Jade Helm 15 a Conspiracy Theory With No Basis in Fact

Sep18

When Hollywood puts together a movie or television show, the better ones always have some basis in fact or reality. No matter the genre – horror, suspense, action, romcom, etc. – the closer to reality it is, the more impact it has on the viewing audience. In many cases, it is because it MIGHT have a chance of happening or it is factually feasible to someone or something that makes the thrills, scares or emotional investment viscerally important to people. The same thing can be said books; although some (alongside their acting brethren) do like to be removed to a fantasyland that allows the brain to take a pause, the more realistic a book is in the mind of the reader, the more of an impact it will have.

In many ways – possibly because they are works of fiction created by someone’s mind – the multitude of conspiracy theories that abound in today’s world fall into the same category that Hollywood’s best cinematic, theatric and episodic efforts reside in that they sometimes need just a flake of truth to them to be believable. Without the slimmest of possibilities that it could actually happen, conspiracy theories often die an ignoble death or, at best, find a life in the alternate history genre.

Before we dive into the latest example of the conspiracy theory concept, we have to look at why conspiracy theories abound. What is it about conspiracy theories that draw people in? Why do conspiracy theories continually pop up in society? What should be done if they’re false claims? These are all good questions and we’ll start at the beginning.

The thing about conspiracy theories that draw people in is the desire by humanity to understand their conditions for existence. For humans it is highly desirable to know that the sun comes up in the morning, sets in the evening and it will do the same thing tomorrow. It can be highly desirable to believe that good always vanquishes evil, right triumphs over wrong and all is copacetic with the world when they lay their head on the pillow at night. These desires, if not met, can cause otherwise normal people to concoct an alternate reality that fits into their desired existence.

For example, let’s take a look at one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all-time, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. People who saw the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, couldn’t believe that such a “small” person could be responsible for taking down the most powerful leader on Earth. To help their minds cope with this, many dredged up scenarios that helped their minds to make sense of the situation: the Cubans were involved because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco; the Chicago and Miami arms of La Cosa Nostra joined forces with the Central Intelligence Agency to do the deed; the Russians (for being shown up in the Cuban Missile Crisis)…the list goes on. For many, believing that these powerful and mysterious bodies killed the President of the United States made more sense than a single man who was allegedly an awful shooter picking off the President from the window of a building as he drove by in a limousine.

As the world draws closer together, it also becomes much more difficult to explain; this causes an increase in conspiracy theories in society. Whereas 30-40 years ago it would have been unheard of for some of the actions that, for example, the twenty 9/11 terrorists took – training for over two to three years and immersing yourself in a foreign culture for what would eventually be a suicide mission – today those jihadists have the spiritual, emotional and “obligation to duty” wherewithal to pull off these horrendous acts. It would be easier for some to force up a story that the attacks of 14 years ago were the work of a “shadow world government” or even our own political leadership (to push us closer to a military state and allow for those in power to take more of it) rather than to believe a group of people could even get close to the destruction that occurred on 9/11.

Recently one of those “conspiracy theories” came to a close and it gives us an opportunity to look at how we should handle those that promote them when they are proven to be untrue. On Tuesday, the military exercises known as Jade Helm 15 came to a close after eight weeks of operations across the Southwestern United States. Troops from every branch of the U. S. Armed Forces spread across several states, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California and Colorado (if I left you out, don’t feel bad), to train in terrain, temperatures and combat situations that they would be facing in the Middle East. This training is much like what U. S. Marines do with their amphibious landings off the coast of North Carolina or Virginia or the U. S. Navy or Air Force does with bombing runs or aerial combat in the deserts of Death Valley or Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

This time, however, a preconceived “conspiracy theory” was developed, by which jackass nobody knows. The “conspiracy theory” promoted by these brain-dead individuals was that the federal government, under the auspices of the Muslim king Barack Obama, was going to take over Texas and put it under government martial law. To achieve this goal, the training exercise “Jade Helm” was the cover to allow armed troops to move freely across the Southwest, picking up “true patriots” and putting them into “internment camps.” These “internment camps” were linked by underground tunnels between closed Wal-Mart stores, which the Walton Family (a dastardly part of the conspiracy due to their complicit involvement in the New World Order) had donated to the government for this exact purpose. Once martial law was in place, King Barack would “eliminate” any opposition through mass executions or reeducation programs.

Hopefully you were able to read through that mass of crazy…

The first inklings of this story worthy of Hollywood bubbled up in meetings of the County Commissioners of Bastrop, TX, where “concerned citizens” forced their way to the front of the meetings demanding answers from their elected officials. Were they a part of the conspiracy to enslave their constituents? Were they letting the feds “take over?” Even after bringing in a highly decorated Army officer to explain the situation, people still believed the “conspiracy theory” rather than the logical explanations provided by some in government and the military men who met with them.

The story took on a life of its own when other idiots began to pump it ad nauseam. In the media, conspiracy wacko Alan Jones was the major driver of the short bus, pushing the gruel of misinformation to the point where there was no tinfoil left in the H-E-B’s located around the Lone Star State. Then former actor Chuck Norris – yes, Walker, Texas Ranger himself – fanned the ignorance flames by saying that the exercises could be related to an attack by the Islamic terrorist group ISIS. Most special about Norris is that, to mainstream media, he tried to say he had been misquoted, but to other members of the Insanity Posse he repeated his beliefs.

While these two men made some extremely idiotic statements regarding the federal government and our U. S. troops and their exercises, they have to be cut a little slack. Both are preening celebrity members of society, not news correspondents, reporters or respected anchors that are expected to be held to a high standard (Brian Williams, anybody?). While both Jones and Norris have sizeable followings, they often have to carve up some red meat for them to nosh on to keep them around, listening and contributing millions to their bank accounts for bullshit “survival” items or trying to maintain their relevance that disappeared 25 years ago.

The problem comes when the adults in the room – the elected officials who run the governments – fail to meet their responsibilities. First on the list is now-Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who ordered the Texas Guard (not the Texas National Guard, a branch of the U. S. Armed Forces, but a special militia under the auspices of the Governor of the state) to “monitor the Jade Helm exercises.” Eventually outrage – including the statement “Why are you pandering to idiots?” uttered to his face – forced Abbott to reexamine his stance and the Texas Guard didn’t head out into the field.

Not one but THREE members of our current Presidential campaign also bought into the conspiracy. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry stated that Obama was going to allow IS terrorists into the U. S. during the exercises to allow for more upheaval, being sure to express that nothing like this would happen under “President” Perry’s watch (he dropped out last week, ending that dream for the second time in four years). Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Texas Senator Ted Cruz both opined on the subject, with Cruz saying he thought that the exercises weren’t nefarious but that the President wasn’t “trustworthy” and could pull something along the invasion line and Paul saying he “wasn’t sure” what was going on with the exercises. Finally, another member of Congress, current Texas Representative Louie Gomert, said the exercises were meant to be the vehicle for Obama to target “right wing conservatives” by declaring certain states “enemies” of his administration.

You can give hucksters and entertainers such as Jones and Norris leeway, but you cannot give sitting elected officials, members of Congress or people who wish to be the leader of this nation carte blanche to say whatever they want and inspire the imbecilic minds of some people to take action (there were three men arrested in North Carolina who were looking to stop the “Jade Helm” exercises by attacking a military base in the state and, in Mississippi, don’t forget about the disturbed man who drove by bases firing a rifle at them). At the minimum, these elected officials should be forced to apologize to the elected officials that they’ve slandered with their words. In particular, they need to apologize to those troops that they supposedly love so much that they thought they would take over their state. At the maximum – and I am looking at Abbott, Paul, Cruz and Gomert here – they should be officially sanctioned by their appropriate legislative bodies (but that isn’t going to happen because their party controls both houses). All should look in a fucking mirror and wonder how far that they’ve sunk that they would fall for what was an extremely easy “conspiracy theory” to decipher rather than fall into.

Part of intelligent dialogue – whether in debate or other discussion about particular subjects – is being able to sift the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. In this case, it means garnering the useful kernels of information (military exercises are necessary for a well-prepared armed forces, the government has to have some place to train, etc.) from the brainless meanderings of those that are the product of a lobotomy class. Once that is done, then a lucid conclusion can be reached. The “Jade Helm” exercises were a perfect example of a segment of society that has been left to run amok and, rather than use rational thought and reason to figure out what is happening, latch onto something that only serves to exacerbate their fears and not aid in any way reaching a logical conclusion.

Will the advent of “conspiracy theories” go away? Hell, no! There are those out there that see the boogeyman behind every tree, under every doorstep and in the halls of governments around the world. There is also no way to alleviate these unfortunate individuals pain, either; it just has to rot them from the inside until maintaining the many “conspiracy theories” leave them but a former shell of themselves rather than a functioning member of society.

What to Expect From the Second GOP Debate

Sep16

After what turned out to be a relatively calm first debate last month, the Republican Party will gather their candidates for President of the United States together again tonight for a debate. The second GOP debate will begin at 6PM on CNN with the undercard – the four competitors, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham; Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal; former New York Governor George Pataki and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (two of their brethren, former Texas Governor Rick Perry (has ended his campaign) and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore (nonexistent in the polls) have already been excluded from the debate) who couldn’t build up enough support to crack low single digits – will be featured in this showdown at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. While some points may be scored here, the attention of the 500 or so people who will be in attendance will more than likely be on the “Main Event” that begins at 8PM (Eastern Time).

The main field is now expanded to 11 participants, with former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina the only candidate who came out of the “Happy Hour” debate in Cleveland improving on her support and earning her way onto the main stage. Even with the addition of Fiorina, the leader has stayed constant: Donald Trump, despite pissing off and insulting pretty much the entirety of the human race with a brain, continues to lead the Republican parade. What has made it interesting is that the second place candidate has changed and it isn’t one of the “usual suspects.”

Coming off a notable debate performance in Cleveland, Dr. Ben Carson has been able to pull his way up to second in some polls and at least in the Top Five in others. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush will be beside Trump also, putting two “low energy” opponents (Trump’s words, not mine) on each of the New York billionaire’s hands. The difference this time around is that both of those hands are in danger of being gnawed off.

Unlike the first debate, this one is going to be a free-for-all. In the first debate, the novelty of a Trump campaign hadn’t worn off yet for the other nine competitors as they, for the most part (save for Kentucky Senator Rand Paul), stayed away from Trump, expecting to see him crash and burn on his own. Not to say that Trump didn’t try, making a point as the only candidate at that time who would not pledge support of the eventual GOP nominee and/or swear off a third-party run (he has since signed a “loyalty pledge” which will be about as binding as the toilet paper in Trump Tower) before then insulting Fox News commentator Megyn Kelly during and after the event. Another month into the campaign – and with polling and favorability numbers for Trump that are going up instead of down – and the rest of the GOP has finally come to the realization that they have to take him out.

Jindal has basically said that Trump is a “madman” who will do irreparable damage to the conservative cause and perhaps even end the Republican Party. “It’s pointless arguing policy with someone not intellectually curious enough to care and who makes it up on the fly,” Jindal wrote in an op/ed on CNN. “According to him, his plans will be ‘fabulous’ and ‘something terrific.’” With his own polling numbers around 1%, Jindal has seemingly taken on the sword of taking Trump down (and he may have some backup in Graham). The problem is these men are on the “kiddie table” while Trump plays on the Grand Stage; the only way that anyone from the early debate will be able to touch Trump is with a trebuchet.

So who will it be on the stage in front of President Reagan’s Air Force One (if you haven’t already seen the stage for the CNN debate, it is a feat of engineering that has the 747 right behind the candidates – a feat that required set designers to build a 30 foot scaffolding for the stage itself) that tries to take down Trump? How about everyone?

The moderators for the debate, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash and conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, have already said they want the debate to take on more of a donnybrook look than a genteel tea party. “My goal is more about: Let’s draw the contrasts between the candidates, and have them fight it out over these policies, over who has the best approach to Putin, over who has the best approach to taxes, over who believes what over immigration reform,” Tapper stated to the New York Times on Tuesday. “Have them lay it all out so voters can see it.”

Paul has already stated he will come at Trump with every weapon he has available, telling CNN that Trump is a “fake conservative” who won’t be able to handle the job of the Presidency. “Do we really want someone in charge of our nuclear arsenal who goes around basically using the insults of a junior high, or a sophomore in high school?” said Paul during a CNN interview. “That’s not the kind of person we want to be practicing the diplomacy of the United States.”

What about the other candidates? New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Ohio Governor John Kasich have been non-committal on what their approach to Trump will be, but if any of them are to last much longer than Iowa and New Hampshire, their time is now to make a move and attack the frontrunner(s). Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose lips have been locked on Trump’s ass for so long it may take Ben Carson’s surgical talents to remove him, won’t be looking to harass Trump as he hopes to take his supporters if, and or when Trump decides he’s had enough of the campaign. For their part, Bush and Carson have also said they aren’t looking to attack “anyone” in particular, but you can be sure that if the opportunity arises they’ll be looking to cut their own pound of flesh out of Trump.

As it has been since he entered the race, it could be Trump who is the key as to what this debate may turn out to be, a bloodbath or a policy discussion. If the Trump that comes out on stage on Wednesday night is the same boorish, misogynistic, xenophobic, arrogant ass that has been running around the United States for the last two months, then the other 10 competitors on the stage are going to carve him up. Yes, Trump is an excellent counter-puncher, but there isn’t a counterpunch to a death by 1000 cuts. If you’re constantly on the defensive – and if you even show a glimpse that you’re thin-skinned, you’re over with – you’re not going to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, if Trump comes out and talks halfway intelligently about issues – discusses SERIOUSLY where the money will come from to build the wall across the border between Mexico and the U. S. and not the half-cocked plan of having Mexico pay for it; offers a plan for the humane treatment of immigrants here illegally to return them to their home countries (or offer them a form of amnesty, an anathematic word to conservatives); give a few details as to his taxation plans (once again, Trump sees nothing wrong with the wealthy and businesses paying “their fair share,” another policy point that whips the GOP into a horrified frenzy) – then his opponents will have no opportunity to go at him except on a policy level. Instead of attacking his general personality, now the other GOP candidates would have to pick apart details of his suggested plans and probably have to stake themselves to something they might not want to do with their own plans at this point. Trump has to be careful here because as soon as he strays from policy into any sort of “insult campaigning” (which has been his creation for political scientists to dissect in the future), the floodgates open and the attacks will fly.

So what is going to happen in the sacred grounds of the Reagan Library? It’s going to be a bloodbath. Simply because he is either too proud or has too big an ego, Trump isn’t going to be able to hold back his personal attacks on his opponents and, as such, the other 10 players in the game are going to descend on him like a pack of hyenas. The hyenas may not kill the wildebeest quickly on Wednesday night, but it will mark the beginning of the end as they will, while getting their fangs and claws bloodied, rip apart any thought that Trump could actually have a solid plan to lead the nation. (I wonder what the odds are of an expletive making it out over the CNN airwaves is.)

It’ll all go down later tonight and will probably be more entertaining that boxing champion Floyd Mayweather’s fight was last weekend. The two debates – the “kiddie table” at 6PM and the “Main Event” at 8PM – promise to be high theater for all involved. Unfortunately, it will also show the worst of what is the U. S. political process in a mudslinging debacle instead of a discussion of ideas and opinions.

Why I Currently Don’t Support Bernie Sanders

Sep14

When it comes to my political stance, I am an independent with liberal leanings. This makes sense as, when there is that proverbial blue moon (or, as some might put it, Hell freezes over), there are some conservative candidates who are the better choice for office and I have voted for said candidate. As I’ve stated another time, I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984, Bush I in 1988 and Bush II in 2004, feeling that every time I did they were the better candidate for the office. On a number of state ballots I have also pulled the lever with an “R” by the name. Those tendencies lately, though, are becoming fewer and farther between.

That doesn’t mean that my vote is automatically going to the Democrats. I’m not pleased with the leading choice there, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, due to a wealth of baggage that she would bring into the office of the Presidency with her. Hell, she’d probably be the first President elected who, on the day after her inauguration, would face the potential of impeachment (remember, this Congress isn’t going to change out of the GOP hands due to the House gerrymandering that has basically set up Republican strongholds in states; before you say it, yes, the Dems have the same thing in the cities, but not nearly to the same extent).

Thus, the only other logical choice for the Democrats is Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator who is proud of the fact that he is a “Democratic Socialist,” and whom immediately sends conservatives fleeing to the hills instead of a political science textbook. A Democratic Socialist, according to my research, is someone who believes in the policies of democracy but believes that the fruits of said democracy should be shared among all people and not concentrated in the hands of a few (if I am wrong here, please let me know in the comments…hopefully I can learn as well as you). The genial Sanders, who may remind you of a kindly Uncle or a Grandfather, is a firebrand who is giving Clinton all she wants and more, hence his leads in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

About a week ago, I was taken to task by a friend over something I wrote. In that article, I looked at the Democrats and only mentioned Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden as viable candidates (and Biden is looking less and less likely as time goes by). “What about Bernie?” my friend asked. Over the course of the discussion, I detailed out my reasoning for not being able to support Sanders at this time…but that still has the potential to change.

Sanders is doing a great job in drawing in potential voters to hear him speak at his rallies. In Greensboro, NC, on Sunday, Sanders drew in a crowd of approximately 9000 people at the Greensboro Coliseum. It was at this rally (unfortunately I couldn’t attend as I had to watch my son…political rallies, contrary to popular belief, are not a great place for kids) that some of Sanders’ issues came to light.

One of those in attendance, a black woman from Charlotte, noted that there was little diversity to those that supported Sanders. “It’s a very white crowd,” she said in the local paper. “Right now, at this point in the campaign, maybe that’s not a surprise.” There is one of the areas that I’ve noticed with many a Sanders rally is that it isn’t the most diverse cast when it comes to support and Sanders isn’t alone with this problem. I’ve seen the same for many of the Republican candidates on the stump (Donald Trump, I’m looking at you). I have problems with any candidate who cannot at the minimum give me the impression that they have a wide base of support across all people…white, black, brown, green with purple polka dots, you name it.

The audience in attendance for the Sanders rally in North Carolina (later, Sanders would become probably the first Socialist to ever set foot at Liberty University in Virginia) was also very young. I don’t have a problem with the youth of today being politically active, I actually enjoy it more when those 18-25 are involved in their future because it inspires me to examine what is drawing them out to support a candidate. But with many of these younger voters, it isn’t about any particular policy decision that the candidate supports, it’s about the factor that they feel like the candidate was personally involved with them. All one has to do is look at how social media, especially Twitter and Facebook, have changed campaigns; do you really think Rand Paul would have an App for your cellphone that puts you in the picture with him if it weren’t for trying to capture the “youth vote?” (This has been used for other more hilarious reasons, too.)

When the youth get involved and their candidate goes down in flames, they normally don’t move onto another candidate to support, though. They get disgusted, disillusioned and disinterested in any further processes if their candidate isn’t the winner and refuse to continue to drive for their philosophies. With all the talk about Republicans supporting their eventual nominee for President, why hasn’t anyone looked at how many of those supporting Sanders would be up for supporting another Democratic nominee?

Sanders is a great speaker, especially when it comes to deriding the current state of government. Sanders doesn’t take it to the point of “America is doomed,” “America has lost its way,” or “America is in the shitter,” like Republicans do, but he does come pretty close. The thing that Sanders does well is emphasize the problems with issues such as college student debt, income inequality, the budget, the decay of infrastructure and treatment of veterans, all things that are key domestic issues that we face.

Part of pointing out the problems, however, is that you also have to present solutions. That is where Sanders comes up a bit short. Either the solution that he suggests has no earthly intention of ever being put into use (Sanders has talked about upping the tax rates for the uber-rich to 90%, raising the minimum wage (he called $15 an hour “reasonable” but suggests $10.10) and breaking up the largest banks into smaller subsets a la AT&T’s Bell system in the 1980s, among other things) or he doesn’t bring up a solution at all. Sanders is quite deficient in foreign policy, something that is critical in our global world and, at least to this independent, is important as I believe we should have a strong military, just not a wasteful one.

If Sanders were to become President, he would definitely have to curtail his “Socialist” agenda in favor of a more “Democratic” solution (otherwise he wouldn’t get anything done as President), which would alienate many of his supporters. How many of Rand Paul’s supporters ditched him as soon as he showed any inkling that he was moving towards a Republican philosophy on anything over the Libertarian route of thinking? Sanders, I fear, would fall into that same trap in that his vociferous supporters would immediately hold his feet to the coals for anything less than the entire reformation of financial distribution in the United States.

There’s plenty that Bernie Sanders talks about on the campaign trail that is dead on correct. You can also hear the passion that Sanders has, whether he is giving a speech at a large rally such as Greensboro or when he is a guest on Bill Maher’s “Real Time.” Unfortunately, there is also no chance that the solutions he proposes would stand a chance of being put into action by a Congress that can’t decide if water is wet. I’d like to consider Sanders for my vote but, at this time, he’s an option that I cannot embrace.

As Syria Burns, the World Simply Watches

Sep8

The Middle East is a powder keg of differing religions, different religious factions and different viewpoints on pretty much everything, including whether the sky is blue or not. Many in the United States and Europe, far removed from the turbulent area, think that it is the issues between the Muslims and the nation of Israel that are the major problems. Far from it…the major problems are between the Muslims themselves.

Much like Christianity in Europe and the U. S., there are different factions when you discuss the Muslim faith. In Christianity, you can be Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist or Protestant…the list is quite lengthy. Each of the sects has their own particular take on the subject of God, Jesus, the Bible and how to worship as a whole. The same can be said for Muslims as well; there are the Sunnis, the Shias, the Kharijte and the Kurds, and each of those sects have their own subdivisions to make it even more confusing. And, much like Christianity in the Middle Ages (and some would argue even today), the Muslim sects fight with each other, albeit between the Muslims it is a legitimate life or death fight, not one of simply words.

The civil war in Syria is a synopsis of the problems in the Middle East. Three different sects, the Sunnis (the Islamic State – call them ISIL, ISIS or IS), the Kurds and the Shias (some from Iran), battling for control of one of the richest supplies of oil in the world, destroying their own lands and people over the past 4½ years to the point that refugees are fleeing from the country while Syrian President Bashar al-Assad plays the role of Nero. The warfare in Syria is of the utmost cruelty: gas bombs, poison and nerve gases, phosphorous weaponry and a variety of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). These weapons are used most frequently, but the armies of all the combatants can simply walk into a village and execute its male population. As Syria continues to burn, the world has simply watched and, with the refugee situation, it cannot watch much longer.

Since the beginning of 2015, the United Nations estimates that 366,000 refugees have left Syria and Iraq, heading for Europe for a new beginning. There are plenty of problems with this situation. The situation is in the Middle East, but few nations in that area are stepping up to take on some responsibility to help a neighboring country. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey or even Iran have not even stepped forward to welcome refugees into their countries, content to sit back and watch even further while al-Assad continues to murder his own people and IS continues to destroy the remainder of the country. This refusal to assist in lessening the tragedy leads to desperate people making desperate moves.

Without the ability to remain even close to their own region, many refugees are heading for Europe by any means necessary. Europe – and in particular Germany – have welcoming regulations when it comes to those who are politically oppressed or are leaving war-torn areas, but the issue is getting to Germany or one of these other nations. Over the weekend, the nation of Hungary, which has accepted roughly 130,000 asylum requests (of which roughly 38,000 were Syrian, according to the Wall Street Journal) was the roadblock, holding up thousands of refugees to the point where many Syrians started walking rather than waiting for transportation. The reason for Hungary’s decision to block the refugees? Fears of the refugees being sent back to Hungary once they reach another European Union country and they are not allowed entry (under the rules of the European Union, a member nation can send a refugee back to the last EU nation they went through if they are not allowed asylum).

The problem that Europe is facing regarding the influx of Syrians is twofold. First, the sheer number of incoming refugees means that several nations are going to have to step up and take on an appropriate number of the refugees. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that Germany can handle a certain number of refugees but that, in the future, other countries would have to be willing to allow the refugees into their countries without issue. France is refusing to allow refugees inside its borders, fortifying their defenses with more troops and catching refuges as they try to cross and sending them back to Italy, while Greece (having its own issues since its near default on its financial debt earlier this year with the European Union) hasn’t stepped forward either.

The second issue is a matter of security in the countries where Syrians are headed. Analysts with the Central Intelligence Agency have stated that the potential for terrorists to embed themselves with the true Syrian refugees is quite realistic, even to the point that it is “conceivable” that a terrorist attack could occur in Europe within the next few months from someone that is a part of the Syrian refugee situation. While we would like to think that this isn’t possible, it is a potential reason why the United States hasn’t stepped up further itself other than humanitarian aid in the region and one that has to be in the minds of security officials in the European Union also.

The main thing that many are overlooking is that more could have been done from the start of the conflict. Instead of looking for resolutions, many saw an opportunity to remove a powerful dictator from power (al-Assad is the only leader who survived the “Arab Spring” protests of 2011, watching as Libya, Egypt and other countries saw their leaders toppled). When that dictator stepped over the line in using poison gas on his own people, world governments failed to keep the dictator in check and do anything about it (potentially President Barack Obama’s biggest mistake in his term in the White House) or allowed it to continue through denying it even existed (Vladimir Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China catch the blame here). Now we have a situation in Syria that is volatile at the least and a threat to the world’s security at its extreme.

The images on our television screens may seem far away as those Syrians who are looking for a new home, a new opportunity or even a new life traipse across a continent far from their homes, but something should be felt and done for the people who haven’t asked for anything like this to happen to them. The deaths of men, women and children while trying to flee the ravages of war shouldn’t be happening, nor should the villainous charlatans who fleece these people and then leave them to sickness or death in a truck or a cargo hold of a ship (those bastards just need to be executed). We also need to see what we can do as people, even for those who may not think like us religiously or philosophically…the first step to bringing the world together would be to get beyond simple divisions such as skin color or religion and look at each other as we truly are, flesh and blood humans looking for the best for our family’s futures or for the best out of life.

It’s Tough to Give the GOP the Benefit of the Doubt

Sep6

Here we are, six months from whence the primaries for the 2016 election of our next President will be taking place, and I’ve yet to find some candidate to get behind. In the past, that person was pretty much self-evident and I could step into the ballot box on Election Day with a clear conscience as to whom I was voting for. Recently, however, it has been a difficult road when it comes to picking that one candidate.

When it comes to the Democratic side of the equation, it looks more like the Republican side has looked like for most of my life. In the past, the GOP normally had a hierarchy that ran as such: if you lost to a Republican who became president in the previous election, the next time the office was open without a Republican incumbent, it was your turn to take the nomination. This has happened in the Republican Party for virtually the last 50 years.

In 1968 it was Richard Nixon (defeated by Kennedy in 1960, won nomination in 1968); 1980 brought us Ronald Reagan (a half-hearted try in 1976 to topple incumbent Gerald Ford, who took over after Nixon resigned) and 1988 brought us George Bush (or Bush I, lost to Reagan in 1980). In 2000, George Bush (Bush II) was an outlier in that he didn’t show any interest in running in 1996, but John McCain (defeated by Bush II in 2000) and Mitt Romney (defeated by McCain in 2008) picked up where he left off.

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats normally throw a donnybrook when it comes to choosing their own nominee for President of the United States. 1968 saw a reluctant Hubert Humphrey step up after the incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, decided not to run for a second term (by law, he technically could have; he served the remainder of John Kennedy’s term from 1960 and only was elected once himself in 1964) and another bright star from Camelot, Robert Kennedy, gunned down in Los Angeles just as it looked as if he were to win the nomination. 1972 saw six different candidates enter with George McGovern capturing the hearts of Democrats over Humphrey, George Wallace, Edmund Muskie, Henry Jackson and Shirley Chisholm. This occurrence of multiple choices – and viable ones, not half-assed efforts – has repeated itself pretty much every time over the Democratic Presidential nominations since…except for this one, where it seems the parties have flip-flopped.

There’s very little choice in 2016 if you examine the Democratic nominees. While everyone might grouse over Hillary Clinton and the Titanic-load of baggage she has, the other candidates lack the ability to forge a way past her as Barack Obama did in 2008 (there’s also the instance that this is the Democratic Party’s payback to Clinton for being a “good soldier” in losing to Obama in 2008, something as shown previously to be something the GOP did often). Even the person most likely to have some power to go against Clinton, incumbent Vice President Joe Biden, doesn’t seem to have the heart for a drawn out campaign battle (understandable after the death of his son). Anyone thinking that Clinton won’t be the nominee when the Democrats hit Philadelphia next summer would be considered out of their mind, even with the problems hovering over her.

The 2016 GOP field is the one that is reminiscent of the Democrats in the “come one, come all” approach they’ve used in throwing the door open and allowing anyone to come to the party. In total there are 17 candidates as of September 2015 and, in theory, there should be something there for anybody in the election even if the candidate themselves aren’t viable. The actions of the candidates since the campaigning has begun full bore this summer hasn’t exactly shown that “something for anyone” feel and makes it very difficult to give any member of the GOP the benefit of the doubt going forward, however.

Over the past week, there were a couple of instances where members of the Republican Party could have made great inroads into showing that they were someone who could lead all citizens of the U. S., not just those from one party or the other. First there was the shameful assassination of a police officer in Houston, TX that, instead of being a chance to not only unify people behind law enforcement but also a chance to have a moment of commiseration with their Democratic opponents, some members of the conservative movement chose to attack. These attacks were picked up on by some of the Presidential nominees who, in trying to make inroads into Donald Trump’s lead, came up just short of insinuating that the “Black Lives Matter” groups were the spearhead for the number of police shootings.

If you are going to piss off about 35% of the population (and their supporters), that seems to be the way to do it. Fox News talk show host Bill O’Reilly stated, “Every time there is a controversy about an officer shooting a black person, they’re out there stirring the pot.” Conservative radio “host” (I’ll be nice here) Rush Limbaugh has out-and-out called the “Black Lives Matter” organizations “hate groups.” Meanwhile, some on the GOP slate of candidates are following this lead with their rhetoric as a way to get back in the good graces of the Trump-mad acolytes. (And this doesn’t count Trump’s previous insulting of the Hispanic community, which he continues to do; count another 15-20% of the electorate out there the GOP can’t count.)

While there have been some tremendously stupid rallying cries heard during these “Black Lives Matter” rallies (anytime you advocate for the killing of a segment of society, your rally should be shut down), there has actually only been one proven and one possible case where a black person gunned down law enforcement individuals due to prior grievance against law enforcement’s treatment of blacks. In December 2014, two New York officers were executed in their squad car by a maniac who actually stated that was his goal (the proven case) and the Houston case mentioned previously, where Shannon Miles “allegedly” (I say that for legal reasons; when you have videotape, it’s tough to debate) executed Deputy Darren Goforth while he fueled his squad car (the possible case). That is two out of the 85 deaths of law enforcement officers in 2015, not exactly an indicator of rampant incitement of the masses against law enforcement.

Second, there was the controversy regarding Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue ANY marriage licenses due to her religious objections to same-sex marriage. If there was a point for the GOP to demonstrate that they weren’t beholden to religion or religious groups, the opportunity to point out that Davis was violating her duties and should be jailed or fined was the one to take. Instead, the GOP fumbled over itself trying to placate the Religious Right.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was the worst, calling Davis’ jailing the “criminalization of Christianity” and the latest attack in the “War on Christianity,” insisting he will go to Kentucky next week to hold a rally/campaign stop at the jail where she is currently incarcerated. Senator Ted Cruz stated he stood with Davis “unequivocally.” There were some surprises such as former Senator Rick Santorum, who stopped short of criticizing Davis’ arrest but commended her stand on her “principles” and Scott Walker, who hemmed and hawed on both sides of the issue, as did Trump. No one on the GOP slate, however, held up following the U. S. Constitution, a familiar battle cry for the Republicans, instead kowtowing to the small religious wing of their party.

If they were to have shown some chutzpah, the GOP had a chance here to capture someone in the center, the “independents” that have to be captivated in order to win an election. If the GOP candidates had just stepped away from the religious question – as they are supposed to do with the separation of Church and State in the U. S. Constitution – they would have stated outright that Davis was violating the laws as they are on the book. They could have said, “Despite (my) personal feelings on the issue, the law of the land is the Constitution and, as such, she has to follow it.” How many did that? Exactly zero.

Instead of demonstrating that they are a party with 21^st century ideas and people who can bring those ideas to the forefront, the candidates for President from the GOP instead fell back on mid-1900s (at the minimum) philosophy, when blacks “stayed in their place” and the addition of “In God We Trust” to our currency and the Pledge of Allegiance was allowed to fight off the “godless” Communists. Unless they can actually demonstrate that there are some original ideas left in the party, that there are those who can embrace the future and attack its problems with science, education and thought – and they have people who aren’t afraid to leave those that cling to the past with the intent on bringing it back – the GOP will not encourage me to pull the handle for them.

Religious Freedom Doesn’t Give You the Right to Break the Law

Sep2

Two things we’ll establish from the start here. A long time ago (and I mean a LOOOONG time ago), I attended Butler University with the ambition of going to law school following completion of my undergraduate work. I enjoyed the pursuit of the truth, figuring out the “right” answer to an investigation (a court case) and, perhaps most of all, the debate that came along with the profession. Secondly, I’ve never had a particularly close relationship with religion; I’ve personally always believed that the separation of Church and State isn’t a flimsy one and, quite honestly, that religion doesn’t take science into its canon to be able to answer the myriad questions of life (“you have to have faith” isn’t an answer, unfortunately). Thus, the recent hubbub in the state of Kentucky has particularly intrigued me.

In June, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry in the United States. After heartfelt and legally well-thought oral arguments from both sides, the Court decided by the slimmest of margins (5-4) that states could not deny those that sought to marry someone of the same sex that ability, basically asserting that marriage, under the “pursuit of Happiness” clause in the U. S. Constitution, was a right. As expected, the Court broke along philosophical lines, with the four conservative justices dissenting, the four liberal justices concurring and Chief Justice Anthony Kennedy, famous for being the “swing” vote in many decisions in front of the Court, joining the liberal justices and even writing the majority opinion in the decision.

This set about a shitstorm that only reached its apex last month. The state of Texas initially decried the ruling and, for a period, refused to issue licenses for same sex couples. The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, decided that the ruling by a court superior to his own wouldn’t apply to his jurisdiction. Both of these states decided, after further review and a look at the costs of pursuing a lengthy legal battle, that the issue was settled and apparently have reluctantly begun to issue the licenses. Then, last month, an elected official decided to take the fight the ultimate distance.

In August, a woman elected to the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk of Courts office began refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples, citing that it conflicted with her “religious beliefs” in “God’s authority” (as if issuing a piece of paper would sentence her to fiery pits of Hell). The woman, Kim Davis, did take the right approach in that she didn’t issue ANY marriage licenses in the county, even to those of the opposite sex, but that wasn’t going to hold up for long (in fact, when a lawsuit was brought against her by the American Civil Liberties Union, it was filed by two same-sex couples and two opposite-sex couples). Davis went to the U. S. District Court, which shot her arguments down and ruled she had to issue the licenses.

Give Davis her due, she does have a true commitment to her beliefs. She continued to appeal the decisions up the ladder to the Appellate Courts for the Sixth District and, eventually, to the desk of Chief Justice Elena Kagan, the overseer of the Sixth District and one of the nine Supreme Court Justices who made the ruling back in June. Kagan filed Davis’ request for a stay on Monday morning; the full Court declined to issue a stay without any comment early on Tuesday, with the previous decision by the District Court standing and ordering Davis to start issuing same-sex couples licenses or face ramifications.

The ramifications are potentially significant, especially for Davis. Should she continue to defy the “law of the land,” Davis could be forced from the position that the people of Rowan County elected her to hold at the minimum and, at the maximum, could be jailed for her refusal to issue a piece of paper. As it stands at this time, the offices of the Clerk of Court of Rowan County are darkened as Davis considers her next step.

There’s been quite a bit of discussion over “religious freedom,” the right to exercise your religious beliefs in society, and Davis’ fight is only the most recent example of the discussion. I personally have never thought this was a problem – Can you worship openly? Can you wear a religious medallion or trinket without having your head hacked off? Can you openly have holidays that are religiously based? If the answer to these questions are “Yes,” then you’re not being subjugated and you have “religious freedom.” – and it really isn’t a problem now except for the fact that the laws of the U. S. aren’t in relation with the beliefs of some of those religious factions. When it comes to operating the government – be it local, state or national – religious beliefs have to be left at the door.

Many like to state that the “Founding Fathers” brought the concept of democracy and the United States as a God-ordained and religiously ruled governmental philosophy. Truth be told, there couldn’t be anything further from the truth. You need some examples?

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.” – George Washington, 1792

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1814

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.” – James Madison, 1819

This is just scratching the surface. I could go on, but you get the point.

The oath that military members take upon enlistment says you will follow the orders of the Commander in Chief (the President of the United States) and defend the U. S. and the Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic” (maybe we’ll get into that one of these days). When you’re in the military, you don’t get to decide which orders you want to follow. You have to follow ALL orders (unless it can be proven that the order is an “illegal” one, a bar that is set very high and for good reason). Although Davis’ situation may not be as extreme as that of being in the military, as an elected official you also take an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and defend the Constitution.

Once an elected official takes that oath, they no longer have the right of refusing an action, order or law because of their religious beliefs because if you choose to serve in a public forum as an elected official, then you have to abide by the public law. . If the position is an appointed one, then there might be a different answer to the question, but that isn’t what has come up in any previous situation in Texas, Alabama or Davis’ situation in Kentucky. If we allowed for the “picking and choosing” of which laws people wanted to follow, the U. S. would descend into a chaos that would be unimaginable.

So what should be Davis’ potential punishment and the outcome of the case? I personally believe that jailing Davis would be the worst move possible in that it would only give certain groups a “martyr” to hang the hat of their cause on. A fine isn’t going to do any good either as those same groups would just head over to GoFundMe to start an ever-refilling account. There are only two actions that can be a just outcome for this case: Davis can come out, state that she still holds her religious objections to same-sex marriage but will abide by the law and issue the licenses, or that Davis resigns her elected position in the Rowan County government immediately and a new person is elected.

There are some areas where the “religious freedom” argument can still be discussed. I am still personally debating the usage of the argument for individual businesses and, as of yet, have been unable to come up with a concrete answer for that situation. When it comes to Church and State, however, the concrete is quite firm in that never shall the twain meet. If we undermine that situation, then we move closer to a theocracy, something that U. S. citizens continually rail about with the government of Iran.

Why Do We Keep Repeating Ourselves When It Comes To Gun Violence?

Aug28

It’s been a couple of days since the tragic shooting of WDBJ-TV Roanoke, VA, reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman, Adam Ward (and the life-threatening injury to Vicki Gardner, a member of the Chamber of Commerce that they were interviewing), live during the broadcast of the station’s morning show by a deranged former co-worker of the duo. Over the past couple of days, there has once again been the hand-wringing that comes about following one of these inexplicable shootings that seem to happen like clockwork in the United States. When these periods of mourning occur, there is also a renewed “effort” (if you want to call it that) to enact sensible gun regulation; in the Roanoke case, it is Parker’s father that has led the call this time. There’s also that dreadful feeling that, like many other times before and for much worse cases, nothing at all will be done about the situation.

The problem is, in the past couple of instances, the current laws and any tougher restrictions may not have done any good.

In the Roanoke case the shooter, former reporter Vester Flanagan (we will not respect him by using his on-air name) legally purchased not just one but two Glock semi-automatic pistols, one that he would eventually use in the shooting of Parker, Ward and Gardner. Flanagan passed through the background check, no bells went off and he walked out (there is no waiting period for gun purchases in Virginia) of a licensed gun dealer’s shop in Virginia with his weapons after paying for them.

This situation also applies to the horrific tragedy that is the Charleston, SC church shooting. The person responsible for that, 21-year old Dylan Roof, also was able to pass a background check (later found to be faulty) to be able to obtain the weaponry that he used to gun down the nine churchgoers in cold blood. Even the Sandy Hook tragedy was done by a shooter, Adam Lanza, whose mother legally bought him the weapons he had (and would use on her and 26 others) in 2012.

Add in Virginia Tech, Aurora, Chattanooga and many other cases and you see that the United States has way too many instances of mass shootings on its soil (this is just in the past decade and not even a comprehensive list). To be able to correct this problem, there are several issues that have to be considered here and implementation of all are necessary if we are to get the usage of guns in horrendous crimes under control.

A 2013 Pew Research Center survey states that slightly more than one-third of U. S. citizens own or live with someone who owns a weapon. With the population of the U. S. around 320 million, that means there are over 100 million people who own at least one weapon. For arguments sake, let’s cut that number to around 50 million gun owners, counting for duplication in a husband and wife household at the minimum. That’s a scary number to see, especially when you consider “at least one” in the ownership realm.

The reason I say “at least one” is that it is also estimated that there are anywhere from 270 to 310 million weapons in the United States, nearly enough to outfit each man, woman and child in the U. S. with a weapon whether they like it or not. That number of guns available in itself is far too many and needs to be examined in its own right. But through implementation of some common sense ideas, many of the problematic issues regarding weapons can be corrected; it’s going to take some time, however, perhaps decades.

First off is a suitable waiting period before someone can obtain any type of firearm: rifle, pistol, shotgun or a variety of other weaponry. In some cases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) performs the background checks on potential gun owners, in others it is the individual State Bureaus of Investigation; both should be utilized, the state’s investigation first and the FBI as a double-check. There should be a 10-day waiting period in which to give the proper authorities ample time to review a person’s background and, if there is no result from the responsible investigative bureau, then the sale is rejected. To implement this change, however, you can’t continually cut funding from the proper authorities to do their jobs properly.

Second is better recording and sharing of mental health records. There should be a national registry for those suffering from mental health issues that flag them, in particular for law enforcement groups when they are looking over pretty much anything they do. Wouldn’t a police officer like to know that the person sitting in the vehicle ahead of them might have a history of mental health issues and therefore might handle a situation differently? The same holds true when they are reviewing someone’s application for a weapon, especially if the applicant’s mental health issues are only recorded in another state.

Now I am sure that someone is going to say that this is an “invasion of privacy” or a violation of doctor/patient privilege. Unfortunately, when you’ve reached the point that your particular affliction is causing issues with law enforcement, you do lose some privacy considerations. Don’t take it too far, however; someone has to have demonstrated previously an incident, either on the job or with law enforcement, to show just cause for being placed on such a registry, not someone who has been simply treated for issues that affect their abilities to function in normal life. Even with this caveat thrown into the mix, the Roanoke situation may still have happened, however.

Finally, there has to be some recognition from the political sphere that this is a significant problem in the United States and pay it real attention rather than hiding behind the skirts of several usual suspects.

For the Democrats, we already have enough gun restrictions on the books. There are going to be shootings on a RARE occasion, even with all the gun laws in the U. S. implemented to the fullest. Banning high capacity magazines and automatic weapons isn’t the answer, a better one would be to regulate their usage and allow for their ownership by the populace. Continuing to push for deeper and deeper restrictions or bans beyond what already exist only infringe on a lawful individual’s rights, not the criminal who actually committed the crime.

For the Republicans, it is time to take the pacifier that the National Rifle Association sticks in your mouth after each mass shooting out, get out from behind the U. S. Constitution and allow for some more regulation on guns. The NRA leadership (rumor has it the base membership of the organization doesn’t have a problem with some additional regulation, especially in banning sales at gun shows and more extensive background checks) has shown repeatedly that it isn’t about defending the right of U. S. citizens to own weapons. With that leadership in particular (and the same can be said for plenty of other groups), it is more of a political stance to get the proper person into a seat in Congress or state legislatures across the country to be able to manipulate them at will.

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution does provide for the right of the citizenry to own weapons and it is an important amendment to defend. However, it doesn’t provide for someone to own an arsenal that sometimes outpaces even law enforcement (no matter how good you are, you can only shoot two weapons at a time). Add in to that equation the issue of when the Second Amendment was written. At that time, it took even the best musket shooter anywhere from two to three minutes to reload their weapon and said weapon was only accurate to about 100 yards for the best marksman. Today, when you can spray 600 rounds per minute – with accuracy from 300 to 500 yards – from an Uzi by an untrained person, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the Second Amendment’s intent.

Additional regulation doesn’t have to be draconian, it can be as simple as banning gun show sales (hey, if you really want that weapon, go to the store and go through the process) or waiting a few extra days to get a particular weapon in your hand. What about liability insurance on gun owners to hold them personally responsible for the ownership and usage of their weapons? We do more for cars and their ownership than what we do when it comes to weapons.

It is particularly shocking when those whose livelihood once were dependent on the world of weapons are actually asking for more regulations on weapons.

One year ago in Nevada, gun range instructor Charles Vacca was the unfortunate victim of a gun range incident that resulted in his death. The perpetrator? A nine year old girl who legally could fire the weapon, an Uzi submachine gun, but logically shouldn’t have been allowed to even put it in her hand. The six children of Vacca are now advocates for new guns laws that would prohibit people under the age of 16 from shooting certain semiautomatic weapons like those as powerful as the Uzi, an instance of gun control that make completely logical sense.

The real issue that needs to be addressed, however, is the mentality of the citizens of the United States. It would take several generations to change the mindset of how guns are used in the U. S., to get it beyond its “Wild West” romantic nostalgia or its inner city “equalizer” role. We as a people need to start looking at guns as something that, like many things in life, in the wrong hands can be fatal and how can we attempt to make it a bit safer (let’s be honest, there is no such thing as “perfectly safe”). The rest of the civilized world seems to have learned that using guns as a method of solving conflict isn’t the way to go, why can’t U. S. citizens?

Implementing the measures above – and all of them need to be done, not a piecemeal approach that minces around the subject – would be an outstanding start. After that work is done, we can then sit back and review to see if there is anything else that needs to be done.

Should I REALLY Send That Tweet?

Aug26

If you haven’t kept up with the news of late (and admittedly it isn’t Earth-shattering news), ESPN baseball analyst and former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is currently under suspension from “The Worldwide Leader in Sports” over some things that he posted over his personal Twitter account. In one meme (and really, can we cut the usage of memes? If you can’t say it yourself, don’t use a supposedly funny picture to do it) Schilling compared radical Islamic terrorists to the Nazi Party of Germany in the 1930s; in another, he details what each component of the Confederate Battle Flag represents, apparently as a method of making it palatable for others. For posting those things, Schilling was removed from his seat covering the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA, and it is possible that he may lose his job over the situation.

Schilling isn’t alone in being caught in this situation. Three years ago, Olympic athlete Lolo Jones unknowingly responded “want to race me” in a Tweet to former Rutgers football player Eric LeGrand. The problem? LeGrand was paralyzed in 2010 in an on-field incident (she also backhanded him by implying he had a concussion, something that is plaguing organized football even today). In January, Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal used her Twitter account to imply that she would use her influence as a politician to thwart “white privilege.” Then there is the entertaining, infuriating buffoon known as Donald Trump who, in his pursuit (?) of being the next President of the United States, seems to at least once an hour issue a social media missive that probably should have been reconsidered. And we’re barely scratching the surface, folks…there’s a litany of things like this.

It seems as though athletes and celebrities fall into this pit way too often. In an attempt to either look intelligent, hip or funny, the people that are famous (or infamous) for what they do post items on social media that get them into hot water with most importantly their employers but also their sponsors, charitable organizations and even advocacy groups they work to support. It leaves many wondering what these people are thinking of when they get on their particular social media of choice.

Social media has definitely changed the way that the world interacts. As little as 20 years ago, it was difficult to instantly contact someone on the other side of the globe in real time. Even ten years ago, such things as Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn were in their infancy (Twitter wasn’t created until 2006, believe it or not) while MySpace was dominating the world. At that time, we hadn’t even heard of such things as Instagram, Tumblr and Foursquare. All of these social media outlets, however, have had their time in the spotlight due to somebody doing something stupid while on the computer.

There are definitely some rules that a person should implement before they decide if they should go ahead with a post, Tweet or Instagram picture. If celebrities, politicians and other important people used these – and the Everyday Joe should consider it also – then we could avoid the embarrassment that sometimes appears each time a brainless dolt who has millions of admirers does something they shouldn’t have done on the internet.

1. Does This Picture (Meme)…? – There are many considerations that come into play when it comes to pictures (and memes used by people) posted on Facebook, Instagram and even Snapchat (while the photos and videos delete, they can be captured for the short period they are online and they are a permanent part of the Snapchat servers) and they all begin with some form of “Does this picture…” Let’s list off a couple here:

A) Does this picture present me in a bad light? Perhaps the photo of you doing a keg stand at that college football tailgate party isn’t the best one you want to use as your Facebook account profile picture. Employers have started searching the Facebook and Twitter rolls when people apply for jobs and, especially in the case of those just leaving college or even already in the workforce but looking for new employment, the photos and memes you present on social media is going to be something that reflects on you (unless your name is John Smith, then you might be able to get a flyer).

B) Is this a picture of some illegal or illicit activity? Just ask former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner about how a picture he thought he was sending to someone privately exploded in his face. When you are committing an illicit act (or even an illegal one), it is probably not a good idea to trumpet it over the internet. Even though Weiner’s activity was a private one, even a private activity or conversation can come back to bite you in the ass.

2. Would I Say This (Post This Picture) In Public? – This is a huge one that many overlook when they get on social media. Just because you have some semblance of anonymity on the internet (hey, people don’t know you, you’re just a pixelated page in front of them and, in some cases, you can use an alias!), it is not a license to say whatever you think without regard for common decency. Many may decry this as being “too-PC” but in reality it comes from something that we used to have to deal with on a daily basis, being a halfway decent person.

My rules regarding this part are twofold:

A) Would I say what I am about to say to my mother? Hey, Mom is always a good idea to fall back on when it comes to considering whether something you’re about to do or say should be broadcast. In some cases, Mom’s always been proud of what I’ve done, but there’s been those times when Mom washed my mouth out with soap for the things I said (literally). Although I like to think my Mom is pretty hip, she’s still older and there is a modicum of decorum that has to be upheld.

B) Would I say what I am about to say in a bar? Stick with me on this one. If I am sitting in a bar having some drinks, there are usually several conversations between its patrons. If something that I am going to say is going to push one of those patrons to punch me in the mouth for saying it, I probably shouldn’t be broadcasting it over the internet. While some people find enjoyment in “stirring the shit,” if you do it too often, you’re going to catch that fist in the jaw.

3. Am I Doing This Too Soon? – Sometimes people look to be first with a post (or a picture, even) rather than thinking about just what they are doing or saying. For myself, I’ve learned in some circumstances to use the “24-Hour Rule” when it comes to posting. The “24-Hour Rule” is simple enough: if I still feel the same way about a situation 24 hours later, then I’ll go ahead with a post or comment regarding an issue. Likewise, if I feel that the photo I’ve taken while I MIGHT be doing something questionable is a good one, then I’ll go about putting it on the internet. Through using the “24-Hour Rule,” there are many circumstances that could be avoided by celebrities and, well, everyone.

And finally perhaps the most important point…

4. Is What I Am Saying True? – This is more in tune with commenting regarding certain posts, putting up memes and situations such as that rather than pictures. There is already enough falsehood on the internet. Hell, there are sites that have sprung up, like Snopes.com or PolitiFact.com, that will let you know whether that anecdote or photograph is true or not. Use them! I personally don’t like when someone attempts to use a lie to get their point across as it completely discredits them in that arguments and future discussions.

Through usage of some or all of these thoughts, everyone – not just celebrities, politicians and other notable figures – can avoid getting entangled in such situation on social media. While the internet is a great place for the exchange of ideas, it doesn’t mean that you have to hit “Send” or “Post” for everything that you do online. If everyone implemented these ideas, it would give the mainstream media less to talk about; perhaps we would then get some “real” news on the channels rather than celebrity gossip.

(Thinking)…Nah, that’ll never happen!

Wondering What Happened To…For August 25

Aug25

On occasion, I have thoughts that pass through my head that, while fully formed, aren’t exactly long enough to air out on their own. With this in mind, this recurring segment will catch all of those things in a neat little basket and deposit them with you, the reader. Hopefully you’ll enjoy these as much as the other writings you’ll find here.

With that, let’s get started:

Wondering what happened to the band Roxette while pondering…

Did Jon Stewart Leave The Daily Show For This? – If you missed it over the weekend, former The Daily Show host Jon Stewart was seen on television again. You had to buy the program to see him, however, as he was the host for World Wrestling Entertainment’s SummerSlam pay-per-view on Sunday. But, after seeing him on this program, I have to hope he has better plans for his post-Daily Show activities in the future than this.

During the “title versus title” match between wrestlers Seth Rollins and John Cena (and we won’t even get into who held what title, the story, etc., because it doesn’t matter), Stewart entered the ring with a chair as the “combatants” were both momentarily stunned, debating who to crown with the chair and allow the other person to win. After a couple minutes, Stewart – despite having nailed Rollins in the balls in a previous WWE broadcasts (remember, this is professional wrestling, where a kick in the groin is a strategic move) – chose to use the chair on Cena and allow Rollins to win the match.

After 16 years in the anchor’s chair at The Daily Show, Stewart more than deserved his glorious sendoff from the show. But if this is what Jon Stewart is planning to do for the remainder of his career (doubtful, but go with me here), then he better hit the gym because 50 year old bodies don’t hold up well under the wrestling grind…just ask The Undertaker.

Furthermore…

Did ESPN Report on a Professional Wrestling Pay Per-View? – While sitting around after the late local news on Sunday night, I turned over to ESPN to see what happened in the world of sports for the day. After a bit, the anchors discussed the events of the WWE pay-per-view as if they were a REAL sporting event, complete with having a reporter on the scene (a former WWE employee, it must be noted) to give a post-fight analysis.

I know that sometimes it’s difficult to come up with news and it has to be especially difficult to come up with sports news during the “dog days” of summer. But if you’re reporting on the results of a scripted event, then you really don’t know your fan base that well.

Is Anyone Surprised About Josh Duggar? – The Ashley Madison hack – where up to 32 million names and batches of personal information were stolen by a hacking group and subsequently dispatched over the internet – had some surprises to it. First, who knew that government employees were so kinky? Secondly, is anyone surprised that Josh Duggar’s name was on the list?

Duggar, the son in the bizarre (now canceled) television reality program 19 Kids and Counting that featured the Duggar family (Josh’s parents and siblings) with their breed-like-rabbits philosophy and holier-than-thou attitude, held a nice job “upholding” those family values with the Family Resource Council. That was a nice job until it came out he was diddling his sisters in their sleep at the age of 15 and his parents decided that all the little Duggar needed was some time down on the farm and didn’t report the situation to authorities. He resigned that job with the FRC, but the best was yet to come.

Amid the clamor of the Ashley Madison data dump (for you who do not know, Ashley Madison was a website where people could go to arrange for extra-marital hookups, or affairs as they are commonly known) the name of Josh Duggar came up. So not only was he a child sexual predator, as an adult he wanted to have relations with someone other than his wife and, considering what type of website it was, we’ve got to assume a pretty frisky sex session. If you look up the word “hypocrite” in Webster’s Dictionary, there is now a picture of Josh Duggar.

When your name becomes associated with something less than appealing (just look up “duggaring” and you’ll see what I mean), perhaps it’s time for you to shut up on the subject you’re railing against. Just ask Rick Santorum about that fact.

Want A Term for “Anchor Baby?” – Over the past few days, GOP Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush has been making his comments on illegal immigration and using the term “anchor babies,” much to the delight of the media. When they challenge him on using such a term (let’s be honest, not in the best taste), he angrily spins around and challenges the reporter, “You have a better term I should use?”

Yes, Governor, there is…it’s called a child. Whether you agree with the way it is portrayed by the GOP or not (the evidence suggests that the number of births of this nature in 2008 was 340,000, or approximately .1% of the U. S. population, and steady each year to 2015 instead of the millions the Republican Party would suggest every year), what an illegal person in the United States has done is given birth to a child that didn’t ask for this situation to be thrust upon them. For all the care that the Republicans have with a child before it is born, you would think that they would have some concerns about it afterwards.

Now, to answer the question…what happened to Roxette?

In the late 1980s, one of pop music’s catchier bands was the Swedish group Roxette. The twosome who made up the group, Marie Fredriksson and Per Gessle, were hailed as the second coming of ABBA while they delivered such memorable pop bubblegum as “The Look,” “Joyride,” “Dangerous” and “It Must Have Been Love.” In the United States, the band was popular but was difficult to put into the nice little cubbyholes that radio likes for its artists.

After the release of 1991’s Joyride, things went downhill for the band. Caught by the tidal waves that were the grunge phenomenon and rap music, Fredriksson and Gessle took a break in the mid-1990s that turned out to be longer than they wanted. After recording two records in 1999 and 2001, Fredriksson was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2002 that saw Roxette shut down operations again. They would remain inactive until 2009, when Fredriksson had recovered enough to take the stage once again beside Gessle.

Roxette celebrated the 25^th Anniversary of “The Look” (perhaps the song they are best known for), with a remix of the song with Swedish producers Addeboy vs Cliff in 2014 and a new album expected from the group by the end of this year. Gessle, now 56, and Fredriksson, now 52, continue to perform live in Europe, but currently there are no plans for the duo to return to the United States to attempt to recapture the magic.

Are We Seriously Considering Donald Trump for POTUS?

Aug21

I’ve tried to hold off of this one for quite some time. It seems that the mainstream media (and read that as the major television networks of ABC, CBS and NBC while adding in CNN, MSNBC and Fox News) has been all over the Presidential campaign of billionaire Donald Trump. Yes, the man who used to come into your living rooms with the television reality show The Apprentice…the man who came online with something called “Trump University” that apparently taught you how to be just like him in the business world (and which has brought about as many lawsuits as “students” it educated)…the man whom the comb over (or a traditional hair color) seems to have bypassed. As such, I had held out on doing ANYTHING closely resembling giving Trump any more attention.

But it’s gotten to be a bit much, especially after reading the papers of late.

When the campaigns opened up on both sides of the aisle for the President of the United States in 2016, we all knew it was going to be an ugly situation. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton had taken her beating in 2008 – and her subsequent stint as Secretary of State for the man who beat her, Barack Obama – like a good little soldier and seemed a shoo-in for the Dems (quite honestly, something the GOP used to do all the time). Then, like the cherry blossoms along the Potomac, there were the perennial grudges brought up about Clinton by her opponents, which brought Bernie Sanders – your crazy uncle who happens to have a seat in the U. S. Senate – out of the woodwork. Throw in former Governors Lincoln Chaffee and Martin O’Malley and former Senator Jim Webb and you have a veritable “Who?” of the former Secretary of State’s opponents.

The GOP, though, is the crème of the crop. The “Clown Car,” the “Buffoon Bus,” or the “respected statesmen and businesswoman who may be the future leader of our nation” came to the forefront. After getting crushed twice by the Black Man Who Shall Not Be Named, the GOP decided to throw the door open and let the “Crazy Carousel” spin around and let more individuals leap into the fire. What they didn’t plan on, though, was the public getting behind one of the offbeat members that hopped on the ride.

On June 16, Trump entered the race for the Republican Party’s nominee as President in 2016 and immediately set himself apart from the field. The usual term you would use is “distinguished” himself from the field, but there is little about Donald Trump that is distinguished. As we all know by now, Trump made his infamous comments about how the truckloads of Mexicans that are violating our borders illegally are here to rape our White Women and bring drugs to little Suzie and Bobby, something that might have been a part of Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles but was too unbelievable to make the final cut in that classic film.

In the past, that would have been enough to push whatever candidate uttered those inept lines into the catacombs of history, if not a little white room with a special suit that had arms that tied in the back and a sedative drip in the carotid artery. Because it was DONALD TRUMP, however, it attracted attention from those who have been searching for someone who could say what they wanted to say but couldn’t say it because they might have to answer for it. Since then, the commentary has become even more ludicrous.

Trump would then go on to deride those who he believes aren’t “war heroes,” priceless information from a man who used every bit of his Daddy’s money to ensure that he didn’t get drafted during the Vietnam War. The expected outrage over that didn’t materialize because the person he was talking about, 2008 Republican Presidential nominee and the senior Senator from Arizona John McCain, adhered to former President Ronald Reagan’s 11^th Commandment and didn’t kick up a fuss over the situation. Moving on, Trump dismissed pretty much everyone who has come within radius of his campaign as “idiots,” “stupid,” “imbeciles,” or, worse yet, suggest that they “crucified” him during a debate with questions because the moderator was on her menstrual cycle. If you listen to Trump, the entirety of the U. S. is the most ignorant species in existence…except for HIM, because he’s going to BRING THE THUNDER against our allies and enemies and “make America great again.”

To this point, none of these things have slowed the Trump bandwagon down. My final point here should, however, end any hope for his candidacy with the GOP and, if they are insane enough to go ahead and nominate him, earn him and them a crushing defeat in the general election. Trust me, however, I’m not holding my breath on Trump ending his candidacy anytime soon.

The Boston Globe reported on Wednesday the attack of a Hispanic homeless man by two South Boston brothers. According to police reports, Scott and Steve Leader were on their way home from a Red Sox game when they happened across the Hispanic man sleeping on the street near a bus stop. The report states the brothers “urinated on the man’s face and then started rummaging through his belongings.” Once the Hispanic man woke up, the brothers then allegedly beat him with a lead pipe and kicked him in the torso, requiring hospitalization for a broken nose and bruised ribs.

Scott Leader, after being apprehended, told the police it was “OK to assault the man because he was Hispanic and homeless.” “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported,” he allegedly told the police. His brother Steve showed his displeasure with the arrest by pissing on the cell door and both brothers allegedly threatened the law enforcement individuals who processed them. Currently the twosome are in a Boston jail being held without bail.

What was Trump’s reaction to these fine examples of Boston manhood? “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,” he remarked. “They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.”

All I can say, after everything said previously, is…are we seriously considering Donald Trump to lead this country?

	What IS ‘Rock… on Artists That SHOULD Be in the…
	Earl Burton on Why Record Store Day Means Not…
	Casper on Why the Rock & Roll Hall o…
	Casper on Why the Rock & Roll Hall o…
	Casper on Why the Rock & Roll Hall o…

Earl Burton

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Category Archives: Politics