tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74023738982436526502024-03-19T14:07:46.607-07:00I'm Just Saying.Observations of the Nutty IrishmanThe Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-74681518479041097692015-06-30T16:24:00.003-07:002015-06-30T16:24:25.556-07:00Be Careful What You Wish For<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So finally, <a href="http://thenuttyirishman.blogspot.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-lets-skip-to-end-shall-we.html" target="_blank">as I predicted</a>, gay marriage is now legal in all fifty states. And as anyone could have expected, we're now seeing the collective backlash from those who think they're being persecuted because something they think is a sin is now legal. They insist America is a Christian nation, and that this was a mistake by the Supreme Court. We're not and it wasn't, but I digress.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To those of you who do think America is a Christian nation, I say: be careful what you wish for. You want to see gay marriage illegal because of something you read in Leviticus? Have you really thought this through? I don't think you have.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's lots of things that are legal in these United States whilst being <a href="http://thenuttyirishman.blogspot.com/2012/04/patriotism-and-ten-commandments.html" target="_blank">expressly forbidden</a> in the Bible: working on the Sabbath, coveting, divorce, eating pork and shellfish, marrying people of different faiths, atheism, taking the lord's name in vain, and so on. Open any book of the bible, and you're bound to see things that are forbidden happening in broad daylight. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We're a godless nation, ladies and gentlemen. We're free to have our own views on a god, but as a nation we are not beholding to any one person or group's interpretation of whether there is a god, or what we ought to do to stay on their good side. Our government cannot ever, must not ever kowtow to any one religious group's views on "how things ought to be". That way lies madness.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that we did capitulate and declare this a Christian nation, beholding only to the Bible as the final arbiter of truth and justice. Let's say that Leviticus, since it served you so well on this gay marriage issue, now dictates right and wrong on a national scale. Say goodbye to Red Lobster, pepperoni pizza, shopping on Saturday or Sundays (pick one), men trimming their beards, women holding leadership positions in anything...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You see where this is going? Does it seem like freedom to you? Does it seem American? Folks, one of the caveats of living in a free country is that there will be people who have different opinions on things, and despite that, they have all the same rights you do. Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, Jew and gentile, black and white, gay and straight. Not every country can say that, and if you think we made a mistake as a nation by legalizing gay marriage, you're cordially invited to visit one of these countries. Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind, as does Russia, China, and a few others.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Gay Americans are citizens, and have - and should have had all along - the same rights as straight people. We've got a ways to go on our path to a more perfect union, but the fact is freedom is antithetical to a lot of religions. My freedom to reject the divinity of Christ, say the bible is not the word of god, and reject the church altogether does not make me any less patriotic than you. In fact, you might say that exercising the right to say such blasphemous things is in itself a patriotic act. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We're about to celebrate our nation's birthday in a few days, and we're reminded of what it means to be an American. Yes, cherish it. You're free. But so is the person next to you. And those weirdos at the end of the block. And that's the price we pay. And if you can't handle it, if you're not ready to extend the same liberties you cherish as an American to every single person in America, then I say: you're not ready to live in a free country, and you don't deserve it.</div>
</div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-46883753696132313822014-11-05T10:35:00.000-08:002014-11-05T10:35:11.154-08:00The Morning After, 2014<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The results of the 2014 elections are, to me, a
disappointment. Not only because
Republicans took control of the Senate, although that seems to be what’s
grabbing all the attention. CNN seems to
think the blame falls squarely on Obama (because of course it does), but I
disagree. I don't see yesterday's results as a rejection of the Left's policies as much as I see it as a willingness to accept the lies and propaganda that try to twist Obama's performance into looking worse that it really is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem is not that the economy is doing poorly. I hear Right Wing pundits on the AM radio shrieking about how the economy is circling the drain, and I want to ask "by what standard is that true?" At last count, we've experienced 63 straight
months of economic growth. The stock
market is setting new record highs all the time. We avoided a second Great Depression. Unemployment has fallen from over ten percent in 2009 to under six percent in 2014. Millions of
Americans who couldn't get health insurance before the ACA passed now have it. So this idea that Americans voted for change
because their confidence in the economy or the overall direction of the country was shaky just shows me that people aren't bothering to educate themselves on the facts. Fox News tells you the economy is bad,
without bothering to qualify that or report on stories that might make them
seem wrong, and Middle America buys into it. So they jump ship without bothering to learn they're being lied to.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I’m not really surprised that red states stayed red. Arkansas, Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, to me they’re
all lost causes. They wear their
ignorance as a badge of honor. Their willingness to believe whatever Kool-Aid the right wing serves up makes them supremely deserving of their bottom-of-the-barrel status for job growth, education, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What I find telling is, that despite the apparent shift to
the right that last night’s election might seem to represent, ballot
initiatives throughout the country showed support for what have traditionally
been progressive causes: minimum wage increases in various states were
approved, women’s access to abortion was upheld in all but one state, pot was
legalized in two states and the District of Columbia. There were even initiatives passed to more
closely regulate the sale of guns at gun shows.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So to me, America is not getting more conservative, but they
are demonstrating a willingness to be led astray by false reports about the
terrible economy, and the need to get rid of the Democrats that are causing
it. What made me truly sad was how the
Right Wing demonized Obama by using him as an attack tactic for Democratic congressmen
and women: “so-and-so voted with Obama a whole bunch of times, and that makes
them bad”. But even that wasn't as bad
as the Democrats taking those criticisms, and lacking the sack to simply stand
up and say <b><i>“yes, I support the President, and I believe I made the right
choice, then and now. We’re better off
in a lot of ways now than we were in 2008.
You don’t have to like Obama on a personal level to agree that this
decision or that decision was the right one.
So feel any way you want to about Obama the man. But ask yourself this: is not liking a person
a good enough reason to disagree with them?
In the end, if we as a nation are better off, and heading the right
direction, does it really matter how you feel about the guy who’s making that
happen?</i>”</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The 2014 election was about hype over substance. It was about innuendo trumping truth. It was about fears overcoming facts. We as a nation, had been (up until yesterday)
generally on the right track. We've abandoned that in favor of unsubstantiated fears and baseless propaganda. We've laid back and let the Right Wing brain-rape us into thinking we needed change. We didn't.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Good luck, America. </span></div>
</div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-44832568911957584112013-09-16T14:16:00.001-07:002013-09-16T14:47:26.901-07:00Confronting Racism in the Miss America Pageant<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]">So we have a new Miss America, and she is of Indian descent. Disappointingly, the Twitterverse had a collective hissy fit, with racists scurrying around telling us what a travesty this all was.</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]"></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]">The level of intelligence in racists is staggeringly low. But beyond that is the pervasive understanding that Miss America is best being given to blonde haired, blue eyed knockouts. I'm old enough to remember when Vanessa Williams won in the early 80's, and how people complained then, too. So's we're clear: America doesn't love the blonde-haired, blue-eyed people better - that's Nazi Germany you're thinking of.</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]"></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]">I posted this as a comment on the story at <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/a-lot-of-people-are-very-upset-that-an-indian-american-woman" target="_blank">Buzzfeed.com</a>, and I thought I'd share it with you.</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]"><strong><u></u></strong></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]"><strong><u>Top Ten Reasons Why These People Are Idiots:</u></strong></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]"><strong><u></u></strong></span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[1]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[2]"> 10. America is a nation of folks whose ancestors (mostly) all came here from somewhere else. That includes yours. (<em>Does anyone know the Cherokee word for "hypocrite"?)</em></span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[3]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[4]"> </span><br />
<span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[4]">9. Saudi Arabia is about 600 miles (at its closest) to India. Calling an Indian an Arab betrays a huge ignorance of geography. (Google will let you look at maps for free...)</span><br />
</span></span><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[2]">8. India had nothing to do with 9/11. (<em>Neither did Iraq, but hey, whatever</em>.)</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[4]">7. Any sentence that starts with "I swear I'm not racist, but..." needn't be finished. Yes, yes you are a racist.</span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[5]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[6]"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[6]">6. India is <u>in</u> Asia, dingus. There is no "<em>Indian or Asian</em>". That's like saying "<em>Canadian or North American</em>". If you're not sure, you're probably better off not saying anything.</span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[7]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[8]"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[8]">5. Egypt? What has Egypt got to do with it? See #9, only add another 300 miles.</span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[9]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[10]"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[10]">4. The 7-11 reference was about as stupid as you can possibly be and still have the motor skills needed to actually type.</span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[11]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[12]"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[12]">3. If she was in al Qaeda, no way would they allow her to parade around in a bikini in public.</span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[13]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[14]"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[14]">2. P.F. Chang's? Seriously? Are India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China all just one big country to you?</span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[15]" /><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[16]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[17]"><em>And the #1 Reason Why These People Are Idiots:</em></span><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[18]" /><br data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[19]" /><span data-reactid=".r[1sk4p].[1][4][1]{comment10151671374731275_29405184}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[20]">1. Because they give a shit about the Miss America Pageant in the first place.</span></span></span></span></span></span> </div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-47754567420516308292013-08-28T13:05:00.002-07:002013-08-28T13:05:55.449-07:00I Have a Dream, Too<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Today is the 50th annoversary of the Civil Rights march on Washington, when Dr. Martin Luther King gave his iconic "I have a dream" speech. And while it cannot be argued that we as a nation have made strides in racial relations, much work needs to be done.<br />
<br />
But race aside, I thought this would be a good day to reflect on my dreams for this country. I love America, it is my home, but I can still love it and find fault. Parents do it all the time with their kids. And like a concerned parent, I want what's best for my country, I want to see it succeed, and I want it to have a bright future.<br />
<br />
That said, here's my take on this:<br />
<ul>
<li>I have a dream that one day our greatness as a nation will not be measured by the strength of our army but by our ability to care for our own.</li>
<li>I have a dream that the education our children need will be provided for them free of charge, for as far as they wish to go in school.</li>
<li>I have a dream where the health of our citizens is a higher priority than how much money can be made from it.</li>
<li>I have a dream where the rights of other to live freely and without judgement or interference is absolute, provided that no harm is being done.</li>
<li>I have a dream where "liberty and justice for all" is taken seriously.</li>
<li>I have a dream that someday we care more about the environment than we do about profits.</li>
<li>I have a dream that racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia are bad memories.</li>
<li>I have a dream where people keep their religions to themselves.</li>
<li>I have a dream that someday teachers' salaries are consistent with the level of training, time and dedication it takes.</li>
<li>I have a dream where people turn off their televisions, computers, etc., and go outside for some fresh air, make new friends and organically interact with their fellow man.</li>
<li>I have a dream where our military is only employed to defend our own borders, coastlines and air space. I want to live in a country that does not see itself as the hall monitor of the world.</li>
<li>I have a dream where diplomacy is recognized as the most effective tool for resolving conflicts.</li>
</ul>
What is your dream?</div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-3201916704167816312012-11-12T11:43:00.001-08:002012-11-12T16:02:28.744-08:00My Ideas for Keeping the Government on a Tight Leash<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Not to sound too idealistic, but I thought the government of
the United States was supposed to be working for us, the little guys (and girls).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did I miss a memo?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A lot of what comes from them seems to be edicts
from on high to us, the unwashed masses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
They seem to have lost sight of who's working for who. </span>Over half the members of Congress are millionaires – who are they
supposed to be representing here?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not
me.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Look, we send these men and women to Washington with a
simple order: fight for us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And many
seem to have an altogether different purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Perhaps it’s time we set up some rules to ensure that these people
remember who brought them to the dance in the first place.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">With that in mind, I humbly offer the following revisions to
the deal we give elected officials in Congress:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
Your income will reflect the average income of your constituency, as per IRS records.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If your people are poor, so are you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>Let’s see you fight for better jobs now, douchebags.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">If both houses of Congress and the President sign off on a balanced budget, you get a $100,000 bonus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you fail to get a balanced budget through, then you get a 10% pay cut.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>Watch a bunch of people get very good at math, very quickly.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Re: campaign ads: if you put out an ad making claims about your opponent that are proven to be false by an independent panel, then you forfeit the election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>No exceptions.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">You pay 50% towards your health insurance, and only after being on the job for 90 days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> We the people will pay the other 50%. </span>And you get the same crappy Blue Cross HMO the rest of us get.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>Have fun with that.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">You (and your family) are forbidden to make additional income from book deals, public speaking or other sideline ventures during your tenure as a Congressman. If you do, that money gets donated and split evenly between PBS and Planned Parenthood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>You need extra money?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Get a paper route.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Any campaign fund raising you do goes to a pool used for all candidates, not just you or your party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>Hard to get enthusiastic about those $10,000 a plate dinners when you know some of it may be going to the other side of the aisle.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Any money you take away from education, the poor, the elderly, or the sick in the budget, you must take an identical amount – in percentage – from the military budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>Fair’s fair.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Incumbent Congressmen should be required to be re-elected by more than a simple majority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it’s for a second term, you should have to win by 60%, a third term would require a 70% vote and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>The idea that we’ve got six-and-seven-term Senators is just a bad idea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s get some fresh blood in there.</em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<li><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">No retirement pension unless you produced a balanced budget during every year you serve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>Go make a living like the rest of us, you freeloaders.<o:p></o:p></em></span></li>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">These are are just a few thoughts on keeping our elected representatives playing
fair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What are yours?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-52558562430487812302012-11-09T09:50:00.000-08:002012-11-10T11:41:27.775-08:00New Comes the Prophecies<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Having been re-classified as "irrelevant" and "out of touch" by the majority of the electorate this week, the political dodo bird that is the Republican Party has wasted no time in telling us how we'll be sorry. They're like the crazy ex, standing on the sidewalk at two in the morning, drunk, screaming up at your bedroom window, "they'll never love you like I do, you bitch!".<br />
<br />
Yeesh, enough already. Let it go. There will be other elections, you know?<br />
<br />
But rather than take what happened on Tuesday as an object lesson, a cautionary tale, an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, they want us to understand that it was our mistake, not theirs. We screwed up. They were right, and we were wrong. And now we're going to pay for our folly. They're predicting the end of everything good and sacred in America (if it's not gone already), massive inflation, another recession, double-digit unemployment, terrorist attacks, plagues of locusts, you name it. <br />
<br />
But before we sink too deeply into buyers' remorse, let's take a moment to consider their history when it comes to prophecies:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>They also told us Iraq had WMD's. Hans Blix and those inept U.N. weapons inspectors were wrong and we were right. They had pictures and everything. How'd that work out for us?</li>
<li>They told us Iraq would be a "slam dunk" and we'd be in and out of there in six weeks. </li>
<li>They told us we would be greeted as liberators.</li>
<li>They received a memo on August 4 2001 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S." and said "no chance".</li>
<li>They told us that cutting taxes for the wealthy would spur economic growth and reduce unemployment.</li>
<li>They told us they could prove Obama was born in Kenya.</li>
<li>They predicted Romney would win in a landslide.</li>
</ul>
<div>
</div>
<div>
To be sure, Democrats make predictions that don't come true as well. We all do. But usually Democrats' failed prophecies don't get innocent Americans killed or cost us trillions of dollars. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So believe whatever you want, but before you buy into the Romney camp's Doomsday prophecy for America, ask yourself, is there any reason to take them seriously on anything?</div>
</div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-6883747053007289862012-11-08T11:10:00.002-08:002013-08-28T13:24:32.239-07:00Why Are Republicans Losing (Again)?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So the results are in, and even with arithmetically-challenged Florida's lack of willingness to commit, the GOP got shellacked. With the exception of the Tea Party Fluke of 2010, this is the third election in the past four cycles where the country has sent the Republicans a message: thanks, but no thanks.<br />
<br />
Why? Are we still that bitter over Bush? Well, some of are. But we Democrats try to focus on what's ahead. We only look over our shoulder when it's about remembering what to avoid going forward.<br />
<br />
Watching the GOP go through its five stages of grief, I think I can see the fatal flaw in their logic: they're stuck in denial. Losing (badly) on Tuesday does not seem to have shaken them out of their dream state either. So in the interest of helping the wounded opponent off the field, I have some advice to offer, maybe a little insight as to why they keep getting hammered: they aren't really Republicans. <br />
<br />
The way I see it, they're not about fiscal responsibility, not really. They're not conservatives when it comes to spending money. If that were the case, we'd be seeing balanced budgets coming out of the Republican controlled House of Representatives. We're not. They like spending money just as much as Democrats do, maybe even more. The differences are, they think we can promise tax cuts across the board and it won't affect the bottom line, and they just want to spend the money on other things, like war and drilling for oil. <br />
<br />
Republicans claim they're all about personal responsibility and keeping government small, but ask them how they feel about gay marriage, and see how intrusive they think the government ought to be. Ask them about gay couples adopting. Ask them about abortion. Ask them about legalizing (and taxing) marijuana. Suddenly these "small government, personal responsibility" Republicans reveal themselves to be anything but. They think that being a "social conservative" makes them a Republican. It doesn't. It just means they're scared of change and want to go back to the 1950's morality. But we're past all that, and there's no going back.<br />
<br />
In point of fact, there hasn't been a Republican who lived up to the party's ideals since Eisenhower. This current crop of pretenders that claim to be Republicans have no idea what the word actually means. If they did, and if they acted out those principles, there might actually be a contrast in the candidates at election time worth discussing. During the final Presidential debate, most of Romney's responses to Obama amounted to "I agree with him, but I'm white." The Republicans, furious over a President who would support universal health care and gay marriage, nominated a candidate who, as governor, supported universal health care and gay marriage. To the undecided voters out there who refuse to pledge allegiance to either party, this choice was a transparent farce. Republicans can easily establish themselves as a true alternative by insisting on staying mum on social issues and making themselves about balanced budgets (with or without lowering taxes).<br />
<br />
If the GOP wants to return to relevence, they're going to have to be willing to re-define what it means to be a Republican. Let go of the social conservatism and focus instead on balanced budgets. Cut spending on big-ticket things like wars (particularly the unnecessary ones). De-funding PBS and Planned Parenthood is not the path to fiscal solvency. Quit voting yourselves raises, at least until you get unemployment down to 4%. Make getting Americans back to work your #1 priority. Start taxing the rich and corporations, make them pay their fair share (fair, meaning the same tax rate the Middle Class pays in personal income tax). <br />
<br />
Otherwise, just find something else to call yourselves, because your current game plan (which is a losing one, in case you hadn't noticed) is not a Republican one.</div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-86592958095218925142012-10-05T12:20:00.000-07:002012-10-05T12:20:20.707-07:00Burned Out<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In my youth I did a brief stint as a pizza delivery boy, first for Pizza Hut and then for Domino's. It was a fun job, and there was plenty of free pizza. And in my youth, I could pack away as much pizza as I wanted without gaining weight (ah, youth). But eventually I grew sick of pizza, free though it was. My point is, there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing" if you stick around long enough.<br />
<br />
Since then, my tastes have changed. I still love pizza (in moderation) but I find myself these days becoming a news junkie and in particular, a politics junkie. But even for the most avid news and political junkie there reaches a point where enough is enough. The election season has the media saturating us at every turn. Commercials, radio spots, you name it. Thankfully California is not much of a swing state, so the powers that be wisely don't waste their money or our time telling us which way to vote. It's assumed we've already decided. I know I have. <br />
<br />
Last week I took a trip to the east coast and it seemed every commercial was political. I suppose that the state I was in (New York) is more up for grabs than California, so I was bombarded with ad after ad. It was exhausting. And I have to believe that despite what the polls show, there aren't that many undecided voters out there. I especially can't believe there are enough out there to determine the outcome of the election. <br />
<br />
I mean, we've all pretty much made up our minds at this point, right? We've certainly seen enough, heard enough, and had enough information made available to us at this point that we can't honestly say we're still undecided. What could a candidate possibly say or do in the next few weeks that would tip the balance? If they start singing a different tune at this point - even a little bit - they'll be crucified in the press as a "flip-flopper", a panderer, someone who will say anything to get elected. This is the point, in the last few weeks before the election, where they need to be running on their track record. It's a little late in the game to re-invent one's self, isn't it?<br />
<br />
In this country, a little less that half are eligible to vote. Of those, less than half actually will vote. And of those, 90%+ have decided what they're going to do. And yet, this is the time - the "big push" - when more money is going to spent on political ads than at any other time in the process. Millions (possibly billions) of dollars are going to be paid to ad agencies, pollsters and assorted kingmakers to tip the scales in one direction or another. And I for one have had enough.<br />
<br />
Enough already with the ads, the half-truths, the cherry-picking, the quotes out of context. Enough misrepresenting the other guy. Enough doomsday prophecies. Enough scare tactics. Enough phony character assassinations. We have news sources aplenty out there to compare and contrast perspectives. Granted, most of us get our news from one or two sources. We either sidle up to Fox News and get the right wing spin or MSNBC for the left. Some of us seek out neutral middle ground from the networks or CNN, but it's a fool's errand. Virtually all of our media is bought and paid for by some nefarious corporate bogeymen who sit in cigar smoke-filled board rooms and decide what to tell the unwashed masses. We are as educated as they want us to be. If we look to foreign news sources like BBC or Al-Jazeera, we will see a different spin, but even then we're hearing someone's perspective on the truth, rather than the truth itself. In the end, the most responsible thing we can do is to hopscotch to as many different sources as we can and try to distill the pure truth of it, and vote based on what we believe.<br />
<br />
In the end, they're all politicians, folks. They lie, cheat and steal. Power corrupts, and these are folks looking for power. Do the math. The best you can hope for is a candidate who occasionally lets themselves get bogged down in a moral conundrum whenever the chance comes to enrich the rich at the expense of the rest of us. Who you vote for in November will matter, but nowhere near as much as the ads would have you believe. I say, vote. Not because the ads tell you to, but because it's your right. Vote because it's your civic duty. Vote, because if you don't then you've got no right to whine about what are leaders are doing with the country after the election. Vote because it's your country, damn it, and you've got a stake in this too. If you don't like who's running (who does?!), then hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Don't get your hopes up, but don't give up either.<br />
<br />
There, I'm done.</div>
The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-80138895044382827812012-04-22T17:01:00.002-07:002012-04-22T17:14:00.358-07:00Patriotism and the Ten Commandments<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;"></ol>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">First, let's just address the obvious: people are going to read this and call it religion bashing. It's not. I don't believe in the Christian bible, but I have no problem if you want to believe it. That said, one of the Right Wing's tactics for the last 30+ years has been to try to mend together being a good patriotic American with being a good Christian. It's actually an older idea than that, hearkening back to out 1950's Red Scare and our efforts to make a public statement about our collective faith by peppering references to God in our currency as well as the Pledge of Allegiance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It should be noted before we get started that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution make no reference to Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity. Something to keep in the back of your mind.</span><br />
<ol style="text-align: left;"></ol>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">My goal here is not to attack patriotic Christians, but rather to examine the Ten Commandments (the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and to see how they jibe with our Constitution and our capitalistic economy. You may come to different conclusions, and that's okay. This was never meant to be anything more than one person's opinion:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>(* For those of you keeping score at home, we'll be using the Ten Commandments as listed in Exodus 20:2-17, NKJV remix)</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">1</span>. <span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><i>“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me." </i></b></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">This one's pretty easy. Our Constitution establishes no state or national religion, and actually goes out of its way to distance itself from being affiliated with any one religious perspective. The idea here is that the first commandment is not only rendered moot by the Constitution, but anyone trying to enforce it in these United States might very well find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">2.<b><i> </i></b></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><i>“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."</i></b> Again, the First Amendment's got your back on this one. There is nothing that suggests that being a good patriotic American means you have to acknowledge or embrace any one god.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">3</span>. <span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><i>“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain." </i></b> Again, freedom of speech, First Amendment, you know the drill by now. You can totally choose to respect this commandment if you like and you'd still be a good American (albeit a little dull), but breaking it has nothing to do with your patriotism. In fact, it's an absolutely protected right. Still think we're a Christian nation?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;"></ol>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">4</span>. <span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><i>“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." </i></b> For years, not working on Sundays was the law of the land, generally referred to as blue laws. These days, good luck finding a business that closes on Sundays. They're there, but only as the exception rather than the rule. In the tug-of-war between our religion and our need to provide for our families, religion took a back seat. That said, I do see the value in taking the occasional day off. Even the most ardent atheist needs a break once in a while. I don't want the hospitals and fire departments to be close, ever. It's fine if the doctors and nurses, the supermarket checkout girls, the cops and the firefighters take time off, as long as there's someone around to cover their shifts. I don't want to face the prospect of watching my house burn down on the Sabbath because the law forbids anyone from helping me put the fire out.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
5. <span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><i>“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you." </i></b> I've seen way too many examples of bad parenting to believe that this should be enforced across the board. The bad mothers and fathers, the neglectful, the abusers, the molesters, the ones who don't make time for their kids, they shouldn't be honored. Parenting - at least good parenting - is a tough job, and the ones who do it well should </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">get a little respect and recognition. But if you do it right, your kids will grow up to honor you by living happy and productive lives.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">6.<b><i> "You shall not murder." </i></b> No argument here. But while we're at it, let's use this as a pretext to abolish capital punishment, war, and the sale of assault weapons. No? So much for "America is a Christian nation" then, I suppose.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">7.<b><i> </i></b><b><i>“You shall not commit adultery." </i></b> Fact check: evangelical Christians, the ones always yammering about how America is a "Christian nation" have the highest divorce rates. Enough said, right? RIGHT?!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">8. <b><i>“You shall not steal."</i></b> Again, no argument here. But try telling that to the bankers, Wall Street, and the IRS.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">9. <b><i>"You shall not bear</i></b></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><i> false witness against your neighbor." </i></b> I have no problem with this one. Lying under oath (perjury, if you will) is a crime, and it ought to be. But can you imagine a world where the American media was forbidden to lie? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">10. </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><i>“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." </i></b> Okay, here I'm going to channel my inner Gordon Gecko: greed may not be good in itself, but the desire to keep up with the Jones' is the cornerstone of our capitalistic free market. Do you really NEED all that crap you buy? No, but we do anyway. We buy to reinforce our social standing with shinier cars, bigger homes, big TV's, computers, cell phones, and expensive clothing. Can you imagine how quickly our economy would tank if we took coveting out of the equation?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Bottom line, boys and girls, is this: we are a secular nation. The next time someone tries to cram the "Christian nation" argument down your throat, remind them that only three of the ten commandments are actually law here in America: not murdering, not stealing, and not lying under oath. Everything else is fair game, and some of the commandments, if truly enforced, would end America as we know it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I'm just saying</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">.</span></div>
<br /></div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-33128675764524598792012-03-16T16:26:00.000-07:002012-03-16T16:40:06.321-07:00The Latest in Double Standards<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">My views on abortion and women's rights in general are well-established: I believe that the law should give the same rights and privileges to people, regardless of their plumbing. This applies to wages, opportunities, and rights.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Lately, the GOP - fresh out of ideas on how to speed up our economic recovery - has resorted to its tried and true methods of getting the base stirred up: legislating morality. They're telling us that America is a Christian nation (it isn't) and that those few sad non-Christians out there need the Christian Taliban to enact all sorts of legislation to help us tell right from wrong (we don't).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The latest wave of bad ideas from the Far Right has them attempting to roll back women's rights that were firmly decided 40 years ago: their right to terminate their pregnancies and their right to birth control.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Specifically, the attack is on insurance companies and the government paying for birth control. Let's just set aside the obvious observation - that it's 99% men who are telling women what's what. My only point here is that if I, as a husband, don't get to dictate policy to my wife, why should a bunch of men who never met her get any say? I'm grateful that most of this silliness is taking place in flyover states in the Midwest. Can you imagine some fool trying to push these ideas here in lovely, liberal California? We might just have to bring back tarring and feathering.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">But I digress.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Let's take a look at this issue from the perspective of the insurance companies (and the government, while we're at it). The issue here for them is dollars and sense. Pop quiz: which is cheaper - to pay for a woman to be on the pill, or to pay for a pregnancy? You can't blame the insurance companies and the government for offering to cover the cost of birth control.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Employers who object to their employees using birth control baffles me. I get that people are entitled to their own ideas of right and wrong, and that some religions (foolishly) frown upon birth control. And that's fine if that's you. You don't want to use birth control, no one is going to make you. But how is the sex life of your employees any of your business? Let me get this straight: you'd rather have your employees to take medical leave when they have a baby, hold their job for them while they recuperate from childbirth, and then deal with the better-than-average chance that they'll leave anyway rather than pay for daycare? Is hiring their replacement what makes them "job creators"? I'll admit, their logic escapes me.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">But this current rash of attempted legislation - forced (unnecessary) ultrasounds and other proposed laws designed to generally shame women and restrict their overall rights - flies in the face of their stand two years ago, when President Obama's healthcare reform was being pushed through Congress.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">You see, the whole argument against "Obamacare" was that government has no business getting involved in health care. Or did I miss the point? I watched as pundits like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh decried the President's effort at overhauling the health care system. On and on they raged, insisting that big government has no place in health care.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">What changed? Are they now in favor of Obama's health care reform? No, even now, state supreme courts are choked with challenges and efforts to derail health care reform. Ask them about "Obamacare" and why they object, and you're bound to get some variation of the argument that big government should stay out of the health care industry. That is, I suppose, as long as we're not talking about a pregnant woman.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">One of the worst things you can do in an effort to prove a point is to use inconsistent logic. Either government has the right to step in between doctors and patients or they don't. There is no "I before Except After C" here. It's one or the other, campers. If you objected to healthcare reform on the basis of big government meddling with private healthcare, then you're obligated to shut the hell up when it comes to women's pregnancies and their options. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">If you don't trust women to make their own decisions with regard to their pregnancies, where does it end? Do you trust them to choose whether to breastfeed? Do you want a say in which brand of diapers they buy? Are you going to tell them what religion to raise the child with? Stepping in and interfering with a woman's rights when she is pregnant opens up a dangerous precedent. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The bottom line here is, mind your own damn business. What happens in your bedroom is your business, and what happens in other people's bedrooms is not. Just like what you and your doctor decide is between you and your doctor. What someone else and their doctor decide is none of your damn business. Unless it's your pregnancy, butt out. And to the Right Wing in general, I would suggest keeping your mouths shut unless you've got a good idea on getting unemployment down to 4%.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">I'm just saying.</span></div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-33662254601721887692011-12-30T11:53:00.000-08:002011-12-30T11:53:32.510-08:00What's So Bad About Being "Godless"?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This is more of a rant, so be warned:<br />
<br />
I saw an article about abortion (the details don't matter in this context, suffice to say it was about abortion). I skimmed the article. Given the state of American journalism today (bought and paid for by corporate interests), there's not much point in buying into what you read in the news. I skimmed down to the comments section - this, to me, is the real meat and potatoes of the news: not the facts themselves, but how the facts are understood by the people. You gotta love America.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the comments section was full of indignant opinions, howling about the horrible state of the nation, that we would allow abortion at all. You know, because life is precious or something. I'm not saying life isn't good, but it seems to me that a nation dedicated to the concept of life being sacred wouldn't have spent as much money as we have on nuclear weaponry. It seems like in a nation where life is supposed to be precious, the NRA would be considered a terrorist organization, akin with the Klan or jihadists. In a nation where life is supposed to be precious, the death penalty would be rejected out of hand, regardless of the circumstances. In a nation dedicated to the concept of life being sacred, war would be unheard of. <br />
<br />
But I digress.<br />
<br />
One comment that stuck out to me was this person lamenting our "godlessness" as a nation. My first reaction was "if you want to live in a nation where religion calls the shots, bop on over to Iran or Saudi Arabia. They love that stuff there."<br />
<br />
Yes, as a nation we are godless. And that is not new. It is not a liberal plot, foisted on an unsuspecting populace by sinister ACLU no-goodniks. We are godless by design. When the Constitution was written, great steps were taken to distance us from being affiliated with any one religion. The framers of the Constitution, in an act of epic wisdom, understood that a theocratic state is not the path to freedom. We are, as a nation, dedicated above all to the notion of freedom above all. How many times have you heard the phrase "it's a free country"? When it comes to religion, this is especially true. <br />
<br />
You are free, as an individual, to make up your own mind about God. Is there one? What's God like? Is God a "He" or a "She"? Is there only one god? Does God love you? Does God hate anyone? You're utterly free to call the shots, belief-wise. No government agency can knock on your door to conduct inspections to make sure you've got the requisite Bibles, Qu'rans, Torahs or Pagan spellbooks handy. You are not required to pray in public. Similarly, if you choose to believe in any particular religion, you cannot be harrassed or jailed for it. You have absolute autonomy over your own individual spiritual destiny here in America. If there is a heaven and hell, they won't be checking your passports and directing you to one or the other based on your citizenship.<br />
<br />
So yes, we are by definition a "godless nation". And if you ask me, people damn well need to be reminded of it. It's true, Christianity is the most commonly professed religion in America. I say "professed" because it's easy to claim it, and it's understandable to want to fit in. But based on how we treat the poor, the sick and the old in this country, based on our love affair with war and our tendencies to end half of our marriages in divorce, based on our obsession with money and materialism, I'd say the average American wouldn't know real Christianity if it bit them on the ass.<br />
<br />
I've read history. I've seen what religious fanatacism brings: crusades, witch trials, holy wars, genocide, persecutions, jihad, and so on. Read the <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-malleus-maleficarum-of-heinrich-kramer-and-james-sprenger-henricus-institoris/1002197112?ean=9780486228020&itm=8&usri=malleus+maleficarum">Malleus Maleficarum</a> to get a sense of the joys of living in a church state.<br />
<br />
So believe whatever you want about abortion. I honestly don't care, because your beliefs don't apply to me. It's the law applies to me, for as long as I choose to live here. That's the beauty of living in a godless nation. Your point of view, and the religion that precedes it have nothing to do with me. I can pray to a different god (or none at all), believe something entirely different about abortion as a result and it doesn't affect your life in any way. Out of respect for you and your likely different perspective, I'll do you the favor of keeping my views to myself and not insisting you abide by my god's laws. <br />
<br />
A godless nation does not mean that the population is all godless. It just means that the government is, and the people have the right to be godless (or not) if they choose it with no penalties. I say, hooray for godless nations, and the freedom they represent! Hooray for my rights, and hooray for yours!</div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-48173168644074504532011-08-11T13:18:00.000-07:002011-08-11T13:22:08.491-07:00The Field Starts to Take Shape<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span closure_uid_z957mo="194">With a mere 14 months and change remaining, the Republicans are starting to take position for their 2012 effort to dethrone Barack Obama and take back the White House (making it, to the delight of Tea Partiers, white once again). </span><br />
<div closure_uid_rcng95="135"><br />
</div><span closure_uid_nptuwi="135" closure_uid_z957mo="194">I have to say, right up front, that I suspect this whole thing is pointless. Obama will be re-elected. Sure, the economy is still in the crapper, but Osama bin Laden is dead, we've seen healthcare reform passed, we no longer ban stem cell research, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is over with. For a more comprehensive list, visit <a href="http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/">http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/</a>. </span><br />
<div closure_uid_die88q="135"><br />
</div>I could go on, but I think that in the end, the American people will do the right thing, even if it means choosing the lesser of two evils next November, as we did in 2008. Which brings me to the current crop of challengers:<br />
<br />
• Mitt Romney: So far, the heir apparent. He's experienced, well-known, handsome. Will he get the nomination? His chances are better than average. Will he unseat Obama? Not a chance, and here's why. Ultimately, hardcore conservative Christians, which make up the GOP these days, will not be able to hold their noses and pull the lever for Romney. While he was governor in Massachusetts, they adopted universal healthcare and legalized gay marriage. Oh, and he's Mormon. Those three things will ultimately doom his chances of being elected by the modern-day GOP. Ironically, he's also the least objectionable of the lot.<br />
<br />
• Michele Bachmann: Again, well-known, experienced, and familiar with the workings of Washington. This makes her a credible contender for the GOP nomination. She’s done a good job cozying up the born-again and the Tea Party crowds. But she’s got two weak spots: she’s insane (like, one medication dose short of eating her own feces crazy) and many of the things she claims she’s against, she takes part in – things like government subsidies for farmers, Medicare, Freddy Mac, and government-sponsored healthcare. Not to mention, she married a huge closet case.<br />
<br />
• Jon Huntsman: Who? Seriously, the guy has no game. None.<br />
<br />
• The rest: Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, David Duke, Rick Santorum. The mere fact the these names are being seriously considered in any sphere apart from a reality show about train wrecks is just more proof to me that the GOP isn’t taking this seriously. <br />
<br />
There are only a handful of explanations here to explain the field as it stands: One possibility is that they’ve become so detached from reality that these names actually seem worth supporting. In other words, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. But I think the more likely explanation is that the GOP knows that they are doomed to sit through a full eight years of President Obama. <br />
<br />
The wounds inflicted by the previous eight years of George W. Bush provide a dubious track record to run on, and they know it. They can complain all they want about Obama, the liberals, the deficit (which they totally participated in creating), but when the average voter says to them “okay, what do you plan to do about it, and why would we take your word for it?” they have nothing. <br />
<br />
They have no real idea how to fix the economy, their idea of foreign relations is enough to make you sympathetic to al Qaeda, and their attacks on teachers, nurses, unions and the middle class in general are proof positive that the only people who stand to gain from a Republican in the White House are arms dealers, oil companies and billionaires in general.</div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-42965009716110912392011-06-30T14:59:00.000-07:002011-06-30T15:23:33.735-07:00Peace in Our Time<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I've got it. I can't believe it took me this long. I've got the secret to achieving Peace in Our Time. And best of all, it reflects true democracy.<br />
<br />
It started when I saw an article on the Huffington Post about how our wars over the last decade have so far costs us $3.7 trillion. In the last year or two I have read lots of articles about de-funding Planned Parenthood, ACRON, NRP, the National Endowment for the Arts, Social Security, etc. And it occurred to me that I really didn't mind seeing my tax dollars go to partially fund those things, but I minded like hell that a much larger chuck of my tax dollars went to support war. I'm not a fan of war, and I am a fan of us taking care of our own. <br />
<br />
This government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people", and yet despite public support for the wars waning steadily over the last few years, Congress seems oblivious to the turning tide, and continue to rubber stamp their approvals all over wasteful spending on dubious project. And as if that's not enough of a kick in the teeth, they have the temerity to bicker among themselves about debt and spending. Are they assuming we can't see this? We're broke, war is expensive, peace is cheap. Do the math. If you added up all the money we've spent over the past ten years on Social Security, Medicare, social welfare programs and all the funding that ACORN, NPR, and Planned Parenthood have gotten, I would bet that our spending on wars amounts to a lot more. Gutting the funding we give to all of those programs while continuing to fund an expensive war campaign that nobody wants is not the path to fiscal solvency, ladies and gentlemen.<br />
<br />
Anyway, back to Peace in Our Time.<br />
<br />
The House of Representatives has 435 members, and the Senate 100. These men and women are in office because we voted them into office, with the assumption that they were going to go to Washington and represent us and our interests. My Congressman, Adam Schiff, does a pretty good job of consistently voting in ways I agree with. I get the feeling that on a national level, I am outnumbered in that opinion. What I am suggesting is this: when it comes to spending taxpayers' money on projects, whether it be war or public housing, that the Representatives go to their respective constituencies and get a sense of how best to vote. And here's the kicker: if Congressperson "A" votes in favor of a war and Congressperson "B" votes against it (assuming they are representing their constituents), and that motion to go to war passes, the costs associated with that war be shouldered only by the taxpayers in Congressperson "A"'s district. In other words, I don't have to pay for a war out of my taxes if my elected representative voted against the idea. If Congress voted to fund subsidies to NPR, ACORN, or Planned Parenthood, and my representative voted yes, my tax dollars will get used for that.<br />
<br />
This idea completely solves the problem of having one's tax dollars going to fund ideas, campaigns or projects that they disapprove of. I would love the idea of paying my taxes and knowing it goes to support the things I think Congress should be doing.<br />
<br />
Now to the naysayers I say, yes, some people's taxes will be higher than others. But don't complain to me about that. Complain to your elected representatives, your Senators and Congressmen and women. They're going to be the ones committing your tax dollars. If you don't like they way they vote to spend your taxes, you can do one of two things: either vote them out of office or move to another district. I have to wonder, having written that, how many people who can't be bothered to vote would sooner move than get involved in their own democracy.<br />
<br />
As an example of how this would work: if your representatives vote "no" on fixing road and bridges at your direction, and the bill passes anyway, your disctrict won't get any help fixing the roads and bridges from the Feds. You had the chance to accept the help and you said "no". Happy motoring!<br />
<br />
If your representatives vote "yes" on funding PBS and NPR and the measures pass, you don't have to worry about your district's PBS and NPR stations doing their annual fundraisers. To the rest of you, enjoy the marathon fund raisers!<br />
<br />
So there it is: Peace In Our Time. When our representatives are sticking the small minority of the population who support the idea of war with the $3.7 trillion bill, I am guessing that we'll be more willing to explore non-military solutions to our international problems. I'm guessing that we'll see some real fiscal conservancy, once taxpayers understand the relationship between their votes and their taxes.</div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-68629136106210158942011-06-23T15:56:00.000-07:002011-06-23T16:03:09.053-07:00Why the Death Penalty Makes No Sense to Me<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From the </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/report-receiving-death-pe_n_883255.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Huffington Post</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> today: "<em>Thirty-five years after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment and approved new sentencing criteria to make it less random, a new report has found that receiving the death penalty is still as arbitrary and unfair as being 'struck by lightning</em>.'"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I am against the death penalty, but not for the reasons you may expect. I am not the guy saying "have mercy on the criminal". I'm not the one telling you that it's cruel and unusual punishment. I leave that to the Constitutional scholars out there. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The fact is, there are some true bastards out there. There are folks who rape and kill. There are people who will burn down homes just to see the pretty colors. There are mommies who will drive a minivan full of kids into a river, or stick a baby in a microwave.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Are these people insane? I would think so, but what do I know? I'm no psychiatrist, I'm not fit to say who is sane or insane. But it seems to me that anyone who decides at some point that any of that behavior is acceptable has snapped on some level. And frankly I don't care if they spend the rest of their natural lives in a prison or a psych ward, just so long as they're removed from the general populace.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When I tell people I'm against the death penalty, I invariably get asked how I would feel if my wife and family were murdered. If I got to choose their killer's fate, would I still be against the death penalty. And while that's certainly a stimulating argument, I would say that in that case, I'm the last person anyone should ask. I would not have it in me to think rationally or objectively. I might agree, in that moment, to torture and kill the bastard as slowly and as painfully as science would allow. Which is exactly why I should not be in charge of making the decision.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is talk of justice, but there is no justice when someone gets killed. Killing their killers will not bring back their victims. It's just another hole we have to dig. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Which brings me to my first reason for opposing the death penalty:<strong> it is not an effective deterrent to violent crime</strong>. In states where the death penalty is an option, violent crime and other execution-earning crimes are no less common. If you could say that there was a significant drop in violent crimes in states that offer the death penalty, you might be able to make the case that executing criminals serves some sense of the Greater Good. But this is not the case. Besides, most death-penalty-earning crime is committed because the person is either batshit crazy for life, or else caught up in a moment of passion - or as some phrase it, "temporary insanity". To those people, the ones who are either temporarily or permanently nuts, they're not going to say to themselves "gosh I'd better not kill this hooker - I don't want to go to the gas chamber".</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The next reason is strictly a practical one, from the financial perspective: <strong>it is cheaper to let them rot in jail for life than it is to execute them</strong>. People sentenced to death are often kept in jail for years, sometimes decades, going through the appeals process. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to appeal - I've heard of many cases where a death row inmate was freed decades after being sentenced when somebody ran a DNA test that actually proved they were innocent all along. Inmates on Death Row have a better chance of dying of old age that dying in the execution chamber. And all that appealling costs the states money and diverts resources.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My final reason for opposing the death penalty could be taken as sadistic, but here it goes: <strong>prison sucks</strong>. In prison, you lose your identity. You rarely see the sky. Nobody bakes you a cake on your birthday, you never have a chance to get promoted or be anything other than what you are: an inmate. You get a number, a uniform, and if you're very lucky, a cellmate that doesn't think you have a pretty mouth. You eat bad food, sleep on a steel bed, wear the same clothes every day and the only new people you ever get to meet are the new inmates. The best you can hope for is that the guards and inmates don't think beating you is a fun way to pass the time. There is no future, and every day is the same as the last. And that's your life. Forever. Unless you do manage to get out years later, in which case you're screwed again: you will completely lost all your skills for living in a non-prison world, and your odds of getting a house or a job or ever being accepted back into mainstream society are slim. This is why a lot of people released from prison invariably pull some stunt shortly after being released that gets them back in prison.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At one point in the 90's, I fell behind on the child support I was paying, and the Sherriff's deputies came to my home and arrested me. I spent five days in the couty jail. Let me tell you, it was no picnic. And that was just county jail, not a state or a federal prison. County jails are usually for people waiting to make bail or else serving a short term sentence (less than a year). You have an assortment of drunk drivers, wife beaters, and general no-goodniks. I had nightmares about that experience for years afterwards. And if I committed some heinous crime and the prosection offered me the chioce of life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty, there would no question in my mind: kill me now. So when we have someone who has committed some atrocious crime and we scratch our collective heads and wonder "how can we really make this bastard suffer", I say killing them is not the best answer. </span></div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-86573739368170491842011-06-15T15:23:00.000-07:002011-06-15T15:23:31.182-07:00Mind Your Own Business<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Way back in 1928, Supreme court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to "the right to be let alone" as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men". I agree. We have, and ought to have, the right to be left alone - by the media, the government, and nosy people in general.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Of course, this right is not absolute. I should not have the right to be left alone to beat my wife, molest little kids, start a dog fighting ring or other crimes that involve the direct harming of others. But whatever I do that I want to keep to myself, that doesn't involve me hurting others, ought to be left up to me, without the interference of nosey parties.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">With that said, we are a society obsessed with other people's lives. When Charlie Sheen announced his mid-life crisis and desired to have endless coke parties with porn stars, the media couldn't get enough. I addressed it myself on this blog, but mostly just to say nobody should care. This isn't news, a rich middle aged guy having a very expensive midlife crisis. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">A few weeks ago, several of Sarah Palin's emails were made public. Rather than hanging our heads in shame over this invasion of privacy, we celebrated it on TV and on the Internet. I'm no fan of Mrs. Palin, but even the jerks in our society should have the right to reasonably expect some measure of privacy. Unless her emails have her confessing to crimes, I'm not interested.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">More recently, Congressman Anthony Weiner's private life of sexy text messages and PG-13 pictures sent to various women has come to light, and the predictable media feeding frenzy has engaged. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s many mistresses and love children became public shortly after he left office, and we all dove into the buffet at the never ending trough of public shame.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Washington versions of our obsession with all things private is just one chapter in our saga. Visit sites like TMZ, PerezHilton, or scan the magazines at the checkout stands anywhere in America, and you will see two things: a society obsessed with other people's private lives, and an well-funded industry dedicated to enabling this addiction. I don't find Anthony Weiner's activities nearly as obscene as our general attitude that we are entitled to know the details. It has been suggested that we should find better ways to spend our time, both individually and collectively. Will it happen, though? Of course not. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Like Pavlov's dogs, we have been conditioned to respond to the stimuli our masters have chosen. How much weight has Kirstie Allie lost and/or gained back? Do Tom Cruise and Katey Holmes have a happy marriage? What about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? What are the stars of "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" doing off-camera? What is the private life of your favorite celebrity really like?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I have to admit that I find myself cheering every time some celebrity beats the hell out of someone in the paparazzi for taking pictures of their kids or crowding them out so they can't successfully walk to their cars when they leave restaurants. Without the paparazzi and the tabloids, we would have lost track of Lindsay Lohan and the Olson twins, and we probably would have no idea who Paris Hilton is at all. And to me, those are good things. In a perfect world, or at least a self-respecting one, we wouldn't bother to care.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Our obsession does not end with the private side of celebrity. Our government makes it a policy to wage war waged on harmless stoners, under the flimsy pretext of a "war on drugs". Tactically, financially, morally, our war on drugs is a colossal failure and needs to end. And since I'm one of the people funding it through my tax dollars, I feel that I should get a say in this. But to admit defeat in the war on drugs would be to acknowledge that it's okay to leave people alone sometimes. And that is not a message that we as a society are ready to accept.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ask people whether two gay people they don’t even know should have the right to marry, and suddenly everyone has an opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ask them if a gay couple who they’ve never met is fit to adopt and raise a child, and you’ll get even stronger opinions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whatever happened to “none of your business”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whatever happened to minding our own business?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I've said it before and I’ll say it again: we ought to have the absolute right to be left alone, provided we are not actively engaged in harming others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in agreeing to our own right to be left alone, we must also stipulate that right for everyone else as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that means the end of tabloids, scandals involving politicians’ sex lives, and the right to decide on the validity of other people’s marriages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What ever shall we discuss now?</span></div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com1Glendale, CA 91201, USA34.163647137196186 -118.3013824398193534.157809637196188 -118.31035243981935 34.169484637196184 -118.29241243981934tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-12586753068459867562011-03-04T12:51:00.000-08:002011-03-04T12:52:59.637-08:00Dear Charlie Sheen:<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Shut up.<br />
<br />
Seriously, man, just pipe down. We get it. You're rich. You like hot young women. You like to party. We get it. There is no need to go on national media and announce it. <br />
<br />
When this happens to regular (as in, not celebrity) men in their 40's and 50's, it's called a mid-life crisis. We get toupees, buy a convertible, chase 20-something girls and generally try to convince ourselves that the best is yet to come. <br />
<br />
You have five kids, the youngest of which were taken from you by law enforcement recently. This should be a wake-up call to most dads to tone down the partying. I hope it is for you as well. There have been a lot of red flags in your life in recent weeks, though, and none of them have seemed to slow you down.<br />
<br />
There is nothing the media in America love than a good public trainwreck, and you seem to be feeding right into that. You have forsaken your privacy, and your dignity in the process. And what's worse, you sent the media the message that all celebrities' private lives are meant to be a public forum. You are an enabler of the worst kind of journalism - the paparazzi. They feel entitled to know every little thing about your private life, and you're not the one to tell them differently, it seems. You seem to delight in taking us all on your wild ride toward self-destruction.<br />
<br />
The best may yet be to come for you, Mr. Sheen. I can't tell you what the future holds. But you are not a rock star. Just accept it. You're an actor, and a dad in his mid-40's. Find a way to enjoy your life that doesn't make you look like a high school kid whose parents went on vacation without him and left him the credit cards and the key to the liquor cabinet.<br />
<br />
And above all, try telling the paparazzi that it's none of their goddamn business. They need to hear that once in a while.</div>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-81747306657113708582011-02-18T17:44:00.000-08:002011-02-18T17:54:42.769-08:00They Shoot Canadians, Don’t They?<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I’ve often joked that if I ever travel abroad in a non-English speaking country, the first phrase I want to master in that country’s language is “don’t shoot, I’m Canadian”. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">With other countries wearing their disdain for all things American on their sleeves, pretending to be Canadian while traveling seems smart. It seems like the easiest way to get out of all sorts of unpleasant scenarios while traveling, from snobbish waiters to bloodthirsty mobs. We Americans look the same as our Canadian brethren (albeit tanner), we dress pretty much the same (maybe a little less flannel), and apart from a slight difference in our accents, it’s a deception we might just be able to pull off. Plus, I remember just enough of my high school French to make the story seem plausible.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Some of my fellow Americans might take issue with my plan. These are the same folks who will tell you that America is the greatest country on earth, bar none. Parenthetically speaking, it’s always interesting to note how many of those uber-patriots have never traveled abroad. They seem to view their neighbors to the north with a mixture of envy and disdain. They’ve got that health care system that supposedly puts ours to shame, for one. About 90% of the Canadian population lived within an hour’s drive of the U.S. border, so they’ve viewed as Fred and Ethel to America’s Ricky and Lucy: familiar, but not always welcome.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Canadians aren’t lightweights, to be sure. First off, they’re in Canada, one of the coldest countries in the world. That’s pretty badass right there. These folks host the Yukon, for crying out loud. So I have a ton of respect for them just for that. I’m nowhere near as tough. I’ll take the freeway debacle that is southern California, earthquakes and all, if it means never having to shovel snow again. Also, these guys love beer and hockey. You can call these folks a lot of things, maybe, but “wussies” is not on that list. This is a hardy bunch of folks.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As far as how I’m viewed by others when traveling abroad, I worry that whatever faults people in other countries would have with America, they would see personified in me. Americans traveling abroad have the stereotype of being loud, rude, and generally ignorant of other cultures. We almost never learn the languages of the countries we visit in advance, insisting that they all should speak English to us. And to our detriment, they agree. But that doesn’t mean I want to be beheaded because of my country’s foreign policies. It’s not like they ever consulted me.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">One of the big differences between Canada and the United States (and there are many, to be sure) is that their government doesn’t seem to go around upsetting other countries. Canada may be far from perfect, depending on how you define the word. But can you name any countries Canada has invaded? They’re a democracy too, but they don’t feel the need to defend democracy in other countries, just their own. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It’s not that Canada doesn’t have an army or a Navy – they do. How do they compare to the U.S.’s army and navy? Well as an American I’m conditioned to believe that our armed forces are the best in the world, so maybe I’m not the right person to ask. In truth, I don’t know because I’ve never seen the Canadian military in action. The send in troops for U.N. stuff, but in general terms their military seems content to stay home and defend its own country. Easy work, too: I’m not aware of any country planning a full-scale invasion of Canada.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">As a result, the world’s terrorist organizations seem to leave Canada pretty much alone. Seriously, when was the last time saw al Qaeda or any other group on TV marching in the street chanting “death to Canadians”? It’s not that Canada hasn’t had its brushes with terrorists: I looked it up, and in the last 25 years, four people were attacked and two killed by foreign terror groups, and there were seven attacks (mostly firebombs) attributed to domestic terrorists organizations and individuals. There are rumors of terrorist groups are lurking in Canada. But based on what we’ve seen, it’s more likely that they’re just trying to get close to America. I mean, really, why attack Canada? To what end?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">So what I’m saying is, there seems to be a direct correlation between Canada’s foreign policies (live and let live, basically), and how their people are treated while traveling abroad. All things considered, if I make any trips to the Holy Land, Egypt, or anywhere else that they’re burning effigies of Uncle Sam in the streets, I’ll be sure to pepper my speeches with “eh?” at the end, just to throw them off the scent.</span>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-49076670649721227802011-01-17T13:07:00.000-08:002011-01-17T13:08:49.666-08:00Gratitude<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> <div>I love to complain. I really do. I’m good at it. It’s one of the few talents I have. I can rant and rave, whine, mutter, grumble, and rage with the best of them. I’ve been trained well by my movies, TV programs, and songs. I watch the news, and it seems only the bad things ever get our attention. I watch stand-up comedians, who teach us to laugh at their grumblings over life’s little inconsistencies and letdowns. Commercials teach us to be discontent with our lives to the degree that we buy whatever solutions they peddle. All around us, resentments abound.</div><div><br />
So when you start talking about gratitude, it usually gets relegated to Thanksgiving. I like Thanksgiving because it forces us to quit our incessant whining. We have one day where it’s just not cool to complain. But carrying that attitude past the point of turkey leftovers is a challenge.</div><div><br />
Recently I was stuck in traffic. In L.A. this is no rare thing. Traffic was backed up for what seemed like miles. And like most of us, I had somewhere to be. So there I sat, pondering the injustice of it all, and basically thinking what everyone else was thinking: “why does this happen to me?” Eventually, the traffic crawled along to the point where we could see what the problem was: a terrible traffic accident. On the shoulder of the road, crews were doing their best to handle two crumpled cars. No sign of crumpled bodies, but you just knew that whoever had been in those cars was having a worse day than me by now. As I passed by in my non-crumpled car, enjoying the climate-controlled air and free to go about my business, I was humbled. Here I had been whining this whole time about “why do bad things happen to me”. I had myself convinced that I was the victim. But would I trade my car for theirs? Would I trade my physical condition for theirs? Would I trade my eventual insurance rates for theirs? Would I trade the rest of my day for the rest of theirs? In a word, no. Chastened, I sped along to my appointment and on with my life.</div><div><br />
Based on this, I had an epiphany: anything you can complain about, you can find a reason to be grateful for, too. It’s all a matter of perspective. Now, this is a challenge, and it takes some practice. Let me give you some examples:</div><ul><li>“I have to work today” or “I hate my job” becomes “I have a job, and others are not so lucky”.</li>
<li>“I’m fat” becomes “I live in a country where food is abundant”.</li>
<li>“My car sucks” becomes “I have a car”.</li>
<li>“My parents/kids/spouse/in-laws/family are jerks” becomes “I have a family”.</li>
</ul><div>And so on. The common thread here is that it could be worse, and you need to see that. </div><div><br />
I learned something else that was nice: whenever you’re feeling cranky, irritable, or put upon buy life’s little injustices, a good exercise is to start making a list of things you have to be grateful for. And I’m not talking about the big, platitude-sounding stuff, like “I live in a free country” or “God loves me”. If you are willing to sift through the details, you can probably come up with a few things at any given moment.</div><div><br />
Here’s mine:</div><ul><li>Today, I got to work on time, or close enough that no one complained.</li>
<li>The weather today is gorgeous. Here it is, mid-January, and I’m wearing a short sleeved short outside with no jacket.</li>
<li>I just finished a week-long cleanse diet with almost no cheating, and I think I dropped a few pounds without suffering.</li>
<li>During my diet, I developed a taste for tea without sugar. This is a good thing.</li>
<li>As this week-long diet is over, I can have a nice lunch.</li>
<li>My work day is halfway through, and I have no plans after work.</li>
</ul><div>Thinking about what doesn’t suck in my life helps me to take what does suck and see it in perspective. It helps me see that when I choose to dwell on the constant stream of negativity in my life, I’ll never take the time to see what is good, what is working, and what could be worse.</div><div><br />
I’m just saying, it could be worse. My challenge is to see it, recognize it, and live as though I understood it.</div><div></div></span>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-86810669680386157642011-01-02T20:49:00.000-08:002011-01-07T15:04:53.861-08:00New Year's Resolutions<div style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Like most of us, I'm not big on New Year's resolutions. I mean, I get the reasoning behind it: New Year's falls just a few days after Christmas. At Christmas time, we all pretend to be a little bit more decent to one another, and we get all optimistic. Then we got our presents and think about all the stuff we should have asked for instead. The end of a year has many of us looking back with regrets over missed opportunities and "what might have been", which inevitably leads us to resolutions to correct whatever mistakes we've made in the last twelve months. "This year", we tell ourselves "things are going to be different".</div><div style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">We promise ourselves we're going to lose weight, start exercising, quit eating junk food, watch less TV, quit smoking, you name it. And based on the statistics related to America's growing epidemic of obesity, I'd say we're having a hard time following through on those resolutions, no matter how well-intended or medically necessary they may be.</div><div style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">But I have to say, my 2010 hasn't left me with too many feelings of remorse. Could I have done things better? Probably. Could I have tried harder? Certainly. But would I trade my 2010 for some of my previous years, or for anyone else's 2010? Probably not.</div><div style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I am still married, and happily so. I moved into a bigger, nicer place. I got a good job this year that I like doing, with co-workers I don't feel like punching. I'm still pretty healthy, albeit a little fat. I have good friends. My life does not suck as badly as many others, and nowhere near as bad as it used to. Believe me when I tell you, these are huge gains for me. <br />
<br />
It has been suggested that happiness is not necessarily having what you want in life, but rather <em>wanting what you already have</em>. With that in mind, I hereby resolve for 2011:</div><ul style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><li>Not to screw it all up too badly, if I can help it.</li>
<li>To tell my wife I love her every day, even when I'm grumpy.</li>
<li>To let my friends know that they're important to me.</li>
<li>To not do anything too terribly self-destructive.</li>
<li>To appreciate what I've got, while I've still got it.</li>
<li>To try to be more aware of the fact that I've got it pretty good.</li>
<li>To try to take care of what I have. It was not earned easily.</li>
<li>To take criticisms with grace and humility, and to criticize other less.</li>
<li>To distance myself from anything ugly, pointless, or draining.</li>
<li>To make efforts to fix the things in my life that are broken, or at least not make them any worse.</li>
</ul><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">That's my list. I'll probably stay fat, so why make promises to the contrary? I'll still yell at the jerks on the freeway to whom merging is a foreign concept. I'll still put off things that I really should have done yesterday. I'm not proud of these things, but then again I'm not going to make a list of promises that I have no intention of keeping, to myself or anyone else. That's just bad karma.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I hope to end 2011 as I ended 2010: not completely smug and satisfied, but not prostrate with regret and guilt either. I did the best I could (usually), and the results speak for themselves. Here's hoping your 2011 doesn't suck either. </span>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-28401269230323607512010-12-08T11:17:00.000-08:002010-12-08T13:18:42.118-08:00A Few Words on EttiquetteWhatever happened to manners?<br />
<br />
I hate to sound like an old grouch, but it seems like people today - young and old - have completely lost sight of all social proprieties. And to be clear, this is not some "can't we call just get along" whine fest. I acknowledge that we're never going to see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues. But we are stuck with each other, differing opinions and all, and we have two choices: kill each other or figure out a way to get along despite these differences. We don't have to agree to be falsely sweet to each other. We don't even have to like each other. I can hate your guts and still carry myself with a little dignity.<br />
<br />
So here are a few observations on social graces that we could all stand to revisit:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>"Please" and "Thank you" go a long way. It was true when mom and dad told us years ago, and it's still true. You'd be amazed how much you can accomplish when dealing with others if you pepper your speech with these magic words. And please don't say them with dramatic sarcasm.</li>
<li>Don't insist on going first. You may be the most important person to yourself, but you can't expect the rest of the world to see it that way. Yield the right of way in traffic once in a while. Allow others to order first at restaurants. Hold the door open for others. When you're in a slow moving line, shut the hell up with the complaining. This includes traffic jams. Deal with it.</li>
<li>Being loud doesn't make you right. Save the shouting for concert.</li>
<li>If someone disagrees with you on something, let it slide. You're not going to change their mind any more than they're going to change yours. Learn the art of saying "I respectfully disagree".</li>
<li>You're not supposed to like your job. That's why they pay you to do it. So save your complaining for when you get home. They don't care. Just be glad you have a job.</li>
<li>Address people formally (Mr. This and Ms. That) until you have been told specifically to do otherwise. Disrespecting people doesn't make you cool, it makes you an ass.</li>
<li>Unless someone tells you to "make yourself at home", don't.</li>
<li>Acknowledge the fact that you may be wrong, even if you are 99.999% sure you're right. Don't assume the other guy is wrong just because they see it differently.</li>
<li>Avoid the following topics in general conversation (as they tend to bring out the worst in people): politics, religion and sports. Simply put, we all root for our own teams.</li>
<li>The world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Act accordingly.</li>
</ol>Can we all agree that these are pretty good rules to observe? I promise to do my part. Okay? Okay.The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-17860300382073119452010-12-07T14:43:00.000-08:002010-12-07T14:43:09.479-08:00Christmas in the PoorhouseThis holiday season many of us find ourselves in a quandry. How do we celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, whatever with all its gift giving while in the midst of a lousy economy? I don't care what your politics are, or who you think is to blame. That's irrelevant. Right now Christmas et al is looming. Gifts are expected. And many of us are broke, and worse, unemployed.<br />
<br />
I've given this some thought. My first thought is: why should the retail behemoths necessarily have to cash in? Christmas has been celebrated for years before there were such things as Wal-Mart, Target etc. They see this time of year as one big cash pinata. They herd us in on Black Friday weekend, queuing up at ungodly hours to save money. And by save money, I mean of course spend money. It's enough to make a person jaded.<br />
<br />
So this year, I have a proposal. Maybe it will catch on, maybe not. I don't really care; it's my way of making the holidays special for the folks I love without going broke, or spending the rent money on someone else's "must have gift". Here's what I plan to give: myself.<br />
<br />
See, I'm good with a few things. I can fix busted computers. I can cook a little. I can clean. I can wash a car or mow a lawn (come spring of course). I can split firewood. I can carry heavy things, reach tall things, and be useful in general to those who need that sort of thing. I can put together things that require assembly. I know a little about carpentry, a little about electricity, and a little about a lot of things. I'm no polymath, more like a jack of all trades. <br />
<br />
So this year, I am offering, in lieu of gifts I can't afford, to give you something you really do need: a little help. Because you're my friend, because you can't do it all on your own, I am giving you the one thing I can afford. I will offer each friend one full day of my time, to help them out in whatever I can. There is no need to pay me, no need to even thank me. Just let me know when and where, and I'll be there. <br />
<br />
And if it's true what they say, that time is money, I'm giving you something valuable indeed.<br />
<br />
Merry Christmas.The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-55234121897325459482010-07-12T13:59:00.000-07:002010-07-12T14:35:44.262-07:00Mel Gibson Needs to Cool OffI spend more time than I should paying attention to "entertainment news", which isn't really news. It's gossip, and juicy details about the various meltdowns of celebrities from all walks of life. Whatever an actor does when they aren't acting falls under the category of "entertainment news". Whatever a professional athlete does besides athletics usually does too. Admittedly, it's more interesting than a lot of what you'll watch on C-SPAN.<br /><br />One of the more recent meltdowns (or re-meltdowns) has been Mel Gibson's. Remember a few years ago? He got arrested on a DUI and proceeded to tell the arresting officer why Jews were responsible for all the wars in the world. Back at the station, he addressed a female police office as "sugar t*ts". Part of his damage control was to point out that he was a family man and a good Catholic. Exhibit "A" was his wife of thirty years and their bah-zillion kids. Take THAT, Brad and Angelina!<br /><br />He had the good sense to shut the hell up for a little while after that. He released "Apocolypto", which did okay considering nobody spoke any English. Then he left his wife and took up with a Russian model, and had a kid out of wedlock. Since then, he's been recording verbally abusing her, wishing she'd get gang-raped and telling her she deserved to get hit.<br /><br />Yawn.<br /><br />What got me writing today wasn't the need to parrot back what you could have read anywhere. Believe me, I just glossed over the highlights. If you want the real dirt, visit any one of a hundred different web sites, all dishing the dirt. What got me writing was in the comment section, which read in part " the real reason this article was written, is that the writer and the elitists in general hate Christianity (which Mel Gibson represents...)"<br /><br />Wow. Really?<br /><br />Let me say first, that I am not a Christian. I was once, but I'm not now. (Long story, ask me later.) It seems as if the person who made that comment feels the anti-Mel writings have more to do with settling a score with Christianity in general and uses its most public representative, Mel Gibson, to make that happen. It makes me wonder if the commenter was hinting that the anti-Mel backlash in the press recently isn't some cleverly orchestrated comeuppance by the Jewish community.<br /><br />What bugs me is the idea that anyone can represent a religion. In the case of Christianity, you've got Jesus, and then you've got everybody else interpreting who Jesus was, what Jesus was all about, and doing their best to emulate that. Because as Christians - followers of Christ - one would think that you could gauge your performance as a follower by how well you emulate the leader. Now apart from laying hands on the sick or walking on water, I think the best way one could emulate Jesus would be to attend to the sick, to feed the hungry, to offer encouragement to the downtrodden, to not sit in judgment of others, and so on. But don't take my word for it - if you really want to know how best to emulate Jesus - in other words, to be a Christian - then get it from the source. Read the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That ought to be enough to get you started. Do what he would do, say what he would say, and avoid doing or saying stuff he probably wouldn't have done or said. From what I've read, there isn't a lot of mystery to it. You can take what you see at face value.<br /><br />Understand that to me, it makes no difference if you're a Christian or not. I just don't care. But it seems to me that if every self-proclaimed "Christian" out there were to suddenly and genuinely dedicate themselves to be as much like Jesus the man as they possibly could, there would be a lot less war, a lot less televangelism, a lot less judging, a lot less violence, a lot less homeless, a lot less racism, a lot more caring about the environment, a lot more concern over health care (especially for the young and the poor), a lot less corruption, and a lot less Mel Gibsons in general.<br /><br />Of course, I could be wrong.The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-69062691601458341852010-07-06T00:51:00.000-07:002010-07-06T01:35:26.407-07:00Greasing the WheelsSo now oil is starting to wash up on the beaches in Texas, thanks to the never-ended bad news that is the BP Drama. For those of you living in a cave until just now, back in April a BP drilling facility in the Gulf of Mexico fell to pieces about a mile underwater, and has since been spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate that makes the Exxon Valdez spill look like a bad day at Jiffy Lube. Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states, just now emerging from the carnage of Katrina a few years back, are now losing the fishing and tourist industries thanks to zillions of gallons of greasy goop washing ashore. I pause at the news that Texas is now affected, only because it will be telling to see how the state known for its love of oil wells will react to this. That and the fact that Texas' governor hates Obama and the federal government, and I'll love to see him changing his tune when he asks, ten gallon hat in hand, that the feds step in and help the good folks in Texas clean all this up, or at least help pay for it.<br /><br />That aside, I saw an article on CNN.com about 6 alternative cars to the Mini Cooper. The idea was to showcase the other little, fuel efficient go-devils currently on the market. Of the six alternative to the German Mini, only one was from an American car company (Ford). The others were all Asian - Honda, Nissan, Suzuki, Kia and Scion (Toyota).<br /><br />Now, it doesn't surprise me that out friends in the Far East set the pace for peppy, high-mileage cars. But it does disappoint me that our auto industry here in the U.S. seems oblivious to the realities concerning oil and gas. It is common for addicts to live in a state of perpetual denial about their addictions, so allow me to attempt an intervention with a few reality bombs. Please note the following for the record:<br /><br /><ul><li><strong>Gas is expensive</strong>. Granted, we pay less for our gasoline in the United States than a lot of other countries. But in the last few years, as our economy has circled the drain and jobs are evaporating, filling the gas tank is a bigger deal now than ever. Americans may be encouraged to "Buy American", but when we have to choose between treason and bankruptcy, then we are ultimatelty capitalists - which means we go where the bargains are. American car companies, in ignoring this, jeopardize their futures with the one captive audience they have.</li><li><strong>Oil supplies are not endless</strong>. Ask a scientist. We, as a country consume more oil now than ever, and the earth isn't making more at a rate that can keep up. Simple mathematics dictate that we will, at the rate we're going, run out before we've had a chance to phase ourselves into a more viable long-term alternative. We do ourselves and our children a grave disservice by not acknowledging this.</li><li><strong>It's only going to get worse.</strong> When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in the 80's, we sat shiva for months, thinking that this was surely as bad as it could ever get. But in light of this current BP nightmare, we're almost nostalgic for that bush-league whoopsie. We are going to pay the piper on this one for decades to come. It's fair to say that the reality, the full reality of this has not yet landed on our collective consciousness. And we cannot afford to tell ourselves "surely this is as bad as it can get", as if the gods themselves would surely intervene to prevent anything any worse in the future. It is our job to draw the line in the oil-soaked sand and say to the big oil companies "this far and no further".</li></ul><p>So to the American auto makers, please understand I am on your side here. I want you to succeed. I hate the thought of you sending your executives back to Washington (in your private jets) to ask for yet another bailout. You want to compete globally? You want to win back the hearts (and loyalty) of the American car-buying public? Acknowledge that our oil supplies are not infinite, and we're being pretty poor stewards of what little we have. We, the buying public, will always love that Detroit gave birth to the throaty "vroom" of the V8, and gave the world the Mustangs, the Corvettes, and the GTOs. But the rules of the game have shifted, and this is no time to wax nostalgic. Start dedicating yourselves to cranking out, en masse, fuel-efficient cars, hybrids, and other vehicles designed to take both the environment and the economy seriously. Maybe when we get the Gulf mopped up and the economy rebounds, we can talk about the possibility of making more useless money pit cars like the Humvee. But now, in light of the Gulf and my wallet, it's just in poor taste.</p>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-20921874095852355152010-06-28T16:31:00.000-07:002010-06-28T17:59:31.102-07:00Define "Victory".There's an article on Huffington Post about how House Democrats are withholding several billion dollars from our efforts in Afghanistan, citing rampant corruption. Really, guys? You're just now figuring that out? I haven't attended a single Congressional hearing, and I could have told you that.<br /><br />But I have a better idea, fellas. What do you say we withhold all funding for our wars until we define what winning means?<br /><br />It's a simple question, but I'm afraid the answers haven't been simple, and what's worse is they haven't been consistent. Here's a little tip: if you're going to lie, and if you want to make it believable, do not change your story. Cops know they've got someone guilty of something if their answers to simple questions are elusive or inconsistent. I wonder what the cops would do with the people who marketed these wars to the American people.<br /><br />First, we were going over there because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Then, it turns out they didn't. Then it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. So we did that, established a democratically elected government, and still we stayed for years. Towards the end, it was said that our presence was providing a stabilizing element in an environment that was deeply unstable. This, of course, ignored the fact that we were the main reason for all that instability in the first place.<br /><br />In World War II, we had clear enemies - the Germans and the Japanese. they did us a great service by wearing uniforms and flying flags. They really helped minimize the chance we would accidentally shoot some sad sack civilians. All we had to hear was "Heil Hitler", or see the Japanese rising sun, and we were allowed to open fire. And in the case of Japan, we would accept nothing but the unconditional surrender. We were hardasses. Even when they did surrender, they came aboard the U.S.S. Missouri, General Percival refused to shake General Yamashita's hand.<br /><br />In this "War on Terror", we have no such luxuries. Our enemies do not fly flags, they do not salute, they do not wear uniforms. There is no grand organization, not in any formal sense. Mapping the heirarchy of the terrorists of the world is like trying to herd cats. People in the Middle East do not need a general, a formal declaration of war, or a base camp to hate and kill us.<br /><br />As such, it is difficult to know when we're finished. There's a story about Japanese soldiers who were on remote islands in the Pacific when the Japanese surrendered. No one told them, and months after it was all over, they were still there, ready to blast any Americans who showed up. Our war is a little like that. There is no central command. If we killed Osama bin Laden, or even if we got him to sign an unconditional surrender, there would be people hell-bent on killing Americans who wouldn't let that deter them.<br /><br />Which brings me back to our efforts in Afghanistan. Given that there doesn't seem to be any real leader - not one to sign a surrender, anyway - it makes you wonder how we'll know when to declare victory and go home. Given that this is officially the longest we've ever been at war with any country, perhaps now would be a good time to establish some benchmarks. One of two things is going to happen here. Either we'll win or we'll lose. And if we don't have any clear ways to define "victory", we are doomed to defeat. We do not have an endless supply of money, soldiers, or patience. We need to be able to say why we're there, what we want to accomplish while we're there, and how we'll know for certain when we've accomplished that.The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402373898243652650.post-38536287321953295102010-01-28T10:07:00.000-08:002010-01-29T13:20:33.364-08:00Cruel to Be Kind<span style="font-family:arial;">Nobody wants to be called "cruel". It is just about the harshest adjective you can use to describe someone. There are bullies, mean-spirited people, jerks, and yet all of these ne'er-do-wells manage to avoid being called "cruel". In fact, it is such a harsh term, that in the right contexts, it's actually a crime: cruelty to animals, cruel and unusual punishment etc.<br /><br />In recent years the term "badass" has become a compliment. We've always loved badasses, even before it was the term. Brando in "The Wild One", James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause", etc. But there is an unseen line, where we stop the badassery just short of cruelty. And to be certain, it's a slippery slope. For example, if you own a pit bull, you're a badass. If you enter your pit-bull in a dog fight, you're cruel. If you wear leather, you're a badass. If you wear fur, you're cruel. Steak is badass, veal is cruel. Beat up a guy, you're a badass. Beat up a woman, and you're going to jail, and so on.<br /><br />I have friends who aspire to be "cruelty-free" recently. Going shopping with them is a predictable nightmare, though a well-intentioned one. No meat, no dairy, no products tested on animals, only cage-free eggs (if they eat eggs), no leather or suede, and so on ad nauseum. That's noble and all, but how far do we take this? For that matter, how do we define cruelty? Is anyone truly "cruelty free", regardless of their shopping lists?<br /><br />In the quest to gain the "cruelty-free status", it's easy to get started. We can avoid beating people up, especially small children, the elderly and the handicapped. That's a good start. Allow people the right of way in traffic. Quit taking perverse pleasure in Simon Cowell's belittling remarks on "American Idol". After that it gets a little less obvious.<br /><br />What about hunting? Is hunting cruel, if the animal suffers very little, and you eat what you kill? Is it less cruel to pay a corporate farm to raise, then kill, then cut up animals so that we can buy cellophane-packaged steaks? Deer hunters make the argument that *not* killing the deer is actually the crueler option, as they will overpopulate and starve to death. That said, I still think mounting the deer's head and hanging it on the wall to impress the guys is cruel.<br /><br />Is wearing leather or fur cruel? If a cow is slaughtered for the meat, and the skin could be used but isn't, that seems if not cruel, then at least wasteful. Of course this whole argument hinges on the idea that slaughtering cows for any reason could be justified.<br /><br />Is eating meat cruel? If so, why? Because it's a living thing, and life is sacred etc? Well then what about plants? People who decline eating meat for reasons of cruelty, but aren't the plants alive too? Do they not grow and reproduce, just like any other life form? And if we snuff out that plants life to eat parts of it, isn't that cruel? Maybe if plants had the ability to make sounds, like if a stalk of corn screamed whenever an ear of corn got ripped away, we might have to re-think the whole "vegetarians are cruelty free" thing.<br /><br />Under what circumstances is cruelty forgivable, even arguably necessary? Some people think water boarding terror suspects to get them to confess to their evil plans is cruel, but it's an acceptable cruelty, insofar as it could yield information that ultimately allow law enforcement to prevent a larger cruelty (a terrorist attack). Personally, I don't buy this argument; the odds that a water boarding victim will tell the truth are unlikely. More likely they'll tell their captors whatever they want to hear so as to stop the water boarding. I know I would.<br /><br />The ability to sustain life, whether human, cow, or Venus Fly Trap is predicated on the taking of life. There is a certain level of cruelty which is inherent in all civilizations, indeed in any one thing's survival. We kill things to survive. It may be an animal for the meat, an enemy in self-defense, a colony of ants that invades our kitchen. Someone once said "a developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods." It makes you wonder if perhaps cruelty is a matter of perspective.<br /><br />My point is that it's easy for us to talk about being cruelty-free, when much of the dirty work is done. If you're reading this in America, your home was built on land stolen from massacred people. If you eat, whether you eat plants or animals, your sustenance is a death sentence to other living things. Every bit of uneaten food you throw away is an act of cruelty too, when you consider how many people go without a decent meal. Your freedom is an act of cruelty, when you consider the blood that was spilled in gaining it. I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /><br />We must each of us understand our own potential for cruelty, and the futility of trying to avoid it altogether. Beyond that, we can make little choices to stake our claim somewhere on the spectrum between karmic altruism and Michael Vick.</span>The Nutty Irishmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01003841959009497003noreply@blogger.com0