The “Wisconsin Affair” centers around whether or not public-service employees should be availed of the collective bargaining process in the determining of their wages, perks, vacations, etc. The Wisconsin governor would have it that the unions should bargain on wages only, but wages have more to do with the cost of living than with the bargaining process. Actually then, at least in Wisconsin, it has to do with whether or not public-service employees should have the right to unionize.
Soon after President Reagan took office in the 1980s, the air-traffic-controllers called a strike and most workers walked off the job. Their leaders attempted to get them to return to work, most likely when they realized that the controllers had signed-on under the condition that they would not strike and that, whereas they’d probably been given some latitude before, such was not to be the case with Reagan, who simply said that if they didn’t return to work they had quit, not actually been fired.
Reagan made it stick, though the consensus seemed to be that the nation’s air-transportation system would grind to a halt or be damned by terrible accidents. Reagan demurred, insisting that new hires would take up the slack. Legally, he was correct and determined to see the law upheld, which was his sworn duty. The system returned to normal in a relatively short time and there were no serious accidents accruing to controller failure.
In another life, I was a member of a transportation union, a locomotive engineer. Should this put me on the side of the protesters in Wisconsin or on the side of the governor? The difference between me and the protesters is that I worked for a private company responsible to its shareholders, whereas the protesters work for state government. If I went on strike, other railroads took up the slack. If public-service workers strike, they shut down the state, including schools, law enforcement, fire protection, etc.
If all the railroaders in the nation go on strike the government simply puts a stop to it, just as Reagan did with the controllers, even though the railroaders work for private companies and the truckers could move stuff. In 1946 during a nationwide strike, President Truman (a labor-oriented democrat) appeared before Congress for permission to take-over the rails and run them using the army. At that point, the strike was settled.
The railroader or any other non-management worker has nothing but the union to stand between himself and his employer, which is mostly concerned with the bottom line and not the welfare of its workers, while in government employees are usually protected by everything from tenure to the merit systems to review boards. It’s extremely hard to fire a government worker without well-documented cause, and it’s hard even then. The media is filled almost daily with accounts of former government workers winning lawsuits against various governments…much of the time justifiably.
Wages and all perks in the private sector are negotiated by managements and labor unions. In government, such negotiations are conducted by the proper authorities and unions but are actually controlled by legislators who receive huge amounts of money from labor unions to do their bidding. In the private sector, unions have to understand that their companies must compete successfully with others in order to maintain jobs. In the government sector, there are deep pockets filled by the taxpayers and ripe for the picking. This is why employees in governments are now far ahead of their counterparts in the private sector with regard to both wages and benefits. Governments do not compete with anything for survival.
In Wisconsin, teaching salaries averaged $52,644 in 2009-10, according to the National Education Association, with most school districts offering benefits that range from health insurance to retirement plans. Median annual wages of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers nationwide ranged from $47,100 to $51,180 in May 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor. In Kentucky, a teacher can retire after 25 years, draw the life-long pension, get another job and work out another pension. Where else can that kind of boondoggle be found?
This is not a brief against unions, only the suggestion that government-employees should never work under collective-bargaining protocols. They should never have the power to shut down any part of government and they should never be overpaid vis-à-vis the private sector, no matter how much they contribute to lawmakers in either dollars or sweat-equity.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Civility...Political Correctness...NUTS!
The president has made much of civility lately, mostly in the area of speech. Even though he publicly sought “asses to kick” in the BP mess last summer and has affirmed that some policemen (in this case a white policeman, particularly) act stupidly, he has seen the need for other people, at least, to observe civility, defined as “civilized conduct.” Civilized is defined as “characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint.” Civility, then, is conduct characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint.
Speech, as affected by civility, would not involve remarks that are crude, racist, demeaning, vulgar, profane, etc., since such attributes, at least as judged by most folks, would not indicate civility, never mind the president’s description of the Pennsylvanians in 2008 as sort of gun-toting bible-thumpers on the lookout for illegal immigrants, and felt the need in Philadelphia to identify the “typical white person.” One waits with bated breath for him, in fairness to all, to identify the “typical black person” or the “typical person of any other color,” but so far he has demurred…civility, doncha know?
The president’s taste and refinement were exhibited recently during the Egyptian uprising when he phoned President Mubarak and simply told him to get out of Dodge and even sent a personal emissary over to tell him the same thing (not armed, of course, Wyatt Earp style). Said emissary went over, had the conversation, then told the world that Mubarak should stay the course, sort of fight it out at the OK Corral. The crowds won the fight and celebrated by raping the nearest typical white girl (CBS reporter), proving their taste and refinement to be beyond excellent since Prexy Bush had said he was with the people all the way.
Earlier, Obama was also with the Tunisian people all the way but probably didn’t phone up ben Ali, the Tunisian ruler, and tell him to take a hike…though there’s no way to know that. Ben Ali wound up in Saudi Arabia, where Obama did a spine-threatening 90-degree genuflection before the Saudi head honcho on his famous “apology tour” of 2009. Maybe he persuaded the Arabs to take in poor ben Ali, but in exhibiting restraint, civility-wise, the prez hasn’t requested, along with the “people,” that ben Ali be extradited back to the scene of his crimes…or has he? Who knows?
To his credit, Obama doesn’t seem to get into the Iranian affairs much, exhibiting the penultimate in civil grace and restraint, notwithstanding that he should be expected to be with the Iranian protesters all the way, especially since they die by the sword for just…well, protesting. Presumably, he hasn’t phoned Iranian President Ahmadinejad and advised him that the sands of Cancun are nice at this time of year and that there are plenty of mosques there…an exhibition of taste and refinement, sort of reaching out to maybe the “typical beheader.”
After all, Obama’s said he’s with the protesters of Wisconsin in their fight with their governor, though he hasn’t phoned the governor and suggested a new line of work that doesn’t involve capital gains taxes. During the campaign, he said he would march with the union folks but so far has probably had schedule conflicts…or maybe a game of HORSE with the guys. Anyway, who wants to march in Madison in the wintertime? Civility involves restraint, after all.
One would expect an uncouth, unrefined president to phone-up Qaddafi and tell him to either flee or the marines are coming to the Barbary Coast. In a dazzling display of civility, Obama has not meddled and suggested to that butcher that he avoid a “Little Big Horn,” where the “people,” with whom Obama identifies, are being slaughtered in the streets. Back in the day, President Reagan showed his civil restraint by bombing Qaddafi”s bedroom. Earlier in the 80s, Calypso Louie Farrakhan and his sidekick, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, had visited Qadaffi’s harems, so maybe that influenced Barack Hussein. Or, maybe it was the ghost of Jimmy Carter’s brother, Beer Barrel Billy, who visited Libya in the 70s and actually weaseled a loan from Qaddafi.
On the home front, Obama has shown his civility by completely reversing himself from campaign mode (called deceit by some un-civil folks, citing taste and refinement vis-à-vis lying) and reckoning that…yep…marriage is not just a “one-woman-one-man” thing after all, never mind the DOM Act of the 90s. Taste and refinement now condone two men or two women “getting it on” in strange ways, using their body parts for other than their intended uses for intake and exhaust, not to mention finagling governmental freebies. He claimed this to be his personal interpretation of the un-civil Constitution but has shied away since November from his post-inaugural comment regarding disagreements by saying, “We won.”
Some say the prez couldn’t pressure Qaddafi too much lest Americans be taken hostage but that didn’t seem to matter concerning Mubarak. This is what Qaddafi said in his famous (infamous) speech at the UN in 2009, “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of the United States.” That might apply to the present situation…or not but, thankfully, term limits are in place.
Note: President Obama finally got around to suggesting that Qaddafi, also, get out of Dodge. Neither he nor Mubarak has, of course, and probably won’t so look for fireworks, at least in Libya. The Muslim Brotherhood is advancing its cause in Egypt…so look out, world!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Speech, as affected by civility, would not involve remarks that are crude, racist, demeaning, vulgar, profane, etc., since such attributes, at least as judged by most folks, would not indicate civility, never mind the president’s description of the Pennsylvanians in 2008 as sort of gun-toting bible-thumpers on the lookout for illegal immigrants, and felt the need in Philadelphia to identify the “typical white person.” One waits with bated breath for him, in fairness to all, to identify the “typical black person” or the “typical person of any other color,” but so far he has demurred…civility, doncha know?
The president’s taste and refinement were exhibited recently during the Egyptian uprising when he phoned President Mubarak and simply told him to get out of Dodge and even sent a personal emissary over to tell him the same thing (not armed, of course, Wyatt Earp style). Said emissary went over, had the conversation, then told the world that Mubarak should stay the course, sort of fight it out at the OK Corral. The crowds won the fight and celebrated by raping the nearest typical white girl (CBS reporter), proving their taste and refinement to be beyond excellent since Prexy Bush had said he was with the people all the way.
Earlier, Obama was also with the Tunisian people all the way but probably didn’t phone up ben Ali, the Tunisian ruler, and tell him to take a hike…though there’s no way to know that. Ben Ali wound up in Saudi Arabia, where Obama did a spine-threatening 90-degree genuflection before the Saudi head honcho on his famous “apology tour” of 2009. Maybe he persuaded the Arabs to take in poor ben Ali, but in exhibiting restraint, civility-wise, the prez hasn’t requested, along with the “people,” that ben Ali be extradited back to the scene of his crimes…or has he? Who knows?
To his credit, Obama doesn’t seem to get into the Iranian affairs much, exhibiting the penultimate in civil grace and restraint, notwithstanding that he should be expected to be with the Iranian protesters all the way, especially since they die by the sword for just…well, protesting. Presumably, he hasn’t phoned Iranian President Ahmadinejad and advised him that the sands of Cancun are nice at this time of year and that there are plenty of mosques there…an exhibition of taste and refinement, sort of reaching out to maybe the “typical beheader.”
After all, Obama’s said he’s with the protesters of Wisconsin in their fight with their governor, though he hasn’t phoned the governor and suggested a new line of work that doesn’t involve capital gains taxes. During the campaign, he said he would march with the union folks but so far has probably had schedule conflicts…or maybe a game of HORSE with the guys. Anyway, who wants to march in Madison in the wintertime? Civility involves restraint, after all.
One would expect an uncouth, unrefined president to phone-up Qaddafi and tell him to either flee or the marines are coming to the Barbary Coast. In a dazzling display of civility, Obama has not meddled and suggested to that butcher that he avoid a “Little Big Horn,” where the “people,” with whom Obama identifies, are being slaughtered in the streets. Back in the day, President Reagan showed his civil restraint by bombing Qaddafi”s bedroom. Earlier in the 80s, Calypso Louie Farrakhan and his sidekick, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, had visited Qadaffi’s harems, so maybe that influenced Barack Hussein. Or, maybe it was the ghost of Jimmy Carter’s brother, Beer Barrel Billy, who visited Libya in the 70s and actually weaseled a loan from Qaddafi.
On the home front, Obama has shown his civility by completely reversing himself from campaign mode (called deceit by some un-civil folks, citing taste and refinement vis-à-vis lying) and reckoning that…yep…marriage is not just a “one-woman-one-man” thing after all, never mind the DOM Act of the 90s. Taste and refinement now condone two men or two women “getting it on” in strange ways, using their body parts for other than their intended uses for intake and exhaust, not to mention finagling governmental freebies. He claimed this to be his personal interpretation of the un-civil Constitution but has shied away since November from his post-inaugural comment regarding disagreements by saying, “We won.”
Some say the prez couldn’t pressure Qaddafi too much lest Americans be taken hostage but that didn’t seem to matter concerning Mubarak. This is what Qaddafi said in his famous (infamous) speech at the UN in 2009, “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of the United States.” That might apply to the present situation…or not but, thankfully, term limits are in place.
Note: President Obama finally got around to suggesting that Qaddafi, also, get out of Dodge. Neither he nor Mubarak has, of course, and probably won’t so look for fireworks, at least in Libya. The Muslim Brotherhood is advancing its cause in Egypt…so look out, world!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Ahmadinejad, Mahdi & Dajjal
There’s been much in the media lately with regard to the 12th Imam or Mahdi, particularly since Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made it a focal point of his otherworldly responsibilities. The Mahdi is supposedly the reincarnation of a former descendent of Mohammad who was buried in a well or something as a child before having the opportunity to become the head Islamic honcho (12th imam) worldwide. There are a number of strains of Islam but the Sunnis and Shiites are the largest, though there are different strains even within them. They fight and kill each other as a matter of course, the internecine warfare having begun in 656 just 24 years after the death of Mohammad.
The Mahdi, according to at least Shiite eschatology (Ahmadinejad’s) will rule for an infinite time but only after there has been a cataclysmic and essentially worldwide war with much bloodshed. In this respect, the Mahdi is the Islamic counterpoint to Jesus Christ, who, according to the Holy Bible, will appear roughly toward the end of what is called the seven-year Great Tribulation, marked by 3.5 years apiece of relative peace and unmitigated chaos, respectively, during which the war known as the bloody Battle of Armageddon (probably in what is now Israel) will take place, at the end of which will begin a thousand-year rule of Christ.
There are other parallels vis-à-vis Islam and Christianity. According to the Shiite version, Mahdi will come only after the great war necessitating his return has been conducted by an evil character called the Dajjal, who will in turn be dispatched for his trouble by the Mahdi as he begins his infinite reign. According to the view held by most evangelical Christians, Armageddon will eventuate from the work of AntiChrist, a fearless and evil leader who will be dispatched by Jesus Christ leading an army of the heavenly host. Since Mohammed (early seventh century) co-opted scripture in creating the Koran, this parallel is easy to understand, actually just a form plagiarism.
Dajjal and AntiChrist have different origins. Dajjal will be a one-eyed man with a horrible scar on his forehead and his blind eye appearing as a swollen globule. He will arise more or less on his own, probably claim to be the Mahdi, raise his army and make war. AntiChrist will achieve notoriety in some way and will then be encouraged to form an army and wage war, presumably everyone else in the world against the Israelites. Some folks believe AntiChrist is already in existence and actually speculate about his identity.
Some Muslims believe the one-eyed business is merely symbolic of the decadent West as Dajjal (that one-eye on the back of a dollar bill), what with the virtual glorification of dancing, drunkenness, nudity, homosexuality, lewdness of every sort and their spread throughout the world. Some Christians may perceive of AntiChrist as a collection of nations (UN-sponsored, perhaps) that cooperate in fomenting Armageddon. Most folks in both groups are likely to believe in the personages, however, a more literal approach, and some Muslims believe them to be the same.
This explains why Ahmadinejad is so dangerous. He has already prepared the “throne” for the Mahdi, the Jamkaran mosque on the outskirts of Qom, a virtual Shiite holy city some 92 miles south of Tehran. What he desperately needs in order to bring on the Dajjal is, of course, a candidate for the job, and a setting in which the great conflagration can take place. He understands that the earliest Muslim operator (hopefully himself) to bring on the final destruction will get the prize, not of being Dajjal but of fulfilling his destiny as the enabler. One remembers that strange 2005 speech at the UN, in which he was somehow “transported” at its end, feeling, as he explained to a cleric, the hand of God (Allah) entrancing world leaders. He is, if anything, inordinately devout in his faith, sanguinary though it is.
Ironically, the only candidate currently might be Mullah Muhammad Omar, leader of the Taliban and former leader of Afghanistan, who is probably now hiding in the mountains on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Omar was a fearless leader in the war eventuating in the expulsion of Russia from Afghanistan in 1989, was wounded a number of times and in the process was blinded in one eye. He is said to also have a scar on his forehead. There are few pictures of the reclusive Omar, who never entered the capital of Kabul while he ruled the country from his home-base in Kandahar.
Omar has also been designated as the “Commander of the Faithful,” the first such in a thousand years, or the second caliph, or “Amirul Mu’mineen,” presumably the top Muslim in the world. Problem: Omar is a Sunni; therefore, probably not acceptable to Ahmadinejad, besides having no military base at the moment, instead, hiding out in caves.
The thing Ahmadinejad has going for him at present in the interest of fomenting the needed conflagration to bring on the Mahdi is the widespread Muslim chaos throughout the Middle East and Near-East North African countries. As the peoples rise up against their governments they kill each other but also vent their spleens upon the West and provide the atmosphere collectively conducive for attempting to wipe out Israel, the object of their greatest hate and the entity Ahmadinejad has sworn to “erase.” Such an action would plunge the entire world into war, Ahmadinejad’s greatest hope…thus the intro of the 12th imam at its bloody end. In the Mahdi’s reign, infidels (known as dhimmis – all non-Muslims) will pay the tax (be slaves) or die and all Jews will be annihilated.
Sound crazy? Of course! But Ahmadinejad and tens of millions of Muslims believe this, and they are probably far more fervent in their faith than most Christians are in theirs, at least in the West. He may believe in the symbolic Dajjal, in which case all he needs is the setting, now perhaps in place as much of his part of the world is aflame.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The Mahdi, according to at least Shiite eschatology (Ahmadinejad’s) will rule for an infinite time but only after there has been a cataclysmic and essentially worldwide war with much bloodshed. In this respect, the Mahdi is the Islamic counterpoint to Jesus Christ, who, according to the Holy Bible, will appear roughly toward the end of what is called the seven-year Great Tribulation, marked by 3.5 years apiece of relative peace and unmitigated chaos, respectively, during which the war known as the bloody Battle of Armageddon (probably in what is now Israel) will take place, at the end of which will begin a thousand-year rule of Christ.
There are other parallels vis-à-vis Islam and Christianity. According to the Shiite version, Mahdi will come only after the great war necessitating his return has been conducted by an evil character called the Dajjal, who will in turn be dispatched for his trouble by the Mahdi as he begins his infinite reign. According to the view held by most evangelical Christians, Armageddon will eventuate from the work of AntiChrist, a fearless and evil leader who will be dispatched by Jesus Christ leading an army of the heavenly host. Since Mohammed (early seventh century) co-opted scripture in creating the Koran, this parallel is easy to understand, actually just a form plagiarism.
Dajjal and AntiChrist have different origins. Dajjal will be a one-eyed man with a horrible scar on his forehead and his blind eye appearing as a swollen globule. He will arise more or less on his own, probably claim to be the Mahdi, raise his army and make war. AntiChrist will achieve notoriety in some way and will then be encouraged to form an army and wage war, presumably everyone else in the world against the Israelites. Some folks believe AntiChrist is already in existence and actually speculate about his identity.
Some Muslims believe the one-eyed business is merely symbolic of the decadent West as Dajjal (that one-eye on the back of a dollar bill), what with the virtual glorification of dancing, drunkenness, nudity, homosexuality, lewdness of every sort and their spread throughout the world. Some Christians may perceive of AntiChrist as a collection of nations (UN-sponsored, perhaps) that cooperate in fomenting Armageddon. Most folks in both groups are likely to believe in the personages, however, a more literal approach, and some Muslims believe them to be the same.
This explains why Ahmadinejad is so dangerous. He has already prepared the “throne” for the Mahdi, the Jamkaran mosque on the outskirts of Qom, a virtual Shiite holy city some 92 miles south of Tehran. What he desperately needs in order to bring on the Dajjal is, of course, a candidate for the job, and a setting in which the great conflagration can take place. He understands that the earliest Muslim operator (hopefully himself) to bring on the final destruction will get the prize, not of being Dajjal but of fulfilling his destiny as the enabler. One remembers that strange 2005 speech at the UN, in which he was somehow “transported” at its end, feeling, as he explained to a cleric, the hand of God (Allah) entrancing world leaders. He is, if anything, inordinately devout in his faith, sanguinary though it is.
Ironically, the only candidate currently might be Mullah Muhammad Omar, leader of the Taliban and former leader of Afghanistan, who is probably now hiding in the mountains on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Omar was a fearless leader in the war eventuating in the expulsion of Russia from Afghanistan in 1989, was wounded a number of times and in the process was blinded in one eye. He is said to also have a scar on his forehead. There are few pictures of the reclusive Omar, who never entered the capital of Kabul while he ruled the country from his home-base in Kandahar.
Omar has also been designated as the “Commander of the Faithful,” the first such in a thousand years, or the second caliph, or “Amirul Mu’mineen,” presumably the top Muslim in the world. Problem: Omar is a Sunni; therefore, probably not acceptable to Ahmadinejad, besides having no military base at the moment, instead, hiding out in caves.
The thing Ahmadinejad has going for him at present in the interest of fomenting the needed conflagration to bring on the Mahdi is the widespread Muslim chaos throughout the Middle East and Near-East North African countries. As the peoples rise up against their governments they kill each other but also vent their spleens upon the West and provide the atmosphere collectively conducive for attempting to wipe out Israel, the object of their greatest hate and the entity Ahmadinejad has sworn to “erase.” Such an action would plunge the entire world into war, Ahmadinejad’s greatest hope…thus the intro of the 12th imam at its bloody end. In the Mahdi’s reign, infidels (known as dhimmis – all non-Muslims) will pay the tax (be slaves) or die and all Jews will be annihilated.
Sound crazy? Of course! But Ahmadinejad and tens of millions of Muslims believe this, and they are probably far more fervent in their faith than most Christians are in theirs, at least in the West. He may believe in the symbolic Dajjal, in which case all he needs is the setting, now perhaps in place as much of his part of the world is aflame.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Unisex...An Unfair Advantage?
Just when one thinks the penultimate in public-school-education foolishness has been reached, such as distributing condoms to students while admitting they don’t always work and that abstinence is 100% effective but too old-fashioned even to consider, Iowa furnishes another example of why schools in this country are falling behind those in the rest of the world. Administrators appear to be idiots so why shouldn’t the products be…at least suspect?
Item: Girls are allowed to wrestle on what are essentially boys’ teams in Iowa. A potential champion (record of 35-4) recently defaulted on his way to an apparently excellent attempt at winning the crown in his weight division because he was being forced to wrestle a girl. He said it was a matter of conscience and faith, the former presumably because of the nature of things (men don’t purposefully hurt women or grab them in curious places, at least in public) and the latter because of his religious beliefs.
It’s doubtful that girls are allowed to play on high school football teams in Iowa for the obvious reason that they would be smashed. Strangely, the spectacle of a high school boy writhing with a high school girl (with their body parts massaging each other in strange places) on a mat in front of screaming thousands (wrestling is big in Iowa) seems so weird as to be unbelievable. Political correctness, the zany abstract that is damning America these days, is running amok. Aren’t there any girls’ wrestling teams in Iowa?
Unisex is the darling of the generations more or less pseudo-birthed by the “baby boomers” back in the hippy-dippy 60s. This concept is responsible for much if not most of the rape problem (real or imagined) in the military these days. Genders should not be mixed in situations devoid of privacy, especially in the ages-17-28 crowd. Anyone with walking-around-sense knows this but that sense is not available to the Congress or the current president…or in Iowa’s education establishment.
The young man’s decision is easy to understand and would likely be held by at least 99% of other young men in the same situation, although, of course, the girls presumably had to overcome other boys to get to the state finals. Is there something in the water in Iowa? The decision hardest to understand is that of the girl’s father, who apparently is willing to have his daughter mauled by a boy – or vice versa – in a public place. Or…what would any mother think of having her daughter appear in such a spectacle…or a son body-slam a girl?
Can one expect in this enlightened age that the genders in high school and college will soon be mixed in all sports? Probably not! The first girl to receive a concussion in football or a broken leg sliding into second or a beaning at the plate or a hard left-hook breaking a jaw in what has up to now been considered a guys’ game, with the understanding that girls have the same competitive opportunities (Title 9) in their own groups, may well decide the question. Without any doubt, girls will be far more vulnerable than the boys to injury.
Should boys be allowed to play on girls’ basketball or softball teams in Iowa, assuming there are such teams? Would that be any different from allowing girls to wrestle boys? Of course not! The drive to make everyone equal to everyone else in every area, including gender, is wearing thin for the simple reason that the incorrigible differences (inequalities) are unmistakably apparent to anyone with a grain of common sense.
Gender-integrated military boot camps have been tried at least twice for combat training, first in the 1970s (Carter administration) and later in the 1990s (Clinton administration). In both cases, they had to be discontinued because men and women are not usually equally capable of the physical and emotional grind necessary to preparation for breaking things and killing people. Simple!
Family values are supposed to be important in Iowa…but one wonders. Any father who would allow – yea, even encourage – his daughter to be slammed around by a boy as a matter of public entertainment or for any other reason is either sick or dumb…maybe both.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Item: Girls are allowed to wrestle on what are essentially boys’ teams in Iowa. A potential champion (record of 35-4) recently defaulted on his way to an apparently excellent attempt at winning the crown in his weight division because he was being forced to wrestle a girl. He said it was a matter of conscience and faith, the former presumably because of the nature of things (men don’t purposefully hurt women or grab them in curious places, at least in public) and the latter because of his religious beliefs.
It’s doubtful that girls are allowed to play on high school football teams in Iowa for the obvious reason that they would be smashed. Strangely, the spectacle of a high school boy writhing with a high school girl (with their body parts massaging each other in strange places) on a mat in front of screaming thousands (wrestling is big in Iowa) seems so weird as to be unbelievable. Political correctness, the zany abstract that is damning America these days, is running amok. Aren’t there any girls’ wrestling teams in Iowa?
Unisex is the darling of the generations more or less pseudo-birthed by the “baby boomers” back in the hippy-dippy 60s. This concept is responsible for much if not most of the rape problem (real or imagined) in the military these days. Genders should not be mixed in situations devoid of privacy, especially in the ages-17-28 crowd. Anyone with walking-around-sense knows this but that sense is not available to the Congress or the current president…or in Iowa’s education establishment.
The young man’s decision is easy to understand and would likely be held by at least 99% of other young men in the same situation, although, of course, the girls presumably had to overcome other boys to get to the state finals. Is there something in the water in Iowa? The decision hardest to understand is that of the girl’s father, who apparently is willing to have his daughter mauled by a boy – or vice versa – in a public place. Or…what would any mother think of having her daughter appear in such a spectacle…or a son body-slam a girl?
Can one expect in this enlightened age that the genders in high school and college will soon be mixed in all sports? Probably not! The first girl to receive a concussion in football or a broken leg sliding into second or a beaning at the plate or a hard left-hook breaking a jaw in what has up to now been considered a guys’ game, with the understanding that girls have the same competitive opportunities (Title 9) in their own groups, may well decide the question. Without any doubt, girls will be far more vulnerable than the boys to injury.
Should boys be allowed to play on girls’ basketball or softball teams in Iowa, assuming there are such teams? Would that be any different from allowing girls to wrestle boys? Of course not! The drive to make everyone equal to everyone else in every area, including gender, is wearing thin for the simple reason that the incorrigible differences (inequalities) are unmistakably apparent to anyone with a grain of common sense.
Gender-integrated military boot camps have been tried at least twice for combat training, first in the 1970s (Carter administration) and later in the 1990s (Clinton administration). In both cases, they had to be discontinued because men and women are not usually equally capable of the physical and emotional grind necessary to preparation for breaking things and killing people. Simple!
Family values are supposed to be important in Iowa…but one wonders. Any father who would allow – yea, even encourage – his daughter to be slammed around by a boy as a matter of public entertainment or for any other reason is either sick or dumb…maybe both.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, February 18, 2011
Ky. Legislative Social Engineering
The Kentucky House of Representatives has been busy with measures dealing with social change. HB 58, passed 94-0, would mandate that a device be attached to a DUI offender’s vehicle that would disallow the car-engine to start if the driver failed a sobriety breath-test embedded in the device, assuming the driver to be still sober enough to find and activate the device.
Sound like a good idea? Of course…but only if the driver and not a less-drunk passenger (or a dog) activates the device! The DUI threshold for tolerance in Kentucky is .08. Question: At what setting would the breathalyzer on the device indicate as safe – .04, .02, or maybe .07? After all, a driver pulled over by an officer is not a DUI candidate if he checks in at .07. Logically and legally, then, the limit would be at .07, virtually the same as the feared DUI mark.
That’s not good enough, especially since people should never drive if they have imbibed any amount of alcohol. The difference between being legally drunk and not drunk (.01), besides being infinitely small, means nothing to a family whose loved one is killed by a driver checking in at .07, making him unsusceptible to a DUI murder/manslaughter charge that can be lodged against a driver checking in at .08.
The breathalyzer device would be susceptible to tampering that could render it totally useless. Would the offending driver be required to submit his car for testing once a month, once a week…or ever? Is this covered in the bill? Radar devices used by the police have to be tested and calibrated periodically, lest the results not stand up in Court, so one would assume the bill allows for this. If not, it’s useless.
A much better punishment for a DUI offense would be the impoundment of the car. The offender couldn’t tamper with this solution and, more importantly, he wouldn’t be on the road in it again if it were impounded…say, for six months and simply confiscated for a second offense. Such a law would have actual teeth. Only a few instances of its implementation would probably be needed to sharply curtail drunk-driving.
HB 35 has been passed, allowing anyone over 18 years of age to acquire a protective order against whomever he/she deems a threat. These orders are currently aimed at “domestic violence” victims, defined as married couples, shack-up couples and those who have a child together.
Those categories cover all the bases as a domestic matter but now any 18-year-old can apparently petition the court for protection, just naming the person to be protected against, with no domestic connection. Imagine the extra effort and expense required of law enforcement to monitor what could be an act of revenge by a high school senior girl against the guy who drops her for another “lovely.”
This is social engineering gone amok. Why set the age-limit at 18? Why not 14, an age when a possible victim is far more vulnerable, especially in the world of bullies? A person can vote at 18 and join the army, so maybe that’s the reason. Do minors lack equal rights?
HB 225 is out of both the Education and Appropriations/Revenue Committees and would raise the school-dropout-age from 16 to 18, at least eventually. This writer spent five years teaching mostly high-school math in another life, learning firsthand how dealing with the no-learners steals huge amounts of time from teaching both the slow-learners and the fast-learners.
Teachers shouldn’t be forced to face this problem. The students are the ones who suffer, denied the teacher’s time and thus the ultimate opportunity to excel or at least obtain a passing knowledge of any subject. The big news lately is that only 34% of high school grads in Kentucky are equipped for either college or careers – intolerable, especially considering the inordinately huge segment of state/local budgets dedicated to education.
Except in rare cases, a 17-year-old entering tenth instead of twelfth grade is too academically impaired to do more than take up space except, perhaps, in one area in which there is interest. It would be better to direct no-learner students into endeavors in which they can be successful but outside the school setting, in which they are uncomfortable or determined to be disruptive. Simply blaming teachers for lacking motivational skills is not the answer. Forcing them to handle uninterested, often disruptive and incorrigible non-learners exacerbates their problems.
None of these social-engineering efforts are worth much and may even be harmful, as in encouraging the boozer to periodically check his heap in the parking lot to keep his breathalyzer below the DUI threshold, thus encouraging drinking rather than discouraging it.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Sound like a good idea? Of course…but only if the driver and not a less-drunk passenger (or a dog) activates the device! The DUI threshold for tolerance in Kentucky is .08. Question: At what setting would the breathalyzer on the device indicate as safe – .04, .02, or maybe .07? After all, a driver pulled over by an officer is not a DUI candidate if he checks in at .07. Logically and legally, then, the limit would be at .07, virtually the same as the feared DUI mark.
That’s not good enough, especially since people should never drive if they have imbibed any amount of alcohol. The difference between being legally drunk and not drunk (.01), besides being infinitely small, means nothing to a family whose loved one is killed by a driver checking in at .07, making him unsusceptible to a DUI murder/manslaughter charge that can be lodged against a driver checking in at .08.
The breathalyzer device would be susceptible to tampering that could render it totally useless. Would the offending driver be required to submit his car for testing once a month, once a week…or ever? Is this covered in the bill? Radar devices used by the police have to be tested and calibrated periodically, lest the results not stand up in Court, so one would assume the bill allows for this. If not, it’s useless.
A much better punishment for a DUI offense would be the impoundment of the car. The offender couldn’t tamper with this solution and, more importantly, he wouldn’t be on the road in it again if it were impounded…say, for six months and simply confiscated for a second offense. Such a law would have actual teeth. Only a few instances of its implementation would probably be needed to sharply curtail drunk-driving.
HB 35 has been passed, allowing anyone over 18 years of age to acquire a protective order against whomever he/she deems a threat. These orders are currently aimed at “domestic violence” victims, defined as married couples, shack-up couples and those who have a child together.
Those categories cover all the bases as a domestic matter but now any 18-year-old can apparently petition the court for protection, just naming the person to be protected against, with no domestic connection. Imagine the extra effort and expense required of law enforcement to monitor what could be an act of revenge by a high school senior girl against the guy who drops her for another “lovely.”
This is social engineering gone amok. Why set the age-limit at 18? Why not 14, an age when a possible victim is far more vulnerable, especially in the world of bullies? A person can vote at 18 and join the army, so maybe that’s the reason. Do minors lack equal rights?
HB 225 is out of both the Education and Appropriations/Revenue Committees and would raise the school-dropout-age from 16 to 18, at least eventually. This writer spent five years teaching mostly high-school math in another life, learning firsthand how dealing with the no-learners steals huge amounts of time from teaching both the slow-learners and the fast-learners.
Teachers shouldn’t be forced to face this problem. The students are the ones who suffer, denied the teacher’s time and thus the ultimate opportunity to excel or at least obtain a passing knowledge of any subject. The big news lately is that only 34% of high school grads in Kentucky are equipped for either college or careers – intolerable, especially considering the inordinately huge segment of state/local budgets dedicated to education.
Except in rare cases, a 17-year-old entering tenth instead of twelfth grade is too academically impaired to do more than take up space except, perhaps, in one area in which there is interest. It would be better to direct no-learner students into endeavors in which they can be successful but outside the school setting, in which they are uncomfortable or determined to be disruptive. Simply blaming teachers for lacking motivational skills is not the answer. Forcing them to handle uninterested, often disruptive and incorrigible non-learners exacerbates their problems.
None of these social-engineering efforts are worth much and may even be harmful, as in encouraging the boozer to periodically check his heap in the parking lot to keep his breathalyzer below the DUI threshold, thus encouraging drinking rather than discouraging it.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Military Rape
The latest news from the world of the military has to do with the problem of rape in the services. A lawsuit against the government and some officials has been instituted by 15 women and two men, current or former service-members who claim they were raped but that nothing significant was done about their complaints.
One of the complainants, Panayiota Bertzikis, is executive director of the Military Rape Crisis Center, which has a post-office address in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She claimed that while on a social hike (off duty) with a Coast Guard shipmate in 2006 her colleague raped her but when she reported it to her commanding officer the authorities did not take substantial steps to investigate the matter, instead, forcing her to live on the same floor with the accused rapist and that she had to tolerate being called “liar” and “whore” by others.
The rape might have occurred but it seems obvious enough that whatever happened was a “he said–she said” matter, and it’s a lead-pipe cinch there were no witnesses. Apparently she did not report the matter to the civil authorities (Burlington, Vt.), though rape is a crime in Vermont, not just in the Coast Guard if at all if off-duty and off-base. Her case is too insubstantial for validity, though it’s also a lead-pipe cinch that rapes do happen and that many if not most are not handled properly.
Most if not all the rapes – real, imagined, or simply accusatory – would not happen if the military had not been turned over to the social engineers years ago. For instance, the army tried gender-integrated boot camps in 1977 (Carter administration) but gave that up in 1982 (Reagan). The reason: The men, who would actually do the fighting in the future, were far too soft to be successful since the formerly stringent training-requirements had to be accommodated to what the women could stand. One can only wonder at the rape opportunities but the social engineers were too dumb to think of that…or didn’t care.
The Clinton administration (another democrat) brought the concept back in the 1990s, notwithstanding that the commanders were stuck again with the same problem, though the Marines had none of it. This is from the Heritage Foundation of 06 November 1997: “President Clinton's assistant secretary of the Navy, Barbara Pope, has averred that ‘We are in the process of weeding out the white male as the norm. We're about changing the culture.’” By his own admission, Clinton “loathed” the military, had no understanding of anything related to it and obviously didn’t care one way or another, rape notwithstanding.
Poor Pope was merely a nincompoop, just like the other social engineers. The system has been changed again so that combat troops in the army train in gender-segregated boot camps. Only two of the five army boot camps have coed elements, allowing for specialized training in such things as finance, personnel and maintenance.
Only the brain-power of an orangutan is required to see the problem of rape, as well as un-readiness, in the military. Mixing mostly older adolescents and early-20s in living/working arrangements essentially devoid of privacy is literally begging for trouble, whether concerning rape or anything else, not to mention with the actual preparedness needed to break things and kill people, the job of the soldier.
Though it’s politically incorrect to suggest it, there should be no mixture of the genders in the military. There should be no women on naval ships unless the entire crew is comprised of women…thus little chance for rape. The navy is preparing now to put women on submarines, a shocking development made more so by the fact that privacy on a sub is impossible. People practically live on top of each other, rape notwithstanding.
There should be no women in combat account the privacy problem but far more importantly because, as proven in the boot-camp experiments, they are and will not be battle-ready, except for the rare case occasionally. Soldiers will be more concerned with protecting their female colleagues than even themselves, not to mention concentrating on killing the enemy.
According to the Virginian Pilot of 16 October 2007, “Navy officials encourage women to plan pregnancies to coincide with shore duty. If women become pregnant during sea duty, they are transferred at 20 weeks' gestation, and weight and physical fitness requirements temporarily are eased. In addition, women receive 40 days of maternity leave after delivering an infant.” They’re also awarded a year of shore duty after giving birth, according to the article, making their total out-of-pocket time about 21 months.
According to Military Times of 17 October 2009, “Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a ‘lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,’ according to a Naval Inspector General Report.” This has nothing directly to do with rape but simply indicates the problem connected to feminizing the military…social engineering gone amok.
The services are damned by a Congress so hopelessly blockheaded that rape is almost the natural result of its sheer incompetence/insensitivity in allowing defense chiefs or presidents to make the military into a mixture of whorehouse and gigolo-world. God help us all.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
One of the complainants, Panayiota Bertzikis, is executive director of the Military Rape Crisis Center, which has a post-office address in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She claimed that while on a social hike (off duty) with a Coast Guard shipmate in 2006 her colleague raped her but when she reported it to her commanding officer the authorities did not take substantial steps to investigate the matter, instead, forcing her to live on the same floor with the accused rapist and that she had to tolerate being called “liar” and “whore” by others.
The rape might have occurred but it seems obvious enough that whatever happened was a “he said–she said” matter, and it’s a lead-pipe cinch there were no witnesses. Apparently she did not report the matter to the civil authorities (Burlington, Vt.), though rape is a crime in Vermont, not just in the Coast Guard if at all if off-duty and off-base. Her case is too insubstantial for validity, though it’s also a lead-pipe cinch that rapes do happen and that many if not most are not handled properly.
Most if not all the rapes – real, imagined, or simply accusatory – would not happen if the military had not been turned over to the social engineers years ago. For instance, the army tried gender-integrated boot camps in 1977 (Carter administration) but gave that up in 1982 (Reagan). The reason: The men, who would actually do the fighting in the future, were far too soft to be successful since the formerly stringent training-requirements had to be accommodated to what the women could stand. One can only wonder at the rape opportunities but the social engineers were too dumb to think of that…or didn’t care.
The Clinton administration (another democrat) brought the concept back in the 1990s, notwithstanding that the commanders were stuck again with the same problem, though the Marines had none of it. This is from the Heritage Foundation of 06 November 1997: “President Clinton's assistant secretary of the Navy, Barbara Pope, has averred that ‘We are in the process of weeding out the white male as the norm. We're about changing the culture.’” By his own admission, Clinton “loathed” the military, had no understanding of anything related to it and obviously didn’t care one way or another, rape notwithstanding.
Poor Pope was merely a nincompoop, just like the other social engineers. The system has been changed again so that combat troops in the army train in gender-segregated boot camps. Only two of the five army boot camps have coed elements, allowing for specialized training in such things as finance, personnel and maintenance.
Only the brain-power of an orangutan is required to see the problem of rape, as well as un-readiness, in the military. Mixing mostly older adolescents and early-20s in living/working arrangements essentially devoid of privacy is literally begging for trouble, whether concerning rape or anything else, not to mention with the actual preparedness needed to break things and kill people, the job of the soldier.
Though it’s politically incorrect to suggest it, there should be no mixture of the genders in the military. There should be no women on naval ships unless the entire crew is comprised of women…thus little chance for rape. The navy is preparing now to put women on submarines, a shocking development made more so by the fact that privacy on a sub is impossible. People practically live on top of each other, rape notwithstanding.
There should be no women in combat account the privacy problem but far more importantly because, as proven in the boot-camp experiments, they are and will not be battle-ready, except for the rare case occasionally. Soldiers will be more concerned with protecting their female colleagues than even themselves, not to mention concentrating on killing the enemy.
According to the Virginian Pilot of 16 October 2007, “Navy officials encourage women to plan pregnancies to coincide with shore duty. If women become pregnant during sea duty, they are transferred at 20 weeks' gestation, and weight and physical fitness requirements temporarily are eased. In addition, women receive 40 days of maternity leave after delivering an infant.” They’re also awarded a year of shore duty after giving birth, according to the article, making their total out-of-pocket time about 21 months.
According to Military Times of 17 October 2009, “Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a ‘lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,’ according to a Naval Inspector General Report.” This has nothing directly to do with rape but simply indicates the problem connected to feminizing the military…social engineering gone amok.
The services are damned by a Congress so hopelessly blockheaded that rape is almost the natural result of its sheer incompetence/insensitivity in allowing defense chiefs or presidents to make the military into a mixture of whorehouse and gigolo-world. God help us all.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Prez/Athletic-Director/Trustees Cabal
Amid great fanfare accruing to his determination to turn the University of Kentucky into “top-20” status –Harvard on I-75 – Dr. Lee Todd became its president some ten years ago. The method: paying the “brightest brains in the land” to join the faculty/administration, even directly violating both the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky statutes by conferring marriage-benefits to members of same-sex unions, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to bring it off.
UK has some strong colleges/departments and some not so strong, like most similar institutions. Buildings have been erected and the physical plant perhaps improved. Overall, UK has probably progressed over the ten years though no one can say to what extent but certainly to nowhere near the “top-20” mark.
A strange thing didn’t happen on the way to “top-20” status because it was already in place, namely, that UK perseveres as a “jock school.” The Athletic Department sits astride the university like an anteater on the prowl, ready to snap up any dollar within tongue-distance or claw anything threatening its existence.
Virtually since the beginning of his tenure, Todd has been obsessed with the commercial sports angle (Athletic Department), a smoke-&-mirrors part of the university, with the president as CEO and the athletic director as top-gofer serving at the pleasure of the boss within contractual bounds, including every conceivable loophole covering the derrieres of both operators.
Last year, Todd announced his leaving this June, stranding Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart until 2016 with a salary of only $475,000 annually plus gobs of “incentives” – two cars, club memberships, performance bonuses (mostly for just breathing consistently), payoffs when teams merely qualify for tournaments or go to bowl games, and appearing in the media, the latter worth $100,000 annually when Barnhart was hired in 2002, though it took six months for a Todd/Barnhart contract to be completed.
Counting everything except media stuff, Barnhart was good for a minimum of $605,000 in 2010…not near enough, so lame-duck Todd raised his salary recently to $600,000 (26% increase) and extended his contract through 2019. Add the sugar-sticks and Barnhart should be looking at maybe $800,000 this year (not counting media-participation).
One of Barnhart’s more notable achievements was the hiring and firing two years later of a basketball coach who sued successfully and collected $3 million from Barnhart’s bailiwick. He was “just not the right fit,” as Barnhart put it, strangely claiming the coach never signed a contract. After two years? A $125,000 raise for this incompetence?
Barnhart’s windfall just about equals the boondoggle the board of trustees (also called crony-crew) awarded Todd last September, a sort of going away present – $825,138 added to his base salary of $354,000 for the last two years, a total suck-up of $1,533,138, about a 100% raise. The faculty, with no significant raises for years, could “just eat cake.” In impolite circles, this is called highway-robbery, concerning the taxpayers.
Then-president of Vanderbilt, Gordon Gee tired of his giant anteater in 2003 and simply excised the Athletics Department and the athletics-director post, placing sports-activity in more appropriate areas of the university. He saw that athletes were essentially separated from anything other than sports, the antithesis of the term “student-athlete.”
According to Ulinks.com, Vanderbilt, also in the highly competitive Southeastern Conference, is the 43rd best university in the world. Gee meant for the school to maintain “top-20” status and for “student athlete” to mean something. Rather than folding athletically, as many thought it would, Vandy has prospered, not that it wins the conference or has the greatest records, but it has turned out some fine athletes since 2003 and owns a phenomenal athlete-graduation rate.
Todd had the perfect opportunity to point UK in the Vandy direction and had a great shot at it when he came since the “brightest in the land” would have given their eye-teeth to teach here. He didn’t do it. He and Barnhart have gotten well financially but the chance to drive toward “top-20” status has been squandered.
The campus-segregated basketball team has a dormitory of its own, with a glitzy new replacement on the way…gotta keep those guys FOCUSED, the latest buzz-word in sports-world. Academics are so distracting…but money talks.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
UK has some strong colleges/departments and some not so strong, like most similar institutions. Buildings have been erected and the physical plant perhaps improved. Overall, UK has probably progressed over the ten years though no one can say to what extent but certainly to nowhere near the “top-20” mark.
A strange thing didn’t happen on the way to “top-20” status because it was already in place, namely, that UK perseveres as a “jock school.” The Athletic Department sits astride the university like an anteater on the prowl, ready to snap up any dollar within tongue-distance or claw anything threatening its existence.
Virtually since the beginning of his tenure, Todd has been obsessed with the commercial sports angle (Athletic Department), a smoke-&-mirrors part of the university, with the president as CEO and the athletic director as top-gofer serving at the pleasure of the boss within contractual bounds, including every conceivable loophole covering the derrieres of both operators.
Last year, Todd announced his leaving this June, stranding Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart until 2016 with a salary of only $475,000 annually plus gobs of “incentives” – two cars, club memberships, performance bonuses (mostly for just breathing consistently), payoffs when teams merely qualify for tournaments or go to bowl games, and appearing in the media, the latter worth $100,000 annually when Barnhart was hired in 2002, though it took six months for a Todd/Barnhart contract to be completed.
Counting everything except media stuff, Barnhart was good for a minimum of $605,000 in 2010…not near enough, so lame-duck Todd raised his salary recently to $600,000 (26% increase) and extended his contract through 2019. Add the sugar-sticks and Barnhart should be looking at maybe $800,000 this year (not counting media-participation).
One of Barnhart’s more notable achievements was the hiring and firing two years later of a basketball coach who sued successfully and collected $3 million from Barnhart’s bailiwick. He was “just not the right fit,” as Barnhart put it, strangely claiming the coach never signed a contract. After two years? A $125,000 raise for this incompetence?
Barnhart’s windfall just about equals the boondoggle the board of trustees (also called crony-crew) awarded Todd last September, a sort of going away present – $825,138 added to his base salary of $354,000 for the last two years, a total suck-up of $1,533,138, about a 100% raise. The faculty, with no significant raises for years, could “just eat cake.” In impolite circles, this is called highway-robbery, concerning the taxpayers.
Then-president of Vanderbilt, Gordon Gee tired of his giant anteater in 2003 and simply excised the Athletics Department and the athletics-director post, placing sports-activity in more appropriate areas of the university. He saw that athletes were essentially separated from anything other than sports, the antithesis of the term “student-athlete.”
According to Ulinks.com, Vanderbilt, also in the highly competitive Southeastern Conference, is the 43rd best university in the world. Gee meant for the school to maintain “top-20” status and for “student athlete” to mean something. Rather than folding athletically, as many thought it would, Vandy has prospered, not that it wins the conference or has the greatest records, but it has turned out some fine athletes since 2003 and owns a phenomenal athlete-graduation rate.
Todd had the perfect opportunity to point UK in the Vandy direction and had a great shot at it when he came since the “brightest in the land” would have given their eye-teeth to teach here. He didn’t do it. He and Barnhart have gotten well financially but the chance to drive toward “top-20” status has been squandered.
The campus-segregated basketball team has a dormitory of its own, with a glitzy new replacement on the way…gotta keep those guys FOCUSED, the latest buzz-word in sports-world. Academics are so distracting…but money talks.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, February 11, 2011
Revolution in D.C.
A late-night bulletin from Egyptian Television, complete with graphics:
For two weeks now, up to four- or five-hundred-thousand protesters have camped on the mall and in much smaller numbers in Lafayette Park, most of them peacefully surrounding the White House, but some have already sprayed graffiti on the various memorials and a few have broken some windows and burned cars along streets leading to the gathering places. Their leaders, nameless by design apparently but reported to be members of the fanatic Southern Baptist Convention party, have distributed signs bearing the messages OBAMA MUST GO and LEAVE NOW.
The momentum for the protest has been gathering steam for especially the last few weeks as proponents have tweeted, blogged, and used FaceBook to whip up enthusiasm and angst. Leaders have sought out members of the foreign press to enunciate their grievances, and reporters from entities such as al Jazeera have sought out any Egyptian-speakers or Arab-speakers in general in order to convey these complaints to the Middle East countries, whose leaders/populations have long hated the United States and longed for its demise.
The protesters have come prepared to stay – as some have said – until that well-known hot place freezes over or the president is forced to resign and leave the country, whichever comes first, though California would also be acceptable as a foreign destination. Their main complaint is that he not only has not kept his campaign promises but has also, obviously by design, attempted to take the nation into socialism and even regulate salt-amounts in potato chips. Their leaders have appealed to the military for its support in a rather transparent effort to effect a palace coup.
President Mubarak of Egypt, the most important of the Arab nations and despite its longstanding friendship with and support of the U.S., made it clear at the outset, both officially through himself and his prime minister, as well as through its largely government-controlled press that Obama should resign immediately and not bother with any constitutional requirements but simply let the people choose a new leader, hopefully with as little bloodshed as possible. However, the Egyptian position has changed on a daily basis, so no one knows exactly what it is, though Vice President Biden has reported that it’s just a three-letter word: GO.
What is commonly known as the mainstream media in the U.S. has virtually no presence in the protest-area, but some members of the Egyptian press have been roughed up by presumably the D.C. police and many have been detained for interrogation. The administration has attempted to blackout all TV newscasts of the event but has been unsuccessful. Protesters are still arriving in droves.
There are many groups of protesters with many different grievances. Some are incensed because Obama has not closed Guantanamo as he promised he would by January of 2010. Others are mad because instead of getting Americans out of Afghanistan by this summer the president has poured in more troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda until 2014.
Others are gravely disappointed that the president has lied inasmuch as he has added 30 million people and no doctors to healthcare protection while claiming to lower the deficit, an impossibility, not to mention the breakdown of the finest health effort in the world. Older people are incensed over the “death panels” incorporated in the legislation as well as because nearly 800 entities (translated big givers and cronies) have been exempted from the requirements of the law, not to mention that hip-replacement victims will have to wait up to two years for cheap plastic bones.
Still others are calling for his resignation because he has attempted to make good on a campaign promise everyone thought was a joke, namely that he would make electricity costs skyrocket, not least by disallowing the drilling for oil that would make the country oil-independent from nations that hate the U.S., and shutting down manufacturing via enormous cap-and-trade taxes, thus throwing millions out of work, with the actual unemployment rate at 22%, making it a third-world nation largely owned by the Chinese.
There’s great unrest among the protesters account Obama’s worldwide apologies for the very existence of this nation as well as his surrounding himself with financiers and czars, forming a sort of oligarchy, the public be damned. Some protesters, waving dirty socks, are calling for him to leave because he hasn’t withdrawn all troops from Iraq. However, the word has been all day that he’s about to step down and the people are jubilant and throwing parties in the WWII Memorial.
Barbed wire has been placed around the Capitol and the White House. Top military brass is at the Pentagon across the river, the rumor being that decisions are having to be made as to whether or not the military will side with the president, who has just said in a midnight speech he has no intention of leaving before 2012 and perhaps not then and that his position will not be dictated by foreign powers.
In the meantime, Mubarak has demanded that an orderly process of transfer of power and timeline be instituted tonight and has declared that the parties known as the SBC Convention, New Black Panthers and Weather Underground, inordinately beneficent groups, will not hijack the movement, never mind their history of extreme doctrine and/or violence.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
For two weeks now, up to four- or five-hundred-thousand protesters have camped on the mall and in much smaller numbers in Lafayette Park, most of them peacefully surrounding the White House, but some have already sprayed graffiti on the various memorials and a few have broken some windows and burned cars along streets leading to the gathering places. Their leaders, nameless by design apparently but reported to be members of the fanatic Southern Baptist Convention party, have distributed signs bearing the messages OBAMA MUST GO and LEAVE NOW.
The momentum for the protest has been gathering steam for especially the last few weeks as proponents have tweeted, blogged, and used FaceBook to whip up enthusiasm and angst. Leaders have sought out members of the foreign press to enunciate their grievances, and reporters from entities such as al Jazeera have sought out any Egyptian-speakers or Arab-speakers in general in order to convey these complaints to the Middle East countries, whose leaders/populations have long hated the United States and longed for its demise.
The protesters have come prepared to stay – as some have said – until that well-known hot place freezes over or the president is forced to resign and leave the country, whichever comes first, though California would also be acceptable as a foreign destination. Their main complaint is that he not only has not kept his campaign promises but has also, obviously by design, attempted to take the nation into socialism and even regulate salt-amounts in potato chips. Their leaders have appealed to the military for its support in a rather transparent effort to effect a palace coup.
President Mubarak of Egypt, the most important of the Arab nations and despite its longstanding friendship with and support of the U.S., made it clear at the outset, both officially through himself and his prime minister, as well as through its largely government-controlled press that Obama should resign immediately and not bother with any constitutional requirements but simply let the people choose a new leader, hopefully with as little bloodshed as possible. However, the Egyptian position has changed on a daily basis, so no one knows exactly what it is, though Vice President Biden has reported that it’s just a three-letter word: GO.
What is commonly known as the mainstream media in the U.S. has virtually no presence in the protest-area, but some members of the Egyptian press have been roughed up by presumably the D.C. police and many have been detained for interrogation. The administration has attempted to blackout all TV newscasts of the event but has been unsuccessful. Protesters are still arriving in droves.
There are many groups of protesters with many different grievances. Some are incensed because Obama has not closed Guantanamo as he promised he would by January of 2010. Others are mad because instead of getting Americans out of Afghanistan by this summer the president has poured in more troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda until 2014.
Others are gravely disappointed that the president has lied inasmuch as he has added 30 million people and no doctors to healthcare protection while claiming to lower the deficit, an impossibility, not to mention the breakdown of the finest health effort in the world. Older people are incensed over the “death panels” incorporated in the legislation as well as because nearly 800 entities (translated big givers and cronies) have been exempted from the requirements of the law, not to mention that hip-replacement victims will have to wait up to two years for cheap plastic bones.
Still others are calling for his resignation because he has attempted to make good on a campaign promise everyone thought was a joke, namely that he would make electricity costs skyrocket, not least by disallowing the drilling for oil that would make the country oil-independent from nations that hate the U.S., and shutting down manufacturing via enormous cap-and-trade taxes, thus throwing millions out of work, with the actual unemployment rate at 22%, making it a third-world nation largely owned by the Chinese.
There’s great unrest among the protesters account Obama’s worldwide apologies for the very existence of this nation as well as his surrounding himself with financiers and czars, forming a sort of oligarchy, the public be damned. Some protesters, waving dirty socks, are calling for him to leave because he hasn’t withdrawn all troops from Iraq. However, the word has been all day that he’s about to step down and the people are jubilant and throwing parties in the WWII Memorial.
Barbed wire has been placed around the Capitol and the White House. Top military brass is at the Pentagon across the river, the rumor being that decisions are having to be made as to whether or not the military will side with the president, who has just said in a midnight speech he has no intention of leaving before 2012 and perhaps not then and that his position will not be dictated by foreign powers.
In the meantime, Mubarak has demanded that an orderly process of transfer of power and timeline be instituted tonight and has declared that the parties known as the SBC Convention, New Black Panthers and Weather Underground, inordinately beneficent groups, will not hijack the movement, never mind their history of extreme doctrine and/or violence.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, February 07, 2011
L’Affaire Egyptioan
The “Egyptian Affaire” has ended, leaving everyone with a sigh of relief and a lot of folks with egg on their respective faces. Two-thirds of the mainstream media considered this event so important that it dispatched its Olympian “anchors,” Brian Williams (NBC) and Katie Couric (CBS), to the action in Cairo, never mind that the networks already had the ground crawling with their representatives/spin-meisters. Couric became too tweeter-happy and so mistakenly tweeted that Mubarak had resigned, forcing an apology. Mubarak hasn’t resigned to date and most likely will not any time soon, if at all before the September elections.
Egyptian Vice President Suleiman made it a point to mention his belief that the newsy folks had conspired with elements on the ground to cause the upheaval. This is easy to believe since the Americans treated it much like they did affairs vis-à-vis Katrina, blaming the U.S. government then for allowing that disaster to become a calamity, notwithstanding that later investigation proved the stark ineptitude of New Orleans Mayor Nagin and Louisiana Governor Blanco to be the actual and damning reason for much if not all the suffering.
There was no doubt that NBC, CBS, ABC and their affiliates sided with the protestors and against the government, notwithstanding the grief the whole thing caused. Fox’s Shepard Smith had his usual hysterics, too (as he did in the Katrina thing), not least because a couple of Fox news-people were manhandled, not surprising since Suleiman, whether right or wrong, must have concluded that the reporter/commentators (no such animal as reporters anymore) were attempting to turn the whole world against the Egyptian government, never realizing the enormity of the stakes involved. After a tumultuous week, the Friday demonstrations in Cairo were peaceful. The reason: The news people from all over the world, especially from the U.S., were invited out, often in very harsh ways.
Venezuela’s Chavez announced that if the Suez were to be closed oil would rise to $200 per barrel. With the army on his side, Mubarak, who has kept the Suez open, stays until the army is not on his side. He’s no beauty but at least Egypt is only 90% Sunni Muslim instead of 99%, as in Algeria, about the same as most other countries in that area. Mubarak and Yemen’s President Saleh (also a 30-year + guy) are the only U.S. allies in fighting the terrorists, so there’s a natural trade-off vis-à-vis the respective populaces. Anyhow, the U.S. Congress is routinely dominated (and corrupted) by operatives with well over 30 years of service, so what else is new?
It’s impolitic and politically incorrect to do so, but the Muslim countries can be compared to the countries of Latin America, which were colonized largely by nations in which Roman Catholicism was perhaps the main player. The Catholic missionaries discouraged individual study of the scriptures, preferring indoctrination to understanding. This was another way of discouraging meaningful education concerning everything else. South America, if anything, is blessed with more natural resources than North America, with Brazil alone almost as large as the lower 48. Look at the difference between North and South America not only economically but governmentally, with South American governments largely fashioned at the point of the gun. North America was colonized by people accustomed to thinking for themselves, spiritually and otherwise. Education was a main difference.
The Muslim countries have little industry other than tourism. The power rests almost entirely with the ayatollahs, imams, etc., who operate under the Koran and therefore bloodthirstily. Compare that to the Inquisition-operated Dark Ages and the Catholicism of the colonial era that played upon ignorance, to see some answers. Ignorance is actually glorified in Islam, as evidenced, for instance, in the “honor killings” of girls, with no similar treatment for men, not that either would be right. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is 28%; Yemen, 58.9%; Egypt, 72%. An Afghan army officer complained the other day that only one of ten Afghan men could read or drive a vehicle.
Granted that much of the topography of the Middle East is hostile to development, people with freedom from religious fanaticism and consequent ignorance can be expected to take care of themselves. Corruption by both the religionists and the government is a factor, such as in Egypt, but there’s enough corruption in Washington and state capitals to make that fact almost moot. We survive that corruption because we have the tools, especially mentally, although the bent toward federal authoritarianism in this country is scary. For instance, the “salt” laws are in the works, government telling people what they may eat. Or, there are 777 exemptions now from the Healthcare law just passed for entities such as labor unions and favored businesses, with no accountability to anyone. Presumably, Sunstein, the main regulator, makes these decisions, entirely political in nature…but, who knows?
The supreme irony lies in the fact that Obama is attempting to gather all power to the “Beltway,” especially to the White House, with its many czars accountable to no one but the president, while at the same time inveighing against Mubarak and caterwauling about the Egyptian masses unfairly treated by their central government.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Egyptian Vice President Suleiman made it a point to mention his belief that the newsy folks had conspired with elements on the ground to cause the upheaval. This is easy to believe since the Americans treated it much like they did affairs vis-à-vis Katrina, blaming the U.S. government then for allowing that disaster to become a calamity, notwithstanding that later investigation proved the stark ineptitude of New Orleans Mayor Nagin and Louisiana Governor Blanco to be the actual and damning reason for much if not all the suffering.
There was no doubt that NBC, CBS, ABC and their affiliates sided with the protestors and against the government, notwithstanding the grief the whole thing caused. Fox’s Shepard Smith had his usual hysterics, too (as he did in the Katrina thing), not least because a couple of Fox news-people were manhandled, not surprising since Suleiman, whether right or wrong, must have concluded that the reporter/commentators (no such animal as reporters anymore) were attempting to turn the whole world against the Egyptian government, never realizing the enormity of the stakes involved. After a tumultuous week, the Friday demonstrations in Cairo were peaceful. The reason: The news people from all over the world, especially from the U.S., were invited out, often in very harsh ways.
Venezuela’s Chavez announced that if the Suez were to be closed oil would rise to $200 per barrel. With the army on his side, Mubarak, who has kept the Suez open, stays until the army is not on his side. He’s no beauty but at least Egypt is only 90% Sunni Muslim instead of 99%, as in Algeria, about the same as most other countries in that area. Mubarak and Yemen’s President Saleh (also a 30-year + guy) are the only U.S. allies in fighting the terrorists, so there’s a natural trade-off vis-à-vis the respective populaces. Anyhow, the U.S. Congress is routinely dominated (and corrupted) by operatives with well over 30 years of service, so what else is new?
It’s impolitic and politically incorrect to do so, but the Muslim countries can be compared to the countries of Latin America, which were colonized largely by nations in which Roman Catholicism was perhaps the main player. The Catholic missionaries discouraged individual study of the scriptures, preferring indoctrination to understanding. This was another way of discouraging meaningful education concerning everything else. South America, if anything, is blessed with more natural resources than North America, with Brazil alone almost as large as the lower 48. Look at the difference between North and South America not only economically but governmentally, with South American governments largely fashioned at the point of the gun. North America was colonized by people accustomed to thinking for themselves, spiritually and otherwise. Education was a main difference.
The Muslim countries have little industry other than tourism. The power rests almost entirely with the ayatollahs, imams, etc., who operate under the Koran and therefore bloodthirstily. Compare that to the Inquisition-operated Dark Ages and the Catholicism of the colonial era that played upon ignorance, to see some answers. Ignorance is actually glorified in Islam, as evidenced, for instance, in the “honor killings” of girls, with no similar treatment for men, not that either would be right. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is 28%; Yemen, 58.9%; Egypt, 72%. An Afghan army officer complained the other day that only one of ten Afghan men could read or drive a vehicle.
Granted that much of the topography of the Middle East is hostile to development, people with freedom from religious fanaticism and consequent ignorance can be expected to take care of themselves. Corruption by both the religionists and the government is a factor, such as in Egypt, but there’s enough corruption in Washington and state capitals to make that fact almost moot. We survive that corruption because we have the tools, especially mentally, although the bent toward federal authoritarianism in this country is scary. For instance, the “salt” laws are in the works, government telling people what they may eat. Or, there are 777 exemptions now from the Healthcare law just passed for entities such as labor unions and favored businesses, with no accountability to anyone. Presumably, Sunstein, the main regulator, makes these decisions, entirely political in nature…but, who knows?
The supreme irony lies in the fact that Obama is attempting to gather all power to the “Beltway,” especially to the White House, with its many czars accountable to no one but the president, while at the same time inveighing against Mubarak and caterwauling about the Egyptian masses unfairly treated by their central government.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Obama's Foot/Mouth Problem
It would be hard to find a more profound exercise in complete ineptitude than in the conduct of President Obama and State Secretary Clinton during the “Egyptian Affair.” Clinton had just acclaimed Egypt as stable and Veep Biden had just asserted that Mubarak was not considered a dictator. Then, when the protests started (perhaps somewhat because of those statements), complete with looting and the destruction of property, Obama came out swinging and made it plain that Mubarak had to get out immediately. He didn’t do this in private; rather, he did it purposefully facing the TV cameras for the whole world to see his public debasement of Mubarak, a royal back-stabbing to a friend and friendly nation.
That didn’t happen, of course, even though Obama sent an envoy to tell Mubarak the same thing in private. Ironically, as reported by the BBC on 05 February, the special envoy, Frank Wisner, a former ambassador in Egypt, has publicly declared that Mubarak should stay in place. This leaves Obama twisting in the wind unless he had some ulterior motive in the whole mess. Actually, he just doesn’t understand what a transition entails. It’s not like the one between a U.S. presidential election and inauguration.
In an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour on 03 February, Egyptian Vice President Suleiman said this: "No, Egypt will not be anything like Tunisia. This is different. You know that our president is a fighter. He lived on this soil and he will die on this soil." Suleiman has also blamed the foreign press, presumably acting in concert with dissidents, for the disorder and is obviously not amused by Obama’s tactics or that of the U.S. press. Like Mubarak, he is personified by the military and the two men have long been together in the trenches, especially fighting off the murderous Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in Egypt.
Obama virtually boasted of his two conversations with Mubarak, one right after Mubarak had explained publicly that he was stepping down in September but would remain as president until then to keep order. Obviously and strangely on the side of the protesters, Obama never got it. Finally, in a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Harper, he said emphatically that Egyptians, not Americans or anyone else, must decide their fate – all this after he had publicly inserted not the Egyptians but himself into the equation, along with Clinton, who was merely pathetic. He then talked of Mubarak protecting his legacy and made it plain that he meant for Mubarak to get out of the way. Amazing!
Strangely a couple years ago when Ahmadinejad and the ayatollah cold-bloodedly murdered protesters, who needed help from any direction in an entirely similar incident in Iran, Obama had little or nothing to say, even though Iran is a sworn enemy of this country. Egypt, by contrast, has been the only Arabic/Muslim friend to this country for decades but Obama tried his best not to referee the upheaval, electing instead to call the game, so naïve or obviously disingenuous or both that he lost all credibility everywhere.
More recently, Clinton put out the word about an assassination-attempt on Suleiman, with a couple of guards killed, but apparently had made little or no effort to see if it actually happened, thus adding to the turmoil. It appears now that it didn’t happen, but who knows? Why didn’t she check?
In January, 36,000 jobs were added in this country while 90,000 people entered the work force. Result: The administration lowered the unemployment rate to 9% – cooking the books, obviously – and expected the public to believe that. It merely dropped the folks who had given up looking for work, pushing the actual unemployment rate beyond 20% certainly and most likely much higher. Imagine those hundreds of thousands of people out of work jamming the mall outside the White House in protest. After all, Obama has been leading the country steadily into bankruptcy, meaning that they don’t have a prayer. They would have a cause, certainly, the same as the folks in Egypt, who are suffering from low wages and high food prices, as well as unemployment, a global problem.
As the protesters demonstrated and got out of hand with looting and violence, Obama, knowing the D.C. police couldn’t or wouldn’t handle the problem, thus protecting him, his family and the government, would naturally call out the army, though that would be unconstitutional. This is precisely what happened in Egypt but would Obama not think that what’s good for Egypt would be good when his own backside needs protecting, not to mention the nation itself and law and order.
That may be extreme, but it serves to remark the inability of the administration to do other than go lurching off in all directions without any understanding of the need for just shutting-up for a while and letting the Egyptians get a handle on the problem. Obama appears as a poodle snapping at the legs of a huge but tolerant Pit Bull, a whippersnapper attempting to order around an 83-year-old 30-year president, who has to handle in a day more serious problems than Obama faces in a week…and most likely without a teleprompter.
The latest: Obama is now castigating the intelligence agencies for not informing him in advance of everything that was about to happen so he just maybe wouldn’t shoot-off his mouth before he thinks, as if anyone can figure what will happen from one day to the next in Arab country. But it shifts the blame, and isn’t that the name of the game in Washington these days?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
That didn’t happen, of course, even though Obama sent an envoy to tell Mubarak the same thing in private. Ironically, as reported by the BBC on 05 February, the special envoy, Frank Wisner, a former ambassador in Egypt, has publicly declared that Mubarak should stay in place. This leaves Obama twisting in the wind unless he had some ulterior motive in the whole mess. Actually, he just doesn’t understand what a transition entails. It’s not like the one between a U.S. presidential election and inauguration.
In an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour on 03 February, Egyptian Vice President Suleiman said this: "No, Egypt will not be anything like Tunisia. This is different. You know that our president is a fighter. He lived on this soil and he will die on this soil." Suleiman has also blamed the foreign press, presumably acting in concert with dissidents, for the disorder and is obviously not amused by Obama’s tactics or that of the U.S. press. Like Mubarak, he is personified by the military and the two men have long been together in the trenches, especially fighting off the murderous Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in Egypt.
Obama virtually boasted of his two conversations with Mubarak, one right after Mubarak had explained publicly that he was stepping down in September but would remain as president until then to keep order. Obviously and strangely on the side of the protesters, Obama never got it. Finally, in a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Harper, he said emphatically that Egyptians, not Americans or anyone else, must decide their fate – all this after he had publicly inserted not the Egyptians but himself into the equation, along with Clinton, who was merely pathetic. He then talked of Mubarak protecting his legacy and made it plain that he meant for Mubarak to get out of the way. Amazing!
Strangely a couple years ago when Ahmadinejad and the ayatollah cold-bloodedly murdered protesters, who needed help from any direction in an entirely similar incident in Iran, Obama had little or nothing to say, even though Iran is a sworn enemy of this country. Egypt, by contrast, has been the only Arabic/Muslim friend to this country for decades but Obama tried his best not to referee the upheaval, electing instead to call the game, so naïve or obviously disingenuous or both that he lost all credibility everywhere.
More recently, Clinton put out the word about an assassination-attempt on Suleiman, with a couple of guards killed, but apparently had made little or no effort to see if it actually happened, thus adding to the turmoil. It appears now that it didn’t happen, but who knows? Why didn’t she check?
In January, 36,000 jobs were added in this country while 90,000 people entered the work force. Result: The administration lowered the unemployment rate to 9% – cooking the books, obviously – and expected the public to believe that. It merely dropped the folks who had given up looking for work, pushing the actual unemployment rate beyond 20% certainly and most likely much higher. Imagine those hundreds of thousands of people out of work jamming the mall outside the White House in protest. After all, Obama has been leading the country steadily into bankruptcy, meaning that they don’t have a prayer. They would have a cause, certainly, the same as the folks in Egypt, who are suffering from low wages and high food prices, as well as unemployment, a global problem.
As the protesters demonstrated and got out of hand with looting and violence, Obama, knowing the D.C. police couldn’t or wouldn’t handle the problem, thus protecting him, his family and the government, would naturally call out the army, though that would be unconstitutional. This is precisely what happened in Egypt but would Obama not think that what’s good for Egypt would be good when his own backside needs protecting, not to mention the nation itself and law and order.
That may be extreme, but it serves to remark the inability of the administration to do other than go lurching off in all directions without any understanding of the need for just shutting-up for a while and letting the Egyptians get a handle on the problem. Obama appears as a poodle snapping at the legs of a huge but tolerant Pit Bull, a whippersnapper attempting to order around an 83-year-old 30-year president, who has to handle in a day more serious problems than Obama faces in a week…and most likely without a teleprompter.
The latest: Obama is now castigating the intelligence agencies for not informing him in advance of everything that was about to happen so he just maybe wouldn’t shoot-off his mouth before he thinks, as if anyone can figure what will happen from one day to the next in Arab country. But it shifts the blame, and isn’t that the name of the game in Washington these days?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Rahm, Ayers & the Rev.
It's mid-afternoon in a room over the Anything Goes Bar on a busy street in South Chicago. In attendance are university professors William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, former White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, and the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, hereinafter referenced as A, D, E, and W, respectively, if not respectfully.
~E: We all know why we’re here so…
~W: Actually I’m not sure, Rahm, unless you’ve got somethin’ else I can use to damn America. Our friend Barry listened to me damn America for 20 years…so…I suspect he’s all for gettin’ it done. Reckon he might suggest Kandahar as the current Hiroshima…or maybe poppin’ HIV on all the Shiites, like Reagan and Bush’s old man did to black folk?
~E: Of course not, Rev! He just sent about 30,000 of our guys over there last year to break things and kill people. You outta your *&^%$*^ gourd? Of course, he’s put out a reward for the guy who fires his %#$@*^^ gun the least times and kills the fewest people.
~D: Maybe he has an assassination in mind (giggles) or somebody to waste…somebody like that mean Mitch McConnell…maybe a poison-tipped umbrella to the thigh…oh…hahahahaha…
~A: Shut up, Berhardine! Cut her some slack, guys. She dreamed of her new hero, Jared Loughner, again last night and threw darts at the dog this morning…you know…that PTSD thing…had to call off her classes at the university today…couldn’t take a chance on her threatening the dean again.
~E: Actually, I’m checking to see if that organization is still in place for all ^%^**(%# political emergencies…
~W: Oh, you mean the Universalism to Negate Demeaning of Erudite Realists, Theologians and Honest Educators Basic to the United States. It’s called by its acronym thingy on the South Side…you know…Under the Bus! I’m the head honcho right now and Jesse and Daschle are helpin’ me with fund-raisin’ for the convention in Cancun this month.
~A: Cancun! You outta your mind, Jeremiah? That’s not even in the *&^%$# U-S-of-A!
~W: Yeah…but you won’t see no snow there in February…hoo hah…
~D: Maybe you’ll run into some of the drug-runners and get some action…better take a few grenades and some AK-47s…blood flying everywhere, better than blowing up a measly Brinks truck.
~E: Stuff it, Bernadine. I’ve called this little meeting for two #@%$^%* reasons. Maybe I should say two elections.
~A: Let me guess, Rahm…Chicago mayor and U.S. president 2012.
~D: Whoopee! Bring back the Untouchables and rearm ACORN and Van Jones’ outfit, STORM. Revolutionize everything in sight. Death to the infidels!
~A: Shut up Bernardine! This is not 1968…those glorious days are gone forever (starts singing Blowin’ In the Wind, We Shall Overcome).
~E: A-r-g-g-h-h-a-a-R-R-G-G-H-H!!! Shut the *&^%**^% up, Bill. You’re way off key anyway. And, Bernardine, this is not prayer time for the Muslims, even if Bill does sound like one of those muezzins screaming out of one of those towers. (turns to Ayers) You’re right, Bill. Got a twofer in the works.
~W: Why do I smell somethin’ like the West Wing movin’ on over to Chicago now? You gonna run for mayor and run the Chicago White House Campaign, too, Rahm? Barry’s settin’ up campaign headquarters where everybody votes twice and the dead maybe three times…hoo hah…I love it. By the way, Rahm, did you actually send ol’ Howard Dean a dead fish in the mail back when he got the DNC job, threw you under the bus, and won big in 2008?
~E: Never mind, Jeremiah. I’m not the ^%&*%# typical white person. I’m more like you…hahahaha…I don’t have scruples…
~W: He don’t have conscience and dem dat has ’em is soon forgotten (duet with Rahm – Ol’ Man River tune).
~A: Sheesh…is this the South Side loony bin?
~D: (looking in handbag): I’m bound to have something to put them out of their misery (pulls out letter-opener and lunges toward Wright).
~A: That does it, Bernardine! You’d better leave and don’t run over anyone on some sidewalk on the way home. (D leaves)
~E: Sorry about that, Bill…got carried away. It’s a form of that ^*%$# PTSD…still sweating out that #^%&*@# judge that said I haven’t lived here since 2009 and can’t be elected to rule Chicago with an iron fist. The trauma’s about got me. Anyway, now that I know the Under The Bus is still in business, we can make plans for my mayor-run and Barry’s gig in 2012.
~W: Word to the wise there, Rahm, namely, don’t put no horse’s head in the judge’s bed…not even a dead fish in the mail. You may not be Italian but you got the “godfather mentality,” though I don’t actually believe you bit off your little finger.
~A: So what’s the strategy, Rahm? You got the machine in your corner here, bought and paid for when Barry appointed the mayor’s brother to your old job. You got the union guys, with old Andy Stern the emeritus and probably still head of the SEIU having unlimited access to the White House, as you know. The little old ladies with blue hair think you’re a hunk and money’s no problem, with George Soros worth a few million in the extreme case that some votes have to be bought.
~E: Well, I’m still on the ballot but the thing is still in the #%$&^*^ courts so…
~A: Little arm-twisting, huh, Rahm? Maybe even worse, huh, like a threat to the judge’s family…a sort of contract. The Weather Underground has a special manual on that stuff. Just say the word and…
~W: Whoa! I didn’t sign up for no part o’ that, Bill. You and Bernardine mighta got away with that stuff back in the 60s but that ain’t now. The feds are probably watchin’ us right now, meanin’ ME, and I got a bunch o’ sermons lined up, with all those LOVE offerings. That may be Chicago politics but look what ol’ Fitzgerald did to Blago. Hunh-uh…none o’ that stuff. I’m outta here…and I never was here…and I won’t be here again. (leaves)
~A: That old man just has no guts, does he, Rahm? Rahm? Rahm? Rahm?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
~E: We all know why we’re here so…
~W: Actually I’m not sure, Rahm, unless you’ve got somethin’ else I can use to damn America. Our friend Barry listened to me damn America for 20 years…so…I suspect he’s all for gettin’ it done. Reckon he might suggest Kandahar as the current Hiroshima…or maybe poppin’ HIV on all the Shiites, like Reagan and Bush’s old man did to black folk?
~E: Of course not, Rev! He just sent about 30,000 of our guys over there last year to break things and kill people. You outta your *&^%$*^ gourd? Of course, he’s put out a reward for the guy who fires his %#$@*^^ gun the least times and kills the fewest people.
~D: Maybe he has an assassination in mind (giggles) or somebody to waste…somebody like that mean Mitch McConnell…maybe a poison-tipped umbrella to the thigh…oh…hahahahaha…
~A: Shut up, Berhardine! Cut her some slack, guys. She dreamed of her new hero, Jared Loughner, again last night and threw darts at the dog this morning…you know…that PTSD thing…had to call off her classes at the university today…couldn’t take a chance on her threatening the dean again.
~E: Actually, I’m checking to see if that organization is still in place for all ^%^**(%# political emergencies…
~W: Oh, you mean the Universalism to Negate Demeaning of Erudite Realists, Theologians and Honest Educators Basic to the United States. It’s called by its acronym thingy on the South Side…you know…Under the Bus! I’m the head honcho right now and Jesse and Daschle are helpin’ me with fund-raisin’ for the convention in Cancun this month.
~A: Cancun! You outta your mind, Jeremiah? That’s not even in the *&^%$# U-S-of-A!
~W: Yeah…but you won’t see no snow there in February…hoo hah…
~D: Maybe you’ll run into some of the drug-runners and get some action…better take a few grenades and some AK-47s…blood flying everywhere, better than blowing up a measly Brinks truck.
~E: Stuff it, Bernadine. I’ve called this little meeting for two #@%$^%* reasons. Maybe I should say two elections.
~A: Let me guess, Rahm…Chicago mayor and U.S. president 2012.
~D: Whoopee! Bring back the Untouchables and rearm ACORN and Van Jones’ outfit, STORM. Revolutionize everything in sight. Death to the infidels!
~A: Shut up Bernardine! This is not 1968…those glorious days are gone forever (starts singing Blowin’ In the Wind, We Shall Overcome).
~E: A-r-g-g-h-h-a-a-R-R-G-G-H-H!!! Shut the *&^%**^% up, Bill. You’re way off key anyway. And, Bernardine, this is not prayer time for the Muslims, even if Bill does sound like one of those muezzins screaming out of one of those towers. (turns to Ayers) You’re right, Bill. Got a twofer in the works.
~W: Why do I smell somethin’ like the West Wing movin’ on over to Chicago now? You gonna run for mayor and run the Chicago White House Campaign, too, Rahm? Barry’s settin’ up campaign headquarters where everybody votes twice and the dead maybe three times…hoo hah…I love it. By the way, Rahm, did you actually send ol’ Howard Dean a dead fish in the mail back when he got the DNC job, threw you under the bus, and won big in 2008?
~E: Never mind, Jeremiah. I’m not the ^%&*%# typical white person. I’m more like you…hahahaha…I don’t have scruples…
~W: He don’t have conscience and dem dat has ’em is soon forgotten (duet with Rahm – Ol’ Man River tune).
~A: Sheesh…is this the South Side loony bin?
~D: (looking in handbag): I’m bound to have something to put them out of their misery (pulls out letter-opener and lunges toward Wright).
~A: That does it, Bernardine! You’d better leave and don’t run over anyone on some sidewalk on the way home. (D leaves)
~E: Sorry about that, Bill…got carried away. It’s a form of that ^*%$# PTSD…still sweating out that #^%&*@# judge that said I haven’t lived here since 2009 and can’t be elected to rule Chicago with an iron fist. The trauma’s about got me. Anyway, now that I know the Under The Bus is still in business, we can make plans for my mayor-run and Barry’s gig in 2012.
~W: Word to the wise there, Rahm, namely, don’t put no horse’s head in the judge’s bed…not even a dead fish in the mail. You may not be Italian but you got the “godfather mentality,” though I don’t actually believe you bit off your little finger.
~A: So what’s the strategy, Rahm? You got the machine in your corner here, bought and paid for when Barry appointed the mayor’s brother to your old job. You got the union guys, with old Andy Stern the emeritus and probably still head of the SEIU having unlimited access to the White House, as you know. The little old ladies with blue hair think you’re a hunk and money’s no problem, with George Soros worth a few million in the extreme case that some votes have to be bought.
~E: Well, I’m still on the ballot but the thing is still in the #%$&^*^ courts so…
~A: Little arm-twisting, huh, Rahm? Maybe even worse, huh, like a threat to the judge’s family…a sort of contract. The Weather Underground has a special manual on that stuff. Just say the word and…
~W: Whoa! I didn’t sign up for no part o’ that, Bill. You and Bernardine mighta got away with that stuff back in the 60s but that ain’t now. The feds are probably watchin’ us right now, meanin’ ME, and I got a bunch o’ sermons lined up, with all those LOVE offerings. That may be Chicago politics but look what ol’ Fitzgerald did to Blago. Hunh-uh…none o’ that stuff. I’m outta here…and I never was here…and I won’t be here again. (leaves)
~A: That old man just has no guts, does he, Rahm? Rahm? Rahm? Rahm?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Football Run Amok!
Its name is rhabdomyolysis and it can cause damage to cells and kidneys and even kidney failure. It’s an ailment that is caused by stress, in this case inordinate stress to muscle tissue…and it’s entirely preventable, though it requires hospitalization for treatment, perhaps for days.
Thirteen University of Iowa football players incurred the ailment recently and had to be hospitalized. One wonders why these athletes were even susceptible to anything having to do with the sport, especially since the football season has been long terminated (even the plethora of bowl games, most of which involve teams of only average to mediocre ability).
It turns out that the players were introduced (or sentenced) to a seven-week period of off-season strenuous “training” that caused the ailment, which involves the release of muscle fibers into the bloodstream, something hard to imagine, the penetration of the walls of veins and arteries with anything other than external force/instruments. The blood must run through the kidneys in order to be cleansed but the kidneys are designed to handle liquids, not necessarily muscle fibers, so the problem is easily seen.
With the season over, one wonders why the players were still involved even though most of them are on full scholarships. At Iowa, as at most other universities, a winning football team is the next thing to having the best army in the world, and coaches and assistant coaches are hugely overpaid to see that football reigns supreme. The coaches (especially head coaches) make millions per year off the backs of the players but are never assured of employment in the fickle world of sports in which a key player having a broken leg can ruin a season.
Indeed, according to a USA Today article (January 2008, with nothing much changed), “football players in the NCAA's Division I Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-A) said they spent an average of 44.8 hours a week on their sport — playing games, practicing, training and in the training room — compared with a little less than 40 hours on academics.” In other words, they are slaves to their scholarships and are more like university workmen on overtime than students.
At Iowa, the players had just returned from the holidays and were thrust into the program that demanded inordinate stress on their bodies without their having the time to build their bodies back into shape after the layoff. The result for 13 of them was rhabdomyolysis, entirely preventable by a strength-and-conditioning coach who had been on the scene for 12 years and should have known better. The ailment was not unknown in the sports world, another example of it involving seven members of the University of South Carolina swimming team in 2007.
The Iowa players checked-in to the hospital on a Monday, with five, less than half, being released on the following Friday, an indication of the seriousness of the problem. People undergoing serious surgeries do better than that.
Why did this happen? In 2009, Iowa sported a win-loss record of 10-2, with a conference record of 6-2, very good in the tough Big-Ten conference. In 2010, the team sported a 7-2, 4-1 record going into the last three games and could have been headed to the Rose Bowl, but it lost its last three games by a total of 10 points and wound up with records of 7-5 and 4-4…absolutely miserable…and went to a second-tier bowl, which it won. This was tantamount to Napoleon at Waterloo, absolutely unacceptable.
So, despite the fact that bad luck might have been the major player last fall, as indicated by the final three scores, there might have been the determination that no efforts would be spared in whipping the current/2011 team into shape long before spring football practice gets underway, the better to make it to a major bowl next season. Then comes the summer layoff and perhaps another attack of rhabdomyolysis when the two-a-day practice-regimen starts, the devil take the hindmost. One hopes that common sense will be engaged to nullify that possibility. If lawsuits are introduced, there may be some new believers in the coaching ranks.
Players fainting (sometimes permanently injured) or dying account of heat-strokes during the summer practices are not uncommon, and concussions, especially, are now the order of the day in-season. College football is now a big-money item for the schools, their presidents and athletic directors, coaches and the bottom line. Largely accruing to the Title-Nine legislation concerning women’s sports (financial losers), athletic budgets have to be supported by football and men’s basketball. Men’s baseball is a loser, too, as are all other organized sports, both men’s and women’s.
With the possible exception of baseball, universities and colleges are now the minor leagues of the professional sports world in addition to having an obsession with winning at all costs, thus driving up salaries for coaches who are sometimes blessed with more luck than expertise. It shouldn’t be so. The players…just the expendable items…the meat-market!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thirteen University of Iowa football players incurred the ailment recently and had to be hospitalized. One wonders why these athletes were even susceptible to anything having to do with the sport, especially since the football season has been long terminated (even the plethora of bowl games, most of which involve teams of only average to mediocre ability).
It turns out that the players were introduced (or sentenced) to a seven-week period of off-season strenuous “training” that caused the ailment, which involves the release of muscle fibers into the bloodstream, something hard to imagine, the penetration of the walls of veins and arteries with anything other than external force/instruments. The blood must run through the kidneys in order to be cleansed but the kidneys are designed to handle liquids, not necessarily muscle fibers, so the problem is easily seen.
With the season over, one wonders why the players were still involved even though most of them are on full scholarships. At Iowa, as at most other universities, a winning football team is the next thing to having the best army in the world, and coaches and assistant coaches are hugely overpaid to see that football reigns supreme. The coaches (especially head coaches) make millions per year off the backs of the players but are never assured of employment in the fickle world of sports in which a key player having a broken leg can ruin a season.
Indeed, according to a USA Today article (January 2008, with nothing much changed), “football players in the NCAA's Division I Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-A) said they spent an average of 44.8 hours a week on their sport — playing games, practicing, training and in the training room — compared with a little less than 40 hours on academics.” In other words, they are slaves to their scholarships and are more like university workmen on overtime than students.
At Iowa, the players had just returned from the holidays and were thrust into the program that demanded inordinate stress on their bodies without their having the time to build their bodies back into shape after the layoff. The result for 13 of them was rhabdomyolysis, entirely preventable by a strength-and-conditioning coach who had been on the scene for 12 years and should have known better. The ailment was not unknown in the sports world, another example of it involving seven members of the University of South Carolina swimming team in 2007.
The Iowa players checked-in to the hospital on a Monday, with five, less than half, being released on the following Friday, an indication of the seriousness of the problem. People undergoing serious surgeries do better than that.
Why did this happen? In 2009, Iowa sported a win-loss record of 10-2, with a conference record of 6-2, very good in the tough Big-Ten conference. In 2010, the team sported a 7-2, 4-1 record going into the last three games and could have been headed to the Rose Bowl, but it lost its last three games by a total of 10 points and wound up with records of 7-5 and 4-4…absolutely miserable…and went to a second-tier bowl, which it won. This was tantamount to Napoleon at Waterloo, absolutely unacceptable.
So, despite the fact that bad luck might have been the major player last fall, as indicated by the final three scores, there might have been the determination that no efforts would be spared in whipping the current/2011 team into shape long before spring football practice gets underway, the better to make it to a major bowl next season. Then comes the summer layoff and perhaps another attack of rhabdomyolysis when the two-a-day practice-regimen starts, the devil take the hindmost. One hopes that common sense will be engaged to nullify that possibility. If lawsuits are introduced, there may be some new believers in the coaching ranks.
Players fainting (sometimes permanently injured) or dying account of heat-strokes during the summer practices are not uncommon, and concussions, especially, are now the order of the day in-season. College football is now a big-money item for the schools, their presidents and athletic directors, coaches and the bottom line. Largely accruing to the Title-Nine legislation concerning women’s sports (financial losers), athletic budgets have to be supported by football and men’s basketball. Men’s baseball is a loser, too, as are all other organized sports, both men’s and women’s.
With the possible exception of baseball, universities and colleges are now the minor leagues of the professional sports world in addition to having an obsession with winning at all costs, thus driving up salaries for coaches who are sometimes blessed with more luck than expertise. It shouldn’t be so. The players…just the expendable items…the meat-market!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Prexy's SOTU Performance
I’ve been reasonably attentive to President Obama’s speeches since his campaign days, feeling such to be necessary in order to express opinions about them and him. State-of-the-Union speeches were characterized last March by SCOTUS Chief John Roberts, who endured Obama’s public humiliation of the SCOTUS during last years SOTU, as like a “pep rally,” but I’ve endured them anyway…until the latest one on the 25th. After enduring the marathon speech last January, I decided to just read the transcript of Obama’s latest SOTU offering, preferring to read a book instead of sitting through it.
The current SOTU speech was also a marathon of sorts and would have been considerably longer if there had been the usual extensive clapping, hurrahs, jumping up and down and general mayhem. One remembers the “Pelosi-in-the-box” of other days when she resembled a jumping-jack, forcing Veep Biden to do the same, with both of them worn to a frazzle by the end of the speech and Pelosi’s face probably susceptible to serious breakage. According to the media, this speech evoked no such outpourings of childish behavior, perhaps not least because the House is now so overwhelmingly republican.
I relented and tuned in for a few minutes toward the end of the speech and caught, among other things, this gem: “And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.” This was Obama’s recognition of the fact that the vast majority of Americans have no use for Islam and its hate-mongering and fatwas. He should have left the subject alone…for the sake of the Muslims, whom he pointedly implied to also be subjects of hate. Quite uncivil on his part!
In my time of viewing, the applause was perfunctory and in blessedly short bursts, with the president exhibiting little or no passion…simply reading the teleprompter. This was quite unlike his performance at the Tucson memorial service, which Roberts probably also would have characterized as a “pep rally.” Then, the president was animated, seemingly passionate and uninhibited. He was in campaign mode playing upon people’s emotions, but in the SOTU speech he was confronted with cold, hard facts regarding administration policies inordinately repudiated last November by the sea-change in House membership.
At the outset, the president said this: “It’s no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands.” It’s hard to imagine a statement like that in the wake of the weeks-long pounding of the mainstream media (his propaganda arm) since the Tucson massacre on republicans as sanguinary blood-letters, vicious in rhetoric so inflammable that it drove young Loughner (apparently already insane) to murder.
So…whoever wrote the speech didn’t catch that little slip-up but one might hope the president would have. Does he now think contention is good or bad? Who knows? In any case, the Congress-people had made a joke of the whole speech with their “dating” arrangements, pairing avowed enemies as seat-mates apparently never again to be contentious, even though the president…but then he may have just been pulling a John Kerry – being against contentiousness after being for it, or vice versa. So much for civility, the media buzzword for days on end!
The speech involved the usual boilerplate expected of the party in power…much braggadocio abetted by exotic projects on the drawing-boards. Just read the transcript. The term “investment” seems now to have replaced the term “taxes.” In his large section on education, something the feds should avoid completely, Obama said this: “In fact, to every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice … .” A sharp sixth-grader would have caught that common but unforgivable grammatical error, especially in something as at least allegedly important as a presidential address.
To this reader, this was a simply astounding statement near the end of the effort of more than 7,000 words: “Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.” Egad…there’s that same grammatical error but worse than that is the inference that anyone has ever been denied military service because he/she loves the wrong person! Speechwriting evaluation is not the president’s strong point. He needs another gaggle of writers or – perish the thought – he simply needs to get a grip on both substance and form himself. That’s perhaps the most juvenile thing that could have been said, and in an un-schooled way in the bargain.
I’m glad I dodged the boredom and, indeed, may never bother watching another SOTU speech. I make no claim to being a top policy-wonk or grammarian, either, but then I’m not responsible for SOTU speeches. They deserve better. Perhaps a written one made available to the press and Congress would be the way to go…but radio/TV has changed all of that, an opportunity for campaigning not to be missed. Prior to President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), SOTU was delivered as a WRITTEN report…there oughtta be a law…
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The current SOTU speech was also a marathon of sorts and would have been considerably longer if there had been the usual extensive clapping, hurrahs, jumping up and down and general mayhem. One remembers the “Pelosi-in-the-box” of other days when she resembled a jumping-jack, forcing Veep Biden to do the same, with both of them worn to a frazzle by the end of the speech and Pelosi’s face probably susceptible to serious breakage. According to the media, this speech evoked no such outpourings of childish behavior, perhaps not least because the House is now so overwhelmingly republican.
I relented and tuned in for a few minutes toward the end of the speech and caught, among other things, this gem: “And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.” This was Obama’s recognition of the fact that the vast majority of Americans have no use for Islam and its hate-mongering and fatwas. He should have left the subject alone…for the sake of the Muslims, whom he pointedly implied to also be subjects of hate. Quite uncivil on his part!
In my time of viewing, the applause was perfunctory and in blessedly short bursts, with the president exhibiting little or no passion…simply reading the teleprompter. This was quite unlike his performance at the Tucson memorial service, which Roberts probably also would have characterized as a “pep rally.” Then, the president was animated, seemingly passionate and uninhibited. He was in campaign mode playing upon people’s emotions, but in the SOTU speech he was confronted with cold, hard facts regarding administration policies inordinately repudiated last November by the sea-change in House membership.
At the outset, the president said this: “It’s no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands.” It’s hard to imagine a statement like that in the wake of the weeks-long pounding of the mainstream media (his propaganda arm) since the Tucson massacre on republicans as sanguinary blood-letters, vicious in rhetoric so inflammable that it drove young Loughner (apparently already insane) to murder.
So…whoever wrote the speech didn’t catch that little slip-up but one might hope the president would have. Does he now think contention is good or bad? Who knows? In any case, the Congress-people had made a joke of the whole speech with their “dating” arrangements, pairing avowed enemies as seat-mates apparently never again to be contentious, even though the president…but then he may have just been pulling a John Kerry – being against contentiousness after being for it, or vice versa. So much for civility, the media buzzword for days on end!
The speech involved the usual boilerplate expected of the party in power…much braggadocio abetted by exotic projects on the drawing-boards. Just read the transcript. The term “investment” seems now to have replaced the term “taxes.” In his large section on education, something the feds should avoid completely, Obama said this: “In fact, to every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice … .” A sharp sixth-grader would have caught that common but unforgivable grammatical error, especially in something as at least allegedly important as a presidential address.
To this reader, this was a simply astounding statement near the end of the effort of more than 7,000 words: “Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.” Egad…there’s that same grammatical error but worse than that is the inference that anyone has ever been denied military service because he/she loves the wrong person! Speechwriting evaluation is not the president’s strong point. He needs another gaggle of writers or – perish the thought – he simply needs to get a grip on both substance and form himself. That’s perhaps the most juvenile thing that could have been said, and in an un-schooled way in the bargain.
I’m glad I dodged the boredom and, indeed, may never bother watching another SOTU speech. I make no claim to being a top policy-wonk or grammarian, either, but then I’m not responsible for SOTU speeches. They deserve better. Perhaps a written one made available to the press and Congress would be the way to go…but radio/TV has changed all of that, an opportunity for campaigning not to be missed. Prior to President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), SOTU was delivered as a WRITTEN report…there oughtta be a law…
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Monday, January 24, 2011
Math-Teacher Guffey Strikes Again!
A while back, Roger Guffey, a math teacher, expostulated vehemently in an article in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., concerning the proposed “Ark Park,” a for-profit amusement facility planned for northern Kentucky some 35 or so miles north of Lexington. A major issue for him had to do with state tax-breaks but his obvious main purpose was pooh-poohing the uneducated for believing that there ever was a Noah’s Ark, the theme of the park.
Some days later, some scientists with Ph.D’s in the proper field took him to task, whereupon he wrote a letter to the editor to insist that their obvious superior knowledge did not qualify them for disagreeing with him. After all, he was/is a math teacher and may even have a master’s degree, though probably not in anthropology. He noted some statements made or written by a few high-profile people with Ph.D’s (one a Nobel Prize winner) with which he obviously disagrees, which automatically makes them wrong.
President Obama has a doctorate and has even been a law-school professor and has successfully pushed Congress into repealing the DADT military policy. Yet, the top commanders in the military, thinking critically, have said that the repeal is unwarranted and detrimental to military readiness. Using Guffey’s thinking, the president should back away from his doctorate-qualified action, but that will not happen, making Guffey’s paradigm of no practical value. If Guffey agrees with the president, he, ipso facto, destroys his own case. If not, it doesn’t matter. As Bill Clinton might say: What is IS.
Guffey wrote that expecting religion to answer scientific questions is foolhardy, giving as an example the Roman Catholic Church’s original rejection of the notion of a heliocentric universe. Of course, most folks outside the church rejected that notion, too. Using Guffey’s angle in this case, it seems reasonable to assume that one errs in expecting science to answer religious questions such as the origin of things or why people reason and animals operate on instinct, unless, of course, Guffey believes that dogs don’t think critically enough to drive, but uncritically enough to be friendly…or sometimes hostile.
Guffey has the same problem that many intellectuals (whether described as such by self or others) have, to wit, they can’t figure out the origin(s) of the universe and consequently anything else. This frustrates them. It frustrates them that they can’t find the “missing link” that would prove that man evolved from some lower form, maybe the ape, which, using critical thinking, of course, had to evolve from something else – VOILA! – a one-cell organism perhaps in some sort of slime…but where did it (and the slime) come from?
Guffey is an “Eve person.” Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden in order to become as powerful as God when approached by a snake-oil salesman, according to Genesis, and swallowed the bait, succumbing to the scam. She got ripped-off. Guffey believes that science, if given enough time, will discover how the universe came to be, thus actually becoming as powerful as the original creator…if there was a creator or a force or a ground of being or a cosmic explosion or fill in the blank!
BUT, Guffey doesn’t believe the Genesis episode happened, or that Noah was a person or the Ark was a boat or that there was a Tower of Babel (the parallel ancient symbol of the result of today’s science). So…he simply insists that all of that Genesis creation-stuff was MYTH and that people who disagree, especially the errant Ph.D’s, are as dumb as a gourd. In his original article, he described them thusly: “misunderstanding of evolution by people who get their opinions from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.” That puts a whole other aspect to his rant…very revealing, mixing personal animus with science.
This is Guffey’s last substantive paragraph: “The Ark Park will generate a few low-paying jobs, but it will scare away scientifically based firms with higher-paying jobs because it feeds our [Kentuckians’] image as a bunch of illiterate Bible-thumpers.” This is essentially what Obama called the Christians as he attacked Pennsylvania in 2008. It’s hard to imagine either arrogance or ignorance as profound as this…arrogance because of the superciliousness toward people who simply disagree with Guffey and ignorance because he actually believes a business would give a fig about what people believe religiously as long as the business climate, including tax-incentives, is right.
I take no issue with the theory of evolution and I don’t believe in the seven 24-hour days of creation, a postulate clearly allowed in scripture. I draw the line at claiming that mankind evolved from…whatever. I believe God created the being made in his image spontaneously and complete, in an instant. I also take no issue with folks who disagree with me. Not a one of us has any idea of what happened in any time-period 6,000 or more years ago.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Some days later, some scientists with Ph.D’s in the proper field took him to task, whereupon he wrote a letter to the editor to insist that their obvious superior knowledge did not qualify them for disagreeing with him. After all, he was/is a math teacher and may even have a master’s degree, though probably not in anthropology. He noted some statements made or written by a few high-profile people with Ph.D’s (one a Nobel Prize winner) with which he obviously disagrees, which automatically makes them wrong.
President Obama has a doctorate and has even been a law-school professor and has successfully pushed Congress into repealing the DADT military policy. Yet, the top commanders in the military, thinking critically, have said that the repeal is unwarranted and detrimental to military readiness. Using Guffey’s thinking, the president should back away from his doctorate-qualified action, but that will not happen, making Guffey’s paradigm of no practical value. If Guffey agrees with the president, he, ipso facto, destroys his own case. If not, it doesn’t matter. As Bill Clinton might say: What is IS.
Guffey wrote that expecting religion to answer scientific questions is foolhardy, giving as an example the Roman Catholic Church’s original rejection of the notion of a heliocentric universe. Of course, most folks outside the church rejected that notion, too. Using Guffey’s angle in this case, it seems reasonable to assume that one errs in expecting science to answer religious questions such as the origin of things or why people reason and animals operate on instinct, unless, of course, Guffey believes that dogs don’t think critically enough to drive, but uncritically enough to be friendly…or sometimes hostile.
Guffey has the same problem that many intellectuals (whether described as such by self or others) have, to wit, they can’t figure out the origin(s) of the universe and consequently anything else. This frustrates them. It frustrates them that they can’t find the “missing link” that would prove that man evolved from some lower form, maybe the ape, which, using critical thinking, of course, had to evolve from something else – VOILA! – a one-cell organism perhaps in some sort of slime…but where did it (and the slime) come from?
Guffey is an “Eve person.” Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden in order to become as powerful as God when approached by a snake-oil salesman, according to Genesis, and swallowed the bait, succumbing to the scam. She got ripped-off. Guffey believes that science, if given enough time, will discover how the universe came to be, thus actually becoming as powerful as the original creator…if there was a creator or a force or a ground of being or a cosmic explosion or fill in the blank!
BUT, Guffey doesn’t believe the Genesis episode happened, or that Noah was a person or the Ark was a boat or that there was a Tower of Babel (the parallel ancient symbol of the result of today’s science). So…he simply insists that all of that Genesis creation-stuff was MYTH and that people who disagree, especially the errant Ph.D’s, are as dumb as a gourd. In his original article, he described them thusly: “misunderstanding of evolution by people who get their opinions from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.” That puts a whole other aspect to his rant…very revealing, mixing personal animus with science.
This is Guffey’s last substantive paragraph: “The Ark Park will generate a few low-paying jobs, but it will scare away scientifically based firms with higher-paying jobs because it feeds our [Kentuckians’] image as a bunch of illiterate Bible-thumpers.” This is essentially what Obama called the Christians as he attacked Pennsylvania in 2008. It’s hard to imagine either arrogance or ignorance as profound as this…arrogance because of the superciliousness toward people who simply disagree with Guffey and ignorance because he actually believes a business would give a fig about what people believe religiously as long as the business climate, including tax-incentives, is right.
I take no issue with the theory of evolution and I don’t believe in the seven 24-hour days of creation, a postulate clearly allowed in scripture. I draw the line at claiming that mankind evolved from…whatever. I believe God created the being made in his image spontaneously and complete, in an instant. I also take no issue with folks who disagree with me. Not a one of us has any idea of what happened in any time-period 6,000 or more years ago.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Friday, January 21, 2011
CIVILITY
There is the old saying, “Vanity, vanity, thy name is woman.” One invites universal condemnation from women and liberals when dredging up something as politically incorrect as that but the phrase didn’t originate here. Some have attributed it to Shakespeare but actually he seems to have used “frailty” instead of “vanity,” which would put him in even greater risk of life and limb today, when the fair sex is threatening the loopy Congress if it or the prexy or maybe even Biden doesn’t put the gals into combat. Defense Secretary Gates would probably go for it since he came to his job from the halls of academia, where common sense is nonexistent.
All of that as an intro to the new saying: “Civility, civility, thy name is democrat!” President Obama’s approval ratings have been a problem lately, meaning that he needed for a crisis not to be wasted in behalf of improving his image, translated “chances of success in 2012.” It’s never too early to start on the campaign trail, and…well, the prexy actually has never left the campaign trail started in 2006, but that’s a whole other story. He himself has indicated a new push and has already been stationing the campaign lapdogs in their proper environs, with fund-raising the main priority, as proven by the guest list at the huge state dinner for China’s Hu the other evening. It was “black tie,” so Hu showed his deep respect for the prexy by wearing a blue tie sans a tuxedo, opting for a business suit instead.
The rescuing crisis not to be wasted, of course, was the “Tucson Massacre,” created by Jared Loughner. Starting with or perhaps by the remarks by the on-scene sheriff before he even knew anything much about what happened, the consensus developed among the prexy’s pals was that Loughner was driven to slaughter by mean-spirited republicans like Limbaugh and Beck and (gasp) Palin, so the whole gang came up with the notion of civility as the cure-all for everything from rape to murder to even mean-spiritedly insisting that policemen act stupidly…then quietly discarded the latter for obvious reasons.
Homeland Security Boss Napolitano actually had already set the tone when she erased gruesome-sounding “terrorism” from department verbiage last year and replaced it with the gentler “man-caused disaster.” Murder is recognizably bad but a disaster can be just any old harmless thing like a flood, for instance. Who gets exercised about a flood, especially when it’s in the next state? The prexy’s guys didn’t pick up on that then – bailouts and TARPs being on everyone’s mind – but then, of course, there was no crisis connected to her stroke of genius at that time, so the opportunity actually was not wasted.
As it turned out, Loughner apparently was neither a conservative nor a listener to talk radio. He just happened to be crazy or mean or both, and the sheriff with the big mouth admitted later that the law enforcement folks were quite familiar with Loughner, as were the policepersons on the college campus from which he had been expelled during the fall semester for doing scary things and told not to attempt a return until he’d been confirmed by the proper authority as not being crazy.
That didn’t stop the campaigning for a return of civility, however, as if there had ever been much, to start with. A bit of research into political language back in the days of the founders and even through the nineteenth century (a little milder in the 20th, perhaps) reveals that political speech today amounts to a church-sermon by comparison. Indeed, not long ago, Senate Majority Leader Reid declared publicly that then President Bush was both a loser and a liar. Nobody thought about civility then – especially the democrats – and just figured “business as usual.”
One should take the opportunity, if possible, to bet that President Obama will make civility the foundation of his state-of-the-union address (hopefully three-fourths shorter than last year’s). One shouldn’t be surprised if his campaign slogan becomes REMEMBER TUCSON…sorta like remembering the Alamo and Pearl Harbor. To exhibit its collective silliness, some members of Congress have agreed to sit side-by-side with their opposite numbers (instead of on opposite sides of the aisle) in a sort of Rodney King “can’t we all just get along” attitude. There will for sure be warm-fuzzy hugs all around as the solons express their conviction that the hoi polloi is too dumb to figure out this charade.
Ah…CIVILITY…democrat is thy name. You have become the rallying cry against all those meanies who insist upon driving the Loughners of this cruel world into spasms of murderous chaos, usually by just telling the truth. Just like at the Tucson memorial service that the prez turned into a campaign event, there might even be free T-shirts for those who are ready to fight and scream and holler and whoop for CIVILITY!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
All of that as an intro to the new saying: “Civility, civility, thy name is democrat!” President Obama’s approval ratings have been a problem lately, meaning that he needed for a crisis not to be wasted in behalf of improving his image, translated “chances of success in 2012.” It’s never too early to start on the campaign trail, and…well, the prexy actually has never left the campaign trail started in 2006, but that’s a whole other story. He himself has indicated a new push and has already been stationing the campaign lapdogs in their proper environs, with fund-raising the main priority, as proven by the guest list at the huge state dinner for China’s Hu the other evening. It was “black tie,” so Hu showed his deep respect for the prexy by wearing a blue tie sans a tuxedo, opting for a business suit instead.
The rescuing crisis not to be wasted, of course, was the “Tucson Massacre,” created by Jared Loughner. Starting with or perhaps by the remarks by the on-scene sheriff before he even knew anything much about what happened, the consensus developed among the prexy’s pals was that Loughner was driven to slaughter by mean-spirited republicans like Limbaugh and Beck and (gasp) Palin, so the whole gang came up with the notion of civility as the cure-all for everything from rape to murder to even mean-spiritedly insisting that policemen act stupidly…then quietly discarded the latter for obvious reasons.
Homeland Security Boss Napolitano actually had already set the tone when she erased gruesome-sounding “terrorism” from department verbiage last year and replaced it with the gentler “man-caused disaster.” Murder is recognizably bad but a disaster can be just any old harmless thing like a flood, for instance. Who gets exercised about a flood, especially when it’s in the next state? The prexy’s guys didn’t pick up on that then – bailouts and TARPs being on everyone’s mind – but then, of course, there was no crisis connected to her stroke of genius at that time, so the opportunity actually was not wasted.
As it turned out, Loughner apparently was neither a conservative nor a listener to talk radio. He just happened to be crazy or mean or both, and the sheriff with the big mouth admitted later that the law enforcement folks were quite familiar with Loughner, as were the policepersons on the college campus from which he had been expelled during the fall semester for doing scary things and told not to attempt a return until he’d been confirmed by the proper authority as not being crazy.
That didn’t stop the campaigning for a return of civility, however, as if there had ever been much, to start with. A bit of research into political language back in the days of the founders and even through the nineteenth century (a little milder in the 20th, perhaps) reveals that political speech today amounts to a church-sermon by comparison. Indeed, not long ago, Senate Majority Leader Reid declared publicly that then President Bush was both a loser and a liar. Nobody thought about civility then – especially the democrats – and just figured “business as usual.”
One should take the opportunity, if possible, to bet that President Obama will make civility the foundation of his state-of-the-union address (hopefully three-fourths shorter than last year’s). One shouldn’t be surprised if his campaign slogan becomes REMEMBER TUCSON…sorta like remembering the Alamo and Pearl Harbor. To exhibit its collective silliness, some members of Congress have agreed to sit side-by-side with their opposite numbers (instead of on opposite sides of the aisle) in a sort of Rodney King “can’t we all just get along” attitude. There will for sure be warm-fuzzy hugs all around as the solons express their conviction that the hoi polloi is too dumb to figure out this charade.
Ah…CIVILITY…democrat is thy name. You have become the rallying cry against all those meanies who insist upon driving the Loughners of this cruel world into spasms of murderous chaos, usually by just telling the truth. Just like at the Tucson memorial service that the prez turned into a campaign event, there might even be free T-shirts for those who are ready to fight and scream and holler and whoop for CIVILITY!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
IMAGE Is Everything!
Dear President Obama,
First, a word of congratulations on your eulogy in the Tucson memorial service! Slated for a 20-minute delivery, you managed to turn it into a 35-minute exercise in eloquence, with the notable uniqueness of having people practically dancing in the aisles. Allow me to introduce myself as the CEO of the Institute for Modifying All Governmental Entities (IMAGE, for short). With all due respect, it’s the business of IMAGE to help a client appear to the public as the entity the client desires, not necessarily the entity he/she is. For instance, IMAGE would have helped Al Gore recently retain his image as the Jolly Green Giant, savior of the world, instead of appearing as a massage-proponent with a masseuse-addiction, but – alas – he declined our offer.
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the subject of civility is front-and-center these days, after the mainstream media, your propaganda arm, accused talk-show hosts of causing the Tucson massacre, never mind that an insane person actually did the deed and apparently had never heard of Rush Limbaugh. Since you’ve made rather uncivil remarks during your tenure, such as when you accused policemen of acting stupidly, IMAGE has an arm that can help you be more civil in the future. The Council for Interdicting Venality, Inhibiting Libel, and Introducing Togetherness Yin/Yang, known in Washington by its acronym CIVILITY, is designed to help clients avoid slurs and racial remarks, such as your allusion while campaigning to the “typical white person” or your description of Pennsylvanians as Bible-thumping, gun-grasping bounty-hunters of illegal Mexicans.
CIVILITY will help you not be accused of venal mean-spiritedness, such as when you put out a directive last year to discover whose asses to kick concerning the BP oil-spill, not to mention possible libeling of people in both management and government, including your own energy department. The matter of introducing togetherness speaks for itself and involves when to shake hands, hug, back-pat, etc., and is enhanced by the Chinese yin/yang, very important these days since the Chinese own much of the nation. Rodney King of “can’t we all just get along” fame heads this department.
Since you’ve been accused of taking the country into socialism and since your opponents, especially Sarah Palin, targeted specific democrat candidates for defeat last year, the IMAGE agency designed to help you capitalize on these issues is called the Council for Ruling-Out Socialist Status and Hegemony Actuating Individual Righteousness, or CROSSHAIR, for short. This agency will help you explain the takeovers of banks and auto companies and mortgage-lending establishments and the health industry as not socialistic but in the best spirit of entrepreneurship, with the government as the greatest entrepreneur of them all, since it can print money and confiscate wages.
Righteousness and socialism seem to most folks not to jive, since there’s a freedom issue involved, as well as greed. CROSSHAIR will help prepare your teleprompters with biblical quotes, snappy one-liners, and sermonic utterances (with margin suggestions directing when to laugh, weep, etc.) such that in the upcoming state-of-the-union address you will appear as a saint. Caution: Whether you use CIVILITY or not, do NOT imply that the Supreme Court doesn’t own a full deck, as you did last year, notwithstanding your law-school professorship. The great unwashed hoi polloi does not appreciate your intellect in this matter and still sees the court as the last bastion of freedom, never mind your two appointees, who may not have found the bathrooms yet in the Justice Building.
Finally and obviously respecting your ability to speechify, the IMAGE agency that can help you with making your daily or twice- or thrice-daily speech-schedule effective, is the Bureau for Lying Altruistically and Testifying in Harmonious Erroneous Rhetoric, or BLATHER, for short. It’s been noticeable lately that your facial expressions do not comport with your claim that millions of jobs are at hand. That lie to the hoi polloi is justified in making everyone feel good – a solemn responsibility for any president – but you need to look more earnest so that folks won’t think you’re…well, lying. The same is true about the Gitmo-closing and the change of withdrawal-date from Afghanistan to 2014 instead of this year.
Erroneous rhetoric is just part of the job, as you know, but it must be used in a way to create harmony between the various factions and between them and yourself. BLATHER will help with this, especially as the campaigns get underway and folks are reminded that you promised to raise electricity rates out of sight in your last campaign. That formed a discord of immense proportions but folks weren’t paying attention then, just hating Bush instead. They are paying attention now, as evidenced last November and by both Conrad and Lieberman already throwing in the towel for 2012. You have to learn how to make them eat the unbelievable and like it. You can depend on CIVILITY to do the job.
Hoping to hear from you soon,
Respectfully,
I.M. Reverself, CEO
IMAGE
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
First, a word of congratulations on your eulogy in the Tucson memorial service! Slated for a 20-minute delivery, you managed to turn it into a 35-minute exercise in eloquence, with the notable uniqueness of having people practically dancing in the aisles. Allow me to introduce myself as the CEO of the Institute for Modifying All Governmental Entities (IMAGE, for short). With all due respect, it’s the business of IMAGE to help a client appear to the public as the entity the client desires, not necessarily the entity he/she is. For instance, IMAGE would have helped Al Gore recently retain his image as the Jolly Green Giant, savior of the world, instead of appearing as a massage-proponent with a masseuse-addiction, but – alas – he declined our offer.
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the subject of civility is front-and-center these days, after the mainstream media, your propaganda arm, accused talk-show hosts of causing the Tucson massacre, never mind that an insane person actually did the deed and apparently had never heard of Rush Limbaugh. Since you’ve made rather uncivil remarks during your tenure, such as when you accused policemen of acting stupidly, IMAGE has an arm that can help you be more civil in the future. The Council for Interdicting Venality, Inhibiting Libel, and Introducing Togetherness Yin/Yang, known in Washington by its acronym CIVILITY, is designed to help clients avoid slurs and racial remarks, such as your allusion while campaigning to the “typical white person” or your description of Pennsylvanians as Bible-thumping, gun-grasping bounty-hunters of illegal Mexicans.
CIVILITY will help you not be accused of venal mean-spiritedness, such as when you put out a directive last year to discover whose asses to kick concerning the BP oil-spill, not to mention possible libeling of people in both management and government, including your own energy department. The matter of introducing togetherness speaks for itself and involves when to shake hands, hug, back-pat, etc., and is enhanced by the Chinese yin/yang, very important these days since the Chinese own much of the nation. Rodney King of “can’t we all just get along” fame heads this department.
Since you’ve been accused of taking the country into socialism and since your opponents, especially Sarah Palin, targeted specific democrat candidates for defeat last year, the IMAGE agency designed to help you capitalize on these issues is called the Council for Ruling-Out Socialist Status and Hegemony Actuating Individual Righteousness, or CROSSHAIR, for short. This agency will help you explain the takeovers of banks and auto companies and mortgage-lending establishments and the health industry as not socialistic but in the best spirit of entrepreneurship, with the government as the greatest entrepreneur of them all, since it can print money and confiscate wages.
Righteousness and socialism seem to most folks not to jive, since there’s a freedom issue involved, as well as greed. CROSSHAIR will help prepare your teleprompters with biblical quotes, snappy one-liners, and sermonic utterances (with margin suggestions directing when to laugh, weep, etc.) such that in the upcoming state-of-the-union address you will appear as a saint. Caution: Whether you use CIVILITY or not, do NOT imply that the Supreme Court doesn’t own a full deck, as you did last year, notwithstanding your law-school professorship. The great unwashed hoi polloi does not appreciate your intellect in this matter and still sees the court as the last bastion of freedom, never mind your two appointees, who may not have found the bathrooms yet in the Justice Building.
Finally and obviously respecting your ability to speechify, the IMAGE agency that can help you with making your daily or twice- or thrice-daily speech-schedule effective, is the Bureau for Lying Altruistically and Testifying in Harmonious Erroneous Rhetoric, or BLATHER, for short. It’s been noticeable lately that your facial expressions do not comport with your claim that millions of jobs are at hand. That lie to the hoi polloi is justified in making everyone feel good – a solemn responsibility for any president – but you need to look more earnest so that folks won’t think you’re…well, lying. The same is true about the Gitmo-closing and the change of withdrawal-date from Afghanistan to 2014 instead of this year.
Erroneous rhetoric is just part of the job, as you know, but it must be used in a way to create harmony between the various factions and between them and yourself. BLATHER will help with this, especially as the campaigns get underway and folks are reminded that you promised to raise electricity rates out of sight in your last campaign. That formed a discord of immense proportions but folks weren’t paying attention then, just hating Bush instead. They are paying attention now, as evidenced last November and by both Conrad and Lieberman already throwing in the towel for 2012. You have to learn how to make them eat the unbelievable and like it. You can depend on CIVILITY to do the job.
Hoping to hear from you soon,
Respectfully,
I.M. Reverself, CEO
IMAGE
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Football - Blood Sport?
Football is a physical game featuring the violent collisions of mortal-on-mortal, with the barest padding, etc., to soften the blows. Most noticeably missing from the uniforms of yesteryear are the hip-pads designed to protect the pelvic bones and the sacrum. Most noticeably added in recent years but missing in yesteryear are the face-masks that protect against broken noses, eye-sockets and the like. The space-helmets of today make those of yesteryear appear to be little more than berets by comparison. Yet, brain concussions are simply accepted as inevitable, just part of the game.
The entire nature of the game has changed, as well, not least because it has been damned by the profit motive, the love of money being the root of all evil, as the gospel-writer would have it, meaning that anything goes, whether according to the rules or not. It has also been damned by the introduction of taunting, teasing, celebrating that’s vulgar, mugging for the crowd, and all-around foolishness that bespeaks a bush-league mentality that’s even below playground ethics.
Though one is politically incorrect for mentioning this, it nevertheless is true that the vulgarities were introduced for the most part as huge numbers of black players – exceptionally fine athletes – made the teams and actually now comprise the majority of players. They strut, skip and swagger as if what they do is actually important – now joined by the white players, too – when the 18-year-old eating sand and dodging bullets on foreign soil is worth more in a minute than they are in a year…and eminently braver, too.
The game was once played for the sport of it, at least in public schools and colleges all the time and in the pro leagues at one time. In the 1920s, players often didn’t even wear helmets. The reason was simply that tackles were made from the waist down, as was blocking, the idea being to relocate the opponent, not to kill him. The body-slam, particularly with a helmet-to-helmet feature, is the method of choice today, the motive being to completely incapacitate the opponent, especially his brain. The result can be seen in the myriad articles in the media today regarding the long-term effects of the brain concussions.
Sports pages are as notable today for their daily listing of injuries, often season- or career-ending, as for the accounts of the games. This puts football in the same milieu as boxing, in which the goal is to beat the opponent’s brains out…even if to do so kills him, a sort of legalized murder. This has turned the “sport” into a brutish exercise, crude and uncivilized. Boxers are glorified, when actually they’re just sadistic thugs. Linebackers receive the same acclaim as they operate on the same thuggish level. Their chief aim is to maim the quarterback no matter the fine or any other discipline imposed.
The most defining feature currently seems to be the constant on-field fights, especially during the college bowl games and the professional playoffs and championship games. There’s big money involved so tempers flare. The college guys are trying to make it into the pro mayhem, while the pros are simply aiming at the mega-bucks accruing to staying in the playoff hunt as long as possible. The XLIV Super Bowl winners/losers last February, for instance, made $83,000 and $42,000, respectively. The average base salary in the NFL is $990,000 but a huge number of players make millions, while the average salary was nearly $1.8 million in 2009. The fines mean little to the millionaires.
Occasionally, the league owners and honchos make noises about making football safer through the rules-route but they don’t follow through…just like in pro hockey, where the fighting is probably thought to attract spectators as much as the game. The honchos in the auto-racing industry do nothing to stop the drivers from wrecking each other when the situation calls for drastic action. These sports-gurus figure that fans love the mayhem, the devil take the hindmost…a little blood is always an attention-getter, with a lot of blood even better. A concussion is an absolute godsend, especially in a dull game.
This is from ESPN-NFL, 13 December: “The NFL's data shows 154 concussions -- from practices or games -- were reported from the start of the preseason through the eighth week of the 2010 regular season. That's an increase of 21 percent over the 127 concussions through the eighth week of the 2009 season, and a 34 percent jump from the 115 reported over the same span in 2008.” That would mean about 308 for the season or some 19 or so per week. How seriously does anyone take the NFL honchos?
Steroid-use hasn’t helped, of course, but that’s a whole other story. The sport has been degraded by personnel, leaders, player-foolishness and viciousness, the lack of meaningful discipline and a total misreading of a public that still would be interested in the game if the approach of yesteryear were re-instituted.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The entire nature of the game has changed, as well, not least because it has been damned by the profit motive, the love of money being the root of all evil, as the gospel-writer would have it, meaning that anything goes, whether according to the rules or not. It has also been damned by the introduction of taunting, teasing, celebrating that’s vulgar, mugging for the crowd, and all-around foolishness that bespeaks a bush-league mentality that’s even below playground ethics.
Though one is politically incorrect for mentioning this, it nevertheless is true that the vulgarities were introduced for the most part as huge numbers of black players – exceptionally fine athletes – made the teams and actually now comprise the majority of players. They strut, skip and swagger as if what they do is actually important – now joined by the white players, too – when the 18-year-old eating sand and dodging bullets on foreign soil is worth more in a minute than they are in a year…and eminently braver, too.
The game was once played for the sport of it, at least in public schools and colleges all the time and in the pro leagues at one time. In the 1920s, players often didn’t even wear helmets. The reason was simply that tackles were made from the waist down, as was blocking, the idea being to relocate the opponent, not to kill him. The body-slam, particularly with a helmet-to-helmet feature, is the method of choice today, the motive being to completely incapacitate the opponent, especially his brain. The result can be seen in the myriad articles in the media today regarding the long-term effects of the brain concussions.
Sports pages are as notable today for their daily listing of injuries, often season- or career-ending, as for the accounts of the games. This puts football in the same milieu as boxing, in which the goal is to beat the opponent’s brains out…even if to do so kills him, a sort of legalized murder. This has turned the “sport” into a brutish exercise, crude and uncivilized. Boxers are glorified, when actually they’re just sadistic thugs. Linebackers receive the same acclaim as they operate on the same thuggish level. Their chief aim is to maim the quarterback no matter the fine or any other discipline imposed.
The most defining feature currently seems to be the constant on-field fights, especially during the college bowl games and the professional playoffs and championship games. There’s big money involved so tempers flare. The college guys are trying to make it into the pro mayhem, while the pros are simply aiming at the mega-bucks accruing to staying in the playoff hunt as long as possible. The XLIV Super Bowl winners/losers last February, for instance, made $83,000 and $42,000, respectively. The average base salary in the NFL is $990,000 but a huge number of players make millions, while the average salary was nearly $1.8 million in 2009. The fines mean little to the millionaires.
Occasionally, the league owners and honchos make noises about making football safer through the rules-route but they don’t follow through…just like in pro hockey, where the fighting is probably thought to attract spectators as much as the game. The honchos in the auto-racing industry do nothing to stop the drivers from wrecking each other when the situation calls for drastic action. These sports-gurus figure that fans love the mayhem, the devil take the hindmost…a little blood is always an attention-getter, with a lot of blood even better. A concussion is an absolute godsend, especially in a dull game.
This is from ESPN-NFL, 13 December: “The NFL's data shows 154 concussions -- from practices or games -- were reported from the start of the preseason through the eighth week of the 2010 regular season. That's an increase of 21 percent over the 127 concussions through the eighth week of the 2009 season, and a 34 percent jump from the 115 reported over the same span in 2008.” That would mean about 308 for the season or some 19 or so per week. How seriously does anyone take the NFL honchos?
Steroid-use hasn’t helped, of course, but that’s a whole other story. The sport has been degraded by personnel, leaders, player-foolishness and viciousness, the lack of meaningful discipline and a total misreading of a public that still would be interested in the game if the approach of yesteryear were re-instituted.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wellstone Funeral Redux
I tuned in via TV on 12 January to the Tucson ceremonies just as Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano rose to speak, though the term pep rally might be about as appropriate a description, made that way, of course, since it was held in an athletic gymnasium and therefore inordinately attended by college students whose minds are sometimes on vacation, no matter where their bodies are. They were accustomed to screaming at ballgames, so why not a bit of screaming for anything held in the gym?
Imagine my amazement when all Napolitano did (and very appropriately) was read a long Old Testament passage from Isaiah, only to be followed by Attorney General Holder, who read a long New Testament passage from the writings of the apostle Paul. Neither said anything else. These were top echelon government officials reading from the Bible on a government-owned campus, so one wonders how long it will take for the politically-correct-mongers to scream “violation of First Amendment rights.” There was not a word about Allah, for instance, or the god Nihilism, for the atheists. The scripture-reading identified the service as a funeral, but that didn’t matter.
The affair was planned, one presumes, to be a solemn occasion. After all, six people were killed by Jared Loughner and this was supposedly a memorial to them. Instead (at least when the president spoke), it was turned into more of a campaign rally, putting one in mind of the funeral for Senator Wellstone after he and his wife and daughter, among others, were killed in a plane-crash in 2002 while campaigning for reelection in Minnesota. That circus was displayed on C-Span, and many folks believe it cost Wellstone’s substitute, Walter Mondale, the election. The scenes are still on the Internet and it’s worth a look just to see Senator Harkin doing his version of the “Dean Scream,” made famous later in Iowa in 2004. Then-Governor and Mrs. Ventura walked out.
This is not to say the president was not eloquent or that he invited the reaction, but does anyone remember anything like the constant clapping, screaming, and rising and sitting during the president’s speech in November 2009 at Ft. Hood, where 13 people were massacred by Major Hasan? Was the difference simply that in Tucson older adolescents had no idea what was happening, while at Ft. Hood adults were in mourning? Or was something else in play?
The president, between the episodes of unseemly outbursts, went to some lengths to speak passionately of the victims very personally, as well as about the survivors, and about all their families. If he had left it at that (and surely understanding what was happening), he would have done well. That was not to be. One wonders if he gloried in the moment.
Perhaps because his liberal base (especially folks in the mainline media such as NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, NY Times) had castigated conservatives (think Palin, Limbaugh, Beck) for having driven Loughner, an obvious madman, to performing his murders, Obama thought he had to address the subject of civility, never mind that after the BP oil-spill he had mentioned his search for “asses to kick,” and earlier had accused Boston-area policemen of “acting stupidly” when they were only doing their jobs. Ironically, it has been determined that Loughner paid no attention to the newsies/commentators/talking-heads.
Or, there was the case of Shirley Sherrod, a Georgia state official who was falsely accused of racism and on orders from Washington was forced to pull her car off the road last summer and submit her resignation on her Blackberry, a fine example of civility. Again ironically, the polls taken since the murders have indicated that a significant majority of citizens have paid little heed to the politically correct crowd that panders in behalf of Obama. They just figure rightly that a psycho was loose on that day and that civility was not an issue.
One hopes that the funeral was not actually planned as a rally of some sort, but is mindful that the president is putting together his campaign team for 2012. With one sentence, he could have stopped the chaos and reminded all the folks why they were there…but he didn’t. That just about says it all. The democrats danced on Wellstone’s grave in 2002. Did the same thing happen in Tucson with regard to those who had died?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Imagine my amazement when all Napolitano did (and very appropriately) was read a long Old Testament passage from Isaiah, only to be followed by Attorney General Holder, who read a long New Testament passage from the writings of the apostle Paul. Neither said anything else. These were top echelon government officials reading from the Bible on a government-owned campus, so one wonders how long it will take for the politically-correct-mongers to scream “violation of First Amendment rights.” There was not a word about Allah, for instance, or the god Nihilism, for the atheists. The scripture-reading identified the service as a funeral, but that didn’t matter.
The affair was planned, one presumes, to be a solemn occasion. After all, six people were killed by Jared Loughner and this was supposedly a memorial to them. Instead (at least when the president spoke), it was turned into more of a campaign rally, putting one in mind of the funeral for Senator Wellstone after he and his wife and daughter, among others, were killed in a plane-crash in 2002 while campaigning for reelection in Minnesota. That circus was displayed on C-Span, and many folks believe it cost Wellstone’s substitute, Walter Mondale, the election. The scenes are still on the Internet and it’s worth a look just to see Senator Harkin doing his version of the “Dean Scream,” made famous later in Iowa in 2004. Then-Governor and Mrs. Ventura walked out.
This is not to say the president was not eloquent or that he invited the reaction, but does anyone remember anything like the constant clapping, screaming, and rising and sitting during the president’s speech in November 2009 at Ft. Hood, where 13 people were massacred by Major Hasan? Was the difference simply that in Tucson older adolescents had no idea what was happening, while at Ft. Hood adults were in mourning? Or was something else in play?
The president, between the episodes of unseemly outbursts, went to some lengths to speak passionately of the victims very personally, as well as about the survivors, and about all their families. If he had left it at that (and surely understanding what was happening), he would have done well. That was not to be. One wonders if he gloried in the moment.
Perhaps because his liberal base (especially folks in the mainline media such as NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, NY Times) had castigated conservatives (think Palin, Limbaugh, Beck) for having driven Loughner, an obvious madman, to performing his murders, Obama thought he had to address the subject of civility, never mind that after the BP oil-spill he had mentioned his search for “asses to kick,” and earlier had accused Boston-area policemen of “acting stupidly” when they were only doing their jobs. Ironically, it has been determined that Loughner paid no attention to the newsies/commentators/talking-heads.
Or, there was the case of Shirley Sherrod, a Georgia state official who was falsely accused of racism and on orders from Washington was forced to pull her car off the road last summer and submit her resignation on her Blackberry, a fine example of civility. Again ironically, the polls taken since the murders have indicated that a significant majority of citizens have paid little heed to the politically correct crowd that panders in behalf of Obama. They just figure rightly that a psycho was loose on that day and that civility was not an issue.
One hopes that the funeral was not actually planned as a rally of some sort, but is mindful that the president is putting together his campaign team for 2012. With one sentence, he could have stopped the chaos and reminded all the folks why they were there…but he didn’t. That just about says it all. The democrats danced on Wellstone’s grave in 2002. Did the same thing happen in Tucson with regard to those who had died?
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
And the Beat Goes On!
Americans usually go overboard concerning everything from words to gifts to honors to…whatever… whenever an “event” takes place. Media coverage is the reason. Imagine what would have happened in this country when Lincoln was assassinated if cable 24/7 had been available! The telegraph was the fastest thing going and the preparing of pictures, rudimentary as they were, took an inordinate time to process. Printing was done by hand entirely. Transportation essentially meant the horse. Look at the difference between that “event” and the “events” of today – instant accounting of everything in real time, with pictures, movies available immediately, with the first reports inevitably in egregious error.
The Arizona shootings took place on the eighth and represented a sad “event” of profound impact. Add in the injured high-profile Congressperson, and news concerning her far outstripped news about those who died, notwithstanding that one was a federal judge. Coverage has been 24/7, even though the same ground has been plowed over and over. The main difference: celebrity!
Current America seems not to realize that death and trauma are just as inevitable as taxes. In the aftermath of 9/11, hundreds of millions of tax dollars were awarded to survivors of victims, notwithstanding that many of those who died undoubtedly had insurance policies and assets that left their families quite well-off. It was as if John Doe in Peoria was responsible for the deaths, though no such thing happened in 1995 in Oklahoma City regarding those who died in the Murrah Building bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh.
This doesn’t mean that government shouldn’t help in cases in which help is needed, regardless of expense, such as with the firemen and policemen (and their families), but the precedent has been set in the 9/11 case so that those involved in the next tragedy will demand justifiably that they be treated the same way. To see the difference concerning culpability, consider the Ft. Hood massacre of November 2009, which happened on government property and was perpetrated by a government employee, Major Hasan, who hasn’t been tried yet.
The supposed gravity of 08 January can be seen in the fact that the network biggies – NBC’s Brian Williams, CBS’s Katie Couric, and ABC’s Diane Sawyer had to broadcast from Tucson, no matter that hundreds of their own capable people had already been on the scene, covered it thoroughly and had already interviewed over and over anybody and everybody who had anything to say, even if just an opinion…and it became ultra-politicized in the process. The presiding sheriff preached a sermon on TV and later argued with Fox’s Megan Kelley about hate speech, never mind that the shooter was demonstrably proven to be a crazy guy sort of like the shooter at Virginia Tech (33 dead) in 2007.
Of course, it’s been the cable networks that have had all the better of the reporting since they could just cancel all their programming and devote every hour by every personality to the Tucson massacre. The public has been given an accounting (or non-accounting) of just how many bone fragments have been in Representative Giffords’ brain practically on the hour, for instance. One remembers the day-long caterwauling hysterics of Fox’s Shepard Smith and Geraldo in New Orleans days after Katrina hit there in 2005. Superficiality has its place.
The predictable finger-pointing by the lib-left has been vicious, the predictable slamming of talk-radio being operative, the insistence being that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was driven to his assassinations by the likes of Limbaugh or Glen Beck…or even Sarah Palin. Apparently, John Hinckley, Jr., Reagan’s would-be assassin, another crazy person still institutionalized, has been forgotten. Has everybody forgotten Sirhan B. Sirhan, who killed Bobby Kennedy, and Sara Jane Moore and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, both of whom tried to kill President Gerald Ford in 1975? Were they the products of hate-speech by republicans? Of course not! They were either crazy or mean or both. Moore has been paroled after serving more than 30 years but the other two are still sweating incarceration.
The usual “gun availability thing” has been beaten to death again by the politically correct, notwithstanding that any bystander with a gun could have killed Loughner before he wreaked his total havoc, especially if he had been able to get off his second clip. One wonders if the “elitist” self-appointed intellectuals will ever understand that crazy people exist and that they always will. Nah…too sanguinary an approach for the civilized!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
The Arizona shootings took place on the eighth and represented a sad “event” of profound impact. Add in the injured high-profile Congressperson, and news concerning her far outstripped news about those who died, notwithstanding that one was a federal judge. Coverage has been 24/7, even though the same ground has been plowed over and over. The main difference: celebrity!
Current America seems not to realize that death and trauma are just as inevitable as taxes. In the aftermath of 9/11, hundreds of millions of tax dollars were awarded to survivors of victims, notwithstanding that many of those who died undoubtedly had insurance policies and assets that left their families quite well-off. It was as if John Doe in Peoria was responsible for the deaths, though no such thing happened in 1995 in Oklahoma City regarding those who died in the Murrah Building bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh.
This doesn’t mean that government shouldn’t help in cases in which help is needed, regardless of expense, such as with the firemen and policemen (and their families), but the precedent has been set in the 9/11 case so that those involved in the next tragedy will demand justifiably that they be treated the same way. To see the difference concerning culpability, consider the Ft. Hood massacre of November 2009, which happened on government property and was perpetrated by a government employee, Major Hasan, who hasn’t been tried yet.
The supposed gravity of 08 January can be seen in the fact that the network biggies – NBC’s Brian Williams, CBS’s Katie Couric, and ABC’s Diane Sawyer had to broadcast from Tucson, no matter that hundreds of their own capable people had already been on the scene, covered it thoroughly and had already interviewed over and over anybody and everybody who had anything to say, even if just an opinion…and it became ultra-politicized in the process. The presiding sheriff preached a sermon on TV and later argued with Fox’s Megan Kelley about hate speech, never mind that the shooter was demonstrably proven to be a crazy guy sort of like the shooter at Virginia Tech (33 dead) in 2007.
Of course, it’s been the cable networks that have had all the better of the reporting since they could just cancel all their programming and devote every hour by every personality to the Tucson massacre. The public has been given an accounting (or non-accounting) of just how many bone fragments have been in Representative Giffords’ brain practically on the hour, for instance. One remembers the day-long caterwauling hysterics of Fox’s Shepard Smith and Geraldo in New Orleans days after Katrina hit there in 2005. Superficiality has its place.
The predictable finger-pointing by the lib-left has been vicious, the predictable slamming of talk-radio being operative, the insistence being that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was driven to his assassinations by the likes of Limbaugh or Glen Beck…or even Sarah Palin. Apparently, John Hinckley, Jr., Reagan’s would-be assassin, another crazy person still institutionalized, has been forgotten. Has everybody forgotten Sirhan B. Sirhan, who killed Bobby Kennedy, and Sara Jane Moore and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, both of whom tried to kill President Gerald Ford in 1975? Were they the products of hate-speech by republicans? Of course not! They were either crazy or mean or both. Moore has been paroled after serving more than 30 years but the other two are still sweating incarceration.
The usual “gun availability thing” has been beaten to death again by the politically correct, notwithstanding that any bystander with a gun could have killed Loughner before he wreaked his total havoc, especially if he had been able to get off his second clip. One wonders if the “elitist” self-appointed intellectuals will ever understand that crazy people exist and that they always will. Nah…too sanguinary an approach for the civilized!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
The Captain's Folly!
The latest bombshell connected to the lewdness of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” welcoming homosexuals with open arms (no suggestiveness intended) into the military concerns the skipper of the USS Enterprise, a U.S. Navy state-of-the-art aircraft carrier. Captain Owen Honors, when he was the ship’s executive officer (second-in-command) a few years ago, hosted a lurid closed-circuit ship-wide TV presentation featuring himself, among others, participating in sexually oriented episodes that even included (gasp) unflattering allusions to…yep…homosexuals.
This probably would have raised no eyebrows except for those allusions (common in even the smallest military units) and, of course, the fact that women are assigned to ships of the line…so, there’s probably been some gender-harassment of some kind included, especially since women apparently in the shower were a part of the production, as were men in the shower. The video has been made public and is on the Internet, maybe even without the editing that at least some of the media employ or will employ.
The top field-commanders made it clear to the Senators that they wanted no part of the repeal but the democrats own the Congress, notwithstanding that some repubs helped pass the repeal. This is “enlightenment time” for the progressives, as exhibited the other day on ABC’s Good Morning America, when Vice President Biden made it plain that same-sex marriage as an official national phenomenon is virtually inevitable, even though President Obama hasn’t made up his mind about that and most states either legislatively or constitutionally or both, not to mention the U.S. government in the 1998 Marriage Act, ban it.
The same-sex marriage-thing will be moot for at least the next two years since the republicans own the House and have cloture control of the Senate. Obama, however, is hot-to-trot by issuing executive orders these days so there’s no telling what he might attempt in the realization that Congress would kill him in this matter, Biden’s wisdom, qualified and quantified by jobs-as-a-three-letter-word, notwithstanding.
The DADT matter is yet another imposition on the military in the interest of social engineering, never mind that the military is the farthest thing from a democracy, the obeying of orders being the operative tool, not who is or is not offended, favored, dis-favored, or anything else. The example of the captain and his subordinates regarding their attitude toward homosexuals is instructive. The homosexuals may be legal but they will not be welcomed; indeed, they could even be in danger. The Big E is about to be deployed but Captain Honors will not command since top-down condemnation of homosexuals will surely make the LGBT outfit into a pressure-cooker for him to be well-done.
This is not the first time the military has been used as a sociological guinea pig. During the Carter administration (another democrat president) in 1977, gender-integrated boot camps came on line as a socializing project and so wrecked the system that it was sacked in 1982 early in Reagan’s eight-year tenure. By that time, fighting men had become so flabby that they were not battlefield-ready.
Boot camp integration came back during the Clinton years in the 90s (administrative orders) for nearly all of the services but the Marines, who would have no part of it. In 2002 after an extensive study, this monstrosity was soundly thrashed. Just plain common sense would have militated against throwing hormone-driven young people intimately together, not to mention the inequities in physical strength and endurance and the inordinate softening of rigid requirements consequent to making the rigors possible for women.
The “Tail-hook Scandal” of 1991 comes to mind when men and women officers of the Navy got together for the annual non-duty drunken orgy. Later in 1992, one of the women tearfully cried “Rape,” although probably few if any seriously considered it so. Result: Thirty-nine male officers were punished. The ladies got off. Not long after, the Navy determined to make up for it by ordering the qualification of two women as carrier pilots. The first one died attempting to land on a carrier and the second was washed out as unable to handle an F-14, thus engendering all sorts of accusations, studies, etc. The accounts of other shipboard behavior of gender-integrated sailors are lurid and plenteous.
Women have to be evacuated from ships by the time of their twentieth week of pregnancy or sooner, assuming that ships on patrol are always in combat mode (Dept. of the Navy, June 2007). In any case, has anyone ever heard of a maternity ward and day-care on a ship? And then there’s postpartum time, with all the reassigning of doable duties and down time simply to be expected with regard to the whole matter.
Captain Honors was wrong, notwithstanding his outstanding duty achievements. His commander at the time was also wrong in allowing Honors’ shenanigans, assuming he knew about them ahead of time. If he didn’t, he shouldn’t have been in command. It’s doubtful that Honors would have pulled this garbage without permission, understanding in his rank, time, and place the chain-of-command requirements.
At bottom, though, is the insane social tinkering by silly presidents and Congress-people, most of whom, it seems, wouldn’t know a salute from an obscene gesture, that goes on with the fighting forces that are trained to break things and kill people, not latch on to the “can’t we all just get along” tripe purveyed by the political correctness crowd.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
This probably would have raised no eyebrows except for those allusions (common in even the smallest military units) and, of course, the fact that women are assigned to ships of the line…so, there’s probably been some gender-harassment of some kind included, especially since women apparently in the shower were a part of the production, as were men in the shower. The video has been made public and is on the Internet, maybe even without the editing that at least some of the media employ or will employ.
The top field-commanders made it clear to the Senators that they wanted no part of the repeal but the democrats own the Congress, notwithstanding that some repubs helped pass the repeal. This is “enlightenment time” for the progressives, as exhibited the other day on ABC’s Good Morning America, when Vice President Biden made it plain that same-sex marriage as an official national phenomenon is virtually inevitable, even though President Obama hasn’t made up his mind about that and most states either legislatively or constitutionally or both, not to mention the U.S. government in the 1998 Marriage Act, ban it.
The same-sex marriage-thing will be moot for at least the next two years since the republicans own the House and have cloture control of the Senate. Obama, however, is hot-to-trot by issuing executive orders these days so there’s no telling what he might attempt in the realization that Congress would kill him in this matter, Biden’s wisdom, qualified and quantified by jobs-as-a-three-letter-word, notwithstanding.
The DADT matter is yet another imposition on the military in the interest of social engineering, never mind that the military is the farthest thing from a democracy, the obeying of orders being the operative tool, not who is or is not offended, favored, dis-favored, or anything else. The example of the captain and his subordinates regarding their attitude toward homosexuals is instructive. The homosexuals may be legal but they will not be welcomed; indeed, they could even be in danger. The Big E is about to be deployed but Captain Honors will not command since top-down condemnation of homosexuals will surely make the LGBT outfit into a pressure-cooker for him to be well-done.
This is not the first time the military has been used as a sociological guinea pig. During the Carter administration (another democrat president) in 1977, gender-integrated boot camps came on line as a socializing project and so wrecked the system that it was sacked in 1982 early in Reagan’s eight-year tenure. By that time, fighting men had become so flabby that they were not battlefield-ready.
Boot camp integration came back during the Clinton years in the 90s (administrative orders) for nearly all of the services but the Marines, who would have no part of it. In 2002 after an extensive study, this monstrosity was soundly thrashed. Just plain common sense would have militated against throwing hormone-driven young people intimately together, not to mention the inequities in physical strength and endurance and the inordinate softening of rigid requirements consequent to making the rigors possible for women.
The “Tail-hook Scandal” of 1991 comes to mind when men and women officers of the Navy got together for the annual non-duty drunken orgy. Later in 1992, one of the women tearfully cried “Rape,” although probably few if any seriously considered it so. Result: Thirty-nine male officers were punished. The ladies got off. Not long after, the Navy determined to make up for it by ordering the qualification of two women as carrier pilots. The first one died attempting to land on a carrier and the second was washed out as unable to handle an F-14, thus engendering all sorts of accusations, studies, etc. The accounts of other shipboard behavior of gender-integrated sailors are lurid and plenteous.
Women have to be evacuated from ships by the time of their twentieth week of pregnancy or sooner, assuming that ships on patrol are always in combat mode (Dept. of the Navy, June 2007). In any case, has anyone ever heard of a maternity ward and day-care on a ship? And then there’s postpartum time, with all the reassigning of doable duties and down time simply to be expected with regard to the whole matter.
Captain Honors was wrong, notwithstanding his outstanding duty achievements. His commander at the time was also wrong in allowing Honors’ shenanigans, assuming he knew about them ahead of time. If he didn’t, he shouldn’t have been in command. It’s doubtful that Honors would have pulled this garbage without permission, understanding in his rank, time, and place the chain-of-command requirements.
At bottom, though, is the insane social tinkering by silly presidents and Congress-people, most of whom, it seems, wouldn’t know a salute from an obscene gesture, that goes on with the fighting forces that are trained to break things and kill people, not latch on to the “can’t we all just get along” tripe purveyed by the political correctness crowd.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)