The cat has apparently been let out of the bag, because I am now hearing from friends and colleagues asking me to confirm one way or another, sooooo....
Yes, it is true.
As of August 1, 2018, I will no longer maintain an active private law practice. I guess it could be said that I will be retired at that time, other than coming back in either September or October to try one last case I have promised a client I would handle rather than hand the case off to somebody who would spend a week or two reviewing and getting up to speed on, not to mention billing the heck out of just to figure out what I already know. Other than that and some EBTs (depositions for those who do not practice in New York) that I will cover here and there on a per diem basis, July 31 will be my last day. The last day I have anything scheduled in court is July 30. Things are going to seem a bit weird for a little while after that.
Why now?
Well, why not now.
I am old enough so that I have been doing this for thirty-six years. Christine has been retired for more than a year now. Why let her have all the fun? But why now, especially when my clients still trust me and I think I still have what it takes to be successful in court and in the practice of law?
To make short of it, I am tired.
I am tired of a lot of things associated with the practice of law, which at least in the area that I specialize in does not, and never has seemed to have much of anything to do with good lawyering in the pursuit of justice, but more to do with winning at all costs. It burns you out, and fast. For a while, I thought about writing this essay and talking about what has gone wrong in the practice of law around here, but maybe that one is for another time, probably when I have had some separation from the profession for a bit, which would enable me to write with some clarity of thought and not say something I really do not mean. I did have a great working title, however, which has been retained above.
In the mean time, I knew I was done a few months ago when we were on vacation overseas with friends for about two weeks. It was a great time with great people, great food, great wine and Irish pubs to be found, so how bad could it be? It should have rejuvenated me to get back to it when we got home; however, less than a day back, sitting at my desk I felt like I had not been away at all. I could feel the embers of a burnout smoldering within. If you can be away relaxing for two weeks in Spain and Portugal and come back to immediate burnout, it's time. Nothing that has happened in the last few months has changed my mind.
It is time, soooooo...
While I still have the energy, some relative youth left, or at least what you can have in relative youth once you hit your sixties, while I still have my health, while I still have the love and companionship of a wife I absolutely love and adore, and while I have at least some means to do so, I want to travel. I want to see things. I want to be inspired, something the practice of law, especially in New York has not done for me.
I will spend some time decompressing from the past thirty-six years or so. During that time, maybe lightning will strike and I will figure out what to do for the next thirty-six years. Don't laugh. My grandmother made it thirty-six years beyond how old I am now, and when she died, she still had all her marbles.
Maybe I will copy my brother and do some painting. Maybe I will buy a kiln and try pottery. Somewhere deep inside, and I mean really deep inside, there has to be at least an inkling of artistic creativity hidden for the past sixty plus years just dying to get out.
Maybe I will fool the world and show you all I really can cook, and cook something that does not always end up tasting like chili.
Maybe I will keep writing down my thoughts here, but perhaps a bit more frequently now that I will have more time to do so. Maybe a book. "White Fluffy Duckies -- The Novel". One man's quest to be as longwinded and obscure as.... well, as an attorney can be.
Maybe I will spend a lot of time sitting on the porch and staring at that gorgeous Wyoming sky, the mountains and the horses in the pasture out back.
And Maybe I will end up putting on a colorful smock and stupid looking hat, and spend my days asking that time honored question, "fries with that?"...
But what I will definitely do is try to make up the time being a practicing attorney, even one who has practiced out of his house has taken from my wife and my sons. I will be with them, and not just as a body that happens to be under the same roof. They will get to see the person I wanted to be, for them and for myself, but foolishly did not have the time for thinking that I needed to get something done for somebody else who in the long run did not really care about what I was doing as long as I won. I owe that to my family, even if Jeremy and Jon are now grown and live in other states.
And maybe that will be the inspiration I have been looking for.
I am sure I will see or hear from many of you in the next few weeks and well beyond. In the mean time, I wish you all the peace, happiness and inspiration you seek.
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Sunday, June 24, 2018
a requiem for the first amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the fee exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"...
-- founding fathers, First Amendment to the United States Constitution 1789
"... unless you disagree with me".
-- addendum to the First Amendment apparently added some time since then when we were not looking.
.............................................................................
We apparently are now allowing speech of all kind to exist, as long as we agree with it, or as long as it achieves something that we agree with, or are at least lead to believe we agree with, the hell with the real intent of the founding fathers and the Constitution. To this end, we now have established:
1. Corporations donating piles of money to influence the outcome of elections is protected free speech.
Last time I looked, a corporation was a piece of paper, or more accurately, a binder or collection of paper put together, signed, notarized and filed with the office of the Secretary of State in the state where it was organized. So according to the Supreme Court, pieces of paper have the right of freedom of speech and the right, due to inordinate sums of money amassed in the name of those pieces of paper, to influence the outcome of elections.
Corporations are people? Well, maybe the life of a corporation does not exist without people, but corporate personhood? All you need to do to figure out whether or not a corporation is a person is to use your own common sense and the thoughts in your own mind in how you refer to a corporation. When you think of your brother, and refer to him in the third person, you generally refer to "him". When you think of your sister, and refer to her in the third person, you generally refer to "her". When you think of Monsanto, G.E., Koch Brothers Industries, etc., if you are referring to the corporation in the singular, third "person", you generally refer to "It". Aside from the Addams Family, have you ever seriously referred to anyone as "It"?
Soooooo.... no. Corporations are not people. We do not refer to people as "It".
If that does not grab you, how about --
Corporations have people who work under a corporate banner or who actually own the corporation, and yes, people do own corporations. People do not own other people, at least supposedly not anymore in this country since the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, notwithstanding some questioning of this principle by some people to the contrary.
There is no question that the actual people who own or who work for corporations are people and have rights. Nobody questions that these people have the right to speak out and to donate to causes they believe in. They just need to do it in their own names and not hide behind the piece of paper they have created which now allows them to do so.
By declaring corporations are people and have the rights of people, they have cheapened the rights of real people, because most of us do not have the resources to fight the resources amassed by those who own the corporations.
And in this respect, they have managed to kill off one of the protections of the First Amendment.
2. It is now possible, in the name of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, to outwardly discriminate against another group of people as long as you can claim a sincerely held religious belief against those people.
If nothing else, this one shows that the white supremacists of Mississippi, Alabama, etc in the 1960's had really lousy lawyers. All they needed to do to perpetuate Jim Crow and the KKK was to claim they were all doing it in the name of their god and their "sincerely held religious conviction" that everyone of them was better than the best colored person. Who knew?
Nowhere else has existence of the addendum to the First Amendment become more crystal clear than here, where it is now possible for a baker in Colorado to violate every conceivable right a gay person has, and more than likely the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as well (you lawyers out there will know what I am talking about. Just think in terms of Ollie's Barbeque in Alabama and their sincerely held beliefs that they should not have to serve black folks in the 1960s and where that argument got them See the 1964 Supreme Court case of Katzenbach v. McClung for non-lawyers and those lawyers like me who got bored in class and were not paying attention). This is also known as outright and unashamed bigotry in the name of "sincerely held religious belief", and cheered on by a large segment of the population, most of whom are not of the same exact religion, but do hold the same exact sincerely held bigoted beliefs.
...and the addendum to the First Amendment comes shining through when a few weeks later, a restaurant in Virginia, exercising the same argument as the baker in Colorado, refuses to serve a presidential press secretary, whose political speech they sincerely disagree with, and those who whooped and hollered in celebration with the baker now scream in indignation against the restaurant.
And then there is this...
I have seen memes on line over the past day or two, with folks on the right posting the phone number and the address of the restaurant that refused to serve the presidential press secretary, which frankly, is no more responsible than posting the phone number and address of the baker in Colorado. I am assuming these folks are not looking to encourage people to make a reservation. I am assuming they are hoping people will go there and picket or try to close the restaurant down. I am also assuming that some of the people who go there will try to take matters into their own hands by bringing their second amendment protected products with them, just as that idiot did by bringing his weapon to Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria to free the child slaves being held there by the Clintons.
Because they, or in the case of the pizzeria, some unknown somebody, disagreed with them. So, apparently, it now okay to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, as long as the theater is owned by somebody you disagree with, and as long as you have a sincerely held religious belief.
So, in this respect, this part of the First Amendment has also now been killed off.
3. You can deny basic health benefits to your employees due to that same sincerely held religious belief.
There is no need to repeat all of the above. I would note, however, that the good folks who fought Obamacare to the United States Supreme Court and won the right not to offer contraceptive care to their employees have continued to fight against the remainder of Obamacare, provisions that have nothing to do with contraceptive care or abortion. So one is left to wonder if they are simply opposing Obamacare because they do not want to spend the money on healthcare for their employees at all.
So once again, the freedom of religion aspect of the First Amendment has been made a mockery of, and for all practical purposes is dead.
4. You can do whatever you want to whomever you want, as long as you have a bully pulpit, the willing assistance of at least one media outlet, and the willingness of half the government to look the other way in order to convince those who want to be convinced that all the news reported about what you do is fake.
You can re-establish internment camps. Internment camps? Why stop there? We need a good concentration camp or two. We have not had the equivalent of them around here in ages. Building them would be a snap, probably easier than building the wall Mexico is going to pay for. Heck, Heart Mountain in Wyoming still has a couple of structures standing, and is surrounded by the same empty fields that were there when the place was first built. There are even a couple of good lumber yards right down the road, and the railroad that ran past the entrance in the good old days is still there. They even built a museum there I am sure can be converted into office space to run the place. The good folks around the area have already proved they can get by just fine with a bunch of Japanese people confined there. I cannot imagine they could not extend the same hospitality and generosity of spirit to a few (thousand) Hispanic kids or, in the alternative, to their parents.
And those of us who protest the return of internment or concentration camps and the rise of this true American Carnage? How un-American! How dare we speak out against fearless leader!! WE ought to be locked up!!!
So... a requiem for the first amendment and, in kind, for ourselves:
Multem dignitatis.
Adeo acta pro hominibus.
Tam pro honestate possit obtinere.
Vivat rex.
Translation:
So much for dignity.
So much for humanity.
So much for decency.
Long live the king.
-- founding fathers, First Amendment to the United States Constitution 1789
"... unless you disagree with me".
-- addendum to the First Amendment apparently added some time since then when we were not looking.
.............................................................................
We apparently are now allowing speech of all kind to exist, as long as we agree with it, or as long as it achieves something that we agree with, or are at least lead to believe we agree with, the hell with the real intent of the founding fathers and the Constitution. To this end, we now have established:
1. Corporations donating piles of money to influence the outcome of elections is protected free speech.
Last time I looked, a corporation was a piece of paper, or more accurately, a binder or collection of paper put together, signed, notarized and filed with the office of the Secretary of State in the state where it was organized. So according to the Supreme Court, pieces of paper have the right of freedom of speech and the right, due to inordinate sums of money amassed in the name of those pieces of paper, to influence the outcome of elections.
Corporations are people? Well, maybe the life of a corporation does not exist without people, but corporate personhood? All you need to do to figure out whether or not a corporation is a person is to use your own common sense and the thoughts in your own mind in how you refer to a corporation. When you think of your brother, and refer to him in the third person, you generally refer to "him". When you think of your sister, and refer to her in the third person, you generally refer to "her". When you think of Monsanto, G.E., Koch Brothers Industries, etc., if you are referring to the corporation in the singular, third "person", you generally refer to "It". Aside from the Addams Family, have you ever seriously referred to anyone as "It"?
Soooooo.... no. Corporations are not people. We do not refer to people as "It".
If that does not grab you, how about --
Corporations have people who work under a corporate banner or who actually own the corporation, and yes, people do own corporations. People do not own other people, at least supposedly not anymore in this country since the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, notwithstanding some questioning of this principle by some people to the contrary.
There is no question that the actual people who own or who work for corporations are people and have rights. Nobody questions that these people have the right to speak out and to donate to causes they believe in. They just need to do it in their own names and not hide behind the piece of paper they have created which now allows them to do so.
By declaring corporations are people and have the rights of people, they have cheapened the rights of real people, because most of us do not have the resources to fight the resources amassed by those who own the corporations.
And in this respect, they have managed to kill off one of the protections of the First Amendment.
2. It is now possible, in the name of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, to outwardly discriminate against another group of people as long as you can claim a sincerely held religious belief against those people.
If nothing else, this one shows that the white supremacists of Mississippi, Alabama, etc in the 1960's had really lousy lawyers. All they needed to do to perpetuate Jim Crow and the KKK was to claim they were all doing it in the name of their god and their "sincerely held religious conviction" that everyone of them was better than the best colored person. Who knew?
Nowhere else has existence of the addendum to the First Amendment become more crystal clear than here, where it is now possible for a baker in Colorado to violate every conceivable right a gay person has, and more than likely the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as well (you lawyers out there will know what I am talking about. Just think in terms of Ollie's Barbeque in Alabama and their sincerely held beliefs that they should not have to serve black folks in the 1960s and where that argument got them See the 1964 Supreme Court case of Katzenbach v. McClung for non-lawyers and those lawyers like me who got bored in class and were not paying attention). This is also known as outright and unashamed bigotry in the name of "sincerely held religious belief", and cheered on by a large segment of the population, most of whom are not of the same exact religion, but do hold the same exact sincerely held bigoted beliefs.
...and the addendum to the First Amendment comes shining through when a few weeks later, a restaurant in Virginia, exercising the same argument as the baker in Colorado, refuses to serve a presidential press secretary, whose political speech they sincerely disagree with, and those who whooped and hollered in celebration with the baker now scream in indignation against the restaurant.
And then there is this...
I have seen memes on line over the past day or two, with folks on the right posting the phone number and the address of the restaurant that refused to serve the presidential press secretary, which frankly, is no more responsible than posting the phone number and address of the baker in Colorado. I am assuming these folks are not looking to encourage people to make a reservation. I am assuming they are hoping people will go there and picket or try to close the restaurant down. I am also assuming that some of the people who go there will try to take matters into their own hands by bringing their second amendment protected products with them, just as that idiot did by bringing his weapon to Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria to free the child slaves being held there by the Clintons.
Because they, or in the case of the pizzeria, some unknown somebody, disagreed with them. So, apparently, it now okay to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, as long as the theater is owned by somebody you disagree with, and as long as you have a sincerely held religious belief.
So, in this respect, this part of the First Amendment has also now been killed off.
3. You can deny basic health benefits to your employees due to that same sincerely held religious belief.
There is no need to repeat all of the above. I would note, however, that the good folks who fought Obamacare to the United States Supreme Court and won the right not to offer contraceptive care to their employees have continued to fight against the remainder of Obamacare, provisions that have nothing to do with contraceptive care or abortion. So one is left to wonder if they are simply opposing Obamacare because they do not want to spend the money on healthcare for their employees at all.
So once again, the freedom of religion aspect of the First Amendment has been made a mockery of, and for all practical purposes is dead.
4. You can do whatever you want to whomever you want, as long as you have a bully pulpit, the willing assistance of at least one media outlet, and the willingness of half the government to look the other way in order to convince those who want to be convinced that all the news reported about what you do is fake.
You can re-establish internment camps. Internment camps? Why stop there? We need a good concentration camp or two. We have not had the equivalent of them around here in ages. Building them would be a snap, probably easier than building the wall Mexico is going to pay for. Heck, Heart Mountain in Wyoming still has a couple of structures standing, and is surrounded by the same empty fields that were there when the place was first built. There are even a couple of good lumber yards right down the road, and the railroad that ran past the entrance in the good old days is still there. They even built a museum there I am sure can be converted into office space to run the place. The good folks around the area have already proved they can get by just fine with a bunch of Japanese people confined there. I cannot imagine they could not extend the same hospitality and generosity of spirit to a few (thousand) Hispanic kids or, in the alternative, to their parents.
And those of us who protest the return of internment or concentration camps and the rise of this true American Carnage? How un-American! How dare we speak out against fearless leader!! WE ought to be locked up!!!
So... a requiem for the first amendment and, in kind, for ourselves:
Multem dignitatis.
Adeo acta pro hominibus.
Tam pro honestate possit obtinere.
Vivat rex.
Translation:
So much for dignity.
So much for humanity.
So much for decency.
Long live the king.
Sunday, May 27, 2018
kneeling on beans
Early in our marriage, we lived in New Orleans, and my wife taught at a parochial school run by the local archdiocese. One day, she came home shaking her head over a discussion she had with the parents of one of her students. I believe his name was Abad. Abad was one of those kids who had difficulty keeping focus and sometimes behaving appropriately in class. Then again, we are talking about seven and eight year olds, so keeping focus and behaving inappropriately is occasionally part of the package.
Anyway, during the course of a routine parent-teacher conference with Abad's parents, the subject of some of Abad's behavioral misadventures came up. Abad's parents were appalled. His mother promised to speak to him as soon as they got home. His father promised to make him kneel on beans.
Whether or not the promise to make Abad kneel on beans was real or metaphorical is not clear at this point; however, in a moronic attempt to find humor in the situation, I asked if the beans were going to be cooked first. With the passage of time, I suppose I could now ask if Abad's father was going to require his son to kneel on my son's cat (whose name is Beans -- get it?).
I know, just as lame.
Which somehow brings me to chapter two of the president, the NFL and football players who opt to protest racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem.
I thought I was done with this topic, and had disposed of whatever I may have to say about it by reposting my September 25, 2017 thoughts; however, you have to hand it to certain people who have a way of bringing things such as bad pennies back.
First cadet bone spurs announced that the players who do not stand respectfully for the national anthem should be tossed out of the country.
Then a nationally known sports talk host opined on the air about how awful it was that a few bad apple football players were ruining a football game by kneeling during the anthem. I am not entirely sure of how a football game gets effected to the point of ruination by somebody not standing on the sideline before the game starts during the playing of the national anthem, but I suppose the radio sports jock can explain it to me next time I tune in. After all, he knows more about sports than I do. This was right after he had proclaimed that there is no institutional racism among the police, but conceded that there are a few bad apple officers here and there.
Then after the owner of the New York Jets announced that he would pay any fine levied by the NFL against any of his players that may kneel during the anthem, our local congressman announced that the Jets are a disgrace, that the protests of the players were based on lies and that we should all "say goodbye to the Jets".
Let's get a few things out of the way right off the bat.
First, each one of the above examples, cadet bone spurs, the radio sports jock and the congressman are white guys who have never had to deal with racism from the perspective of not being a rich white guy in their lives. While they may profess to have all the knowledge and experience in the world, they may have gone to the best colleges, they may have the best experience, they may use the best words, and only they can solve this problem, none of them are anything other than middle aged to old rich white guys. They all live in nice gated or secret service protected homes/mansions in nice neighborhoods where things like that do not happen.
They don't get to tell us what is racist and what is not.
And by "us", I mean the people who are peacefully protesting. I do not include myself. I am an upper middle class white guy who had a relatively privileged upbringing and has never had to personally deal with institutional racism aimed at me in my entire life.
Predictably, their minions cheered each announcement. I am willing to bet their minions are not all rich and do not all live in gated communities. I am willing to bet that somewhere between ninety-five and ninety-nine percent of the minions who cheered each announcement are white.
Secondly, I will concede right off the bat the argument made by some that in private employment, you cannot simply protest if your employer does not allow it. This would then bring up a debate as to whether or not the NFL is a private employer, especially on this issue in which since 2009, the owners have been accepting federal government funds to put on a grand extravaganza for the national anthem before each game. Before then, the anthem was usually played while the teams were in the locker room. So if the NFL is being subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars by the federal government to put on the show during the anthem, there is a legitimate question as to whether or not there is a right to protest during the anthem, even if your employer tells you not to. As I have noted before, it was only when the owners were given millions of our tax dollars to trot the players out and stand on the sidelines while giant flags were unfurled and patriots like Roseanne Barr were trotted out to sing the anthem that the rich white guys -- and they are all rich white guys -- had their patriotism stirred.
Okay, Roseanne Barr murdered the national anthem before a baseball game in 1990, but you get the point.
We could also have a grand debate about whether the owners can unilaterally impose the anthem requirements they just did in a collective bargaining environment, but that is a debate for another day, and is more a labor law issue than a civil rights one. It is worth noting, however, that the issue is probably not dead, as the players union appears ready to challenge any discipline imposed by the league if any players kneel during the anthem. So we may yet get to witness and/or participate in that debate.
But all of this ignores the important issues raised herein in favor of the usual jingoistic nonsense about peaceful civil protest, a bedrock of our society, indeed something that our nation was founded upon -- i seem to remember something about the founding fathers protesting certain taxes and imposition of royal decrees upon them by the British crown, leading to you know what -- somehow insults the flag, the anthem, the police, the troops, motherhood, apple pie and a football game.
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, which includes the right to redress the government over their grievances, but cadet bone spurs, the congressman and the sports radio jock would have those who protest fined, stripped of their employment, possibly stripped of ownership of their franchise and deported to who knows where.
Lets think about this for a moment.
I do not know where the sports radio jock stands on this, but cadet bone spurs and the congressman will not allow a single common sense regulation to be passed that would serve to keep military assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and crazy people for fear of violating their second amendment rights, but they would eagerly strip away the first amendment rights for a handful of people who knelt on the sideline during the national anthem. Last time I looked, nobody was killed, maimed or psychologically scarred for life by the forty-niners' quarterback taking a knee.
Is it so awful to see some players kneeling and some standing during the national anthem? Who got insulted by this? The guy at the stadium who took the opportunity during the anthem to go to the bathroom, or buy a hot dog and a beer? Please note that the owners, who are imposing the "respect" for the anthem are not suspending sales of hot dogs and beer during the anthem. The good folks at home watching the games are not standing for the anthem, and in most cases they do not have to, because the anthem is generally not shown on television, except for play off games and the Super Bowl when they trot out Charlie Pride (1974), Cheryl Ladd (1980) and Lady Gaga (2016) to do the anthem. Hell, they even had the Dixie Chicks do it once (2003), which surprisingly, did not lead to a boycott of the Super Bowl by every country music station in America. They even have a person performing the anthem in sign language, as if anyone is watching that. But all this ignores the fact that nobody is standing at attention in their living rooms, their hands over their hearts, during the playing of the national anthem.
And cadet bone spurs, the congressman and the radio sports jock are not calling for the heads of the good folks at home, because they are not standing with their hands over their hearts in their living rooms singing along with the anthem. We know cadet bone spurs is not, because he has demonstrated that he apparently does not know the words. They each claim this constitutionally protected form of speech insults the troops. You know, the military. That portion of the country that puts their lives on the line to protect those freedoms of speech. That collection of brave and honorable people that cadet bone spurs, the congressman and the radio sports jock never bothered to enlist and serve with.
So what in the long run is more important, standing or kneeling during the national anthem or ensuring the civil rights of all our citizens.
Is it more a matter of national importance if the cornerback of the Kansas City Chiefs is not singing along with the national anthem or perhaps that a few miles away in Ferguson, Missouri, the police are shooting an unarmed man in the street because he happens to be black.
Is it more a matter of national importance that the linebacker of the New York Jets is not standing there with his hand over his heart or perhaps that a few miles away on Staten Island a black man is choked to death by a white police officer for selling cigarettes on the sidewalk.
Is it more a matter of national importance that the left tackle of the Minnesota Vikings is kneeling on the sideline or perhaps a few miles away a white police officer has shot a black man in his car who is reaching for his i.d.
And even if you think that the white officers were right in doing what they did in each case, or that the victim in each case somehow asked for it, had it coming, or was somehow to blame for being killed, isn't it more important to address the issues that each case raises rather than worry about who is standing there on the sideline of a football game, hand over heart, bleating out the words to a song they do not care about and just want to get over with.
You would think that cadet bone spurs and the congressman would want to hold hearings and work on legislation, education and initiatives to better understand each other to ensure everyone is treated with dignity and respect and gets the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the constitution guarantees, rather than pay homage to a battle that virtually nobody would remember if Francis Scott Key had not written a poem that other than having been set to the tune of a British drinking song would have been long forgotten today (it was not made the National Anthem until 1931) and a piece of cloth. You would think the congressman would be hard at work at this; however, the only work of his I recall are hearings he held to find out why we are allowing Muslims into this country.
So until we see something -- anything -- from these folks to advance true and fair civil rights for all, they have no right to tell us what is or is not disgraceful about kneeling on the sideline at a football game during the National Anthem.
Until then, they can all go kneel on beans.
Anyway, during the course of a routine parent-teacher conference with Abad's parents, the subject of some of Abad's behavioral misadventures came up. Abad's parents were appalled. His mother promised to speak to him as soon as they got home. His father promised to make him kneel on beans.
Whether or not the promise to make Abad kneel on beans was real or metaphorical is not clear at this point; however, in a moronic attempt to find humor in the situation, I asked if the beans were going to be cooked first. With the passage of time, I suppose I could now ask if Abad's father was going to require his son to kneel on my son's cat (whose name is Beans -- get it?).
I know, just as lame.
Which somehow brings me to chapter two of the president, the NFL and football players who opt to protest racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem.
I thought I was done with this topic, and had disposed of whatever I may have to say about it by reposting my September 25, 2017 thoughts; however, you have to hand it to certain people who have a way of bringing things such as bad pennies back.
First cadet bone spurs announced that the players who do not stand respectfully for the national anthem should be tossed out of the country.
Then a nationally known sports talk host opined on the air about how awful it was that a few bad apple football players were ruining a football game by kneeling during the anthem. I am not entirely sure of how a football game gets effected to the point of ruination by somebody not standing on the sideline before the game starts during the playing of the national anthem, but I suppose the radio sports jock can explain it to me next time I tune in. After all, he knows more about sports than I do. This was right after he had proclaimed that there is no institutional racism among the police, but conceded that there are a few bad apple officers here and there.
Then after the owner of the New York Jets announced that he would pay any fine levied by the NFL against any of his players that may kneel during the anthem, our local congressman announced that the Jets are a disgrace, that the protests of the players were based on lies and that we should all "say goodbye to the Jets".
Let's get a few things out of the way right off the bat.
First, each one of the above examples, cadet bone spurs, the radio sports jock and the congressman are white guys who have never had to deal with racism from the perspective of not being a rich white guy in their lives. While they may profess to have all the knowledge and experience in the world, they may have gone to the best colleges, they may have the best experience, they may use the best words, and only they can solve this problem, none of them are anything other than middle aged to old rich white guys. They all live in nice gated or secret service protected homes/mansions in nice neighborhoods where things like that do not happen.
They don't get to tell us what is racist and what is not.
And by "us", I mean the people who are peacefully protesting. I do not include myself. I am an upper middle class white guy who had a relatively privileged upbringing and has never had to personally deal with institutional racism aimed at me in my entire life.
Predictably, their minions cheered each announcement. I am willing to bet their minions are not all rich and do not all live in gated communities. I am willing to bet that somewhere between ninety-five and ninety-nine percent of the minions who cheered each announcement are white.
Secondly, I will concede right off the bat the argument made by some that in private employment, you cannot simply protest if your employer does not allow it. This would then bring up a debate as to whether or not the NFL is a private employer, especially on this issue in which since 2009, the owners have been accepting federal government funds to put on a grand extravaganza for the national anthem before each game. Before then, the anthem was usually played while the teams were in the locker room. So if the NFL is being subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars by the federal government to put on the show during the anthem, there is a legitimate question as to whether or not there is a right to protest during the anthem, even if your employer tells you not to. As I have noted before, it was only when the owners were given millions of our tax dollars to trot the players out and stand on the sidelines while giant flags were unfurled and patriots like Roseanne Barr were trotted out to sing the anthem that the rich white guys -- and they are all rich white guys -- had their patriotism stirred.
Okay, Roseanne Barr murdered the national anthem before a baseball game in 1990, but you get the point.
We could also have a grand debate about whether the owners can unilaterally impose the anthem requirements they just did in a collective bargaining environment, but that is a debate for another day, and is more a labor law issue than a civil rights one. It is worth noting, however, that the issue is probably not dead, as the players union appears ready to challenge any discipline imposed by the league if any players kneel during the anthem. So we may yet get to witness and/or participate in that debate.
But all of this ignores the important issues raised herein in favor of the usual jingoistic nonsense about peaceful civil protest, a bedrock of our society, indeed something that our nation was founded upon -- i seem to remember something about the founding fathers protesting certain taxes and imposition of royal decrees upon them by the British crown, leading to you know what -- somehow insults the flag, the anthem, the police, the troops, motherhood, apple pie and a football game.
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, which includes the right to redress the government over their grievances, but cadet bone spurs, the congressman and the sports radio jock would have those who protest fined, stripped of their employment, possibly stripped of ownership of their franchise and deported to who knows where.
Lets think about this for a moment.
I do not know where the sports radio jock stands on this, but cadet bone spurs and the congressman will not allow a single common sense regulation to be passed that would serve to keep military assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and crazy people for fear of violating their second amendment rights, but they would eagerly strip away the first amendment rights for a handful of people who knelt on the sideline during the national anthem. Last time I looked, nobody was killed, maimed or psychologically scarred for life by the forty-niners' quarterback taking a knee.
Is it so awful to see some players kneeling and some standing during the national anthem? Who got insulted by this? The guy at the stadium who took the opportunity during the anthem to go to the bathroom, or buy a hot dog and a beer? Please note that the owners, who are imposing the "respect" for the anthem are not suspending sales of hot dogs and beer during the anthem. The good folks at home watching the games are not standing for the anthem, and in most cases they do not have to, because the anthem is generally not shown on television, except for play off games and the Super Bowl when they trot out Charlie Pride (1974), Cheryl Ladd (1980) and Lady Gaga (2016) to do the anthem. Hell, they even had the Dixie Chicks do it once (2003), which surprisingly, did not lead to a boycott of the Super Bowl by every country music station in America. They even have a person performing the anthem in sign language, as if anyone is watching that. But all this ignores the fact that nobody is standing at attention in their living rooms, their hands over their hearts, during the playing of the national anthem.
And cadet bone spurs, the congressman and the radio sports jock are not calling for the heads of the good folks at home, because they are not standing with their hands over their hearts in their living rooms singing along with the anthem. We know cadet bone spurs is not, because he has demonstrated that he apparently does not know the words. They each claim this constitutionally protected form of speech insults the troops. You know, the military. That portion of the country that puts their lives on the line to protect those freedoms of speech. That collection of brave and honorable people that cadet bone spurs, the congressman and the radio sports jock never bothered to enlist and serve with.
So what in the long run is more important, standing or kneeling during the national anthem or ensuring the civil rights of all our citizens.
Is it more a matter of national importance if the cornerback of the Kansas City Chiefs is not singing along with the national anthem or perhaps that a few miles away in Ferguson, Missouri, the police are shooting an unarmed man in the street because he happens to be black.
Is it more a matter of national importance that the linebacker of the New York Jets is not standing there with his hand over his heart or perhaps that a few miles away on Staten Island a black man is choked to death by a white police officer for selling cigarettes on the sidewalk.
Is it more a matter of national importance that the left tackle of the Minnesota Vikings is kneeling on the sideline or perhaps a few miles away a white police officer has shot a black man in his car who is reaching for his i.d.
And even if you think that the white officers were right in doing what they did in each case, or that the victim in each case somehow asked for it, had it coming, or was somehow to blame for being killed, isn't it more important to address the issues that each case raises rather than worry about who is standing there on the sideline of a football game, hand over heart, bleating out the words to a song they do not care about and just want to get over with.
You would think that cadet bone spurs and the congressman would want to hold hearings and work on legislation, education and initiatives to better understand each other to ensure everyone is treated with dignity and respect and gets the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the constitution guarantees, rather than pay homage to a battle that virtually nobody would remember if Francis Scott Key had not written a poem that other than having been set to the tune of a British drinking song would have been long forgotten today (it was not made the National Anthem until 1931) and a piece of cloth. You would think the congressman would be hard at work at this; however, the only work of his I recall are hearings he held to find out why we are allowing Muslims into this country.
So until we see something -- anything -- from these folks to advance true and fair civil rights for all, they have no right to tell us what is or is not disgraceful about kneeling on the sideline at a football game during the National Anthem.
Until then, they can all go kneel on beans.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
michael, mommy and me
I have a couple of announcements to make today, and if you believe any of them, I have a bridge in Brooklyn, or maybe some condos in Manhattan, Florida and Dubai I want to sell you...
1. I have hired Michael Cohen, and placed him on retainer. To outdo you know who, the guy who only paid him thirty-five thousand ($35,000.00) dollars a month, apparently because he is more of a cheap bastard than I am, I have decided to pay Mr. Cohen, whom I have not known and never met for more than a dozen or so years, fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollars a month. Why? Well, somewhere out there are dozens of women. Some of them are porn stars. Some of them are high fashion models. All of them are going to claim at some time in the future that they have had sexual affairs with me in the past.
I absolutely and categorically deny that I have ever had sex with any of these ladies, who are all obviously lying about sleeping with me for reasons I cannot figure out. Well, on the other hand, look at me. Imagine me in a speedo. And nothing else. Yeah? I mean, hell yeah!?! What woman would not want a piece of this, or at least would not want to make people think they would want a piece of this?
But I digress...
I need to keep this quiet, lest my wife, who will pick up a tree and hit me over the head with it, finds out.
I have been very careful about setting this up. After all, Mr. Cohen appears to have plenty of time on his hands these days. He only has three other clients, and two of them have gone on television the past few weeks to announce that they give him very little work, and that the work they do give him is not that significant. Mr. Cohen will therefore have plenty of time to devote to my.... um.... issues, and I will have satisfied my inner need to render charity unto a fellow struggling attorney while saving my own outer hide.
I have contacted the finest newspapers, journals and periodicals in the country. I mean, I have have had Mr. Cohen contact the finest newspapers, journals and periodicals in the country. They have assured me... I mean, Mr. Cohen, that this story will never hit the news. The editor of the National Enquirer in particular has let Mr. Cohen know that the photos of me in a speedo, voluptuous mostly naked fawning women wrapped in both of my arms, in the hot tub in the master bedroom of the presidential suite at the Plaza Hotel, where I never was, at least not with these particular women, will never see the light of day.
In order to pay for all of this, I am going to funnel the money through a family trust account. Alright, I do not have a family trust account, but my mother does, and I have direct online access to the funds as they are linked to my meager retirement account. Mom won't mind, because I'm not going to tell her I am doing this. Besides, if it ever comes out that I am paying Michael Cohen $50,000.00 a month to shut up a bunch of porn stars and high fashion models from publishing tell alls about my you know what prowess, I can always plausibly argue that Mom paid him without my knowledge for specific reasons I am not aware of, but generally because she loves me. Right Mommy dearest, thou whom I adore above all other mothers, both living and dead?
Right?
Mom?
Hello?
By funneling the shut up money through Mom's family trust account, the real source and reasons for the payoffs will never become public, and cannot be traced back to me, even if my tax returns are subpoenaed by Robert Mueller. Not that I would ever release the tax returns to Mr. Mueller, as fine a left wing biased prosecutor leading a vast far left liberal conspiracy witch hunt as there ever was. If Mr. Mueller goes after Mom, I know plenty of recently out of work attorneys who would be happy to assist. Michael Dowd. Ty Cobb. Maybe Rod Rosenstein, Rudy Giuliani and even Robert Mueller himself in the near future, just to name a few. So we need not worry about Mom going to jail for me. Besides, if she does, I bake a mean, and I mean a really mean devil's food cake, complete with twelve inch metal file with replaceable blades in the middle.
Errr... I mean, my wife bakes a really great cake. You ever tried to taste anything I baked?
And finally...
2. I hereby announce my candidacy for the office of president of the United States of America...
1. I have hired Michael Cohen, and placed him on retainer. To outdo you know who, the guy who only paid him thirty-five thousand ($35,000.00) dollars a month, apparently because he is more of a cheap bastard than I am, I have decided to pay Mr. Cohen, whom I have not known and never met for more than a dozen or so years, fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollars a month. Why? Well, somewhere out there are dozens of women. Some of them are porn stars. Some of them are high fashion models. All of them are going to claim at some time in the future that they have had sexual affairs with me in the past.
I absolutely and categorically deny that I have ever had sex with any of these ladies, who are all obviously lying about sleeping with me for reasons I cannot figure out. Well, on the other hand, look at me. Imagine me in a speedo. And nothing else. Yeah? I mean, hell yeah!?! What woman would not want a piece of this, or at least would not want to make people think they would want a piece of this?
But I digress...
I need to keep this quiet, lest my wife, who will pick up a tree and hit me over the head with it, finds out.
I have been very careful about setting this up. After all, Mr. Cohen appears to have plenty of time on his hands these days. He only has three other clients, and two of them have gone on television the past few weeks to announce that they give him very little work, and that the work they do give him is not that significant. Mr. Cohen will therefore have plenty of time to devote to my.... um.... issues, and I will have satisfied my inner need to render charity unto a fellow struggling attorney while saving my own outer hide.
I have contacted the finest newspapers, journals and periodicals in the country. I mean, I have have had Mr. Cohen contact the finest newspapers, journals and periodicals in the country. They have assured me... I mean, Mr. Cohen, that this story will never hit the news. The editor of the National Enquirer in particular has let Mr. Cohen know that the photos of me in a speedo, voluptuous mostly naked fawning women wrapped in both of my arms, in the hot tub in the master bedroom of the presidential suite at the Plaza Hotel, where I never was, at least not with these particular women, will never see the light of day.
In order to pay for all of this, I am going to funnel the money through a family trust account. Alright, I do not have a family trust account, but my mother does, and I have direct online access to the funds as they are linked to my meager retirement account. Mom won't mind, because I'm not going to tell her I am doing this. Besides, if it ever comes out that I am paying Michael Cohen $50,000.00 a month to shut up a bunch of porn stars and high fashion models from publishing tell alls about my you know what prowess, I can always plausibly argue that Mom paid him without my knowledge for specific reasons I am not aware of, but generally because she loves me. Right Mommy dearest, thou whom I adore above all other mothers, both living and dead?
Right?
Mom?
Hello?
By funneling the shut up money through Mom's family trust account, the real source and reasons for the payoffs will never become public, and cannot be traced back to me, even if my tax returns are subpoenaed by Robert Mueller. Not that I would ever release the tax returns to Mr. Mueller, as fine a left wing biased prosecutor leading a vast far left liberal conspiracy witch hunt as there ever was. If Mr. Mueller goes after Mom, I know plenty of recently out of work attorneys who would be happy to assist. Michael Dowd. Ty Cobb. Maybe Rod Rosenstein, Rudy Giuliani and even Robert Mueller himself in the near future, just to name a few. So we need not worry about Mom going to jail for me. Besides, if she does, I bake a mean, and I mean a really mean devil's food cake, complete with twelve inch metal file with replaceable blades in the middle.
Errr... I mean, my wife bakes a really great cake. You ever tried to taste anything I baked?
And finally...
2. I hereby announce my candidacy for the office of president of the United States of America...
Monday, February 26, 2018
more likely...
Sooooo.....
Today Cadet Bone Spurs looked right into the camera and with a straight face told us all that he would have run into Stoneman Douglas High School to confront, disarm and possibly kill the shooter, even if he was not armed.
He said it with a straight face.
Which got me to thinking.
There have to be at least a million and one things that might happen on the planet, and/or are at least are likely for me to do before he storms the p. s. 70 lunch room. I hereby present a brief list of things that are more likely to happen or that I might do before Cadet Bone Spurs comes to the rescue....
1. The Jamaican bobsled team wins gold!!!
2. The American Ballet Theatre asks me to dance the lead in in Swan Lake.
3. I accept the invitation of the American Ballet Theatre to dance the lead in Swan Lake.
4. I actually dance the lead in Swan Lake.
5. In Times Square.
By the way, I have a great feather boa/costume just waiting...
6. Queen Elizabeth hosts the Pope at Buckingham Palace and personally cooks him a seven course dinner featuring the finest in Ethiopean cuisine.
7. I visit the planet Remulak and consume mass quantities with Dan Ackroyd. By the way, in case you were wondering, the planet Remulak is actually located about ten minutes north of Philadelphia.
8. Vincente Fox shows up with a crew of bricklayers along the Rio Grande and starts personally building a wall.
9. A herd of cows wearing bikinis recites the entire works of Shakespeare for discerning diners in Tavern on the Green. Among the diners that evening is Steven Spielberg, who immediately begins filming a remake of E.T. on the spot featuring the cows coming home.
10. I stand in front of one of the exhibits at the Tate Modern, and actually understand it.
11. I then realize that I understand this mishmosh on display at the Tate Modern, because I am the one who painted it.
12. Using peanut butter.
13. Creamy style. After all, who can paint with crunchy peanut butter?
14. The Nobel Prize for literature is awarded to Dr. Suess.
15. The Nobel Prize for medicine is awarded to Dr. Suess. Hey. It could happen. I mean, he's a doctor. Right?
16. On my way driving to San Jose with my wife, I get lost, and actually stop at a bar and ask for directions.
17. After all, who wouldn't want to stop at a bar that has an old Victrola playing in the background and ask the first person you see "Do you know the way to San Jose"...
18. It would be as much fun as pulling alongside a limo at a red light and asking the snob inside if he has any grey poupon...
19. Wayne LaPierre registers as a conscientous objector. Well, I actually debated between this one and Wayne runs up, pulls the trigger and a flag with the word "Bang!" pops out of the barrel. I like the visual on that one.
20. One thousand glock toting public school teachers arrive at school tomorrow morning and are told by Betsy DeVos to put the guns away and accept instead bonuses allowing them to buy all the supplies their classes will need for the rest of the year.
and finally....
21. I run into a school building unarmed and stop a shooter by singing "Kumbaya" to him.
I invite all suggestions to add to the list, which is not authoritative or exhaustive...
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
guns and priorities, chapter three
Do you want to know what the chances of something sensible happening in Washington in response to today's shooting in Parkland, Florida might be? Think of this.
In January, 2013, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a bill in the senate that would have made it illegal for people on the national terrorist watch list from buying a gun. Think about that for a second. There is a reason people end up on the terrorist watch list. I think it has something to do with the fact that they are considered a real and reasonable threat to actually kill not just somebody, but a lot of somebodies.
And who is it that thought those people were enough of a threat to end up on the terrorist watch list? How about the people who run law enforcement. You know, the folks we think may know something about this and who we entrust to know these sorts of things to keep us safe.
The bill did not come up for a vote until December, 2015, nearly three years later and only because two days earlier we were all San Bernadino Strong after another fourteen people were killed by two people who had pledged fealty to ISIS. And even in the face of that horror, the predictable happened.
The bill went down with fifty-four senators voting no.
Every single republican, with the exception of Mark Kirk of Illinois, voted no. For the record, Mark Kirk was voted out of office in the election of 2016. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota was the only democrat to vote no. She is still a sitting senator, more than likely due to the fact that she has not been up for reelection since this vote. North Dakota, I am watching you.
Think about this for another moment.
If Osama bin Ladin were to walk into a gun show today, he could walk out of that show with a bushel full of AR-15s, once again, the weapon of choice used to mow down our precious and innocent children, a weapon which has absolutely no use other than to kill people, and kill them in mass quantities in a brief burst of hell.
According to Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Feinstein's bill to keep Osama bin Ladin from walking into a gun show and buying up every AR-15 for sale there had to be voted down because we cannot allow the federal government to infringe upon our rights given to us under the second amendment. So we have no problem with Osama bin Ladin arming himself with enough automatic weaponry to wipe out half of Florida, but we do have a problem with allowing a respected chemistry professor at the University of Kansas from staying here because his original student visa expired, in spite of the fact that he is loved in his community, has never committed a crime, is married and has three children, each American citizens, who he will be ripped apart from when he is deported. So there are your priorities in congress.
It is okay for Osama bin Ladin to walk into a gun show and arm himself, because he gets the right to do so under the second amendment.
It is not okay for Syed Ahmed Jamal, that Kansas chemistry professor, to simply stay in this country and continue teaching chemistry, being a husband, a father and a loved and respected member of his community because, well... you know... America First!!
I ended a post here on October 4, 2017 saying that I could care less about thoughts and prayers. They will do nothing to end the gun epidemic. In the absence of action, the only thing we knew was something like Las Vegas, where fifty-nine people enjoying a country music festival were mowed down, was going to happen again. The only question was when and where. On November 5, 2017, after we knew when and where, I ended a post about Sutherland, Texas where another twenty-seven, this time while praying in their local church, were killed while congress dithered by saying that somewhere soon we were going to be Any Town USA Strong in response to the next atrocity if congress did not act.
They did not act.
So today, we are Parkland, Florida Strong, and we send our thoughts and prayers to the families of this time, seventeen victims. I am sure their families are comforted right now by our thoughts, our prayers and our useless slogans.
And on television, I see senators and congressmen offering those thoughts and prayers, and telling us now is not the time to politicize this event by calling for gun control, even the meager nonsense that legislation about background checks with a million and one loopholes would amount to. I see talk about mental health legislation, which the good folks on the right recently voted to cut savagely, and in any event, will not eliminate guns from our society.
You know what I do not see?
Legislation outlawing guns that have no business in civilian hands.
Legislation outlawing gun ownership by those who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with guns, like violent felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill and Osama bin Ladin.
Legislation that would repeal the Dickey Amendment and allow us to study and discuss the health effects of the avalanche of guns flowing down upon us.
Legislation that would impose liability upon manufacturers and distributors of guns who put dangerous and even defective weapons in the hands of those they have every reason to know should not have them.
And until we vote these complicit with the NRA sons of bitches out of office and put somebody in there who will introduce and implement this common sense legislation, we can all continue to furrow our brows, to weep, wail and moan, to rehearse our thoughts and prayers, and to come up with the next catchy feel good, Somewhere Sometime Soon Strong slogan, because it's going to happen again.
And we are all complicit.
In January, 2013, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a bill in the senate that would have made it illegal for people on the national terrorist watch list from buying a gun. Think about that for a second. There is a reason people end up on the terrorist watch list. I think it has something to do with the fact that they are considered a real and reasonable threat to actually kill not just somebody, but a lot of somebodies.
And who is it that thought those people were enough of a threat to end up on the terrorist watch list? How about the people who run law enforcement. You know, the folks we think may know something about this and who we entrust to know these sorts of things to keep us safe.
The bill did not come up for a vote until December, 2015, nearly three years later and only because two days earlier we were all San Bernadino Strong after another fourteen people were killed by two people who had pledged fealty to ISIS. And even in the face of that horror, the predictable happened.
The bill went down with fifty-four senators voting no.
Every single republican, with the exception of Mark Kirk of Illinois, voted no. For the record, Mark Kirk was voted out of office in the election of 2016. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota was the only democrat to vote no. She is still a sitting senator, more than likely due to the fact that she has not been up for reelection since this vote. North Dakota, I am watching you.
Think about this for another moment.
If Osama bin Ladin were to walk into a gun show today, he could walk out of that show with a bushel full of AR-15s, once again, the weapon of choice used to mow down our precious and innocent children, a weapon which has absolutely no use other than to kill people, and kill them in mass quantities in a brief burst of hell.
According to Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Feinstein's bill to keep Osama bin Ladin from walking into a gun show and buying up every AR-15 for sale there had to be voted down because we cannot allow the federal government to infringe upon our rights given to us under the second amendment. So we have no problem with Osama bin Ladin arming himself with enough automatic weaponry to wipe out half of Florida, but we do have a problem with allowing a respected chemistry professor at the University of Kansas from staying here because his original student visa expired, in spite of the fact that he is loved in his community, has never committed a crime, is married and has three children, each American citizens, who he will be ripped apart from when he is deported. So there are your priorities in congress.
It is okay for Osama bin Ladin to walk into a gun show and arm himself, because he gets the right to do so under the second amendment.
It is not okay for Syed Ahmed Jamal, that Kansas chemistry professor, to simply stay in this country and continue teaching chemistry, being a husband, a father and a loved and respected member of his community because, well... you know... America First!!
I ended a post here on October 4, 2017 saying that I could care less about thoughts and prayers. They will do nothing to end the gun epidemic. In the absence of action, the only thing we knew was something like Las Vegas, where fifty-nine people enjoying a country music festival were mowed down, was going to happen again. The only question was when and where. On November 5, 2017, after we knew when and where, I ended a post about Sutherland, Texas where another twenty-seven, this time while praying in their local church, were killed while congress dithered by saying that somewhere soon we were going to be Any Town USA Strong in response to the next atrocity if congress did not act.
They did not act.
So today, we are Parkland, Florida Strong, and we send our thoughts and prayers to the families of this time, seventeen victims. I am sure their families are comforted right now by our thoughts, our prayers and our useless slogans.
And on television, I see senators and congressmen offering those thoughts and prayers, and telling us now is not the time to politicize this event by calling for gun control, even the meager nonsense that legislation about background checks with a million and one loopholes would amount to. I see talk about mental health legislation, which the good folks on the right recently voted to cut savagely, and in any event, will not eliminate guns from our society.
You know what I do not see?
Legislation outlawing guns that have no business in civilian hands.
Legislation outlawing gun ownership by those who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with guns, like violent felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill and Osama bin Ladin.
Legislation that would repeal the Dickey Amendment and allow us to study and discuss the health effects of the avalanche of guns flowing down upon us.
Legislation that would impose liability upon manufacturers and distributors of guns who put dangerous and even defective weapons in the hands of those they have every reason to know should not have them.
And until we vote these complicit with the NRA sons of bitches out of office and put somebody in there who will introduce and implement this common sense legislation, we can all continue to furrow our brows, to weep, wail and moan, to rehearse our thoughts and prayers, and to come up with the next catchy feel good, Somewhere Sometime Soon Strong slogan, because it's going to happen again.
And we are all complicit.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
our only solution
By now, it should be obvious to anyone who even just pretends to have a brain that there is no intention whatsoever on the right, not just to reign in what is going on at the White House, but also to actively take part in the cover up. In the name of "transparency", they have released the Nunes Memo, which is, at best, an essay that would fail the average high school social studies quiz. There is nothing new in the memo. As I have said elsewhere, it may just as well have been written by the idiot in chief, as it simply works off his worn out talking points just short of "biggest crowd ever".
Clearly transparency has nothing to do with this. If it did, the Schiff Memo in response would have been released at the same time.
If transparency had anything to do with it, Devin Nunes would have actually read the FISA warrant he trashed in the Memo. I suppose many did not see that gem. He brought forth this nonsense over a warrant he himself has not read. Instead, he outsourced this to Trey Gowdy.
Yes, that Trey Gowdy.
As in Benghazi!!! E-mails!!! Lock her up!!!
Don't believe me???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Js4TMKutCo&t=88s
Apparently, Mr. Gowdy went and read the FISA application in private with his unnamed "team", took notes, and then brought them back to Nunes, who wrote this "memo" without ever actually having seen the FISA application upon which it is based. Apparently, the notes were not taken all that well, as there is nothing in the memo about a FISA warrant only being good for ninety days, and upon renewal each time, new independent facts are required to be shown to the Court, which would mean there was something other than the Steele Dossier upon which the judge found to be good cause to renew the warrant.
Please note we have yet to hear from Mr. Gowdy, other than his announcement that he is now not running for reelection.
This is what we have come to in government, one that Paul Ryan, Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes all say requires transparency.
He is running around, possibly having committed treason in his dealings with the Russians.
He has not yet released his tax returns.
He has refused to release the White House visitor's log.
He has blocked any and all requests to see what foreign dignitaries, foreign businessman, foreign criminals or foreign objects are staying at his properties around the world, but especially in Washington, where he is profiting, and what they are saying to him, and what they are giving him in return for his actions as our president.
He has used Mar-A-Lago for his personal profit center, billing the government for hosting public events there, where he pockets the proceeds.
And to the right, all of this is ok.
There is no need for transparency here. This does not rise to the level of anything Clinton.
We can investigate the Clinton Foundation for all its foreign dealings, but the Trump Foundation? Nothing to see here.
We can e-mail!!! and Benghazi!!! our way to who knows where -- it certainly did not lead to anything in the end -- but we cannot dare look at anything he did.
We can wail and scream over leaks of his self-dealings and possible treason, but cannot look to see about the veracity of the acts themselves.
And we can wail and scream over the leaks of classified information, only to declassify that information in the name of political expediency.
So with all of the hullabaloo over the release of the Nunes Memo, what can we expect from here? I would offer the following:
1. He will fire Rod Rosenstein and cite the Memo as proof that Rosenstein has abused his office. Rosenstein is the only person who has he authority at this point to fire Robert Mueller. Guess what happens next.
2. The Democrats will go ballistic.
3. The Republicans will shrug.
Impeachment? Article 25?
Do not hold your breath. It's not going to happen. If they ever did have a soul, the right has sacrificed it for the sake of having a president, no matter how ignorant, who will sign legislation they have always wanted, even if they have to alter the rules for getting it passed in the first place just so they can bring it to his desk. As long as that is happening, what the rest of us want is not going to happen.
He will be our president, at least in name, at least until January 20, 2021 at noon. For those of you counting, that is two years, eleven months and seventeen days from now. For those of you who are watching me as I write this, that is two years, eleven months, seventeen days, four hours and twelve minutes from now -- Sorry, my digital watch does not have a second hand.
There is, however, something we can do. It may be too late, but it is the only thing we can do, and unfortunately, we have to wait another nine months and three days before we do it. On November 6, 2018 -- VOTE.
VOTE LIKE YOUR LIVES DEPEND UPON IT. IT JUST MIGHT. If you think it does not, keep in mind that the New York Times is reporting this morning that the most recent polling shows an uptick for republicans, giving them hope that they will not lose their majority.
And for those who need a little guidance on how to vote, here is a list of those on the House Intelligence Committee who voted to release the Nunes Memo. Note, they are all republican. Every single one of them. Note further, some have already said they are not running for reelection:
Devin Nunes -- 22nd District, California
Mike Conaway -- 11th District, Texas
Peter King -- 2nd District, New York
Frank LoBiondo -- 2nd Distrct, New Jersey
Tom Rooney -- 17th District, Florida
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen -- 27th District Florida
Michael Turner -- 10th District, Ohio
Brad Weinstrup -- 2nd District, Ohio
Chris Stewart -- 2nd District, Utah
Rick Crawford -- 1st District, Arkansas
Trey Gowdy -- 4th District, South Carolina
Elise Stefanik -- 21st District, New York
Will Hurd -- 23rd District, Texas
In the present environment, the only weapon we the citizens of the United States are left with is at the ballot box, assuming they don't pass legislation that prevents anyone except their own supporters from voting, or that the Supreme Court does not issue a ruling allowing them to put all democrats in one single district in each state, leaving all other districts to the whims of the right. So, as I said above, on November 6, 2018...
VOTE AS IF YOU LIFE DEPENDED ON IT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)