Monday, March 25, 2013

A Sensible Solution: Same-sex Sarriages

Mon. March 25, 2013:





Dear Readers, most of you will disagree with me on this point.
My own family disagrees with me, saying, What difference does it make?

But for people used to words' rarefied meanings, a USA Today reader finally pus words to
a conservative conviction on "marriage" with which I have agreed & bored anyone who would listen.

Here it is:

"I'm all for same-sex couples having all the same benefits that a traditional married couple does, and on a federal level.  Just don't call it 'marriage' because it's not.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  Coin a new word for 'same-sex marriage.'  [I've long suggested 'garriage,' but maybe 'sarriage' -- as in same-sex -- would be more appropriate].  I'm not for the random changing of the definition of words in the dictionary."
                                                                   -- Kelly Nelson

Would "sarriage" be stigmatizing?  If a gay couple is proud enough of who they are to tie the knot,
what is there in Sarriage to be ashamed of?!

Monday, March 18, 2013

Unusual Outrage, After A Krugman Article

Mon. March 18, 2013:



Maybe I've been sucked in, to agree about a "deficit crisis."
What interests me here is NOT Krugman's point about the press failing to challenge entry into the Iraq 
war 10 years ago this week -- although now it does appear to be true.

What is really fascinating is the pent-up rage of reactions in the spool of emails right afterwards.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/krugman-marches-of-folly.html?ref=todayspaper

And this time, each email reaction gets a thumbs-up from huge numbers of readers -- agreeing that our whole system is coopted by phony consensus-mongers.
You'll note that one of the emails agrees with you, that every elected official should get voted out.
These protests do not spare Obama, or PBS.
It may help explain why Ron Paul has such appeal, sometimes on-target, sometimes off-target.  Some of the frustrateds see nowhere else to turn.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

This Judge Is OK for Both Libs & Neo-Cons

Sat. March 16, 2013:

Dear Readers, ignore the violins & chest-thumping.  Otherwise, this Judge has a few things we can all agree on:
_________________________________________________________________________________





Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?

Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,' defiantly
stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.'

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not-----, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 

'You're no big deal. '

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I                know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.


                                  U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WILLIAM G. YOUNG

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Brazil Uses Sex to Win Gun Control

Tues. March 12, 2013:

Who knew!

Sexual shame finally won gun control in Brazil.  Here is an interview with a leader of Brazil's successful gun control drive:




Q: But you also tried to stigmatize guns, even identifying them as a symbol of masculine insecurity. A popular actress equated gun possession with "a little problem" -- insinuating that men are attracted to guns in order to compensate for sexual inadequacy.
A: The use of guns is basically a male problem. In our societies, men subscribe to the old model of "warrior men" and to rural customs characterized by the use of force to solve problems. Movies keep alive the old macho model of masculinity. This backward tradition is reinforced by men's feelings of impotence in a hypercompetitive society. If they also have sexual insecurities, guns can make them feel stronger, more potent; with a gun, they will not be "naked."
One of our most successful media campaigns ironically associated sexual insecurity with the glorification of guns. Pretty and popular actresses said, "Good lovers don't need a gun." We deconstructed machismo, using the slogan "Choose Gun Free! It's Your Weapon or Me!" Young people loved it.
We also found that most men who handed in their guns had been influenced by women (mother, grandmother, lover). So we launched another movement, under the slogan "Mothers, Disarm your Sons!" These were specific actions to attenuate the devastating influence of the culture of violence disseminated though movies, TV and video games produced in your country.


Saturday, March 9, 2013

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: Mr. Gridlock

Sat. March 9, 2013:        {PART II}



Gentle Souls, all along we blamed Washington's obvious a**holes -- Obama, Boehner, McConnell.
But now the New Yorker's widely respected political reporter, Ryan Lizza, has researched where the real blame for dysfunction lies.


                                                         The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza
_________________________________________________________________________________


[Spoiler Alert:  Like many of the best New Yorker articles over the years, this runs 11 pages.  (See below, for the full article).
But political junkies will find it a fascinating window into how Capitol Hill works, and therefore doesn't work.]


 
Eric Cantor, the GOP's House Majority Leader from Virginia, is clearly a gifted guy.  And, he is a genuine sweetheart to his Mother-in-Law.
But if we can believe this well-respected "centrist" writer Ryan Lizza, Cantor has done more than any other single guy to make Capitol Hill so hateful to us.

As Lizza puts it:  
"A poll in January 2013 deemed Congress less popular than cockroaches, head lice, and colonoscopies (although it did beat out the Kardashians, North Korea, and the Ebola virus)."

Worst of all:  In Nov. 2011, Boehner & Obama actually demonstrated excellent leadership, and were a phone call away from "I Do" on their huge fiscal Grand Bargain.  
And then, 
Eric Cantor -- the floor manager of the House -- decided to wreck it, because he didn't want to hand Obama any legislative "victory" for the 2012 Election.
Never mind what the country needed.


                          (The American Flag, standing next to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor)



Truly despicable, if true.  And Cantor quietly acknowledged to Lizza that it was true.

Lizza:

"As Obama waited by the phone for a response from the Speaker, Cantor struck.  
Cantor told me that it was a 'fair assessment' that he talked Boehner out of accepting Obama's deal . . . Why give Obama an enormous political victory . . . ?" 

For a remarkable ride through the political corridors of Washington, here's the whole piece:










Why USA Can't Ever Do Real Gun Control

Sat. March 9, 2013:


Dear Worthies, failure on Capitol Hill over gun control finally gets explained.
Gail Collins, as always, gets it, as in her NYT column today.
But here, an obscure Illinois state legislator solves the riddle bigtime:



http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/27/illinois-representative-compares-gun-control-to-castration/


                                                   Illinois State Legislator Joe Sacia





Tuesday, March 5, 2013

But, "Can We Trust Mother Jones?," You Ask

Tues. March 5, 2013:

The following viral video is based on what conservatives would say is a suspect source
-- Mother Jones magazine.

Still, if it is anywhere near the truth, would this convince Tea Party folks that they MAY be voting against their own interests?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/04/watch-video-on-wealth-inequality-in-the-u-s/







Saturday, March 2, 2013

Bug Eating, Bulgarian Volleyball, and Dinosaurs

Sat. March 2, 2013:

Dear Readers, this potpourri comes to you from Ft. Myers, Florida, where it is cold & gray.


1.  From West Palm Beach, across the state, comes this gem:

Choking Ruled in Death of Bug Eater


An autopsy released Monday showed that a man who died after winning an insect-eating contest choked to death after downing dozes of live roaches . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/us/florida-choking-ruled-in-death-of-bug-eater.html?_r=0


2.  From Bulgaria:

Unruly Fans End a Match in Bulgaria


A volleyball match between host Levski Sofia of Bulgaria and Olympiakos of Greece was abandoned after home fans threw flares and other objects onto the court.  "I've never seen anything like this," the Olympiakos spiker Boyan Yordanov said.  "They threw beer cans and even a bottle of vodka at us."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/sports/unruly-fans-end-a-match-in-bulgaria.html


3.  From the USA's Brilliant Public:

Humans and Dinosaurs

Did they coexist?  The Flintstones cartoon suggests yes.  So did GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, in a remark made weeks ago.
Should we dig deeper?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/opinion/humans-and-dinosaurs.html?_r=0