tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30030777672329316222024-03-05T12:14:47.864-08:00Confessions of a Theater GeekA way for me to voice my thoughts on all manner of topics from Politics to pizza.ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.comBlogger333125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-20883143618350862832018-10-01T12:17:00.000-07:002019-11-27T06:10:00.726-08:00In Which I Express Some Unpopular Opinions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'm taking a huge risk by writing this post. I will express, as the title shows, some very unpopular opinions regarding the current #metoo hysteria and the Kavanaugh drama. Today's political climate has made it nearly impossible for me to express these opinions anywhere on social media because no matter how clear or concise my points are when I make them, there will always be those who take what I say to mean something different, or worse, those who take what I say and accuse ME of the very behavior of which I am speaking. That being said, I will no longer remain as silent as I have been on these issues, and so I've dusted off the old blog and have expressed those unpopular opinions here.<br />
<br />
This all started back in 2017 with the exposure of Harvey Weinstein and several other Hollywood personalities who had been committing horrific sexual crimes against other Hollywood personalities for decades, and had worked together to either ignore the events, or actively cover them up. Weinstein was, after much drama and media attention, deservedly pilloried for his behavior when several Hollywood actresses, including Alyssa Milano, Gwenyth Paltrow, Rose McGowan, and reportedly dozens of others came forward and corroborated each other's stories regarding his behavior. Weinstein has since become Persona non grata in Hollywood and has faced indictment for criminal sexual assault charges, according to the Washington Post. With the revelation of Weinstein and other Hollywood personalities engaging in such behavior, a new movement arose, christened Me Too, whose original goal was to expose such behavior within Hollywood, and encourage solidarity between victims of sexual assault using the hashtag #metoo as a rallying cry.<br />
<br />
It wasn't long before things began to spiral out of control within the ranks of Me Too. On February 10 of this year, the New York Post published an online article entitled "When the #metoo Movement Goes Too Far." Right away, I can see that some who read this may take the title of that article and immediately dismiss it as something it is not. Those who do ironically prove the actual points of this post.<br />
<br />
We have forgotten, it seems, that allegations and accusations are not proof of wrongdoing. In the age of social media, the court of public opinion appears to have taken precedence in the public mind over the court of law. In today's political climate, all it takes is for one person to accuse another of some form of sexual misconduct if they have no evidence. This has made itself known most prominently in the drama surrounding the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States.<br />
<br />
Most of you who are reading this are no doubt at least SOMEWHAT familiar with that news item, as it's been everywhere and everyone all over social media seems to have an opinion on the matter. The internet appears to <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be divided" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-36E5FFCFF5CC32592D188940BE6D74D5" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be divided</pwa> into two factions, for and against. Those who believe Kavanaugh's story claim that Ford's accusation is full of holes, and those who believe his accuser seem typically to default <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="t" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: t" data-pwa-id="pwa-785CC39EC24443C4C44A746E03FB5557" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="it">t</pwa> to the justification that we must, no matter what, believe those who claim to be survivors of sexual assault.<br />
<br />
That more than anything is the crux of the matter. Being the horrific crime that it is, we see rape as a crime that no one, supposedly, would ever lie about it. Ever. Unfortunately, the evidence for such false accusations is prominent and prevalent if you know where to look. For proof, we need only look back as far as the Duke University Lacrosse case. A decade ago, they accused three players on the Duke University LaCrosse team of raping a student. The details are all over the internet but the long and short of it is that the players <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="were eventually exonerated" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-898CA17D749FA0A21584B5D5BE1FDD57" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">were eventually exonerated</pwa><pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word=" and" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="You might need a comma before this conjunction if it joins two independent clauses. If the sentence is short and well balanced, some people choose to omit the comma, but you'll never be wrong to include it in this case." data-pwa-id="pwa-59D1CDF0E64C54A8281138B5648A0CED" data-pwa-rule-id="CC" data-pwa-suggestions=", and"> and</pwa> they found it was <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="due to" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by using: because of, for" data-pwa-id="pwa-903DF88D6E5C007CD64AD6C64F5842A1" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_3_1768" data-pwa-suggestions="because of~for">due to</pwa> misconduct and inconsistencies in the accuser's story; the players were innocent of the crime. Unfortunately, the fallout from the accusations and the media frenzy regarding the case destroyed the reputations of the players in the eyes of the public. Besides being accused of rape, we branded them racist, sexist, misogynist, and many other pejorative terms until the case finally fell off the radar years later.<br />
<br />
Fast forward ten years to #metoo, and we see the same thing happening to others that happened to the Duke players. It has gotten so bad, in fact, that people who defend those accused, <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word="whether or not" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Consider shortening this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'." data-pwa-id="pwa-43E7F5607F222729ADD8E57ECB5C4F77" data-pwa-rule-id="WHETHER" data-pwa-suggestions="whether">whether or not</pwa> that accusation is accurate, <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are pilloried" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-24C4E80278A27C2F23203871D1007FEC" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">are</pwa><pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are pilloried" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-24C4E80278A27C2F23203871D1007FEC" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions=""> pilloried</pwa> for daring to suggest that there might be two sides to a story. Lena Dunham, for example, defended a producer on her now-cancelled show "Girls" when he <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="was accused" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-D93CAF3B3C8F7D3E93AF5281934B2768" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">was accused</pwa>, and the backlash was so severe that she apologized, even though she'd done nothing except dare to suggest that a man accused of a crime might be innocent of said crime. This brings me, after much long-winded commentary and setup, to my first unpopular opinion: The #metoo movement has become a twisted mutation of itself. It has grown so far beyond its initial intentions that now it doesn't matter if a person is guilty or innocent. If we accuse them, they are to <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done pwa-mark-ignored" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be shunned" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-2F030F6A5338CD29640F515FDA05AC7A" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be shunned</pwa>. Period. End of story. Guilty until proven innocent and sometimes not even then.<br />
<br />
President Trump, a man who is no stranger to being accused of various wrongs by his detractors, has echoed these sentiments. From the New York Post:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">“People's lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation,” </span><a href="https://nypost.com/2018/02/10/trump-fumes-after-disgraced-aides-resign-over-abuse-claims/" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-color: white; color: #cc3333; font-family: proxima-nova, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-decoration-line: none;">Trump wrote</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">. “Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused — life and career <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done pwa-mark-ignored" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are gone" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-B3C65A3137BE2FCF4AFC92C9DD7D315A" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">are gone</pwa>. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?”</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #2a2a2a;"><span style="background-color: white;">Many on the side of the #metoo movement do not <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="woverant" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: woverant" data-pwa-id="pwa-B65C57765F532334474B6B98578D65EE" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="wove rant">wover</pwa><pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="woverant" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: woverant" data-pwa-id="pwa-B65C57765F532334474B6B98578D65EE" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="wove rant">ant</pwa> to answer that question, yet we must answer it. Whatever happened to due process? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? When did it become okay to accuse ANYONE, man, woman, child, black, white, Asian, gay, straight, or what have you, of ANY crime and pronounce them guilty with no evidence to support that fact? To hear the media tell it, it became okay the moment they nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. People have pointed to his accuser's accusation as the main reason he shouldn't <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be confirmed" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-1E4712B7F54F57B5894F4E3771DA83D2" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be confirmed</pwa>, yet those individuals have either forgotten or never knew that even well before Kavanaugh's nomination, the left would do everything they could to stop Trump from confirming another justice no matter WHO it was. When petitions came out declaring that "we must stop the nominee" there was a blank space where the nominee's name would have been. Those who wrote it release it, apparently, without being checked by an editor. For two months, well before the accusation came out, leftist politicians were calling for the American people to "stop Kavanaugh" by any means necessary. Which brings me to my second unpopular opinion: The reason Kavanaugh is undergoing such a hit job from the Democrats is because of one thing and one thing only: Abortion.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #2a2a2a;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #2a2a2a;"><span style="background-color: white;">Kavanaugh's judicial record has placed him firmly in the Constitutional Constructionist camp. His Catholic upbringing has also squarely placed him as a pro-life judge. Kavanaugh being a pro-life judge means that it is likely that, should they revisit the case, and should they should confirm him, the infamous Roe v. Wade court case could <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done pwa-mark-ignored" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be overturned" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-FF06C26DB6A4CC12D8FC95056ACBA7CE" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be overturned</pwa> and abortion's legality left to the individual states. This and this alone is the real reason the left wants to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation. They want nothing to happen to abortion as it now stands, and they've cloaked it in the usual "women's right to her body" rhetoric that is always used to shame other pro-lifers into silence regarding this issue. Two months ago that was all anyone was talking about. If Kavanaugh got confirmed we'd <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be thrust" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-0743AF2B504A423C99D12B36AB2D65C5" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be thrust</pwa> into a real-life version of the Handmaid's Tale, and the only way to stop it was to #stopkavanaugh. This is patently untrue for various reasons. One, Kavanaugh by himself, if on the Supreme Court, does not have the power to just magically revisit Roe v. Wade. There is a process to which <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="theym" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: theym" data-pwa-id="pwa-DE684B4FF1609253905748F77061E0E7" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="they~them">theym</pwa> <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="ust" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: ust" data-pwa-id="pwa-D3CCDD4B58021E38C10FD0EF0F5F777D" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="must~us~just~dust~use">ust</pwa> adhere, and they will adhere to it. Arguments have to <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be made" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-FB2055379CA626E38CC9C7E81F9237F4" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be made</pwa>, the case has to <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be presented" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-237464E0256A44E10D9DAFC05272BD41" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be presented</pwa>, the judges ALL have to confer, and only then would it come to a vote. <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="The idea that" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by using: That" data-pwa-id="pwa-80C6D0CAB617EF68EE559E4476995ED4" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_1574" data-pwa-suggestions="That">The idea that</pwa> Kavanaugh's confirmation to the court will just magically end Roe is ludicrous fear-mongering, nothing more.</span></span><br />
<br />
There. Now that that's out of the way I can make my third and final point: The drama surrounding Me Too and Kavanaugh has resulted in many on the right and in the middle wondering just how far is too far regarding accusations of sexual assault. Incidents like the Duke Lacrosse case have given rise to the idea that it is becoming dangerous for men to make sexual or flirtatious advances towards women for fear of those women coming back and accusing them of sexual misconduct or rape. Many people, men and women both, speculate that because of incidents like Duke Lacrosse that we could construe even such things as innocuous as a look across the room or a flirtatious comment as "sexual misconduct." And you know what? I think they're right<pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word="." data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="The punctuation mark '.' may require a space after it. Consider adding the space." data-pwa-id="pwa-294208B35F5F8A83B921B231B0D7B530" data-pwa-rule-id="WHITESPACE" data-pwa-suggestions=". ">.</pwa><a href="https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/" target="_blank">With feminist activist bloggers declaring that the act of placing penis into vagina is "always rape"</a> and U.S. senators declaring that <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/18/sen_hirono_on_kavanaugh_men_need_to_shut_up_accuser_needs_to_be_believed_and_i_believe_her.html" target="_blank">"men need to shut up"</a>, not to mention people profiting off of shirts with such lovely messages as <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-capitol-849336" target="_blank">"men are trash,"</a> I am inclined to believe the veracity of this claim.<br />
<br />
Therefore, I am worried for the next generation of fathers, brothers, uncles, male cousins, and sons. I am worried that they will enter a world that hates them for being men. I am worried that the phrase "toxic masculinity" will become so prevalent in use that men EVERYWHERE will soon <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be ostracized" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-F71D7936EE97754F8DEFD520F019AA9B" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be ostracized</pwa> for daring to have committed the crime of being born with a penis instead of a vagina. I am worried that a high school freshman who wants to ask a girl on a date will have to defend himself against false accusations of rape and misconduct years down the line and have his reputation destroyed. That is what I worry about: a modern day Salem, Massachusetts with today's generation of men standing in place of the women who <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="were accused" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-9F07E1A5C9C67FCB9577885DC5E3E326" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">were accused</pwa> of witchcraft.<br />
<br />
There it is. Hate me, insult me, unfriend me on Facebook. It will say a lot more about those of you who do so than it will about me.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-5253059683159127572018-01-15T09:50:00.000-08:002018-06-21T22:35:36.666-07:00Mark Zuckerberg and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Decision to Limit Your Content Choices on Facebook<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I am an avid follower of several different Conservative websites and news pages on the internet. Many other people are as well. Apparently this isn't sitting well with Mark Zuckerberg, founder of social media monolith Facebook. <a href="https://www.chicksonright.com/page/5/" target="_blank">The Chicks on the Right</a>, a site that I visit more often than most any other, <a href="https://www.chicksonright.com/2018/01/12/are-you-seeing-the-news-about-whats-happening-to-facebook-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/" target="_blank">have</a> <a href="https://www.chicksonright.com/2018/01/14/facebook-takes-down-another-conservative-death-by-a-thousand-cuts/" target="_blank">been</a> <a href="https://www.chicksonright.com/2018/01/13/mark-zuckerberg-loses-3-3-billion-after-announcing-facebooks-upcoming-changes/" target="_blank">covering</a> this event for the last few days, and it's their reporting along with some newly acquired free time that allows me to give my take on the situation.<br />
<br />
Zuckerburg's actual words can be read at one of the links above, but in a nutshell, he said that Facebook users would see less ad and news traffic (honestly, I could do without the ads) in order to allow people to see more personal posts from family and friends. Doesn't sound too bad on the surface, right? Well, let's think about what this means:<br />
<br />
1. This means that Zuckerburg is intentionally changing Facebook's algorithms to manipulate YOUR content on YOUR facebook wall. What this also means is that you might not necessarily see political pages or news pages that you yourself have liked. I and many others have already experienced this turn of events. Heck, just take a look at the COTR Facebook thread on the issue, and you'll see that DOZENS of comments on that thread alone complain about having the page involuntarily unliked or unfollowed.<br />
<br />
2. This already starting to affect Conservative aligned news sources, as Right Wing News publisher John Hawkins has already announced that his site will be shutting down because of these changes. According to him, Facebook was and is his primary method for getting his content out, and with these changes that will make it virtually impossible for him to continue as he has done since his site was founded. He isn't the only one, either. James O'Keefe, the modern day Woodward who brought down ACORN,<a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/12/twitter-is-latest-target-of-right-wing-project-veritas/" target="_blank"> has broken a story about Twitter admins actively "shadow banning" Conservatives and thus preventing people from seeing the content they put out.</a> No word on whether or not anyone is shadow banning liberals. I'm not holding my breath on that, though.<br />
<br />
Now, those being my two cents on the actual issue, there is some good news. Apparnetly there is a page that informs its readers just how to avoid missing posts you would like to see that come up on Facebook. <a href="http://facecrooks.com/Internet-Safety-Privacy/How-to-Never-Miss-A-Post-From-Your-Favorite-Facebook-Pages.html/" target="_blank">Here's the link to it if you want to check for yourself.</a><br />
<br />
That page will come in handy, but it doesn't change the fact that my account unfollowed the page without my knowledge, or even that the Chicks themselves had their own likes taken away FROM THEIR OWN BLOODY PAGE thanks to the new algorithm.<br />
<br />
Here's hoping that Zuckerberg either feels the pressure and backs off, or that enough Conservatives are on Facebook to make this a moot issue. Either outcome would be perfectly all right with me.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-61165920308047776472016-11-28T14:12:00.002-08:002016-11-28T14:12:38.164-08:00How do you Grieve for Someone you Never Knew?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I did not expect this to ever be the subject of a blog post for me. I never expected to tell the story I'm about to tell. I'm not even sure I can get the words out the way I actually want to because I have literally never dealt with a situation like the one that this post is about. I didn't even know the torrent of emotions I'm feeling now existed before hearing the news that brought it about. But I need to get this off my chest so that I'm not letting my responsibilities fall by the wayside due to grief.<br />
<br />
I suppose I should start at the beginning. Seven years ago, my wife and I had the privilege of hearing that a married couple we were friends with had recently become pregnant with what we would learn later was a baby girl. That baby girl has been a part of my honorary family since the day she came into the world, and my wife and I love her as if she were one of our own. She is a bright spot to any day, good or bad, and always manages to cheer me when I'm feeling down.<br />
<br />
Recently, we heard that this couple was pregnant once more, and all of us were feeling a kaleidoscopic array of emotions from nervousness to incredulity to surprise to anticipation. We didn't know how far along the mother was at this point, but it didn't matter. The family was growing. In our minds we began, subconsciously and consciously, considering what this would mean in regards to changes to our lives. I was concerned because of the financial changes that they would experience with another child, but I was also excited. I was going to be an uncle again. How could I not look forward to that?<br />
<br />
Sadly, that will not come to pass. My wife and I learned mere minutes ago as of this writing that our expectant mother friend has recently miscarried, and now what was once an atmosphere of crackling anticipation is now a cloud of grief and loss that threatens to overwhelm me even as I write. Throughout all this, I've been asking a question and have yet to come up with an answer:<br />
<br />
How do you grieve for someone you never knew?<br />
<br />
My little niece/nephew (I don't know which it would have been.) will not be a part of our or her parents' lives, and a hole is now left in my heart where that child would have taken their rightful place as a member of my extended family. I am very protective of everyone I consider family and would do whatever I could to help them in any situation for no other reason than because they're family, but I find myself powerless in the face of this tragedy. I can do nothing. There is no magic set of words or actions that can restore this child to life and allow her to find her way in the world. There is no rules committee to petition or argue with to change the outcome of these events. There is literally nothing I can do to fix this, yet that is the only instinct I feel at the moment. There should be something for me to do to help, but there is nothing. No matter what words I offer or actions I take, this innocent child will still be dead, and her mother will still be overcome with grief and loss that will never fully go away.<br />
<br />
This angers me. I hate it when I can do nothing to help people that clearly need it. I can't even point them in the direction of someone who CAN help them, because I don't know who can help in this situation. Beyond prayer, there is nothing that can even ease the pain of losing a family member, even (or perhaps especially) one you never even had the chance to meet. To see grow and experience life for themselves. The whole thing is a mass of wasted potential and opportunity and to me there is no greater tragedy than that.<br />
<br />
I don't know what else I can say to this. There are just no words.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-56101668344045307552016-11-27T19:41:00.002-08:002019-11-27T06:35:04.373-08:00Every Little Thing She Does<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
My wife and I recently <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="were treated" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-C72AD9B7D06AAA2ECB5FE1179A253DBC" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">were treated</pwa> to a movie by my mother as an early Christmas gift, and we saw the new Harry Potter spin-off film <i>Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.</i> The story involves the fictional author of the required magical textbook of the same name. Newt Scamander, the author in question, travels by ship from England to New York City in the years following The Great War to research his book and eventually publish it.<br />
<br />
I was a fan of Harry Potter from the moment I first heard Hedwig's Theme in the movie theater, the Christmas of the original film's release. Once I saw that movie and <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="was introduced" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-DE814BB8E7C3B6B7A1D7A1931EE013F5" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">was introduced</pwa> to the wizarding world, I tried to find and finish the other books in the series that <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="were published" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-8AE8DD1205CDBA44A0F580A53A41D0FE" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">were published</pwa> at the time (which meant that the second and third novels were all I had to go on.) I read both in one night each. Never or since has a novel series held such rapt attention for me, and the same has held true for the new spin off film, which reports say will spawn a bevy of its own sequels, and tell the story of how Albus Dumbledore defeated Gellert Grindelwald in a wand duel that shook the world.<br />
<br />
It's very rare that a continuation of a series can evoke the same sense of wonder and excitement as its parent series, but Rowling succeeded here, offering <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="up " data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by removing this" data-pwa-id="pwa-9FD906021F6739F68B7DFA5A9BD6F4EF" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_186" data-pwa-suggestions="(omit)">up </pwa>an entirely new perspective on a comfortably familiar universe, and showing us the American side of the same world inhabited by The Boy Who Lived.<br />
<br />
The movie takes place shortly after <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="the end of " data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by removing this" data-pwa-id="pwa-18CD11501F3DD0BFD9FF034C9E70C859" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_3088" data-pwa-suggestions="(omit)">the end of </pwa>World War I, and as mentioned above details the adventure of Newt Scamander through New York City to retrieve his lost menagerie of creatures that have escaped from his magical carrying case. Along the way he befriends a disgraced magical law enforcement officer, a would be entrepreneur and "No-<pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="Maj" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: Maj" data-pwa-id="pwa-3D2810E92A02EB039A51261CC24D08AD" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="Man~May~Mao~Ma~Mar">Maj</pwa>" (Muggle) named Kowalski, and a <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="legilemense" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: legilemense" data-pwa-id="pwa-1A5401476BEA6F20958DF85E4DDAA568" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="leguminous~Leguminosae">legilemense</pwa> who is the sister of the aforementioned law officer. Along the way they <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are pursued" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-21C2820F8231544579F8C623B5208A99" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">are pursued</pwa> by an anti-magic group called the Second <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="Salemers" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: Salemers" data-pwa-id="pwa-DF48F9BD8A64DEEA9F6A0B2F5FBD4EC7" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="Summers~Soldiers~Sellers~Salaries~Sailors">Salemers</pwa>, and magical law enforcement when things go wrong for the group.<br />
<br />
The film was a rollicking adventure of excitement and wonder, just like the previous films and gave an entirely new perspective on the wizarding world. So much story telling potential <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="was revealed" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-9CD434E151F9B5573C2FF32DB2B342ED" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">was revealed</pwa> by not focusing on a boarding school and its students and set my mind ablaze with possibilities regarding the rest of Rowling's creation. I am waiting with bated breath to see the sequel.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-69249995616845268082016-11-21T17:10:00.000-08:002019-11-27T06:42:51.437-08:00Everyone is the Hero of Their Own Story<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I am so over the Hamilton incident. For those of you who read this and haven't heard, VP Elect Mike Pence <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="was booed" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-6D82207722A27B599ECBDB0E108DFFFA" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">was booed</pwa> and jeered at during and after a performance of the hit Broadway musical <i>Hamilton</i> while out for a night at the theater in New York City. After the show, the cast (who all are Hillary supporters, incidentally) delivered a statement to the VP elect that reads as follows, <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/19/mike-pence-hamilton-musical/" target="_blank">from fortune.com</a>:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #151515; font-family: "miller display roman" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px;">“We have a message for you, sir. We hope that you will hear us out,” he said. “Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you, and we truly thank you for joining us here at </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #151515; font-family: "miller display italic" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Hamilton: An American Musical</span><span style="color: #151515; font-family: "miller display roman" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px;">. We really do. We, sir, we are the diverse America who <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are alarmed" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-B80F09534C54B4DC80921F481AC6E63E" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">are alarmed</pwa> and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #151515; font-family: "miller display italic" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">all</span><span style="color: #151515; font-family: "miller display roman" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px;"> of us, all of us.<pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word=" …" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="The punctuation mark '…' may not require a space before it. Consider removing the space." data-pwa-id="pwa-431C43608A9D5C55E39F91CA3962F1BD" data-pwa-rule-id="WHITESPACE" data-pwa-suggestions="…"> …</pwa> We truly thank you for sharing this show — this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men, women, of different colors, creeds, and orientations.”</span><br />
<br />
The actor in question, Brandon Victor Dixon, delivered the statement to raucous applause from the audience. I can only presume that, this being New York City and based on that reaction, the audience had a majority of Hillary supporters there that night. That's nothing more than an educated guess, but the evidence is there. I have a special problem with a specific part of this statement, however. Specifically, this part:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #151515; font-family: "miller display roman" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px;">We, sir, we are the diverse America who <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are alarmed" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-EFD412FBFEE2BEB86A47955C6E83DDD2" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">are alarmed</pwa> and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #151515; font-family: "miller display italic" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">all</span><span style="color: #151515; font-family: "miller display roman" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px;"> of us, all of us.</span><br />
<span style="color: #151515; font-family: "miller display roman" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #151515;">Do you notice what he said there? The "diverse America" that was "alarmed and anxious" that Mike Pence and Donald Trump would not work to protect the civil rights of all Americans. I don't seem to recall the Left questioning the last administration about <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word="whether or not" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Consider shortening this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'." data-pwa-id="pwa-DB2496412F1DB45D7BB3FA43CFF134A6" data-pwa-rule-id="WHETHER" data-pwa-suggestions="whether">whether or not</pwa> they would work to ensure the rights of "all Americans" who are a part of this "diverse America" of which Dixon was speaking. My question is this: Why is the left anxious and alarmed when a Republican is in office, but not when a Democrat is in office? </span><br />
<span style="color: #151515;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #151515;">I cannot for the life of me understand why the political left constantly paints Conservatives as the villain. Or, at least, that was the case until I remembered an adage about storytelling that I heard several years ago. Namely, everyone is the hero of their own story. We constantly hear about how the Democrats are the party of the people and how they value the working class. They see themselves as heroes. But how are heroes defined? Heroes <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are defined" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-F066B71999974B64A25926631A56F66E" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">are defined</pwa> by their villains. </span><span style="color: #151515;">Every good hero <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="is defined" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-495A0103251C3767A2ADF156003E71F0" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">is defined</pwa> by their villains. Iron Man has The Mandarin and others like Crimson Dynamo and Justin Hammer. Captain America has the likes of Red Skull, Baron Zemo, and Arnim Zola. The Hulk has the Leader and the Abomination, and modern liberals have modern Conservatives.</span><br />
<span style="color: #151515;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #151515;">I've been actively following political news since 2008, when Barack Obama's administration took power from George W. Bush. What I remember of that time is a turbulent eight years full of far left political shenanigans, chicanery, and trickery to pass every pet project the Democrats had in development for decades. Universal Health Care, amnesty for illegal immigrants, the whole shebang. And they attacked it with gusto for two years. Until the first Big Red Wave of 2010. During that time, and for the next six years afterwards, I heard the word "racist" more than at any other time in my life, and I heard it most often regarding Conservatives, coming from the mouths of loud and proud liberals. Why was this, I continually asked myself? I agonized over this question for eight years until recently, when the simple answer hit me like a ton of bricks: Democrats see themselves as heroes of the working class, but every hero needs a villain. <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word="To" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Possible confused word" data-pwa-id="pwa-7A5A62ECC1DC4FA3098BBADA77238872" data-pwa-rule-id="CRFSR_TO_10" data-pwa-suggestions="Two">T</pwa><pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word="To" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Possible confused word" data-pwa-id="pwa-7A5A62ECC1DC4FA3098BBADA77238872" data-pwa-rule-id="CRFSR_TO_10" data-pwa-suggestions="Two">o</pwa> liberals, those villains are conservatives. Don't believe me? Check out a few of these quotes from the last administration's biggest supporters:<br /><br />Starting first with Jay Rockefeller, the now-retired Democratic Senator from West Virginia in 2014<pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word=":" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="The punctuation mark ':' may require a space after it. Consider adding the space." data-pwa-id="pwa-68D1F6626103261E4276AE136FD93896" data-pwa-rule-id="WHITESPACE" data-pwa-suggestions=": ">:</pwa></span><em style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #606569; font-family: "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Opposition to <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="Obamacare" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: Obamacare" data-pwa-id="pwa-B989DE2A364C2D27E8B605A2233B0DA8" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="Macro~Bomber~Micro~Mimicry~Boomer">Obamacare</pwa> is because people <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="made up their mind" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by using: decided" data-pwa-id="pwa-D1C9FCD5E3AA1248EBF2A41C9891F220" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_1572" data-pwa-suggestions="decided">made up their mind</pwa> they don’t like President Obama because of his color<pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word=" …" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="The punctuation mark '…' may not require a space before it. Consider removing the space." data-pwa-id="pwa-FB2C937C7DB50BC37E25F4863C56E106" data-pwa-rule-id="WHITESPACE" data-pwa-suggestions="…"> …</pwa> or something of that sort.</em><br />
<em style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #606569; font-family: "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></em>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px;"><a href="http://libertyalliance.com/democrat-calls-republicans-racist-republican-calls/" target="_blank"><pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="The video of said quote can be found here" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-79C6448DC7D063541D4D461C886D83C3" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="I can find here the video of said quote~We can find here the video of said quote">The video of said quote can be found here</pwa>.</a></span><br />
<br />
Or how about this gem:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IqCtSHbrxY" target="_blank">"This is about hating a black man. This is racism, straight up..."</a><br />
<br />
-<pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="Jeneane Garofalo" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Incorrect named entity spelling: Jeneane Garofalo" data-pwa-id="pwa-CD2F0EDA0C18D2468570B56C9B33A279" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="Janeane Garofalo">Jeneane Garofalo</pwa> in 2010, regarding the then-emerging <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="TEA Party" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Incorrect named entity spelling: TEA Party" data-pwa-id="pwa-2A3500E00804232DFB86B4CEDFB78A49" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="The Tea Party">TEA Party</pwa> protests against <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="Obamacare" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: Obamacare" data-pwa-id="pwa-6C48B0F424EA3DB54A377D04393004FE" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="MacRae~Macro~Obscure~Boomer~Micro">Obamacare</pwa>,<br />
<br />
And under the rule of three, here's this final gem:<br />
<br />
<div class="quotebubble" style="background: linear-gradient(rgb(46, 136, 196), rgb(7, 86, 152)) rgb(255, 255, 255); border-radius: 10px; border: 0px; color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.6px; margin: 1em 0px 3em; min-height: 95px; outline: 0px; padding: 15px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="background: transparent; border: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 5px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“We saw in droves, you know, the Latino community moving over to the Democratic Party largely because of the tone. You have even Republicans in the Republican Party who are Latino just disgusted with the tone. These guys have to be very, very careful. The other thing that these guys know is that those, you know, crazy crackers on the right, like if they art with their very hateful language, that <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="is going to" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by using: will" data-pwa-id="pwa-567E13CBE4B91D1FC60CF233F89D5448" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_1482" data-pwa-suggestions="will">is going to</pwa> kill them in the same way that they learned at their little retreat that let’s not talk about rape.”</div>
</div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 11px; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="speaker" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 2px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
- <a href="http://leftofthemark.com/speaker/karen-finney" rel="tag" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Karen Finney</a>, <i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></i><br />
<div style="background: transparent; border: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="Demonstrating" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by using: Showing" data-pwa-id="pwa-7D9059D1EA9E8C8E5E5E7E064F70E4A0" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_2033" data-pwa-suggestions="Showing">Demonstrating</pwa> a complete lack of self-awareness on MSNBC’s Now <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="w" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: w" data-pwa-id="pwa-C3386E4951EDFC824A505579DF8F1DB6" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="s~v~a~The W">w</pwa>/ Alex Wagner</i></div>
<i style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
</i></div>
January 29, 2013 | Tags: <a href="http://leftofthemark.com/topic/immigration" rel="tag" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">immigration</a>, <a href="http://leftofthemark.com/topic/racist" rel="tag" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">racist</a> | Target<pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word="(" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="The punctuation mark '(' may require a space before it. Consider adding a space." data-pwa-id="pwa-8DF28729318103DF7947EEC13667BA3E" data-pwa-rule-id="WHITESPACE" data-pwa-suggestions=" (">(</pwa>s): <a href="http://leftofthemark.com/targeted/conservatives-republicans" rel="tag" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Conservatives / Republicans</a> | <a class="sourcelink" href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-contributor-and-guest-host-rails-against-crazy-crackers-on-the-right-who-use-hateful-language/" style="background: url("images/article_icon.png") left center no-repeat transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Quote Source</a> (<a href="http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/01/29/msnbc-karen-finney-calls-gop-crazy-crackers-then-complains-of-hateful-language-video/" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Hat-tip</a>) • <a class="videolink" href="http://video.msnbc.msn.com/now-with-alex-wagner/50628323#50628323" style="background: url("images/video_icon.png") left center no-repeat transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Quote Video</a> • <a class="permalink" href="http://leftofthemark.com/quote/karen-finney-crazy-crackers-on-right-use-hateful-language" rel="bookmark" style="background: url("images/link_icon.png") left center no-repeat transparent; border: 0px; color: #772124; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Permanent Link to Karen Finney: Crazy Crackers on Right Use Hateful Language"><pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="spelling" data-pwa-dictionary-word="Permalink" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Unknown word: Permalink" data-pwa-id="pwa-3FF64361FA9405FF334812ED9F952E69" data-pwa-rule-id="SIMPLE_SPELLING" data-pwa-suggestions="">Permalink</pwa></a></div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This is just a few examples, but the point is clear. Democrats <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="are determined" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-FC3226B5C756AE3DFE8629C38DC4D2F4" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">are determined</pwa> to paint Conservatives and Republicans as racists, and the reason is that since Democrats are the heroes in the story they wish to tell, Conservatives MUST be the villains. Anyone who might <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be considered" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-C50F1AF9D4E61D04EB7A3FE45780D54A" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be considered</pwa> a "good" Republican in the story Democrats are telling must subscribe to the Democrat way of thinking in all things, including political positions on the issues, and the only alternative to that is that they must be "bad." There can be no acknowledgement of any other alternative to explain the Conservative viewpoint, or it makes the Democrats look less heroic and thus makes them, in their minds, less appealing as a party of the working class. This they cannot abide, and so they put that narrative first, no matter the cost.</span></div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
This brings us back to Mr. Dixon, who <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="clearly " data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by removing this" data-pwa-id="pwa-737DAEB483712FD11A6B4E1ED0B804C5" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_212" data-pwa-suggestions="(omit)">clearly </pwa>did not seek to offend during his lecture, but <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="simply " data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by removing this" data-pwa-id="pwa-6A2058B9D754008A556CF599B32F4E90" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_1123" data-pwa-suggestions="(omit)">simply </pwa>make his voice heard as is his right. Whether the stage and the theater was an appropriate venue for that <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="sort of " data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Readability may be enhanced by removing this" data-pwa-id="pwa-31FF896868BE62C728B4592A436132A8" data-pwa-rule-id="READABILITY_1942" data-pwa-suggestions="(omit)">sort of </pwa>message is best left to another post. Appropriateness aside, the reason Dixon feels "scared and anxious" about Mike Pence and Donald Trump is because for decades now, Democrats have painted Republicans as the villains in their particular story, and like anyone else, Mr. Dixon does not wish to be a target of his story's villains. No one wants to be a target of the villain in a story. That's part of what makes them the villain. Dixon no doubt feels he has legitimate fears that needed to <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="style" data-pwa-dictionary-word="be addressed" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Passive verbs make your writing less direct. Try to use an active verb instead." data-pwa-id="pwa-30B7552A9C2F2432A8A759E77ADDC88C" data-pwa-rule-id="PASSIVE_VOICE" data-pwa-suggestions="">be addressed</pwa>, <pwa class="pwa-mark pwa-mark-done" data-pwa-category="grammar" data-pwa-dictionary-word="whether or not" data-pwa-heavy="false" data-pwa-hint="Consider shortening this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'." data-pwa-id="pwa-C590AB687C79B34F518B7BC5965176C1" data-pwa-rule-id="WHETHER" data-pwa-suggestions="whether">whether or not</pwa> that is true. I don't begrudge him wanting to ensure that they protect his rights as an American citizen, however rude I find his choice of delivery for that message.</div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
That all Conservatives everywhere are racist is utter hogwash to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Differing policy ideas do not equate to a hatred of those who disagree with those policy ideas. Logical and reasonable people, both Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal, understand this. We are all Americans, and that a party who holds differing views on how to solve the country's problems is now in power does not mean that the supporters of the losing side are suddenly in the crosshairs. I hope that Mr. Dixon comes to understand this in the next four years. I hope many people come to understand that Donald Trump, despite his faults, is not Hitler come again. He is not Pol Pot. He is not Joseph Stalin. He will serve his four years and either run for reelection or retire from the office. We will still exist as a country and the next president's administration will begin. We will go on. Life will not end within the next four years.</div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-meta" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; left: 15px; line-height: 13.2px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -30px; vertical-align: baseline;">
There are still a great deal more stories to tell in this land we call America.</div>
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-34679322243891159182016-11-19T11:46:00.001-08:002016-11-19T11:47:33.212-08:00VP Elect Mike Pence Booed and Lectured at Hamilton Performance<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Chicks on the Right have reported a story recently about Vice President Elect Mike Pence being jeered and booed while attempting to enjoy a performance of the smash Broadway musical <i>Hamilton</i>. According to their newest writer, Kimber, Pence was booed and jeered by most of the audience and cheered by others throughout the performance. According to her sources, links to which can be found here, during the reprise of "You'll be Back" the actors were forced to pause the song several times because of the unruly behavior of the audience. To top things off, at the end of the show, the actors themselves got in on the act of singling out the Vice President Elect by proceeding to politely lecture Pence about how to do the job for which he was elected. Here's the video:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bNfTONoEfWI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bNfTONoEfWI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The actor who spoke, for his part, was polite, but when reading between the lines, it's obviously something of a finger wagging lecture he's giving Pence. But, this isn't a question of politics. This, for me, is more about theater etiquette than anything else.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I have been an avid theater goer and community theater actor since 1999, when my mother and I saw a high school production of Hello, Dolly my Freshman year. That was when the seed my mother planted in me as a child through constant lecturing about Shakespeare began to grow into a real passion for the stage, and three years later I would take the stage as Johnathon Brewster in a production of Arsenic and Old Lace. It is for this reason that I'm about to say the things that follow:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This was horrible theater etiquette, on both the part of the audience and the actors. People do not go to see a Broadway play in order to be singled out and lectured about how to do their jobs, and they certainly don't go to be sneered at or jeered by the rest of the audience. Mike Pence, whatever his political or personal opinions about things, is just as American as anyone else in that theater, and I am more than willing to bet that nobody in that theater paid to be lectured like a five-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar. Whatever your political opinions, NO ONE deserves to be treated like that.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Why did the actors feel the need to do this, exactly? I really want to know. The Vice President's function in government is limited to stepping in if the president becomes incapacitated to the point where he can't perform his duties as President of the United States. Other than that, Pence has the completely optional job of presiding over the Senate, but that job is only necessary when the body is deadlocked and a tie needs to be broken. With the Republican's majority in Congress being what it is, I don't see the need for him to break very many ties in the near future. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I can guess why the audience members decided to boo him, though. New York is heavily liberal, thanks to New York City housing the majority of the state's population, and that population being a left-leaning collection of individuals. Hillary Clinton won New York in the election as well, and was Senator of New York for a while. It makes sense that she would have a lot of supporters there. This does not, however, make their behavior any less childish or infantile. I can imagine that if it had been Joe Biden in the audience, and the actors had decided to lecture HIM about it, people would be u pin arms. There would be calls of "disrespect" and "unprofessional behavior" from sea to shining sea and back again. And rightly so. This kind of behavior is not acceptable no matter who your VP or President is, and this audience and those actors really should have known better. Especially the actors. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
That said, I'm still hoping to one day be able to afford to see Phantom on Broadway one of these days.</div>
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-52229705187169364512016-11-18T09:28:00.000-08:002016-11-18T09:28:00.731-08:00President Elect Trump to Officially Announce Cabinet Appointments Friday<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There has, understandably, been a lot of talk about President Elect Donald Trump's cabinet picks over the last few days. Rumors abound about who will take what position, and how soon they'll take it. thus far, only three appointments are reasonably certain at this point: Attorney General, National Security Advisor, and CIA Director. Respectfully, the three men most likely to be chosen for these positions are: Senator Jeff Sessions, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn, and Mike Pompeo.<br />
<br />
Senator Sessions's appointment is already causing the Democrats to cry "<i>RAAAAACIST!</i>" due to some allegations made by then-Senator Joe Biden in the eighties under Ronald Reagan's tenure as Chief Executive. The New York Times's article on the subject is refreshingly neutral in tone, though they do make a big deal about allegations presented during Sessions's ill-fated confirmation hearings by the Judiciary Committee about supposedly calling a black man "boy" and referring to the NAACP and other civil rights groups as un-American. This humble blogger has not found any proof regarding the allegations being true or not, so innocent till proven guilty in my book. Even if he did say such things, though, it doesn't mean he isn't a good pick for the job of AG. The website ontheissues.com states that Sessions has a 0% rating by NARAL and 20% by the ACLU, indicating that he won't be a friend of theirs when and if he accepts the position. So far so good.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://confessionsofaculturewarrior.blogspot.com/2016/11/donald-trumps-first-cabinet-pick.html" target="_blank">I already voiced my approval of Michale Flynn as National Security Advisor based on his credentials here.</a><br />
<br />
Which leaves Congressman Mike Pompeo. Pompeo has been offered the post of CIA director by President Elect Trump, as mentioned above. Let's see how he measures up. According to ontheissues.com:<br />
<br />
<table align="middle" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, sans-serif; width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr align="middle"><td align="center" bgcolor="#000099" style="font-size: 12px;"></td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-size: 12px;" valign="top"><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: x-small;">Click here for <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: underline;">4 full quotes on Homeland Security</a> OR <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: underline;">background on Homeland Security</a>.</span><br />
<ul>
<li style="text-align: left;">Commit to strong national defense. (Nov 2010)</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (Mar 2013)</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">No transfers of Gitmo prisoners to US or abroad. (Jan 2015)</li>
</ul>
<div>
There seems to be a running theme with the three men, in that their immigration stances all run pretty close together in terms of similarity. In this humble blogger's opinion, The Donald is shaping up his administration so that it'll be easier to build the wall.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-66953617318135399752016-11-17T21:18:00.000-08:002016-11-17T21:18:30.444-08:00Donald Trump's First Cabinet Pick?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've been a rather avid follower and commentor at Chicks on the Right since their founding in 2008, at the beginning of the Obama years. They were a breath of fresh, humorous, Conservative air in a toxic atmosphere of Leftist propaganda and ridicule,which is why I still follow them now. If you read this and haven't given them a visit, <a href="http://www.chicksontheright.com/" target="_blank">you can do so here</a>.<br />
<br />
According to them, President Elect Donald Trump has offered the position of National Security Adviser to Lt. General Michael Flynn. Who is that, you may be asking, if you're as ignorant of Trump's cabinet choices as I am, so here's the scoop:<br />
<br />
Wikipedia has him listed as former director of the DIA from 2012 to 2014, <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">commander of the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Functional_Component_Command_for_Intelligence,_Surveillance_and_Reconnaissance" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance">Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">, and chair of the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Intelligence_Board" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Military Intelligence Board">Military Intelligence Board</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;"> from July 24, 2012, to August 2, 2014.<span style="font-size: 13.3333px; white-space: nowrap;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">Prior to that, he served as Assistant </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Director of National Intelligence">Director of National Intelligence</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525;">I would say this gives him a host of credentials that make him at least an adequate choice for the job. Given Trump's reported history of choosing competent people to delegate decisions to, I'd say this is a good sign based on that. Word has yet to come as to whether or not Lt. General Flynn has accepted or declined, but I have a feeling we'll be hearing about that within the next few days, or possibly weeks.</span></span></div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-76880926955824708952016-11-17T13:44:00.001-08:002016-11-17T21:19:30.337-08:00The LGBTQ Community is Afraid of William Pryor. Who is William Pryor?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Someone named <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pryor_Jr.#cite_ref-27" target="_blank">William Pryor</a> is currently on the short list for President Elect Donald Trump's pick for the Supreme Court. This is, admittedly, the first time I've heard of this man, so I did a little digging trying to find out who he was. A quick Google search reveals that the LGBTQ folks are up in arms over the mere possibility of this man becoming a Supreme Court Justice, so I decided to find out why. Here's what I found:<br />
<br />
Gay advocacy site The Gaily Grind has claimed that Judge Pryor believes gays should be jailed simply for...being gay. Looking a little further into the matter, I discovered that their idea that this man wants such a thing is because of a legal brief in which Judge Pryor wrote that there is no fundamental right to homosexual sex, and that he upheld a Texas anti-sodomy law on that basis.<br />
<br />
Lambdalegal.com also believes this to be the reason Pryor is unfit to judge, but offers nothing tangible other than that single legal brief and the anti-sodomy law that was, I found out, struck down by the Supreme Court ruing on Lawrence v. Texas. The actual quote provided in regards to said sodomy law, however, reveals a different story:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.6px;">"Petitioners' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects "the choice of one's partner" and "whether and how to connect sexually" must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia," </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.6px;">Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Lawrence v. Texas">Lawrence v. Texas</a>, No. 02-102</i><br />
<br />
An objective observer can see from that quote alone that Judge Pryor is not saying that homosexuals should be jailed for for simply existing, as The Gaily Grind's headline and article claim. Rather, a more objective look at the quote tells us that Judge Pryor is saying simply that in order for the argument of a constitutional right to homosexual behavior to hold water, we must also apply that logic to other sexual activities such as the above listed in the quote. In order for a statement to be logically sound, it has to hold up in more than just one instance, and the idea of a constitutional right to be gay means that there also has to be a constitutional right to those, and a host of other behaviors for which there exists no inherent constitutional right.<br />
<br />
I would have used a different list of behaviors, honestly, but the argument is still sound, and has nothing to do with jailing anyone. In fact further looking into the linked Wikipedia entry at the beginning of this post, it seems that above all, Pryor puts the written law above personal feelings, just as a judge is supposed to do. The following quote sums it up rather nicely:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Pryor received national attention in 2003 when he called for the removal of Alabama Chief Justice </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none;" title="Roy Moore">Roy Moore</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">, who had disobeyed a federal court order to remove a </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none;" title="Ten Commandments">Ten Commandments</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. Pryor said that although he agreed with the propriety of displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, he was bound to follow the court order and uphold the rule of law. Pryor personally prosecuted Moore for violations of the </span><a class="new" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canons_of_Judicial_Ethics&action=edit&redlink=1" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #a55858; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none;" title="Canons of Judicial Ethics (page does not exist)">Canons of Judicial Ethics</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">, and the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Court_of_the_Judiciary" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration: none;" title="Alabama Court of the Judiciary">Alabama Court of the Judiciary</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> unanimously removed Moore from office.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-5" style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pryor_Jr.#cite_note-5" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[5]</a></sup><br />
<br />
Hardly the attitude of an anti-gay theocrat tyrant, wouldn't you say?<br />
<br />
In fact, the only sites I see decrying the possible appointment of Pryor are severely biased left-wing and pro-LGBT sites such as <a href="http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/5/18/trumps-lgbt-unfriendly-supreme-court-picks" target="_blank">Advocate</a>, <a href="http://www.thegailygrind.com/2016/11/15/trump-supreme-court-pick-william-pryor-thinks-gays-jailed-sex-homes/" target="_blank">Gaily Grind</a>, <a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/11/16/one-of-trumps-potential-supreme-court-nominees-thinks-gay-people-should-be-jailed-for-having-sex/" target="_blank">Pinknews</a>, and <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/trump-scotus-pick-william-pryor-would-have-let-states-jail-lgbt-people-for-having-sex-in-their-homes/" target="_blank">others</a>. To me, this smacks of simple fear mongering and paranoia over the unknown. There is no evidence anywhere that I know of, whether verbal or written, to suggest that the claim is true. More evidence to suggest that fears over William Pryor are unjustified can be found in the supposed "story" of William Pryor posing for a gay magazine a couple of decades ago. <a href="http://www.snopes.com/william-pryor-nude/" target="_blank">Well, Snopes has a few things to say about that</a>. </div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-56543091344203541602016-11-17T11:18:00.000-08:002016-11-17T11:18:39.907-08:00Some People Just Can't Let it Go<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Denial is prevalent this election season. I'm no stranger to it myself, since I was in some amount of denial after the 2012 election and had witnessed Mitt Romney's loss to Barrack Obama. I made a promise to myself after that night that I would never get so emotionally invested in an election again. Fast forward four years to 2016 and the election of Donald Trump as our 45th president, and I am now on the other side of the coin, finding the utter denial and refusal to accept the results of a free and fair democratic election, thinking to myself "was I this distraught? Was I just as absurd looking as these folks?" All over youtube, snarky videographers are putting together various compilations of the complete and utter emotional devastation being felt by the left. Even supposedly impartial media personalities like Van Jones and James Carville are completely destroyed to their very core and are having a devil of a time not showing it. If they bother at all. In the case of The Young Turks, they didn't even bother to seem impartial once the final returns were in and called Americans "dumb" among other insults that we've all heard on the schoolyard when we were age ten and under.<br />
<br />
Some of the denial is more mature sounding, but it's still denial. It's not crazy violent like the #notmypresident folks, nor is it grating to the ears like this person's temper tantrum was on youtube. Some of it sounds downright sophisticated, honestly; at least until you actually look at and listen to what is being said, and then you realize it's just another temper tantrum, but with a more verbose vocabulary.<br />
<br />
This brings me to a woman named Rebecca Solin, whom I ran across while perusing Hotair.com's front page. She wrote a column recently for The Guardian entitled "Don't Blame Hillary Clinton. It Took Decades of Scheming to Beat her.<br />
<br />
Miss Solin is, it should be noted, an avid Occupy Wall Street supporter, according to the essays she's written about them on her site, and insists that the reason Hillary was beaten was because of a decades long scheme committed by Republicans to ensure that she would never set foot into the Oval Office.<br />
<br />
This is, quite frankly, patently absurd. The tone of the article is one that reeks of conspiracy theorist garbage. Take the below quote:<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">...Trump was such a weak candidate it took decades of scheming and an extraordinary international roster of powerful players to lay the groundwork that made his election possible. Defeating Clinton in the electoral college took the 2013 </span><a class="u-underline" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/edward-blum-voting-rights-act-civil-rights-affirmative-action" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); color: #005689; cursor: pointer; font-family: "Guardian Text Egyptian Web", Georgia, serif; text-decoration: none !important; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">gutting of the Voting Rights Act</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;"> by Republican appointees to the supreme court. It took vast Republican voter suppression laws and tactics set in place over many years. It took voter intimidation at many polling places. It took the long Republican campaign to blow up the boring bureaucratic irregularity of Clinton’s use of a private email server into a scandal that the media obediently picked up and reheated.</span><br />
<br />
The supposed "gutting" of the Voting Rights Act (which to this day has not disenfranchised anyone who had the legitimate right to vote as spelled out in the Constitution) had nothing to do with Clinton being elected and everything to do with updating a now outdated law for the 21st century. The Voting Rights Act, when written, made it abundantly clear that there was no longer a need to peek over people's shoulders and make absolutely certain that blacks weren't being disenfranchised. This isn't 1953 anymore. With the advent of such things as the internet, not to mention statewide voter protection laws that have been passed, those provisions of the act are no longer effective, and thus, worthless.<br />
<br />
She also went on to criticize James Comey and his reopening of the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails. Her tone is nothing less than dismissive towards the embattled FBI director:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">It took </span><a class="u-underline" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/fbi-director-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-criminal-james-comey" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); color: #005689; cursor: pointer; font-family: "Guardian Text Egyptian Web", Georgia, serif; text-decoration: none !important; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">James Comey, the director of the FBI</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">, using that faux-scandal and his power to stage a misleading smear attack on Clinton 11 days before the election in flagrant violation of the custom of avoiding such intervention for 60 days before an election. It took a compliant mainstream media running after his sabotage like a golden retriever chasing a tennis ball. It took decades of conservative attacks on the Clintons. Comey, incidentally, served as deputy GOP counsel to the Senate Whitewater committee, that fishing expedition that began with an investigation in a messy real estate deal in Arkansas before Bill Clinton’s presidency and ended with a campaign to impeach him on charges related to completely unrelated sexual activities during his second term.</span><br />
<br />
Once again we are presented with the ever-ready argument of Clinton mishandling classified information on a private email server as a "faux scandal" and thus not worthy of even talking about, much less investigation by the feds. Where she really goes off the rails, though, is with calling the main stream media "compliant" when the only sources this humble blogger saw reporting on the scandal were internet resources like Fox and The Blaze. Never mind, also, that when Comey made his statement saying that Clinton would face no charges despite clear evidence of guilt, he was the best friend Democrats ever had, and then when the investigation was reopened <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html" target="_blank">he suddenly became</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-anthony-weiner.html" target="_blank">public enemy number one</a>.<br />
<br />
She then goes into detail about how evil Trump supposedly is, complaining about how his ten year run of Celebrity Apprentice "deified" his supposed behavior, and take a swipe at everyone from global warming skeptics to Vladimir Putin:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">It took a nearly decade-long </span><a class="u-underline" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2016/nov/13/meanness-psychology-big-desk-how-reality-tv-normalised-trump" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); color: #005689; cursor: pointer; font-family: "Guardian Text Egyptian Web", Georgia, serif; text-decoration: none !important; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">reality TV show</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">, The Apprentice, that deified Trump’s cruelty, sexism, racism and narcissism as essential to success and power. As the feminist media critic Jennifer Pozner </span><a class="u-underline" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://www.mtv.com/news/2953807/qa-media-critic-jennifer-pozner-on-how-reality-tv-helped-bring-us-a-donald-trump-presidency/?fb_ref=fbshare_web" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); color: #005689; cursor: pointer; font-family: "Guardian Text Egyptian Web", Georgia, serif; text-decoration: none !important; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">points out</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">: “Everything Trump said and did was framed in a way to flatter him, and more importantly, flatter his worldview.” The colossal infomercial fictionalized the blundering, cheating businessman as an unqualified success and gave him a kind of brand recognition no other candidate had.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">And:<br /><br />...</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">Many intelligence experts say it came from Russian hackers, and Putin made it clear that he favored Trump’s win. The day Comey dropped his bombshell, the New York Times ran a story reassuringly titled </span><a class="u-underline" data-link-name="in body link" href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=2&referer" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220); color: #005689; cursor: pointer; font-family: "Guardian Text Egyptian Web", Georgia, serif; text-decoration: none !important; transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;"> with its own astounding, underplayed revelation buried inside: “Investigators, the officials said, have become increasingly confident, based on the evidence they have uncovered, that Russia’s direct goal is not to support the election of Mr Trump, as many Democrats have asserted, but rather to disrupt the integrity of the political system and undermine America’s standing in the world more broadly.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span>
So, let me get this straight: Trump, Wikileaks, Vladimir Putin, and global warming skeptics are to blame for Clinton's loss. I will give her a break here and say that Trump's time in the media spotlight did help him win the election. I myself was imagining him in full suit and tie, turning the Oval Office into a version of the board room from Celebrity Apprentice and pointing at various cabinet officials and giving them a terse "you're fired" should they fail to meet his standards on the job. The difference between me and people like the author of this piece, however, is that I was doing it jokingly. Like many, Rebecca Solin has decided that the nation has now turned into a four-year episode of Trump's old TV show, with a healthy garnish of racism and Nazi Germany for flavoring. I suppose that's why his detractors use the name "Drumpf" when referring to him in a negative light.<br />
<br />
She almost gets it right with the following analysis into the left's constant disparaging of fly-over America and white Conservative Christians:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;">And it took a shortsighted campaign of hatred on the left, an almost hysterical rage like nothing I have ever seen before about any public figure. Some uncritically picked up half-truths, outright fictions, and right wing spin to feed their hate and rejected anything that diluted the purity and focus of that fury, including larger questions about the other candidate and the fate of the Earth. It was so extreme that in recent weeks, I was attacked for posting anti-Trump news stories on social media by furious people who took the position that to be overtly anti-Trump was to be covertly pro-Clinton. If the perfect is the enemy of the good, whose friend is it? The greater of two evils?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "guardian text egyptian web" , "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">So close, and yet the paragraph is really just another complaint. She's right about the media picking up half-truths and outright fictions and running with them, though what sort of "right wing" spin she's talking about I have no idea, since she doesn't go into it. It sounds to me, honestly, like she's trying to dismiss any pro-Trump media stories as spin. It would certainly fit with her image of Trump as a "deified" sexual predator, narcissist, and all around demon in human clothing. She conveniently forgets, of course, that there are <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nevertrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag" target="_blank">plenty of people on the right</a> who didn't like Trump at all.</span></span><br />
<br />
Entirely-too-long story short, Solin and those like her are simply upset and blaming everyone but the person with whom the blame actually lies: Hillary Clinton. Her scandals and, in some cases, her own words, doomed her campaign. The fix was in from the beginning regarding her run against Bernie Sanders, who appealed to the youth in a way Hillary just could not do. Color me skeptical, but when you have to rig the primary by convincing unpledged superdelegates to vote for you before the votes are completely in, that amounts to a bit of suspicion. Her attempts to appeal to the youth vote came off as stiff and robotic, like this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxfMUEf9otQ" target="_blank">cringe-worthy video</a> she took of herself "chillin'" during the campaign.<br />
<br />
That, and <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/sanders-looking-to-rack-up-west-virginia-win-over-clinton-222952" target="_blank">her words about coal miners being put out of a job</a>, whether taken out of context or not, spelled certain doom for her in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two very prominent coal-producing states within Coal Country.<br />
<br />
In short, Miss Solin, it wasn't because Trump is the devil that Hillary lost. It was because Hillary Clinton, for many reasons, sabotaged her own efforts unwittingly, and was unable to shake the scandals surrounding her. Call them faux all you want, but the reality is that they cost her the election, as the level headed among us predicted long ago.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-52427128546942071622016-11-15T11:36:00.002-08:002018-01-15T08:32:19.175-08:00Not the President we Want, nor the President we Need, but Perhaps the President we Deserve<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Let's just get this out of the way right off the bat. I don't like Donald Trump. I don't think he was in any way a good candidate for the Presidency of the United States, nor did I support him in the primaries. I was hoping someone with more gravitas would win. Specifically, I was a Ted Cruz supporter and was rather upset when he lost. Upset enough, in fact, to pick fights with just about anyone who dared gloat over the fact that Cruz lost. Most of this happened in online comment threads, so nothing really came of it except a whole lot of mean words. I suppose I thought it would be cathartic after becoming so emotionally invested in the primaries. I hadn't, apparently, learned my lesson from 2012, where I had become so emotionally invested in the election (to the point where I really did believe that we were utterly screwed and there was no way back after Obama's second election victory.)<br />
<br />
Let's get something else out of the way as well. I voted for Donald Trump despite the fact that I live in California. I voted for Donald Trump because, like many, I wanted something different after eight years of liberalism. I didn't even want the eight years of liberalism, truth be told. I voted Republican every election since I turned 18 (except 2004, when I was disgruntled over both candidates. I'm not proud of that, either.) The reason I personally voted for Donald Trump is because, quite frankly, I wasn't going to take another four to eight years of liberal superiority complexes looking down on me and my Conservative friends and family and calling us racists and/or sexists for daring to exist. But I, obviously, wasn't the only one who voted for Trump. Millions of people did. Let's take a look at why that is.<br />
<br />
The general consensus among right leaning voters is pretty much what I stated above. People voted for Trump because they were tired of eight years of virtue signalling and condescending reminders of how racist/sexist/homophobic/Islamophobic they were on any given night of the week. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs" target="_blank">There was even a video</a> by a British comedian detailing every single point in that regard with hilariously crude accuracy. People were browbeaten into silence by the hyper PC attitudes of the left, and so they spoke the only way they could: With their vote. Look up the Bradley Effect and you'll find another example of just this sort of thing happening.<br />
<br />
The thing is, guys, we deserve Trump as a candidate. However good or bad he might be as a president, his election is the result of eight years of anger and frustration that I and many others like me were feeling during that time. People don't like being called names. Everyone with half an ounce of common sense knows this. People don't like being lied to. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows that as well. Yet the media and the pundits, and Hillary Clinton's ground team seemed not to understand this, even after two straight election cycles where they might have kept the White House, but they lost everything else. We well-read folks like to call that a Phyrric Victory. Looking at it a couple of days later, though, Phyrrus of Epirus likely would call the entire eight year Democrat debacle what it is: a crushing defeat.<br />
<br />
People are giving all sorts of reasons that Hillary lost, from blaming James Comey and his second investigation into the emails, to the ever popular "racist/sexist/homophobic" garbage that they resort to when they have nothing else to use, Comey's decision may have had an impact in a couple of states, but no way it had the same amount of impact in all of them. Traditionally blue states like Wisconsin have plenty of reasons not to vote blue after the last eight years, and it's my personal belief that the successes of Scott Walker as governor, not the least of which was <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-walker-wins-wisconsin-recall-election/" target="_blank">fighting off a recall election</a> with more votes than the initial election that got him in, had more of an impact than Comey did.<br />
<br />
As for Pennsylvania, that's coal country. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksIXqxpQNt0" target="_blank">I'm willing to bet that Hillary's own words regarding putting coal miners out of a job</a> had more to do with their decision than Comey's emails or any sort of racism or sexism.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the outcome, Donald J. Trump is now, as of this writing, choosing his cabinet and preparing for four years of a job that reports say he never expected to actually be hired for. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened, though, even in our history. Look at Warren G. Harding, after all.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-45284018589484631232016-10-02T22:55:00.000-07:002016-10-02T22:55:44.602-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It isn't often these days that I find a news article or website post that is worthy of actually mentioning these days, given that so many hundreds of others have already shared the information and caused it to make the rounds on the internet. However, there remain odd pieces of information that sometimes spark enough inspiration in me to write something new and express my own views regarding that particular subject. Such is the case with <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/the-supreme-court-has-failed-111450_Page2.html#.VCwSzfldVoE">this post</a> by a man I had previously never heard of until reading someone else's words about him on <a href="http://hotair.com/">Hotair.com</a>.<br />
<br />
The man in question is Ethan Epstein, who claims to be a fan of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, yet several of his paragraphs seem to give the lie to his words. He admittedly is correct when he recounts the numerous bad decisions made by the Court, not once realizing that what is considered moral and what is considered often go hand in hand. He mentions several historically famous decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Dredd Scott, and Korematsu v. United States, this last being the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II.<br />
<br />
First, let's start with his mention of the Plessy v. Ferguson case. For those not in the know, Plessy v. Ferguson was the Separate but Equal decision, which affirmed segregation and was crucial in upholding the Jim Crowe laws of the Deep South. Where he goes wrong is in his comparison of that decision to the modern state of our educational system. Mr. Epstein states that our schools remain segregated due to the fact that inner city schools are populated mainly by minorities, while suburban private schools are populated by the Caucasian majority. This ludicrous for a couple of reasons, but let's focus on the obvious one. Plessy v. Ferguson reinforced the idea that government mandate could determine whether or not black citizens had the right to attend the same facilities as whites. No such restriction exists today, and in fact NO SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY, save for one in Alabama that recently made national news for that very practice, puts that policy into effect any longer. Epstein seems to believe that that is not the case, despite the fact that P v. F was in fact overturned after Brown v. Board of Education. Economic and cultural factors are the main reason today why public schools are populated the way they are.<br />
<br />
Second, after mentioning that todays Americans citizens would most likely unanimously agree on the wrongness of the above mentioned decisions, he says this:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Of course, there would be much less agreement about the Roberts Court. But I believe that it, too, has failed in some of its most important rulings. The Roberts Court has continually favored the rights of business over the rights of employees and consumers and all of us. It has made it much more difficult for those whose rights have been violated to seek redress through the courts by creating significant barriers to suits against governments and government officers. It has tremendously expanded the rights of corporations in the political process, such as by holding that they have a right to spend unlimited sums of money in election campaigns, while simultaneously limiting the rights of unions to collect dues from non-members to support collective bargaining activities. In fact, last term, in several cases, the Court </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">unanimously</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> rejected constitutional claims against government officers who had violated their rights. In one case, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, found that a person’s First Amendment rights had been violated by firing him for truthful testimony given in court, but said that he could not recover because no case had ever established such a right.</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span><br />
Notice in the above quoted paragraph, he does not cite these supposed instances where the court has unanimously tamped down on minority rights by passing the decisions they have. The Roberts Court has made its fair share of bad decisions, I'll grant, but I doubt he and I would agree on just what those decisions were that were so bad. He makes mention in the next paragraph, however, of Obamacare and, without using its name, Roe. v. Wade. His tone, if you read the article, suggests that the decision to uphold these court cases were GOOD ones, however, as he laments in the next paragraph:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">It is likely that this term, or no later than next, the court will again be considering abortion rights, affirmative action and the Affordable Care Act. I am very worried that the conservative majority will allow the government to impose great limits on reproductive freedom, keep the government from using racially sensitive admissions policies to enhance diversity and interpret the Affordable Care Act to greatly limit its effectiveness.</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span><br />
Notice that language? He uses the positive sounding identifiers for the cases he likes, while at the same time lamenting the fact that our government won't be able to use "racially sensitive admissions policies to enhance diversity." My favorite one, though, is "limit [the Affordable Care Act's] effectiveness." <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/30/supreme-court-poised-for-a-do-over-on-obamacare/">Funnily enough, I came across this article that says exactly what the headline indicates</a>.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-54171552530176352202015-07-06T22:39:00.001-07:002015-07-06T22:39:09.650-07:00Some Thoughts on the Nation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It's been a while since I've seen fit to visit these old stomping grounds. The truth of the matter is that there's no one single reason as to why I haven't been around lately. Life takes its turns where it will, and when it does, you either buckle up and put both hands on the wheel, or you end up getting banged around like a stray coin in a dryer. Between my struggles with court reporting studies and moving back to Roseville after so long in Auburn, not to mention helping my fiancee plan our wedding, I haven't had a whole lot of time to blog about everything that's been driving me mad in regards to politics this past week. Or for that matter in the year or two it's been since I've actually blogged around here, but with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding gay "marriage", I finally felt the need to dust off the keyboard and get off my chest that which has been eating at me since the ruling was made over a week ago.<br />
<br />
Put simply, this is the worst case of judicial activism since Roe v. Wade in the seventies. Except that this case will make that one look like a candle flame to the gay marriage inferno. Over 80 percent of the country identifies as Christian in some way, shape, or form. Are the majority of those people just going to sit back and take this lying down? My guess, personally, is no. Already we have a Christian man who has decided to fight back rather than pay a business-destroying fine for not serving a lesbian couple a wedding cake. Texas's state government officials, including Governor Abbot himself, are actively and outright defying the ruling as if it was never made. Pastors all over the country are calling for civil disobedience in the face of this ruling as well. That doesn't sound at all like a group ready to kow tow to some magically created "right" in the Constitution, an that gives me a bit of hope.<br />
<br />
That said, when I read stories like the above mentioned, I also realize that during my entire childhood, I had yet to live in a time when there was a real crisis of any sort going on in America. I was born only a few months before Jimmy Carter left office and the Reagan Era began. My first twelve years in this country and on this Earth were essentially nothing but prosperity. On top of being a kid, and having no worries, I was living in the strongest economy America had experienced up to that point. Even through the Clinton years I never noticed anything really wrong with the country or the economy. In fact, the first real sense of dread I felt was in 2008, after the economy tanked and Obama was elected. It was the first presidential election I really paid attention to,and it was when the scales were pulled off my eyes and I began to see that this politics stuff MATTERED. I was so affected by this revelation that, come 2012, upon Obama's reelection, I actually cried myself to sleep. No joke.<br />
<br />
Yet, now, after the last six years, I came to realize that the current cycle is temporary, and the winds of change are already blowing in a rightward direction. For all the talk about Hillary's supposed inevitability as the next President of the United States, Ted Cruz seems to be blazing quite the path toward the White House. However in the bag she thinks her candidacy is, Hillary will have a fight on her hands if Cruz gets the nod.<br />
<br />
What's the point of all this rambling, you ask? Well, put simply, that things will get better. This too shall pass, and all that. It's going to take more than one bad president to erode America's founding principles.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-63177754703651066532014-08-21T14:13:00.003-07:002014-08-21T14:13:38.843-07:00Into the Woods for a Much Needed Reminder<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It's been a while since I saw a stage show. Before yesterday afternoon, (Saturday, August 10 as I begin writing this post) I hadn't been to the theater in I don't know how long. I can't even remember the last show I saw that wasn't projected onto a screen rather than being performed live on a stage. Even the plays I HAD seen up until this point had been on Netflix, due to a lack of both cash and time to go to the theaters at which these productions were playing. That changed recently, when my better half of almost nine years now decided to purchase tickets to a show by Stephen Sondheim known as "Into the Woods", a fairy tale that takes the concept of the "fairy tale ending" and turns it on its head.<br />
<br />
In summary: The show deals with several of everyone's favorite Grimm Fairy Tale characters such as Jack (of beanstalk fame), Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Rapunzel, and their respective Prince Charmings. Their stories begin as we all know they do. Red is off to Grandmother's house to deliver a basket of goodies, Jack is of to market to sell his last cow for money with which to buy food from a local baker and his wife who, as part of their own story, desire a child. These characters, as well as the witch who imprisoned Rapunzel in her tower, all live within walking distance of a forest known simply as "the woods" wherein the characters are required to trek in order to accomplish their respective goals. Act One of the play ends with each character having reached the supposed ends of their quests, and even has a finale musical number entitled "Ever After", that ends with the caveat "To Be Continued" spoken by the story's narrator. In Act 2, the story's moral of "be careful what you wish for" is explored in full.<br />
<br />
Act 2 begins with the baker and his wife caring for their new child and contemplating adding a room to their home, Jack and his mother enjoying their (stolen) wealth, and Cinderella wishing to sponsor a festival such as the one she attended in Act 1. The witch has, thanks to the efforts of the baker and his wife in the previous act, regained her youth and beauty at the expense of her magical power, as well. Thus is the stage set for what happens "Ever After".<br />
<br />
Well, it turns out that "ever after" isn't as happy as the fairy tales would have us believe. Jack's adventures in the clouds have angered the wife of the giant he killed, and she is now looking for him so that she might bring him to justice. The giant's rampage destroys Red Riding Hood's home, and results in the deaths of several characters. At the end of the second act, we are treated with an ensemble reprise of the number "Children Will Listen", which warns that obedience and learning are not the same thing.<br />
<br />
What's my point, you ask?<br />
<br />
My point is that when I saw this show in high school for the first time, it affected me greatly, and has been my favorite show ever since. The viewing of that show on the tenth reminded me as to why. It served as a reminder that life isn't fair. We all, in our own way, have to journey "Into the Woods" at some point in our lives. When we do, we face the dangers of such a place, but we also experience the wonders. If we never journey into the woods, we might be safe at home and alive, but we're missing out on all the many paths and experiences that await.<br />
<br />
When I first saw this show, I didn't realize that literally no one can avoid their own personal journey into their own personal woods. After having been through a few more experiences in the decade since I left high school, however, I realized unequivocally that I'd already journeyed there multiple times, whether I knew it or not. When I got my first job, learned to drive, even something as simple as driving somewhere I wasn't familiar with before. The realization was extremely emotional for me, and I didn't bother hiding the tears that were brought to my eyes as a result.<br />
<br />
In short, I learned something about myself during this particular journey into the woods, and I liked what I learned. I"ve been into the woods many times, and I've learned more than I thought in my time there. I've grown as a person by experiencing the seemingly mundane and every day problems that we all face as adults. I have, in short, matured without realizing it and I never would have done so without venturing into my own personal wood.<br />
<br />
All in all, it's not bad way to be.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-24918609921454027782014-04-17T18:31:00.000-07:002014-08-15T14:55:03.817-07:00Regarding the Second Amendment...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It's been quite a while since I've done this. personally I'm rather shocked that all of my followers haven't abandoned this blog in favor of people who've been able to update recently. I'm also glad to see that the opposite is true.<br />
<br />
Why have I been gone for so long? To put it bluntly, I got bored. I ran out of outrage with which to fuel the passion I had when writing posts that pointed out the idiocy of the administration, or the infractions on our civil liberties by both federal and state entities. I simply didn't have the drive to continue for a long while. It didn't help that I was attempting to live something called "life" either. I continue with my court reporting lessons, a stint as an insurance salesman. Now, because of that decision, I have a lot more time on my hands. So, I decided to dust off the old blog and write down my thoughts on things that happen day to day whenever it strikes my fancy to do so.<br />
<br />
I chose today to do this because of a recent Facebook debate I was engaged in regarding the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Someone posted an article on gun violence that prompted several others, myself included, to chime in on the discussion regarding that particular subject, as well as the second amendment in general. I came down in favor. Several others...did not. One, whom I had initially mistaken for being against the idea of an armed populace, was actually advocating ways in which guns could be made safer and easier to use by law abiding citizens. I unfortunately let my passions get the better of me and began treating him as if he were just another gun-grabbing wannabe tyrant. This proved to be a mistake.<br />
<br />
During that conversation, I was lumped in with a sort of "gun culture" that apparently accepts the number of people being murdered by gun violence in this country at 30,000 per year. After this person's repeated use of that number, I decided to do a little digging and see if that number were true, or even accurate.<br />
<br />
Turns out, after glancing over Politifact.com, the number is indeed accurate but, fortunately, the article I found broke down the number to its base components by incident type. Here it is copied and pasted by yours truly for all who read this to see:<br />
<br />
<strong style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">Suicide</strong><span style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">: 18,735 deaths</span><br />
<strong style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">Homicide</strong><span style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">: 11,493 deaths</span><br />
<strong style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">Unintentional</strong><span style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">: 554 deaths</span><br />
<strong style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">Legal interventions</strong><span style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">: 333 deaths</span><br />
<strong style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">Undetermined</strong><span style="background-color: #f0f0f0; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.799999237060547px;">: 232 deaths</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Notice the first category, suicide. 18,735 deaths per year. This means that according to Politifact's source, almost half of those people that die every year from gun violence are people who decide to put a gun to their head one day and pull the trigger. Compare this to homicide, which is in turn almost half of what the suicide rate is. The rest of the study shows that gun accidents, legal interventions and undetermined incidents are but a pittance compared to the above two rates. This of course does not include those who get shot and survive the encounter, as I am merely deconstructing the number of deaths, not the number of shootings.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">What can we derive from looking at these numbers? Firstly, let's look at the overall population of the United States. According to Google, the number is 313.9 Million. Of these 300,000,000 people, one third are subject to some form of gun violence, be it a death or an injury. Of that one third, one third are actual deaths, using the 30,000 figure from earlier. Of THAT group, almost TWO THIRDS are suicides, with almost an additional third being homicidal incidents.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">It would seem to me that access to firearms is not the issue, as many would have us believe. What we need to really do regarding gun violence is examine not the "how", but the WHY of gun violence. Why are people shooting each other? What can we do to convince them not to? Or, failing that, the next generation?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">I wish I had the answers. Sadly I do not.</span></div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-167742821397222132013-10-05T11:59:00.000-07:002013-10-05T11:59:02.568-07:00Day Five of the Shutdown: Still not Feeling the Pain<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As the title indicates, I am simply still not feeling the pain of the supposed government shutdown. If anything this one is easier to deal with than the 94-95 shutdown, and that was back when I was completely ignorant of politics beyond who the president of the United States was at that given time. Would report on what's happening, but it can be summed up in one word: NOTHING!<br />
<br />
In other news, I finally visited healthcare.gov, to see if the glitches were as widespread as people said they were, and guess what! They totally were! This is the message I received after clicking "apply now" on the website:<br />
<br />
<h3>
From RFC 2068 <i>Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</i>:</h3>
<h4>
10.4.5 404 Not Found</h4>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New;">The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: small;"></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Courier New';">
<span style="font-family: Courier New;">If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 403 (Forbidden) can be used instead. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Courier New';">
<span style="font-family: Courier New;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This is the glowing advertisement given to us the American people. This is the solution to all the healthcare problems in the country. THIS STEAMING PILE OF CRAP IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF LIBERALISM? WHAT A JOKE.</span></div>
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-2527154538017321092013-10-04T11:54:00.004-07:002013-10-04T11:54:32.134-07:00Day Four of the Shutdown: It's the End of the World as I Know it, but I Feel Fine.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I stole the title of this post from a song that I and everyone who grew up in the 1990s with me likely heard on a daily, if not hourly basis for the majority of that decade. We are now in Day Four of the infamous government shutdown that was threatened when Ted Cruz took the floor of the Senate to (sort of) filibuster amendments to a bill that would have funded the government at the cost of funding Obamacare. I would have reported on the first three days of the shutdown, but honestly, NOTHING HAPPENED that was worth reporting. At least not until a crazy woman decided to run the barricades that have been set up in Washington because she thought the President was stalking her (no joke). That, incidentally had nothing to do with the shutdown, and the story was over almost before it began, since the woman was shot dead after leading the capitol police on a merry high speed chase. The only other events of interest are the media's expected and not surprising-at-all attempts to link the woman to Tea Party politicians and blame her behavior on the aforementioned shutdown.<br />
<br />
People from all over the country are either complaining or elating that the government has shutdown, even partially. Here's the kicker, though: The government isn't the be all and end all of our lives, and this proves it. Just a look at what is being shut down should tell you that this is only a game to the suits on the Hill. The Grand Canyon has been shut down, national parks, the freaking WORLD WAR II VETERAN'S MEMORIAL has been barricaded off and cordoned, only to be broken through by what one of my fellow bloggers in the sphere called "The Charge of the Walker and Wheelchair Brigade" or some such thing like that. Unlike the referenced Charge of the Light Brigade, however, their efforts were not futile, and they succeeded in visiting said memorial with the help of the Fifth Column agents within the D.C. federal security that were supposed to keep them out. So there's that.<br />
<br />
The reason, in my opinion, why the government shutdown is at the forefront of the news is not for the sake of reporting on the shutdown itself, but rather it is being used as a smokescreen NOT to report on the disastrous roll out of Obamacare, which was supposed to go without a hitch on October 1 of this week, and instead was met with all manner of glitches and bugs almost from the moment of its unveiling. By the time I went to Healthcare.gov it was at least partially working, but I didn't actually try to go through the enrollment process.<a href="http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24784-msnbc-tries-to-show-everyone-how-awesome-obamacare-is"> Chicks on the Right </a>had a post with video that explains the glitches, changing the tone of a story that was originally intended to be a glowing report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the new system. I watched the video the day of that post and had to resist the urge to laugh out loud at the irony.<br />
<br />
Also in Obamacare/shutdown news:<br />
<br />
Reports initially came in from my home state of California that over five million people had attempted to sign up for Obamacare, which they said was what resulted in the shutdown of the site, as well as myriad other bugs and glitches. This was later revised DOWNWARD to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-health-exchange-glitches-20131001,0,7108713.story">just over 600,000</a>. Even here in the People's Republic of Mexifornia no one is signing up for this thing. Add that to the fact that no one is signing up in Her Highness Queen Kathleen Sebelius I's home state of Kansas, and you get a sense of just what kind of steaming pile Obamacare really is.<br />
<br />
More to come on Day 5</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-73453749032971446622013-09-20T23:30:00.002-07:002013-09-20T23:30:12.657-07:00One Step at a Time<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Big news, blogosphere! I have come out of my pseudo-retirement in order to inform all of my followers that a victory has been achieved for our side. I heard on the radio today as I was working my recently acquired paper route that the GOP has finally decided that listening to the American people is a good thing. Specifically that they've voted in the House of Representatives (on a bi-partisan basis, no less) to defund the legislative monstrosity that is Obamacare. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/politics/congress-spending-showdown/index.html">CBS News reports</a> that the continuing resolution passed the House in a 230-189 vote, and would allow for funding of every government program currently in place, save for the Affordable Care Act. I don't need to tell you all, dear readers, that the Left is absolutely livid at this development, which only goes to show that the House Republicans are finally beginning to do one of two things: Either they're showing some backbone, or they're more afraid of the American people than they are of their "colleagues" in Washington. My guess is it's a little of both. After all first it was amnesty, then it was gun control, and now they're finally bringing the big guns to bear. We still have a long way to go, but at least we're one step closer than we were yesterday, am I right?<br />
<br />
The above article also notes a quote from Dear Leader, loosely translated as: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">You don't have to threaten to blow the whole thing up if you don't get your way," Obama said in a campaign-style speech at a Ford plant in the Kansas City, Missouri area, adding that legislators in Washington were focused on politics and "trying to mess with me," rather than helping the middle class.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">That was King Barack complaining that Republicans are threatening to "blow up" the government so that they can get rid of Obamacare. Remember folks, that this continuing resolution funds EVERY DEPARTMENT IN NEED OF FUNDING except the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Every news report and article I've seen says this. Yet we have Nancy Pelosi being let out of her Crazy Box to say the following:</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WXaRbK77wdM" width="420"></iframe></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Yes, you heard right, readers. Apparently we who would see Obamacare defunded are nothing more than "legislative arsonists". I'm not even sure what the heck a legislative arsonist is, but as I haven't seen anybody burning piles of bills in the news or on the internet, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that no burning is being done. Maybe it was Pelosi's pants on fire that she thought were causing the flames? I don't know. What I do know is, that woman needs to cut out the botox so her brain can heal a little bit. Sadly, though, I believe it may be too late for the poor organ inside her skull.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Yet I've found that no one can sound quite like a whiny child better than Dear Leader himself. Listen to this:</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0BTlmXEeHHc" width="560"></iframe></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Sour Grapes anyone?</span></span></div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-80244589891787549332013-07-01T06:41:00.002-07:002013-07-01T06:41:25.995-07:00You Don't Get Over it, You Just Get on With It<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I read in a Facebook post once that behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist. I don't believe I've ever heard a phrase that fit me so well in my entire life. When I was younger, I was what you might call a textbook idealist. I believed the best in everyone, no matter what. I was raised in a traditional Roman Catholic household, and was raised to such ideals as that faith teaches. I embraced the idea of a loving God and a chance at living in a world beyond this where no one knew anything even remotely similar to pain, suffering or torment. When I was younger, however, I was also not nearly as wise as I am now. I'm still not as wise as I would like to think I could become, but I like to think also that I've learned a thing or two in my 32 years.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now that I think about it, I believe my idealism started to erode a long time ago, though I can't pinpoint an exact moment in my life when it might have started. All I know for certain is that at some point I became much more cynical about the world I live in. Perhaps there wasn't just one moment where it all came crashing down. I don't know. All I know is that these days, I've found it hard to find the good where it used to stare me right in the face. Maybe it's because life wasn't what I thought it was. Maybe it's because there has have been so many changes in my life that I no longer believe there's any sort of rock or safe harbor for me to sail to in times of emotional distress. This blog, ,now that I think about it, reflects that change rather accurately judging from the older posts versus the newer ones. Before when I started this blog it was for the purpose of keeping track of my then current schooling at MTI College, where I was studying at the time to become a paralegal. I finished that schooling, marking the end of a milestone of my life. I completed half of the two year program, and was looking forward to completing the second half, yet that never materialized. Perhaps it was due to my own lack of action. I'm not entirely sure, but for whatever reason that second year never materialized. I despaired, as any human being would when their chosen path turns into a dead end.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Funny. As I wrote the above paragraph, I came to realize that maybe there was a single moment where everything went awry for me. It had to have been the day, the very first day, that I willingly missed going to church. I don't know which day of my life that was, but it was sometime after I graduated high school and stopped having my mother watch over my shoulder every Sunday to make sure I went. I just...stopped for some reason. I'm not even sure what the reason was. Maybe it was because I thought I could make my own decisions about my faith and my life. Maybe it was a rebellious streak I was experiencing without ever knowing it. I'm not sure. All I do know is that I did it. What I didn't know at the time was the effect it would have on me years down the road.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After high school, I didn't know it, but I was lost. I was wandering, trying to find an identity that I didn't even know I was missing. For a long while I was enamored of being a writer to make a living. I was told since eighth grade that I have a gift for the practice, and I even lurched about experimenting with ways to learn the profession before shifting my focus to drama and acting. On the stage a new me awoke. I'd done stage performance before in an extremely limited capacity (forced assignments in elementary school and a dance class in high school that I needed to fill an elective slot). But it was during my senior year of high school that I truly came alive in such an avenue as stage performing. I'd never had so much fun in my entire life. I shifted career choices, not because I was disappointed, but because I felt that there was a new purpose in my life. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think the first time I felt the despair I mentioned earlier, though, was when I lost my first job. I worked for five and a half years at my town's local Burger King. I was good at it, too, though I got off to a rocky start, as it was my first real job. After a while, though, I became their most valued employee. I say this without any sort of false modesty. I was good at that job. Everyone said so, and I knew it because everyone said so. I was on the fast track to high level employment at my first job because I was idealistic enough to believe that I could succeed. I believed I could go as high as I wanted if only I worked hard enough and long enough, and kept an eye out for the opportunity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then I got fired.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You read that correctly. I got fired from the job I'd held for five and a half years. The story behind that is that I was working the cash register one day, only to come up short by a few dollars. My current manager was talking to my new manager about this, and the new one was told that a second offense in that regard would result in termination. Not really thinking about this information, I went about my day as normal making an effort to be more careful about keeping track of the money in the cash drawers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It happened again.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I came up a meager amount short, but it was by a wide enough margin to bring about a suspension. Okay, a suspension. I could handle that. I'd been suspended before for making a mistake, why not again? At least I wasn't getting fired. Or so I thought at the time. After a week's suspension I came back to work ready and rearing to resume my duties, only to discover that I'd been left a note. The note was simple. It stated that my employment was terminated because of the fact that my drawer had come up short.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This was when I knew true despair for the first time. I could not believe that someone of my reputation had been ousted from his job because of a simple mistake that anyone could have made. To this day, I'm convinced that I wasn't terminated so much because of that, but because that manager was cleaning house. I wasn't the first one he'd fired, and I wasn't the last, either. But I certainly felt like I was the only firing that mattered. I couldn't understand the why of it, and when I can't understand the why of it, I get angry. I got angry when I was fired to the point that I cried openly when I was in the shower that night. It didn't help that when I told my mother she reacted less than favorably, and took her anger and confusion out on me because I was there. I had another job at the time at Paradise Bakery, believing that I needed it to supplement my income. I used it to that purpose for a time, of course, only to lose the extra income of Burger King in the process. Once that happened it became my sole income. Instead of appreciating that fact, I dwelt on the loss I'd suffered. I lost a great deal of self-confidence when I lost that job, though I didn't come to that realization until much later.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Time passed, as time is wont to do. Nothing changed about my life much in those years after I left Burger King, but I thought I was still persevering, trying to find a way to make my own way in the world. I wasn't. I was spinning my wheels. I still am, to some degree, though I've found another career choice that involves the courtroom and might be more suited to my talents. God willing, it'll be so.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Much happened in my life that I could go into detail about, but the long and short of those intervening years is that the despair lingered, though there were intervening moments of happiness during those years, I didn't notice them. Or if I did notice them it was only as someone notices a fleeting memory they hold fondly. As something they've lost and can never have again. It continued that way for years, even though I either chose not to see, or was incapable of seeing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fast forward to 2008. The political event of the century. The first black president was on his way to being elected, and I was here to see it. I was lucky enough to become politically aware at this time, too. Though part of me at times wishes it weren't so. The things I see in the news each day make me want to give up each and every day, some more than others. There are fleeting moments of a positive nature on the news, of course, but they are so few and far between that I often wonder if the good outnumbers the bad. I still despair, more openly in fact, because of the state of the world and the fact that I was largely powerless to stop many of the bad things that happened from happening. I felt weak, impotent and powerless. Yet I had someone with me by that time that would help me in ways I could never have imagined back then.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I met Stephanie a year before we started dating. It was a fairly innocuous meeting, and we didn't talk, though we shared the same group of mutual friends at Sierra College. All that changed a year after we met, when Steph and I began coming up with character concepts for the game and we discovered a mutual creativity for storytelling. We still express this tendency today over chat programs wherein we play the characters whose stories we're telling.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Steph and I grew closer as the months passed, and eventually became good friends. I still remember the moment it began, too. She'd announced to the group that she was going for a walk around campus and that if anyone cared, they could come with. I chose to be her companion that day on her walk, and I listened as she told me her troubles, offering what little advice I could on the matter when prompted. Little did I know the huge impact this would have on my life from then on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After that walk, I believe Steph began to change as well, and definitely for the better. The talk we had that day was only the first of many to come, the ones back then focusing mostly on her troubles with her then-boyfriend. Eventually, Steph grew to realize through those talks that she deserved better than she had, though at the time I didn't know that I would be the "better" that she would end up with. Yet looking back I wonder if I wasn't just the "better" that she needed, but the "best". They often say that George Washington was the only one who could do what he did at the time that he did it. Is the same true with me? Perhaps I'll never really know, but I've always believed that things happen for a reason, and this had definitely happened for reasons I wouldn't immediately notice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After I met Stephanie and we began dating, the despair lifted. It had always been a goal of mine for many reasons to have a significant other, and I'd had a small number of people I'd called such over the years before her, and many false starts in between those, but with Stephanie it was different. It was very, very different. For one, the others I'd known had some measure of self confidence. Steph didn't have any when I first met her. I suppose that's what first drew me to her. I've always had a bit of a hero complex, and I saw a chance to help someone who needed it. It's been a long road, but I think I've done well, if I may toot my own horn for just a bit. I didn't yet realize that the hard times were just around the corner.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Those hard times would hit, as hard times often do, like a ton of bricks. I would like to believe that we didn't see the hard times coming, but looking back I think we were just in a state of denial. Her parents were elderly. Older than my own parents are, which should have been the first indicator. The other obvious indicators were their respective states of health. Her mother was long disabled from years working as a nurse, and her father had smoked for years and , as we would find out later, had developed esophageal cancer in addition to his heart disease. It was the second of these that would claim his life a few years into our relationship. Three years later, her mother's numerous health problems would claim her, sending her home to the Father Above.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first three years were hard, but bearable. It didn't seem bearable at the time, but the fact that we got through it tells me that they were in fact bearable. Losing Steph's father, my would-be father-in-law, hit us both right in the heart, but Steph took it a lot harder than I did. Or perhaps we took it equally hard and just had a different way of showing it. I focused my grief into helping Steph deal with hers, only really letting it show after her cat had to be put down after he was gone. Steph lost her job weeks after he left us, and then her childhood home months later. They found another place, after which time I stayed with them permanently for a year, before opting to take an offer from my Dad to help me get my own life in order and move back in with him and mom. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was during this time, just as I was starting to readjust to living with my parents again, that Steph lost her mother. I got the call when I was at work that Steph had called 911, and was going to meet me at the hospital when I got there. After waiting for several hours we found out that Irma Pauline Eckhardt had died of heart failure. After three years of trying to hold on, God proved that no matter how tight the grip, when he calls you home, you have no choice but to answer. Well, answer she did, and left us wondering why it had to happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We wondered for a long time. I think Steph is still wondering. But I've at least come to some sort of answer that makes sense. The both of them died when they did because we needed to be thrown from the nest. After they were gone I realized that we'd been depending on them too much. It was then that I realized I had been depending on my own parents too much as well. I poured myself into my studies and steph into hers, and we soldiered on, but the despair still lingered.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fast forward to today. I've lost my job at Staples due to layoff, Steph has finished school after returning and has student loans coming down the pike, and I'm still trudging along with my own schooling. I'm not getting hours at my new job, though I'm lucky to have found one, and they insist that they're going to give me hours, but I'm forced to look for other opportunities in case they don't. The despair came back in earnest after being gone for quite a while. I had a row with my mother because of that despair. I contemplated suicide because of that despair. But here's where things start looking up.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've been watching Touched by an Angel on reruns lately, and the lessons that show teaches have stood the test of time, at least for me, and some have hit especially close to home, but there is one that repeats itself over and over again each episode: God loves you. I hear it at least once each episode. I sometimes have trouble remembering this fact, but the episodes have done wonders for helping me do so. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's my point after so long a post, you ask? My point is that I have chosen, after a sleepless night writing this post, that I choose to keep going. I choose to remove the despair from my life and replace it with the optimism and hope I had when I was growing up. I choose to be a positive force and face the hard times with those I love, helping them when they need it, and getting help from them when I need it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I will not give up.</div>
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-26936511995719042172013-06-20T22:38:00.002-07:002013-06-20T22:38:24.491-07:00Are the Cracks Finally Showing?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It would certainly seem so. I was originally going to post about the resignation of Jim Allen over racially charged remarks he made about rival GOP candidate Erika Harold in an email, but this recent post by Hot Air's Erika Johnson caught my eye, and I was eager to see some evidence about Obama and his cronies' grand House of Cards imploding, so here it is.<br />
<br />
According to the above link, it would appear that young, healthy Americans aren't all that keen on signing up for the Affordable Care Act, and that's making folks just a bit nervous. The damning details:<br />
<br />
<img alt=" photo Screenshot2013-06-20at111119AM_zps9e6f178e.png" src="http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/elj4s/Screenshot2013-06-20at111119AM_zps9e6f178e.png" /><br />
<br />
Look at the breakdown of the above chart. 65 percent of those surveyed between the ages of 18-25 are worried about paying medical bills for a serious accident, yet a quarter of that group, and a quarter of those between 26-30 (that's 50 percent of the entire survey, for those of you that need the comparison) are saying that they're healthy enough not to need any insurance in the first place. If that is indeed the case, and this is a microcosm of young people's opinions throughout the country, that does not bode well for the vaunted saviors of the United States. Indeed, Erika makes the point her self by citing the following paragraph:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #c8c8c8; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21.875px;">Total numbers that include both insured and uninsured aren’t nearly as useful as breakdowns that separate these two groups. And these numbers are much less encouraging. True, 76 percent of all insured ages 18-64 say that “insurance is something I need.” But 40 percent don’t think health care is worth its price, and that number should be extremely troubling to ACA advocates. Since many of the currently insured will keep their current employer-based plan, the fate of the exchanges really hangs on the decisions of the uninsured. Unless a high percentage of currently uninsured youth opt in, Obamacare will face severe, </span><a href="http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/06/04/americans-on-obamacare-decidedly-undecided/" style="background-color: #c8c8c8; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21.875px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">possibly fatal</a><span style="background-color: #c8c8c8; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21.875px;">, problems.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #c8c8c8; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21.875px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 21.875px;">Honestly, this is all turning out to be one huge gamble that it would appear is stacked against the house. If the gamble doesn't pay off and people opt out of Obamacare, they're going to see premiums skyrocket even more and even faster than they would if everyone signed up, and that will cause the whole thing to come crashing down.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 21.875px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 21.875px;">I could live with that.</span></span></div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-73532206427748603362013-06-20T16:21:00.000-07:002013-06-20T16:21:29.702-07:00Racist Republican Candidate Makes the Rest of us Look Bad<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In the last nine years, I've learned a lot about politics and how it affects the people of this country. I even started this blog in an attempt to be what you might call the next Carl Bernstein or Bob Woodward and uncover the next big scandal that would, if not completely, at least go a long way towards reforming the broken system that we now have in place after a century of diverting from the course originally plotted by the Founders over two hundred years ago. My efforts appear to have had at least a small impact, as I have a bit of a cult following here at Galt's Gulch which I for a time was trying to expand to more mainstream levels, a la The Other McCain, Legal Insurrection, and other such giants in the New Media. To that end, I sought out any story I could find that would expose the Left in this country for the conniving con artists they were. Often, I arrived late to the party, the big stories having been snapped up by the bigger fish in this pond we call the internet.<br />
<br />
Yet I persevered. For five years, since Barack Obama became president, I blogged about whatever goings on I could find that I thought people would want to hear about. I covered the Tea Party rally of 9/12, I made mention of their evil twin the Coffee Party, and even brought some of my own commentary to the Kermit Gosnell story that had captivated the New Media while the Old Guard ignored anything negative about that monster in a doctor suit.<br />
<br />
I'll admit that lately, I haven't given much time to the blog thanks to life concerns, which I'm sure at least some of my fellow bloggers understand. Pursuing a new career in court reporting, as well as trying to find a new source of income in the aftermath of being laid off has left me with little option but to put the newshound in me on the back burner while I get my own house in order.<br />
<br />
Now, I believe, is the time to resume my watchdog duties. I've secured employment at Kohl's Department Store, and my fiance has finished her schooling. This leaves me more open to notice more that goes on in the political arena without endangering my sanity.<br />
<br />
One of the first things I learned as a blogger was that objectivity is difficult. My fair share of posts here at the Gulch have been tinted with more than a few brushes of pro-Republican sentiment. This time, however, things are different. My time away has allowed me to put some perspective on what is going on in Washington between both parties. Most notably in the last few days, this has consisted of Marco Rubio's joining the so-called Gang of Eight and his apparent attempts to do something about our immigration problem, as well as a new story that was brought to my attention via The Blaze regarding a somewhat racist rant from a Republican contender for political office regarding his opponent.<br />
<br />
First, the rant:<br />
<br />
The Blaze, as noted above, first drew my attention to this story early this morning. It would appear that they have uncovered some evidence that indicates (at least in part) why the Republican Party continues to be labeled with the "racist white guy" shtick:<br />
<br />
<div data-key="tabfc" data-num="1" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<b><i>There’s a battle brewing in Montgomery County, Illinois, where Republican Party chairman Jim Allen recently sent a controversial e-mail to a blogger in an effort to target Erika Harold, a former Miss America who is running for Congress.</i></b></div>
<div data-key="tmwaa" data-num="2" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<b><i>The message, which was sent to Doug Ibendahl, an attorney who was general counsel to the Illinois GOP from 1999 through 2001, is sparking quite a bit of controversy — particularly because of Allen’s mention of minority quotas (Harold is an African American).</i></b></div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<b><i>The e-mail overwhelmingly focuses on the notion that the former beauty queen simply isn’t conservative enough, as Allen charges that she is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Noting that Harold is going up against Rep. Rodney Davis in the primary, the GOP chairman makes it more-than-clear that he is patently against her candidacy.</i></b></div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
The email can be read in its entirety at the link above. Suffice for me to say, though, that this is clearly an indication that there is at least some truth to the "Republicans are racist" meme. One of my favorite highlights:</div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: #555555; line-height: 24px;"><b><i>The little queen touts her abstinence and she won the crown because she got bullied in school,,,boohoo..kids are cruel, life sucks and you move on..Now, miss queen is being used like a street walker and her pimps are the DEMOCRAT PARTY and RINO REPUBLICANS…These pimps want something they can’t get,,, the seat held by a conservative REPUBLICAN Rodney Davis and Nancy Pelosi can’t stand it..</i></b></span></div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: #555555;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Horror of Horrors. Allen's opponent is abstinent and a former beauty queen, therefore she is not worthy of holding political office. Another gem:</span></span></div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: #555555; line-height: 24px;"><i><b>Rodney Davis will win and the love child of the D.N.C. will be back in Shitcago by May of 2014 working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires.</b></i></span></div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: #555555; line-height: 24px;">This is exactly the kind of language that the Democrat party and others use to beat us with a stick every time an election rolls around. Recall Todd Akin's comments during the 2012 election. Everyone on the left and their mother tried to tie him in with the mainstream Republican party, as well as the TEA Party as a cynical method for garnering votes against him and against then Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.</span></div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: #555555;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">I'm not going to endorse either candidate for the seat, as I d say,on't have a dog in this particular fight. I will say, however, that anyone who rants like that in what must have been intended as a private email is not someone I tend to gravitate towards as a representative. Allow me to at least go on record as being against this sort of vitriol, whether Republican or Democrat.</span></span></div>
<div data-key="teohc" data-num="3" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, HelveticaNeue, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-81394587981124449852013-06-20T16:16:00.000-07:002013-10-22T11:51:12.702-07:00Not Exactly Nelson Mandela, is She?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Well, I've tried to avoid posting about this for a while now, but it's time I weighed in on the Free Kate movement and the pending trial of <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-Redacted">admitted sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt</a>. I don't know how apparent it is from my posts in the past, but I have a very low tolerance for those who use victimhood as a shield against the law. Kaitlyn Hunt is one such person that I have a low tolerance for, and soon it will very likely be no tolerance at all. Another thing I have no tolerance for is liars. I cannot stand to be around those who falsify themselves. Honestly, I'm glad I haven't been doused in Gamma radiation a la Bruce Banner, otherwise I might have broken Palo Alto by now thanks to the episodes of Hulking out. Fortunately, however, that is not the case, and Palo Alto remains intact, for what it's worth.<br />
<br />
The maestro of coverage regarding this story has been The Other McCain, who has followed it like a bloodhound follows a scent. I've read his posts, as well as those of Da Tech Guy and Viral Read, and the more I learn about this case the more I want to see her punished to the fullest extent of the law, which might happen since Hunt rejected a plea deal that would have kept her off of the Sex Offender Registry. However, this is Liberal Land, and those who would see Hunt proved innocent are insistent that, as the President once said of his own scandals, there is no "there" there.<br />
<br />
I am more than a little inclined to agree with R.S. McCain regarding this issue, largely due to the simple yet logical argument of "she broke the law. Period." That he brings to the table. Really, this should be an open-and-shut issue. Hunt was a legal adult, and her "girlfriend" was not. Every state has some form of Age of Consent that is enforced there. Such is the case with Florida, their particular age of consent being 16 years of age. <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-Redacted">Admitted Sex Offender Kaitlyn Hunt'</a>s girlfriend was not sixteen, while Hunt herself was eighteen, and so the law was broken. This really should be the end of the argument, and probably would have been if not for the fact that Kaitlyn Hunt is (at least in some photos) a cute blonde.<br />
<br />
This is, when you think about it, the bread and butter of the reason for all the media coverage afforded to <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-Redacted">Admitted Sex Offender Kaitlyn Hunt.</a> Honestly, R.S. himself put it succinctly in <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2013/05/24/because-shes-cute-thats-why/">this post</a>, which is a lengthier version of the previous paragraph. The real bottom line is that the law is the law, and if it's not upheld, that way lies chaos.<br />
<br />
That Mr. G Guy, one of my contemporaries and a reliable reblogger that I know, has a couple of articles regarding this subject, one from our mutual blogger McCain and the other from American Thinker. Read that post <a href="http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/child-sexual-abuse-causes-homosexual-tendencies/">here</a>.</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-37542992865297970232013-04-21T15:33:00.001-07:002013-04-21T15:33:06.381-07:00What a Difference a Week Makes<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
What's the difference between a 25-week-old baby and a 24-week-old-fetus? Not a thing as far as I'm concerned. And not a thing as far as most if not all pro-lifers are concerned. But apparently that's the crux of the defense for Kermit Gosnell and his House of Horrors. Via the Philadelphia Inquirer:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Overcoming this pile of evidence may seem insurmountable, but that is the job defense attorney Jack McMahon begins Monday. …</b></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>It is not known if Gosnell will testify. The Constitution does not require a defendant to testify or present evidence, and a jury may not consider that fact in reaching a verdict.</b></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>But given Gosnell’s past behavior, it would not be a surprise if he does.</b></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>From his first court appearance in February 2009, Gosnell has maintained an amiable, courtly demeanor that belies his precarious legal situation and the anger of some antiabortion partisans who have attended his trial.</b></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>He has rejected several plea deals from prosecutors, the last before jury selection started March 4. The offer would have let Gosnell serve life in a federal prison rather than the grittier Pennsylvania system and his wife, Pearl, 52, keep their West Philadelphia home.</b></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>“You’ll know when I know,” McMahon snapped on Thursday when Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron asked for his list of witnesses, which he is required to file before beginning his case.</b></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
Doesn't sound like Gosnell's defense is too confident in his ability to defend someone who kept baby feet in jars, hmm? No. No, not at all. Honestly, though, how DO you defend a man who did the sort of things Gosnell did? Maybe it's because I have a conscience, but I just don't see how anyone can justify this kind of behavior.</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
And what about the lack of media coverage? Does anyone have anything to say about that? Jonah Goldberg does:</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>My fellow Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers wrote a USA Today column last week shaming the media for not covering the Gosnell case enough or, in many cases, at all. She got results. Suddenly everyone was talking about it. Though a dismaying amount of the coverage is about why there was a lack of coverage.</b></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>It’s an important issue, of course. But it’s not a complicated one. It seems obvious that most mainstream outlets are run and staffed by pro-choice liberals. But whatever the motivation, The Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger is surely correct when she says the mainstream media are generally locked into a single narrative about abortion: “reproductive rights under siege.”</b></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Ironically, the same factors that might have discouraged the mainstream media from covering the story in the first place now give them an incentive to turn it into a story about the media. CBS News, for instance, broke its broadcast boycott of the trial by running a piece on the political firestorm over the lack of coverage.</b></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 1.5em auto; padding: 0px;">
Goldberg is a hundred percent right in that excerpt. The lack of coverage is quite simply a case of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." This was obvious to anyone with a brain from the very beginning. Though it is a bit ironic that the lack of coverage has itself facilitated the desire and the need for more such. Streissand Effect at work? You be the judge.</div>
<br />
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-88899730555026377672013-04-13T16:01:00.001-07:002013-04-14T23:37:37.181-07:00From Willful Blindness to Stunning Admission<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Hat tip to <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2013/04/13/stop-the-killing-stop-the-crying/">The Other McCain</a> for this:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">[T]he MSM has barely covered a story that could plausibly be named “The Trial of the Century”. And that demands explanation. So I’ll tell you why I haven’t covered it.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">To start, it makes me ill. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. I am someone who cringes when I hear a description of a sprained ankle.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Of course, I’m not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #323232; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">This gem of a quote comes from Meghan McArdle at the Daily Beast. Part of a larger column that you can read in its entirety <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/12/why-the-mainstream-media-is-not-covering-the-gosnell-abortion-trial.html">here</a>. Having just finished the column as of this writing, I was ready to pounce. The quote from TOM made it seem as though she was going to start profusely defending the abortion industry that she, by her own admission, supports. And then I read further.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">The article from the Beast appears to double as a defense against those who are skeptical of McArdle's motives for not covering the Gosnell story, and insisting that Gosnell isn't the rule, but rather the exception, with a dash of "how could this possibly have gone wrong?" thrown in for neutrality purposes. It's an attempt to be Switzerland while at the same time trying to side with the Viccy French. McArdle admits freely to being pro-choice (itself a biased term that stands in for "pro-abortion") but insists in the same article that Gosnell's practices aren't the end result of making abortion legal.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Obviously if you're reading this, you want my take on the issue. Well, I think Ms. McArdle is simply trying to jump through any hoop she feels is necessary to jump through in order to spin the Gosnell story in a favorable light for the pro-abortion crowd. Her excuses reek of someone grasping at straws and finding nothing to grasp. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Still, this also appears to be further evidence that the tide against Gosnell is turning. McArdle and her ilk may be rushing to defend themselves and their pro-abortion allies against our cresting wave of truth in journalism, but at least now they're noticing the elephant in the room (even as they try to explain its presence away.)</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">It also raises another point of interest. McArdle makes clear that the reason she herself did not report on this story is because "it made [her] sick". The idea that these atrocities were occurring out in the open appears to have been utterly incomprehensible to her, and now with Gosnell front and center on the internet news stage, she's having to realize that her crusade to help by relieving women of what she perceives as a burden lead to this. But is she really changing her mind?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">I don't believe so.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Another mention of the article that the author makes is that "</span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">W</span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 21px;">hile legal abortion was not sufficient to create the horrors in Philadelphia, it was necessary. Gosnell was able to harm so many women and babies because he operated in the open.</span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">This quote made me turn my head and blink for several reasons. The most obvious of which would be the honesty of it all. her tone suggests an apologetic admission, but it may have </span></span><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">inadvertently</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> been the most honest statement made in this entire article. She just admitted in one sentence that in order for the sort of thing going on in Gosnell's clinic to be possible, legal abortion is a NECESSARY COMPONENT!</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Are more of these admissions on the way? Only time will tell.</span></span></div>
</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3003077767232931622.post-36930010317058012932013-04-12T19:45:00.002-07:002013-04-12T19:45:43.798-07:00Kermit Gosnell Finally Being Outed by the MSM?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'm not sure whether to trust this development or not. According to this link on <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/12/gosnell-might-be-the-worst-serial-killer-in-history-says-nightline-anchor/">Hot Air</a>, the baby killer known as Kermit Gosnell, currently on trial for endangering women at his abortion clinic back east, has been called "the worst serial killer in history" by Nightline anchor Terry Moran. Does this mean that the formerly major networks of the near defunct Mainstream Media are finally giving in to public pressure and shedding light on the darkest corners of the West Philly abortion industry?<br />
<br />
Don't count your chickens just yet.<br />
<br />
The network has, according to that link above, no original content regarding Gosnell exists in the ABC News archives. All of it is taken from the Associated Press, but there IS some content dating back to late January that amounts to little more than a pen and paper shield against late term abortionists and how they aren't all like the monster currently on trial. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tiller-ignoring-threats-doctors-trimester-abortions/story?id=18233523&singlePage=true#.UWi447WG3Sd">There's even a video.</a> The spin on the video and in the article made me dizzy. So dizzy that I don't think I could read or watch either one again. This paragraph from the article pretty much sums up why:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 23px;"><b>We learned at his knee," said Robinson, speaking of Tiller. "Kindness, courtesy, justice, love and respect are the hallmarks of a good doctor-patient relationship. People tell me every single day, 'Dr. Robinson, you've given me my life back.' For these women it is life or death. Many women try to self-abort. The less available it is, the poor will have the hardest time."</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 23px;"><br /></span>
The rest of the article is much the same. In tone, at least. The whole thing reads as a desperate defense of people like Gosnell, based on the idea that women who get late term abortions are "just as desperate" as those who get abortions at an earlier time in their pregnancy. The above quote, for me, was the money shot. This article goes to great lengths to paint these so-called "doctors" as victims just trying to do right by the women that ask them to perform this procedure. Nowhere in the article, except for a caveat somewhere towards the middle, is there any mention of the women who were injured or who died as a result of these botched procedures.<br />
<br />
Question: How do you paint these women as victims, while not acknowledging the horrors (<a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/03/botched-late-term-abortion-lands-14th-woman-in-hospital-since-2008/">well</a> <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/botched-abortion-at-albuquerque-late-term-abortion-clinic-lands-14th-woman/">documented </a><a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/February/Woman-Dies-After-a-Botched-Late-Term-Abortion/">horrors</a> at that) that can result from botched abortion procedures?<br />
<br />
Sorry if I drifted a bit off topic in that last paragraph, but if you stick with me, I do have a point to make.<br />
<br />
My point is that the MSM may be cracking under the pressure, but I don't think so. At least not yet. The ABC News declarations that Gosnell may be the worst serial killer in the history of the nation are a start, but they're more likely the result of network trying to save what little face it may or may not have among low info viewers whose only source of news is the dinosaur media. Still, even a small beginning is still a beginning, and I'll be watching the net for more developments and updates</div>
ArthurRex12http://www.blogger.com/profile/04123008164613002930noreply@blogger.com0