits himself so much.
And now I see that this post has been just a long-winded rant, aimlessly floating from one topic to the next. Sigh. I had better stop before it gets any worse.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Three Tragedies For the Price of One
Trayvon Martin. Innocent child? Or hoodie-wearin', trash talkin' gangsta?
Big sigh.
Chances are really good, especially now, that nobody will know what really happened on the day he died. And that's really, really sad. For everybody. Trayvon Martin is dead. Whether he was a choir boy or a drug dealer, that's sad. He was seventeen years old, and he was a person. George Zimmerman is a man who has gone into hiding because of threats against his life -- who is also dealing with the stress of having killed a person. Assuming he's even a halfway decent human being who has a conscience, he's gotta be having a rough time.
By my count, that's two tragedies right there.
And then... there's the press.
This is a perfect example of how our news media operates with an agenda. NBC reported the incident and played portions of the 911 call between George Zimmerman and the operator. On March 27th they aired a tape that played like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.
In the full version, it goes like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
911 Operator: Okay. And this guy... is he white, black, or hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
I don't pretend to understand what NBC gets out of painting Zimmerman as a racist. Does he hate black people? I don't know. Neither do they. But editing a tape in the way that they did certainly shows they want OTHER people to think he hates black people... as if the color of their skin somehow makes them appear to be up to no good.
Barack Obama did his part, of course, in stirring up more tension. He made certain to make note of Trayvon's skin color, even if it was in a (very) slightly nuanced way. Saying, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon," is saying, "See? He's black - like me." I certainly don't think that President Obama saw a picture of Trayvon and thought, "Geez. That boy looks so much like me he could be my kid!"
And we have news outlets who are printing pictures of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman immediately next to each other. George Zimmerman's picture looks like a mug shot and Trayvon Martin looks like he's about nine years old. (Anybody trying to mold public opinion in one direction there? You think?)
Then we have various politicians making statements and wearing garments they wouldn't otherwise wear to score some political points. And we have people in the streets demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman. And we have Spike Lee trying to sic the public on George Zimmerman, but in getting the address wrong, ends up driving a nice little old couple out of their own home.
I don't think we can even rightly call this a circus anymore.
I had a friend send me an email, asking me to blog on Trayvon Martin. So there. I've done it. Three tragedies in one -- Trayvon Martin is dead. George Zimmerman's life is a serious mess (if the rabid public even let him live). And our media once again showed its true colors. But I guess that's a tragedy that happens every day. Oh - and tragedy number four. The American people just swallow the trash the news media dishes out. Truly it seems that people are unwilling to think for themselves anymore. No wonder our country is in such an unholy mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)