The Right just cannot CONTROL themselves

Amongst all the chaos that our great but imperfect human race stirs up, there is, for sure, lots to say and complain about. No shortage of points on which to take a stand, voice an opinion, or "strike a pose." When some debate, however, reaches the watered-down-to-death point of insanity, certainly the sane among us must scream out. Can we, however, inject sanity into the insane? Can we use logic to sway the illogical? Can we rationalize with the irrational? Well, we can sure as hell try. We must, mustn't we?

We have, of late, watered down our all too recently impassioned debate over gun control in our fine land. Mere moths ago, in the wake of unthinkable tragedy, we were committed to real change. Common sense had, briefly, made its way into our national discourse on the matter. Progress was all but a foregone conclusion...

Enter the NRA, the radical right, and gun manufacturers. All three added together (sort of like saying all penguins, flightless arctic birds, and fast-swimming birds added together) making up a relatively small portion of "we, the people." A force, nonetheless, with which to be reckoned.

This force, in fact, was able to completely change, not only the winning and losing side of the debate...but also the debate itself. In just a few short months we went from "ready to pass real change in gun laws and make many weapons and magazines illegal" to "do we really need background checks?" Are you kidding me??!!

It's no joke, though. The "Christian" right gun-lovers have managed to convince our "representatives" that it is just too much to ask to have a waiting period for background checks on every gun bought or sold. The small number of insane among us have convinced leaders of both parties to ignore the 80% - 90% who would otherwise approve of such common sense legislation. And, in so doing, have somehow managed to also cloud their thinking enough to render them stupid.

Case in point: The pet argument of this small group of radicals speaks to their shock and dismay about even the thought of a background check interfering with the "handing down" of a cherished family weapon to a son or a nephew or a grandson. To which the "left" impishly replies: "We can certainly exclude family gifting of guns."

However, as is too often the case, this is just another example of the senseless changing the way the otherwise sensible argue. These family transactions being exempted should NOT be the point of retort. In a sensible, rational, thoughtful world (one in which we are far from living), the appropriate response would be: "Cletus, if your son or nephew or grandson cannot pass a routine background check, then our country, and our country's law abiding citizens, and our country's innocent, defenseless children do not want him having a gun."

A big wish, sadly, for a small bit of sanity.

long-awaited approval by NFL Dinosaurs

I am not gay...

However, were I, I think I would today be feeling immense relief and long-awaited validation. It's been reported in the sports news over the past several days that the rigidly- and blatantly-denied acceptance of gay men in NFL locker rooms might be creeping toward an end.

Wow! Gay men everywhere must feel such great relief to know that this critically important social barometer is about to sway in their favor. I mean, what more does any man (or woman for that matter) need than to know that his sexual preference may no longer be found off-putting to a collection of steroid-filled, overly-aggressive, grossly over-paid half-wits? (I'm being generous with the "half" credit.)

The reporting on this phenomenon is the only thing more despicable than the idea of it's existence in 2013. To cheer or even acknowledge the dragging along of dinosaurs into what has been for some time a commonly-swam pool of progressive belief by a majority of the rest of society is ridiculous. Would we be equally excited, even giddy, about a group of Neo-Nazis finally relaxing their hatred, just a bit, toward peoples of others races or religions? I think not.

To report on this without including commentary on how insane it is to be reporting on it is borderline criminal. I mean, are they serious with these stories? Is there some carefully-hidden sarcasm on which I'm not picking up?

Well, since there is no lack of ceremonial praise and accolade directed at the collective NFL playership, I guess I should join in by offering this: "Bravo to you, near majority of NFL athletes! Kudos for almost, just barely showing the same level of forward-thinking, rational, and progressive moral judgement that the average eight-year-old has been able to grasp for decades. Your example of "acceptance" should pave the way for countless unborn generations...(were those countless generations to be born in Eighteenth-Century Pakistan ;) )"

In the wake of the tragedies in Columbine, and Arizona, and Aurora, and Newtown, and in the wake of all of the smaller tragedies too numerous to find their way into national headlines, all any of us with sense need do is listen closely to those without sense. If we watch and listen intently, we will find as much reason in their words and actions alone to stay resolute in our efforts to, once and for all, introduce even a small bit of sanity back into our culture. We are starving for it. We need not explain ourselves, or justify our actions, or excuse our curtness. Arrogance combined with insolence combined with ignorance shall no longer make us reconsider, or defer, or concede. It is enough. It was enough ten days ago. It was enough ten weeks ago. It was enough ten years ago.

N.R.A.

Are you F---ING kidding me? The big announcement from the NRA (National Redneck Association) is that we need more guns?? I shouldn't be surprised...but oh my GOD! Why can these folks not get it? Why can they not see what the rest of us see. Their "logic" goes something like this: "If EVERYONE in this country has a gun at their hip, gun crimes and gun killings will be reduced." Seriously? Please please please write to your Congressman or the Senators from your state...or BOTH. We have to stop this. It is crazy. How do more guns answer any of our problems? Look up statistics of how likely someone was in the West to get shot and killed during the mid- to late-1800s. The numbers are staggering. Even back then, many cowboy towns banned the carrying of guns, you actually had to check them when entering and staying in a town. Does the NRA want us to go back to that? Should we all have belts with holsters...only instead of six-shooter, we'd have 30-magazine glocs? I cannot believe this was their big announcement. As much as I have come to know them over these years...I still cannot believe my eyes and my ears.

guns, guns, guns...

How about this? Everyone who thinks they need an assault weapon to "protect" himself or herself can move to a beautiful, tropical island (we'll name it "Moron Land"). They can bring with them as many high-powered, semi-automatic weapons they wish to have. You know, for "protection." They can hang the confederate flag as their official banner and can recite the Second Amendment every morning as their official pledge of allegiance.

As they live on this island, you know, "protecting" themselves, they won't even notice that their population numbers are mysteriously dropping at a very quick pace...even as population numbers in every other corner of the world are growing.

(Or, if they do happen to notice, they'll claim it is just "demographics," or they'll say that there are just too many guns to try to eliminate them, or they'll say that their pledge of allegiance, the Second Amendment, should absolutely be protected, honored, and glorified at all costs, even though it was written more than two hundred years ago with the SOLE purpose of allowing pioneer militia men to defend themselves against British soldiers and hostile Native Americans.)

They'll continue on like this until just one proud gun-owner remains, the "King of the Mountain." And, he can live there, surrounded by all of his millions of guns, in absolute ecstasy and enjoyment. He can polish and shine all of his guns every day, just in case there is further need to "defend" himself.

Newtown, CT tragedy

My heart is broken. My heart is broken for 20 babies whose last breaths of life were spent in agonizing terror at the other end of a firearm. My heart is broken for the six teachers who spent their careers working to educate these children. My heart is broken for the parents and families of the many killed today. I cannot bring my mind or my heart to imagine what they are going through in these hours, or what they will continue to go through for all the hours they have left on this Earth.

Just as my heart is once again broken...my resolve is more than ever strong. Please join with me. Please join with me in telling our leaders that they may not be bullied by the most powerful lobbying group in America any longer...not for one more day. I'm sick of being told it is not appropriate in the aftermath of a tragedy to bring up gun laws. I'm sick of being made to feel guilty for even thinking of such a thing. But, most of all, I'm sick and tired of sitting and watching while beautiful, innocent human beings are allowed to be massacred so that rednecks who like to shoot animals in the woods for sport can feel "unencumbered."

Stop saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people"... No one has ever killed 27 human beings with a knife.

Heineken Thrown to the Dogs

Over the past week or so, an image has been circulating social media sites depicting Heineken beer banners hanging over a gruesome, violent, disgusting dog fight. Apparently, the dog fight took place in a nightclub in Mongolia couple of years ago.

Naturally, when this image started circulating "virally," as pictures and videos and stories often do these days, it was met with aggressive calls for boycotts on Heineken beer...with all of the usual venom and vigor of any good call for justice, redemption, or consequence.

After the dust settled, however, we Facebookers, Tweeters, and Bloggers were surprised to learn that the Heineken brand had been badly misrepresented, unfairly condemned, wrongly portrayed. It seems that it was all just an innocent misunderstanding. Heineken was quick to call "foul," writing on every social media site on which they could think to write that the Heineken banners were not there to sponsor a dog fight, that they were there for a "promotional event" held the night before, that they were just as "shocked and disappointed by the images" as was the general public, and that they were the innocent victims of wrongful accusation. Heineken assured its loyal customer base that they can trust in their favorite beverage company's social awareness and sensitivity.

Heineken further promised to end any association with this Mongolian nightclub. End of story. ...Or is it?

No matter how hard I try, I just cannot keep myself from wondering why Heineken, certainly a billion + dollar company, would be so careless as to "unintentionally" leave it's banners all over a seedy looking nightclub in Mongolia which doubles as a dog-fighting "pit." Something's not adding up here. Now, of course Heineken has done their due diligence after the fact, as is all too often the case. But, why didn't they choose to be as thorough before the fact? Why didn't they make sure their banners were not completely blanketing a pit bull fight arena during a pit bull fight?

I guess I do believe Heineken when they say they did not knowingly "sponsor" a pit bull fight with their hanging banners...just as I would believe a convicted drunk driver who said he did not intentionally hit an innocent pedestrian with his automobile. The driver who had been heavily drinking, however, is guilty just the same.

Heineken may not be guilty of intentionally (and I use the word "intentionally" purposefully, so as to show that, although they may not have wanted to sponsor the event, their beer banners were hanging for all those patrons to see and, perhaps, respond to in their beer choice during the night of dog fights) sponsoring illegal and brutal and disgusting dog fights. However, they are guilty of careless, thoughtless, and misguided opportunism. You see, whether or not they wanted to adorn that classy nightclub (which I'm sure hosted something brilliant such as the Mongolian Grammy's or the Mongolian Oscars the night before), with their many brilliant banners during dog fights, their banners did adorn that classy nightclub during dog fights. The message of "drink Heineken" rang out to all who watched with eager anticipation to see which dog would viciously tear apart the other.

Heineken may not be "as" guilty as we thought three or four days ago. They are certainly not, however, "as" innocent as they are now claiming to be...over the same social networks that caused the commotion in the first place.

Heineken Beer Thrown to the Dogs

Over the past week or so, an image has been circulating social media sites depicting Heineken beer banners hanging over a gruesome, violent, disgusting dog fight. Apparently, the dog fight took place in a nightclub in Mongolia couple of years ago. Naturally, when this image started circulating "virally," as pictures and videos and stories often do these days, it was met with aggressive calls for boycotts on Heineken beer...with all of the usual venom and vigor of any good call for justice, redemption, or consequence. After the dust settled, however, we Facebookers, Tweeters, and Bloggers were surprised to learn that the Heineken brand had been badly misrepresented, unfairly condemned, wrongly portrayed. It seems that it was all just an innocent misunderstanding. Heineken was quick to call "foul," writing on every social media site on which they could think to write that the Heineken banners were not there to sponsor a dog fight, that they were there for a "promotional event" held the night before, that they were just as "shocked and disappointed by the images" as was the general public, and that they were the innocent victims of wrongful accusation. Heineken assured its loyal customer base that they can trust in their favorite beverage company's social awareness and sensitivity. Heineken further promised to end any association with this Mongolian nightclub. End of story. ...Or is it? No matter how hard I try, I just cannot keep myself from wondering why Heineken, certainly a billion + dollar company, would be so careless as to "unintentionally" leave it's banners all over a seedy looking nightclub in Mongolia which doubles as a dog-fighting "pit." Something's not adding up here. Now, of course Heineken has done their due diligence after the fact, as is all too often the case. But, why didn't they choose to be as thorough before the fact? Why didn't they make sure their banners were not completely blanketing a pit bull fight arena during a pit bull fight? I guess I do believe Heineken when they say they did not knowingly "sponsor" a pit bull fight with their hanging banners...just as I would believe a convicted drunk driver who said he did not intentionally hit an innocent pedestrian with his automobile. The driver who had been heavily drinking, however, is guilty just the same. Heineken may not be guilty of intentionally (and I use the word "intentionally" purposefully, so as to show that, although they may not have wanted to sponsor the event, their beer banners were hanging for all those patrons to see and, perhaps, respond to in their beer choice during the night of dog fights) sponsoring illegal and brutal and disgusting dog fights. However, they are guilty of careless, thoughtless, and misguided opportunism. You see, whether or not they wanted to adorn that classy nightclub (which I'm sure hosted something brilliant such as the Mongolian Grammy's or the Mongolian Oscars the night before), with their many brilliant banners during dog fights, their banners did adorn that classy nightclub during dog fights. The message of "drink Heineken" rang out to all who watched with eager anticipation to see which dog would viciously tear apart the other. Heineken may not be "as" guilty as we thought three or four days ago. They are certainly not, however, "as" innocent as they are now claiming to be...over the same social networks that caused the commotion in the first place.

grand OLD party

In the wake of a second decisive presidential victory in which Barrack Obama garnered well over 300 electoral votes and nearly 63,000,000 popular votes (two things George W. Bush failed to do in either of his "elections"), the Republican Party has decided to dig their heels in even deeper, to abstain from representing the people, to oppose and block rather than negotiate and work with.

This heightened partisanship, increasing, rather than diminishing, each day, and obviously and shamelessly much more vigorously and pronouncedly so on the right than on the left, should come as no surprise to anyone. It is not born out of strategy, it is not a form of posturing for 2016, it is not a conscious narrative technique. What it is, simply stated, is panic.

As demographics make undeniable...old, white, rich, straight, Christian men (or, otherwise described, those who have led, governed, and molded our country since its creation) are a dying breed. They are going the way of the T-Rex...and they are scared. And, just like virtually any of the creatures on our beloved Earth, from the tiniest, simplest microscopic organism to the most complex, Chondrichthyes, Reptilia, and Mammalia, when backed into a corner and threatened, they will lash out in a natural showing of rabid, vicious, and brutal self-defense.

Each new day in this country brings a larger demographic number, a increased percentage in the overall population, and a "greater share of the pie" for Hispanic Americans. With every graduating class comes an increasing acceptance of and tolerance for diversity of race, religion, and sexual orientation. And, with each new Congress, we see a better representation of how our nation's landscape truly appears.

The response to all of this from the right? The offering from the old, white, rich, Christian men?... Sink their claws into the flesh of the "grand old ways" and hang on for dear life, fighting arrogantly, foolishly, and stubbornly to the bitter, inevitable end...just as a mongoose in the forest would surely do in the face of it's looming demise. There is nothing graceful about it; it is difficult, almost painful, to watch. But, as nature dictates, it is unavoidable. It may not even be a conscious decision by those who "decide" it.

The solace to take in all of it, however, for those of us who are not old, white, rich, Christian men (or those of us who might be, but do not think or act in the ways that those before us have for far too long), is that soon enough--whether it be months, or years, or decades away--it will all be over. There will be a new day, a new "collective" social awakening, a new mindset. It has already begun, we are witnessing it every day.

This "death of today's T-Rex's" will not be without incident. It will not be a completely smooth, gentle ride. There will be much ugliness to go through. There will be turmoil, defiance, and down-right hatefulness. However, the ends will almost assuredly justify the means. To live in a place where people are not kept down for the color of their skin, or their extra "X" chromosome, or their religious (or unreligious) views, or their sexual orientation, or their economic status...will be worth the horrifying sights and sounds of the writhing and thrashing of a few remaining old, white, rich, Christian dinosaurs.

a word on "seceders"...

They "LOVE" America; wrap themselves up in the red, white, and blue; write and sing songs about how proud they are to be Americans, swear up and down that there is no greater country on Earth (though most have never pierced

 our borders)...

Yet, amidst something that is EXACTLY what this country is all about, what it was FOUNDED on (diversity of thought and spirit, tolerance of differing views and beliefs, and liberty and justice for all), they want out. Why? Because their views of liberty and diversity and tolerance only include those beliefs and ideals that THEY hold close and precious.

To me, their America is much less of what we created 236 years ago and much more of what those who created it were fleeing.

Isn't it about time we change some of the words we use to politicize actions, or programs, or ideologies? ...I believe it is. For too long we've been told, through innuendo, metaphor, and simile, how we ought to feel about certain people, certain beliefs, certain policies. Not surprisingly, as they seem to do many things "better," or at least with a greater enthusiasm and organization, the most effective jargon comes from the right, in equal parts unfair negativism aimed at any and all detractors and inaccurate positivism aimed at any and all supporters. One of many examples of this is a timely one, as it has been echoing in our ears during nearly every debate or speech on our impending vault off the proverbial fiscal cliff. The term, of course, is "entitlement." The sound of it alone, even without any background or formal definition attached, is offensive to the senses. When digging deeper, though, it only gets worse. Merriam Webster defines entitlement as "a belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges." They go further still with one of their three uses in a sentence: "celebrities who have an arrogant sense of entitlement." ...YUCK! Don't get me wrong, my issue here is not with Merriam Webster...they do a fine job, and have for many years, defining, explaining, and giving meaning to the words we use in our complicated language. My issue is with our political culture's cherry picking of terminology to align with an agenda. Again, much more prevalently so on the right. Now, back to “entitlements”… I’m not exactly sure why I’m to feel that the Social Security into which I’ve been paying for the better part of my life is “a privilege to which I’m entitled.” Why can it not merely be an investment I’ve made in myself, in my own retirement? Why can it not be a savings plan which was built on my dollars set aside from my paychecks for work I performed over x number of years? Funny. In that same vein, why cannot Medicare be simply thought of as something else I’ve paid into over the course of my career, eventually to be used in my retirement to put an infinitesimal dent in what are sure to be skyrocketing health expenses? If, though, hypothetically, we are not speaking of the above-mentioned programs, if we are not speaking of Social Security and Medicare, we must be speaking only of Medicaid and other low-income programs, right? …Really? Because if that’s the case, then we are speaking of roughly ten percent of all federal spending…or, put in other terms, less than one-third of what we spend on our military (withOUT unprovoked wars…because if we add those unfunded wars to the equation, the dollars spent on Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs that favor low income Americans seem comparatively and extremely insignificant). So, are those the “entitlements” of which we speak? Well, whether it is the former or the latter is probably of little importance. The issue on which to better focus is the purposely-negative (and, contrarily, the overtly-positive) word association inflicted on people, ideologies, and programs. And, if we do so, we can certainly then ask the question: “Why is defense spending not considered an ‘entitlement’ program?” Are Americans not “entitled” to safety? Do we not feel, collectively, that we are “deserving of the privilege” of protection from outside enemies? Why do Republicans not include defense spending under the “entitlement” umbrella? Other than that it is an intentionally degrading, unfair, and overtly negative term to associate with things many people value, count on, or hold dear to them, I can’t imagine why. Similarly, do Republicans not feel “entitled” to highways on which to drive, national parks in which to gaze, police forces through which to enjoy security, and clean air and water by which to LIVE? We don’t hear many ideologues, on either side of the isle, professing deep desires for reductions in any of these “entitlement” programs, do we? Oh, and one final note… Can we please stop referring to the Republican Party as the “conservative” party? “Conservatism,” according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as “marked by moderation or caution,” and as a “disposition in politics to preserve what is established.” Hmmm. What part of these definitions applies to today’s Republican Party? The right wing in this country is moderate and cautious…but selectively so. And, hard as I try, I cannot find any mention of selectivity in Merriam-Webster’s—or anyone’s—definition of conservatism. However, more than just selective, the right’s desire for moderation and caution (i.e. less government spending) is applied only to those things they don’t like or see themselves as ever benefitting from. Today’s “conservatives,” for instance, in all but unanimity, would never think to reduce or even stabilize defense spending. We spend more on guns and fighter jets and soldiers than do the next 10 nations on the world’s list combined. “Conservative”? …No. “Spend less on ‘entitlements’” must be translated to read, roughly, “spend less on them and more on us.” And, therefore, I recommend we replace the term “conservative,” in labeling many of today’s Republicans, with the term “selfish,” as that at least syncs with what many of them believe in, what they stand for, and how they vote.