Unlike most red-blood Americans, I adhere less to the patriotic mantra of “God Bless America” than I do to the Dickensian ideal of “God bless us, every one.”
That does not mean that I’m not proud and immensely grateful to have been born an American citizen. I am, as John Fogerty sings, a “Fortunate Son,” as are we all who call this nation home. What we cannot forget, however, is that none of us who were born and bred here had ANYTHING to do with that.
Whatever you believe; be it God, fate, random order or complete disorder, any one of us could have just as easily been born somewhere else. You can argue that everything has a purpose and every person and thing has a place, and that may be, but neither you nor I had any choice in where or how we came into this world. We could have just as easily opened our eyes the first time to a view of a jungle clearing deep in the Amazon rain forest, or on frozen tundra.
We could have been born in a back room of a densely populated city in India, or a village in war torn Bosnia. We could have been born in a country where a third of the children do not live past the age of five. We could have been born into a life where starvation and disease are as natural as having a cup of morning coffee is to us.
I was blessed to be born in a hospital in the state of Kentucky in the United States of America…and I had two parents who loved me….and a warm, safe home to be raised in. I have to wonder how I deserved that incredible privilege over any other person born that day in any other place in the world.
I have to wonder if I have earned that incredible privilege since.
In a way, I think we are sort of like sports fans who wear their team’s colors as a way of proclaiming their identity. We watch the Tennessee Volunteers or the Kentucky Wildcats play and we yell at the screen, both in celebration and frustration. While most of us have never played college football, we expect perfection from our players, and destruction for their opponents. Meanwhile, the most energy we expel is to get off the couch at half time to re-fill our nacho platter.
We’re full of arrogance when our teams win, as if we had anything to do with it. When they lose, we’re just as quick to turn our backs. The quarterback stinks, the defense is lame, and the coach should be fired. I am as guilty of these things as anyone.
We are the same with America. Most of us are as uninvolved as we are with any spectator sport. We watch from the sidelines. Most don’t even vote.
It’s only when something effects us personally that we get involved. We are dominated by our own selfish motives. We don’t worry much about taxes until ours goes up. We don’t worry about roads until ours are full of potholes. We don’t worry much about healthcare until we lose our job and don’t have insurance.
We recognize the ugliness of poverty, but it’s easy to ignore from the safe bubble of our own modest fortunes. We feel sorry for the have-nots, but we are adamantly opposed to a hand-out.
We are a nation full of folks who solemnly nod and say, “There but for the grace of God,” yet we offer no grace ourselves. While our neighbors are losing their homes in record numbers, we are more concerned with the politics of name-calling and grandstanding, not solutions. You can have a more heated argument today over the right to bear arms than over the right to proper medical care. What does that say about us as a nation? What does that say about our character?
I’ve run through quite the gamut of emotions this year regarding the direction our nation is going. I’ve alternated between anger, denial, frustration, bemusement, disbelief and fear. Like most people, I’m concerned about the economy and unemployment. I worry about the national debt. I am more than a little terrified about the world we may be leaving for our children and grandchildren.
I was cautiously hopeful after the election of Barack Obama. He said things I wanted to hear about change and making the world a better place. Contrary to what many in America seemed to believe, we are not an island unto ourselves. We are a part of a world that has grown increasingly more dependent upon each other.
Regardless of that (and what will eventually boil down to self-preservation), we should be concerned about the citizenry of the world out of basic common decency. It should never be “God Bless America…and no one else.” We must look out for each other, both in our local communities, our states, our country and our planet.
Right now Americans are identified by our incredible selfishness and overwhelming arrogance. We are spoiled little brats who can’t believe we aren’t getting everything we want, because that is what we expect. We have clamped our teeth down hard on the silver spoon in our mouth…and God help anyone who dares to try and remove it.
Is this truly who we want to be? Do we want to be the chest-thumpers who throw tantrums when we don’t get our way? Or do we want to be peacemakers? Do we want to be the ones who take and take until we have no more room to store our treasures, or do we want to be the one who gives with sincere charity in their heart?
What makes a person special is not where they are born. Having the good fortune to be born on American soil only makes the expectations higher. It’s not about being proud to be an American…it’s about making America proud to have you as a citizen.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Bitter Tea
.
I found this online after a brief Google search asking “what does the Tea Party stand for?” Considering the fact that the “Tea Party” now appears to be shaping the course of our current elections, I thought I should know:
The issues and ideas that are at the core of the Tea Party movement:
1) All forms of government must abide by the boundaries set forth in state and federal constitutions.
2) All pork and earmarks in the stimulus, omnibus bills, and bailouts must be reversed and repealed. The national budget must be balanced. Spending cuts, not increased taxation should be used to balance the budget.
3) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness implies personal responsibility, not handouts, free-enterprise and capitalism, not government controlled economies. Some people choose to be irresponsible (and of course some fall on hard times due to circumstances), but it is not the responsibility of the general public, vis-a-vis government intervention, to guarantee or bailout irresponsibility and failure. Private individuals and organizations give out of compassion and generosity, not compulsion through taxation. laws, and pork barrel projects.
4) ALL elected and appointed officials are under the employment and serve at the will of We the People.
5) Excessive tax burdens kill prosperity.
6) Excessive national debt is generational theft, and stealing the future of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
7) Neither major political party is "clean" on these issues. Both Democrats and Republicans have taxed excessively and neither have restrained the hand of government effectively. There are certainly individual representatives who have been faithful to their constituents and to the Constitution. However, too many are engaged in protecting their congressional positions and turf. The majority of government officials have insulated themselves from the people they serve, and hold themselves above the law. We are simply saying, "No, you aren't above the law".
8 ) The American public at large is ignorant of the purpose of government, the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. As a result, they allow politicians to sell them false hope and "rights" and "entitlements" that are not guaranteed by the Constitution. By educating the American people on the foundations of our history, we hope to bring sanity to the election and legislative processes.
9) As a group, we are appalled at the audaciousness and arrogance of our government in the last few years, particularly the proposals and bills passed in the last few months, despite massive public disapproval.
The Tea Party is a wake-up call to all Americans.
I found this online after a brief Google search asking “what does the Tea Party stand for?” Considering the fact that the “Tea Party” now appears to be shaping the course of our current elections, I thought I should know:
The issues and ideas that are at the core of the Tea Party movement:
1) All forms of government must abide by the boundaries set forth in state and federal constitutions.
2) All pork and earmarks in the stimulus, omnibus bills, and bailouts must be reversed and repealed. The national budget must be balanced. Spending cuts, not increased taxation should be used to balance the budget.
3) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness implies personal responsibility, not handouts, free-enterprise and capitalism, not government controlled economies. Some people choose to be irresponsible (and of course some fall on hard times due to circumstances), but it is not the responsibility of the general public, vis-a-vis government intervention, to guarantee or bailout irresponsibility and failure. Private individuals and organizations give out of compassion and generosity, not compulsion through taxation. laws, and pork barrel projects.
4) ALL elected and appointed officials are under the employment and serve at the will of We the People.
5) Excessive tax burdens kill prosperity.
6) Excessive national debt is generational theft, and stealing the future of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
7) Neither major political party is "clean" on these issues. Both Democrats and Republicans have taxed excessively and neither have restrained the hand of government effectively. There are certainly individual representatives who have been faithful to their constituents and to the Constitution. However, too many are engaged in protecting their congressional positions and turf. The majority of government officials have insulated themselves from the people they serve, and hold themselves above the law. We are simply saying, "No, you aren't above the law".
8 ) The American public at large is ignorant of the purpose of government, the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. As a result, they allow politicians to sell them false hope and "rights" and "entitlements" that are not guaranteed by the Constitution. By educating the American people on the foundations of our history, we hope to bring sanity to the election and legislative processes.
9) As a group, we are appalled at the audaciousness and arrogance of our government in the last few years, particularly the proposals and bills passed in the last few months, despite massive public disapproval.
The Tea Party is a wake-up call to all Americans.
I read through that explanation a few times, and I have to admit, I agree with a lot of it. I hate big government (despite the fact that I am a tiny cog in the machinery and my families livelihood depends upon the paycheck I receive from the taxpayer treasury). I’ve jokingly said for years that there are entire branches of government that could likely be shut down today and the only one noticing tomorrow would be those not getting a paycheck.
I believe we should have a balanced budget. I believe our elected officials should be responsible to the voters, not lobbyists and special interests. I hate earmarks and pork spending. I don’t like high taxes.
But if it’s all so good, why does my nose keep twitching from the odd smell? What is it that makes the whole Tea Party movement seem so…fishy?
For me, and I think a lot of others, it mostly comes down to timing. How strange that the movement didn’t truly kick off until the fall of 2008 and the election of Barack Obama. Despite explanation #7 (that both parties are dirty), and assurances from leaders and members of the party that they are neither “Republican” based nor “racist,” it seems highly coincidental that the election of the first black president and the overwhelming defeat of the Republican party marks the sudden awakening of patriotism in America.
Really bad timing.
There was no uprising during the George W. Bush years, while our national debt spiraled out of control and government grew to unprecedented levels with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Where was their concern during those years?
We are beat over the head at work about ethics and the terrible “appearance of impropriety.” This is explained to us as something that might be perfectly innocent, but still “looks bad.” I would hope that this is the case with the Tea Party. I am sure that there are many followers of the movement who truly are free of prejudice and only want what’s best for our country…but it still “looks bad.”
I’m not saying that because Barack Obama is black that he should be given a free pass…far from it. He was elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world and should be held accountable for each decision. He made the choice to accept this position, and in the brilliant words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power comes great responsibility.”
But seriously, the man had not arrived at the White House before he was being picketed. He had barely had time to unpack before protesters were calling for his impeachment. Not since Lincoln has a President stepped into office facing such immediate and destructive animosity.
With such stubborn, bitter opposition, there can never be compromise. The decision of who Obama was and what he stood for was made before he was elected, and there would be no dialogue or debate. There appears to be only one goal, and that is a removal from power as soon as possible.
That is the most frightening part of this movement. They don't want him to do anything good for our country, nor help in any way for him to do it. So assured are they that he will fail, they wish for it to be so…and therefore, in the blind pursuit of their own interests, wish failure upon us all.
I believe we should have a balanced budget. I believe our elected officials should be responsible to the voters, not lobbyists and special interests. I hate earmarks and pork spending. I don’t like high taxes.
But if it’s all so good, why does my nose keep twitching from the odd smell? What is it that makes the whole Tea Party movement seem so…fishy?
For me, and I think a lot of others, it mostly comes down to timing. How strange that the movement didn’t truly kick off until the fall of 2008 and the election of Barack Obama. Despite explanation #7 (that both parties are dirty), and assurances from leaders and members of the party that they are neither “Republican” based nor “racist,” it seems highly coincidental that the election of the first black president and the overwhelming defeat of the Republican party marks the sudden awakening of patriotism in America.
Really bad timing.
There was no uprising during the George W. Bush years, while our national debt spiraled out of control and government grew to unprecedented levels with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Where was their concern during those years?
We are beat over the head at work about ethics and the terrible “appearance of impropriety.” This is explained to us as something that might be perfectly innocent, but still “looks bad.” I would hope that this is the case with the Tea Party. I am sure that there are many followers of the movement who truly are free of prejudice and only want what’s best for our country…but it still “looks bad.”
I’m not saying that because Barack Obama is black that he should be given a free pass…far from it. He was elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world and should be held accountable for each decision. He made the choice to accept this position, and in the brilliant words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power comes great responsibility.”
But seriously, the man had not arrived at the White House before he was being picketed. He had barely had time to unpack before protesters were calling for his impeachment. Not since Lincoln has a President stepped into office facing such immediate and destructive animosity.
With such stubborn, bitter opposition, there can never be compromise. The decision of who Obama was and what he stood for was made before he was elected, and there would be no dialogue or debate. There appears to be only one goal, and that is a removal from power as soon as possible.
That is the most frightening part of this movement. They don't want him to do anything good for our country, nor help in any way for him to do it. So assured are they that he will fail, they wish for it to be so…and therefore, in the blind pursuit of their own interests, wish failure upon us all.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Trigger Effect
Yesterday New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made his way to Capitol Hill to ask Congress to consider passing a bill that would prohibit anyone on the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List from purchasing a gun or explosives. When I heard this, my first thought was, “isn’t this a law already?” I mean, seriously, why do we have a list of potential terrorists and then willingly allow them to purchase an AK-47 or sticks of Dynamite. That’s kind of like going on a donut diet. It’s a diet in name only and the outcome won’t be very pleasant.
Of course, the mere mention of a gun law brings out the raised hackles of the sworn protectors of the second Amendment. Terrified that someone might dare take their gun from their cold, dead hands, they don’t care who can buy them or how anyone gets them. Our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave every American citizen the “right to bear arms,” so by golly, that means you’re absolutely un-American if you don’t believe that means complete and unfettered access to every possible weapon conceived or manufactured.
Senator Lindsey Graham R-S.C. stated his fears that this would infringe upon innocent citizens constitutional rights. He, and others who refused to support the law, said that the Terrorist Watch List is inaccurate and often contains names of people who are completely innocent of any wrong-doing. Gun enthusiast blogs are saying that if the law is passed the list will be expanded and used as a way to keep any American citizen who doesn’t agree with the government (like Tea Party members) from owning a gun.
While I have to agree that the last thing I want is a group of angry, possibly racist, Glenn Beck worshiping protesters to be forced to riot without the protection of their weaponry, I still think that there is room to negotiate. Is it even conceivable that the flag raising patriots of the NRA would want guns or explosives to be sold to a potential terrorist? Are they so terrified of losing the semi-automatic assault rifle that they use for duck hunting that they are willing to endanger the lives of other American citizens?
Sarcasm aside (at least for a moment), is it really that hard to find a middle ground here? I can understand the justifiable fears that a “watch” list could be inaccurate or used inappropriately. If someone hasn’t thought of doing that already, they probably will. But does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water?
If the list is inaccurate, the common sense thing to do might be to FIX THE LIST. Set some iron-clad rules about who goes on the list and why. Make sure that there can be no confusion with a three year old that happens to have the same name. With today’s technology, should this really be that difficult? Develop an expedient and reasonable review process if someone challenges their entry on the list.
As usual, both sides of this argument need to listen to what the other is saying. They need to sit down and work out their concerns like adults given a serious responsibility. Extremists from either side need not apply.
Of course, the mere mention of a gun law brings out the raised hackles of the sworn protectors of the second Amendment. Terrified that someone might dare take their gun from their cold, dead hands, they don’t care who can buy them or how anyone gets them. Our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave every American citizen the “right to bear arms,” so by golly, that means you’re absolutely un-American if you don’t believe that means complete and unfettered access to every possible weapon conceived or manufactured.
Senator Lindsey Graham R-S.C. stated his fears that this would infringe upon innocent citizens constitutional rights. He, and others who refused to support the law, said that the Terrorist Watch List is inaccurate and often contains names of people who are completely innocent of any wrong-doing. Gun enthusiast blogs are saying that if the law is passed the list will be expanded and used as a way to keep any American citizen who doesn’t agree with the government (like Tea Party members) from owning a gun.
While I have to agree that the last thing I want is a group of angry, possibly racist, Glenn Beck worshiping protesters to be forced to riot without the protection of their weaponry, I still think that there is room to negotiate. Is it even conceivable that the flag raising patriots of the NRA would want guns or explosives to be sold to a potential terrorist? Are they so terrified of losing the semi-automatic assault rifle that they use for duck hunting that they are willing to endanger the lives of other American citizens?
Sarcasm aside (at least for a moment), is it really that hard to find a middle ground here? I can understand the justifiable fears that a “watch” list could be inaccurate or used inappropriately. If someone hasn’t thought of doing that already, they probably will. But does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water?
If the list is inaccurate, the common sense thing to do might be to FIX THE LIST. Set some iron-clad rules about who goes on the list and why. Make sure that there can be no confusion with a three year old that happens to have the same name. With today’s technology, should this really be that difficult? Develop an expedient and reasonable review process if someone challenges their entry on the list.
As usual, both sides of this argument need to listen to what the other is saying. They need to sit down and work out their concerns like adults given a serious responsibility. Extremists from either side need not apply.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Walkng a fine (border) line
Last week the state of Arizona passed a law that, among other things, would require police to check the immigration status of anyone they believe is in the country illegally. Obviously, this has created a huge uproar; as pretty much everything does these days. Not much gets done anymore for the simple reason that our politicians are terrified that some lunatic is going to be on a street corner with a sign condemning the decision.
President Obama, who made a campaign pledge to tackle immigration issues early in his presidency, has come out against the law, calling it “misguided” and asking members of his administration to monitor the actions of the state for potential “civil rights” violations. The main thing he got right on this subject was his suggestion that it is the federal government’s “failure to act” which has caused Arizona to pass the new legislation.
Illegal immigration is a serious problem in our country and growing more serious with each passing year. Despite the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and talks of a more secure border, the floodgates continue broadening and our cities and towns are drowning under the surge. Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, with 700 miles of border available for crossing.
Despite the fact that entering the United States without proper documentation is itself a crime, there are additional crimes associated with this problem. Unable to legally purchase a car or car insurance, many use cash to buy their transportation and then drive the same roads as law abiding citizens, without insurance or understanding of specific laws.
Salaries are paid in cash, with no taxes paid, yet public services are shared like any other citizen, including education and hospital services. There are currently approximately five million children of illegal aliens in our nation’s schools, yet budgets are being cut and teachers are being let go because we don’t have the money to fund them. Meanwhile, an estimated 29 billion dollars has been wired back to Mexico in the last five years.
Not all who cross our border are looking for work or a better life for their family. Some are escaping prosecution in their native land and bring their criminal behavior with them to the U.S. Federal investigators believe that in 2005 alone, as much as 2.2 million kilograms of cocaine and 11.6 kilograms of marijuana were smuggled into the United States. Drug Cartels in Mexico and South America use gangs in our country to distribute their product and siphon the money back to them.
In response to Arizona’s new law, protesters are arguing that “profiling” will take place and “civil rights” will be abused. I hate to say it, but they are probably right about the profiling. It’s something that’s done every day by everyone, even the most liberal minded. We make snap judgments about people based on the way the look. It’s not one of our more attractive human traits.
We see a homeless person and we assume that they are either dangerous or lazy. We see a blond cheerleader and we assume that she is not very intelligent. We see someone of Middle Eastern appearance get on a plane and we keep our eye on them. We find ourselves in a “bad” section of town and assume that every person is a criminal and out to get us. We “profile.”
So, is it right that anyone who looks Mexican or a Latin American will be profiled as a potential illegal immigrant? Absolutely not. It’s not in the least bit fair that legal American citizens will be asked to produce a Drivers License or other documentation to prove that they are supposed to be here. But, there’s a lot in life that’s not fair. My question is, “does it really infringe upon the quality of their life or their rights as a U.S. citizen to be asked to provide identification?” I am not so sure it does.
There is no way to know who is legal and who is not without asking for documentation. Does that mean it should not be done? I am sure a lot of very intelligent people have debated ways to solve this problem and it really comes down to somebody having the authority to ask the question and view the proof.
I know it’s easy for me to say, “Deal with it.” I am a white male who has only had to deal with discrimination or profiling by people who think I eat too many donuts. I keep asking myself how I would feel if I was a Latino citizen of the United States who is expected to produce documentation at the whim of any police officer who sees me walk or drive by. Would I be happy about it? No, I’m sure I would not. But would I accept it as part of a solution to a much bigger problem? I hope so.
Of course, the biggest protests revolve around the notion of Civil Rights. Boycotts of Arizona are being organized and petitions are being signed. I've heard the evil phrase "Nazi state" mentioned. The grandstands are full of people furious and disgusted at the horror surely to come.
Honestly though, I think it's fairly offensive to compare the "asking for identification" to some of atrocities that have occured in our nation and planet's past. This is not racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination. There are no “back of the bus” motives. American citizens will not be taken off to camps or forced into separate schools. Show your Identification and move on. Only those who are breaking the law will be affected beyond that request.
I know it could easily get out of control. There needs to be strong governence to make sure that the identification requests are handled delicately and with respect. Anyone found abusing this law should be dealt with quickly and firmly.
But while we wait for a flashing sign to magically appear over the head of those in this country illegally, can anyone think of a better way? Let's not lose sight of that essential truth: If you are in our country without legal documentation, you are breaking the law.
I have been stopped numerous times at road blocks, where I am asked for my license and if I’ve been drinking. The officers always lean in close enough to smell if I am lying, no matter how trustworthy and innocent I look. I am profiled for being in a car, because some people don't know that it's not only illegal but dangerous and stupid to drink and drive, but it’s the price I pay for safety on the road. I don’t mind.
Every time I go to the airport, I am required to remove my shoes, take off my jacket, place my laptop in a bin by itself, and stand patiently while a transportation security officer examines my driver’s license to see if I look the same as my picture. Most days I do, but I still have a second or two of worry that they will pull me aside and say, “You don’t really weigh that!”
Do I complain that I am treated like a terrorist every single time I fly just because some idiot tried to set his shoe on fire? No, I don’t, because it’s price I pay to be a citizen and fly safely. I don’t mind.
My suggestion to those who are upset that they might be required to present their driver’s license or proof of citizenship just because a policeman thinks they are illegal? Grin and bear it. If you have nothing to hide, you’ll be fine. Don’t be defensive, be legal.
Of course, Arizona shouldn’t have had to pass this law. And most likely it will be either overturned or watered down to the point that it is not going to be an issue anyway. The best thing about it's passage is it might well force our federal government to act on Immigration Reform.
Congress and politicians have fought over details and tiptoed around the question of civil rights for so long, I think they started thinking that the problem would simply go away. It has not, and without action it will only continue to get worse. Hard decisions must be made and action must be taken. It is time that the President and Congress do something:
• Develop a realistic “amnesty” program for illegal immigrants who are in this country and trying to work and provide for their families. (This amnesty should come with probation and a tax system so they pay like the rest of us).
• Make it easier to become a citizen (many are here illegally because of the bureaucracy involved in achieving citizen status).
• Crack down on the borders (spend some stimulus dollars there; build walls, increase patrols, ask smart people outside of the government what can be done)
• Support the states, don’t hinder them. Border States are the first line of defense, yet they pay the highest price in crime and economics.
• Hold Mexico and other nations accountable for their part of the problem.
• Hit the street gangs hard. Consider them internal terrorists and treat them as such. Stop the flow of drugs into our country and the flow of money out.
• Crack down on employers of illegals and those who sell them cars, guns or alcohol without proper documentation.
• Develop strict laws on enforcement behavior to ensure the rights of legal citizens are not abused. Further, make sure illegal immigrants that are apprehended are treated with respect and courtesy until a course of action is identified.
None of this should be considered a slap in the face to our many fine LEGAL immigrants. Let’s face it, with the exception of the Native Americans, all of us are immigrants. Our nation was founded on the basis of growth and new beginnings. We should never hinder that. But there has to be a legal process to follow, and we can’t continue to ignore the fact that our laws are being broken daily by the very presence of illegal immigrants.
President Obama, who made a campaign pledge to tackle immigration issues early in his presidency, has come out against the law, calling it “misguided” and asking members of his administration to monitor the actions of the state for potential “civil rights” violations. The main thing he got right on this subject was his suggestion that it is the federal government’s “failure to act” which has caused Arizona to pass the new legislation.
Illegal immigration is a serious problem in our country and growing more serious with each passing year. Despite the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and talks of a more secure border, the floodgates continue broadening and our cities and towns are drowning under the surge. Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, with 700 miles of border available for crossing.
Despite the fact that entering the United States without proper documentation is itself a crime, there are additional crimes associated with this problem. Unable to legally purchase a car or car insurance, many use cash to buy their transportation and then drive the same roads as law abiding citizens, without insurance or understanding of specific laws.
Salaries are paid in cash, with no taxes paid, yet public services are shared like any other citizen, including education and hospital services. There are currently approximately five million children of illegal aliens in our nation’s schools, yet budgets are being cut and teachers are being let go because we don’t have the money to fund them. Meanwhile, an estimated 29 billion dollars has been wired back to Mexico in the last five years.
Not all who cross our border are looking for work or a better life for their family. Some are escaping prosecution in their native land and bring their criminal behavior with them to the U.S. Federal investigators believe that in 2005 alone, as much as 2.2 million kilograms of cocaine and 11.6 kilograms of marijuana were smuggled into the United States. Drug Cartels in Mexico and South America use gangs in our country to distribute their product and siphon the money back to them.
In response to Arizona’s new law, protesters are arguing that “profiling” will take place and “civil rights” will be abused. I hate to say it, but they are probably right about the profiling. It’s something that’s done every day by everyone, even the most liberal minded. We make snap judgments about people based on the way the look. It’s not one of our more attractive human traits.
We see a homeless person and we assume that they are either dangerous or lazy. We see a blond cheerleader and we assume that she is not very intelligent. We see someone of Middle Eastern appearance get on a plane and we keep our eye on them. We find ourselves in a “bad” section of town and assume that every person is a criminal and out to get us. We “profile.”
So, is it right that anyone who looks Mexican or a Latin American will be profiled as a potential illegal immigrant? Absolutely not. It’s not in the least bit fair that legal American citizens will be asked to produce a Drivers License or other documentation to prove that they are supposed to be here. But, there’s a lot in life that’s not fair. My question is, “does it really infringe upon the quality of their life or their rights as a U.S. citizen to be asked to provide identification?” I am not so sure it does.
There is no way to know who is legal and who is not without asking for documentation. Does that mean it should not be done? I am sure a lot of very intelligent people have debated ways to solve this problem and it really comes down to somebody having the authority to ask the question and view the proof.
I know it’s easy for me to say, “Deal with it.” I am a white male who has only had to deal with discrimination or profiling by people who think I eat too many donuts. I keep asking myself how I would feel if I was a Latino citizen of the United States who is expected to produce documentation at the whim of any police officer who sees me walk or drive by. Would I be happy about it? No, I’m sure I would not. But would I accept it as part of a solution to a much bigger problem? I hope so.
Of course, the biggest protests revolve around the notion of Civil Rights. Boycotts of Arizona are being organized and petitions are being signed. I've heard the evil phrase "Nazi state" mentioned. The grandstands are full of people furious and disgusted at the horror surely to come.
Honestly though, I think it's fairly offensive to compare the "asking for identification" to some of atrocities that have occured in our nation and planet's past. This is not racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination. There are no “back of the bus” motives. American citizens will not be taken off to camps or forced into separate schools. Show your Identification and move on. Only those who are breaking the law will be affected beyond that request.
I know it could easily get out of control. There needs to be strong governence to make sure that the identification requests are handled delicately and with respect. Anyone found abusing this law should be dealt with quickly and firmly.
But while we wait for a flashing sign to magically appear over the head of those in this country illegally, can anyone think of a better way? Let's not lose sight of that essential truth: If you are in our country without legal documentation, you are breaking the law.
I have been stopped numerous times at road blocks, where I am asked for my license and if I’ve been drinking. The officers always lean in close enough to smell if I am lying, no matter how trustworthy and innocent I look. I am profiled for being in a car, because some people don't know that it's not only illegal but dangerous and stupid to drink and drive, but it’s the price I pay for safety on the road. I don’t mind.
Every time I go to the airport, I am required to remove my shoes, take off my jacket, place my laptop in a bin by itself, and stand patiently while a transportation security officer examines my driver’s license to see if I look the same as my picture. Most days I do, but I still have a second or two of worry that they will pull me aside and say, “You don’t really weigh that!”
Do I complain that I am treated like a terrorist every single time I fly just because some idiot tried to set his shoe on fire? No, I don’t, because it’s price I pay to be a citizen and fly safely. I don’t mind.
My suggestion to those who are upset that they might be required to present their driver’s license or proof of citizenship just because a policeman thinks they are illegal? Grin and bear it. If you have nothing to hide, you’ll be fine. Don’t be defensive, be legal.
Of course, Arizona shouldn’t have had to pass this law. And most likely it will be either overturned or watered down to the point that it is not going to be an issue anyway. The best thing about it's passage is it might well force our federal government to act on Immigration Reform.
Congress and politicians have fought over details and tiptoed around the question of civil rights for so long, I think they started thinking that the problem would simply go away. It has not, and without action it will only continue to get worse. Hard decisions must be made and action must be taken. It is time that the President and Congress do something:
• Develop a realistic “amnesty” program for illegal immigrants who are in this country and trying to work and provide for their families. (This amnesty should come with probation and a tax system so they pay like the rest of us).
• Make it easier to become a citizen (many are here illegally because of the bureaucracy involved in achieving citizen status).
• Crack down on the borders (spend some stimulus dollars there; build walls, increase patrols, ask smart people outside of the government what can be done)
• Support the states, don’t hinder them. Border States are the first line of defense, yet they pay the highest price in crime and economics.
• Hold Mexico and other nations accountable for their part of the problem.
• Hit the street gangs hard. Consider them internal terrorists and treat them as such. Stop the flow of drugs into our country and the flow of money out.
• Crack down on employers of illegals and those who sell them cars, guns or alcohol without proper documentation.
• Develop strict laws on enforcement behavior to ensure the rights of legal citizens are not abused. Further, make sure illegal immigrants that are apprehended are treated with respect and courtesy until a course of action is identified.
None of this should be considered a slap in the face to our many fine LEGAL immigrants. Let’s face it, with the exception of the Native Americans, all of us are immigrants. Our nation was founded on the basis of growth and new beginnings. We should never hinder that. But there has to be a legal process to follow, and we can’t continue to ignore the fact that our laws are being broken daily by the very presence of illegal immigrants.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Blame Game
I was in Wal-Mart the other day, stocking up on travel supplies, when I encountered a young man on the aisle where shaving and hair products were located. While I checked prices on various shampoos and paid him little mind, his wife or significant other arrived with a cart.
“Look at this,” he said, and held out some kind of razor kit to her. The anger in his voice was obvious, and I thought for a minute that he was upset with her for some reason. He shook the package in her face, “Thirteen dollars!”
She nodded her head in agreement, something I believe she has to do a lot and said, “That’s pretty high.”
“I used to could get these for six or seven dollars,” he said, in disgust. Then he added, “Thank you, Mr. Obama!”
I almost laughed. If not for the fact that he looked and acted like the kind of guy who liked to kick puppies for fun, I would have. It was almost like watching a Saturday Night Live skit about stupid people, but then I realized that this really shouldn’t have been funny. When I had time to think about it, what he said was both a little bit scary and pathetically sad because this man actually walks among us, breathing our air and taking up space in the checkout line. He and his anger are on the road when I and my family are. He also has the ability to procreate.
Now, don’t get me wrong, if you want to get upset with the current President over the jobless rate, Health Care Reform, taxes or his stance on foreign affairs, then by all means, you have a right to your opinion. I might not agree with you on all your points, but that’s okay. Let’s have a reasonable, respectful discussion and then go get some coffee.
But when someone blames the President for the price of a razor, I think he has some serious issues. First and foremost, he’s an idiot. He might not be able to do anything about that, because he was probably born that way. Unfortunately, there is no cure, and no amount of logic can persuade him otherwise. He is probably a miserably unhappy person who goes through life looking for someone to blame. In the case of the razor, he would have been wiser to be upset with Mr. Gillette, but I got the impression that everything wrong in this man’s life was now being blamed on Barack Hussein Obama (accent on the “Hussein”).
Second, and more bothersome, he’s likely not alone in this train of thought. There are a lot of unhappy people in this world who don’t want to accept responsibility for any of their failings and look for a big target to pin all their troubles on. We end up seeing some of these people in news stories, being described by the neighbors as “quiet” and “kept to themselves.”
This kind of “blame game” goes on with every president. There were idiots on the left who blamed every single problem in the world on George W. Bush. They were just as wrong as this Wal-Mart half-wit. I didn’t agree with a lot of what Bush did, but he had neither the power nor capability to either improve or destroy every component of my life. Same goes for Barack Obama.
Do I think that $13 is high for a package of razors? You bet (that’s another reason why I started growing a beard). But anyone with any common sense knows that pretty much all the “stuff” we buy has been going up in price for a long, long time. I hate to say it, but that’s what “capitalism” is all about: making more money. It doesn’t mean that we ALL make more money, but someone does. While we don’t have to be happy about it, we at least have to be realistic.
Unless we’re an idiot.
“Look at this,” he said, and held out some kind of razor kit to her. The anger in his voice was obvious, and I thought for a minute that he was upset with her for some reason. He shook the package in her face, “Thirteen dollars!”
She nodded her head in agreement, something I believe she has to do a lot and said, “That’s pretty high.”
“I used to could get these for six or seven dollars,” he said, in disgust. Then he added, “Thank you, Mr. Obama!”
I almost laughed. If not for the fact that he looked and acted like the kind of guy who liked to kick puppies for fun, I would have. It was almost like watching a Saturday Night Live skit about stupid people, but then I realized that this really shouldn’t have been funny. When I had time to think about it, what he said was both a little bit scary and pathetically sad because this man actually walks among us, breathing our air and taking up space in the checkout line. He and his anger are on the road when I and my family are. He also has the ability to procreate.
Now, don’t get me wrong, if you want to get upset with the current President over the jobless rate, Health Care Reform, taxes or his stance on foreign affairs, then by all means, you have a right to your opinion. I might not agree with you on all your points, but that’s okay. Let’s have a reasonable, respectful discussion and then go get some coffee.
But when someone blames the President for the price of a razor, I think he has some serious issues. First and foremost, he’s an idiot. He might not be able to do anything about that, because he was probably born that way. Unfortunately, there is no cure, and no amount of logic can persuade him otherwise. He is probably a miserably unhappy person who goes through life looking for someone to blame. In the case of the razor, he would have been wiser to be upset with Mr. Gillette, but I got the impression that everything wrong in this man’s life was now being blamed on Barack Hussein Obama (accent on the “Hussein”).
Second, and more bothersome, he’s likely not alone in this train of thought. There are a lot of unhappy people in this world who don’t want to accept responsibility for any of their failings and look for a big target to pin all their troubles on. We end up seeing some of these people in news stories, being described by the neighbors as “quiet” and “kept to themselves.”
This kind of “blame game” goes on with every president. There were idiots on the left who blamed every single problem in the world on George W. Bush. They were just as wrong as this Wal-Mart half-wit. I didn’t agree with a lot of what Bush did, but he had neither the power nor capability to either improve or destroy every component of my life. Same goes for Barack Obama.
Do I think that $13 is high for a package of razors? You bet (that’s another reason why I started growing a beard). But anyone with any common sense knows that pretty much all the “stuff” we buy has been going up in price for a long, long time. I hate to say it, but that’s what “capitalism” is all about: making more money. It doesn’t mean that we ALL make more money, but someone does. While we don’t have to be happy about it, we at least have to be realistic.
Unless we’re an idiot.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Say You, Say Me
I’ve been a proponent of Health Care Reform for many years, yet it’s kind of hard to do a lot of celebrating today, despite the House passage of the Bill last night that supposedly paves the way for serious change. It’s been an ugly battle, and the win has not been without some collateral ethical damage (allegations of back-room deals and intimidation). The final vote ended up being completely partisan with not a single Republican voting in favor of passage. Once again, I find myself asking, "how have we become so divided?"
What’s interesting is that in listening to the news and reading articles about the so-called “debate” amongst our nations duly elected officials, there was little discussion about what particular parts of the Bill did or didn’t work. It appeared that there was no sincere negotiating going on from either side; merely posturing and political gamesmanship.
It became brutally apparent that the Republicans had no interest at all in any kind of Health Care Reform, if for no other reason than the fact that it was a vital part of Barack Obama’s agenda. The Democrats, meanwhile spoke often of “transparency,” yet pulled the shades on any real discussions and offered no olive branch to those across the aisle to smooth things over. Watching CSPAN is like watching a bad reality show; a mix of Jersey Shore and Survivor, except it’s the audience who turns out to be the Biggest Loser.
Outside the capital, under the watchful eye of the media, thousands of protestors marched and chanted in opposition of…well…they didn’t really seem to know for sure. They hadn’t actually read the Bill, so they just seemed to oppose change in general. They apparently had it on good authority that Barack Obama is not only an “illegal alien,” but also a “liberal,” “socialist,” “progressive,” “commie,” “white hating racist” who is determined to destroy America. (Wow, I didn’t get that impression from him at all, but then again, I used to like those Naked Gun movies with O.J. Simpson, so that just shows how poor a judge of character I am).
Based on a sampling of signs and attitudes, some of these protesters are just a step away from the Skinheads and survivalists who pick and choose passages from the Bill of Rights as a means to do as they wish. They don’t want to pay taxes, obey laws or submit to any authority. I say give them what they want. Give them all a patch of land in southwest Texas and then build a big fence around it. They are no longer allowed to drive on our roads (funded by tax dollars), purchase any American products or food (subsidized and required to be safe by tax dollars). They must exchange their money for gold, since the bills and coins are printed at the Federal Mint (funded by tax dollars), and they will have no electric or running water. I’m sure they don’t care though, they don’t need anybody.
You see, what I don’t understand is that if any of these protesters, politicians or conservative radio commentators had such a problem with “big government,” then why were they not screaming like banshees seven years ago during the development of the Department of Homeland Security? With over 200,000 employee’s and a current budget of over 43 billion dollars, most people don’t have a clue what it actually does, nor the scope of its reach, yet when it was being announced no one dared to question it’s necessity for fear of being called “unpatriotic.”
Don’t get me wrong…I’m not saying we shouldn’t be secure. In the time directly after 9/11 we were all desperately worried about our safety, so a new cabinet office that would oversee all aspects of “homeland security” made some sense (at least in a panicked, “what can we do?” kind of way). Still, for those whose main gripe with Health Care Reform is cost, it seems particularly hypocritical that they did not stand up to at least ask a few questions.
But I digress...
I don’t really think any of this hullabaloo is about Health Care. It could have been a bill over jobs or education or the environment; the battle lines would have still been the same. It is not socialism or spiraling debt that we need to fear, it is our own stubborn irrationality. If our citizens continue to blindly follow some political ideology or opinion to its unhealthy end, then our nation is truly doomed.
.
What’s interesting is that in listening to the news and reading articles about the so-called “debate” amongst our nations duly elected officials, there was little discussion about what particular parts of the Bill did or didn’t work. It appeared that there was no sincere negotiating going on from either side; merely posturing and political gamesmanship.
It became brutally apparent that the Republicans had no interest at all in any kind of Health Care Reform, if for no other reason than the fact that it was a vital part of Barack Obama’s agenda. The Democrats, meanwhile spoke often of “transparency,” yet pulled the shades on any real discussions and offered no olive branch to those across the aisle to smooth things over. Watching CSPAN is like watching a bad reality show; a mix of Jersey Shore and Survivor, except it’s the audience who turns out to be the Biggest Loser.
Outside the capital, under the watchful eye of the media, thousands of protestors marched and chanted in opposition of…well…they didn’t really seem to know for sure. They hadn’t actually read the Bill, so they just seemed to oppose change in general. They apparently had it on good authority that Barack Obama is not only an “illegal alien,” but also a “liberal,” “socialist,” “progressive,” “commie,” “white hating racist” who is determined to destroy America. (Wow, I didn’t get that impression from him at all, but then again, I used to like those Naked Gun movies with O.J. Simpson, so that just shows how poor a judge of character I am).
Based on a sampling of signs and attitudes, some of these protesters are just a step away from the Skinheads and survivalists who pick and choose passages from the Bill of Rights as a means to do as they wish. They don’t want to pay taxes, obey laws or submit to any authority. I say give them what they want. Give them all a patch of land in southwest Texas and then build a big fence around it. They are no longer allowed to drive on our roads (funded by tax dollars), purchase any American products or food (subsidized and required to be safe by tax dollars). They must exchange their money for gold, since the bills and coins are printed at the Federal Mint (funded by tax dollars), and they will have no electric or running water. I’m sure they don’t care though, they don’t need anybody.
You see, what I don’t understand is that if any of these protesters, politicians or conservative radio commentators had such a problem with “big government,” then why were they not screaming like banshees seven years ago during the development of the Department of Homeland Security? With over 200,000 employee’s and a current budget of over 43 billion dollars, most people don’t have a clue what it actually does, nor the scope of its reach, yet when it was being announced no one dared to question it’s necessity for fear of being called “unpatriotic.”
Don’t get me wrong…I’m not saying we shouldn’t be secure. In the time directly after 9/11 we were all desperately worried about our safety, so a new cabinet office that would oversee all aspects of “homeland security” made some sense (at least in a panicked, “what can we do?” kind of way). Still, for those whose main gripe with Health Care Reform is cost, it seems particularly hypocritical that they did not stand up to at least ask a few questions.
But I digress...
I don’t really think any of this hullabaloo is about Health Care. It could have been a bill over jobs or education or the environment; the battle lines would have still been the same. It is not socialism or spiraling debt that we need to fear, it is our own stubborn irrationality. If our citizens continue to blindly follow some political ideology or opinion to its unhealthy end, then our nation is truly doomed.
.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Jim Bunning...American
I’m a big believer in standing up for what you believe in. There’s just something about the little guy fighting the establishment, arms raised in defiance, refusing to give in, that makes you realize that there really are heroes in this world. I think about the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” and the image of Jimmy Stewart, exhausted and alone, standing up to Congress for what he knows is right. I love that movie. I love Jimmy Stewart.
I’m sure that some part of Senator Jim Bunning believed, in this last week or so, that he was Jimmy Stewart. He imagined himself, so close to retiring, going out as a hero. A champion for the little man. A true American patriot. There was just one problem: Jim Bunning is an idiot.
Everyone with any common sense knows that our government spending is out of control. The national debt has become so bloated that it really isn’t a number any more, it’s just this thing that we know exists but ignore (like when the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses knock on our door. We sit quietly and pretend not to notice until the knocking stops). It’s a problem for the future, and we are nothing in America if not spectacular procrastinators.
But Jim Bunning wanted to make a stand. He decided to put a stop to an emergency spending bill because we (our federal government) did not have the money to pay for it. That’s something that most of us deal with every day. It’s called “living paycheck to paycheck.” Most of us know that if we want a new car, we have to have the money in our budget to make the payments.
That logic does not apply to the government. First, they can print money. (Obviously, we can too, but it doesn’t usually work out well). Second, they have unlimited credit and don’t get in trouble if they miss or make late payments. It’s a beautiful system.
James Paul David Bunning was a baseball player and one of the rare major league pitchers to have pitched a “perfect game.” After retiring from Detroit Tigers after seventeen seasons, he returned with his celebrity to Kentucky and began stair-stepping his way from office to office until he reached a seat in the House of Representatives and eventually the Senate.
His tenure in congress has not been notable, other than its lack of noteworthiness. In April of 2006, Time Magazine named him one of America’s Five Worst Senators. He was dubbed “the Underperformer” for his "lackluster performance", saying he "shows little interest in policy unless it involves baseball", and criticized his hostility towards staff and fellow Senators and his "bizarre behavior" during his 2004 campaign.
Bunning missed more than a week of the January 2009 session of Congress, saying he had a family commitment to attend to. When asked if he would explain where he was, he said “No, I’d rather not.”
He was the only senator to miss the Christmas Eve 2009 vote on Health Care Reform. In fact, he missed 21 votes in the Senate in December (one more than 91 year old, wheelchair bound and ailing Senator Robert Byrd). This is a man who is truly dedicated to his service to the American people! If he were in the private sector he would be fired (maybe then, he would care more about the "unemployed").
On February 25, 2010, Bunning decided to wage war on an emergency spending bill that would extend funding for unemployment benefits and other federal programs, demanding that the money needed to be cut from other programs in order to pay for it. While the logic of “pay as you go” (only approving bills if there is funding available to pay for it) and the need for a balanced budget is overwhelming, you have to choose your battles, and Bunning made an amazingly poor choice on that front. It's doubly odd that he chose to stand up for "pay as you go" because he voted against it each time it was brought before the senate!
His funding freeze tactic held up government checks for over 400,000 unemployed Americans and sent another 2000 workers into furlough when their project funding was stopped. This seems especially hypocritical and petty considering that Bunning’s Senate salary is $170,000 a year (in addition to his other perks and government provided health coverage), while the average benefits paid out in unemployment and COBRA insurance match payments comes to less than $16,000 per year. How were these people expected to pay their bills and feed their children while Bunning played his political games? Bunning didn’t care.
To express how much he was sacrificing in his quest for fiscal responsibility, he announced on the Senate floor "I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00 and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year." I guess a man has to have his priorities straight.
When challenged about his blockage of the bill, Bunning responded to one democratic senator with an eloquent “tough sh*t,” and flipped his middle finger to an ABC News reporter trying to question him. I assume that is the same response he has for the over 10 percent of Kentuckians who are currently out of work. He can afford to stand on his principles while they wait for their next unemployment check.
Maybe he was planning to give them some money from his Jim Bunning Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization he runs with his wife Mary and Cincinnati tire dealer Bob Sumerel. Established in 1996, it has taken in a little over $500,000 in donations and income from autographs and baseball collectibles. Unfortunately, it has been able to give out only 25% of that to charities (mainly to Bunning’s own church), while Bunning himself has drawn $180,000 in salary for about one hour a week in work. Ethically, that’s such a grey area I’d call it black.
Democrats and even some Republicans blasted Bunning for his obstruction tactic on the funding bill. Sadly, a few stepped forward to praise him. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said Bunning should be “honored” by the senate, and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said “he’s my hero this week.” Wendy Caswell, founder of the Louisville Tea Party Movement is quoted as saying, “we’re all in support of Senator Bunning.” I guess these folks all have paying jobs right now.
The image I have of these southern senators, thumbs clutching their suspenders while they rear back and make loud, troublesome pronouncements, is not that of Jimmy Stewart, fighting the fight of the common man that they were elected to stand for, but Foghorn Leghorn, cartoon rooster who has no idea how foolish he really is.
I’m sure that some part of Senator Jim Bunning believed, in this last week or so, that he was Jimmy Stewart. He imagined himself, so close to retiring, going out as a hero. A champion for the little man. A true American patriot. There was just one problem: Jim Bunning is an idiot.
Everyone with any common sense knows that our government spending is out of control. The national debt has become so bloated that it really isn’t a number any more, it’s just this thing that we know exists but ignore (like when the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses knock on our door. We sit quietly and pretend not to notice until the knocking stops). It’s a problem for the future, and we are nothing in America if not spectacular procrastinators.
But Jim Bunning wanted to make a stand. He decided to put a stop to an emergency spending bill because we (our federal government) did not have the money to pay for it. That’s something that most of us deal with every day. It’s called “living paycheck to paycheck.” Most of us know that if we want a new car, we have to have the money in our budget to make the payments.
That logic does not apply to the government. First, they can print money. (Obviously, we can too, but it doesn’t usually work out well). Second, they have unlimited credit and don’t get in trouble if they miss or make late payments. It’s a beautiful system.
James Paul David Bunning was a baseball player and one of the rare major league pitchers to have pitched a “perfect game.” After retiring from Detroit Tigers after seventeen seasons, he returned with his celebrity to Kentucky and began stair-stepping his way from office to office until he reached a seat in the House of Representatives and eventually the Senate.
His tenure in congress has not been notable, other than its lack of noteworthiness. In April of 2006, Time Magazine named him one of America’s Five Worst Senators. He was dubbed “the Underperformer” for his "lackluster performance", saying he "shows little interest in policy unless it involves baseball", and criticized his hostility towards staff and fellow Senators and his "bizarre behavior" during his 2004 campaign.
Bunning missed more than a week of the January 2009 session of Congress, saying he had a family commitment to attend to. When asked if he would explain where he was, he said “No, I’d rather not.”
He was the only senator to miss the Christmas Eve 2009 vote on Health Care Reform. In fact, he missed 21 votes in the Senate in December (one more than 91 year old, wheelchair bound and ailing Senator Robert Byrd). This is a man who is truly dedicated to his service to the American people! If he were in the private sector he would be fired (maybe then, he would care more about the "unemployed").
On February 25, 2010, Bunning decided to wage war on an emergency spending bill that would extend funding for unemployment benefits and other federal programs, demanding that the money needed to be cut from other programs in order to pay for it. While the logic of “pay as you go” (only approving bills if there is funding available to pay for it) and the need for a balanced budget is overwhelming, you have to choose your battles, and Bunning made an amazingly poor choice on that front. It's doubly odd that he chose to stand up for "pay as you go" because he voted against it each time it was brought before the senate!
His funding freeze tactic held up government checks for over 400,000 unemployed Americans and sent another 2000 workers into furlough when their project funding was stopped. This seems especially hypocritical and petty considering that Bunning’s Senate salary is $170,000 a year (in addition to his other perks and government provided health coverage), while the average benefits paid out in unemployment and COBRA insurance match payments comes to less than $16,000 per year. How were these people expected to pay their bills and feed their children while Bunning played his political games? Bunning didn’t care.
To express how much he was sacrificing in his quest for fiscal responsibility, he announced on the Senate floor "I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00 and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year." I guess a man has to have his priorities straight.
When challenged about his blockage of the bill, Bunning responded to one democratic senator with an eloquent “tough sh*t,” and flipped his middle finger to an ABC News reporter trying to question him. I assume that is the same response he has for the over 10 percent of Kentuckians who are currently out of work. He can afford to stand on his principles while they wait for their next unemployment check.
Maybe he was planning to give them some money from his Jim Bunning Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization he runs with his wife Mary and Cincinnati tire dealer Bob Sumerel. Established in 1996, it has taken in a little over $500,000 in donations and income from autographs and baseball collectibles. Unfortunately, it has been able to give out only 25% of that to charities (mainly to Bunning’s own church), while Bunning himself has drawn $180,000 in salary for about one hour a week in work. Ethically, that’s such a grey area I’d call it black.
Democrats and even some Republicans blasted Bunning for his obstruction tactic on the funding bill. Sadly, a few stepped forward to praise him. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said Bunning should be “honored” by the senate, and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said “he’s my hero this week.” Wendy Caswell, founder of the Louisville Tea Party Movement is quoted as saying, “we’re all in support of Senator Bunning.” I guess these folks all have paying jobs right now.
The image I have of these southern senators, thumbs clutching their suspenders while they rear back and make loud, troublesome pronouncements, is not that of Jimmy Stewart, fighting the fight of the common man that they were elected to stand for, but Foghorn Leghorn, cartoon rooster who has no idea how foolish he really is.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The "Foot-Mouth" Disease
.
Wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid, no matter which side of an issue you sit on or which political ideal you support. We have to stop making excuses for people in positions of power who do dumb things. They should be held accountable for what they say. People listen…and some of those listeners are not intelligent enough to think for themselves. In the philosophical words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power, comes great responsibility.”
Despite generally being an eloquent speaker, Barack Obama has put his foot in his mouth few times. His comment last year about his bowling skills being equivalent to the “special Olympics” was dumb and thoughtless. If he has any defense, it was that the statement was made off the cuff, without the assistance of his usual teleprompter. He was appropriately raked over the coals for his comment and apologized. Still, it was stupid. He should know better.
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, might consider a strong piece of duct tape over his lips after his statement in a private meeting calling some liberal activists “f**ing retarded.” He has been barbequed by Fox News, Sarah Palin and others in conservative media for being insensitive to those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Palin, whose son has Down’s syndrome, has demanded his resignation. He too, issued an apology over his poor choice of words.
Unlike a lot of offensive words, the word “retard” had meaning before it became politically incorrect. As a verb, it means: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. The term is also used in music, as a means of slowing down the tempo. It’s a word that has meaning and usefulness, if used in the correct context. Although the use of the word as a slang descriptive is definitely considered offensive, I hope we don’t get to the point that a music teacher is reprimanded for using the word in class. Thinking must be done by both those who speak and those who hear.
There also seems to be a double standard among the guardians of political correctness. Sarah Palin posted on Facebook this statement about Rahm Emanuel, "I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts." She continued her attack on various televised interviews, expressing her outrage at his insensitive comment.
Fair enough. If anyone has a right to be upset, she certainly does. A parent should stand up for their child, and if she were consistent in her outrage, it would be commendable. Unfortunately, her response to fellow conservative Rush Limbaugh was rather muted.
Limbaugh, in a strange broadcast in which he almost seemed to be supporting Rahm Emanuel, claimed “Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House. Much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.”
When asked for a comment about Limbaugh’s remarks, a Palin spokesperson said, "Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful." Ouch! That’s a far cry from demanding someone be fired. The next day, when asked to clarify that statement, the Palin camp answered that it was "the same comment they have given reporters for a host of other instances where someone had used the 'r' word and they are not singling out Limbaugh."
Maybe she should write this on her hand, “My child is not a political tool.”
I am curious what her response will be to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall. Last week, at a press conference opposing the funding of Planned Parenthood, he made the following statement, "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the firstborn of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”
You might want to read that again to let it sink in. He went on to say, "In the Old Testament, the firstborn of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord," he added. "There's a special punishment Christians would suggest -- and with the knowledge that they have in faith, it's been verified by a study from Virginia Commonwealth University -- first abortions, of a first pregnancy, are much more damaging than later abortions."
After his comments sparked outrage by advocacy groups and parents of disabled children, he issued an apology, explaining that he was taken out of context, “Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families."
We all say stupid things. I’ve apologized many times to my family for slips of the tongue and thoughtlessly hurtful things I have said. Much as I may try, I’m sure it will happen again.
Still, I have not placed myself in front of a microphone. I have not stepped forward as a representative for others. I do not anoint myself worthy of making decisions that will affect the course of our nation and the lives of my fellow Americans. Those who took those steps can accomplish great things or create great damage. Every word they say and every action they take should be weighed against the benefit of the greater good. It’s the price they pay for the choice they have made.
Wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid, no matter which side of an issue you sit on or which political ideal you support. We have to stop making excuses for people in positions of power who do dumb things. They should be held accountable for what they say. People listen…and some of those listeners are not intelligent enough to think for themselves. In the philosophical words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power, comes great responsibility.”
Despite generally being an eloquent speaker, Barack Obama has put his foot in his mouth few times. His comment last year about his bowling skills being equivalent to the “special Olympics” was dumb and thoughtless. If he has any defense, it was that the statement was made off the cuff, without the assistance of his usual teleprompter. He was appropriately raked over the coals for his comment and apologized. Still, it was stupid. He should know better.
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, might consider a strong piece of duct tape over his lips after his statement in a private meeting calling some liberal activists “f**ing retarded.” He has been barbequed by Fox News, Sarah Palin and others in conservative media for being insensitive to those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Palin, whose son has Down’s syndrome, has demanded his resignation. He too, issued an apology over his poor choice of words.
Unlike a lot of offensive words, the word “retard” had meaning before it became politically incorrect. As a verb, it means: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. The term is also used in music, as a means of slowing down the tempo. It’s a word that has meaning and usefulness, if used in the correct context. Although the use of the word as a slang descriptive is definitely considered offensive, I hope we don’t get to the point that a music teacher is reprimanded for using the word in class. Thinking must be done by both those who speak and those who hear.
There also seems to be a double standard among the guardians of political correctness. Sarah Palin posted on Facebook this statement about Rahm Emanuel, "I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts." She continued her attack on various televised interviews, expressing her outrage at his insensitive comment.
Fair enough. If anyone has a right to be upset, she certainly does. A parent should stand up for their child, and if she were consistent in her outrage, it would be commendable. Unfortunately, her response to fellow conservative Rush Limbaugh was rather muted.
Limbaugh, in a strange broadcast in which he almost seemed to be supporting Rahm Emanuel, claimed “Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House. Much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.”
When asked for a comment about Limbaugh’s remarks, a Palin spokesperson said, "Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful." Ouch! That’s a far cry from demanding someone be fired. The next day, when asked to clarify that statement, the Palin camp answered that it was "the same comment they have given reporters for a host of other instances where someone had used the 'r' word and they are not singling out Limbaugh."
Maybe she should write this on her hand, “My child is not a political tool.”
I am curious what her response will be to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall. Last week, at a press conference opposing the funding of Planned Parenthood, he made the following statement, "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the firstborn of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”
You might want to read that again to let it sink in. He went on to say, "In the Old Testament, the firstborn of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord," he added. "There's a special punishment Christians would suggest -- and with the knowledge that they have in faith, it's been verified by a study from Virginia Commonwealth University -- first abortions, of a first pregnancy, are much more damaging than later abortions."
After his comments sparked outrage by advocacy groups and parents of disabled children, he issued an apology, explaining that he was taken out of context, “Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families."
We all say stupid things. I’ve apologized many times to my family for slips of the tongue and thoughtlessly hurtful things I have said. Much as I may try, I’m sure it will happen again.
Still, I have not placed myself in front of a microphone. I have not stepped forward as a representative for others. I do not anoint myself worthy of making decisions that will affect the course of our nation and the lives of my fellow Americans. Those who took those steps can accomplish great things or create great damage. Every word they say and every action they take should be weighed against the benefit of the greater good. It’s the price they pay for the choice they have made.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Fatties
.
Recently, there was an incident involving writer-director Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines. According to Smith, he was seated on a flight, but then asked to leave because he was deemed too large and was making the people on either side of him uncomfortable. Smith freely admits to being overweight, but in following the airlines own guidance regarding being “too fat to fly,” he was well within compliance. The policy states that if you can put the arm-rests down and buckle your seat belt, you are able to fly in one seat. Despite the fact that Smith could do both of those things, he was removed from the flight in an embarrassing scene played out in front of a plane full of passengers.
I’ve read several articles about this, and personally believe that Southwest made a huge mistake. Not only did they disregard their own policy, they humiliated a customer who happened to have the capability to make their behavior very public. Kevin Smith is not the sort of person to turn his back on a fight. He has used his blog and huge Tweet fan-base to demand an apology from the airline, while calling them on each new falsehood they released while trying to twist the story in their favor.
As a consistent flier and a fellow member of the “overweight” camp, I have been fascinated by this story. Like Smith, I can fit in the narrow seats of coach class while allowing the arm rests to lower. I can also fasten my seatbelt without the aid of an extension. Despite that, I am still self-conscious when someone is sitting beside me and worry that I am taking up too much space. I cross my arms tightly and try to take up as little space as possible, to the point of my own discomfort.
I’ve also sat next to people that could not lower the arm rest or fasten their belt without additional help. Their hips, stomach and arms have crossed over into my allotted space where I had little to spare. It’s not pleasant, and I can feel their awkwardness and shame. The doughy pressing of flesh is uncomfortable for us both, and any chance of polite conversation is smothered by our overwhelming mutual embarrassment.
But I digress…
One of the evils of internet articles and blogs is the ability for any person with a computer to make comments. As I’ve said before, I find myself drawn to the comments, much like we are drawn to the sound of sirens, to gauge just how bad things are. Although I seek the rare nuggets of wisdom and logic, I am usually disappointed and often disgusted by the lack of insight and gleeful mean-spiritedness.
Here are some select (unedited) comments from various websites on the “Smith-Southwest” situation:
Stop catering to the fatties of the world!
Airlines should have a 'pay by weight' deal. The fatter you are (up to fitting into a seat, not a smidge more), you should PAY more. Same deal with clothes. It takes yards more to make something for a fat pig than (what SHOULD BE) an average sized person (waist size under 32 inches).
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Lose weight you tub of lard.
I hate fat people.
No one wants your fat disgusting rolls intruding on the seat they paid for.
I've sat next to more than one fatty in my travels. And nothing is worse than their hot sweaty fat rolls pushing their way under the armrest, which they never lower, into the seat I paid for and press against me for the entire flight.
Fat people on planes are a safety hazard, I agree to that. They need to be tasered in the parking lot.
They suck too much oxygen out of the air. If the plane crashes, all that extra fat is more likely to be combustible, creating an inferno of blubberish foggy smoke. Children will have nightmares for years, if they even survive! People won't be able to see where to go for safety. Think about THAT next time some fat porker gets in line at the airport deli! That greasy plate of cheeseburger, fries, pop and pie is going to create one hell of a fireball!
Fat people need to wake up - YOU made yourself fat, no one else. I don't wanna sit next to you on a plane or anywhere else. It turns my stomach upside down.
Start eating right, exercise, get your head out of the KFC bucket and stop DRIVING MY HEALTH INSURANCE UP, you fat pieces of crap!
Put him in the cargo area. I think he should fit there
I think that’s enough of that for now. I didn’t post these to defend the lifestyle of the overweight. I’d say most overweight people aren’t very happy about the fact that they are overweight. What amazes me is the spectacular viciousness of these comments…and trust me, there are lots and lots more. On one website I counted over 100 disturbingly ugly comments before I got to one that responded in a sympathetic, Christian manner.
This is the sad state of our nation. Cold, callous and self-righteous; we look down our nose at anyone who is not just different, but doesn’t fit our particular image of what is “perfect.” Who are the “beautiful” people, and who told them that they were?
I admit that I have my moments when I can’t help but ask how God could make one man look like Brad Pitt, with a face and body that men envy and women desire, and then another to look like Kevin Smith (or me), with low metabolism and addictive tendencies toward fast food and pasta? It hardly seems fair, but that was never a promise to us anyway. Just ask any family dealing with birth defects or any number of life changing situations that seem to fall upon some but not others. Life is not about “fair.”
Everyone has a different path and the obstacles laid before us are not the same.
I would consider myself pretty fortunate if the worst of my faults is that I’m just fat. I prefer that to being one of those who sit back and judge…who seem to have been given the perfect life and the perfect body…because the day will come when they will be forced to look at the reflection of who they really are, and it just might be too late to change.
.
Recently, there was an incident involving writer-director Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines. According to Smith, he was seated on a flight, but then asked to leave because he was deemed too large and was making the people on either side of him uncomfortable. Smith freely admits to being overweight, but in following the airlines own guidance regarding being “too fat to fly,” he was well within compliance. The policy states that if you can put the arm-rests down and buckle your seat belt, you are able to fly in one seat. Despite the fact that Smith could do both of those things, he was removed from the flight in an embarrassing scene played out in front of a plane full of passengers.
I’ve read several articles about this, and personally believe that Southwest made a huge mistake. Not only did they disregard their own policy, they humiliated a customer who happened to have the capability to make their behavior very public. Kevin Smith is not the sort of person to turn his back on a fight. He has used his blog and huge Tweet fan-base to demand an apology from the airline, while calling them on each new falsehood they released while trying to twist the story in their favor.
As a consistent flier and a fellow member of the “overweight” camp, I have been fascinated by this story. Like Smith, I can fit in the narrow seats of coach class while allowing the arm rests to lower. I can also fasten my seatbelt without the aid of an extension. Despite that, I am still self-conscious when someone is sitting beside me and worry that I am taking up too much space. I cross my arms tightly and try to take up as little space as possible, to the point of my own discomfort.
I’ve also sat next to people that could not lower the arm rest or fasten their belt without additional help. Their hips, stomach and arms have crossed over into my allotted space where I had little to spare. It’s not pleasant, and I can feel their awkwardness and shame. The doughy pressing of flesh is uncomfortable for us both, and any chance of polite conversation is smothered by our overwhelming mutual embarrassment.
But I digress…
One of the evils of internet articles and blogs is the ability for any person with a computer to make comments. As I’ve said before, I find myself drawn to the comments, much like we are drawn to the sound of sirens, to gauge just how bad things are. Although I seek the rare nuggets of wisdom and logic, I am usually disappointed and often disgusted by the lack of insight and gleeful mean-spiritedness.
Here are some select (unedited) comments from various websites on the “Smith-Southwest” situation:
Stop catering to the fatties of the world!
Airlines should have a 'pay by weight' deal. The fatter you are (up to fitting into a seat, not a smidge more), you should PAY more. Same deal with clothes. It takes yards more to make something for a fat pig than (what SHOULD BE) an average sized person (waist size under 32 inches).
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Lose weight you tub of lard.
I hate fat people.
No one wants your fat disgusting rolls intruding on the seat they paid for.
I've sat next to more than one fatty in my travels. And nothing is worse than their hot sweaty fat rolls pushing their way under the armrest, which they never lower, into the seat I paid for and press against me for the entire flight.
Fat people on planes are a safety hazard, I agree to that. They need to be tasered in the parking lot.
They suck too much oxygen out of the air. If the plane crashes, all that extra fat is more likely to be combustible, creating an inferno of blubberish foggy smoke. Children will have nightmares for years, if they even survive! People won't be able to see where to go for safety. Think about THAT next time some fat porker gets in line at the airport deli! That greasy plate of cheeseburger, fries, pop and pie is going to create one hell of a fireball!
Fat people need to wake up - YOU made yourself fat, no one else. I don't wanna sit next to you on a plane or anywhere else. It turns my stomach upside down.
Start eating right, exercise, get your head out of the KFC bucket and stop DRIVING MY HEALTH INSURANCE UP, you fat pieces of crap!
Put him in the cargo area. I think he should fit there
I think that’s enough of that for now. I didn’t post these to defend the lifestyle of the overweight. I’d say most overweight people aren’t very happy about the fact that they are overweight. What amazes me is the spectacular viciousness of these comments…and trust me, there are lots and lots more. On one website I counted over 100 disturbingly ugly comments before I got to one that responded in a sympathetic, Christian manner.
This is the sad state of our nation. Cold, callous and self-righteous; we look down our nose at anyone who is not just different, but doesn’t fit our particular image of what is “perfect.” Who are the “beautiful” people, and who told them that they were?
I admit that I have my moments when I can’t help but ask how God could make one man look like Brad Pitt, with a face and body that men envy and women desire, and then another to look like Kevin Smith (or me), with low metabolism and addictive tendencies toward fast food and pasta? It hardly seems fair, but that was never a promise to us anyway. Just ask any family dealing with birth defects or any number of life changing situations that seem to fall upon some but not others. Life is not about “fair.”
Everyone has a different path and the obstacles laid before us are not the same.
I would consider myself pretty fortunate if the worst of my faults is that I’m just fat. I prefer that to being one of those who sit back and judge…who seem to have been given the perfect life and the perfect body…because the day will come when they will be forced to look at the reflection of who they really are, and it just might be too late to change.
.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Cowboys
I try to respect the opinion of anyone who is open minded enough to respect the opinion of someone else. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them, or them with me, but it means that there is a potential to find some common ground. Anyone who believes that they are 100% right on any given subject (and that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is an idiot) cannot be reasoned with. That’s where the term “unreasonable” comes from. I don’t want to be considered “unreasonable,” nor do I want to deal with “unreasonable” people.
Last week there were two school shootings, one in Alabama and one in Knoxville, not far from my home. Leaving three dead and several injured, these shootings remind us once again how quickly our lives could change at the hands of an unstable person. How and why these two teachers committed these crimes will be debated for some time, but the sad truth is that these weren’t the first and won’t be the last time something like this happens.
I don’t know why I do it, because I always end up upset, but I have a tendency to read comments submitted to online news articles. If you want to gauge the level of “crazy” in our country, take a gander at some of the statements made on some of these articles. It’s pretty frightening.
While reading some comments posted on an article about the Knoxville shooting, a man stated that “if the other people in the room had been carrying guns, the shooter could have been killed before hurting anyone.” This was followed by a chorus of approval posts and more statements about how “liberals” and “socialists” were trying to destroy our nation and submit us to danger by taking our guns (at some point, all of these postings turn into a political debate, usually involving name calling from both sides).
I thought about the man’s suggestion. What if everyone carried a gun? Like the old west days, we’d strap on our holster and pearl handled 45 each morning before work. How cool would that be? I played that game as a kid. I was Marshall Matt Dillon, protecting my backyard with my silver cap gun. No one would come near my home and family without facing the cold plastic of my pistol and the loud pop and smoky smell of its discharge. I imagined a world where I could carry a gun all the time. I thought it would be awesome.
But I was a child.
As an adult, I do not want to carry a gun. I’m pretty sure I would use it on the first morning I take my kids to school and I am cut-off in the drop-off line. (Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t shoot anyone…but I can see myself taking out some tires and shattering some windshields). I don’t think I’m alone either. People are too tense; between work, finances, family and other issues, we all seem on the edge of breaking at any given time. Do we really want a gun on our hip when we are pushed to our limit?
So what do people think when they make these statements? Does this man really think it would be a good idea for everyone to be openly carrying a gun? Does he think that there would be less shootings? Does he think that only the “bad” people are going to get shot? I’m trying to give him (and those who agree with him) the benefit of the doubt that they might not have thought this all the way through.
On the other hand, I have a friend who insists that his wife carry a small gun (legally registered, of course) when she drives long distances alone to her family home out of state. His concern for her is justified, and when I think about it, I can’t help but agree. It’s a dangerous world, with lots of crazy people. If I weren’t kind of annoying, I’d think about buying one for my wife.
So what am I saying? Am I “pro-gun” or not? Like almost everything, it’s not that simple.
The NRA and gun lobbyists have turned the debate over gun control into an all or nothing deal. Try to discuss the restriction of automatic weapons and they quickly turn it into a second amendment debate which frightens every hunter into believing that they will have to turn in their 30/30 and burn down their deer stands. Americans need to start thinking for themselves and take off their camo-colored glasses. There is a lot of gray area in the gun debate.
There’s a big difference between wanting to defend yourself and being “defensive.” I hear a lot of people who seem to be offended that they have to wait on background checks or go through legal channels to get their guns. They make the excuse that if the criminals have guns, why shouldn’t they? Sorry, but that’s not rational.
If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you not want to have a background check run in order to legally possess a gun? Are you in a hurry to have your new gun? If so, I’d have to wonder why. People who plan so poorly might not have the temperament to carry a weapon.
Considering that so many lives are potentially at stake, shouldn’t the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns be even MORE strictly regulated? I understand that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” but no one can argue that it’s much easier to kill with a gun than with bare hands or a knife.
Sure, the regulations won’t stop everyone. The shooter in Alabama had “borrowed” a 9mm handgun and had no permit or registration. But, if we had more severe penalties for those who improperly sale, trade or “loan” guns to others, then we might stop a few tragedies. Wouldn’t it be worth it to save even one life?
.
Last week there were two school shootings, one in Alabama and one in Knoxville, not far from my home. Leaving three dead and several injured, these shootings remind us once again how quickly our lives could change at the hands of an unstable person. How and why these two teachers committed these crimes will be debated for some time, but the sad truth is that these weren’t the first and won’t be the last time something like this happens.
I don’t know why I do it, because I always end up upset, but I have a tendency to read comments submitted to online news articles. If you want to gauge the level of “crazy” in our country, take a gander at some of the statements made on some of these articles. It’s pretty frightening.
While reading some comments posted on an article about the Knoxville shooting, a man stated that “if the other people in the room had been carrying guns, the shooter could have been killed before hurting anyone.” This was followed by a chorus of approval posts and more statements about how “liberals” and “socialists” were trying to destroy our nation and submit us to danger by taking our guns (at some point, all of these postings turn into a political debate, usually involving name calling from both sides).
I thought about the man’s suggestion. What if everyone carried a gun? Like the old west days, we’d strap on our holster and pearl handled 45 each morning before work. How cool would that be? I played that game as a kid. I was Marshall Matt Dillon, protecting my backyard with my silver cap gun. No one would come near my home and family without facing the cold plastic of my pistol and the loud pop and smoky smell of its discharge. I imagined a world where I could carry a gun all the time. I thought it would be awesome.
But I was a child.
As an adult, I do not want to carry a gun. I’m pretty sure I would use it on the first morning I take my kids to school and I am cut-off in the drop-off line. (Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t shoot anyone…but I can see myself taking out some tires and shattering some windshields). I don’t think I’m alone either. People are too tense; between work, finances, family and other issues, we all seem on the edge of breaking at any given time. Do we really want a gun on our hip when we are pushed to our limit?
So what do people think when they make these statements? Does this man really think it would be a good idea for everyone to be openly carrying a gun? Does he think that there would be less shootings? Does he think that only the “bad” people are going to get shot? I’m trying to give him (and those who agree with him) the benefit of the doubt that they might not have thought this all the way through.
On the other hand, I have a friend who insists that his wife carry a small gun (legally registered, of course) when she drives long distances alone to her family home out of state. His concern for her is justified, and when I think about it, I can’t help but agree. It’s a dangerous world, with lots of crazy people. If I weren’t kind of annoying, I’d think about buying one for my wife.
So what am I saying? Am I “pro-gun” or not? Like almost everything, it’s not that simple.
The NRA and gun lobbyists have turned the debate over gun control into an all or nothing deal. Try to discuss the restriction of automatic weapons and they quickly turn it into a second amendment debate which frightens every hunter into believing that they will have to turn in their 30/30 and burn down their deer stands. Americans need to start thinking for themselves and take off their camo-colored glasses. There is a lot of gray area in the gun debate.
There’s a big difference between wanting to defend yourself and being “defensive.” I hear a lot of people who seem to be offended that they have to wait on background checks or go through legal channels to get their guns. They make the excuse that if the criminals have guns, why shouldn’t they? Sorry, but that’s not rational.
If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you not want to have a background check run in order to legally possess a gun? Are you in a hurry to have your new gun? If so, I’d have to wonder why. People who plan so poorly might not have the temperament to carry a weapon.
Considering that so many lives are potentially at stake, shouldn’t the manufacture, sale and ownership of guns be even MORE strictly regulated? I understand that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” but no one can argue that it’s much easier to kill with a gun than with bare hands or a knife.
Sure, the regulations won’t stop everyone. The shooter in Alabama had “borrowed” a 9mm handgun and had no permit or registration. But, if we had more severe penalties for those who improperly sale, trade or “loan” guns to others, then we might stop a few tragedies. Wouldn’t it be worth it to save even one life?
.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Getting Snowed
I’ve heard a lot of concern on the network news this week about the cost of shutting down the Federal Government due to weather. Since the early dismissal last Friday, the estimated tab has grown to over $450,000. Oh, wait…no…it’s 450 MILLION dollars. (Sorry, I got my numbers confused…450 thousand is what they spent on toilet paper for the third floor bathroom of the Senate office building).
So anyway, thousands of federal government workers stayed home for most of the week and our nation fell apart as a result. Roads crumbled, bridges fell, school buses ran out of gas stranding children in the desert…it was anarchy.
Or maybe not…
I have to ask, did you still have food? Did you lose power, phone reception, and television? Did the sky fall? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
What’s funny to me is that they’ve put a price tag on the Federal Government shutdown, as if we’re not paying that price day in and day out anyway. The number I would really like to see is what we might have saved. Here’s my theory: With the government basically stuck at home under a heavy blanket of snow, they couldn’t spend MORE MONEY.
That’s right, since the government doesn’t actually “produce” anything, but is in the primary business of “spending” our tax dollars; we probably SAVED a ton of money by those workers not going to the office. I think we should push for several days each month for them to stay at home. Give them a three day work week, but pay them for five. It will be a bargain.
Maybe within a year, we could balance the budget. In two years, we could afford National Health Care. By the third year, college tuition would be free for everyone. Finally, our government would be working for us.
So anyway, thousands of federal government workers stayed home for most of the week and our nation fell apart as a result. Roads crumbled, bridges fell, school buses ran out of gas stranding children in the desert…it was anarchy.
Or maybe not…
I have to ask, did you still have food? Did you lose power, phone reception, and television? Did the sky fall? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
What’s funny to me is that they’ve put a price tag on the Federal Government shutdown, as if we’re not paying that price day in and day out anyway. The number I would really like to see is what we might have saved. Here’s my theory: With the government basically stuck at home under a heavy blanket of snow, they couldn’t spend MORE MONEY.
That’s right, since the government doesn’t actually “produce” anything, but is in the primary business of “spending” our tax dollars; we probably SAVED a ton of money by those workers not going to the office. I think we should push for several days each month for them to stay at home. Give them a three day work week, but pay them for five. It will be a bargain.
Maybe within a year, we could balance the budget. In two years, we could afford National Health Care. By the third year, college tuition would be free for everyone. Finally, our government would be working for us.
Divided we fall...
The problem with almost any ideological movement is that you have to choose one particular viewpoint and then assume, with complete faith and steadfastness, that you are absolutely correct. Not only are you on the side of all that is right and good, but anyone who believes differently must therefore be either irredeemably misguided or pure evil. There is no middle ground. There is no gray area.
Although it is almost always an admirable quality to stand up for your convictions, it’s also very important to make sure that they are actually “your” convictions, not what you’ve been convinced to believe by others. Taking what anyone on television, radio, the internet or in newspapers has to say at face value is not just foolish, but dangerous as well. Consider the fact that they have had a considerable amount of time to craft their message for maximum impact. Often these news outlets, commentators and talk show hosts have agendas that are bought and paid for by lobbyists who do not have the best interest of the general public at heart. However, they know the words to say that will incite public outrage and guide them the direction that they want them to go. Like lambs to the slaughter.
I chose the name for my blog because I heard a protester proclaim on television (barely a week after the inauguration of Barack Obama) that our great nation was going to “hell in a handbasket.” At that point if was far too early to ascertain what direction our new leader would take us, but this gentleman had already made up his mind. He spoke passionately about his wish to “impeach” the president, and I think he threw in the most terrifying word in America: Socialist.
Considering that Obama had not been in the White House long enough to unpack his underwear, let alone do anything worthy of impeachment, this protester came across as a bit of a lunatic (at least to me. I’m sure there were plenty of others who raised their fists in solidarity and praised him for his insight and bravery). The word that came to my mind as I listened to him rant about the dangers of our new president was not “socialist” but “racist.”
So, you’re thinking, “this blog is going to be all about praising Obama and bashing conservatives!” No, that’s not my plan. I just want to call them as I see them. I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin…but I’m also not a fan of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or big government. Primarily, I do not like the division of the political parties or the wall built between conservatives and liberals. I think that a difference of opinion can be healthy if both sides can respect each other and attempt to find a common solution.
The historical reference for “in a handbasket” goes back to the days of the guillotine and the method for catching the severed heads. It’s mentioned in Samuel Sewell’s 1714 diary that the Governor said that he would “give his head in a Handbasket as soon as he would pass” an unpopular resolution.
Today, I’m not quite sure whose head is on the chopping block. Is it some leaders, who are trying to pass unpopular (but possibly needed) resolutions? Or others who stand in the way of those resolutions? My fear is that it might be our great nation itself who has fallen asleep beneath the big blade. We have allowed petty differences and political posturing to chip away at the one thing that has been our greatest national asset: our unity.
Although it is almost always an admirable quality to stand up for your convictions, it’s also very important to make sure that they are actually “your” convictions, not what you’ve been convinced to believe by others. Taking what anyone on television, radio, the internet or in newspapers has to say at face value is not just foolish, but dangerous as well. Consider the fact that they have had a considerable amount of time to craft their message for maximum impact. Often these news outlets, commentators and talk show hosts have agendas that are bought and paid for by lobbyists who do not have the best interest of the general public at heart. However, they know the words to say that will incite public outrage and guide them the direction that they want them to go. Like lambs to the slaughter.
I chose the name for my blog because I heard a protester proclaim on television (barely a week after the inauguration of Barack Obama) that our great nation was going to “hell in a handbasket.” At that point if was far too early to ascertain what direction our new leader would take us, but this gentleman had already made up his mind. He spoke passionately about his wish to “impeach” the president, and I think he threw in the most terrifying word in America: Socialist.
Considering that Obama had not been in the White House long enough to unpack his underwear, let alone do anything worthy of impeachment, this protester came across as a bit of a lunatic (at least to me. I’m sure there were plenty of others who raised their fists in solidarity and praised him for his insight and bravery). The word that came to my mind as I listened to him rant about the dangers of our new president was not “socialist” but “racist.”
So, you’re thinking, “this blog is going to be all about praising Obama and bashing conservatives!” No, that’s not my plan. I just want to call them as I see them. I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin…but I’m also not a fan of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or big government. Primarily, I do not like the division of the political parties or the wall built between conservatives and liberals. I think that a difference of opinion can be healthy if both sides can respect each other and attempt to find a common solution.
The historical reference for “in a handbasket” goes back to the days of the guillotine and the method for catching the severed heads. It’s mentioned in Samuel Sewell’s 1714 diary that the Governor said that he would “give his head in a Handbasket as soon as he would pass” an unpopular resolution.
Today, I’m not quite sure whose head is on the chopping block. Is it some leaders, who are trying to pass unpopular (but possibly needed) resolutions? Or others who stand in the way of those resolutions? My fear is that it might be our great nation itself who has fallen asleep beneath the big blade. We have allowed petty differences and political posturing to chip away at the one thing that has been our greatest national asset: our unity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)