Look at August 06, 2001, and Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S.," the "historical" document which had no "actionable" intelligence. No, obviously, that PDB did not specify a time, date or place, but surely a warning must not be specific in order for a President to take action.
The only thing new in that PDB -- Bush had received 40 PDBs concerning Bin Laden by that time -- was that the FBI was conducting 70 investigations. This was a good point for Bush to have called the FBI -- "70 investigations? That's a lot. What's up with that?"
Bush was not engaged against terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Having a President who is not engaged before disaster has implications -- ask the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
Jihadists hijacking planes in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings was not "unimaginable."
In 1996, when the Olympics were held in Atlanta, I paid attention to the preparations because 1) it was close, and 2) it was supposed to be the last Olympics before the end of time. Of course, they were worried bout terrorism, such as commandoes Munich-style or truck bombs World Trade Center-style or Oklahoma City-style or planes flying into buildings.
Indeed, when Amanda Beard won her swimming medals in what was basically an outdoor arena, the TV cameras would scan the night sky and show the lights of the planes landing at the Atlanta airport, and the TV guys talked about how dangerously close they were even tho the FAA had ordered a three-mile no-fly zone.
Why were they worried about planes flying into buildings? Well, at the trial of the first WTC bomber, they laid out the details of a plot from the Philippines to blow up 11 planes over the Pacific and hijack two others in the air and fly them into buildings.
Remember the plane in France jihadists wanted to hijack and fly into the Eiffel Tower in 1994? Commandos stormed the plane on the ground -- jihadists learned that they needed to hijack planes in the air and fly them themselves. The intelligence community -- and anybody else paying attention -- picked up on hijacking plane in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missilesagainst buildings as a way of the jihadists.
Indeed, different pre-9/11 plots have named the Sears Tower (now the Willis Tower), CIA headquarters, the Seatle SpaceNeedle, the TransAmerica building in San Francisco among others as targets for the jihadists to hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings.
Yes, Bush was taken by surprise -- obviously. But the U.S. intelligence community warned Bush about an imminent attack wherein jihadists would hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings, and Egypt, France, Israel and Russia passed on their own warnings in the month before 9/11; Bush did NOTHING -- other than to tell a messenger, "You've covered your ass now."
I would expect a President -- any President -- to do like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in November 1940 and at least issue a war warning: Have the FAA warn the airlines about the threat of hijackings and tell them to take precautions; step up the air marshals; call the FBI -- "hey, buddy, the CIA is here having a fit 'bout terrorism. What do ya know 'bout that?" Again, Bush did NOTHING. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle. Um, 9/11 was NOT an intelligence failure; the failure was in the White House. I think a President should be aware of what his intelligence community had been working on for five years. Does the buck stop in the White House -- yes or no?
And they gave us Iraq instead....
President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."
Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?
Indeed, at a 9/13 meeting in the Oval Office with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York and Senators John Warner and George Allen of Virginia about getting aid for their states, Bush said, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
And so the Decider decided. He wouldn't repeat President Clinton's 'mistake' of chasing shadows -- he was going after bigger fish....
Friday, September 07, 2012
Post #353 9/11: A Day Of Infamy
Eleven years later, the question remains: Does a President have any responsibility for the failures of his own government? Does the buck stop in the White House?
I consider a successful terrorism attack to be a failure. I'd expect a President -- any President -- to review what happened and fire those responsible. George W. Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, refused to give a formal interview to Congress and promoted Condoleezza Rice. I think he failed to be responsible.
The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.
Why wasn't Bush all over this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As Senator Carl Levin said as the new administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."
And where was Bush?
On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
Clarke had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.
Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries themselves? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."
The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001. One week later, Bush got the word of the 9/11 attacks, stared like a deer caught in the headlights and pondered 'who could have done this?' Really? No idea, huh?
The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for five years, and Bush had received 40 Presidential Daily Briefings concerning Bin Laden, and Bush was taken by surprise. [rolleyes]
I do not blame Bush for not connecting the dots; I do blame Bush for ignoring the dots. He did NOTHING -- no warnings, no follow-up questions. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
I consider a successful terrorism attack to be a failure. I'd expect a President -- any President -- to review what happened and fire those responsible. George W. Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, refused to give a formal interview to Congress and promoted Condoleezza Rice. I think he failed to be responsible.
The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.
Why wasn't Bush all over this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As Senator Carl Levin said as the new administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."
And where was Bush?
On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
Clarke had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.
Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries themselves? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."
The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001. One week later, Bush got the word of the 9/11 attacks, stared like a deer caught in the headlights and pondered 'who could have done this?' Really? No idea, huh?
The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for five years, and Bush had received 40 Presidential Daily Briefings concerning Bin Laden, and Bush was taken by surprise. [rolleyes]
I do not blame Bush for not connecting the dots; I do blame Bush for ignoring the dots. He did NOTHING -- no warnings, no follow-up questions. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Post #352 Medicare, Sorry-@ss
I am sick and tired of blowhards ranting about Medicare. It's NOT FREE! Yes, I am covered by Medicare, but I spend $1000s in out-of-pocket expenses every year -- probably way more than your sorry-@ss spends on health insurance. Indeed, I will be going into the hospital next week to have eye surgery -- my surgery was postponed -- and, even with Medicare, I will be paying for a hot tub for my doc! :p All Medicare does is keep me from losing my home. So, please, spare me your tales of "hang nails" covered by FREE Medicare.
Know a welfare recipient? Ever been in a welfare recipient's home? The last time I was, they had a picture of Jesus on the living room wall -- yes, a white Jesus, by the way.
Socialism? Uh, there are no Obamacare doctors working in Obamacare hospitals. Medicare is a government-run aid program, but it's a far cry from socialism. You want an example of socialized medicine in America complete with a single-payer system? Check out the VA, army doctors in VA hospitals. The GM model is closer to socialism than Medicare. It truly boggles the mind that people throw around the word "socialism" without understanding its meaning!
Know a welfare recipient? Ever been in a welfare recipient's home? The last time I was, they had a picture of Jesus on the living room wall -- yes, a white Jesus, by the way.
Socialism? Uh, there are no Obamacare doctors working in Obamacare hospitals. Medicare is a government-run aid program, but it's a far cry from socialism. You want an example of socialized medicine in America complete with a single-payer system? Check out the VA, army doctors in VA hospitals. The GM model is closer to socialism than Medicare. It truly boggles the mind that people throw around the word "socialism" without understanding its meaning!
Friday, August 24, 2012
Post #351 It's The Rules, Stupid!, Pt. II
Hey, Mitt Romney: No one hates your money; we hate the rules you play by -- a lower tax rate, frivolous deductions, Swiss bank accounts....
http://gawker.com/5936394/the-bain-files-inside-mitt-romneys-tax+dodging-cayman-schemes
http://gawker.com/5936394/the-bain-files-inside-mitt-romneys-tax+dodging-cayman-schemes
Friday, August 17, 2012
Post #350 I Am An Economic Powerhouse
I am going to use my Medicare check to bolster the American economy. I will be going next week into an America hospital to have eye surgery performed by an American doctor.
My doctor has two big houses (housing industry) filled with fancy furniture (furniture industry) and four fancy cars (automobile industry). He has fancy clothes (clothing industry) and eats out at least once a day (restaurant industry) and eats in the rest of the time (grocery industry and farmers). I could even be supporting prostitution, for all I know. :p
Me? I've been waiting 32 years and haven't been trickled on yet. Yes, eliminate the Free Ride: Farm subsidies, a lower tax rate for investors, tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas, frivolous deductions, tax havens in Bermuda, the list just goes on.... It starts at the top!
"One thing about discipline ... you don't discipline the bottom," Tom O'Brien, the head football coach at N.C. State University and ex-Marine, said. "You discipline the people at the top and when you do, then everybody stands up and pays attention."
;O I used my work ethic and innovative ideas to get ahead. But Ronald Reagan's BOOM never trickled down to me or my family. All I can say is that I am better off now than I was fours ago -- not impressed with (or scared by) Republicans who have no numbers to
believe in.
In fact, of the Presidential elections I've voted in, I have gone backwards under Republicans -- '84, '88, '92, '04, '08 -- and gone forward under Democrats -- '96, '00, '12. I'd rather vote for Jill Biden's husband -- in case there any James Earl Rays reading this -- than Mitt Romney.
If I had the reins, I'd start by:
1. Adding a Constitutional amendment saying that the Bill Of Rights applies to individual living adult humans -- none of that "corporations are people" nonsense.
2. Eliminating the Social Security tax cap -- make Mitt Romney (and members of Congress and the President) pay the same rate as I do. My Grandma, when she died last year, was drawing $470 a month. That works out to a little bit less than what someone pays who pays the cap.
Members of Congress support a little more than one Grandma every year but could support two Grandmas (if they paid the same rate as I do on all of their income). John McCain supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support four Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Barack Obama supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 17 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Mitt Romney supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 300 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income).
Who is ripping off Grandma? Not me -- I am a lil' job creator: Where's my tax cut!?! :p
My doctor has two big houses (housing industry) filled with fancy furniture (furniture industry) and four fancy cars (automobile industry). He has fancy clothes (clothing industry) and eats out at least once a day (restaurant industry) and eats in the rest of the time (grocery industry and farmers). I could even be supporting prostitution, for all I know. :p
Me? I've been waiting 32 years and haven't been trickled on yet. Yes, eliminate the Free Ride: Farm subsidies, a lower tax rate for investors, tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas, frivolous deductions, tax havens in Bermuda, the list just goes on.... It starts at the top!
"One thing about discipline ... you don't discipline the bottom," Tom O'Brien, the head football coach at N.C. State University and ex-Marine, said. "You discipline the people at the top and when you do, then everybody stands up and pays attention."
;O I used my work ethic and innovative ideas to get ahead. But Ronald Reagan's BOOM never trickled down to me or my family. All I can say is that I am better off now than I was fours ago -- not impressed with (or scared by) Republicans who have no numbers to
believe in.
In fact, of the Presidential elections I've voted in, I have gone backwards under Republicans -- '84, '88, '92, '04, '08 -- and gone forward under Democrats -- '96, '00, '12. I'd rather vote for Jill Biden's husband -- in case there any James Earl Rays reading this -- than Mitt Romney.
If I had the reins, I'd start by:
1. Adding a Constitutional amendment saying that the Bill Of Rights applies to individual living adult humans -- none of that "corporations are people" nonsense.
2. Eliminating the Social Security tax cap -- make Mitt Romney (and members of Congress and the President) pay the same rate as I do. My Grandma, when she died last year, was drawing $470 a month. That works out to a little bit less than what someone pays who pays the cap.
Members of Congress support a little more than one Grandma every year but could support two Grandmas (if they paid the same rate as I do on all of their income). John McCain supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support four Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Barack Obama supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 17 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Mitt Romney supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 300 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income).
Who is ripping off Grandma? Not me -- I am a lil' job creator: Where's my tax cut!?! :p
Friday, August 10, 2012
Post #349 "Did North Carolina Really Outlaw Global Warming?"
;O No. Not exactly. But recent actions by the Republican-led legislature of North Carolina have given rise to such jokes.
Let me explain: Some coastal towns in North Carolina wanted to plan ahead for a rise in sea level over the next, say, 50 to 100 years -- which is smart. That kind of long-range planning ought to be applauded.
One study, a "sky is falling" liberal study produced by tree huggers who do not donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 39 inches; another study. a right-thinking conservative study produced by businesses who do donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 9 inches.
Common Sense will tell you that The Truth is probably somewhere in between 9 and 39 inches and that coastal towns would be best-served by taking a middle number into account -- say, 24. And add 2 or 3 to be safe.
Now, this is where those idiots in Raleigh came into play. The legislature outlawed the use of the 39 inch figure --or any other figure -- and mandated the use of the 9 inch figure provided by their friends.
I thought a conservative principle was 'local control' -- but no. Those idiots sold out a conservative principle to gain an advantage -- more donations -- for an election.
Par for the course.
I was Alex P. Keaton BEFORE there was an Alex P. Keaton and was sure the firsst thing Ronald Reagan would do after his Inauguration would be to pull the plug on Jimmy Carter's bailout of Chrysler -- but, no, he threw a conservative principle under the bus, did not stop the federal government from intervening in the private sector and even upped the bailout. All in the name of politics.
And, most conservatives will tell you now what a great success it was -- instead of hanging their heads in shame -- and criticize Barack Obama for doing the same.
* sigh *
Let me explain: Some coastal towns in North Carolina wanted to plan ahead for a rise in sea level over the next, say, 50 to 100 years -- which is smart. That kind of long-range planning ought to be applauded.
One study, a "sky is falling" liberal study produced by tree huggers who do not donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 39 inches; another study. a right-thinking conservative study produced by businesses who do donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 9 inches.
Common Sense will tell you that The Truth is probably somewhere in between 9 and 39 inches and that coastal towns would be best-served by taking a middle number into account -- say, 24. And add 2 or 3 to be safe.
Now, this is where those idiots in Raleigh came into play. The legislature outlawed the use of the 39 inch figure --or any other figure -- and mandated the use of the 9 inch figure provided by their friends.
I thought a conservative principle was 'local control' -- but no. Those idiots sold out a conservative principle to gain an advantage -- more donations -- for an election.
Par for the course.
I was Alex P. Keaton BEFORE there was an Alex P. Keaton and was sure the firsst thing Ronald Reagan would do after his Inauguration would be to pull the plug on Jimmy Carter's bailout of Chrysler -- but, no, he threw a conservative principle under the bus, did not stop the federal government from intervening in the private sector and even upped the bailout. All in the name of politics.
And, most conservatives will tell you now what a great success it was -- instead of hanging their heads in shame -- and criticize Barack Obama for doing the same.
* sigh *
Friday, July 27, 2012
Post #348 Happiness Is A Warm Gun!
Some of my best friends own guns! :p
Personally, I sleep with a loaded baseball bat under my bed. On a strict risk analysis, it makes no sense for me to own a gun. Gun violence around here is shown in suicides, hunting accidents, justifiable homicide -- that husband needed killing -- and, uh, breakdowns of family education -- lil' Johnnie found his father's gun and shot his brother.
There has been only one case around here in the past 40 years of gun violence with a hoodlum intruding -- that hoodlum had the gun and shot BEFORE the victim could get his own gun. Yes, it was a targeted assassination, and I learned not to make enemies. :p
However, I support everybody having a gun for hunting or self-defense, if they so choose. Banning guns does not work.
But an assault rifle with a magazine larger than six bullets, a machine gun or anything that sprays bullets is not really a weapon used in hunting or self-defense -- no one except law enforcement or the military has the need to possess such; thusly, I'd have no qualms with a ban on such.
After all, guns do not kill people, bullets kill people. Limit magazines to, say, six bullets. If you can't stop an intruder with six shots, you probably deserve to be intruded upon! :p
Intelligent gun control laws will not prevent "good people" from owning guns or obtaining concealed weapons permits should they qualify or sleeping with the barrel of their gun in their mouth (like Gomer Pyle -- ;O) . Possessing an "arsenal" of weapons, ammunition or explosives is evidence of intent to kill or maim or do serious damage and worthy of serious jail time.
Same principal as with drugs. Get caught with one or two joints, slap on the wrist and a diversionary program leading to dismissal. Get caught with 50 lbs of marijuana, you'll spend quite a few years in prison because you're a dealer.
An armed society is a polite society, right? More guns!?! [rolleyes]
What we, as a society, must do is a better job of identifying these Nuts BEFORE they shoot -- instead of arguing with Nuts! :p The argument is over -- the Nuts have won. Let's try to limit the damage, shall we?
Personally, I sleep with a loaded baseball bat under my bed. On a strict risk analysis, it makes no sense for me to own a gun. Gun violence around here is shown in suicides, hunting accidents, justifiable homicide -- that husband needed killing -- and, uh, breakdowns of family education -- lil' Johnnie found his father's gun and shot his brother.
There has been only one case around here in the past 40 years of gun violence with a hoodlum intruding -- that hoodlum had the gun and shot BEFORE the victim could get his own gun. Yes, it was a targeted assassination, and I learned not to make enemies. :p
However, I support everybody having a gun for hunting or self-defense, if they so choose. Banning guns does not work.
But an assault rifle with a magazine larger than six bullets, a machine gun or anything that sprays bullets is not really a weapon used in hunting or self-defense -- no one except law enforcement or the military has the need to possess such; thusly, I'd have no qualms with a ban on such.
After all, guns do not kill people, bullets kill people. Limit magazines to, say, six bullets. If you can't stop an intruder with six shots, you probably deserve to be intruded upon! :p
Intelligent gun control laws will not prevent "good people" from owning guns or obtaining concealed weapons permits should they qualify or sleeping with the barrel of their gun in their mouth (like Gomer Pyle -- ;O) . Possessing an "arsenal" of weapons, ammunition or explosives is evidence of intent to kill or maim or do serious damage and worthy of serious jail time.
Same principal as with drugs. Get caught with one or two joints, slap on the wrist and a diversionary program leading to dismissal. Get caught with 50 lbs of marijuana, you'll spend quite a few years in prison because you're a dealer.
An armed society is a polite society, right? More guns!?! [rolleyes]
What we, as a society, must do is a better job of identifying these Nuts BEFORE they shoot -- instead of arguing with Nuts! :p The argument is over -- the Nuts have won. Let's try to limit the damage, shall we?
Friday, July 20, 2012
Post #347 It's The Rules, Stupid!
Hey, Mitt Romney: No one hates your money; we hate the rules you play by -- a lower tax rate, frivolous deductions, Swiss bank accounts....
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4IpIuOmDihA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4IpIuOmDihA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Friday, July 13, 2012
Post #346 Justice For The Unarmed Juvenile, Pt. III
George Zimmerman, the armed adult charged with killing unarmed juvenile Trayvon Martin, told police he took his "gun, aimed it at him, and fired one shot" after Martin allegedly threw repeated punches at him, according to police video.
Well, according to the Sanford Police Department: "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood."
Zimmerman found Martin guilty of looking like a thug -- and that is not a good reason to aim your gun and fire a shot. That is an act of execution, not self-defense.
The police report identifies two occasions at which the armed adult could have diffused the situation.
#1. Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck.
"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, he was afraid of Martin. Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."
#2. Zimmerman should have identified himself.
When, according to Zimmerman, Martin asked, "What is your problem?" -- that was good time for Zimmerman to have identified himself instead of replying "I don't have a problem." Then, Zimmerman said Martin attacked him and was astride him, beating him, when Zimmerman fired a single shot into Martin's torso.
Really?
Well, the autopsy shows defensive wounds on Martin, bruises on his pinkies -- wounds not accounted for by Zimmerman's tale. No offensive wounds on Martin. So, no, the evidence does not back up Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical dimension of Trayvon Martin, and that of George Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training in hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Zimmerman in an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity."
In simple terms, Martin wasn't capable of beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force was deployed by Trayvon Martin."
Well, in simple terms, Martin wasn't beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
Well, Well, Well....
Well, according to the Sanford Police Department: "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood."
Zimmerman found Martin guilty of looking like a thug -- and that is not a good reason to aim your gun and fire a shot. That is an act of execution, not self-defense.
The police report identifies two occasions at which the armed adult could have diffused the situation.
#1. Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck.
"Investigative findings show that Zimmerman admitted avoiding a confrontation with Martin while Zimmerman was observing Martin from his vehicle, because, as he told investigators, he was afraid of Martin. Later in the encounter, Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin, and followed Martin in an effort to maintain surveillance of him while Zimmerman awaited the arrival of law enforcement officers. His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."
#2. Zimmerman should have identified himself.
When, according to Zimmerman, Martin asked, "What is your problem?" -- that was good time for Zimmerman to have identified himself instead of replying "I don't have a problem." Then, Zimmerman said Martin attacked him and was astride him, beating him, when Zimmerman fired a single shot into Martin's torso.
Really?
Well, the autopsy shows defensive wounds on Martin, bruises on his pinkies -- wounds not accounted for by Zimmerman's tale. No offensive wounds on Martin. So, no, the evidence does not back up Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical dimension of Trayvon Martin, and that of George Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training in hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Zimmerman in an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity."
In simple terms, Martin wasn't capable of beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
"Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force was deployed by Trayvon Martin."
Well, in simple terms, Martin wasn't beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
Well, Well, Well....
Friday, July 06, 2012
Post #145 America The Beautiful!, Pt. II
Are all men created equal? Absolutely: The Declaration of Independence, like the Constitution, does not classify people according to sex or race. The Declaration of Independence's central proposition -- equality -- applies to men and women alike, regardless of skin color (or religion, for that matter). The observed inequalities of individual men and women -- in intelligence or strength, for examples -- are insignificant and dramatically underscore the ways in which all human beings, as a species, are equal in their nature. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "all men" and not "all human beings" because the former is a more rhetorically powerful way to describe mankind. Another way to think of this is that all humans have equal value -- everyone has an equal standing before the law.
Yes, much of the preceding paragraph came, word for word, from the American Heritage website. If the preceding paragraph does not match your bigotry, take it up with the American Heritage folks.
Does our unalienable right to Life interfere with others' unalienable rights? Absolutely not. The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to Life protects the individual's ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life -- buying health insurance, for example. There is only one fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived: A man's right to his own life. Life is the vessel which carries both our Liberty and Happiness. So, our unalienable right to Life TRUMPS Donald Trump's right to a tax cut (his pursuit of Happiness). Since life is the standard and the fundamental justification for all rights and all values, a "right" that makes life impossible is a wicked, life-negating contradiction. Selfishness is NOT a virtue -- it is part of greed, one of the seven deadly sins!
Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist? Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p
Governments of the people and by the people that tax have a responsibility for the people. Of course. governments do many things poorly that the private sector can do better -- Government: Thy middle name is "waste and fraud." But an essential role of government is to do the heavy-lifting that the private sector cannot do -- Obamacare promotes freedom by giving real choices for citizens. If you have ever been mugged by Life, you will understand the tyranny, not of government, but of the social dynamics that define our health care system. The freedom to be left alone is no real freedom at all, since Obamacare -- or Romneycare or Medicare4all -- is essential to the possibility of valuable options in life -- the freedom to be left alone interferes with government securing our unalienable rights, which is why governments are instituted in the first place. The freedom to be left alone is really a call for anarchy.
Brotherhood -- a feeling of fellowship and sympathy and compassion for other people
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Yes, much of the preceding paragraph came, word for word, from the American Heritage website. If the preceding paragraph does not match your bigotry, take it up with the American Heritage folks.
Does our unalienable right to Life interfere with others' unalienable rights? Absolutely not. The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to Life protects the individual's ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life -- buying health insurance, for example. There is only one fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived: A man's right to his own life. Life is the vessel which carries both our Liberty and Happiness. So, our unalienable right to Life TRUMPS Donald Trump's right to a tax cut (his pursuit of Happiness). Since life is the standard and the fundamental justification for all rights and all values, a "right" that makes life impossible is a wicked, life-negating contradiction. Selfishness is NOT a virtue -- it is part of greed, one of the seven deadly sins!
Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist? Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p
Governments of the people and by the people that tax have a responsibility for the people. Of course. governments do many things poorly that the private sector can do better -- Government: Thy middle name is "waste and fraud." But an essential role of government is to do the heavy-lifting that the private sector cannot do -- Obamacare promotes freedom by giving real choices for citizens. If you have ever been mugged by Life, you will understand the tyranny, not of government, but of the social dynamics that define our health care system. The freedom to be left alone is no real freedom at all, since Obamacare -- or Romneycare or Medicare4all -- is essential to the possibility of valuable options in life -- the freedom to be left alone interferes with government securing our unalienable rights, which is why governments are instituted in the first place. The freedom to be left alone is really a call for anarchy.
Brotherhood -- a feeling of fellowship and sympathy and compassion for other people
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Monday, July 02, 2012
Post #144 America The Beautiful!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That is my political philosophy. What do you see as the proper role of Government?
Let's continue with Mr. Jefferson: "... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of securing unalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Which brings us to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The responsible (those with health insurance) ALREADY pay for the irresponsible (those without health insurance), and Obamacare targets those deadbeats. I am sick and tired of paying for those deadbeats, and it's about time the law stepped in. >:( The good news for those deadbeats who are whining that they can't afford health insurance is that Obamacare addresses those concerns. Now, grow up, get off your duff and buy some health insurance or pay up!
OK, conservatives: The ball is in your court. Tell us a better way of delivering health care (securing my unalienable right to Life). Hint -- "repealing Obamacare" doesn't cut it. How would you "fix" Obamacare?
I made that challenge at a 'board I frequent, and I got this reply:
For starters, stop killing jobs and promoting SodaStamps, er, I mean FoodStamps. How healthy is soda? I understand why bottled water isn't allowed, but why is soda? Not a biggie, just looking for consistency.
Torte reform cutting down on defensive medicine, HSAs, FSAs, offer plans for catastrophic care only for people who want them. We used to call that "major medical". If people could be trusted to make their own choices with HSA accounts, competition would drive costs lower and people who be more motivated to stay well or even try nontraditional medicine.
OK, I have questions:
Who is killing jobs? Are those who send jobs to India killing jobs? When Governor Chris Christie pulled New Jersey out of the subway project under Manhattan, did he kill jobs?
I, too, am against food stamps -- it's just another currency. Make the payments in cash, and eliminate the food stamp bureaucracy.
Well, torte reform is ALREADY in effect in 30 states... with middling results. It has NOT been the windfall to healthcare that was predicted. Kind of like the lottery here -- NOT what we were promised.
Obamacare still allows HSAs and FSAs, but it toughens the rules to make sure healthcare is bought -- NOT hot tubs. If I chose a 'healthcare lite' plan and then got injured in a car wreck, can I then upgrade to a 'major medical?' Obamacare avoids that question, making sure that I am covered in all circumstances.
Who is more motivated to stay well than those without health insurance? Unfortunately, life does not always work that way -- motivation does not always equal staying well.
I have diabetes. As you may or may not know, diabetes is an expensive disease to have and is -- Thank Goodness -- covered by Medicare. A couple of years ago, I developed a heart rhythm problem and was prescribed some drugs under George W. Bush's infamous Plan D complete with a 'doughnut hole.' Obamacare closed the 'doughnut hole' -- thusly, saving my life (securing my unalienable right to Life).
Thank You for your response, and I appreciate your faith in the free market. With all due respect, I think my unalienable right to Life is too important to leave to the whims of the free market. That is why I support Obamacare.
That is my political philosophy. What do you see as the proper role of Government?
Let's continue with Mr. Jefferson: "... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of securing unalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Which brings us to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The responsible (those with health insurance) ALREADY pay for the irresponsible (those without health insurance), and Obamacare targets those deadbeats. I am sick and tired of paying for those deadbeats, and it's about time the law stepped in. >:( The good news for those deadbeats who are whining that they can't afford health insurance is that Obamacare addresses those concerns. Now, grow up, get off your duff and buy some health insurance or pay up!
OK, conservatives: The ball is in your court. Tell us a better way of delivering health care (securing my unalienable right to Life). Hint -- "repealing Obamacare" doesn't cut it. How would you "fix" Obamacare?
I made that challenge at a 'board I frequent, and I got this reply:
For starters, stop killing jobs and promoting SodaStamps, er, I mean FoodStamps. How healthy is soda? I understand why bottled water isn't allowed, but why is soda? Not a biggie, just looking for consistency.
Torte reform cutting down on defensive medicine, HSAs, FSAs, offer plans for catastrophic care only for people who want them. We used to call that "major medical". If people could be trusted to make their own choices with HSA accounts, competition would drive costs lower and people who be more motivated to stay well or even try nontraditional medicine.
OK, I have questions:
Who is killing jobs? Are those who send jobs to India killing jobs? When Governor Chris Christie pulled New Jersey out of the subway project under Manhattan, did he kill jobs?
I, too, am against food stamps -- it's just another currency. Make the payments in cash, and eliminate the food stamp bureaucracy.
Well, torte reform is ALREADY in effect in 30 states... with middling results. It has NOT been the windfall to healthcare that was predicted. Kind of like the lottery here -- NOT what we were promised.
Obamacare still allows HSAs and FSAs, but it toughens the rules to make sure healthcare is bought -- NOT hot tubs. If I chose a 'healthcare lite' plan and then got injured in a car wreck, can I then upgrade to a 'major medical?' Obamacare avoids that question, making sure that I am covered in all circumstances.
Who is more motivated to stay well than those without health insurance? Unfortunately, life does not always work that way -- motivation does not always equal staying well.
I have diabetes. As you may or may not know, diabetes is an expensive disease to have and is -- Thank Goodness -- covered by Medicare. A couple of years ago, I developed a heart rhythm problem and was prescribed some drugs under George W. Bush's infamous Plan D complete with a 'doughnut hole.' Obamacare closed the 'doughnut hole' -- thusly, saving my life (securing my unalienable right to Life).
Thank You for your response, and I appreciate your faith in the free market. With all due respect, I think my unalienable right to Life is too important to leave to the whims of the free market. That is why I support Obamacare.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Post #143 Sympathy For The Devil, Pt. III
All I can say is that I am better off now than I was fours ago.
It's the economy, stupid; it's ALWAYS the economy. In fact, of the Presidential elections I've voted in, I have gone backwards under Republicans -- '84, '88, '92, '04, '08 -- and forward under Democrats -- '96, '00, '12. I'd rather vote for Jill Biden's husband -- in case there any James Earl Rays reading this -- than Mitt Romney.
It's very simple. To get my vote, to make me ignore 32 years of history, Romney needs to explain what happened in '08 and how his policies will address the causes of '08. All I've heard so far is hot air.
Hey, I'm as much a redneck as the next guy and voted for Hillary... twice (once in the primary and once as a write-in the general)... in '08 instead of that black Muslin from Kenya. But President Barack Obama has earned my vote in '12.
It's the economy, stupid; it's ALWAYS the economy. In fact, of the Presidential elections I've voted in, I have gone backwards under Republicans -- '84, '88, '92, '04, '08 -- and forward under Democrats -- '96, '00, '12. I'd rather vote for Jill Biden's husband -- in case there any James Earl Rays reading this -- than Mitt Romney.
It's very simple. To get my vote, to make me ignore 32 years of history, Romney needs to explain what happened in '08 and how his policies will address the causes of '08. All I've heard so far is hot air.
Hey, I'm as much a redneck as the next guy and voted for Hillary... twice (once in the primary and once as a write-in the general)... in '08 instead of that black Muslin from Kenya. But President Barack Obama has earned my vote in '12.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Post #142 Sympathy For The Devil, Pt. II
Pat McCrory ® is running for Governor of North Carolina. He was Mayor of Charlotte. A selling point of his campaign is that Charlotte is an "economic powerhouse."
Is Charlotte really an "economic powerhouse?" The answer seems to be, it depends on who you ask. The 1% seem to think so; the 99% are unconvinced.
What actions -- or inactions -- did McCrrory take as Mayor of Charlotte to make that city an "economic powerhouse?" McCrory supported light rail in Charlotte -- with state funds and federal funds and a sales tax increase, by the way (not to be confused with that hotel tax increase used to pay for the NASCAR "Hall Of Fame.") Did light rail in Charlotte make that city an "economic powerhouse?" Don't know.
And do those actions -- or inactions -- translate to state government? Will McCrory support light rail in other North Carolina cities? Don't know.
How do we know that McCrory will not become another loud-mouth Republican who will declare war on "them" -- whoever the "them" is at the moment -- to distract from his own failed policies? Um, we don't. But McCrory did vote for Amendment One to our state Constitution, denying equal rights to all citizens of North Carolina.
Most importantly -- and fundamentally, how will McCrory secure my inalienable right to Life as defined in our state Constitution?
Is Charlotte really an "economic powerhouse?" The answer seems to be, it depends on who you ask. The 1% seem to think so; the 99% are unconvinced.
What actions -- or inactions -- did McCrrory take as Mayor of Charlotte to make that city an "economic powerhouse?" McCrory supported light rail in Charlotte -- with state funds and federal funds and a sales tax increase, by the way (not to be confused with that hotel tax increase used to pay for the NASCAR "Hall Of Fame.") Did light rail in Charlotte make that city an "economic powerhouse?" Don't know.
And do those actions -- or inactions -- translate to state government? Will McCrory support light rail in other North Carolina cities? Don't know.
How do we know that McCrory will not become another loud-mouth Republican who will declare war on "them" -- whoever the "them" is at the moment -- to distract from his own failed policies? Um, we don't. But McCrory did vote for Amendment One to our state Constitution, denying equal rights to all citizens of North Carolina.
Most importantly -- and fundamentally, how will McCrory secure my inalienable right to Life as defined in our state Constitution?
Friday, June 08, 2012
Post #141 Sympathy For The Devil *
Songwriters: Mick Jagger / Keith Richards
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and fate
I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moments of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a General's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
What's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched the glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made
I shouted out
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
Well after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
I wrote the GOP plank *
Tax cuts for the wealthy, help for no one else *
I killed religion in America *
'Love thy neighbor' is now every man for himself *
America, America, a dead society *
We are all adrift in this great big sea *
Ain't ya proud? I know I am *
'All men are created equal' has been dissed *
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game, ooh yeah
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails just call me Lucifer
I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy and some taste
Use all your well learned politics
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, mmm yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, get down
Woo hoo, ah yeah, get on down, oh yeah
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
Tell me, honey, baby guess my name
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
I'll ya one time you're to blame
What's my name?
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name?
* additional lyrics by TheDaF
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and fate
I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moments of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a General's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
What's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched the glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made
I shouted out
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
Well after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
I wrote the GOP plank *
Tax cuts for the wealthy, help for no one else *
I killed religion in America *
'Love thy neighbor' is now every man for himself *
America, America, a dead society *
We are all adrift in this great big sea *
Ain't ya proud? I know I am *
'All men are created equal' has been dissed *
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game, ooh yeah
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails just call me Lucifer
I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy and some taste
Use all your well learned politics
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, mmm yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, get down
Woo hoo, ah yeah, get on down, oh yeah
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
Tell me, honey, baby guess my name
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
I'll ya one time you're to blame
What's my name?
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name?
* additional lyrics by TheDaF
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Post #340 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. V
Bigot, n - intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, sexual preferences or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
As of May 8, 2012, bigotry is in the North Carolina Constitution. Hope the day never comes when I am seen as one of "them" -- men who are losing their hair? -- and can be denied the same rights as everyone else. We all know that most child molesters are men who are losing their hair, and we must protect the children! :p
Article I, section 1 now reads "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons (except for those homos) are created equal; that they (except for them) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Bigots are quick to point out that there are now 32 states with a 'marriage between 1 man and 1 woman' amendment -- and only 38 states are needed to amend the U.S. Constitution. But what bigots fail to mention -- understand? -- is that North Carolina is only 1 of 17 states to ban civil unions, too. Our dim-witted cousins in South Carolina have done the same thing. But the prospects of writing bigotry into the U.S. Constitution are pretty slim.
Guess what? Homosexuals are still here and will continue to be here. Despite what that "preacher' from the hills of North Carolina says when he wants to put homosexuals in concentration camps -- have you seen that video on YouTube?
* sigh *
As of May 8, 2012, bigotry is in the North Carolina Constitution. Hope the day never comes when I am seen as one of "them" -- men who are losing their hair? -- and can be denied the same rights as everyone else. We all know that most child molesters are men who are losing their hair, and we must protect the children! :p
Article I, section 1 now reads "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons (except for those homos) are created equal; that they (except for them) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Bigots are quick to point out that there are now 32 states with a 'marriage between 1 man and 1 woman' amendment -- and only 38 states are needed to amend the U.S. Constitution. But what bigots fail to mention -- understand? -- is that North Carolina is only 1 of 17 states to ban civil unions, too. Our dim-witted cousins in South Carolina have done the same thing. But the prospects of writing bigotry into the U.S. Constitution are pretty slim.
Guess what? Homosexuals are still here and will continue to be here. Despite what that "preacher' from the hills of North Carolina says when he wants to put homosexuals in concentration camps -- have you seen that video on YouTube?
* sigh *
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Post #339 Free John Edwards! Pt. II :p
Whatever happened to limiting the size and scope of the federal government?
The problem with the trial of John Edwards is that the prosecution is putting the cart BEFORE the horse. No crime was committed. The prosecution is using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution. There is no 'Edwards' rule, making it illegal for a pregnant mistress of a candidate to get a gift. Now, I'd support such a rule, but that rule needs to be deliberated, passed and written. Let's follow the law, shall we?
Call me ol' fashioned, but, if I ran a stop sign, I'd expect to be charged with running a stop sign -- not a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from my running of a stop sign. That is the problem: Edwards violated no law, there is no rule about running a stop sign -- to continue the tale. But he is being charged with a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from him running of a stop sign.
We ought to reject this kind of judicial activism that will lead to who-knows-what-all. I say letting the government get away with using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution is more dangerous than letting Edwards get away with soliciting "hush money" to hide his pregnant mistress. The proper way "to get tough" is through the legislative branch. Hopefully, the jury will do the right thing, limit the federal government's reach and end this madness!
What we are left with is private citizens X and Y gave gifts -- and paid gift taxes on those gifts, by the way -- to private citizen Z. No money went to Edwards or his campaign. Edwards, a slimy sleezeball, played by the rules as they were written at the time. It's time to move on.
Did Edward do "wrong?" Of course -- and he will be hounded to his unmarked grave. Edwards had sex with a woman other than his dying wife and then long refused to acknowledge the child that resulted. But his life is over, public and private. He will never go to the Angus Barn -- THE place to eat in Raleigh -- in peace again, and Domino's Pizza will not deliver to his house, and he will hear the taunts from the playground:
"Ma Ma, where's my pa?"
"NOT in the White House, ha ha ha!"
The everlasting shame of John Edwards is that there really are two Americas but no one will address that for another generation....
The problem with the trial of John Edwards is that the prosecution is putting the cart BEFORE the horse. No crime was committed. The prosecution is using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution. There is no 'Edwards' rule, making it illegal for a pregnant mistress of a candidate to get a gift. Now, I'd support such a rule, but that rule needs to be deliberated, passed and written. Let's follow the law, shall we?
Call me ol' fashioned, but, if I ran a stop sign, I'd expect to be charged with running a stop sign -- not a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from my running of a stop sign. That is the problem: Edwards violated no law, there is no rule about running a stop sign -- to continue the tale. But he is being charged with a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from him running of a stop sign.
We ought to reject this kind of judicial activism that will lead to who-knows-what-all. I say letting the government get away with using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution is more dangerous than letting Edwards get away with soliciting "hush money" to hide his pregnant mistress. The proper way "to get tough" is through the legislative branch. Hopefully, the jury will do the right thing, limit the federal government's reach and end this madness!
What we are left with is private citizens X and Y gave gifts -- and paid gift taxes on those gifts, by the way -- to private citizen Z. No money went to Edwards or his campaign. Edwards, a slimy sleezeball, played by the rules as they were written at the time. It's time to move on.
Did Edward do "wrong?" Of course -- and he will be hounded to his unmarked grave. Edwards had sex with a woman other than his dying wife and then long refused to acknowledge the child that resulted. But his life is over, public and private. He will never go to the Angus Barn -- THE place to eat in Raleigh -- in peace again, and Domino's Pizza will not deliver to his house, and he will hear the taunts from the playground:
"Ma Ma, where's my pa?"
"NOT in the White House, ha ha ha!"
The everlasting shame of John Edwards is that there really are two Americas but no one will address that for another generation....
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Post #338 Obama's War
My 2nd cousin, Michael, 19-years-old, has been injured in a mortar attack on his base in Afghanistan -- burns and shrapnel in his chest. He was evacuated to Germany and then to Bethesda in D.C. He had broken his foot during training but went with his unit to Afghanistan anyway and was given a desk job. He is still undergoing therapy but is going to be OK. :)
And now President Obama wants to continue that War -- after cleaning up George W. Bush's mess, he wants to add his own mess: Thus, Obama's War.
I believe in giving the military whatever they need to accomplish a clear and well-defined mission. Building roads and schools does not qualify. That is something best left to the State Department and foreign aid.
Obviously, our strategy has devolved into 'the best defense is a good offense.' In other words, we are over there for the sake of being over there. In my opinion, that is not good enough. We need to improve our defense -- monitoring communications (translators), spies -- as a good offense cannot be sustained forever. 'The best defense is a good offense' only works in timed events, like a football game. It is a losing strategy against terrorism.
Good Luck with that.
And now President Obama wants to continue that War -- after cleaning up George W. Bush's mess, he wants to add his own mess: Thus, Obama's War.
I believe in giving the military whatever they need to accomplish a clear and well-defined mission. Building roads and schools does not qualify. That is something best left to the State Department and foreign aid.
Obviously, our strategy has devolved into 'the best defense is a good offense.' In other words, we are over there for the sake of being over there. In my opinion, that is not good enough. We need to improve our defense -- monitoring communications (translators), spies -- as a good offense cannot be sustained forever. 'The best defense is a good offense' only works in timed events, like a football game. It is a losing strategy against terrorism.
Good Luck with that.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Post #337 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. IV
To "NCCitizenX:"
If Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution passes on May 8, 2012, will it:
1) Protect the children? NO.
2) Extend Domestic Violence protections? NO
3) Prevent two men from moving in next door and having homosex 30 feet away from my bedroom? NO.
4) Prevent the chief of staff for the Speaker Of The House of North Carolina from having sex with a lobbyist who is not his wife? NO.
5) Prevent the serial marriages of someone like Newt Gingrich who practices his own "special" brand of polygamy? NO.
6) Secure equal protection for all citizens before the law and equal access to government protections. NO.
Indeed, the only reason I see to support this Amendment is that its passage will make bigots feel good 'cause they'll know there are a lot of other bigots out there. I could have told 'em that! :p
But, dear, "NCCitizenX," you have an ally: The ignorant.
I saw a post the other day: "My core value is, marriage = one man + one woman. Period. Let homosexuals have 'civil unions,' but leave marriage alone. That is why I am voting FOR this Amendment."
Good Lord. * sigh * Amendment One outlaws "civil unions" -- that is what the fuss is about. Nobody wants to mess with core values -- this is about equal protection for all citizens before the law -- see the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment One reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage, a core value of many; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- outlaws "civil unions" and is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.
But never let ignorance keep someone out of the voting both, right, "NCCitizenX?"
The cry is dogs, incest, polygamy. Even the most ignorant can see that dogs and children are ruled out by the definition of the marriage contract: Between 2 consenting adults, governing the transfer of wealth and rights. Of course, the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting other types of incest as the child of NCCitizanX and his mother would probably be more ignorant than NCCitizenX himself! :p
But why do people have are hard time understanding "2?" Look, if a husband is in a wreck and terribly injured -- in a coma and on life support, and wife #1 wants to 'pull the plug' immediately, and wife #2 wants to wait 6 months. Then, we'd have a court battle to figure out who really is wife #1 and who really is wife #2 -- which defeats the whole purpose of a marriage contract. So, "2" remains, and polygamy is a non-issue.
But, aaahhh, the bigoted and the ignorant -- that is quite a coalition!
If Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution passes on May 8, 2012, will it:
1) Protect the children? NO.
2) Extend Domestic Violence protections? NO
3) Prevent two men from moving in next door and having homosex 30 feet away from my bedroom? NO.
4) Prevent the chief of staff for the Speaker Of The House of North Carolina from having sex with a lobbyist who is not his wife? NO.
5) Prevent the serial marriages of someone like Newt Gingrich who practices his own "special" brand of polygamy? NO.
6) Secure equal protection for all citizens before the law and equal access to government protections. NO.
Indeed, the only reason I see to support this Amendment is that its passage will make bigots feel good 'cause they'll know there are a lot of other bigots out there. I could have told 'em that! :p
But, dear, "NCCitizenX," you have an ally: The ignorant.
I saw a post the other day: "My core value is, marriage = one man + one woman. Period. Let homosexuals have 'civil unions,' but leave marriage alone. That is why I am voting FOR this Amendment."
Good Lord. * sigh * Amendment One outlaws "civil unions" -- that is what the fuss is about. Nobody wants to mess with core values -- this is about equal protection for all citizens before the law -- see the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment One reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage, a core value of many; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- outlaws "civil unions" and is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.
But never let ignorance keep someone out of the voting both, right, "NCCitizenX?"
The cry is dogs, incest, polygamy. Even the most ignorant can see that dogs and children are ruled out by the definition of the marriage contract: Between 2 consenting adults, governing the transfer of wealth and rights. Of course, the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting other types of incest as the child of NCCitizanX and his mother would probably be more ignorant than NCCitizenX himself! :p
But why do people have are hard time understanding "2?" Look, if a husband is in a wreck and terribly injured -- in a coma and on life support, and wife #1 wants to 'pull the plug' immediately, and wife #2 wants to wait 6 months. Then, we'd have a court battle to figure out who really is wife #1 and who really is wife #2 -- which defeats the whole purpose of a marriage contract. So, "2" remains, and polygamy is a non-issue.
But, aaahhh, the bigoted and the ignorant -- that is quite a coalition!
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Post #336 Justice For The Unarmed Juvenile, Pt. II
Thank Goodness this case is now in the court system.
Let me elaborate on my previous post:
I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that George Zimmerman's suspicion of Trayvon Martin was unreasonable. Look, if I am sitting on my front porch enjoying the heavy air of a post-dinner rain and notice a tall black boy wearing a hoodie walking slowly down the street and looking around, when he gets to my house, I am going to holler, "Hey, son, you lost?" To me, Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin was unreasonable.
I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. Back to my scenario, if the boy does not answer and cups his hand to his ear, and I leave my porch to repeat myself, do I carry my gun? NO. There is an ol' saying around here, "People who carry guns plan to use 'em." To me, it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman planned to get his satisfaction by any means necessary, that Zimmerman's actions were unreasonable.
I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that Zimmerman provoked the fist fight by following Martin off the road for 26 seconds. If thee boy takes of running after I leave my porch, do I follow him? NO. To me, Zimmerman's actions again are unreasonable.
I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that Zimmerman's injuries do not match a reasonable fear for life. Bleeding from the nose and from two cuts on the back of the head do not match a reasonable fear for life. It seems to me that, if Zimmerman's injuries inspired a reasonable fear for life in him, why did not those same injuries inspire a reasonable fear for life in the police who would have sent Zimmerman to the hospital?
Of course, the real tale lies in the autopsy report -- which has not been released. To support Zimmerman's account of a struggle at the waist and the gun going off into Martin's chest, the path of the bullet would have been upward. If the bullet entered straight into the chest, that would indicate that Zimmerman extended his arm -- the fist fight was over -- and shot, not an act of self-defense but an act of execution.
Boy, this ought to be good.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Post #335 Justice For The Unarmed Juvenile
What we have: An armed adult shot and killed an unarmed juvenile. That this case is not already in the judicial system is appalling. We know who the armed adult was.
Yes, of course, I am referring to the Trayvon Martin case. Take away race and the inflammatory language, and you're left with 'an armed adult shot and killed an unarmed juvenile.'
And now the FBI is investigating to see if Martin's rights were violated. Duh! How about his unalienable right to Life!?!
I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that George Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin was unreasonable, that Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight, that Zimmerman provoked the fist fight by following Martin 100 yards down a path, that Zimmerman's injuries do not match a reasonable fear for life.
But -- for Goodness sake -- let's go. Any killing -- not just an armed adult shooting and killing an unarmed juvenile -- deserves a day in court.
I am surprised -- well, not really surprised but more disappointed that many conservatives are focusing on issues other than what this case is about: an armed adult shot and killed an unarmed juvenile. The Black Panthers, the media circus, Al Sharpton. Good Lord. *sigh * There would be no media circus if this case was in the court system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)