Jack's Rant January 27, 2011

Old Man River…

As of January 27, 2011 there are three senators in their 80s, 18 in their 70s, 37 in their 60’s, 31 in their 50s, and only 12 that are under the age of 40 years of age.

I’m speaking as a person in my 60’s, but, these old guys in the senate are OLD! Moreover, they are old and OUT OF TOUCH!

At my age, I have problems keeping up with new technology that changes daily, yet alone the social network that propels it. We need young fresh innovative people in office, not these died in the wool career politicians that have no idea what a Facebook page is, yet alone Snype.

And here we have an electorate whose average age is 61 years old.

These guys are so old that when they fart they pass dust!

What brought this to mind was watching the State of the Union Address earlier this week and looking on a sea of old, worn out (some appearing to have drunk to much) senators and representatives of the people, who have no business representing anyone, other than the retirement community that they should be settled in.

We wonder why Washington is so out of touch with us until we begin to look more closely at who is representing us, and, unless you can’t do the math, it’s electorate from the 20th century who doesn’t understand today’s electronic media. (In fact, some of them are still amazed by the invention of the light bulb!)

When the “founding fathers” formed the new nation, George Washington was 44, Thomas Jefferson was 33 and John Adams was 41. Now one might argue that people didn’t live as long as they do now. The exception was Ben Franken who was 71 and entertaining women of pleasure when in Paris! But the simple fact is the founding fathers were by average under 40 years, unlike today where we have an out of touch congress so obsessed by their own personal gains and profits that they have totally neglected the popular.

I am a baby boomer, and as such we have a huge clout in how Social Security and Medicare is managed. We are all over 60.

But I have to tell you, I don’t think it’s a good idea that the country be governed by a bunch of people my age or older managing the affairs of the younger generation.

They need their own representation. I do not believe that the founding fathers ever thought that one would ever hold a political office more than a few years, as it was their view that this was akin to jury duty; something you did for your country and then moved on.

Clearly, by the looks of the Senate, and to a lesser degree, the House of Representatives, we have career “old fogies” that are not in touch with the modern American dream, nor the mandate of our founding fathers who established them.

If ever there is a time for total over-haul of the people that represent us, it’s now!

Where’s Tomas Jefferson when you need him? HA!

Jack's Rant January 10, 2011

“Second Amendment remedies” – Sharon Angle, a Tea Party candidate for Congress, Nevada

The second amendment gives all Americans the right to bear arms. In this country there are 9 guns for every 10 people. Now that’s not to say that 9 out of 10 people have guns. Many people have several, or an entire armory of guns. Both are rather scary if you ask me. Eluding to “remedies” as using your gun to eliminate anyone who disagrees with your political view is as despicable as Adolph Hitler’s reign of terror in Germany.

Sarah Palin had on her website cross hairs over Democratic members of Congress who she felt didn’t comply with the views of her, or her Tea Party members. Take aim, fire! She does hunt elk after all. We aren’t entirely sure what Dick Chaney hunts, but that’s for another blog.

One of Palin’s cross hairs was over Gabrielle Giffords, Democratic representative in the state of Arizona. And someone did just that this last Saturday. Took aim and fired.

If anything could be said to be positive out of this tragedy is that it has generated a huge national awareness. A mentally disturbed person decided to go on a shooting spree. News at eleven.

The political discourse has become so toxic, including a South Carolina congressman shouting out “You lie” during President’s Oboma’s state of the Union address, that it appears to be a tacit approval for anyone to act in any manner they please without regard to manners or civil behavior.

This last political campaign was by far the most disgusting, vile, unethical campaign season I have ever witnessed in my over forty years of being a registered voter.

Is this what our country has become? So toxic and vitriol that unless you behave as a Visigoth on a rampage that you will not be elected to office?

Or worse yet, follow the campaign slogan of a wanta be politician that it is quite all right to resort to use your “second amendment remedies” if the rest of the electorate doesn’t agree with your view.

Clearly this is anarchy. It is fueled not only by many talk show hosts, but reinforced by not only political candidates and their campaigns but by members of Congress as well.

I ask myself, where does this end? Or is this just the beginning.

Almost 150 years ago this country was engaged in a civil war. Civil, that’s what they called it, but was anything other than civil. Over 618,000 lives were lost during that conflict. It was the worst war ever fought on US soil and more people died in that conflict than in any war that the USA has been engaged with since. In fact, if my facts are correct, lost in any war, prior or since.
Now we are engaged in a national debate that asks the question: has this toxic rhetoric, spoken from any faction, right, left or center, gone too far.

Hello? Has no one been paying attention? The horse is out of the barn! The cat is in the cradle, the wolf is in the hen house!

Yes, this has been TOXIC since the 2008 Presidential campaign.

So toxic that it can not be buried in a landfill, nor can it be sealed in some erstwhile salt mine in Utah. This is unacceptable behavior of our politic. And until our elected officials elect to behave in a civil manner, to one another and to the people who they represent, then we may indeed be engaged in another, much more violent and better armed civil war.

Maybe I need to go to Walmart and rearm myself. HA!

Jack's Rant January 5

News article:

You've probably heard the news by now: Mark Twain is getting an extreme makeover. An Auburn University professor, Alan Gribben, has decided to whitewash the 219 instances of the N-word right out of "Huckleberry Finn," and while he's at it, he's going to remove "Injun," too, for good measure. The new and supposedly improved version is to be published by New South. The impetus behind it? To get the book back into the many classrooms from which it's been banned in recent years.

As I channel Mark Twain once in a while, this is what he said to me…

“Now, upon notification of this news, I must remark, that it is an understatement for me to say that I was less than pleased that someone, yet alone an academic, should take on the dubious task of editing any work of mine for any reason, yet alone “Huckleberry Finn”. I reckon that because of their stature as a member of the educated elite, they have a God given right to edit any work; that they, in their wisdom, chose to do so. But, I must confess, if that is their case, it is a fright to think what else they might focus on their editorial skills.

“Now another might think that this is good idea; as there are many words that offend people today, and I can only speculate that there might be many that might offend future generations. In my own defense, it would be impossible for anyone of my time, other than Jules Vern perhaps, to predict what those words might be. I must admit, that what I have written, in all of my works, is in the vernacular of my time.

“It does, howsomever, make me shudder in my boots in my feet and my thumbs in my vest, to consider what other volumes they might set upon to do the same.

“Censorship, in any fashion is the first step to revising not only the past, but the history therein recorded, fiction or not. For anyone to take it upon themselves to revise, for their own personal taste, is as objectionable and as disgusting as an attorney keeping his hands only in their client’s pockets.

“As having had to deal with many lawyers with their hands in my pockets, I can assure you with total conviction that, although you may conger that it is something as that will not occur again, it becomes as habitual as smoking a cigar.

“My advice, to anyone considering lighting up that fire of taking it upon yourself to revise, for any reason, history, facts, or fiction, is that you douse it down with haste, ash out, and allow another generation to decide for themselves the value of that work, with knowledge of the prior language used in that era.

“If we continue to review the past, as if it is for some future historian to reconsider to their current moral standard, then we are asking of ourselves for a history of untruths.

“As I am recalled to say: ‘when you tell the truth you never have to remember anything’.”

If they only knew the truth to begin with! HA!

Jack's Rant December 24, 2010

The Fact Is…

“Just the fact, please, just the facts”, as Joe Friday was known to say on the popular ‘50’s cop drama “Dragnet”. Facts are an important thing, in particular when writing history.

Fact is, George Washington had 316 slaves living on his estate when he died, at least that’s what’s reported on the Mount Vernon web site.

I have no reason to doubt that of all groups the Mount Vernon society of historians would under report the number of slaves that George Washington owned when he died. But, one asks, who came up with that number. It was likely logged as an asset with someone who was in charge of his estate, and, as slaves were of value for his heirs, proper accounting of all of Washington’s assets were important.

Now, it could be that they grossly underreported the number of slaves. Or over reported. I have no idea. They don’t site a particular document validating that he did or didn’t own.

As a fact, we know that there was housing were slaves lived in Mount Vernon, so the notion that good ole George owned a few seems to be certain. The exact number, I can’t be sure.

So, the facts.

We get to much information these days, it seems, if we chose to look for it. And often many of us, like me, who wanted to know how many slaves Washington owned, turned to the internet.

Pending on the query, the all knowing web can offer up a plethora of choices. Sorting though hundreds of links, you can choose the one that best supports your viewpoint best, even if it’s not true. Who cares.

You have a source that supports your idea even if it isn’t true and therefore you can cite it as fact. Woo hoo!

It seems today you can substantiate almost any claim, true or not. President Obama is not a US citizen, proof on “obamacrime.com”. So it must be true.

Recently a huge amount of uncensored documents have been posted on Wickileaks.org. Now this has put a lot of people in Washington (who was named after the slave owner, by the way) in a thither.

Most of the information, if not all, is classified. Releasing it to the eyes of the public is nothing less than what Richard Nixon went through during Watergate.

God forbid anyone should see the raw data of what solders in the trenches or diplomats were actually communicating about international situations should be allowed to be seen by the American people, or anyone else!

I do not condone Wickileaks for publishing the secured documents. But it speaks volumes about the “facts” of what is actually occurring in our world today. Anyone who is willing to sort though the raw data, told from a field officer in Iraq or the diplomat in Egypt, I believe will soon realize that there is a true story to be told here, and one that is not being reported from our government or any news source you choose to believe..

And then you have to ask yourself. Is it true?

As Mark Twain said “When you tell the truth you never have to remember anything.” When was the last time we heard the truth from the government or the news?

I don’t know. I doubt I ever will.

I doubt that we ever have. And that’s the truth! HA!

Less we forget...

I remember Christmas

I am not a religious person. Christmas has always been a non religious event. It’s a day to give gifts and enjoy a good meal. It was a time to be with family and close friends. There was always a place at the table for an unexpected guest.

When I was growing up the holidays were always very special. My parents went to great extent to make our home as festive and welcoming as possible.

It all started the day after Thanksgiving. That’s when the lights went up on the house on my insistence. I would crawl into the attic space and pull down the wooden crate that contained the lights for the house and then assist my dad in stringing them around the exterior of the place.

When I was all of 10 or so, my Uncle Tom, who worked for an aircraft manufacturing company in San Diego, had rescued several reindeer from the company that they had used for some display. Being in disrepair, he thought that we might be able to use them in some manner.

Cleaver man as my father was, he repaired the reindeer and constructed and painted a sled and stuffed a Santa Claus. Wiring the reindeer to the chimney so they looked in flight, the Santa and sled behind, being lighted on the roof, was so unusual for the time, that it made the front page of the local newspaper, the Downey Live Wire.

These were the things that made Christmas special.

And Christmas was always wonderful, until my mother passed away in 1988. My father tried to make the effort, my sisters and I did our best to give joy and happiness until my father passed away in September of 2004.

But it actually fell apart after my mother passed away. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again.

I remember Christmas.

Jack's Rant, August 19, 2010

Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances:”
So was this and what has become to be known as the “Bill of Rights” was ratified as the first amendment of the constitution of the United States on March 4, 1789, thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence was executed.

This is a very basic concept, it’s a quid pro quo actually, I won’t do anything to you and you won’t do anything to me. In regard to religious beliefs it means you, meaning any city, county, state or federal government shall not, under any circumstances, place laws or ordinances against any religion, of any kind, for any reason to restrict those people from practicing their beliefs. Conversely, no religion shall influence, impose their beliefs on the state (meaning the people) because of the tenants of their beliefs.

Now history will tell us that both the state and religious organizations have sought to impose their ideas on the other. Tisk, tisk, tisk!

Most recently, Proposition 8 was passed in California, ensuring that no one can “marry” except a man and a woman, whereby denying anyone else (as in gay and lesbian couples) from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. The state is suppose to be blind to such matters as the term “marriage” is simply a defining word for the union of two people who wish to be recognized by the state as legally bound to one another and enjoy all those rights and privileges awarded to them as anyone else who is married.

However, a coalition of largely religious factions decided that this has damaged their interpretation of “marriage” and spent millions of dollars to place a measure on the ballot in California denying people of the same sex (it could be two best friends who are not homosexual, you know) getting married as it is against their belief. Please refer to the first amendment. The state has no right to impose religious beliefs on any of its people, any more that the state has the right to impose its laws prohibiting religious beliefs.

Do any of you get this? Some people say the first amendment needs to be amended. Oh, ok, let’s exclude the Catholic Church from practicing in the US because some of the priest molest children, shame on them, let’s vote them out of the country. And while we’re at it, let’s make it illegal for a Muslim group to build a multi-purpose center in lower Manhattan, four blocks away from “ground” zero, because it’s disgracing the memory of those who died in 9/11; BECAUSE, it was some radicals, who happened to be Muslims, who blew up the World Trade Center.

If it had been some radical Catholics, would we insist that the Catholic Church that IS across the street from ground zero be razed to the ground because it’s otherwise a slap in the face of the “hallowed ground” as one advocate referred to it.

I’m sorry, all of this is VERY WRONG! Whenever any zealous individual or group decides to make decisions based on religion or because of it, and attempt to impose their view by legal means of law (meaning the state), we are walking down a very dangerous path, for both those who are of that particular faith, and those who are against it.

The whole reason why the first ten amendments of the Constitution where ratified was to guard “all the people” from the many imposing their beliefs on to the few. This is the very fabric of how this country was woven. And, just because your pastor, priest, rabbi, elder or whomever says that the word of their “God” only allows marriage to be between a man and a woman it does not it make it state law, nor does the opinion of the people can dictate where someone can build a place of worship because it’s “disgracing the memory…”.

All of you who support Prop 8, and/or the objection to an Islamic sect from erecting a multi-purpose building in lower Manhattan should really think about what you’re promoting, because if we all don’t put a stop to this select way of interpreting our Bill of Rights for anyone’s own interests or agenda, instead of for the best interest of the people, we’ll all wake up one day wearing Swastikas on our sleeves and hailing a dialogical dictator who may put you in a camp.

Do any of you get this? I sure the hell hope so!

Jack's Rant Friday, June 18

A News Article:

(June 18) -- Newly proposed legislation would give the federal government authority to seize and even switch off the Internet during a national crisis.The bill, put forward Thursday by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue emergency orders to companies providing services such as search engines, software and broadband Internet, according to CBS. Companies that didn't comply would face a fine. "The Internet can also be a dangerous place, with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," Lieberman said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies: cyberwarriors, cyberspies, cyberterrorists and cybercriminals."

Is this guy stark raving mad???? Give the government the right to shut down all electronic communication???? Congress has come up with a lot of hair brained ideas in the pass but this one reeks of Nazi Germany!

I'm sorry, Mr. Santry, we don't like what you wrote on your blog so we're declaring you a national risk and shutting down your access to the Internet!

This is just the tip of a very large ice burg that has been forming since the Bush administration and it's not a pretty sight! One by one we've seen our constitutional rights stripped away in the name of "national security".

THIS STOPS NOW!

Wake up people, the elected people in congress are not representing us, they're representing some pretty scary ideas, and very large corporations that pull the strings.

I don't care if you're a tea bagger or a left wing liberal, on this issue there should be no party lines and stop this madness in it's tracks before it trods on yet another one of our personal rights!