Yes, I'm back after a brief mental vacation...but here I go!!
Okay, so Lou Dobbs won't let the whole "Obama isn't a U.S. citizen" thing go. I'll agree that Lou should maybe let the whole topic go and move on. But I don't agree that he should be fired for it. Furthermore, doesn't the Southern Poverty Law Center have more pressing concerns than campaigning to end Lou's career. Sure, Lou may espouse certain "right-wing" viewpoints, and sure he may even say outlandish things at times.
And don't worry...there's something those who are offended can do--CUT THE DAMN SHOW OFF!! Just stop watching him! If you don't like what entertainers (and, yes, Lou is an entertainer rather than a newscaster) like Lou or O'Reilly or Letterman has to say, then don't listen to them. I will concede some commentators--both on the boob tube and on radio--irritate the hell out of me...and I love it!
Yes, that's right: When my blood starts to boil, that's how I know the First Amendment is alive and well. When I get so mad at O'Reilly that I could spit, that's how I know the First Amendment is alive and well. And when I got mad tonight upon learning the Southern Poverty Law Center wants CNN to fire Lou, I knew our Constitution is alive and well.
Sure I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is wrong for trying to get Lou fired, but the same Amendment that protects what Lou has to say is the same Amendment that protects the Center's right to voice their concern to CNN.
And it's the same Amendment that protects me as I rant and rave about the various and sundry "things" that get me all hot and bothered. Oh, and if what I have to say offends you...GET THE HELL OFF MY BLOG PAGE.
Millions of men and women have not given their lives so you and I can dance around our words. To speak anything less than your mind is, in my humble opinion, the most un-American of all.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
A Change of Mind...
A couple weeks ago, some friends and I were out having some drinks when we slipped into a discussion about the merits of the death penalty. There were four of us, and I was in the minority. Unlike the other three of my friends, I vehemently defended the death penalty and summarily dismissed the notion that it should be abolished because a few innocent lives have been lost to it. Even though I was among friends--good friends who have learned to tolerate my occasional emotionally-charged rants--I successfully embarrassed myself by arguing from my heart instead of my head. Good arguments rarely come from the heart alone.
Where am I going with this? Well, today I decided to challenge my views and, in the process, changed my position. This time, however, I'm championing a position after carefully reading and researching the topic for myself...as I encourage everyone to do when seeking the truth. I sought out objective sources that provided me with facts. Then, once I studied the facts, read reports, and checked the validity of the sources, I decided the argument for abolishing the death penalty was substantially more logical and legally sound than the argument to the contrary.
Winston Churchill once famously remarked that "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Well, I certainly don't consider myself a fanatic, and I have no interest in becoming one. I am not too proud of a man to admit when I'm wrong, especially when I'm as wrong as I was about this particular topic.
No matter where you stand on the issue, it would behoove you to educate yourself, as I did, on the topic. Personally, I found the following site to be the most comprehensive, informative, and well-researched: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/. If you don't have time to read through the entire site, at least take the time to read the concise Fact Sheet: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf.
If you're expecting me to let loose with a diatribe about why you should oppose the death penalty, you're out of luck. I've given you the facts...now you draw your own conclusions, as I did.
The main point of this entry is to encourage everyone to remember that "when dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic; we are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bustling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity." (Dale Carnegie).
Bottom line: Don't be a fanatic; do your own research; and, most importantly, never be afraid or too proud to change your mind.
Thoughts?
Where am I going with this? Well, today I decided to challenge my views and, in the process, changed my position. This time, however, I'm championing a position after carefully reading and researching the topic for myself...as I encourage everyone to do when seeking the truth. I sought out objective sources that provided me with facts. Then, once I studied the facts, read reports, and checked the validity of the sources, I decided the argument for abolishing the death penalty was substantially more logical and legally sound than the argument to the contrary.
Winston Churchill once famously remarked that "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Well, I certainly don't consider myself a fanatic, and I have no interest in becoming one. I am not too proud of a man to admit when I'm wrong, especially when I'm as wrong as I was about this particular topic.
No matter where you stand on the issue, it would behoove you to educate yourself, as I did, on the topic. Personally, I found the following site to be the most comprehensive, informative, and well-researched: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/. If you don't have time to read through the entire site, at least take the time to read the concise Fact Sheet: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf.
If you're expecting me to let loose with a diatribe about why you should oppose the death penalty, you're out of luck. I've given you the facts...now you draw your own conclusions, as I did.
The main point of this entry is to encourage everyone to remember that "when dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic; we are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bustling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity." (Dale Carnegie).
Bottom line: Don't be a fanatic; do your own research; and, most importantly, never be afraid or too proud to change your mind.
Thoughts?
Your folly affects my Folly...
Today's theme: Responsible Citizenship.
While browsing Charleston.net to get my daily fix of the Newsless Courier, I stumbled upon a commentary regarding the utter disastrous state in which folks left Folly Beach after the July 4th festivities. (Source: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jul/08/litterers_have_done_this_time88468/)
I echo the sentiments of the commentary's author, especially the part that lays blame where it belongs--with the irresponsible, local citizenry...not the out-of-towners. Sure, there were no doubt some people "from off" who contributed to the mess, but it's the unwritten duty of a proud local and responsible citizen to call out these individuals when they forget they're in Rome. But, having lived in Charleston my entire life--and having lived part of that time on Folly--I can comfortably say the blame lies with those who call Charleston home. My question, however, is who the hell are these people? More importantly, how arduous a task is it to clean up after yourself on a public beach when you know that littering is environmentally irresponsible and morally reprehensible? You are not an inherently bad person if you litter. You are, however, an irresponsible citizen who seems to have forgotten how to "act right" as a member of your community.
What is most upsetting to me about this whole situation is the fact that so many people used our nation's birthday as an excuse to trash a perfectly beautiful piece of it. Ironic? Perhaps. Ignorant? Definitely.
Thoughts?
While browsing Charleston.net to get my daily fix of the Newsless Courier, I stumbled upon a commentary regarding the utter disastrous state in which folks left Folly Beach after the July 4th festivities. (Source: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jul/08/litterers_have_done_this_time88468/)
I echo the sentiments of the commentary's author, especially the part that lays blame where it belongs--with the irresponsible, local citizenry...not the out-of-towners. Sure, there were no doubt some people "from off" who contributed to the mess, but it's the unwritten duty of a proud local and responsible citizen to call out these individuals when they forget they're in Rome. But, having lived in Charleston my entire life--and having lived part of that time on Folly--I can comfortably say the blame lies with those who call Charleston home. My question, however, is who the hell are these people? More importantly, how arduous a task is it to clean up after yourself on a public beach when you know that littering is environmentally irresponsible and morally reprehensible? You are not an inherently bad person if you litter. You are, however, an irresponsible citizen who seems to have forgotten how to "act right" as a member of your community.
What is most upsetting to me about this whole situation is the fact that so many people used our nation's birthday as an excuse to trash a perfectly beautiful piece of it. Ironic? Perhaps. Ignorant? Definitely.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
My first post...
Today, as I was driving (yes, my CARTA pass expired a few days ago) into town to complete my research in the library, I heard some comments on the radio about President Obama's trip to Russia. I did some basic online searching and discovered the president made the following comment: "The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground." (Source: http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1908976,00.html?xid=rss-quotes).
Today's lesson: What many news organizations left out was the second portion of Obama's sentence. Thus, the entire statement reads as such:
"The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground; the future belongs to young people with an education and the imagination to create. That is the source of power in this century. And given all that has happened in your two decades on Earth, just imagine what you can create in the years to come." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/europe/07prexy.text.html?pagewanted=6)
I disagree with the first portion of Obama's statement, since it is evident the future has, indeed, belonged to those who gathered armies on a field of battle and harbored (even buried) weapons. I submit the American Revolution (yes, that wonderful beer-filled holiday from which many of us are still recovering) is an example of a people taking up arms against an oppressive force. Now, military might is but one necessary piece of the puzzle; of course, education and imagination are the other necessary pieces. However, education and imagination alone would not have been sufficient to free us from the fetters of King George III. In fact, they were not sufficient. You will recall from your junior high days the multiple peaceful and non-violent means utilized in an attempt to secure more rights. Below is a summary (Source: Wikipedia.com; the information is also available in myriad secondary sources available online...in the event you are, rightfully, skeptical of Wikipedia.com):
"The revolutionary era began in 1763, when the French military threat to British North American colonies ended. Adopting the policy that the colonies should pay an increased proportion of the costs associated with keeping them in the Empire, Britain imposed a series of taxes followed by other laws intended to demonstrate British authority that proved extremely unpopular. Because the colonies lacked elected representation in the governing British Parliament many colonists considered the laws to be illegitimate and a violation of their rights as Englishmen. Additionally, British mercantilist policies benefiting the home country resulted in trade restrictions, which limited the growth of the American economy and artificially constrained colonial merchants' earning potential. In 1772, Patriot groups began to create committees of correspondence, which would lead to their own Provincial Congress in most of the colonies. In the course of two years, the Provincial Congresses or their equivalents rejected the Parliament and effectively replaced the British ruling apparatus in the former colonies, culminating in 1774 with the unifying First Continental Congress.
In response to Patriot protests in Boston over Parliament's attempts to assert authority, the British sent combat troops. Consequently, the colonies mobilized their militias, and fighting broke out in 1775. First ostensibly loyal to King George III, Congress' repeated pleas for royal intervention with Parliament on their behalf only resulted in the states being declared "in rebellion", and Congress traitors. In 1776, representatives from each of the original thirteen independent states voted unanimously to adopt a Declaration of Independence, which now rejected the British monarchy in addition to its Parliament. The Declaration established the United States, which was originally governed as a loose confederation through a representative government selected by state legislatures (see Second Continental Congress).
The Americans formed an alliance with France in 1778 that evened the military and naval strengths, later bringing Spain and the Dutch Republic into the conflict by their own alliance with France. Although Loyalists were estimated to comprise 15-20% of the population,[2] throughout the war the Patriots generally controlled 80-90% of the territory; the British could hold only a few coastal cities for any extended period of time. Two main British armies surrendered to the Continental Army, at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781, amounting to victory in the war for the United States. The Second Continental Congress transitioned to the Congress of the Confederation with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation earlier in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 was ratified by this new national government, and ended British claims to any of the thirteen states."
So, you see, education and imagination may not always be enough to effect the necessary change required to live free in the future. The American colonists were relunctant to fight the world's most powerful sovereign; however, sometimes the future must be secured by force.
In conclusion, I would respectfully submit that the victor, who sits atop his secured and sturdy palace, is always in the best position to preach peace to the world. But, don't let those history lessons you learned collect dust in the dark corners of your mind. In the end, you should be able to appreciate the president's desire for a future where armies and buried weapons don't dictate the course of human events. You also should be able to recognize that the reason he enjoys the position of authority he does is because, over 200 years ago, a tired and oppressed group of individuals decided that intellect and imagination, alone, were insufficient to build their future.
Thoughts?
Today's lesson: What many news organizations left out was the second portion of Obama's sentence. Thus, the entire statement reads as such:
"The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground; the future belongs to young people with an education and the imagination to create. That is the source of power in this century. And given all that has happened in your two decades on Earth, just imagine what you can create in the years to come." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/europe/07prexy.text.html?pagewanted=6)
I disagree with the first portion of Obama's statement, since it is evident the future has, indeed, belonged to those who gathered armies on a field of battle and harbored (even buried) weapons. I submit the American Revolution (yes, that wonderful beer-filled holiday from which many of us are still recovering) is an example of a people taking up arms against an oppressive force. Now, military might is but one necessary piece of the puzzle; of course, education and imagination are the other necessary pieces. However, education and imagination alone would not have been sufficient to free us from the fetters of King George III. In fact, they were not sufficient. You will recall from your junior high days the multiple peaceful and non-violent means utilized in an attempt to secure more rights. Below is a summary (Source: Wikipedia.com; the information is also available in myriad secondary sources available online...in the event you are, rightfully, skeptical of Wikipedia.com):
"The revolutionary era began in 1763, when the French military threat to British North American colonies ended. Adopting the policy that the colonies should pay an increased proportion of the costs associated with keeping them in the Empire, Britain imposed a series of taxes followed by other laws intended to demonstrate British authority that proved extremely unpopular. Because the colonies lacked elected representation in the governing British Parliament many colonists considered the laws to be illegitimate and a violation of their rights as Englishmen. Additionally, British mercantilist policies benefiting the home country resulted in trade restrictions, which limited the growth of the American economy and artificially constrained colonial merchants' earning potential. In 1772, Patriot groups began to create committees of correspondence, which would lead to their own Provincial Congress in most of the colonies. In the course of two years, the Provincial Congresses or their equivalents rejected the Parliament and effectively replaced the British ruling apparatus in the former colonies, culminating in 1774 with the unifying First Continental Congress.
In response to Patriot protests in Boston over Parliament's attempts to assert authority, the British sent combat troops. Consequently, the colonies mobilized their militias, and fighting broke out in 1775. First ostensibly loyal to King George III, Congress' repeated pleas for royal intervention with Parliament on their behalf only resulted in the states being declared "in rebellion", and Congress traitors. In 1776, representatives from each of the original thirteen independent states voted unanimously to adopt a Declaration of Independence, which now rejected the British monarchy in addition to its Parliament. The Declaration established the United States, which was originally governed as a loose confederation through a representative government selected by state legislatures (see Second Continental Congress).
The Americans formed an alliance with France in 1778 that evened the military and naval strengths, later bringing Spain and the Dutch Republic into the conflict by their own alliance with France. Although Loyalists were estimated to comprise 15-20% of the population,[2] throughout the war the Patriots generally controlled 80-90% of the territory; the British could hold only a few coastal cities for any extended period of time. Two main British armies surrendered to the Continental Army, at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781, amounting to victory in the war for the United States. The Second Continental Congress transitioned to the Congress of the Confederation with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation earlier in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 was ratified by this new national government, and ended British claims to any of the thirteen states."
So, you see, education and imagination may not always be enough to effect the necessary change required to live free in the future. The American colonists were relunctant to fight the world's most powerful sovereign; however, sometimes the future must be secured by force.
In conclusion, I would respectfully submit that the victor, who sits atop his secured and sturdy palace, is always in the best position to preach peace to the world. But, don't let those history lessons you learned collect dust in the dark corners of your mind. In the end, you should be able to appreciate the president's desire for a future where armies and buried weapons don't dictate the course of human events. You also should be able to recognize that the reason he enjoys the position of authority he does is because, over 200 years ago, a tired and oppressed group of individuals decided that intellect and imagination, alone, were insufficient to build their future.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)