Doing my usual deeper research. some information and some thoughts:
1. The State of Minnesota does not have a death penalty. Life imprisonment is the harshest penalty available under the laws of Minnesota.
2. First-degree murder under MN law, which is punishable by mandatory (if I'm reading things correctly) life imprisonment, requires any of the following--premeditation (going into a situation with the intent to kill from the get-go), causing a death during a sexual assault, intentionally killing someone during the commission of another felony under state law, killing a member of the justice system (police, prosecutor, judge, etc) while that person is "on the job," killing a child during an act of child abuse, killing an adult during an act of domestic abuse, or killing someone during an act of terrorism.
The only thing (in my non-lawyer but with a lot of background in things of a legal nature mind) that could factor in here is premeditation...and I don't see how that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Second-degree murder in MN has two different parts--intentional and unintentional killing, both punishable by up to 40 years in prison. Intentional killing per this statute means killing someone on purpose but without premeditation, or who commits a spontaneous drive-by shooting. Unintentional refers to killing someone unintentionally during the commission of another felony not covered under first-degree.
Perhaps intentional killing without premeditation could be in play here, but we must ask: Can we convince twelve people beyond a reasonable doubt that the perpetrator intended to kill?
4. Third-degree murder in MN consists of unintentionally causing a death by doing something "evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life...." (MN Statute 609.195) Maximum penalty for this is 25 years.
In my mind, this should be a slam-dunk, given that I've heard absolutely nobody anywhere argue that the perp was doing anything OTHER than this by kneeling on a dude's neck for eight f***ing minutes.
5. The defendant in this case was also charged with manslaughter, which MN defines as, in the second degree, is recklessly negligent and consciously puts someone's life in danger. Again--sounds like a slam dunk.
I can certainly understand the desire for life in prison or worse in this situation. Trying to look at the situation somewhat dispassionately (not that I don't have strong feelings, because I do), we have to ask again, what can we get twelve people to agree with beyond a reasonable doubt? As I'm continuing to read Minnesota law, it does allow for lesser-included charges in cases such as murder. In other words, if a charge is first-degree murder, a jury can come back and say "no we can't find 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on that, but we do find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder" etc.
Since manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense under the murder statute (the way I read it...I could be wrong), both charges make sense. To me, I would think a charge of second-degree murder makes sense given the jury would have the relief valve of third-degree if the prosecution cannot prove second-degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
As always, thoughtful and respectful-of-your-fellow-thoughtgivers discussion is welcomed.
Friday, May 29, 2020
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
American Greatness
I saw, and responded to, a Facebook post a couple weeks back, in which one of my friends asked “What makes America great?” I wasn’t the slightest bit surprised that the first answer posted was “Nothing.” Needless to say, I didn’t agree with that assessment, and I gave my own answer. As we celebrate the 241st birthday of the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the Earth, I decided to expand a bit on the ideas I mentioned in my answer to my friend’s question.
What makes America great, in this American’s opinion, is the ideal on which it was founded—the ideal that all people are created equal and that they have rights that no person can take away. Among these, to quote Jefferson, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, as soon as I say that, some will start throwing the BS flag, pointing out things such as the fact that the man who wrote those words owned other human beings as property, the fact that slavery existed at all, the fact that there are people who even today do not feel that the American ideal belongs to them, or don’t even consider themselves American at all due to how people have been treated. But, I believe that that argument exposes a flaw, and that when we acknowledge that flaw, that is in itself part of America’s greatness.
The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution were both written primarily by men who owned slaves. Nobody disputes that. They wrote “all men are created equal” on one hand, and wrote that “such persons” as the euphemism was understood at the time, only counted as three-fifths of a person. Nobody disputes that. What I dispute, however, is the notion that these flaws somehow make the whole thing invalid—just today, someone told me that everything America stands for is bullshit because of stolen land, barbaric treatment of natives, slavery, racism, and so on. I respectfully disagree with that analysis.
The ideals that I’ve already mentioned were written by people who did not themselves come anywhere near close to living up to them. The beautiful thing about it is the fact that THEY KNEW THEY DID NOT LIVE UP TO THEIR IDEALS. Jefferson and Madison both knew full well that they were, for wont of a better word, hypocrites for saying one thing while living out the exact opposite. Having read their writings, I can say for certain that they both struggled with the dichotomy of slavery existing in a country that was built on liberty. Jefferson openly hoped and prayed that, some day, America would come to a point where she could do something about slavery and other issues of inequality. Madison expressed similar sentiments. They knew they had a few centuries’ worth of work ahead of them in order to live up to the ideals of our founding documents. They knew they would not see the result, which Dr. King referred to as the Promised Land, in their lifetimes, or even in their children’s lifetimes, but at least they were able to start the ball rolling by putting the ideals on paper as something to work towards.
Our founders knew that even the things they put on paper weren’t going to be enough to get things going along the lines of living up to our ideals of freedom, and the beautiful thing is that, having anticipated that, they put in place a method to make changes to our Constitution so that, when we were ready to address our problems, we could do so. In the 1860s, after decades of sectional arguments, philosophical debates, and four years of Civil War, we as a society decided that the time had come to deal with the single biggest discrepancy in our values system. So, our cultural ancestors used that change process to make slavery illegal. They then used the same system a couple years later to make sure freed slaves were counted as full-fledged citizens of our republic, and then to make sure they and their descendants had the right to vote alongside those of us who had always been free.
Even that didn’t get the job done, though. For the next one-hundred years, people found ways to get around those constitutional requirements and continue to deprive people of their rights. Civil rights laws in the 1950s and 60s, and beyond, have worked to rectify those problems. Even today, we still have major issues living up to “all men are created equal” or perhaps we should today say “all persons are created equal.” There are large parts of our society who feel that our ideals are not meant for them because of their ancestry. There are people who believe that government forces are actively trying to exterminate them because of their ethnic background. There are people who feel that our justice system is specifically rigged to hold them down and even to skirt around the prohibition on slavery. These are problems that still need to be worked out before we achieve Mr. Jefferson’s ideal and Dr. King’s Promised Land.
But the beauty, and the greatness, of our country is that we know we have the tools to with which to solve those problems. Look at how far we’ve come in 241 years. It is no longer legal for Americans to own other people as property. Anybody who is born on our soil is automatically welcomed as a full-fledged citizen, even those who were born here to parents who were in violation of our laws by being on our soil. The tools with which one can educate themselves and rise to personal greatness are there for everyone—certainly, there are those who have a harder time attaining them than others do, but that is something for us to work on. We live in a society in which we know that, when we put our collective minds to it, we can accomplish something as spectacular as landing on the Moon. We know we live in a society where a child of mixed race, from a broken family, raised by a single mother after his father went back to his native country, can grow up and get elected President of the United States…twice. I think Messer’s. Jefferson and Madison would have been really proud to know that.
What makes us great is that we can learn from the mistakes of our past and work to make sure we do not repeat them. Our only hindrance is when we allow ourselves to be held back by our past. My friend was 100% correct when he said that America was built on the backs of slaves, on stolen land. We cannot deny the fact that our cultural ancestors had their faults, and did some things that were downright evil. But we also cannot deny the ideals they gave us. They gave us the ideal that all persons are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable human rights, and that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that those ideals were coined by flawed people does not invalidate the ideals themselves.
What we need to do if we want to make ourselves and our country even greater is to make those ideals OUR ideals. We have to stand up and say “Okay, we acknowledge the fact that we have dark things in our history. We cannot change that. However, we can grow from it.” If we adopt these ideals as our ideals, we can look at each other and realize that the circumstances of our coming to be in this place at this point in time are not really relevant. It doesn’t matter if we’re first-generation Americans, or if our ancestors have been here since the beginning. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who came here from Europe looking to escape religious or economic persecution. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who came here looking to make a better life in a new land. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who were already here and who had their lands taken from them by force by outsiders. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who were brought here in chains in the belly of a slave galleon.
What matters is that WE are HERE, NOW. What matters is that we take that ideal—that we are all created equal and have unalienable rights—and work to make a better future in which we come even closer to meeting that ideal than we ever have before. What matters is that we stop trying to define ourselves and each other based on ethnicity, ancestry, skin color or any other method. What makes us great is that, regardless of all else, we are all AMERICANS. If we define ourselves that way, and determine to make life better for all Americans, then we all win. We have done it before. We can continue to do it. That is what makes America great, and what will make us even greater in the future than we already are. It does not matter that our president is an asshole. It does not matter that we have all the negative stuff in our past that I have discussed. It does not matter that not everybody is here came here willingly. What matters is that we are all here, and all in this together. That is what makes America great.
What makes America great, in this American’s opinion, is the ideal on which it was founded—the ideal that all people are created equal and that they have rights that no person can take away. Among these, to quote Jefferson, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, as soon as I say that, some will start throwing the BS flag, pointing out things such as the fact that the man who wrote those words owned other human beings as property, the fact that slavery existed at all, the fact that there are people who even today do not feel that the American ideal belongs to them, or don’t even consider themselves American at all due to how people have been treated. But, I believe that that argument exposes a flaw, and that when we acknowledge that flaw, that is in itself part of America’s greatness.
The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution were both written primarily by men who owned slaves. Nobody disputes that. They wrote “all men are created equal” on one hand, and wrote that “such persons” as the euphemism was understood at the time, only counted as three-fifths of a person. Nobody disputes that. What I dispute, however, is the notion that these flaws somehow make the whole thing invalid—just today, someone told me that everything America stands for is bullshit because of stolen land, barbaric treatment of natives, slavery, racism, and so on. I respectfully disagree with that analysis.
The ideals that I’ve already mentioned were written by people who did not themselves come anywhere near close to living up to them. The beautiful thing about it is the fact that THEY KNEW THEY DID NOT LIVE UP TO THEIR IDEALS. Jefferson and Madison both knew full well that they were, for wont of a better word, hypocrites for saying one thing while living out the exact opposite. Having read their writings, I can say for certain that they both struggled with the dichotomy of slavery existing in a country that was built on liberty. Jefferson openly hoped and prayed that, some day, America would come to a point where she could do something about slavery and other issues of inequality. Madison expressed similar sentiments. They knew they had a few centuries’ worth of work ahead of them in order to live up to the ideals of our founding documents. They knew they would not see the result, which Dr. King referred to as the Promised Land, in their lifetimes, or even in their children’s lifetimes, but at least they were able to start the ball rolling by putting the ideals on paper as something to work towards.
Our founders knew that even the things they put on paper weren’t going to be enough to get things going along the lines of living up to our ideals of freedom, and the beautiful thing is that, having anticipated that, they put in place a method to make changes to our Constitution so that, when we were ready to address our problems, we could do so. In the 1860s, after decades of sectional arguments, philosophical debates, and four years of Civil War, we as a society decided that the time had come to deal with the single biggest discrepancy in our values system. So, our cultural ancestors used that change process to make slavery illegal. They then used the same system a couple years later to make sure freed slaves were counted as full-fledged citizens of our republic, and then to make sure they and their descendants had the right to vote alongside those of us who had always been free.
Even that didn’t get the job done, though. For the next one-hundred years, people found ways to get around those constitutional requirements and continue to deprive people of their rights. Civil rights laws in the 1950s and 60s, and beyond, have worked to rectify those problems. Even today, we still have major issues living up to “all men are created equal” or perhaps we should today say “all persons are created equal.” There are large parts of our society who feel that our ideals are not meant for them because of their ancestry. There are people who believe that government forces are actively trying to exterminate them because of their ethnic background. There are people who feel that our justice system is specifically rigged to hold them down and even to skirt around the prohibition on slavery. These are problems that still need to be worked out before we achieve Mr. Jefferson’s ideal and Dr. King’s Promised Land.
But the beauty, and the greatness, of our country is that we know we have the tools to with which to solve those problems. Look at how far we’ve come in 241 years. It is no longer legal for Americans to own other people as property. Anybody who is born on our soil is automatically welcomed as a full-fledged citizen, even those who were born here to parents who were in violation of our laws by being on our soil. The tools with which one can educate themselves and rise to personal greatness are there for everyone—certainly, there are those who have a harder time attaining them than others do, but that is something for us to work on. We live in a society in which we know that, when we put our collective minds to it, we can accomplish something as spectacular as landing on the Moon. We know we live in a society where a child of mixed race, from a broken family, raised by a single mother after his father went back to his native country, can grow up and get elected President of the United States…twice. I think Messer’s. Jefferson and Madison would have been really proud to know that.
What makes us great is that we can learn from the mistakes of our past and work to make sure we do not repeat them. Our only hindrance is when we allow ourselves to be held back by our past. My friend was 100% correct when he said that America was built on the backs of slaves, on stolen land. We cannot deny the fact that our cultural ancestors had their faults, and did some things that were downright evil. But we also cannot deny the ideals they gave us. They gave us the ideal that all persons are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable human rights, and that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that those ideals were coined by flawed people does not invalidate the ideals themselves.
What we need to do if we want to make ourselves and our country even greater is to make those ideals OUR ideals. We have to stand up and say “Okay, we acknowledge the fact that we have dark things in our history. We cannot change that. However, we can grow from it.” If we adopt these ideals as our ideals, we can look at each other and realize that the circumstances of our coming to be in this place at this point in time are not really relevant. It doesn’t matter if we’re first-generation Americans, or if our ancestors have been here since the beginning. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who came here from Europe looking to escape religious or economic persecution. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who came here looking to make a better life in a new land. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who were already here and who had their lands taken from them by force by outsiders. It doesn’t matter if we come from people who were brought here in chains in the belly of a slave galleon.
What matters is that WE are HERE, NOW. What matters is that we take that ideal—that we are all created equal and have unalienable rights—and work to make a better future in which we come even closer to meeting that ideal than we ever have before. What matters is that we stop trying to define ourselves and each other based on ethnicity, ancestry, skin color or any other method. What makes us great is that, regardless of all else, we are all AMERICANS. If we define ourselves that way, and determine to make life better for all Americans, then we all win. We have done it before. We can continue to do it. That is what makes America great, and what will make us even greater in the future than we already are. It does not matter that our president is an asshole. It does not matter that we have all the negative stuff in our past that I have discussed. It does not matter that not everybody is here came here willingly. What matters is that we are all here, and all in this together. That is what makes America great.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Major Plot Hole on the TV Series "Designated Survivor" (spoilers if you haven't watched the show; no spoilers if you're a regular)
I love the TV show Designated Survivor, which depicts a low-level member of a presidential cabinet thrust into the Oval Office when a terrorist attack during a presidential State of the Union address wiped out everybody ahead of him, along with almost all of Congress, and the Supreme Court. While the show is accurate in its portrayal of having someone deliberately stay away from a large gathering of government officials (designated survivors were used during the recent inauguration as well as when President Trump made his address to Congress a few weeks later), part of the story-telling either ignores or overlooks some facts in how a presidential vacancy would actually be filled in such an emergency. Being the total nerd that I am, I feel compelled to point them out.
There are three major places where presidential succession is covered: in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The 25th Amendment clarified the first part of that, up to where it says "...and the Congress may by law....": In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Additionally, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is the most-recent legislation in which Congress covered what happens if there is neither a President nor a Vice President in office. On top of that, the second section of the 25th Amendment covers a Vice Presidential vacancy (prior to this amendment, the vice presidency was always left vacant until the next election if it were to become vacant due to the death, resignation, removal from office [which has never happened], or ascension to the presidency of a sitting Vice President): Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Now, in the show (here's the spoilers if you haven't watched the show), what happened was, after the attack, HUD Secretary Tom Kirkman, who was serving as designated survivor, was sworn in as President. Later on, it was discovered that two members of the House of Representatives also survived the attack; one of them became the new Speaker of the House, and the other was appointed Vice President. Immediately after the new VP was sworn in, an assassination attempt was made against now-President Kirkman, in hopes of the new VP (who the terrorists wanted in the White House all along) then succeeding to the presidency.
It is in the way succession works in real life that the writers of the show either took dramatic license, or else screwed up. Primarily, notice how the clause of the Constitution I cited lists that anybody other than a Vice President can only ACT as President, not actually BECOME President. Additionally, according to the terms of the Succession Act of 1947, if a person higher up the list than the person who is currently acting as President becomes available, that person can then bump out the acting president, and assume the job themselves. Now, one can argue that an acting president in this kind of situation would be treated as actually holding the office (being addressed as "Mr. President" as opposed to "Mr. Acting President" or by their previous title), but the convoluted process the writers set up to try to get the congressional stooge into office would not be necessary in real life.
In order for someone to become Speaker of the House, they need a majority vote of the House...that is, of the members alive and in office at the time, NOT the total number of seats (435). In the story, President Kirkman asked Congressman MacLeash (the guy the terrorists wanted to be president), to become Speaker, and he declined, hoping to be appointed VP as per the terrorists' plans. But, in real life, he, who at the time thought he was the only living member of the House, as the survival of Rep. Hookstratten was not yet known, could have theoretically elected himself Speaker of the House. After having elected himself Speaker of the House, he could have exercised his rights under the Succession Act of 1947, and bumped ACTING President Kirkman out of office, claiming it for himself. The Act was never amended to address what happens when and if an acting president under this act were to nominate a new vice president under the terms of the 25th Amendment, so one can infer that the acting president remains acting president, while the newly-confirmed vice president would remain vice president.
So, there's not a whole lot of story to be told if the writers had followed how the laws actually work, but they're actually making a major error in how things would work in "real life." Yes, this is something that would have made my late grandmother ask me "Can't you just shut up and watch the program?" but as anybody who knows me knows, I like to nitpick!
There are three major places where presidential succession is covered: in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The 25th Amendment clarified the first part of that, up to where it says "...and the Congress may by law....": In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Additionally, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is the most-recent legislation in which Congress covered what happens if there is neither a President nor a Vice President in office. On top of that, the second section of the 25th Amendment covers a Vice Presidential vacancy (prior to this amendment, the vice presidency was always left vacant until the next election if it were to become vacant due to the death, resignation, removal from office [which has never happened], or ascension to the presidency of a sitting Vice President): Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Now, in the show (here's the spoilers if you haven't watched the show), what happened was, after the attack, HUD Secretary Tom Kirkman, who was serving as designated survivor, was sworn in as President. Later on, it was discovered that two members of the House of Representatives also survived the attack; one of them became the new Speaker of the House, and the other was appointed Vice President. Immediately after the new VP was sworn in, an assassination attempt was made against now-President Kirkman, in hopes of the new VP (who the terrorists wanted in the White House all along) then succeeding to the presidency.
It is in the way succession works in real life that the writers of the show either took dramatic license, or else screwed up. Primarily, notice how the clause of the Constitution I cited lists that anybody other than a Vice President can only ACT as President, not actually BECOME President. Additionally, according to the terms of the Succession Act of 1947, if a person higher up the list than the person who is currently acting as President becomes available, that person can then bump out the acting president, and assume the job themselves. Now, one can argue that an acting president in this kind of situation would be treated as actually holding the office (being addressed as "Mr. President" as opposed to "Mr. Acting President" or by their previous title), but the convoluted process the writers set up to try to get the congressional stooge into office would not be necessary in real life.
In order for someone to become Speaker of the House, they need a majority vote of the House...that is, of the members alive and in office at the time, NOT the total number of seats (435). In the story, President Kirkman asked Congressman MacLeash (the guy the terrorists wanted to be president), to become Speaker, and he declined, hoping to be appointed VP as per the terrorists' plans. But, in real life, he, who at the time thought he was the only living member of the House, as the survival of Rep. Hookstratten was not yet known, could have theoretically elected himself Speaker of the House. After having elected himself Speaker of the House, he could have exercised his rights under the Succession Act of 1947, and bumped ACTING President Kirkman out of office, claiming it for himself. The Act was never amended to address what happens when and if an acting president under this act were to nominate a new vice president under the terms of the 25th Amendment, so one can infer that the acting president remains acting president, while the newly-confirmed vice president would remain vice president.
So, there's not a whole lot of story to be told if the writers had followed how the laws actually work, but they're actually making a major error in how things would work in "real life." Yes, this is something that would have made my late grandmother ask me "Can't you just shut up and watch the program?" but as anybody who knows me knows, I like to nitpick!
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Hypocracy Goes Both Ways (Pun Intended)
I've been engaging in some pretty healthy and hearty debate over the whole Chick-Fil-A controversy these last few days, and I'm feeling the need to make a concrete statement about it. I find myself focusing not on whether or not Chick-Fil-A's owner is or is not correct in his views, but rather on his opponents' reactions and their apparent expressions as to whether he is or is not entitled to his views.
Let me be clear about my own views on the issue, just so there can be no doubt as to where I'm coming from: The fact of the matter is that I am Catholic and I believe in the traditional definition of marriage. HOWEVER, I am also an ardent supporter of and believer in the United States Constitution. Said Constitution says, in part "No state shale make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1) This begs the question of what constitutes privileges and immunities in regards to marriage?
According to the Wikipedia article "Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States", which appears to be well-referenced with primary source information, there are approximately 1150 rights and responsibilities recognized by the federal government in a marriage. While the religious definition of a marriage has existed for thousands of years, one could make the argument that these approximately 1150 rights and responsibilities (or privileges and immunities) are what constitute the civil definition of marriage in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)
IF one makes the argument that these rights and responsibilities constitute civil marriage in the United States, then one has to ask what constitutes an abridgment of these privileges and immunities. One could certainly argue that not being legally allowed to confer these privileges and immunities upon whomever one chooses, regardless of that person's gender, would constitute a violation of the privileges and immunities clause above-mentioned. IF that argument is valid, then that would tend to make defining civil marriage as being only between two people of opposite gender unconstitutional. SO, while I do personally believe in the religious definition of marriage, I do concede, with clear conscience, that it is POSSIBLE that preventing same-sex couples from entering into civil marriage may be an unconstitutional violation of their rights.
That being said, I turn towards the point of my diatribe--the way people treat those with whom they disagree. As anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the news the past week or so can see, there was a massive turn-out in support of the owner of Chick-Fil-A and also some heated opposition to him and his views. To those who went out and bought some "chikin" on August 1, I say "God bless you." You were standing up for what you believe in and supporting someone who feels the same way you do. To those who picketed, protested or went to the kiss-in on August 3, I say "God bless you" to you as well--you were also standing up for your beliefs as is your constitutional right, and I would defend that right to the death.
What I have a problem with, is the people on the left who spew hatred in the name of tolerance and claim to be morally superior to those on the far right who are just as guilty of hatred. Specifically, four things come to mind--the first three are the comments by the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco who basically threatened to use legal means to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in their cities. To them, I cite the same US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (First Amendment) and the above-cited Fourteenth Amendment. To prevent a company from doing business in a town simply because of the religious beliefs of the owner would be a flagrant violation of these rights, and is no different than prohibiting someone from doing business in a city because of their sexual orientation, skin color or any other discriminatory reason.
The fourth thing that comes to mind is the reaction of certain people in what I, for want of a better description, will call the "pro-gay" community (I don't like using that term but I can't think of a better one at the moment). Not everybody who supports the pro-gay viewpoint has acted like this, obviously, but the ones that are are pissing me off--folks who are basically saying that everyone who does not support the pro-gay viewpoint is automatically a bigot or a homophobe, etc. One thing that really caught my eye was a comment that was posted on Facebook by a friend, where some celebrity said "If you're against gay marriage, just be honest, put a scarlet 'H' on your shirt, and say 'I'm a homophobe'". So, dude lemme get this straight--you're calling anyone who is opposed to gay marriage a name and judging them based upon a rush to judgment of their beliefs? Isn't that exactly what you're accusing THEM of doing?? Bigotry in the name of freedom is still bigotry. While actively discriminating against anyone is wrong, there are people whose interpretation of their Christian beliefs falls in such a way that they feel obligated to support organizations that defend "traditional" families--as long as those groups are not actively harming anyone (I know there have been reports that some of Chick-Fil-A's have done such things but I have not found any independent proof), then your hating them for their beliefs is no less wrong and no less bigoted than someone hating you for your beliefs. In short, hypocrisy (and bigotry) go both ways (pun intended).
Let me be clear about my own views on the issue, just so there can be no doubt as to where I'm coming from: The fact of the matter is that I am Catholic and I believe in the traditional definition of marriage. HOWEVER, I am also an ardent supporter of and believer in the United States Constitution. Said Constitution says, in part "No state shale make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1) This begs the question of what constitutes privileges and immunities in regards to marriage?
According to the Wikipedia article "Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States", which appears to be well-referenced with primary source information, there are approximately 1150 rights and responsibilities recognized by the federal government in a marriage. While the religious definition of a marriage has existed for thousands of years, one could make the argument that these approximately 1150 rights and responsibilities (or privileges and immunities) are what constitute the civil definition of marriage in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)
IF one makes the argument that these rights and responsibilities constitute civil marriage in the United States, then one has to ask what constitutes an abridgment of these privileges and immunities. One could certainly argue that not being legally allowed to confer these privileges and immunities upon whomever one chooses, regardless of that person's gender, would constitute a violation of the privileges and immunities clause above-mentioned. IF that argument is valid, then that would tend to make defining civil marriage as being only between two people of opposite gender unconstitutional. SO, while I do personally believe in the religious definition of marriage, I do concede, with clear conscience, that it is POSSIBLE that preventing same-sex couples from entering into civil marriage may be an unconstitutional violation of their rights.
That being said, I turn towards the point of my diatribe--the way people treat those with whom they disagree. As anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the news the past week or so can see, there was a massive turn-out in support of the owner of Chick-Fil-A and also some heated opposition to him and his views. To those who went out and bought some "chikin" on August 1, I say "God bless you." You were standing up for what you believe in and supporting someone who feels the same way you do. To those who picketed, protested or went to the kiss-in on August 3, I say "God bless you" to you as well--you were also standing up for your beliefs as is your constitutional right, and I would defend that right to the death.
What I have a problem with, is the people on the left who spew hatred in the name of tolerance and claim to be morally superior to those on the far right who are just as guilty of hatred. Specifically, four things come to mind--the first three are the comments by the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco who basically threatened to use legal means to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in their cities. To them, I cite the same US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (First Amendment) and the above-cited Fourteenth Amendment. To prevent a company from doing business in a town simply because of the religious beliefs of the owner would be a flagrant violation of these rights, and is no different than prohibiting someone from doing business in a city because of their sexual orientation, skin color or any other discriminatory reason.
The fourth thing that comes to mind is the reaction of certain people in what I, for want of a better description, will call the "pro-gay" community (I don't like using that term but I can't think of a better one at the moment). Not everybody who supports the pro-gay viewpoint has acted like this, obviously, but the ones that are are pissing me off--folks who are basically saying that everyone who does not support the pro-gay viewpoint is automatically a bigot or a homophobe, etc. One thing that really caught my eye was a comment that was posted on Facebook by a friend, where some celebrity said "If you're against gay marriage, just be honest, put a scarlet 'H' on your shirt, and say 'I'm a homophobe'". So, dude lemme get this straight--you're calling anyone who is opposed to gay marriage a name and judging them based upon a rush to judgment of their beliefs? Isn't that exactly what you're accusing THEM of doing?? Bigotry in the name of freedom is still bigotry. While actively discriminating against anyone is wrong, there are people whose interpretation of their Christian beliefs falls in such a way that they feel obligated to support organizations that defend "traditional" families--as long as those groups are not actively harming anyone (I know there have been reports that some of Chick-Fil-A's have done such things but I have not found any independent proof), then your hating them for their beliefs is no less wrong and no less bigoted than someone hating you for your beliefs. In short, hypocrisy (and bigotry) go both ways (pun intended).
Monday, February 6, 2012
2012 Darwin Awards
Sent to me by a friend and worth a great laugh!
*Yes, it's that magical time of year again when the Darwin Awards are
bestowed, honoring the "least evolved" among us. *
*And Here is the glorious winner:*
1. When his 38 caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach , California would-be robber James Elliot
did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and
tried the trigger again. This time it worked.*
And now, the honorable mentions:
2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat cutting
machine and after a little shopping around, submitted a claim to his
insurance company. The company expecting negligence sent out one of its men
to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and he also lost a finger..
The chef's claim was approved.
3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a
blizzard in Fargo , ND . returned with his vehicle to find a woman had
taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.
4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver
found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from
Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the
driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free
ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the
staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies..
The deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.
5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious head
wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he received the
injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he
could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.
6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter,
and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled
a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly
provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20
bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer... $15.
[If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?]
7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly.. He decided that
he'd just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some
booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at
the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the
head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of
Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape...
8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed
her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able
to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the
police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and drove back to
the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there
for a positive ID. To which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's
the lady I stole the purse from."
9.. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger
King in Ypsilanti , Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun, and demanded cash.
The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn't open the cash register
without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they
weren't available for breakfast... The man, frustrated, walked away. [*A
5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER]
10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on a
Seattle street by sucking on a hose, he got much more than he bargained
for.. Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next to
a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man
admitted to trying to steal gasoline, but he plugged his siphon hose into
the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined
to press charges saying that it was the best laugh he'd ever had.
In the interest of bettering mankind, please share these with friends and
family .... unless of course one of these award-winning individuals by chance
is a distant relative or long lost friend. In that case, be glad they are
distant and/or hope they remain lost.
Remember.... They walk among us and they can (and do!) reproduce...
*Yes, it's that magical time of year again when the Darwin Awards are
bestowed, honoring the "least evolved" among us. *
*And Here is the glorious winner:*
1. When his 38 caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach , California would-be robber James Elliot
did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and
tried the trigger again. This time it worked.*
And now, the honorable mentions:
2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat cutting
machine and after a little shopping around, submitted a claim to his
insurance company. The company expecting negligence sent out one of its men
to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and he also lost a finger..
The chef's claim was approved.
3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a
blizzard in Fargo , ND . returned with his vehicle to find a woman had
taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.
4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver
found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from
Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the
driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free
ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the
staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies..
The deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.
5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious head
wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he received the
injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he
could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.
6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter,
and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled
a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly
provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20
bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer... $15.
[If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?]
7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly.. He decided that
he'd just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some
booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at
the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the
head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of
Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape...
8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed
her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able
to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the
police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and drove back to
the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there
for a positive ID. To which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's
the lady I stole the purse from."
9.. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger
King in Ypsilanti , Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun, and demanded cash.
The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn't open the cash register
without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they
weren't available for breakfast... The man, frustrated, walked away. [*A
5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER]
10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on a
Seattle street by sucking on a hose, he got much more than he bargained
for.. Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next to
a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man
admitted to trying to steal gasoline, but he plugged his siphon hose into
the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined
to press charges saying that it was the best laugh he'd ever had.
In the interest of bettering mankind, please share these with friends and
family .... unless of course one of these award-winning individuals by chance
is a distant relative or long lost friend. In that case, be glad they are
distant and/or hope they remain lost.
Remember.... They walk among us and they can (and do!) reproduce...
Monday, January 23, 2012
A Rerun Worth Rereading
I got into a discussion on Facebook the other day about the recent GOP debates, and whether the GOP candidates would be preferable to the current president. An old friend of mine argued that our current president is the most intelligent president we've ever had (and for the record, I feel he's not the most intelligent president we've had in the last ten years). I was trying to articulate my feelings on Mr. Obama, but I think it's pretty-well summed up by the blog I wrote on election day 2008. I'm reposting it, it's very long so don't say I didn't warn you, but definately take some time and read it if you want to know where my head is; feel free to leave intelligent and constructive commentary, but I will delete any personal or insulting attacks.
Why I Voted How I Voted (Originally published Nov 4, 2008)
I haven't written a political commentary in a long time, so I figured what better time to write one than on election day. I just got home from voting, and I'm sure it won't surprise anyone that I voted for John McCain. Not that anyone gives a flying rat's a**, but I have a LONG list of reasons why. There are three key areas, those being Security, Economy and Philosophy/Personal.
On the issue of security, there are two reasons I support McCain, those being threats/appeasement, and Iraq. Obama's judgement on threats concerns me...when Russia invaded Georgia a couple months ago, his response was to say that both sides should exercise restraint. That's somewhat troubling...so you're arguing that a tiny little country that just got overrun by its big thug of a neighbor should take it slowly and not get all pissed off? Yea THAT makes sense. Then there's the situation with Iran...Mr. Obama said that Iran is a tiny country that doesn't pose much of a threat. Um...excuse me, Senator...a country that has held Americans hostage before, and is currently funding and training the Iraqi resistance which is killing American troops, has threatened to blow the US' key middle-eastern ally off the map, and is actively pursuing nuclear weapons technology is not a threat?? And did I hear you say that you want to sit down with the president of Iran without precondition? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with reaching out to our enemies to try to solve the issues betwen us. BUT, before I'd be willing to do that, there'd have to be some terms...give up the nukes, stop funding the Iraqi insurgancy IMMEDIATELY, and if you mess with Israel, you will be flattened. Agree to that, and we can talk. Don't agree, and all you're going to get from me is sanctions.
That brings us to Iraq...Senator Obama has had a major plank of his campaign on the fact that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that we went in based on lies, and that he was opposed to it all along. First off, you weren't even in the Senate yet when the decision to go into Iraq was made, so how you felt at the time really isn't all that relevant. Secondly, and listen to me closely...based on the information we had available at the time, the decision to go into Iraq was correct. I conceed that we royally screwed up once we got in there, but had I been president in 2003, I would have made the same decision to invade that the current administration made, and here's why: The decision to invade was based on a few key points; primarily being the concern that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and the concerns that he'd use them himself or supply them to terrorists. I acknowledge that, once we got into Iraq we learned that Saddam did not in fact possess WMD. BUT, we did not know that at the time, for two key reasons.
As you may recall, Colin Powell made a presentation to the United Nations before the invasion that made the US case for attack. In this speech, he referred to information provided by a defector from Saddam's inner circle, who testified that Saddam did have WMD. Opponants have argued that this presentation constitued a Bush administration lie designed to mislead the world into supporting an attack. The fact of the matter is that there was a lie involved in that presentation, but it was not a lie on the part of Sec. Powell or the administration. According to a story that aired on the show "60 Minutes" (a show that has been no friend to the Bush administration and has no reason to lie in their favor), this defector, codenamed "Curveball", did indeed testify and provide documentation of Saddam's WMD stockpiles. This evidence convinced not only the US and UK, but also France and Germany, who acknowledged the threat but did not endorse an attack, that these weapons existed. What we did not know at the time was that that evidence submitted by Curveball was a fabrication. He has since admitted that he fabricated the evidence he presented, in order to benefit himself. Thus...even though we now know the evidence was bogus, we did not at the time, and in the presense of a threat, the decision to go was correct.
Secondly, another report on another episode of "60 Minutes" covered an interview with the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam after his capture. According to this agent, Saddam himself admited that he specifically WANTED the US to think he had WMD when he did not. He was afraid he'd be invaded, and thought the threat of using WMD against American troops would scare us away from attacking. Given the combination of the bad intelligence and Saddam's own desire to intimidate us, the decision was correct based upon the information that was available. Knowing what we know now, we should have maybe done things differently, and we definately should have handled it differently once we got in, but the fact of the matter is we ARE there, and we need to finish it correctly. With Senator McCain's military background, I believe he is the better choice to do that.
The second major area is the economy. Senator McCain's economic plan makes more sense to me than does Sen. Obama's. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts "expire"...well that would be a tax increase. Additionally, he wants to raise the capital gains and other taxes. We're in a recession...I've studied economics, and you don't raise taxes in a recession. The only way to get out of a recession is to jump-start the economy. You do that by putting money into the economy to generate sales, which generates manufacturing, etc. Look at it this way...say you make $100. If your tax rate is 15% that means they take $15 out of your pay, so you have $85 in your pocket. In a recession, there's inflation which means things cost more, so your $85 doesn't go as far as it did before the economy tanked. Now, say you get an economic stimulus rebate or a tax cut like most tax payers got under Bush. Now you might have $90 dollars to spend instead of $85. If you spend that $90, the person you buy stuff from makes money, and spends that money to buy more stuff from the manufacturer. The manufacturer makes money and uses it to buy supplies. The supplier buys raw materials from the company you work for, so therefore you make more money, and next time you have $110 to spend, so you buy more, and the pattern continues. If instead, Senator Obama lets the tax cuts expire and raises the capital gains tax, you might only have $78 to spend instead of $85. How is that going to get the economy going?
Also, there's the whole Joe-the-plumber, "spread the wealth around" bit. Obama's argument there is that, under the Bush plan, a lot of people didn't get a tax cut or a rebate, and that's true, but it's not the whole story. The tax that got cut, and that the rebates came from, is the Federal Income Tax. What Obama didn't tell you is that NOT EVERYONE PAYS THAT TAX!!! People that make under a certain amount (I don't remember it offhand) do not pay federal income tax, and it's kidna hard to cut zero. Now, Obama said that those folks do still pay into Social Security and Medicare, and they should get a rebate on that. But, what he didn't mention is that THEY ALREADY DO. There's someting called the Earned Income Tax Credit that people who make under a certain amount (I don't remember it offhand either but it's above the amount that pays zero income tax so even if you pay tax you can still get it) get, and that EITC is a direct rebate on your SS/Medicare taxes. So, if you didn't get a tax rebate check, it's because you don't pay that tax, and if you make little enough money that you don't pay federal tax, you already get your SS/Medicare tax money back. Therefore, if Obama were to "spread the wealth around" as he says, the only way to do that would be to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who did not earn it. That's welfare, and that's socialism. And that's not right. Definately take care of the poor, but don't take my hard-earned money and give it to someone else.
Then there's the personal/philosophical angle, and it's a big one in my mind. Not only does Obama have some very questionable views and opinions, there's a nausiating double standard being levied against the Republicans, and it's really pissing me off. Mr. Obama has some very shady associations...he spent 20 years in a church led by a pastor who is frankly disgusting. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the right to support their minister, but if my parish priest ever stood up in church and said "God damn America", I'd stand up and say "God damn you, Father", and walk out. For Obama to argue that he didn't know Reverend Wright felt that way is pure bullshit. He had to know it, and he obvioulsy didnt have a problem with it. He has the right to his views, but I simply do not want my brother's commander in chief to be someone who willingly stood by and let his pastor talk like that for so long. Then there's William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who blew up the US Capitol, FBI Headquarters and the NYPD Headquarters, and said on 9/11/2001 he wished he'd done more, and in whose house Barack Obama started his political career. I was forced to read one of Dr. Ayers' books when I was in college, and the guy's a nutcase radical, pure and simple. I question the judgement of a man who willingly associated with him, regardless of when he committed his crimes. Also, the argument that Obama was in the second grade or whatever when Ayers was committing his bombings is pure bullshit. Let me ask you this...if it came out that Senator McCain was endorsed by and had served on a board with someone who burned crosses as a member of the KKK between 1968-73, would the fact that Senator McCain was in a POW camp at the time matter, or would the liberals be screaming that he was a racist for associating with him? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Then, finally there's Obama's personal views. One particular law Obama voted against burns my blood...there was a situation in Illinois where a woman had an abortion, but it was botched, and the baby was born alive. The baby was literally thrown in a garbage can and left to die; thank God someone found him and comforted him until he died 45 minutes later. The Illinois legislature proposed a law that would require that full medical care be given to any child born as the result of a botched abortion. There was one "No" vote...State Senator Barack Obama. His reasoning for voting no was that the bill would "put an unfair burden on a woman's right to choose." I know a lot of people will not agree with what I'm about to say, but I respectfully submit that a woman does not have a right to choose abortion...I see no way that anyone can logically argue that human life does not begin at the moment of conception, and therefore, performing an abortion is a violation of THAT person's right to control his or her own body. Respectfully, Roe v. Wade was an ill-advised decision, and abortion should be illegal because it deprives a human being of his or her right to life. BUT, I'm not even taking offense w/Obama because of that...NOBODY argues that a baby is not a human being after it is born, but Obama put a woman's "right to choose" ahead of a living, breathing, human being's right to stay alive. In my mind, with all due respect, that is a pathetic and disgusting order of priorities, and while it's not my place to judge, probably disqualifies Mr. Obama from eternal salvation unless he repents his view. I'm sure I'm pissing some people off, but I have as much right to my opinion as anyone else, right?
At the very end of my diatribe comes a remark Mr. Obama made to a group in San Francisco (I have some readers in the SF area...nothing personal!). He made a remark that people in rural Pennsylvania are "frustrated Americans clinging to their guns and bibles" because they were opposed to San Franscisco values. Well, I don't live in rural Pennsylvania, I live in a medium-sized town in Ohio. Guess what? I am a frustrated American...I'm frustrated that we have judges in liberal states ignoring the Constitution and imposing liberal views on things such as abortion and gay marriage on people without a vote. I'm frustrated that I've literally had liberal people tell me "there is no room in diversity (just for the record i HATE that word) for conservative viewpoints". I'm frustrated that people automatically dismiss the views of people who disagree with them. I'm frustrated that Sarah Palin's clothes and her 17 year old daughter's sex life are legitimate issues, but Barack Obama's racist, anti-American minister and cop-killing, building-bombing friends "don't really matter" because Obama wasn't there at the time. I'm not a hunter, but I believe in the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm for sport and personal protection, so yea I cling to my gun. And guess what? I'm pretty religious...I'm not a "Bible-thumping Jesus preacher" type and I don't try to impose my beliefs on anyone else, but don't you dare insult my beliefs or try to minimalize me because of them.
I always say "There's a difference between being a patriot and being a nationalist, and I'm a nationalist." I believe we live in the greatest country that ever has or ever will exist on this Earth. I care about my country, I believe in democracy, and I reserve the right to bomb the living hell out of anyone who wants to mess with it. I support my troops, especially my brother who's currently deployed again. I recognize and respect your right to disagree with me and to vote for "the other guy" if you so choose, and I only ask that you recognize and respect my right to do the same. If there are any survivors who read this far, thanks for letting me preach for a while, and I hope you didn't take TOO much offense at what I've had to say, but I'm pretty passionate about what I believe in. Regardless of what happens in the next few hours, this will still be the greatest country in the world, and I will stand behind my president, even if I have to start work tomorrow to defeat him in 2012. I think it's fantastic that we have a war hero and a bi-racial man who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in a broken home as our choices for president...I happen to side with the one a lot moreso than the other, but just because I think the other's gonna burn in hell doesn't mean I wouldn't shoot a game of hoops or have a beer with him. At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Why did I vote the way I voted? I voted the way I voted because I belive in the message presented by the candidate I support. I voted the way I voted because I disagree with his worthy opponant's message. I voted the way I voted because millions of Americans who were braver than me fought and died to earn me the right and responsibility to take part in my government and make my voice heard. I voted the way I voted because thousands of Americans like my brother are currently fighting to make sure I don't lose that right and responsibility. I voted the way I voted because I live in the greatest country in the world and that's how we roll. Why did I vote the way I voted? Because I can!!!
Why I Voted How I Voted (Originally published Nov 4, 2008)
I haven't written a political commentary in a long time, so I figured what better time to write one than on election day. I just got home from voting, and I'm sure it won't surprise anyone that I voted for John McCain. Not that anyone gives a flying rat's a**, but I have a LONG list of reasons why. There are three key areas, those being Security, Economy and Philosophy/Personal.
On the issue of security, there are two reasons I support McCain, those being threats/appeasement, and Iraq. Obama's judgement on threats concerns me...when Russia invaded Georgia a couple months ago, his response was to say that both sides should exercise restraint. That's somewhat troubling...so you're arguing that a tiny little country that just got overrun by its big thug of a neighbor should take it slowly and not get all pissed off? Yea THAT makes sense. Then there's the situation with Iran...Mr. Obama said that Iran is a tiny country that doesn't pose much of a threat. Um...excuse me, Senator...a country that has held Americans hostage before, and is currently funding and training the Iraqi resistance which is killing American troops, has threatened to blow the US' key middle-eastern ally off the map, and is actively pursuing nuclear weapons technology is not a threat?? And did I hear you say that you want to sit down with the president of Iran without precondition? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with reaching out to our enemies to try to solve the issues betwen us. BUT, before I'd be willing to do that, there'd have to be some terms...give up the nukes, stop funding the Iraqi insurgancy IMMEDIATELY, and if you mess with Israel, you will be flattened. Agree to that, and we can talk. Don't agree, and all you're going to get from me is sanctions.
That brings us to Iraq...Senator Obama has had a major plank of his campaign on the fact that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that we went in based on lies, and that he was opposed to it all along. First off, you weren't even in the Senate yet when the decision to go into Iraq was made, so how you felt at the time really isn't all that relevant. Secondly, and listen to me closely...based on the information we had available at the time, the decision to go into Iraq was correct. I conceed that we royally screwed up once we got in there, but had I been president in 2003, I would have made the same decision to invade that the current administration made, and here's why: The decision to invade was based on a few key points; primarily being the concern that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and the concerns that he'd use them himself or supply them to terrorists. I acknowledge that, once we got into Iraq we learned that Saddam did not in fact possess WMD. BUT, we did not know that at the time, for two key reasons.
As you may recall, Colin Powell made a presentation to the United Nations before the invasion that made the US case for attack. In this speech, he referred to information provided by a defector from Saddam's inner circle, who testified that Saddam did have WMD. Opponants have argued that this presentation constitued a Bush administration lie designed to mislead the world into supporting an attack. The fact of the matter is that there was a lie involved in that presentation, but it was not a lie on the part of Sec. Powell or the administration. According to a story that aired on the show "60 Minutes" (a show that has been no friend to the Bush administration and has no reason to lie in their favor), this defector, codenamed "Curveball", did indeed testify and provide documentation of Saddam's WMD stockpiles. This evidence convinced not only the US and UK, but also France and Germany, who acknowledged the threat but did not endorse an attack, that these weapons existed. What we did not know at the time was that that evidence submitted by Curveball was a fabrication. He has since admitted that he fabricated the evidence he presented, in order to benefit himself. Thus...even though we now know the evidence was bogus, we did not at the time, and in the presense of a threat, the decision to go was correct.
Secondly, another report on another episode of "60 Minutes" covered an interview with the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam after his capture. According to this agent, Saddam himself admited that he specifically WANTED the US to think he had WMD when he did not. He was afraid he'd be invaded, and thought the threat of using WMD against American troops would scare us away from attacking. Given the combination of the bad intelligence and Saddam's own desire to intimidate us, the decision was correct based upon the information that was available. Knowing what we know now, we should have maybe done things differently, and we definately should have handled it differently once we got in, but the fact of the matter is we ARE there, and we need to finish it correctly. With Senator McCain's military background, I believe he is the better choice to do that.
The second major area is the economy. Senator McCain's economic plan makes more sense to me than does Sen. Obama's. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts "expire"...well that would be a tax increase. Additionally, he wants to raise the capital gains and other taxes. We're in a recession...I've studied economics, and you don't raise taxes in a recession. The only way to get out of a recession is to jump-start the economy. You do that by putting money into the economy to generate sales, which generates manufacturing, etc. Look at it this way...say you make $100. If your tax rate is 15% that means they take $15 out of your pay, so you have $85 in your pocket. In a recession, there's inflation which means things cost more, so your $85 doesn't go as far as it did before the economy tanked. Now, say you get an economic stimulus rebate or a tax cut like most tax payers got under Bush. Now you might have $90 dollars to spend instead of $85. If you spend that $90, the person you buy stuff from makes money, and spends that money to buy more stuff from the manufacturer. The manufacturer makes money and uses it to buy supplies. The supplier buys raw materials from the company you work for, so therefore you make more money, and next time you have $110 to spend, so you buy more, and the pattern continues. If instead, Senator Obama lets the tax cuts expire and raises the capital gains tax, you might only have $78 to spend instead of $85. How is that going to get the economy going?
Also, there's the whole Joe-the-plumber, "spread the wealth around" bit. Obama's argument there is that, under the Bush plan, a lot of people didn't get a tax cut or a rebate, and that's true, but it's not the whole story. The tax that got cut, and that the rebates came from, is the Federal Income Tax. What Obama didn't tell you is that NOT EVERYONE PAYS THAT TAX!!! People that make under a certain amount (I don't remember it offhand) do not pay federal income tax, and it's kidna hard to cut zero. Now, Obama said that those folks do still pay into Social Security and Medicare, and they should get a rebate on that. But, what he didn't mention is that THEY ALREADY DO. There's someting called the Earned Income Tax Credit that people who make under a certain amount (I don't remember it offhand either but it's above the amount that pays zero income tax so even if you pay tax you can still get it) get, and that EITC is a direct rebate on your SS/Medicare taxes. So, if you didn't get a tax rebate check, it's because you don't pay that tax, and if you make little enough money that you don't pay federal tax, you already get your SS/Medicare tax money back. Therefore, if Obama were to "spread the wealth around" as he says, the only way to do that would be to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who did not earn it. That's welfare, and that's socialism. And that's not right. Definately take care of the poor, but don't take my hard-earned money and give it to someone else.
Then there's the personal/philosophical angle, and it's a big one in my mind. Not only does Obama have some very questionable views and opinions, there's a nausiating double standard being levied against the Republicans, and it's really pissing me off. Mr. Obama has some very shady associations...he spent 20 years in a church led by a pastor who is frankly disgusting. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the right to support their minister, but if my parish priest ever stood up in church and said "God damn America", I'd stand up and say "God damn you, Father", and walk out. For Obama to argue that he didn't know Reverend Wright felt that way is pure bullshit. He had to know it, and he obvioulsy didnt have a problem with it. He has the right to his views, but I simply do not want my brother's commander in chief to be someone who willingly stood by and let his pastor talk like that for so long. Then there's William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who blew up the US Capitol, FBI Headquarters and the NYPD Headquarters, and said on 9/11/2001 he wished he'd done more, and in whose house Barack Obama started his political career. I was forced to read one of Dr. Ayers' books when I was in college, and the guy's a nutcase radical, pure and simple. I question the judgement of a man who willingly associated with him, regardless of when he committed his crimes. Also, the argument that Obama was in the second grade or whatever when Ayers was committing his bombings is pure bullshit. Let me ask you this...if it came out that Senator McCain was endorsed by and had served on a board with someone who burned crosses as a member of the KKK between 1968-73, would the fact that Senator McCain was in a POW camp at the time matter, or would the liberals be screaming that he was a racist for associating with him? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Then, finally there's Obama's personal views. One particular law Obama voted against burns my blood...there was a situation in Illinois where a woman had an abortion, but it was botched, and the baby was born alive. The baby was literally thrown in a garbage can and left to die; thank God someone found him and comforted him until he died 45 minutes later. The Illinois legislature proposed a law that would require that full medical care be given to any child born as the result of a botched abortion. There was one "No" vote...State Senator Barack Obama. His reasoning for voting no was that the bill would "put an unfair burden on a woman's right to choose." I know a lot of people will not agree with what I'm about to say, but I respectfully submit that a woman does not have a right to choose abortion...I see no way that anyone can logically argue that human life does not begin at the moment of conception, and therefore, performing an abortion is a violation of THAT person's right to control his or her own body. Respectfully, Roe v. Wade was an ill-advised decision, and abortion should be illegal because it deprives a human being of his or her right to life. BUT, I'm not even taking offense w/Obama because of that...NOBODY argues that a baby is not a human being after it is born, but Obama put a woman's "right to choose" ahead of a living, breathing, human being's right to stay alive. In my mind, with all due respect, that is a pathetic and disgusting order of priorities, and while it's not my place to judge, probably disqualifies Mr. Obama from eternal salvation unless he repents his view. I'm sure I'm pissing some people off, but I have as much right to my opinion as anyone else, right?
At the very end of my diatribe comes a remark Mr. Obama made to a group in San Francisco (I have some readers in the SF area...nothing personal!). He made a remark that people in rural Pennsylvania are "frustrated Americans clinging to their guns and bibles" because they were opposed to San Franscisco values. Well, I don't live in rural Pennsylvania, I live in a medium-sized town in Ohio. Guess what? I am a frustrated American...I'm frustrated that we have judges in liberal states ignoring the Constitution and imposing liberal views on things such as abortion and gay marriage on people without a vote. I'm frustrated that I've literally had liberal people tell me "there is no room in diversity (just for the record i HATE that word) for conservative viewpoints". I'm frustrated that people automatically dismiss the views of people who disagree with them. I'm frustrated that Sarah Palin's clothes and her 17 year old daughter's sex life are legitimate issues, but Barack Obama's racist, anti-American minister and cop-killing, building-bombing friends "don't really matter" because Obama wasn't there at the time. I'm not a hunter, but I believe in the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm for sport and personal protection, so yea I cling to my gun. And guess what? I'm pretty religious...I'm not a "Bible-thumping Jesus preacher" type and I don't try to impose my beliefs on anyone else, but don't you dare insult my beliefs or try to minimalize me because of them.
I always say "There's a difference between being a patriot and being a nationalist, and I'm a nationalist." I believe we live in the greatest country that ever has or ever will exist on this Earth. I care about my country, I believe in democracy, and I reserve the right to bomb the living hell out of anyone who wants to mess with it. I support my troops, especially my brother who's currently deployed again. I recognize and respect your right to disagree with me and to vote for "the other guy" if you so choose, and I only ask that you recognize and respect my right to do the same. If there are any survivors who read this far, thanks for letting me preach for a while, and I hope you didn't take TOO much offense at what I've had to say, but I'm pretty passionate about what I believe in. Regardless of what happens in the next few hours, this will still be the greatest country in the world, and I will stand behind my president, even if I have to start work tomorrow to defeat him in 2012. I think it's fantastic that we have a war hero and a bi-racial man who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in a broken home as our choices for president...I happen to side with the one a lot moreso than the other, but just because I think the other's gonna burn in hell doesn't mean I wouldn't shoot a game of hoops or have a beer with him. At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Why did I vote the way I voted? I voted the way I voted because I belive in the message presented by the candidate I support. I voted the way I voted because I disagree with his worthy opponant's message. I voted the way I voted because millions of Americans who were braver than me fought and died to earn me the right and responsibility to take part in my government and make my voice heard. I voted the way I voted because thousands of Americans like my brother are currently fighting to make sure I don't lose that right and responsibility. I voted the way I voted because I live in the greatest country in the world and that's how we roll. Why did I vote the way I voted? Because I can!!!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
School 1957 vs 2007
From an email sent to me by a friend--humerous and sad at the same time:
Scenario : Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies..
2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2 007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school .
1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario : Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a li ving because he cannot speak English.
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecracke rs from 4th of July, puts t hem in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
Scenario : Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies..
2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2 007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school .
1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario : Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a li ving because he cannot speak English.
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecracke rs from 4th of July, puts t hem in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)