http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26loughner.html tells us that proceedings against the man who opened fire at a constituent event for Representative Gabrielle Giffords in January, killing six and injuring her and 12 others have been temporarily suspended due to his outbursts in the court and that it is possible that he may never be judged mentally capable of "understanding" what he has done and help in his defense. That really honks me off.
Now lets forget the fact that dozens of witnesses saw him do it. Hells, one cameraman even got pictures of him doing it. Let's just say for the moment that it is not blatantly obvious that he did it. (Okay I know its a stretch but work with me here.) He still needs to go trial. The very idea that this man may get a literal "Get out of Jail Free" card because he "might not understand" what he has done should get everyone riled up. Schizo, Nutso or simply Psycho, he must stand trial for his actions.
Oh I can hear the molly coddlers out there whining about how if the man wasn't in his right mind (I mean come on folks, no one in their right mind decides to gun down a bunch of people that they have never met before) then he shouldn't have to pay for his actions. My response to that is an old truism about the law in which it states, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If he committed the crime, he should suffer the consequences of it. (Please note I am being kind and saying if.)
Over my 40+ years, I have seen way to many people who were judged "Not guilty by reason of insanity" and it has always pissed me off. If a person has 12 personalities and #3 decides to take a shotgun and gun down a bunch of people, then the personality's host is guilty. If some kid gets hopped up on Acid and takes a knife to a bunch of other kids, he or she is still guilty. Saying these people weren't in their right minds is bull.
If this nutter is guilty of the crimes arrayed against him then he deserves to have punishment meted out to him to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn't matter if he is Schizophrenic or not because when all is said and done, he still committed the crime. To use an old quote, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
Rambles and Rants about pretty much everything ranging from Bad Service to Political Correctness. Being offensive and making people go "Hmmm" for the better part of two decades.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Right of Way: Wrong in the head
Okay, as today proves, I lead a very interesting and seldom boring life where things happen to me that seem to never happen to anyone else. Today is my latest example.
As most of my friends and those people who read my blogs know, I do a varied amount of exercising to help reduce my blood sugar and lose weight. I usually alternate between walking, jogging and riding my bike. My bike riding has led to several previous posts and to the subject of today's.
I was out for a short ride today (about half an hour for the curious out there) and had just turned onto the second leg of my shorter route. Now Kimberly (St) is not a busy street but has decent amounts of traffic on it from time to time. I had just passed CVS and was going about 20 mph down the right side of the road next to the curb. (Speed limit here is 25 BTW) Suddenly I heard this load honking and before I could even turn to look, a gray Mazda whipped around me at probably twice the limit. A woman yells out the side window something that sounded like "...asshole...sidewalk." and then keeps on going.
Now I encounter my fair share of rude people on the road and promptly forgot all about it until I got to my next turn and there sat the car at the turn with the woman waiting beside it. This is when I knew things were going to get interesting. I was soo right.
She flags me down (Yes I could have just kept going but wheres the fun in that?) and proceeds to harangue me about my riding. This very foul mouthed petite Asian woman tells me that I was riding down the wrong side of the road and blocking traffic because I was going to slow. (Keep in mind that Kimberly is a very wide two lane street with a wide passing median in the middle.) She goes on to say that if I had to ride on the wrong side of the road, I should ride on the sidewalk like I was supposed to and not block traffic. She states that my "blocking traffic and slowing her down" has made her late for work. She then proceeds to say several things in what I believe was Chinese which I doubt were very complimentary and left.
Now folks, I have several major issues with her statements even if they were colorfully delivered. A bicycle is considered a vehicle by the DMV and when on the street, it is to follow the same rules of the road as a car. (Now in my actual neighborhood I switch out as the whim hits me, but on the actual roads and streets I follow this rule precisely.) So since I was on the right hand side of the road, I was not on the "wrong" side.
Secondly, Sidewalks are for pedestrian traffic only IE people using their feet to get to and from places. This is one I seldom fudge on while riding since you can never tell when you are going to turn a corner and find someone right in front of you. So once again, her suggestion that I use the sidewalk was a little confuzzling.
Now ignoring all of that, the fact that this woman was "late for work" and decided to pull over on the side of the road and wait for me just so she could yell at me for making her late to work is a little ludicrous. I have never seen her before so she had no way of knowing for sure that I would turn at that street. I could have just as easily turned around and rode back up the street. This makes me think the very loud lady was either stupid or as my Pawpaw would have said, "Teeched in the head."
Since I am guessing that the woman has a driver's license then she had to have at least glanced at the little handbook they give you that covers the rules of the road for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. So her screams about me breaking the law and hindering her were more than a little bizarre. I suspect she is the type that ignores "no parking: fire zone" signs because they can't possibly apply to her. Still it made an otherwise boring ride a little more interesting.
Like I said, my life is seldom boring and often times more interesting that many movies. I have yet to decide if this is a blessing or a curse for some previous events in my life. What do you guys think?
As most of my friends and those people who read my blogs know, I do a varied amount of exercising to help reduce my blood sugar and lose weight. I usually alternate between walking, jogging and riding my bike. My bike riding has led to several previous posts and to the subject of today's.
I was out for a short ride today (about half an hour for the curious out there) and had just turned onto the second leg of my shorter route. Now Kimberly (St) is not a busy street but has decent amounts of traffic on it from time to time. I had just passed CVS and was going about 20 mph down the right side of the road next to the curb. (Speed limit here is 25 BTW) Suddenly I heard this load honking and before I could even turn to look, a gray Mazda whipped around me at probably twice the limit. A woman yells out the side window something that sounded like "...asshole...sidewalk." and then keeps on going.
Now I encounter my fair share of rude people on the road and promptly forgot all about it until I got to my next turn and there sat the car at the turn with the woman waiting beside it. This is when I knew things were going to get interesting. I was soo right.
She flags me down (Yes I could have just kept going but wheres the fun in that?) and proceeds to harangue me about my riding. This very foul mouthed petite Asian woman tells me that I was riding down the wrong side of the road and blocking traffic because I was going to slow. (Keep in mind that Kimberly is a very wide two lane street with a wide passing median in the middle.) She goes on to say that if I had to ride on the wrong side of the road, I should ride on the sidewalk like I was supposed to and not block traffic. She states that my "blocking traffic and slowing her down" has made her late for work. She then proceeds to say several things in what I believe was Chinese which I doubt were very complimentary and left.
Now folks, I have several major issues with her statements even if they were colorfully delivered. A bicycle is considered a vehicle by the DMV and when on the street, it is to follow the same rules of the road as a car. (Now in my actual neighborhood I switch out as the whim hits me, but on the actual roads and streets I follow this rule precisely.) So since I was on the right hand side of the road, I was not on the "wrong" side.
Secondly, Sidewalks are for pedestrian traffic only IE people using their feet to get to and from places. This is one I seldom fudge on while riding since you can never tell when you are going to turn a corner and find someone right in front of you. So once again, her suggestion that I use the sidewalk was a little confuzzling.
Now ignoring all of that, the fact that this woman was "late for work" and decided to pull over on the side of the road and wait for me just so she could yell at me for making her late to work is a little ludicrous. I have never seen her before so she had no way of knowing for sure that I would turn at that street. I could have just as easily turned around and rode back up the street. This makes me think the very loud lady was either stupid or as my Pawpaw would have said, "Teeched in the head."
Since I am guessing that the woman has a driver's license then she had to have at least glanced at the little handbook they give you that covers the rules of the road for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. So her screams about me breaking the law and hindering her were more than a little bizarre. I suspect she is the type that ignores "no parking: fire zone" signs because they can't possibly apply to her. Still it made an otherwise boring ride a little more interesting.
Like I said, my life is seldom boring and often times more interesting that many movies. I have yet to decide if this is a blessing or a curse for some previous events in my life. What do you guys think?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Enforcing the law
Webster's Online defines LAW as a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules.
Wikipedia defines it as Law[4] is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions
(Now I bet all of you are thinking that this is about the guy who was ganged up on and handcuffed by police because he was legally wearing his sidearm. Nope, think again and keep reading.)
Now there are dozens of different definitions I can quote that pretty much agree on one thing. Calling something a LAW means that someone, somewhere decided that it was a good idea, codified it and enforces it. In other words, Laws are made by sentient (Most of them anyway) beings to give structure to their lives. With me so far? Hang on it gets a little bumpy.
A man I greatly admire, Stephen Hawking said in a recent interview that he believed that the afterlife (Inset your preference here) is a fairy tale. Here's the entire article for those of you who are interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story
In earlier works, Hawking used the existence of God as a metaphor saying, "What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature." However, he himself does not believe in the existence of a Deity of any kind. He likens people to computers that eventually run down and quit working (I'd prolly be an abacus.) and that there is no afterlife for old computers.
In this interview he states that it would be possible for the solar system to have formed without the aid of God because of the Law of Gravity so it wouldn't have needed God's help. And this segues into my rant for the day.
The Universe is filled with Laws, Gravity, Lightspeed etc. The Universe is so carefully organized that most things (Cells, stars etc) undergo processes so regular, so precise that we can actually set our clocks by them (Atomic Clocks anyone?) These Laws are the very basis for all things in all of the Universe Well as far as we know at this point.) So if these Laws exist and are so powerful, my question is, who came up with them?
If we use humanity as a comparison, the idea of the Universe simply wandering into these laws on its own and keeping them going all this time is kind of silly. From the first days of man, we have codified our lives to give structure to the world around us and to protect us from each other. Anytime you find more than four or five people banding together for whatever reason, there will be some form of rules. Hells, even so called Anarchists create guidelines for themselves even though they supposedly hate such things. So if there are Laws governing the Universe then someone, some force had to create them and enforce them. To me that sounds like God and if you accept the existence of God then Afterlife kind of automatically follows.
Don't get me wrong, I don't claim (most days) to have all the answers. I have no "proof" that God exists and that some form of afterlife follows our death. I believe so with all of my heart and to me that is enough. However as a closing statement to Dr. Hawking, I am reminded of a quote. I can't recall who said it or the exact quote, but the gist of it was "One day Scientists will reach the most distant parts of the universe and find all the answers they seek. When they do, they will find God already there and waiting for them. Peace everyone and God bless.
Wikipedia defines it as Law[4] is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions
(Now I bet all of you are thinking that this is about the guy who was ganged up on and handcuffed by police because he was legally wearing his sidearm. Nope, think again and keep reading.)
Now there are dozens of different definitions I can quote that pretty much agree on one thing. Calling something a LAW means that someone, somewhere decided that it was a good idea, codified it and enforces it. In other words, Laws are made by sentient (Most of them anyway) beings to give structure to their lives. With me so far? Hang on it gets a little bumpy.
A man I greatly admire, Stephen Hawking said in a recent interview that he believed that the afterlife (Inset your preference here) is a fairy tale. Here's the entire article for those of you who are interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story
In earlier works, Hawking used the existence of God as a metaphor saying, "What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature." However, he himself does not believe in the existence of a Deity of any kind. He likens people to computers that eventually run down and quit working (I'd prolly be an abacus.) and that there is no afterlife for old computers.
In this interview he states that it would be possible for the solar system to have formed without the aid of God because of the Law of Gravity so it wouldn't have needed God's help. And this segues into my rant for the day.
The Universe is filled with Laws, Gravity, Lightspeed etc. The Universe is so carefully organized that most things (Cells, stars etc) undergo processes so regular, so precise that we can actually set our clocks by them (Atomic Clocks anyone?) These Laws are the very basis for all things in all of the Universe Well as far as we know at this point.) So if these Laws exist and are so powerful, my question is, who came up with them?
If we use humanity as a comparison, the idea of the Universe simply wandering into these laws on its own and keeping them going all this time is kind of silly. From the first days of man, we have codified our lives to give structure to the world around us and to protect us from each other. Anytime you find more than four or five people banding together for whatever reason, there will be some form of rules. Hells, even so called Anarchists create guidelines for themselves even though they supposedly hate such things. So if there are Laws governing the Universe then someone, some force had to create them and enforce them. To me that sounds like God and if you accept the existence of God then Afterlife kind of automatically follows.
Don't get me wrong, I don't claim (most days) to have all the answers. I have no "proof" that God exists and that some form of afterlife follows our death. I believe so with all of my heart and to me that is enough. However as a closing statement to Dr. Hawking, I am reminded of a quote. I can't recall who said it or the exact quote, but the gist of it was "One day Scientists will reach the most distant parts of the universe and find all the answers they seek. When they do, they will find God already there and waiting for them. Peace everyone and God bless.
Friday, May 6, 2011
He's Dead Jim
A good friend of mine posted an article on FB called 7 Deceptions About Bin Laden's Killing Pushed by the Obama Administration which goes into great detail about how the original "facts" of the raid (team size, firefight duration, human shields etc) were either exaggerated or outright fabricated. This article is so much claptrap to me for two very basic reasons.
Reason the first: All of the initial "facts" that were released by the members of the press and a lot of the ones in the first few hours/days afterward were received almost entirely by "confidential sources wishing to remain anonymous due to..." How many times as a culture have we seen entire stories written citing such sources? Due to the fact they are unnamed, the sources have no strength of creditability, but we absorb and accept the information like it is handed down from on high. Something wrong with that.
I know many highly honorable and trustworthy journalists. One of whom I am proud to call Brother. I know that a lot of journalists, even when citing unnamed sources, strive to make sure the information they receive is accurate and up to date. I also know that there is a huge section of the news business that truly doesn't give a damn as long as it makes news. These people get "information" from the Relief Overnight White House Janitor Second Class that Bin Laden was armed with a Planet Busting Death Ray and they will run with it. Later, when the truth comes out (Whatever that may be) they blame the White House for disinformation.
Here's what a lot of people don't realize about situations like this. The White House (Government) doesn't have to clarify anything. They could have claimed John Wayne rose from the dead, teamed up with Chuck Norris and Bruce Willis to go in to take down Laden with their bare hands while drinking Coca Cola. Sure the press might have had a problem with that but nothing could force the WH to "correct" itself. The fact that the WH is willing to correct earlier misinformation, including parts that might not make them look so good, is a good sign of a good government. Give them chops for that.
So now you are probably asking what is Reason the Second? Well that ones not quite so profound and a little indelicate.
Reason the Second: Why do I feel this article is claptrap and unnecessary? Simple, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Osama was heavily armed, wearing Iron Man Armor with dozens of human shields or if he had just gotten ready for bed, drank his warm milk and put on his pink bunny slippers. It doesn't matter if the team of SEALS that took him down was a 25, 50, 75 or 1500 man team with a legion of attack werewolves. It doesn't matter if he resisted with all of his might or crawled on the floor on hands and knees begging for his life. Because in the end, we got him.
Some might argue that he should have been taken alive and brought to trial. Some might say we violated his rights. I say Horse Hockey! The man was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. His actions and direction are the cause of pain and suffering for thousands more suffering from the ill effects of living and working at or near Ground Zero during the clean up. We know he did it. Hell we have videos of him admitting to it and more. "The only thing you can do with a rabid dog is shoot him," is a quote from my brother who is one of those honorable journalists I mentioned earlier.
Its not very Christian of me, but I am personally glad the son of a bitch is dead and pray that whatever form of punishment meted out to him in the hereafter is eternal and painful. Like I said not very Christian, but that's the way I feel.
Reason the first: All of the initial "facts" that were released by the members of the press and a lot of the ones in the first few hours/days afterward were received almost entirely by "confidential sources wishing to remain anonymous due to..." How many times as a culture have we seen entire stories written citing such sources? Due to the fact they are unnamed, the sources have no strength of creditability, but we absorb and accept the information like it is handed down from on high. Something wrong with that.
I know many highly honorable and trustworthy journalists. One of whom I am proud to call Brother. I know that a lot of journalists, even when citing unnamed sources, strive to make sure the information they receive is accurate and up to date. I also know that there is a huge section of the news business that truly doesn't give a damn as long as it makes news. These people get "information" from the Relief Overnight White House Janitor Second Class that Bin Laden was armed with a Planet Busting Death Ray and they will run with it. Later, when the truth comes out (Whatever that may be) they blame the White House for disinformation.
Here's what a lot of people don't realize about situations like this. The White House (Government) doesn't have to clarify anything. They could have claimed John Wayne rose from the dead, teamed up with Chuck Norris and Bruce Willis to go in to take down Laden with their bare hands while drinking Coca Cola. Sure the press might have had a problem with that but nothing could force the WH to "correct" itself. The fact that the WH is willing to correct earlier misinformation, including parts that might not make them look so good, is a good sign of a good government. Give them chops for that.
So now you are probably asking what is Reason the Second? Well that ones not quite so profound and a little indelicate.
Reason the Second: Why do I feel this article is claptrap and unnecessary? Simple, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Osama was heavily armed, wearing Iron Man Armor with dozens of human shields or if he had just gotten ready for bed, drank his warm milk and put on his pink bunny slippers. It doesn't matter if the team of SEALS that took him down was a 25, 50, 75 or 1500 man team with a legion of attack werewolves. It doesn't matter if he resisted with all of his might or crawled on the floor on hands and knees begging for his life. Because in the end, we got him.
Some might argue that he should have been taken alive and brought to trial. Some might say we violated his rights. I say Horse Hockey! The man was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. His actions and direction are the cause of pain and suffering for thousands more suffering from the ill effects of living and working at or near Ground Zero during the clean up. We know he did it. Hell we have videos of him admitting to it and more. "The only thing you can do with a rabid dog is shoot him," is a quote from my brother who is one of those honorable journalists I mentioned earlier.
Its not very Christian of me, but I am personally glad the son of a bitch is dead and pray that whatever form of punishment meted out to him in the hereafter is eternal and painful. Like I said not very Christian, but that's the way I feel.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Okay I need about thirty guys with big guns and bikes...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/mexicocrimeprostitutionchild, I want you to read it and then get very angry. Now I have written dozens of articles in the past about children and young adults being forced into prostitution here in the US. Over the years a lot has been done to halt this horrendous practice. (Not nearly enough, but at least folks are trying.) We actually have some very powerful laws on the books now to help with this tragedy. Now I read this article and I understand that we still have a lot to do.
Now I hear a lot of you saying, "That's not our country. We shouldn't get involved because it is none of our business. Don't we have enough troubles at home with a recession and three foreign wars going on?" The only one of those questions that I deem worthy of a friendly response is the last one. Yes, we do have serious problems going on here at home. Yes we are committed (Apt word that) to three wars that are draining our resources and getting our people killed. I will respond to that part later. Let's handle the first ones first.
"Its not our country." Yep, okay you got me on that one. Mexico and the rest of Central America is not our country. We are global neighbors and somewhat allies with most of the parts of CA, but it isn't part of the US. "We shouldn't get involved because it is none of our business." Reminds me of that wonderful scene from A Christmas Carol where Scrooge compliments Marley for being good at business and Marley moans, "Mankind was my business!" It shouldn't matter where it happens or who it happens to when children are horribly abused. Mexico or Mars, it should always be our business.
People might point out that we have no right forcing our ideas onto other people, other cultures. The problem with that line of thought is this. We aren't talking about a difference in politics or even philosophy. What is happening to these children is wrong, even illegal there. If it weren't wrong by their standards you wouldn't get such amazing quotes as ""Yes, there's people trafficking but not in an alarming manner," Mendez admitted in his office in the border town of Tapachula.
"There is a lot of prostitution, particularly of minors."
A lot of people will tell you that "Wrong is just wrong" for pretty much every single moral, political and even religious argument in the world. I don't necessarily agree with that idea. I believe that many of the ideas/concepts/beliefs that each group considers to be set in stone or absolute are purely cultural and situational. (Hmm, maybe grounds for another blog one day) However, if we are to survive as a race, our first priority must be the protection of our children. What is happening in CA and other parts of the world is wrong and its time someone did something about it.
Unlike a lot of naysayers, I look at the human race and I see so much potential. We have the capacity to grow beyond ourselves and walk amongst the stars (Figuratively and literally) if only we try hard enough. But if we are going to be worthy of this, we have to stand up for ourselves and our fellows. To paraphrase a great TV show's main tag line, "Save the children, Save the world." Any volunteers?
Now I hear a lot of you saying, "That's not our country. We shouldn't get involved because it is none of our business. Don't we have enough troubles at home with a recession and three foreign wars going on?" The only one of those questions that I deem worthy of a friendly response is the last one. Yes, we do have serious problems going on here at home. Yes we are committed (Apt word that) to three wars that are draining our resources and getting our people killed. I will respond to that part later. Let's handle the first ones first.
"Its not our country." Yep, okay you got me on that one. Mexico and the rest of Central America is not our country. We are global neighbors and somewhat allies with most of the parts of CA, but it isn't part of the US. "We shouldn't get involved because it is none of our business." Reminds me of that wonderful scene from A Christmas Carol where Scrooge compliments Marley for being good at business and Marley moans, "Mankind was my business!" It shouldn't matter where it happens or who it happens to when children are horribly abused. Mexico or Mars, it should always be our business.
People might point out that we have no right forcing our ideas onto other people, other cultures. The problem with that line of thought is this. We aren't talking about a difference in politics or even philosophy. What is happening to these children is wrong, even illegal there. If it weren't wrong by their standards you wouldn't get such amazing quotes as ""Yes, there's people trafficking but not in an alarming manner," Mendez admitted in his office in the border town of Tapachula.
"There is a lot of prostitution, particularly of minors."
A lot of people will tell you that "Wrong is just wrong" for pretty much every single moral, political and even religious argument in the world. I don't necessarily agree with that idea. I believe that many of the ideas/concepts/beliefs that each group considers to be set in stone or absolute are purely cultural and situational. (Hmm, maybe grounds for another blog one day) However, if we are to survive as a race, our first priority must be the protection of our children. What is happening in CA and other parts of the world is wrong and its time someone did something about it.
Unlike a lot of naysayers, I look at the human race and I see so much potential. We have the capacity to grow beyond ourselves and walk amongst the stars (Figuratively and literally) if only we try hard enough. But if we are going to be worthy of this, we have to stand up for ourselves and our fellows. To paraphrase a great TV show's main tag line, "Save the children, Save the world." Any volunteers?
Friday, April 22, 2011
okay we know you risked your lives but...
Sometimes you read about legislation that is stupid. Sometimes you read about legislation that is insulting and sometimes you read about legislation that is both combined. Yahoo News released an article http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110422/us_yblog_thelookout/9-11-first-responders-to-be-checked-on-fbi-terror-list that states that, due to some whizbang wording added to a bill to recompense First Responders who suffer illnesses during their incredibly heroic actions during 9/11 passed, any First Responder who tries to get a part of the allocated funds must pass a background screening to make sure they or members of their family are terrorists.
Now there is already a lot of controversy over this bill because a lot of people felt that the First Responders who dealt with horrific events of 9/11 didn't deserve the extra compensation since they were just doing the jobs they were paid to do. I have opinions about that emotion, but will not go into it here since that isn't exactly the subject of the blog. I will just say this to those people. Thwwpppttt! (That's writerish for a very loud and rude raspberry)
Now I am not saying that some super sneaky member of a terrorist organization couldn't get a job as a fireman, EMT, National Guardsman using false credentials. Perhaps with some evil intent of carrying a bomb into the local Starbucks and ending the evils of Lattes forever. However, unless I completely misinterpret the idea behind terrorists, you don't usually stick around for hours afterward wading through collapsed buildings and breathing in toxic fumes while trying to rescue the Starbucks customers you just tried to blow up.
So using that logic, any First Responder who is now suffering the horrific effects of breathing in smoke, asbestos, chemical fumes etc while they risked their lives to save as many people as they could, then it kind of stands to reason that they aren't terrorists. This moronic and highly insulting rider to the legislation is just a way to keep people who desperately need the money now from getting it and you can bet some gifted soul in our government will do his/her/its damned best to find good men and women ineligible because they read the wrong book in preschool or sold unlicensed lemonade on the street corner when they were 12.
Work with me here on this one, guys. Make a fuss and raise a stink over this insulting piece of trash. The people already have enough to worry about without having to worry about being disallowed because they might be "terrorists." You got a blog? Talk about it. Got a Facebook page? Talk about it. Join the SIOTBAA Society! Make some noise!
Now there is already a lot of controversy over this bill because a lot of people felt that the First Responders who dealt with horrific events of 9/11 didn't deserve the extra compensation since they were just doing the jobs they were paid to do. I have opinions about that emotion, but will not go into it here since that isn't exactly the subject of the blog. I will just say this to those people. Thwwpppttt! (That's writerish for a very loud and rude raspberry)
Now I am not saying that some super sneaky member of a terrorist organization couldn't get a job as a fireman, EMT, National Guardsman using false credentials. Perhaps with some evil intent of carrying a bomb into the local Starbucks and ending the evils of Lattes forever. However, unless I completely misinterpret the idea behind terrorists, you don't usually stick around for hours afterward wading through collapsed buildings and breathing in toxic fumes while trying to rescue the Starbucks customers you just tried to blow up.
So using that logic, any First Responder who is now suffering the horrific effects of breathing in smoke, asbestos, chemical fumes etc while they risked their lives to save as many people as they could, then it kind of stands to reason that they aren't terrorists. This moronic and highly insulting rider to the legislation is just a way to keep people who desperately need the money now from getting it and you can bet some gifted soul in our government will do his/her/its damned best to find good men and women ineligible because they read the wrong book in preschool or sold unlicensed lemonade on the street corner when they were 12.
Work with me here on this one, guys. Make a fuss and raise a stink over this insulting piece of trash. The people already have enough to worry about without having to worry about being disallowed because they might be "terrorists." You got a blog? Talk about it. Got a Facebook page? Talk about it. Join the SIOTBAA Society! Make some noise!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Freedom of Speech
Okay before I start what may be one of the most important blogs of my writing career let me give you guys a little quote.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."
In my own not so humble opinion, this is the most important bits of wording ever written because it gives all of us the right to say and believe what we think is right without fear of persecution.
Now onto the subject that prompted this particular blog. One of my best friends and a far better writer than me called last night to fill me in on the details of a truly amazing event. He entrusted me with writing a blog telling the story and letting people know about the dangers of telling the truth. I really don't think that I am better suited for this than him, but here goes.
My friend runs a local newspaper and is one of it's chief reporters. The other day, early in the morning, he received a phone call from local law enforcement that something big was about to happen. When he arrived at the headquarters, an impressive list of whos who of law enforcement were waiting including Secret Service and GBI officials.
Benjamin rode along as these powerful figures went to serve various warrants. The first house they visited, a woman was served with 99! warrants for identity theft. Let me repeat that just in case you missed the first line. NINETY NINE! She was handcuffed and taken away by the officers. My friend took pictures of the incident which is his job.
After finishing the warrant rounds, Benjy called his office and told them to "Stop the presses." He rushed back to his office, wrote the story and published the picture. Hours later, the paper was published and a very short time later, he received a phone call. The caller identified himself as the son of the woman who had been arrested for the 99 counts. He proceeded to tell Ben that he didn't have the right to publish these pictures of his mother. Of course, Ben pointed out that he did (See above note about 1st Amendment rights) The caller than proceeded to say that "He had something for You and the 1st Amendment"
Keep in mind here that being arrested does not make you guilty. Having your picture in the paper being arrested doesn't make you guilty. No matter what a lot of people seem to think, the only time you are proven guilty of a crime is when you are tried by a jury of your peers and found to be so. Even then, the conviction can be overturned and your innocence restored. Ben didn't accuse the woman of anything or imply that she was guilty. He simply reported the fact of her arrest.
(Let me make another aside about general stupidity. Threats against a person are one thing since you can actually physically assault a person. However the 1st Amendment, 2nd, 3rd etc cannot be physically assaulted unless you try to burn the actual document. They are a concept, an idea and a sense of spirit.)
Since I have known Ben for a very long time I can tell you right now threatening him is about as safe as tap dancing in a land mine. He doesn't get scared and he doesn't back down. As a journalist, he firmly believes in telling the truth no matter what. He has been this way for as long as I have known him. Hells in college, he was known as the heaviest armed man in the state.
The reason I mention that is because what happened next is very typical of that. Whereas many people would have hidden in their homes or offices worried that some angry individual was coming after them, Ben drove home, opened up his well stocked gun safe, pulled out a Mossberg 500 shotgun and slung it across his back. He then proceeded to take a ride through town on his motorcycle. (Note he did call the law enforcement people to tell them of the threat and to tell them of his show of force before doing so.)
Now a lot of people would say that Ben was over reacting. They would imply that he was asking for trouble by riding through town with a gun. They might say that Ben should just keep quiet and let the police handle the situation. Ben did exactly that by informing the police of the situation. He didn't find out who the guy was and where he lived (Child's play for him) and go beat the crap out of him. All he did was show that he would not be intimidated by some dipstick who was too cowardly to confront him face to face.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/datasets/journalists-killed-by-country-since--3/versions/1 is an excellent website that tracks the number of journalists killed while doing their job. It shows why no journalist should ever take lightly a threat against their lives. For the most part (Ignoring Faux News right now) reporters struggle everyday to drag the truth out of the darkness kicking and screaming whether people like it or not and a lot of very powerful people don't like it. Sometimes these brave men and women pay for this effort with their lives.
Our freedoms are never free and standing up for them has never been safe. All of the people who fight to do this (Military, Police, Journalists etc) deserve our undying gratitude for having the courage to brave the "slings and arrows" (Bullets, hand grenades) to protect them. The next time you read a story in your local paper that exposes crime, graft and corruption please take a moment to say thank you for the people that made it possible.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."
In my own not so humble opinion, this is the most important bits of wording ever written because it gives all of us the right to say and believe what we think is right without fear of persecution.
Now onto the subject that prompted this particular blog. One of my best friends and a far better writer than me called last night to fill me in on the details of a truly amazing event. He entrusted me with writing a blog telling the story and letting people know about the dangers of telling the truth. I really don't think that I am better suited for this than him, but here goes.
My friend runs a local newspaper and is one of it's chief reporters. The other day, early in the morning, he received a phone call from local law enforcement that something big was about to happen. When he arrived at the headquarters, an impressive list of whos who of law enforcement were waiting including Secret Service and GBI officials.
Benjamin rode along as these powerful figures went to serve various warrants. The first house they visited, a woman was served with 99! warrants for identity theft. Let me repeat that just in case you missed the first line. NINETY NINE! She was handcuffed and taken away by the officers. My friend took pictures of the incident which is his job.
After finishing the warrant rounds, Benjy called his office and told them to "Stop the presses." He rushed back to his office, wrote the story and published the picture. Hours later, the paper was published and a very short time later, he received a phone call. The caller identified himself as the son of the woman who had been arrested for the 99 counts. He proceeded to tell Ben that he didn't have the right to publish these pictures of his mother. Of course, Ben pointed out that he did (See above note about 1st Amendment rights) The caller than proceeded to say that "He had something for You and the 1st Amendment"
Keep in mind here that being arrested does not make you guilty. Having your picture in the paper being arrested doesn't make you guilty. No matter what a lot of people seem to think, the only time you are proven guilty of a crime is when you are tried by a jury of your peers and found to be so. Even then, the conviction can be overturned and your innocence restored. Ben didn't accuse the woman of anything or imply that she was guilty. He simply reported the fact of her arrest.
(Let me make another aside about general stupidity. Threats against a person are one thing since you can actually physically assault a person. However the 1st Amendment, 2nd, 3rd etc cannot be physically assaulted unless you try to burn the actual document. They are a concept, an idea and a sense of spirit.)
Since I have known Ben for a very long time I can tell you right now threatening him is about as safe as tap dancing in a land mine. He doesn't get scared and he doesn't back down. As a journalist, he firmly believes in telling the truth no matter what. He has been this way for as long as I have known him. Hells in college, he was known as the heaviest armed man in the state.
The reason I mention that is because what happened next is very typical of that. Whereas many people would have hidden in their homes or offices worried that some angry individual was coming after them, Ben drove home, opened up his well stocked gun safe, pulled out a Mossberg 500 shotgun and slung it across his back. He then proceeded to take a ride through town on his motorcycle. (Note he did call the law enforcement people to tell them of the threat and to tell them of his show of force before doing so.)
Now a lot of people would say that Ben was over reacting. They would imply that he was asking for trouble by riding through town with a gun. They might say that Ben should just keep quiet and let the police handle the situation. Ben did exactly that by informing the police of the situation. He didn't find out who the guy was and where he lived (Child's play for him) and go beat the crap out of him. All he did was show that he would not be intimidated by some dipstick who was too cowardly to confront him face to face.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/datasets/journalists-killed-by-country-since--3/versions/1 is an excellent website that tracks the number of journalists killed while doing their job. It shows why no journalist should ever take lightly a threat against their lives. For the most part (Ignoring Faux News right now) reporters struggle everyday to drag the truth out of the darkness kicking and screaming whether people like it or not and a lot of very powerful people don't like it. Sometimes these brave men and women pay for this effort with their lives.
Our freedoms are never free and standing up for them has never been safe. All of the people who fight to do this (Military, Police, Journalists etc) deserve our undying gratitude for having the courage to brave the "slings and arrows" (Bullets, hand grenades) to protect them. The next time you read a story in your local paper that exposes crime, graft and corruption please take a moment to say thank you for the people that made it possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)