http://www.npr.org/2012/07/30/157604072/ever-growing-past-confounds-history-teachers?utm_source=fp&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120731
Since most of the stuff I have been publishing of late has been of a political nature, here are my thoughts on a interesting news story I heard on NPR. History and Education are both things we are to cover according to our subtitle, so here we go.
Two camps form when it comes to when you should start studying recent history. I fall into the camp of waiting, but there is a point that the market can be saturated with information. Take the Civil War, and World War II for examples. There are only so many BAND OF BROTHERS or different aspects of the Civil War you can cover. Yes sometimes you can stumble onto some neat off the wall aspects of Confederate Army strategy, but still. To make matters worse, so many people write simply about wars. You would think, by looking at the history section of a Barnes and Noble, that all there was to history was war. Thus we history teachers, have to be as excited about the mass distraction of humans lives as possible. Hello, there are other things to life besides war. Many cultural, political, religious, and social aspects be swept aside to write the 999,999th book about George S. Patton published this year. GEORGE S. PATTON :WARRIOR POET..nah I'll pass. I've got that T-shirt. The Battle for The Lost State of Franklin..now there is a book I want to read.
I argue that there needs to be a reasonable time for the event to fester..for lack of a better word...or mellow. Look at 9/11. Most of the books that came out right after the attacks were narratives of the events and hastily put together information about the war on terror. These are good, and they are going to be great for historians down the road, but they aren't great from a teaching point of view. Often times these accounts are biased towards a particular view point (do you think anyone said "gee I feel sorry for those terrorist" in a book published in October of 2011? nor should they). Bias are easy to see when you read about new events too in the idea that people become more important than they really were. Take FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS for example. Those men were not apart of the original raising, but they are the ones that got to go home. Time cools the tempers and ices the hot. Richard Nixon isn't all bad in 2012, but he was in 1980.
Secondly, these accounts can sometimes be wrong. People perceive things differently. They remember things incorrectly or they simply lie. If I am at the Selma, Alabama bridge with Martin Luther King, do you think I am going to remember ever detail? What was Dr. King wearing? Personally, I went to the Rally To Restore Sanity And/ Or Fear. I can't remember the order in which the guest came on, but if I had to guess I would say Ozzie Osborne was first. Orders on the battle field get confused, batting orders are reverse. What was said can often times be misheard. ("Did President Lincoln say "I scored seven years ago?"" someone was overheard saying at Gettysburg) Facts like these need to be ironed out before we teachers going go spouting them off as truths. What we say sticks..sometimes.. and it best had be right. It is the least we own them
Finally, time weeds out what is important and what is not. Woodstock was just a music festival three weeks after it happened. Hank Arron's 755th homerun was a big deal at the time, but he's second on the list now. "That'll never be reached" many a Braves fan said. Both events are important to us today, but they have different histories as to how they became important. We all have events that we say we will remember where we were when they happened, but how many people remember where they were when OJ was acquitted? I think I was in band class and RNR, but I cannot recall exactly. I do remember saying "Gosh I had better remember this." The even was important enough at the time, but it isn't enough for me to remember where I was.
From a teachers point of view I have this to say:
When teaching history, you only have a small amount of time to cover a lot of information. You need that information to be as accurate and un-biased as possible. There are certain things that are not open for debate in the history world...The Rally To Restore Sanity took place on October 31st, Jackie Robinson broke into the majors on April 15th 1947. That goes without saying, and that is what you have to teach your students. Yes, there is room for teaching them the historical significance, and both sides of issues, but that cannot be done without some time to develop. Take the death of Osbama Bin Lauden. We all understand it to be something that will end up in the history books. What we do not know is just how much of an effect on history it will have. People 50 years from now will.
Time and sunshine are the best disinfectant. We are able to see things more clearly, accurately, and better able to teach our students. There is plenty of history that falls between the cushions that we today can be studying. We understand that events today are important, but I contend we study what we don't know fully about before we go adding to your slate.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
It Say It Enough And Click Your Ruby Slippers It's True
I guess if you say it enough then it is true. I think she could work in a few more "anti-Americas"
It'd blow her mind that now less the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin were all considered "liberal". More than a few folks even called them 'radicals.
This is what makes me the maddest. These are the people we are electing to hold positions of power.
Watch the videos at the bottom of this webpage. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative. They are bound to make you mad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/tom-coburn-harry-reid_n_1722821.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular#slide=more240836
It'd blow her mind that now less the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin were all considered "liberal". More than a few folks even called them 'radicals.
This is what makes me the maddest. These are the people we are electing to hold positions of power.
Watch the videos at the bottom of this webpage. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative. They are bound to make you mad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/tom-coburn-harry-reid_n_1722821.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular#slide=more240836
Why Boring People Don't Get Into Politics
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201208/mitt-romney-vice-president-gq-july-2012?currentPage=1
I have written in the past about the politics of scandal, and the Palin vetting debacle, but this article from GQ takes me to the cleaners. As I read it though, I couldn't help but ask why we need such serious scrutiny for the Vice Presidential candidate? Why not the President? Geeze, if some of these candidates had had to answer these questions, we might have been stuck with W., or even Clinton.
The conclusion I came to was that the VP resonates some form of hope in the future. Too idealistic? How about the idea that we could potentially be dealing with this guy for the next 16 years. If (though recent treads have shied away from this) the VP stays for a two term Presidency and is elected for two terms? That totals nearly two decades of influence in the American political system. Granted that has not been the case in recent times, it could happen. I can think of only one title in the government that carries a longer term and that is Supreme Court Justice. So getting the VP right is a big deal. Parties need to take it seriously.
So, the VP vetting needs to be a serious endeavor, but what I continue to wonder about is the focus on the personal aspects rather than the public. If the VP could be influencing the American agenda for two decades should we not be worried more about his stances on foreign policy and economics and not whether he has paid for sex? Even though the scandal filled Clinton administration is a shining example of scandal over substance, there is still a case for my argument and her name is Sarah Palin (you know they little girl from Alaska who can see Russia from her house) Think about if McCain had been elected. I would argue that he would have won a second term, as I predict Obama will, then comes little Sarah's time to shine. She certainly had the charisma and the flash to be noticed. She was a good campaigner and connected with the people, so it is plausible that she wins. Think too about the state of the Democratic party if they don't get President Obama in...who would they have in 2012 that could stop the Republican freight train? Those factors could have lead to the leader of the free world not knowing the difference between North and South Korea.
I would argue that the vetting process needs to be extensive. The Vice Presidency is an important office with the serious potential of major influence for a considerable amount of time. Even with the vetting process as extensive as it is, there still needs to be careful consideration by the candidate, which is another argument for another day.
I have written in the past about the politics of scandal, and the Palin vetting debacle, but this article from GQ takes me to the cleaners. As I read it though, I couldn't help but ask why we need such serious scrutiny for the Vice Presidential candidate? Why not the President? Geeze, if some of these candidates had had to answer these questions, we might have been stuck with W., or even Clinton.
The conclusion I came to was that the VP resonates some form of hope in the future. Too idealistic? How about the idea that we could potentially be dealing with this guy for the next 16 years. If (though recent treads have shied away from this) the VP stays for a two term Presidency and is elected for two terms? That totals nearly two decades of influence in the American political system. Granted that has not been the case in recent times, it could happen. I can think of only one title in the government that carries a longer term and that is Supreme Court Justice. So getting the VP right is a big deal. Parties need to take it seriously.
So, the VP vetting needs to be a serious endeavor, but what I continue to wonder about is the focus on the personal aspects rather than the public. If the VP could be influencing the American agenda for two decades should we not be worried more about his stances on foreign policy and economics and not whether he has paid for sex? Even though the scandal filled Clinton administration is a shining example of scandal over substance, there is still a case for my argument and her name is Sarah Palin (you know they little girl from Alaska who can see Russia from her house) Think about if McCain had been elected. I would argue that he would have won a second term, as I predict Obama will, then comes little Sarah's time to shine. She certainly had the charisma and the flash to be noticed. She was a good campaigner and connected with the people, so it is plausible that she wins. Think too about the state of the Democratic party if they don't get President Obama in...who would they have in 2012 that could stop the Republican freight train? Those factors could have lead to the leader of the free world not knowing the difference between North and South Korea.
I would argue that the vetting process needs to be extensive. The Vice Presidency is an important office with the serious potential of major influence for a considerable amount of time. Even with the vetting process as extensive as it is, there still needs to be careful consideration by the candidate, which is another argument for another day.
Monday, July 30, 2012
It's Hard To Be Humble When You're From Kingsport
As my granddaddy used to say..If an outhouse in Baghdad blew up, someone from Kingsport would be in it.
Painting of Kingsport Native Ends Up In The Halls Of The Pentagon
Painting of Kingsport Native Ends Up In The Halls Of The Pentagon
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Movie Review: So Goes The Nation
Today, I am watching the documentary SO GOES THE NATION about the 2004 election in Ohio looking for bits that I can use in my class this fall. As I am watching this I decided to try something new. In the past I have watched movies or documentaries through first, then commented on them. Today I am going to hit the pause button on the DVD and comment as I go. It's worth a try, and it's new so here we go.
To open, the film talks about how Ohio was identified early on as THE state that could make or break the election for both candidate. A soft economy and the states unusually high military population would effect voters and the key issues of the day...hmm, sound familiar?
The first fifteen minutes or so have set the stage for the 04 election. The Republicans had won the '00 election by sear turn out, and the Democrats where left shaking their head. Much of that argument I disagree with though the numbers tell the whole story. More Republicans did turn out to vote in the '00 election, but I think that it had more to do with the candidates and the political climate in out country than it did anything else. When the people are not happy, they vote. It's the American way. So many people wanted anything but the Clintons (for which Al Gore stood) that they would have voted for a sway backed mule rather than vote for a Democrat.
The documentary shifts gears a bit and talks about the candidates themselves. They focus on how John Kerry refused to fight back when attacked about his war record. One of the things that surprised me was the fact that Kerry had in place (from previous Senatorial campaigns) a plan or set of retorts to these attacks but refused to use them. If you where to watch this segment alone you would hear Democrats pretty bluntly say that the only thing that cost them the '04 election was John Kerry. He simply refused to make an issue out of the negative parts of his service and focused on the good.
Part of this is true, but much of it stemmed from the use of media by the Republicans. Much of Kerry's problems started on the appropriation bill that would ultimately fund the Iraq war. Kerry came out and said blatantly " I voted for that bill before I voted against it." One Republican strategist even says in the documentary " We set the bait on the trap, and he took it." Even as Kerry was uttering his defense for voting against the bill, Republicans were creating an ad that used that quote to prove Kerry was a "flip flopper." Thus the image of Kerry was tarnished and Bush was able to capitalize on the fact that at least the people knew what he stood for. Right or wrong ole Bushy stands. This strategy worked and kept Kerry on the ropes for the rest of the campaign
In the middle of this segment, there are clips from the Republican National Convention giving quotes from Republicans lambasting Kerry for changing his votes and not knowing what he stood for. One such participant was the Republican's own Mitt Romney who has himself faced the "flip flopper" label in his campaign for the White House in '12. Just an interesting piece of history coming back to bite you in the ass that I wanted to point out.
After the candidates are highlighted they go back to voter turn out and the efforts of the Democrats to get people out for the vote. There is a scene where a set of celebrities are brought in from their Hollywood ivory towers to be among the commoners. A campaign worker is briefing them on what to say if the issue where a person can vote comes up. The worker tells the celebrities 'They have to go where they are registered." One of the political-know-it-alls from Hollywood says 'They do?" Honey even my 8th graders know you have to vote where you are registered. Otherwise you could vote three or four times in different places. Just goes to show you that politics and movie start don't always go together....cough Ronald Reagan cough cough
The film shifts back to voter turn out and the different efforts to pursue and motivate voters. This election was the first for which 527 groups had a major role in the grassroots campaign to win voters. Going into this election, and one of the campaign managers admits the Republican knew they had an uphill battle. Democrats in the '00 election had out canvased and won that battle on the ground. Knowing this Republicans stepped up their efforts and it could be said won that battle which helped carry the war. Part of this was due to a lack of coordination by the Democrats between 527s and the national campaign.
For a brief few scenes the film focuses on the issue of provisional ballots and the states Secretary of State not allowing them. As I watched this, I gathered that even before that issue was decided, the Democrats had already conceded that portion of the ballot to Bush
Annnd then, as if switching on a light, Religion comes out of nowhere to take the lead. Much of the way the Bush campaign won this battle was the fact that they made divisive issues the key element of attack against Kerry. Kerry was portrayed as a liberal who was going to bring about a wave of destruction to the Christian-American way of life. Conservatives came out of the woodwork to make sure this ultra-liberal, gay loving Democrat did not win. Was this fair? I don't think so, and during the course of an interview a Bush campaign manager even admitted that. I have long been a fan of leaving moral and religious values out of politics. It is not good for the country and it certainly is a zero-sum game. No one wins, when you have people's morals on the line.
Suddenly....out of the corner of the screen you see it...your not sure what it is, but you see it...you know that isn't supposed to be there but it is..."what is that?" That's right. It's the terrorist card coming in to effect the campaign with a vengeance. This is the one issue, along with the religion card, where the Bush campaign just smoked the Kerry troops. Bush wasn't able to campaign on his domestic record. He knew that going into the race, so along with the moral issues he brings in the terrorist for a full scale on slot to tear apart Kerry. Through carefully designed media adds, Bush brought back the fear and terror we felt after 9/11. Now I am not a big fan of this strategy and I really don't like it being used against me but it worked in '04 just like it works today. Simply put, Bush made people scared, then soothed them to sleep with his determination to get the bastards that attacked us. This portion of the campaign came at just the right time for the Bush ticket and they knew it would be the coup'de'tet. It was simply good campaign strategy..Enough said
Ok. The blow by blow is getting a little old so I am going to wrap up by saying SO GOES THE NATION is a great little film that discusses the '04 election. It provides a great insight on how people are elected, and shows very accurately how we got stuck with Bush for four extra years. If you really want to the nitty gritty, point by point, issue by issue coverage of the '04 election this is the film. Sadly, it could be picked up boilerplate, and put on the '08 and '12 election. It would be pretty close.
To open, the film talks about how Ohio was identified early on as THE state that could make or break the election for both candidate. A soft economy and the states unusually high military population would effect voters and the key issues of the day...hmm, sound familiar?
The first fifteen minutes or so have set the stage for the 04 election. The Republicans had won the '00 election by sear turn out, and the Democrats where left shaking their head. Much of that argument I disagree with though the numbers tell the whole story. More Republicans did turn out to vote in the '00 election, but I think that it had more to do with the candidates and the political climate in out country than it did anything else. When the people are not happy, they vote. It's the American way. So many people wanted anything but the Clintons (for which Al Gore stood) that they would have voted for a sway backed mule rather than vote for a Democrat.
The documentary shifts gears a bit and talks about the candidates themselves. They focus on how John Kerry refused to fight back when attacked about his war record. One of the things that surprised me was the fact that Kerry had in place (from previous Senatorial campaigns) a plan or set of retorts to these attacks but refused to use them. If you where to watch this segment alone you would hear Democrats pretty bluntly say that the only thing that cost them the '04 election was John Kerry. He simply refused to make an issue out of the negative parts of his service and focused on the good.
Part of this is true, but much of it stemmed from the use of media by the Republicans. Much of Kerry's problems started on the appropriation bill that would ultimately fund the Iraq war. Kerry came out and said blatantly " I voted for that bill before I voted against it." One Republican strategist even says in the documentary " We set the bait on the trap, and he took it." Even as Kerry was uttering his defense for voting against the bill, Republicans were creating an ad that used that quote to prove Kerry was a "flip flopper." Thus the image of Kerry was tarnished and Bush was able to capitalize on the fact that at least the people knew what he stood for. Right or wrong ole Bushy stands. This strategy worked and kept Kerry on the ropes for the rest of the campaign
In the middle of this segment, there are clips from the Republican National Convention giving quotes from Republicans lambasting Kerry for changing his votes and not knowing what he stood for. One such participant was the Republican's own Mitt Romney who has himself faced the "flip flopper" label in his campaign for the White House in '12. Just an interesting piece of history coming back to bite you in the ass that I wanted to point out.
After the candidates are highlighted they go back to voter turn out and the efforts of the Democrats to get people out for the vote. There is a scene where a set of celebrities are brought in from their Hollywood ivory towers to be among the commoners. A campaign worker is briefing them on what to say if the issue where a person can vote comes up. The worker tells the celebrities 'They have to go where they are registered." One of the political-know-it-alls from Hollywood says 'They do?" Honey even my 8th graders know you have to vote where you are registered. Otherwise you could vote three or four times in different places. Just goes to show you that politics and movie start don't always go together....cough Ronald Reagan cough cough
The film shifts back to voter turn out and the different efforts to pursue and motivate voters. This election was the first for which 527 groups had a major role in the grassroots campaign to win voters. Going into this election, and one of the campaign managers admits the Republican knew they had an uphill battle. Democrats in the '00 election had out canvased and won that battle on the ground. Knowing this Republicans stepped up their efforts and it could be said won that battle which helped carry the war. Part of this was due to a lack of coordination by the Democrats between 527s and the national campaign.
For a brief few scenes the film focuses on the issue of provisional ballots and the states Secretary of State not allowing them. As I watched this, I gathered that even before that issue was decided, the Democrats had already conceded that portion of the ballot to Bush
Annnd then, as if switching on a light, Religion comes out of nowhere to take the lead. Much of the way the Bush campaign won this battle was the fact that they made divisive issues the key element of attack against Kerry. Kerry was portrayed as a liberal who was going to bring about a wave of destruction to the Christian-American way of life. Conservatives came out of the woodwork to make sure this ultra-liberal, gay loving Democrat did not win. Was this fair? I don't think so, and during the course of an interview a Bush campaign manager even admitted that. I have long been a fan of leaving moral and religious values out of politics. It is not good for the country and it certainly is a zero-sum game. No one wins, when you have people's morals on the line.
Suddenly....out of the corner of the screen you see it...your not sure what it is, but you see it...you know that isn't supposed to be there but it is..."what is that?" That's right. It's the terrorist card coming in to effect the campaign with a vengeance. This is the one issue, along with the religion card, where the Bush campaign just smoked the Kerry troops. Bush wasn't able to campaign on his domestic record. He knew that going into the race, so along with the moral issues he brings in the terrorist for a full scale on slot to tear apart Kerry. Through carefully designed media adds, Bush brought back the fear and terror we felt after 9/11. Now I am not a big fan of this strategy and I really don't like it being used against me but it worked in '04 just like it works today. Simply put, Bush made people scared, then soothed them to sleep with his determination to get the bastards that attacked us. This portion of the campaign came at just the right time for the Bush ticket and they knew it would be the coup'de'tet. It was simply good campaign strategy..Enough said
Ok. The blow by blow is getting a little old so I am going to wrap up by saying SO GOES THE NATION is a great little film that discusses the '04 election. It provides a great insight on how people are elected, and shows very accurately how we got stuck with Bush for four extra years. If you really want to the nitty gritty, point by point, issue by issue coverage of the '04 election this is the film. Sadly, it could be picked up boilerplate, and put on the '08 and '12 election. It would be pretty close.
Thought v. Action
http://www.allproudamericans.com/woman-protects-her-privacy-by-any-means-necessary.html
The above news spot talks about a woman in Texas who pulled a gun on a public service employee over the installation of a power meter. She invokes the Constitution in her defense of private property, but I have to disagree. As always there is two sides of every argument and when you bring the Constitution, The Bible, or any other governing document there will be. One person wants to use a particular part of the Old Testament to condemn behavior while others use the New Testament to condone that action. Liberals use a more rhetorical interpretation of the Constitution where Conservatives don't. This issues whoever, in my eyes, is a case where a person want their cake and to eat it too.
Understandably this is not a black and white issue, but at its simplest form it is. I see this case as battle between thought and action. Neither is better, neither is worse. The homeowner wants to use action (pulling a gun) to solve her problems rather than thought (The Constitution). Yes, her action is backed up by thought, but over-arching principle at play is action. Action over thought is a plausible solution to many problems. My hand is burning, I pull it out of the fire. My Congressman sits by and lets a major bill pass that hurts me, I vote him out. If our society had no laws (say no Constitution), and we could do what we wanted, the homeowner would probably be given a medal, but she might be hung for pulling a gun too. She'd not have a Constitution to fall back on.
The problem lies in the fact that the homeowner is using the Constitution incorrectly, thus her actions (supported by thought) are fallible. The Constitution gives us the right to bare arms..for a militia..and it gives us the right to private property...from the government...No government agency was involved (that I know of) in placing the power meters on the house in question, thus she has no right to defend herself with a gun. Seem too simple..it is.. Scratching your head yet? Both parties are at fault
The action of the power company employee were illegal. The employee trespassed on private property, thus he should be punished under due process of the law (also in the Constitution). The homeowner is guilty of pulling a gun in an unlawful (or at least Unconstitutional) manner. Still with me? Let's take this instance apart and see if that helps
Case One
I have NO TRESPASSING signs all over my house. Someone unconstitutionally breaks in my house. I have no gun. They take my TV and my beer bottle collection. What are they guilty of? Trespassing and burglary. This is the same thing the power company employee did. This employee trespassed, and you could say was going to take away someone's property.
Case Two.
I am sitting on my front porch. I see an Alabama fan wearing a Bear Bryant hat walking down the street. I hate Bear Bryant and I pull a Constitutionally protected gun on the person. What am I guilty of? Depending on where you live it could be endangering the life of a citizen, or something like creating a public disturbance. This is what the homeowner is guilty of. This isn't a lawless society and that Bama fan is due their unalienable right to life.
The case at hand is a combining of both of these cases. All points are covered under the Constitution, but they were put together improperly by someone who lacks a sound understanding of the Constitution.
What gets me is when people try to use the Constitution. It is not a one size fits your needs document. In many cases it will even rule against you when you try to use it incorrectly. Of course you have the right to private property. The homeowner was within her rights to not want someone on her property. She was even within her rights to have a gun. At the same time she has no right to pull a gun on someone. She let action win the battle between thought on an incorrect assumption. What should have taken place was the police were called, the power company employee arrested, and then the power company sued over invasion of privacy or even plain ole trespassing. We have laws in place for this very reason, and they have been carefully thought out. The legal system is where thought beats action, so my question to the homeowner would be: Who do you have to face in court? A judge, and the judge uses thoughts to governed his actions.
If this homeowner does not like the fact that she is at fault too, she can write her Congressman (which is elected by rules laid out in the???? You guessed it Constitution) and see if he cannot pass a law (for which must be ruled Constitutional by the??? Supreme Court. That same Supreme Court is appointed by rules laid out in the Constitution..Ok I have carried this side conversation on too long) The homeowner in question simply allowed action to rule over thought, which is something I would argue (at least in this case) was not a good idea. We have a system in place that is designed to handle this very problem. It's time more people realized that instead of taking the law into their own hands.
The above news spot talks about a woman in Texas who pulled a gun on a public service employee over the installation of a power meter. She invokes the Constitution in her defense of private property, but I have to disagree. As always there is two sides of every argument and when you bring the Constitution, The Bible, or any other governing document there will be. One person wants to use a particular part of the Old Testament to condemn behavior while others use the New Testament to condone that action. Liberals use a more rhetorical interpretation of the Constitution where Conservatives don't. This issues whoever, in my eyes, is a case where a person want their cake and to eat it too.
Understandably this is not a black and white issue, but at its simplest form it is. I see this case as battle between thought and action. Neither is better, neither is worse. The homeowner wants to use action (pulling a gun) to solve her problems rather than thought (The Constitution). Yes, her action is backed up by thought, but over-arching principle at play is action. Action over thought is a plausible solution to many problems. My hand is burning, I pull it out of the fire. My Congressman sits by and lets a major bill pass that hurts me, I vote him out. If our society had no laws (say no Constitution), and we could do what we wanted, the homeowner would probably be given a medal, but she might be hung for pulling a gun too. She'd not have a Constitution to fall back on.
The problem lies in the fact that the homeowner is using the Constitution incorrectly, thus her actions (supported by thought) are fallible. The Constitution gives us the right to bare arms..for a militia..and it gives us the right to private property...from the government...No government agency was involved (that I know of) in placing the power meters on the house in question, thus she has no right to defend herself with a gun. Seem too simple..it is.. Scratching your head yet? Both parties are at fault
The action of the power company employee were illegal. The employee trespassed on private property, thus he should be punished under due process of the law (also in the Constitution). The homeowner is guilty of pulling a gun in an unlawful (or at least Unconstitutional) manner. Still with me? Let's take this instance apart and see if that helps
Case One
I have NO TRESPASSING signs all over my house. Someone unconstitutionally breaks in my house. I have no gun. They take my TV and my beer bottle collection. What are they guilty of? Trespassing and burglary. This is the same thing the power company employee did. This employee trespassed, and you could say was going to take away someone's property.
Case Two.
I am sitting on my front porch. I see an Alabama fan wearing a Bear Bryant hat walking down the street. I hate Bear Bryant and I pull a Constitutionally protected gun on the person. What am I guilty of? Depending on where you live it could be endangering the life of a citizen, or something like creating a public disturbance. This is what the homeowner is guilty of. This isn't a lawless society and that Bama fan is due their unalienable right to life.
The case at hand is a combining of both of these cases. All points are covered under the Constitution, but they were put together improperly by someone who lacks a sound understanding of the Constitution.
What gets me is when people try to use the Constitution. It is not a one size fits your needs document. In many cases it will even rule against you when you try to use it incorrectly. Of course you have the right to private property. The homeowner was within her rights to not want someone on her property. She was even within her rights to have a gun. At the same time she has no right to pull a gun on someone. She let action win the battle between thought on an incorrect assumption. What should have taken place was the police were called, the power company employee arrested, and then the power company sued over invasion of privacy or even plain ole trespassing. We have laws in place for this very reason, and they have been carefully thought out. The legal system is where thought beats action, so my question to the homeowner would be: Who do you have to face in court? A judge, and the judge uses thoughts to governed his actions.
If this homeowner does not like the fact that she is at fault too, she can write her Congressman (which is elected by rules laid out in the???? You guessed it Constitution) and see if he cannot pass a law (for which must be ruled Constitutional by the??? Supreme Court. That same Supreme Court is appointed by rules laid out in the Constitution..Ok I have carried this side conversation on too long) The homeowner in question simply allowed action to rule over thought, which is something I would argue (at least in this case) was not a good idea. We have a system in place that is designed to handle this very problem. It's time more people realized that instead of taking the law into their own hands.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Have You Given Any Thought To Your Future?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/british-media-hammer-romney-olympic-comments-103800909.html
I was listening to Sean Hannity on the way to the ballgame last night hoping for some grist for the mill. The show was not a disappointment, and neither was today's coverage of Romney's tour of England.
Hannity had a guest on that was obviously pro-Obama, and was just lambasting her. From what I gathered, this lady was a frequent caller and even the mother of Hannity's nephews. I'm not sure of the details, but what I am sure of was Hannity's faith in the Romney Presidency. I tuned in as the question "Well what is Mitt Romney going to do about the economy?" Hannity listed off 5 or 6 proposals that dealt with the economy. Between Hannity's incessant stuttering (have you noticed that all these radio people have a stutter? Real professional right? I think it is forced to draw out what they are going to say and fill time), I gathered that Romney was fixing the economy in the first year of his term. Great, except for one thing. It is not that simple. Anyone who is in their right mind has..has..has to..to..to understand that...that..the President cannot get done everything he says he is going to. I have said this time and time again that there is a tight line walked by any President of any party. Obama promised the moon, the stars, and a bag of potato chips. To quote Pink Floyd "I'm still waiting!"
All of this lead me to wonder if Hannity, and all of the conservatives have given anything thought to their future in regards to defending President Romney? I think if they had, they might seriously reconsider him all together. Insidently, I would have written the same thing about John Kerry if I can been writting a political blog when he was running. Should Romney be elected, what all we he get himself into? He's already pissed off one of our major allies with his comments about the London Olympics. What else might he say? What else might he do? I shudder to think about the increase in volume from Hannity and the gang, when President Romney is not able to push through those 6 things he listed that would be done in the first year. What will they have to defend him with?
The major problem, and President Obama has experienced this, on running against someone's record is winning. It is like the dog who finally catches his tail. Once you are in office, it's your record that is on the blocks. Your actions are going to be seconded guessed. This idea of running as a direct alternative to a candidate is bad for the election process and it is bad for the country. We need to get back to having elections be about the ideas. It needs to be the Republican set of ideals against the Democratic set of ideals (Naive is my middle name btw). Should we ever stop seeing things so black and white, we might actually get a President who gets things done. Why would that President be any better? Because they won't have a Mitt Romney standing in the corner saying "I would do that better." That President would be able to act with the understanding that the American public (or at least the majority) agrees with his ideal, not just what he said on the campaign trail.
There is a certain amount of show biz (for lack of a better term) that goes with elections. I understand that. It is, to some degree, about two people duking it out over their ideas of how they themselves think the country should go. Problems arise,though, when there are jesters in the background who only wave the flag of the king because he is on the throne. Hannity will defend President Romney, and he will do so by blaming any Democrat who stands in Romney's way, just as he (Hannity) has blamed President Obama for not doing anything because the Republicans stand in the President's way. Hannity sees the Republicans blocking President Obama's way as noble figures and carriers of the American way. So goes any party out of power. Their guerrilla tactics are not so bad when they deploy them on a larger force, but when such tactics are used on them it's bloody murder. So I leave you with my only question to Mr. Haninty: Have you given any thought to your future?
I was listening to Sean Hannity on the way to the ballgame last night hoping for some grist for the mill. The show was not a disappointment, and neither was today's coverage of Romney's tour of England.
Hannity had a guest on that was obviously pro-Obama, and was just lambasting her. From what I gathered, this lady was a frequent caller and even the mother of Hannity's nephews. I'm not sure of the details, but what I am sure of was Hannity's faith in the Romney Presidency. I tuned in as the question "Well what is Mitt Romney going to do about the economy?" Hannity listed off 5 or 6 proposals that dealt with the economy. Between Hannity's incessant stuttering (have you noticed that all these radio people have a stutter? Real professional right? I think it is forced to draw out what they are going to say and fill time), I gathered that Romney was fixing the economy in the first year of his term. Great, except for one thing. It is not that simple. Anyone who is in their right mind has..has..has to..to..to understand that...that..the President cannot get done everything he says he is going to. I have said this time and time again that there is a tight line walked by any President of any party. Obama promised the moon, the stars, and a bag of potato chips. To quote Pink Floyd "I'm still waiting!"
All of this lead me to wonder if Hannity, and all of the conservatives have given anything thought to their future in regards to defending President Romney? I think if they had, they might seriously reconsider him all together. Insidently, I would have written the same thing about John Kerry if I can been writting a political blog when he was running. Should Romney be elected, what all we he get himself into? He's already pissed off one of our major allies with his comments about the London Olympics. What else might he say? What else might he do? I shudder to think about the increase in volume from Hannity and the gang, when President Romney is not able to push through those 6 things he listed that would be done in the first year. What will they have to defend him with?
The major problem, and President Obama has experienced this, on running against someone's record is winning. It is like the dog who finally catches his tail. Once you are in office, it's your record that is on the blocks. Your actions are going to be seconded guessed. This idea of running as a direct alternative to a candidate is bad for the election process and it is bad for the country. We need to get back to having elections be about the ideas. It needs to be the Republican set of ideals against the Democratic set of ideals (Naive is my middle name btw). Should we ever stop seeing things so black and white, we might actually get a President who gets things done. Why would that President be any better? Because they won't have a Mitt Romney standing in the corner saying "I would do that better." That President would be able to act with the understanding that the American public (or at least the majority) agrees with his ideal, not just what he said on the campaign trail.
There is a certain amount of show biz (for lack of a better term) that goes with elections. I understand that. It is, to some degree, about two people duking it out over their ideas of how they themselves think the country should go. Problems arise,though, when there are jesters in the background who only wave the flag of the king because he is on the throne. Hannity will defend President Romney, and he will do so by blaming any Democrat who stands in Romney's way, just as he (Hannity) has blamed President Obama for not doing anything because the Republicans stand in the President's way. Hannity sees the Republicans blocking President Obama's way as noble figures and carriers of the American way. So goes any party out of power. Their guerrilla tactics are not so bad when they deploy them on a larger force, but when such tactics are used on them it's bloody murder. So I leave you with my only question to Mr. Haninty: Have you given any thought to your future?
Two For The Price Of One
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/opinion-report-glass-steagall/
If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that a quasi-regular title to posts is WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?!? and today I am announcing the start of a new quasi-regular post SOMETHINGS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Thus today you are going to get a twofer.
There are plenty of things about the banking industry I do not understand. One of these is the hullabaloe around the purposed reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Here is what I understand
The act was passed during the Great Depression as a mean to separate financial banks from public banks. Such measure would prevent the waves of panic that swept through the banking industry from totally engulfing the private sector. (A brief aside: The U.S market is a mixture of the Free and Command Economy- just the public is allowed to follow the whims of the free market, while the Government controls and regulates the financial institutions that operate the markets) In the late 90's and early 00's, Republicans forced the repeal of the act, thus binding the two sectors together. These de-regulations (a favorite term of Republicans) in-turn led to the complex schemes which caused the financial melt down. What I am failing to understand, and what I assume is wrong with this picture is that now, with talk of bringing back the Act becoming a buzz, is why Republicans are opposed to the measure.
Understandably the Republicans want nothing more than to keep the act of the books because it would mean they were wrong in repealing it in the first place. Admitting they are wrong is something Republicans do very well, but it is for the good of the country. Dare our elected officials do anything to benefit the country. Such a naive thought! There is however a benefit to the Republicans getting on board to bring back the law. What could possibly be good about bring back a law that your party repealed? Two words: Political Capital.
If the Republicans were to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, they could claim that they were the party that fixed the economy. Republicans want nothing more to be the party that "Saved The World." So why would they not seek measure to bring the act back? It is good for the country and good for the party. Yes it means more regulations but it also means the market is allowed to operate as it freely as it wished. Yes another of the Republican wet-dreams.
I may not be the quickest mind in the banking world, but when I see a good deal I try to take it. Even though any Republican that votes for the reinstatement of the bill will take his philosophical lumps, he will have all the more political capitol when they stand for re-election as "someone who cares about main street." Maybe I am wrong and I don't understand fully the implications of what I am suggesting, but then again there is something that seems wrong about this picture
If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that a quasi-regular title to posts is WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?!? and today I am announcing the start of a new quasi-regular post SOMETHINGS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Thus today you are going to get a twofer.
There are plenty of things about the banking industry I do not understand. One of these is the hullabaloe around the purposed reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Here is what I understand
The act was passed during the Great Depression as a mean to separate financial banks from public banks. Such measure would prevent the waves of panic that swept through the banking industry from totally engulfing the private sector. (A brief aside: The U.S market is a mixture of the Free and Command Economy- just the public is allowed to follow the whims of the free market, while the Government controls and regulates the financial institutions that operate the markets) In the late 90's and early 00's, Republicans forced the repeal of the act, thus binding the two sectors together. These de-regulations (a favorite term of Republicans) in-turn led to the complex schemes which caused the financial melt down. What I am failing to understand, and what I assume is wrong with this picture is that now, with talk of bringing back the Act becoming a buzz, is why Republicans are opposed to the measure.
Understandably the Republicans want nothing more than to keep the act of the books because it would mean they were wrong in repealing it in the first place. Admitting they are wrong is something Republicans do very well, but it is for the good of the country. Dare our elected officials do anything to benefit the country. Such a naive thought! There is however a benefit to the Republicans getting on board to bring back the law. What could possibly be good about bring back a law that your party repealed? Two words: Political Capital.
If the Republicans were to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, they could claim that they were the party that fixed the economy. Republicans want nothing more to be the party that "Saved The World." So why would they not seek measure to bring the act back? It is good for the country and good for the party. Yes it means more regulations but it also means the market is allowed to operate as it freely as it wished. Yes another of the Republican wet-dreams.
I may not be the quickest mind in the banking world, but when I see a good deal I try to take it. Even though any Republican that votes for the reinstatement of the bill will take his philosophical lumps, he will have all the more political capitol when they stand for re-election as "someone who cares about main street." Maybe I am wrong and I don't understand fully the implications of what I am suggesting, but then again there is something that seems wrong about this picture
Thursday, July 26, 2012
I Couldn't Help Myself
Things have gotten somewhat heavy here at FTPM lately, so I thought I would post about a survey on Facebook from my hometown news source. The question was (to some effect): How do you avoid being struck by lighting? I read all..I mean all...of the responses. They ranged from answers like "I stay inside and stay away from water." to " I pray to my Lord Jesus Christ that I don't get hit until the storm passes." to" I lay flat of the floor and take a nap until the storm passes...and I pray while I'm there." Oh the power of social media folks.
My first thought was that folks actually took that survey seriously?!? There were 60+ responses that read, "get inside" and nearly half had "stay away from water." As I read it I could not help but think of the person who sees that questions and thinks "What do I do to avoid being struck by lighting?" That person would then read all the posts and in their mind, hopefully, formulate the idea that if they stay inside, they won't be struck by lighting. I am afraid, however, that they might get confused about the staying away from water, and the laying down parts. I guess if a bunch of folks get struck by lighting while laying down near water, we'll know it didn't work and the news will have a hot story. The problem there is, they'll turn it into some kind of cult thing.
The best post, or shall I say the post that was the most different was to go where the lighting stuck and stay there. This operated under the precept that lighting never strikes twice in the same place. Sound reasoning. Even surrounded by "I go inside" and "I look like an idiot at work while I lay in the floor praying til the storm passes" this seemed like a monkey speaking Chinese, so I decided to impart my family's secret way of not being struck by lighting. Here is what I posted.
"I don't know about the rest of these folks but I crab a golf club and run around like a mad man. Lighting might be fast but if I run really fast and change directions a lot, it won't get me. Even with the metal golf club I'm safe, because a) I'm running around and b) the golf club has a rubber grip on it. Golfers get stuck because they're standing still or not moving very fast if they are moving. The keys are to move as fast as you can, and change directions"
My first thought was that folks actually took that survey seriously?!? There were 60+ responses that read, "get inside" and nearly half had "stay away from water." As I read it I could not help but think of the person who sees that questions and thinks "What do I do to avoid being struck by lighting?" That person would then read all the posts and in their mind, hopefully, formulate the idea that if they stay inside, they won't be struck by lighting. I am afraid, however, that they might get confused about the staying away from water, and the laying down parts. I guess if a bunch of folks get struck by lighting while laying down near water, we'll know it didn't work and the news will have a hot story. The problem there is, they'll turn it into some kind of cult thing.
The best post, or shall I say the post that was the most different was to go where the lighting stuck and stay there. This operated under the precept that lighting never strikes twice in the same place. Sound reasoning. Even surrounded by "I go inside" and "I look like an idiot at work while I lay in the floor praying til the storm passes" this seemed like a monkey speaking Chinese, so I decided to impart my family's secret way of not being struck by lighting. Here is what I posted.
"I don't know about the rest of these folks but I crab a golf club and run around like a mad man. Lighting might be fast but if I run really fast and change directions a lot, it won't get me. Even with the metal golf club I'm safe, because a) I'm running around and b) the golf club has a rubber grip on it. Golfers get stuck because they're standing still or not moving very fast if they are moving. The keys are to move as fast as you can, and change directions"
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
An Unfortunate Class Of Heroes Has Been Created
http://kitup.military.com/2012/07/regarding-an-armed-citizenry.html
Amendment Two of the United States Constitution states that we shall right to bare arms and keep those guns for an active militia. I have no problems with an armed citizenry, nor do I have a problem with guns, but that is where I stop. While an armed citizenry (as shown in the article) stops shootings far sooner, there begs the question of the chicken and the egg. With tougher purchasing laws on record, would guns be needed to stop a crazy person from shooting into a crowd. Would the heroes listed in the article (not to detract from the hero status) be heroes if the gunman had not started shooting? No. These senseless acts carried out by those who have no good business owning a gun have created an unfortunate class of heroes. I find guns to be a necessity in America for hunting or sport shooting, but the ease of which the criminally insane can obtain a weapon serious a problem.
While guns are effective tools in the hands of someone trained in their use, they are deadly in the hands of someone who means harm. Having been around those who use guns as a tool, and those who mean harm, I am still more afraid of those who intend to ill will, but it is a close second for those who use them as tools. Take for example my friend M (I even changed his initial for anonymity. M is a competent gun owner who has the proper carry permits, several extensive gun classes, and time in law enforcement. Even with the weapons training M has gone through, I still worry that his gun maybe used in an over zealous manner should an event take place. With adrenaline pumping and the excitement of a shooting clouding judgment, it would be easy for someone who is armed to hurt a bystander or someone trying to help. Even the the fog of excitement, the most trained of people make mistakes.
On the other hand I have been around those who use guns for destruction. My case for this side of the coin is J (again changed for anonymity). J owned a massive amount of guns, only a few of which were registered and lacked proper training in the use of the guns. He had no experience in law enforcement or the military. J eventually used a tactical shot gun to kill himself on the front porch of his former place of business. J had suffered from documented mental psychosis and when the weapon was recovered it was noted that he had fully loaded the magazine of the shotgun. His ultimate intentions were to harm himself, but the investigating police determined he could have easily decide to harm those in the place of business. J (carrying the shotgun in a dufflebag) walked among pedestrians on the street, took a bus, and spied on those in the business as they work. All of this went undetected and his intention were not made clear until the fatal shot was fired.
Understandably M is the safer gun owner of the two. J's incident was however more common than anything M might face. Research shows that death by an armed psychotic person outnumbers those shoot by good Samaritans, but neither are pleasant options With stricter laws in place that limit the sale of guns, we might limit the types and numbers of gun that end up in the hands of those who wish ill on others. It is simply too easy for anyone to buy a weapon in this country. Taking the Colorado shooter (who was a broke college student), and M (who owned a disproportional amount of weapons) as examples, it should be clear to anyone that a call for stricter laws on the purchase of guns must go up. By no means am I petitioning for a limit of certain types of guns, or the number of guns, just the placement of limitations on who buys guns. A full background check should be required on ALL guns bought in the United State, including those purchased at gun shows and flea markets. Should these constraints be in place, we will not have to deal with the horrific cases like those listed in the article, J, or the Colorado shooter and with any luck, those who have become heroes for stopping a shooting might become heroes for something more peaceful.
Amendment Two of the United States Constitution states that we shall right to bare arms and keep those guns for an active militia. I have no problems with an armed citizenry, nor do I have a problem with guns, but that is where I stop. While an armed citizenry (as shown in the article) stops shootings far sooner, there begs the question of the chicken and the egg. With tougher purchasing laws on record, would guns be needed to stop a crazy person from shooting into a crowd. Would the heroes listed in the article (not to detract from the hero status) be heroes if the gunman had not started shooting? No. These senseless acts carried out by those who have no good business owning a gun have created an unfortunate class of heroes. I find guns to be a necessity in America for hunting or sport shooting, but the ease of which the criminally insane can obtain a weapon serious a problem.
While guns are effective tools in the hands of someone trained in their use, they are deadly in the hands of someone who means harm. Having been around those who use guns as a tool, and those who mean harm, I am still more afraid of those who intend to ill will, but it is a close second for those who use them as tools. Take for example my friend M (I even changed his initial for anonymity. M is a competent gun owner who has the proper carry permits, several extensive gun classes, and time in law enforcement. Even with the weapons training M has gone through, I still worry that his gun maybe used in an over zealous manner should an event take place. With adrenaline pumping and the excitement of a shooting clouding judgment, it would be easy for someone who is armed to hurt a bystander or someone trying to help. Even the the fog of excitement, the most trained of people make mistakes.
On the other hand I have been around those who use guns for destruction. My case for this side of the coin is J (again changed for anonymity). J owned a massive amount of guns, only a few of which were registered and lacked proper training in the use of the guns. He had no experience in law enforcement or the military. J eventually used a tactical shot gun to kill himself on the front porch of his former place of business. J had suffered from documented mental psychosis and when the weapon was recovered it was noted that he had fully loaded the magazine of the shotgun. His ultimate intentions were to harm himself, but the investigating police determined he could have easily decide to harm those in the place of business. J (carrying the shotgun in a dufflebag) walked among pedestrians on the street, took a bus, and spied on those in the business as they work. All of this went undetected and his intention were not made clear until the fatal shot was fired.
Understandably M is the safer gun owner of the two. J's incident was however more common than anything M might face. Research shows that death by an armed psychotic person outnumbers those shoot by good Samaritans, but neither are pleasant options With stricter laws in place that limit the sale of guns, we might limit the types and numbers of gun that end up in the hands of those who wish ill on others. It is simply too easy for anyone to buy a weapon in this country. Taking the Colorado shooter (who was a broke college student), and M (who owned a disproportional amount of weapons) as examples, it should be clear to anyone that a call for stricter laws on the purchase of guns must go up. By no means am I petitioning for a limit of certain types of guns, or the number of guns, just the placement of limitations on who buys guns. A full background check should be required on ALL guns bought in the United State, including those purchased at gun shows and flea markets. Should these constraints be in place, we will not have to deal with the horrific cases like those listed in the article, J, or the Colorado shooter and with any luck, those who have become heroes for stopping a shooting might become heroes for something more peaceful.
The Suits File A Suit
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/jul/18/lawsuit-filed-strip-special-exception-permit-allow-ar-2064413/
It seems there is a new twist in the continues sage that is the Loves Truckstop in Meadowview, Virginia. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know how I feel about this. If you aren't then here is a rundown of the posts that I have written. This remains the hottest issue that has been discussed here on FTPM and that is really cool.
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-wont-be-sleeping-much-at-night.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/04/two-interesting-perspective-on-truck.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/busted-flat-in-meadowview-waiting-for.html
ttp://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/stop-truck-stop-in-meadowview.html
Online Petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/love-s-travel-centers-oklahoma-city-ok-abandon-plans-to-build-a-truck-stop-at-exit-24-on-i-81-in-meadowview-va
It seems there is a new twist in the continues sage that is the Loves Truckstop in Meadowview, Virginia. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know how I feel about this. If you aren't then here is a rundown of the posts that I have written. This remains the hottest issue that has been discussed here on FTPM and that is really cool.
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-wont-be-sleeping-much-at-night.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/04/two-interesting-perspective-on-truck.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/busted-flat-in-meadowview-waiting-for.html
ttp://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/stop-truck-stop-in-meadowview.html
Online Petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/love-s-travel-centers-oklahoma-city-ok-abandon-plans-to-build-a-truck-stop-at-exit-24-on-i-81-in-meadowview-va
Monday, July 23, 2012
Somethings I Won't Understand..Maybe Ever
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-religious-right-begins-blaming.html
Religious conservatives (RCs for short) are a group of people that I might not ever understand. They are good people, have good intentions, and have stuck to their guns which are worthy of my admiration. They are however often hypocritical and contradict themselves frequently. What I fail to wrap my mind around is how many try to demand ideals on both side of a argument. Understandably these issues are complex, deeming complex opinions. Most often though, the overtly conservative Christian (OCCs for short) tends to take the polar opposites and force them together. (I will use the terms Religious conservative and overtly conservative Christians interchangeably)
Take prayer in public places, since that is what the sited article is about. Most RCs say our government needs to do more to promote prayer, (particular prayer to a Christian God), and the lack of prayer causes events like the shooting in Colorado. That is fine in my book, I understand why you think that (and to some degree agree). If you think the government should promote prayer in public places, then we (according to the Constitution) are to promote prayer of all religions. Herein lies that problem. OCCs do not want all religions to be promoted, just their singularly narrow point of view on the Christian religion. If you will, indulge me in a history/ Constitution lesson.
The First Amendment states that we shall make not law respecting the establishment of a religion. Constitutional scholars, including the men who shaped the document itself, have long understood that to mean one single religion. This was an direct answer to the fact that in some colonies (Maryland) the Catholic Church was the official church. In others (Virginia) it was Church of England or Episcopal Church. In these states residents were required (member or not) to pay money into the church, which in turn used that money for things that today are know as welfare. Many in early America felt this unjust since we had just recently rebelled against England for (atleast partly) that very reason. Unfortunately today, this battle continues.
If history and the Constitution are not your thing, then maybe patriotism and American Pride are. Most RCs will tout "America is the great country in the world because we can come here (their church) and worship as we chose without any type of government interference or fear of persecution"..I have actually heard this said. That is fine and dandy with me. I agree that America is pretty unique in its understand that religion is a personal choice, but it is a personal choice. If you want to have pride in America's religious freedom as it regards you, have a minimal understanding for what it means to other people. Does a Hindu have any less pride in America because he is Hindu? Does the Buddhist teacher at my school not think America is the coolest place in the world because he can sit at our lunch table and talk about religion with a Catholic, Methodist, Brethren, and Agnostic? He does, let me tell you. There lies the problem I have with OCCs or RCs. They forget there are people out there that do not look at religion the same way they do.
So if RCs and OCCs want to blame the shooting in Colorado on a lack of prayer, that is their understanding. Do I think it is right? No. Am I going to think any less of them? Admittedly yes some, but I will not attack them like they would me for saying that. I will simply scratch my head and move on, thus there are somethings I won't understand..maybe ever.
Religious conservatives (RCs for short) are a group of people that I might not ever understand. They are good people, have good intentions, and have stuck to their guns which are worthy of my admiration. They are however often hypocritical and contradict themselves frequently. What I fail to wrap my mind around is how many try to demand ideals on both side of a argument. Understandably these issues are complex, deeming complex opinions. Most often though, the overtly conservative Christian (OCCs for short) tends to take the polar opposites and force them together. (I will use the terms Religious conservative and overtly conservative Christians interchangeably)
Take prayer in public places, since that is what the sited article is about. Most RCs say our government needs to do more to promote prayer, (particular prayer to a Christian God), and the lack of prayer causes events like the shooting in Colorado. That is fine in my book, I understand why you think that (and to some degree agree). If you think the government should promote prayer in public places, then we (according to the Constitution) are to promote prayer of all religions. Herein lies that problem. OCCs do not want all religions to be promoted, just their singularly narrow point of view on the Christian religion. If you will, indulge me in a history/ Constitution lesson.
The First Amendment states that we shall make not law respecting the establishment of a religion. Constitutional scholars, including the men who shaped the document itself, have long understood that to mean one single religion. This was an direct answer to the fact that in some colonies (Maryland) the Catholic Church was the official church. In others (Virginia) it was Church of England or Episcopal Church. In these states residents were required (member or not) to pay money into the church, which in turn used that money for things that today are know as welfare. Many in early America felt this unjust since we had just recently rebelled against England for (atleast partly) that very reason. Unfortunately today, this battle continues.
If history and the Constitution are not your thing, then maybe patriotism and American Pride are. Most RCs will tout "America is the great country in the world because we can come here (their church) and worship as we chose without any type of government interference or fear of persecution"..I have actually heard this said. That is fine and dandy with me. I agree that America is pretty unique in its understand that religion is a personal choice, but it is a personal choice. If you want to have pride in America's religious freedom as it regards you, have a minimal understanding for what it means to other people. Does a Hindu have any less pride in America because he is Hindu? Does the Buddhist teacher at my school not think America is the coolest place in the world because he can sit at our lunch table and talk about religion with a Catholic, Methodist, Brethren, and Agnostic? He does, let me tell you. There lies the problem I have with OCCs or RCs. They forget there are people out there that do not look at religion the same way they do.
So if RCs and OCCs want to blame the shooting in Colorado on a lack of prayer, that is their understanding. Do I think it is right? No. Am I going to think any less of them? Admittedly yes some, but I will not attack them like they would me for saying that. I will simply scratch my head and move on, thus there are somethings I won't understand..maybe ever.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
My Favorite Consultant Is At It Again
http://davesaunders.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/mudcat-takes-up-cantor-challenge/
Dave "Mudcat" Saunders has taken up with a long shot candidate..again. As you might know, Saunders is the political mastermind behind Mark Warner's successful run for the Senate. Warner, then a political nobody and Virginia outsider, used Saunder's backwoods know-how to amble and ramble his way into the seat. This time Saunders has undertaken Wayne "Not Collin" Powell who is running against Eric Cantor for the 7th Congressional District. This is great for those of us who pull for the political underdog, and like to see incumbents kicked out, but...but there could be a problem.
The TEA party came into office in a tidal wave. No one can deny that. Cantor is fringe TEA (I think..hell I don't really care), but unlike the rest of the TEA Partiers he had some experience in government making him an exception. It would be great to see Cantor gone. He has gained nearly enough power to make me scared and I (technically, as I made aware to the Roanoke County Police officer before he chewed me out about it) do not live in Virginia. I have started to question Cantor as a so called "Young Gun" that is out for the common sense for the common good. He has, like many politicians seeking larger roles, fallen in line with the House Republicans and votes accordingly. Who can really blame him? Step too far out of line and they might replace your closeted TEA Party butt out of office for a "true American" TEA Partier.
Despite Cantor's flaws, there is one thing he has in his favor. Experience. And Cantor should run on it. My point in bringing up the TEA Party is that it came in with people who generally had no political experience. Some had time in state government, but many had not so much as run for dog catcher before getting involved in the "grassroots" movement known as the TEA Party. John Q. Public loved the darlings for it too. We heard how they were going to kick all the foogies out of Washington and take back our country. As we now see the problem lies in the fact that that they kicked out all the foogies and took over the country. Now Congress is deadlocked and no one will budge. Why? Because Democrats are scared stiff less they will get thrown out for dealing with the TEA Party, and what is left of the Republican party is afraid of sitting in the catbird seat with some guy in a tri-cornered hat waving a Gadsden Flag right on his tail. The other reason Washington has ground to a halt is for lack willingness on the TEA Party's to budge. Either they lack the political skill to reach a compromise or they simply will not. This first option is cured with a heavy dose of experience....and gin.
The overarching problem with the TEA Party was not the TEA Party itself (although I would say they have a few) it is the average citizen. What John Q. Public fails to understand (que Thomas Jefferson rolling in grave) is that it does take some time to get the job of governing done. Think of the United States as a big boat. Does it turn on a dime? No! So why does Average-Joe American think that a new wave of freshly minted politicians is going to help. I would equate it to kicking the captain of that very large boat out, and replacing it with a pimple faced kid who once drove a hover boat on Mario-Kart (do they have hover-boats on Mario-Kart? Does anyone play Mario-Kart anymore?) It is not going to end well. Thus the TEA Party is left with no possible answer to the question "I thought yall were going to change the way government works, what happened?" expect to blame the Democrats or President Obama. Those responses lead to a second set of issues. Niether option is a healthy way to govern. Add all that together, sprinkle in the a dash of Mitt "No Chance" Romney and you are left with the TEA Party having to learn how to compromise..which they won't. Meanwhile back at the ranch, America's government is stalled on the tracks and there seems to be a increasingly loud rumble.
I am by no advocating for leaving ineffective law markers in office (in fact I like to see new people), but a certain level of experience is needed to navigate the tricky waters of the national government. Such experience is best gained in lower levels of government where the passion of the people is (and if not should) be best shown. Leaders would best be served with a few years on the town council where they learn the skills of compromise. Their actions taken under the careful eyes of an educated populous, at the ready to huffy and puffy is something goings wrong. Granted the House of Representatives is prone to the winds of change more so than the Senate, we must be careful not to blow so hard the fruit falls off. In the same line, whomever is President does feel the breeze but there is no need for a jacket. The boys and girls over at the Supreme Court don't even know what wind is, and that is the way it should be. Kicking bad government out is what Americans do best. It's in our DNA. What we have to do is carefully select what bad government is, identify who is at fault and replace them with competent people. It takes some homework on the part of the people, but it is worth it.
Dave "Mudcat" Saunders has taken up with a long shot candidate..again. As you might know, Saunders is the political mastermind behind Mark Warner's successful run for the Senate. Warner, then a political nobody and Virginia outsider, used Saunder's backwoods know-how to amble and ramble his way into the seat. This time Saunders has undertaken Wayne "Not Collin" Powell who is running against Eric Cantor for the 7th Congressional District. This is great for those of us who pull for the political underdog, and like to see incumbents kicked out, but...but there could be a problem.
 |
| Mudcat Saunder |
 |
| Wayne "Not Collin" Powell |
 |
| Eric "I'm not sure I have a nickname" Cantor |
Despite Cantor's flaws, there is one thing he has in his favor. Experience. And Cantor should run on it. My point in bringing up the TEA Party is that it came in with people who generally had no political experience. Some had time in state government, but many had not so much as run for dog catcher before getting involved in the "grassroots" movement known as the TEA Party. John Q. Public loved the darlings for it too. We heard how they were going to kick all the foogies out of Washington and take back our country. As we now see the problem lies in the fact that that they kicked out all the foogies and took over the country. Now Congress is deadlocked and no one will budge. Why? Because Democrats are scared stiff less they will get thrown out for dealing with the TEA Party, and what is left of the Republican party is afraid of sitting in the catbird seat with some guy in a tri-cornered hat waving a Gadsden Flag right on his tail. The other reason Washington has ground to a halt is for lack willingness on the TEA Party's to budge. Either they lack the political skill to reach a compromise or they simply will not. This first option is cured with a heavy dose of experience....and gin.
.jpeg) |
| All TEA Partiers Bow To The Almighty Gadsden |
The overarching problem with the TEA Party was not the TEA Party itself (although I would say they have a few) it is the average citizen. What John Q. Public fails to understand (que Thomas Jefferson rolling in grave) is that it does take some time to get the job of governing done. Think of the United States as a big boat. Does it turn on a dime? No! So why does Average-Joe American think that a new wave of freshly minted politicians is going to help. I would equate it to kicking the captain of that very large boat out, and replacing it with a pimple faced kid who once drove a hover boat on Mario-Kart (do they have hover-boats on Mario-Kart? Does anyone play Mario-Kart anymore?) It is not going to end well. Thus the TEA Party is left with no possible answer to the question "I thought yall were going to change the way government works, what happened?" expect to blame the Democrats or President Obama. Those responses lead to a second set of issues. Niether option is a healthy way to govern. Add all that together, sprinkle in the a dash of Mitt "No Chance" Romney and you are left with the TEA Party having to learn how to compromise..which they won't. Meanwhile back at the ranch, America's government is stalled on the tracks and there seems to be a increasingly loud rumble.
.jpeg) |
| Thomas "Dangit Yall've Messed This Up" Jefferson |
I am by no advocating for leaving ineffective law markers in office (in fact I like to see new people), but a certain level of experience is needed to navigate the tricky waters of the national government. Such experience is best gained in lower levels of government where the passion of the people is (and if not should) be best shown. Leaders would best be served with a few years on the town council where they learn the skills of compromise. Their actions taken under the careful eyes of an educated populous, at the ready to huffy and puffy is something goings wrong. Granted the House of Representatives is prone to the winds of change more so than the Senate, we must be careful not to blow so hard the fruit falls off. In the same line, whomever is President does feel the breeze but there is no need for a jacket. The boys and girls over at the Supreme Court don't even know what wind is, and that is the way it should be. Kicking bad government out is what Americans do best. It's in our DNA. What we have to do is carefully select what bad government is, identify who is at fault and replace them with competent people. It takes some homework on the part of the people, but it is worth it.
Friday, July 20, 2012
There Is A Winner In The Shooting, But You Will Not Like It
What you are about to read is not a down play of the terrible shooting that took place early this morning in Aurora, Colorado. I send prayers of comfort to those who witnessed, and were effected physically by the act of a heartless man. It is, however, as set of question that have arisen in my watching the news coverage and thinking deeply about the world in which we live.
Moderates, there is a winner in the shooting that occurred in Aurora, Colorado and I hate to say so. Nearly as soon as any coverage came on the airwaves there was an immediate speculation as to if it was a terrorist act. I am not preaching a gospel of the crazies, but the terrorist have won and will continue to if every time a tragic event is accompanied with suppositions of a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist plot. Please do not assume that I am naive enough to think that we as a country do not face further attacks, but I am also not naive enough to fall in the trap laid out to convince me terrorist had something to do with such an act.
There comes a time that the Islamic terrorist threat of needs to be ignored and a time for it to considered. For awhile, after 9/11, it was totally reasonable that we as a country remain alert to possible attacks, but more than 10 years is a little overboard. If there is sufficient, credible evidence that we need to be prepared, then by all mean we shall prepare. The post 9/11, overhauled intelligence community has been proven time and again the main terror threat to the United States is that of digital and cyber attack. Why are we still continually worried terrorist are going to attack us in a physical, war-like action? Again, intelligence has shown that the terrorist faced by the United States are adaptive by nature and will not do the same thing twice. We need to put away the torches and pitchforks and concentrate on checking our bank accounts for strange charges and looking into ways to back up critical information stored on computers. As I watched coverage of today's events, I have asked this question over and over again: What makes us so certain the terrorist have the means to attack us as they did on 9/11?
One reason might just be the very places we are hearing about these events. The news media still..still has to harp on every tragic event that takes place, and plant the seeds of worry as to the nature of an event. Was it a terror attack? Was it not? Did the assailant have ties to any radical groups? Was there any reason to harm any of those harmed? That is just too many questions to ask before any hard facts have been established. Even more, those question are fodder for every "expert" in the country to hash out on the air. I understand the need to flesh out what happened, but not to speculate. My ideal news cast would answer the W's: Who, What, Where, and fact based Why? Do not ask questions that leave room for speculation. After every event of a horrific nature, we the public fall victim to the 24 hour news cycle groaning out the same questions over and over and over emphasizing every bit of information gathered. Answer the W's, give us fact based information and move to the next story. Maybe...just maybe..we might some good news squeezed in.
Secondly, what happened to the idea that person just go off the deep end and hurt innocent people? Could it be that the suspect of a crime was on some sort of the many drugs (illegal and legal) available on today's market? Maybe he had psychological disabilities that inhibited his ability to discern right from wrong? Maybe the person wished to die, and thought that "death by cop" had a grandiose ring to it? We might never know, but is it a fair assumption that most suspects are not a terrorist of a radical Islamic persuasion? The sooner we realize that there are clinically insane people amongst us, the better me might be able to treat those people. If appropriate treatment for those who have psychological disabilities was more of a priority in this county, it might end up with fewer "suspected terrorist." We certainly would have fewer tragic events like what took place in Colorado.
I am be no means a "If we don't ________ (insert action) then the terrorist win!" type, but such an event begs the question: Haven't the terrorist won? If we get so worked up about ever shooting, bank robbery or bridge collapse, then we are facing near constant turmoil in our lives. It is a proven fact that the 9/11 attacks were designed and carried out to create the very fear that we now live under. This fear has permeated our society to the point that every terrible event needs to have the "THIS WAS NOT A ACT OF TERROR" stamp of approval before the people put away the torches and pitchforks. The fear of attack that we supposedly we live under is not healthy for us the American citizen, and it is certainly not good for our standing in the world. We, the average public, need to reexamine (I would argue constantly) where we get our news, checking every fact and consider every source. In addition to an ever present vigil on the media, we need to carry out a serious overhaul of how we identify and treat those with psychological disorders in our country. Will these actions negate the perpetual speculation of the 24 hour news media? I doubt it, put perhaps we might sleep easier at night, and those around the world who wish ill on us will think twice when trying to strike fear in the hearts of average Americans.
Moderates, there is a winner in the shooting that occurred in Aurora, Colorado and I hate to say so. Nearly as soon as any coverage came on the airwaves there was an immediate speculation as to if it was a terrorist act. I am not preaching a gospel of the crazies, but the terrorist have won and will continue to if every time a tragic event is accompanied with suppositions of a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist plot. Please do not assume that I am naive enough to think that we as a country do not face further attacks, but I am also not naive enough to fall in the trap laid out to convince me terrorist had something to do with such an act.
There comes a time that the Islamic terrorist threat of needs to be ignored and a time for it to considered. For awhile, after 9/11, it was totally reasonable that we as a country remain alert to possible attacks, but more than 10 years is a little overboard. If there is sufficient, credible evidence that we need to be prepared, then by all mean we shall prepare. The post 9/11, overhauled intelligence community has been proven time and again the main terror threat to the United States is that of digital and cyber attack. Why are we still continually worried terrorist are going to attack us in a physical, war-like action? Again, intelligence has shown that the terrorist faced by the United States are adaptive by nature and will not do the same thing twice. We need to put away the torches and pitchforks and concentrate on checking our bank accounts for strange charges and looking into ways to back up critical information stored on computers. As I watched coverage of today's events, I have asked this question over and over again: What makes us so certain the terrorist have the means to attack us as they did on 9/11?
One reason might just be the very places we are hearing about these events. The news media still..still has to harp on every tragic event that takes place, and plant the seeds of worry as to the nature of an event. Was it a terror attack? Was it not? Did the assailant have ties to any radical groups? Was there any reason to harm any of those harmed? That is just too many questions to ask before any hard facts have been established. Even more, those question are fodder for every "expert" in the country to hash out on the air. I understand the need to flesh out what happened, but not to speculate. My ideal news cast would answer the W's: Who, What, Where, and fact based Why? Do not ask questions that leave room for speculation. After every event of a horrific nature, we the public fall victim to the 24 hour news cycle groaning out the same questions over and over and over emphasizing every bit of information gathered. Answer the W's, give us fact based information and move to the next story. Maybe...just maybe..we might some good news squeezed in.
Secondly, what happened to the idea that person just go off the deep end and hurt innocent people? Could it be that the suspect of a crime was on some sort of the many drugs (illegal and legal) available on today's market? Maybe he had psychological disabilities that inhibited his ability to discern right from wrong? Maybe the person wished to die, and thought that "death by cop" had a grandiose ring to it? We might never know, but is it a fair assumption that most suspects are not a terrorist of a radical Islamic persuasion? The sooner we realize that there are clinically insane people amongst us, the better me might be able to treat those people. If appropriate treatment for those who have psychological disabilities was more of a priority in this county, it might end up with fewer "suspected terrorist." We certainly would have fewer tragic events like what took place in Colorado.
I am be no means a "If we don't ________ (insert action) then the terrorist win!" type, but such an event begs the question: Haven't the terrorist won? If we get so worked up about ever shooting, bank robbery or bridge collapse, then we are facing near constant turmoil in our lives. It is a proven fact that the 9/11 attacks were designed and carried out to create the very fear that we now live under. This fear has permeated our society to the point that every terrible event needs to have the "THIS WAS NOT A ACT OF TERROR" stamp of approval before the people put away the torches and pitchforks. The fear of attack that we supposedly we live under is not healthy for us the American citizen, and it is certainly not good for our standing in the world. We, the average public, need to reexamine (I would argue constantly) where we get our news, checking every fact and consider every source. In addition to an ever present vigil on the media, we need to carry out a serious overhaul of how we identify and treat those with psychological disorders in our country. Will these actions negate the perpetual speculation of the 24 hour news media? I doubt it, put perhaps we might sleep easier at night, and those around the world who wish ill on us will think twice when trying to strike fear in the hearts of average Americans.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
You Won't Be Sleeping Much At Night Anyway
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/jun/15/construction-meadowview-truck-stop-could-begin-ear-ar-1989479/
It appears that the Washington County (VA) Board Of Supervisors has put an end to the campaign to stop the Love's Truckstop in Meadowview, but they might regret it. Though there have been concessions added to the contract and strict environmental guidelines, there will be unforeseen consiquences for Meadowview. Once the newness of the truckstop wears off, there is going to be a good many Meadowview residents that will have stars in their eyes...though they won't be celestial.
As I, and many others, have argued that truckstops and other such businesses have a detrimental effect on a local economy. After the initial burst of money for start ups, the money spent in Meadowview will slow to a steady flow OUT of the county. There strings a long line of localities that have seen this happen, and Meadowview, despite the concessions, will be added to it.
What struck me the most was the comment made by a local citizen about being able to sleep at night for thoughts of a child being hurt by the truckstop. What I foresee is the citizen not being able to sleep, but not for a guilty conscience. To make my point I ask a simple question: How many private residents have to seen located around a truckstop on a busy interstate? Once the truckstop arrives in Meadowview, it will no longer be the peaceful community that attracts retirees and young families.
If Meadowview wants a truck stop, as it has shown it does, it will get it soon enough. Along with the shiny new toy glow there will be another glow, but it won't be one you can go to sleep easy by.
It appears that the Washington County (VA) Board Of Supervisors has put an end to the campaign to stop the Love's Truckstop in Meadowview, but they might regret it. Though there have been concessions added to the contract and strict environmental guidelines, there will be unforeseen consiquences for Meadowview. Once the newness of the truckstop wears off, there is going to be a good many Meadowview residents that will have stars in their eyes...though they won't be celestial.
As I, and many others, have argued that truckstops and other such businesses have a detrimental effect on a local economy. After the initial burst of money for start ups, the money spent in Meadowview will slow to a steady flow OUT of the county. There strings a long line of localities that have seen this happen, and Meadowview, despite the concessions, will be added to it.
What struck me the most was the comment made by a local citizen about being able to sleep at night for thoughts of a child being hurt by the truckstop. What I foresee is the citizen not being able to sleep, but not for a guilty conscience. To make my point I ask a simple question: How many private residents have to seen located around a truckstop on a busy interstate? Once the truckstop arrives in Meadowview, it will no longer be the peaceful community that attracts retirees and young families.
If Meadowview wants a truck stop, as it has shown it does, it will get it soon enough. Along with the shiny new toy glow there will be another glow, but it won't be one you can go to sleep easy by.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Show Review: The Newsroom
If you call yourself a political junkie, then you need to be watching this show. The show premiered June 24th, but I have just now jumped on board. For this fact, I am sorry. I have now declared THE NEWSROOM my stay over until SCANDAL comes back on, and both shows will tide me over until THE WEST WING makes it triumphant return...though that might be a bad thing since Aaron Sorkin has put that wonderful dragon to rest for good and it coming back might be the only sign of the Apocalypse that I pay attention to. From bashing the TEA Party, or grappling with the 2nd Amendment, THE NEWSROOM has it all.
THE NEWSROOM has all the political drama that THE WEST WING had, though it is not a boilerplate by any means. All of the fast talking, twist and turns that we came to know and love on THE WEST WING are present and Sorkin has brought back all the thrills. THE NEWSROOM has a few things in its favor. Rather than having events show up that are similar to real events as THE WEST WING, THE NEWSROOM has true to life action that allows the viewer to relive reactions to them. To me, this makes THE NEWSROOM more organic and gripping.
Where THE WEST WING was based on four or five central figures that spin around each other, THE NEWSROOM has one key figure for which the world orbits. This lends to a unique point of view. You are forced to see which way the neck is turning the head. THE WEST WING left you watching the show with your eyes in different directions, which could at times leave you excused.
THE NEWSROOM does have it faults. The first being Jane Fonda who seems to be getting paid to watch other great actor apply their craft. Many might say "give it a rest! The 60's are over" but frankly I have never been Jane Fonda fan. Treason is a serious crime and she is in every sense guilty of it. She does not redeem herself in this character either. While many could argue Martin Sheen did very little on THE WEST WING, Fonda does even less on THE NEWSROOM. In the episodes I have seen, Fonda is on screen for a 1/4 of the show and utters 5 to 10 lines. The rest of the time she is sits with a blank stare on her face.
Finally, there seems to be more focus on the lives of the characters than that of THE WEST WING. This distracts you to some degree. THE WEST WING always gave you bits and pieces which made them all the more effective. THE NEWSROOM has them upfront and center. Personally, I am not as interested in the personal stories. If I were to have one complaint, it would be leave the sex out and make it more political.
All in all, THE NEWSROOM is great. It is well written, well acted, and worthy of your political junkie approval. It is no WEST WING, but it does not need to be.
THE NEWSROOM has all the political drama that THE WEST WING had, though it is not a boilerplate by any means. All of the fast talking, twist and turns that we came to know and love on THE WEST WING are present and Sorkin has brought back all the thrills. THE NEWSROOM has a few things in its favor. Rather than having events show up that are similar to real events as THE WEST WING, THE NEWSROOM has true to life action that allows the viewer to relive reactions to them. To me, this makes THE NEWSROOM more organic and gripping.
Where THE WEST WING was based on four or five central figures that spin around each other, THE NEWSROOM has one key figure for which the world orbits. This lends to a unique point of view. You are forced to see which way the neck is turning the head. THE WEST WING left you watching the show with your eyes in different directions, which could at times leave you excused.
THE NEWSROOM does have it faults. The first being Jane Fonda who seems to be getting paid to watch other great actor apply their craft. Many might say "give it a rest! The 60's are over" but frankly I have never been Jane Fonda fan. Treason is a serious crime and she is in every sense guilty of it. She does not redeem herself in this character either. While many could argue Martin Sheen did very little on THE WEST WING, Fonda does even less on THE NEWSROOM. In the episodes I have seen, Fonda is on screen for a 1/4 of the show and utters 5 to 10 lines. The rest of the time she is sits with a blank stare on her face.
Finally, there seems to be more focus on the lives of the characters than that of THE WEST WING. This distracts you to some degree. THE WEST WING always gave you bits and pieces which made them all the more effective. THE NEWSROOM has them upfront and center. Personally, I am not as interested in the personal stories. If I were to have one complaint, it would be leave the sex out and make it more political.
All in all, THE NEWSROOM is great. It is well written, well acted, and worthy of your political junkie approval. It is no WEST WING, but it does not need to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)