It’s interesting that even the most liberal bloggers are ignoring the major non-news story of the weekend, specifically that Hilary Clinton has announced her presidential exploratory committee. It’s non-news because, well, we expected it. The funny thing is that her hand was forced by the early entry of Barack Obama. Now the two announced Democratic candidates share the dubious distinction of simultaneously being the two frontrunners and the two least-likely-to-be-elected people in the country.

This is partially a commentary on the lack of social progress of the American voting public, partially a commentary on the lack of political acumen of the Democratic leadership, partially a commentary on the lack of likeability of both Obama and Clinton.

1. This country will not elect a black Democrat to be President. Period. It’s too easy to play on the fears of the prejudiced American public to marginalize the candidate as an anti-white crusader or a pro-black activist. A black Republican (Colin Powell, Condi Rice, maybe even JC Watts wayyyyy far down the line) has a much better chance at being considered as a centrist, especially one that’s already held a prominent national cabinet position.

2. This country will not elect a woman Democrat to be President. Period. It’s too easy to play on the fears of the misogynistic American public to marginalize the candidate as a man-hating, mood-swinging, menopausal harpy (like Hilary is already considered by more than half the country). A woman Republican (Condi Rice) has a much better chance at being considered as a centrist.

3. For now, Obama is the golden child of the media. His pre-emptive strike on the presumptive Clinton candidacy was slick and savvy… for a candidate. But it’s gonna hurt him in the long run, because it put him out front too early. He effectively is giving the muckrakers a six-month head start on creating a negative image for him, something that can only hurt as he attempts to create a national persona. It was premature and rash to announce so early, but he needed to start the fundraising asap to counter the Hilary machine.

Shit will start leaking out from the Obama camp; wait and see. You’ll still be hard-pressed to find many people who know what this guy stands for. It’s only a matter of time before someone finds a skeleton. And since he doesn’t have a historical image to fall back on, the skeleton will become his persona.

We all know Hilary. And many hate her. The single most polarizing figure in American politics today. Is she qualified? Oddly, I would say "yes". Is she electable? Hell no.

So I see that al-Qaeda has designated the “replacement” for Zarqawi, some guy named Hamza al-Muhajer. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall for that selection process?

HR rep: I see here that you’ve been a lieutenant in the fight against the non-believers. How do you feel that prepared you for this position?

Hamza: Well, I had extensive experience torturing kidnapped civilians, as well as some work organizing roadside bombings against the American occupation forces. In my last position, I also developed a system for connecting spider holes for easy access and easy escape.

HR rep: I see. I notice that there is a gap on your resume of a few months last year. Can you explain that?

Hamza: Well, I was detained by the American aggressors briefly. Once I was released, I immediately sought out new work as an explosives distributor. I felt it was important to add to my sales and finance skills to better run a large terrorist organization.

HR rep: That sounds great. Can you tell me about a time where you faced some resistance to one of your ideas, and how you handled it?

Hamza: Oh, I ran into that all the time in smaller terrorist cells. Everyone was trying to suggest good targets for suicide bombings, and even though I had more strategic locations in mind, I let them go ahead with their targets. After all, after their ideas were accepted and they got to attack their targets, they were dead anyway and couldn’t argue with me anymore. I’ve always found that leading a terrorist organization often means allowing internal opposition to blow themselves up. Eventually, you’ll be in charge. It’s all about patience, really.

HR rep: Would you mind if we contacted some of your previous organizations?

Hamza: Most are dead. I suppose you could, if you could find their spider holes. Like I said, I designed a pretty elaborate network.

HR rep: Before we finish, do you have any questions for me about the position?

Hamza: Well, I heard about what happened to Zarqawi… what changes are you expecting to make internally? I mean, I don’t want to take the job just before you decide to have layoffs, or, excuse me, “downsizing”. [chuckle]

HR rep: As you can imagine, I can’t discuss our future plans. Suffice to say, we will have a need for a manager as long as the imperialist dogs from America soil our land.

Hamza: [rising from seat] I’m glad to hear that. I’m still very interested in the position, and I’m anxious to hear back from you soon.

HR rep: Thanks for coming in on such short notice, and I’ll be back in touch with you in a couple of days. [standing and extending hand]. Oh, and death to America.

Hamza: [shaking hands with HR rep] Thank you for the opportunity. And death to America.

Choose your own adventure...

We’re gonna play a little hypothetical game now… You’ve just been elected the leader of a country; let’s call it “Capitalistia” Now, Capitalistia is a nice country filled with good people who mind their own business and, for the most part, just want to be left alone. As a country, Capitalistiacs tend to think that their way of doing things is the best way, and strive to teach other countries the Capitalistiac ways.

After some threats from a much smaller country of religious fanatics; let’s call it “Terroristia”, a group of Terroristiacs blow up some big buildings in Capitalistia, killing thousands.

What do you do?

A. Immediately declare war on all Terroristiacs, whether or not they participated in the bombing. After all, it’s their fault for allowing Terroristiacs to flourish in their country.
B. Immediately call for an international peace conference, at which the Terroristiacs control the agenda by threatening other countries with similar violence, all the while trying to build more bombs to blow up more Capitalistiac buildings and people.
C. Immediately target ONE loudmouthed Terroristiac leader, who may or may not have had any prior knowledge of the bombing plans. After all, it’ll show the Terroristiacs that we mean business when we depose the biggest bully on the block, especially if he’s the same bully who threatened your dad.
D. Immediately call for an international military action, ignoring the fact that the Terroristiacs will scare the other countries by threatening them with similar violence, and it won’t stop the Terroristiacs from doing it again to you.
E. Immediately target the PRECISE Terroristiac leader who ordered the bombing and warn other Terroristiacs that they’ll be targeted if they don’t help.

If there are other options, I’m not sure what they are. If you chose A, C, and D, congratulations, you’re George W. Bush and you’re stuck in a no-win, military quagmire in a remote land and no allies. If you chose B and D, congratulations, you’re John Kerry and the international coalition you hoped to build never materialized due to the spinelessness of most of Europe, Israel is basically blown to oblivion, and Iraq/Iran have nuclear weapons.

If you said E, congratulations, you’re a reasonably logical person with 20/20 hindsight, and we have NFI whether that would have been the best solution. All we know is that Bush made the wrong choice, Kerry advocated the wrong choice, and Congress/Europe is too partisan and pissy to help.

In other words, what would you have done? Bonus points for using the terms “bomb them back to the Stone Age” and/or “middle eastern nuclear winter”

Off with their heads!

After living in California for over forty years, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me when an activist judge imposes himself upon a voter-mandated penalty. And I have to give this judge props for his ingenuity in at least figuring out a NEW loophole for the bleeding hearts to prolong a pointless life against the public’s wishes and mandates. After all, the whole “cruel and unusual punishment” argument doesn’t hold much pathos when the murderer in question tortured and raped a young girl repeatedly before killing her.

And guess who appointed him to the federal court…? That’s right, Bill Clinton. Is anyone surprised? Considering a judge is supposed to be non-partisan, it seems a bit odd that EVERY single appeal by a death row inmate is heard and actioned by a Clinton appointee. Gee, do you think they deliberately do that? Essentially, it’s a numbers game. If you file enough appeals on various spurious grounds, at least ONE of them will make it to a liberal bench, and you can pretty much firm up those reservations for the rest of your life on the taxpayer’s dime.

OK, so my arena idea is sorta barbaric. Here’s one. Since we’re so fucking concerned about humanely ending this inhumane life, why don’t we make it as fast as possible? Gas chambers are inhumane (boo hoo), electric chairs are inhumane (boo boo hoo), lethal injections are inhumane (boo boo boo hoo)… And to a small extent (very very small), I can see some of the point. We’re not sure how much gas someone needs to inhale to die, we’re not sure how much electricity it takes to kill the whole body, we’re not sure how much pain they might feel from the lethal overdose.

So bring out the guillotine! I can pretty well guarantee that if the guy’s head is rolling around a couple of yards away from his body that he’s dead. Not only that, but a nice sharp heavy blade, and the fucker won’t know what hit him. Problem solved. Quick.

The Great One?

Who is worse, Gretzky or Rose?

If you had asked me this three days ago, I would’ve stared blankly at you, like Tara Reid deciphering a slide rule. Gretzky was the most prolific scorer in hockey history, and widely considered to be one of the nicest guys around, cleaner than AC Green’s bedsheets. Rose was the most prolific hitter in baseball history, and widely considered to be one of the most arrogant pricks around, dirtier than Wilt Chamberlain’s bedsheets.

My, my, how times have changed.

So I ask you now, who is worse, a compulsive gambler or a bookie? Certainly, Pete Rose’s personality hurts him here. He’s not just a compulsive (and bad) gambler. He’s an ass and a greedy one at that, so he can hardly be painted as a wronged victim. He felt his gambling addiction (by the way, apparently still in full bloom) was above the rules of the game, certainly he felt that he was above Bowie Kuhn. The funny thing is that I think people would have gotten past the gambling-on-baseball issue long ago if Rose hadn’t been so pugnacious and obstinate about his “innocence”.

But a bookie is essentially a parasite, feeding off of the addictions of others. So who is the bad guy, the organized crime boss who controls the media and runs the numbers game, or the asshole scumbag who gambles away his money and his career? While Gretzky may not have actually booked the bets, he certainly seems to have known about the bookmaking activity and tacitly condoned it. And then lied about it. Multiple times. Hell, his wife was the biggest customer. Wouldn’t it be ironic if we found out that Pete Rose booked bets through Rick Tocchet? Whose side would you be on then?

And enough about Janet Jones being “hot”. That train left the station years ago. In fact, check out “A Chorus Line” again. (Yeah, I own it. Charlie “I can do that” McGowan lived around the corner from me when I was a kid. I’m not gay. Honest.) She had a nice body, but her face was heavily lined twenty-five years ago. And she was a terrible actress. Apparently, she’s just as good at gambling.

Gretzky’s fall will be much more precipitous because he HAD our trust. We believed him. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes Tocchet to roll over on him and tag “The Great One” as the Puckfather, the great and powerful Gretz. Pay no attention to the 99 behind the curtain. All those Lady Byng trophies for sportsmanship and gentlemanly behavior (or behaviour)? On Ebay.

And Pete Rose still doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. Just because some other guy proves to be a scumbag too doesn’t diminish the dirt on Pete.

The needs of the many

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…”

“Or the one.”

Yeah, I’m a geek, so what?

Anyway, we’re already starting to hear the bleats of the lambs lamenting the death of Rigoberto Alpizar.  His wife is saying that he was bipolar and hadn’t taken his meds.  The press is harping on the fact that he didn’t actually have a bomb like he claimed.  It’s only a matter of time before the knee-jerk bleeding hearts start calling for the disarming of the air marshals.

The air marshals did their job.  If the intelligence teams in the Middle East did their job as well, we probably wouldn’t be stuck in the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan.  As a matter of fact, I feel more confident in our national security (as least as it relates to air travel) than I have in four years since 9/11.  

Let’s check the facts here.

• It’s a flight from Colombia (Yellow flag!)


• A clearly agitated man has a backpack (Red flag alert!)


• He runs up and down the aisle claiming to have a bomb (Double Red Flag!!)


• Air marshals identify themselves and pursue the man


• They tell the man to drop the backpack


• The man reaches into the backpack where he claims to have a bomb


• The air marshals drill the guy between five and six times, killing him

So, what’s the problem with the behavior of the marshals?  I don’t see any.  In fact, these guys should be rewarded for bravery and heroism.  After all, IF the guy really had a bomb like he claimed, surely they were risking their lives by confronting him.  Even something as small as a hand grenade could have taken them out at that distance.  They easily could have shrunk into the corner and pretended to be regular passengers and taken cover behind a really fat dude or hidden in the lavatory.  Instead, they confronted the threat, and diffused it with no harm to innocent passengers, civilians, or even property.

Good, good, good.

And this will surely end all of that airport banter about bombs and guns and weapons.  Remember how people used to joke about carrying weapons onto planes, just to piss off the 70-year old Filipino “security” guard?  Um, that’ll stop now that people know that deadly force will be used to ELIMINATE any threat to public security.

Of course, it’s only a matter of time before the ACLU will leap aboard this and try to claim that the man somehow had the right to threaten the lives of the other passengers without being shot multiple times.  The allegation that he was mentally ill should have absolutely no bearing on anything, but somehow he’ll be portrayed as a tragic figure.  Well, as long as bipolar people don’t run around with backpacks and claim to have a bomb, they probably won’t be shot.  

Sigh.

Let me be one of the first to say this, THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE AIR MARSHALS EVERYWHERE!  YOU GUYS ARE ALL HEROES IN MY BOOK!

1000!

Sometime within the next 30 days, it’s likely that we will have the 1000th execution in the United States since the capital punishment law was passed in 1977.

Good.

But not good enough.

We still have thousands and thousands of murderers and rapists awaiting their legally resolved penalties, getting three square meals, free cable TV, and free access to weights and gym equipment for which most of us pay $40/month.

Why?

Because the legal system allows dozens of appeals?  Partially.  But  not inmates have appeals still in process…

Because liberal judges keep issuing dubious stays of execution for primarily ideological reasons?  Partially.  But those are usually desperation stays reserved for the last couple of days prior to the scheduled date…

So why?

Because the Death Penalty shows a side that Americans hate to reveal about themselves, that vindication and retribution is something that we believe in, but are uncomfortable about.  Because when it comes down to it, we’re just a bunch of hypocrites, voting for a system of punishment, but unwilling to see it through.

Yeah, that’s it.

Well, I ain’t a hypocrite.  The people on Death Row are murderers.  Every single one of them.  The 999 prisoners that were executed have never killed again.  Since they were executed;

• They haven’t stabbed anyone during a prison riot


• They haven’t kidnapped or raped innocent children


• They haven’t beaten or shot their spouses

In fact, I feel confident that they will never commit another crime.  Now that they’re DEAD.

And after all, that is the goal.  Law-abiding citizens (and non-violent criminals, for that matter) just want to be safe and not have to worry about the predators that may lurk among us.  If a zoo animal goes nuts and kills a patron, do we hospitalize it?  No, we euthanize it.  Why?  Because it might kill someone else…  

Now, if a person goes nuts and kills a neighbor, do we euthanize him/her?  Remember, this is a thinking beast, certainly capable of killing again.  Possibly more dangerous than the zoo animal, given the wide variety of tools and weapons that are in the arsenal.  But instead, we give the murderer legal chances to obscure the circumstances surrounding the murder.  Most appeals aren’t based on innocence or guilt, that ship sailed long ago.  Instead, the appeals are based on court procedures or legal interpretations.  Most aren’t even claiming innocence.  Some have admitted guilt long ago.

Yet I still pay taxes to incarcerate these people.  Why?  If I choose not to keep them alive, why not just tax the liberals who insist on letting them live?

Simple solution #1 – Offer $250K to each Death Row inmate to renounce his appeals and step into the gas chamber (or electric chair or lethal injection) voluntarily.  Some are probably sick of the prison life anyway.  In exchange, we will give $250K to whomever they choose.  Some of these people have family that they would want to have the money, some might want to pay off some debt.  Even if only a few dozen take the offer, taxpayers are saving money AND we’re giving the inmates a way out.

Simple solution #2 – Two prisoners per cell.  One meal.  The problem will work itself out.

Simple solution #3 – Arena.  I’ve talked about his earlier.

Simple solution #4 – During the appeal process, the inmate should be on house arrest…  at his attorney’s house.  We’ll see how many of these camera-hungry ambulance chasers really think their client is rehabilitated…

Simple solution #5 – If a judge issues a stay, the inmate should be on house arrest…  at the judge’s house.  We’ll see how many of these bleeding heart, politically motivated judges really think the inmate was mistreated.

Simple solution #6 – Did you ever see the Dirty Dozen?  Surely there are some missions in the Middle East that could be well handled by a few select murderers….

Simple solution #7 – Organlegging.  If you don’t know what that is, you need to read more.

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design?  

OK, I’m gonna channel Hubie Brown here…  

Let me get this straight…  You’re trying to explain the existence of the universe.  You have scientists who are smarter than you disagreeing about the evolutionary process, so you come up with a theory about a divine being that doesn’t need any scientific theories because it’s all based on faith.  To make it seem more logical, you call it “Intelligent Design”.  Well, by definition, anyone who disagrees with it must be UN-intelligent.  I see tons of upside to this theory.  Nothing but upside.

Back to Earth now…

I’ve always had SOME issues with scientific explanations to cosmic timeframes.  I mean, Carbon-14 dating might say that a rock is five billion years old… but how do we know that it really is that old?  Suppose the rock is only two thousand years old?  We have no way to verify it unless some papyrus was kept with the rock since the beginning of recorded history.  We’re only making guesses as to the half-life of Carbon in our own little cosmic window.  So “science” has tenuous threads running all through the theories that have been presented as “facts” for a long time.

But that doesn’t suddenly re-introduce the “Creator” as the best solution to these threads…  After all, where did the Creator come from?  And where did he get his ideas?  Does he wear clothes?  If not, what made him think of them?  Why would he make someone like Terrell Owens?  Face it, any theory that cannot be proved or disproved isn’t a theory, it’s a statement of faith at best, a wild guess at worst.  To have it taught in public schools is like questioning the periodic table.  Why is hydrogen first?  I don’t understand the science behind the periodic table, so it mustn’t be true.  Someone else must have “designed” it.  Like a God.

These ID adherents probably believe that “Capricorn One” was a documentary too.

Please.  If you don’t understand something, that doesn’t automatically make it God’s will.  And if you understand something, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.  If God meant for us to teach it in school, he would’ve made us all Catholic.

Election Review

The average American voter is an uninformed boob.

I’ve said it many times, and many times I’ve been proven right.

The average American voter gets his information from television or the newspaper, a wholly passive exercise that depends on the media being non-partisan and unbiased.

Hah!

Congratulations to the Unions who recognize this basic fact, and use it to their advantage… and everyone else’s detriment.

Congratulations to the Gerrymanderers (read: liberals in power) who taught Arnold a lesson on manipulating the media and controlling the uninformed boobs.

I’m not a right-wing stooge.  I voted against some planks in Arnold’s platform, feeling that they were TOO conservative and/or restrictive for my moderate tastes.  Basically, I voted with the thinking moderates who were overwhelmed by many groups:

1. The thinking left – Obviously, California is under the control of these whack jobs, who orchestrated a brilliant scare campaign to sour the voters on legitimate reform issues, and managed to secure the status quo.  Unions fall here.   After all, who is more socialist than a union?

2. The unthinking left – These are the Berkeley bozos who will vote anti-Republican and pro-union no matter what.  They won’t read the initiatives, they won’t consider the pros or cons of a given proposition… if Arnold is for it, they’re against it.

3. The unthinking moderates – Most of the people probably fall here.  They THINK they know what the proposition is addressing, but since they heard it on television, they’re probably wrong.  For example, Prop 77 should have passed overwhelmingly.  It takes district boundaries AWAY from the Legislature, a logical check/balance issue given the bizarre Gerrymandered districts that have evolved through the years.  The thinking left fired multiple commercials about “retired judges” and “legal maneuvers” and scared the television-watching drones into voting down a reasonable law.  Same with Prop 75 which would have stripped many unions of their massive political clout, a good thing if you’re not in a union (which is the vast majority of taxpayers).  But again, by outspending the competition, the union stooges managed to obscure the issue and scare the simple-minded public from actually reforming a broken system of PAC and union controls.

Now, I’m in the middle class of California, which means that the status quo isn’t necessarily a bad thing to me.  I’m not the target of the left, so my money, while misspent and overtaxed, isn’t at risk of being completely stripped away.  Nor am I a target of the right, so my political clout isn’t being threatened by campaign reforms or spending limits.  No, I’m simply trying to improve my chances to succeed.  And my children’s chances.  And their children’s.  Meanwhile, the liberals are trying to fortify their positions, and the conservatives are trying to break down the walls.  And until the middle gets our collective shit together, we’re gonna be the ones who get squeezed.

Scotus

Nice to see that the religious right can be just as stupid and dogmatic as the ultra-liberal left.  Poor Harriet Miers.  By most accounts, a decent and thoughtful woman, wholly unqualified for the position she was nominated for, but who would turn it an offer to be on the Supreme Court?  And the bible-thumping whackos chase her out like she was some sort of defendant treading water in Salem.

Why?  Because you’re not sure about her views on abortion and/or school prayer?  Speaking somewhat idealistically, no justice should have a definable view.  Any cases brought before the SCOTUS should be judged on their own merits and the merits of the presiding judge’s actions, not on some prejudicial lightning rod issue.  Granted, you could look at most nominated judges to see their past decisions on Constitutional issues (states rights, judicial review, Bill of Rights stuff, etc.), but even then, any decisions should have been based upon the individual cases.  Basing your confirmation vote on past decisions is somewhat like picking stocks.  “Remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.”

And the individual scrutiny in this age of Internet and media advocacy adds multiple layers of complexity to the process.  Can you imagine Justice Whizzer White being nominated today?  He played pro football, for god’s sake.  Don’t you think there might have been a FEW groupie stories that might have come from the University of Colorado?  Don’t you think that someone would make one up, if there weren’t any real ones?

Get real, folks.  Traditionalists will say that this is the best way to do it, that it’s worked for a couple of hundred years.  Checks and balances and all that.  Fine…, it’s different now.  To argue otherwise is just plain stupid.  There are far too many checks and far too few balances.  When the scale is so skewed that Congress is openly staking out positions on past court decisions as a basis for confirmation, we’ve given the Legislative branch far too much say in the process.  

How about this?  The President must nominate a block of three candidates that either presided over a trial that became a Supreme Court case or argued a case in front of the Supreme Court.  Think of this as being the basic resume qualification to be a SCOTUS Justice.  Each Representative must then vote for ONE, but can select “None of the Above”.  If None of the Above is one of the top two vote getters, the entire slate gets chucked and the Pres has to pick a new block.  Think about it, you’ll almost never get a fringe candidate, most would have to be somewhat centrist to garner enough votes from the House to make the top two.  The President wouldn’t even bother putting up a block of similar candidates because all of them could get eliminated.  The people would win over the idealogues.  For a change.

Well, duh....

You are a Social Moderate (56% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (70% permissive) You are best described as a: Capitalist Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Am I the only one who sees this?

Military Humor

The elderly American gentleman arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he fumbled for his passport. "You 'ave been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically. The old gent admitted that he had been to France previously.

"Zen, you should know enough to 'ave your passport ready for inspection"

The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."

"Impossible. You Americans alwayz 'ave to show your passports on arrival in France!"

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. "Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in '44, I couldn't find any Frenchmen to show it to."

Job

Sometimes, my job really pisses me off.  I’m a Training Manager/Consultant/Specialist, depending on who you ask.  Most around here consider me the Training Manager, mainly because I’m the only sap in this organization who has the word “Training” in my title, so they automatically confer manager status.  Technically, I’m a Training Specialist, at least according to my business card.  Hell, they could call me Toilet King, as long as the paycheck is auto-deposited.

Anyway, we have some auditor types poking around here, either for SOX or ISO or some other acronymically identified company or regulation.  Every time someone is missing some job-related documentation, the assclown managers around here say ‘Go to Todd, he has the training stuff.”, like I’m the all-encompassing repository of all documentation.  The reality is that most of these managers wouldn’t know training if it smacked them in the cranium, and like to use training as the scapegoat for all troubles.  Salesperson is below quota?  Not enough training.  Customer Service treats a customer like shit.  Bad training.  Vending machine runs out of Diet Pepsi.  Must need more training…

I’m not gonna throw out the old “if you held a gun to their head, could they do it” argument.  At least not yet.  How about this one?  If I offered them a million dollars to do everything exactly the way they’ve been told, COULD they do it?  If yes, then it isn’t a training issue, it’s a motivational issue.  For example, each salesperson is required to submit call reports via an online sales force automation tool.  They were all trained and all passed the assessment and did their call reports for a couple of months.  Now some have stopped doing them, claiming that they “didn’t get enough training”.  Listen, dipwad, if you did it correctly ONCE, it’s not a training issue.  If you did it correctly for months, it really really isn’t a training issue.  I would guess if you were offered 10x your salary to do call reports, you would do more call reports than the rest of the company combined.  That’s motivation, not training.

Balance of Power

Balance of Power

No, not the Star Trek episode, though I’ll give points to those who recognize the title.  IMO, the best single episode.

Anyway, I’m referring to the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of government.  Apparently, Senators aren’t happy with their 1/3 of the pie and want to dictate the Judicial side as well.  Asking direct questions regarding specific cases is comparable to choosing referees for the Super Bowl based on their favorite teams.  Asking those questions and criticizing the likely future Chief Justice while knowing that confirmation is a foregone conclusion just to get some political equity and television facetime is pathetic.  

Listen, whether any of the branches choose to admit it, we’re going through a crisis of confidence in the system of government.  I’m not one (media) to point fingers (media) at who’s to blame (media), but this crisis is primarily due to the litany of muckraking and rabble-rousing from several sources (media).  I almost guarantee you that the majority of these “journalists” came from the generation that read and/or watched “All the President’s Men” and are desperately searching for their own Woodward/Bernstein moment in the sun.

C’mon, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to INTERPRET the law, and decide whether the law/decision from the lower court is consistent with Constitutional law.  They’re not supposed to make laws and, no matter what the ignorant talking heads on TV say, they never have.  Now they’ve struck down laws, they’ve upheld laws, they’ve ignored appeals that would have struck down or upheld laws…  But they’ve never taken a pen (or typewriter or computer) and written a law.  Some legislative clerk had to do that..

So, to both sides of the aisle… take your litmus test questions and stick ‘em in your briefs.  Roberts is smarter than you, and seems like a decent, thoughtful jurist.  And you senatorial hand-wringers are the ones looking like idealogues.

Headline

Headline on Yahoo News: Hurricane Center may run out of names

Why not get more detailed?  Like Hurricane Pickupyourshitandgetoutoftown or Hurricane Dontdeserttheoldpeople or Hurricane Hangontoyourkids?

Or Hurricane Youshouldn’texpecthelpfromFEMA…?

According to SiteMeter, I have about negative-5 readers on this blog each day, which is liberating in a way. I can now use this blog as my personal graffiti, writing whatever and whenever I want, without fear of retribution or recrimination, no matter how outrageous my views may be.

For example, these idiots in Louisiana who are refusing to leave their homes and hampering rescue efforts with their pigheadedness… just shoot them with tranquilizer darts and cart them outta there like they’re livestock. I don’t understand why people are allowed to flagrantly disobey the law, and be treated like they’re making some sort of heroic stand. They’re freakin’ stupid! And it’s little consolation knowing that they’re basically living in a sewer because ultimately I’m gonna be paying for their health care when they’re dying from some bacteriological parasite.

The people I feel bad for are the elderly and the children. Many of the elderly couldn’t leave when told, some were in nursing homes, some were handicapped, some were homebound. Many didn’t have family close enough to evacuate them. I fear many of the dead will be elderly who were either trapped or incapable of leaving their homes, and not by their own choice. Similarly, children who stayed with their parents had little or no choice in the matter. Listen, if you had a car, you should’ve left, especially if you had children. Kids can’t leave on their own, they’re depending on their parents to make the smart, safe choice. And many parents didn’t, opting to risk their children’s lives to make a pointless stand.

And what’s with the flock of liberal shitheads who are trying to pin this on the President? Even the vultures at insurance companies call these situations “Acts of God”. Until W outranks God, I don’t think he’s to blame for the flooding. Now, has the federal government been completely mismanaging the relief/rescue efforts? Yes. Is the Department of Homeland Security a bunch of paper-pushing bureaucratic cubicle retards? Yes. But they didn’t break the levee. Nor did they fail to inspect the pumps that could have mitigated some of the damage. That falls squarely on the state and local governments, who were too busy trying to minimize the negative publicity (lest they damage the tourist industry which represents 99.9% of the money generated by Louisiana) to properly manage the system of levees that protected the city.

The unfortunate reality is that when you build a metropolis in a bowl-shaped valley surrounded by the Mississippi River, protected only by man-made dikes, dams, and levees, you’re asking for trouble. Especially in an area that has hurricanes, oh, every fucking year. Hello? Not a good idea unless you’re gonna spend every penny of taxpayer funds on that system of dikes, dams, and levees… and not on building a network of cathouses, saloons, and tourist traps.

And the American people have come through. Hell, we sent money to tsunami victims in Asia, we sent money to families of the victims of 9/11, we sent money to famine victims in Africa, and now we’re sending boatloads of money to the Red Cross for flood victims. Soon we’ll be sending money to our insurance companies to cover the inevitable increases in our premiums. We’re already sending more money to the oil companies who immediately hitched to the tragedy gravy train by upping gas prices. Money makes the world go around. And it makes the rest of us feel like we’ve done something to help.

In California, we live with the potential of a cataclysmic earthquake every day. No prior notification, no Weather Channel warning, no hurricane siren… nothing. Every school in California teaches an earthquake preparedness plan: water, canned food, etc. If there’s a hugemongous earthquake that cuts off water, gas, and electricity, most of us are prepared. In 1989, freeways collapsed on cars and people. Nobody sent money. Most said “Well, that’s what you get for living in California”. No warning, a mile of the freeway just dropped on top of some people. Truth be told, if given a day’s notice of such a disaster, I’d get the hell outta the Bay Area and far away from the bridges and freeways that ring it. And if I was stupid and pigheaded enough to try to stay home, I certainly wouldn’t demand that the federal government airlift me out of the area and provide me with a mega-sports complex to live in.

We have many choices in America… where we live is a huge one. Each area of the country comes with inherent tradeoffs. Horrible winter storms, blistering heat, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, monsoons… no region is exempt. If you choose to live somewhere, you’re accepting the risk. If you live on the San Andreas Fault, you should expect at least one earthquake that might level your home. If you live in Oklahoma, you should expect a tornado that wipes out your farm. If you live in Seattle, you should expect rain and mist 300 days of the year. And if you live in the Gulf region, you should expect hurricanes every year. And if you live in between a bunch of dams and levees, you should expect them to eventually break, especially you live in the Gulf region, especially if it’s hurricane season. And you should prepare accordingly. And not blame others if you didn’t prepare. It’s an ugly reality…. But it’s a reality nonetheless.

The pictures from the Gulf Coast are horrifying. The scope of devastation in that region is a sobering reminder of the power of nature. My family sends our prayers to the damaged region and the survivors, as well as money in the form of donations to the Red Cross, which is one of the few charities I actually trust to disburse the funds.

All that being said, if I were ever warned about an impending earthquake (this is California, after all) and given 12 hours to evacuate, you damn well know that I would be hundreds of miles away from the epicenter with my family, my dog, and my supplies. After the 1989 earthquake, I heard from people saying shit like “Well, that’s what you get for living in California”.

Listen, we have earthquakes all the time here. Most are small and feel like a big truck is passing by, or that a car just hit the building. We have severe damage maybe once every twenty years, and catastrophic destruction about once every century. The southeastern US has “hurricane SEASON”, an entire section of the year where hurricanes are not only common, but expected.

The smart ones are people that evacuated their homes in Louisiana and Mississippi. They lost their homes and most of their possessions. But not their lives. Why would anyone stay in the hurricane’s path? Do they somehow think that their presence would have an effect on winds of 140+ miles per hour? Leave, dammit. Homes can be rebuilt. Once you’re dead, lives cannot be resuscitated.

Now the looting has begun. Not only in the affected cities, but at every single gas pump in the country. Gas prices jumped by 10%, seemingly overnight, when the reports of refinery damage were shown. Hey, you asshole gas station owner, the price of the gas in your underground tank didn’t change. You’re just using the crude oil price jump as an excuse to jack up your pump prices despite the fact that the gas YOU ALREADY BOUGHT didn’t suddenly increase in price. So, using that same logic, the next time crude oil prices drop, your pump prices should drop immediately too. But I know they won’t, you money grubbing weasels.

Here’s hoping that the intelligent people (evacuees) get first dibs on relief, and the stubborn people who stayed against all reason don’t absorb all the money because of their more desperate situation. This’ll never happen, but I want my money to go to people who evacuated their homes and lost all their possessions, and not to people who stayed home and are living on overpasses because they refused to leave despite all warnings.

Warning: Semi-political crime rant content ahead!

• Child molesters should get automatic life sentences or death… period. Only judges with children should be allowed to preside over molestation cases, and bail should only be offered if the offender volunteers for surgical castration (which should be done anyway). Any parole will be spent at the judge’s home with his children/grandchildren. Maybe then they’ll care about the rest of the world.

• The judge in Minnesota, the prosecutor, and the public defender should all be disbarred for allowing Joseph Duncan to be freed on bail. If ANY of them had been doing their jobs, four innocent people would still be alive and a little girl wouldn’t be traumatized for life. For those of you who are arguing for the public defender, I’d like to point out that DEFENDING THE PUBLIC should be his primary consideration.

• Why is Joseph Duncan still alive anyway? Can’t we just hand him a small-caliber gun and have the entire police force go Butch Cassidy on him?

• Sending your pretty teenaged daughter to Aruba for a high-school graduation bash with a bunch of drunken, party-crazy, bar-hopping teenagers is just one step below sending your prepubescent son to Neverland Ranch.

• Anyone still want to argue that we should negotiate a solution with Islamic extremists? You must not commute on public transit… or watch the news. Last I checked, there weren’t any military personnel on the London subways that were targeted, so the chickenshit terrorists decided to blow up innocent people just trying to get to their jobs. Real brave… Y’know, if they really believed in their cause and martyrdom, they’d launch a full frontal attack on the occupation forces, rather than these covert hit-and-run tactics on innocent civilians.

“Journalistic ethics” has become an oxymoron.

Let’s say you have irrefutable information that you KNOW will result in widespread rioting and violence and the death of innocent people. Mind you, I’m talking about IRREFUTABLE evidence, like in Rodney King/Reginald Denny video taped evidence, not just hearsay from a guard or third-hand gossip or a shady MS-Word document dated 1968.

Do you publish it, knowing that it will cause chaos, violence, and death?

Why?

Put another way, if your son/daughter was studying abroad at a Middle Eastern university or your spouse was a contractor in Iraq, would you still publish it? Did your answer change?

Now let’s suppose you’re a pansy-assed, bleeding heart Euro-organization supposedly concerned with helping the oppressed, but really dedicated to supporting the rights of criminals and terrorists. And you know that screeching about the alleged mistreatment of terrorists will cause bloody unrest in an already de-stabilized part of the world. Do you shut your pie hole and protect the innocents in the de-stabilized area? Or do you throw a match into that tinder box and basically incinerate everyone left there, innocent or not?