The phrase is "it's far easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." That seems to be the mantra of this administration: act first, see the ramifications of the actions later...and, no matter how the facts stack up against them, defend, defend, defend.
I'll admit that this post is largely due to the fact that, at 7:30am this morning, I had Rage Against the Machine's "Killing in the Name Of" blaring at top volume in my car. For those not in the know, it's a rightfully angry song, championing the fight against an unjust authoritarian regime which discriminates against minorities. Back in the day, it was police brutality against blacks, but we fixed that up fine (read: sarcasm). The song can easily be ported to what's happening now at our borders.
"Some of those that work forces, are the same the burn crosses."
The comparison of this administration to the KKK and early Nazi actions in the late 1930s have been made again and again. Whether the administration is intentionally singling out Jews, blacks, hispanics, etc. will be for history to decide when all the facts come in. But, with statements like "both sides are to blame" and constant tirades about Chicago and South Americans seeking asylum make you believe that this "nationalist," American first, administration is a transparent cover for a new white supremacy movement.
And then there's Israel. Strangely enough, conservatives and this administration are "all in" on Israel, which, at first, confused me. With the President's unwillingness to denounce some of his supporters, or Breitbart, or actual Nazis with torches, he's been on the Israeli band-wagon from day one. Most recently, the administration used Israel as the reason why this country is backing out of the Human Rights Council of the UN. Why? Two separate reasons I think. One: what is Israel? To the untrained eye, Israel represents a successful ethno-state. It's proof that, by holding unwanted nationalities at the borders in inhospitable desert conditions, that you can successfully create a monotheistic society. It can be done! The white christian, Trump-ian citizens in this country use Israel as the primary example of possibility. Also, it's a place where Jews can go "home," much like how they want blacks to go back to Africa, and all hispanics to "return" to Mexico, regardless of their nationalities.
"They're the chosen whites."
Two: it's far more difficult to be in bed with actual dictators in North Korea and Russia when you're a member of an organization that is outspoken against those regimes and those like them. Israel's perceived treatment of Palestinians is the convenient screen this administration is using to get further into bed with actual tyrants that Trump would like to model himself after: Kim Jong Un, Duterte, and Putin. At least he would like to be "loved" like them.
Which brings me to our detention system of migrants seeking asylum in this country. The forcible removal of children from immigrant families seeking asylum has never occurred before in either Republican or Democratic administrations. The action further demonstrates that this is clearly at the will of the President and his administration. Call it what you want, but the separation children from their families and detention of all of them is, at the very least, unpalatable. If that level of shocked sarcasm isn't hitting you in the gut, maybe it's because I didn't deliver it in its original German. Note that "detention centers" is the politically correct name for internment and concentration camps. The Trump Administration just hasn't built the showers or ovens yet. No, that's not too strong a parallel: remember the fear-mongering he fostered against Muslims? His inaction against White Nationalists commiting hate crimes/parading with torches? The administration is quick to criticize these alternative names for detention centers, but keep in mind that, during WWII, when the United States took the majority of Japanese Americans and put them into internment camps, they didn't separate the children from their families. The current policy is significantly worse. The only good thing to come from it is that the Administration has been unified in its awfulness, and that (some) Republicans are scrambling to make this go away before this too will be added to the liberal arsenal of why conservatives should be voted out in November. And, yet, maybe this is the way of the Trump Administration to drain the swamp, by actively working against the incumbent GOP politicians. It's clear that the message the White House would like to send Republicans is: back the President, or else face the political consequences. It's already clear that, even without congressional support, he's able to move his nationalist agenda forward.
My hope is that, Democrat and moderate Republicans can come together and vote out anyone who openly or passively supports this wannabe dictator's agenda. Things are moving in the right direction as the immigrant detention policies have started drawing criticism from conservative religious groups who have, seemingly, just realized that their Christian values should extend to all people, all children, and that their message of "Pro-Family" is severely challenged by this President's border policy. (Not to be mistaken with their anti-gay views which are stupid and outdated. ed.) Duh. For the rest of us, we're going to keep marching and keep protesting unjust overreaches by this Administration. My family marched in the March for Women, March for Science, March for our Children, and most recently, March against the DHS and the Contract Detention Facility in Elizabeth, NJ. We'll keep marching and keep pointing out the anti-human, racist, sexist, anti-semitic "policies" that this Administration endorses until this philandering, pussy-grabbing, ass-hole is out of office.
"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Friday, June 15, 2018
It's getting hot in here
Following the political changes in this country is exhausting. If you can block out all of the infidelities and petty character assassinations, there's still so many sweeping decisions that impact my family in both the short term and the long term. For example: because I live in NJ, the revised Federal tax laws will likely screw us in the short term. And, this administration's policy on ignoring climate change means that I need to take my children to see the glaciers now before they've completely melted.
It's this second part that is especially disturbing. The Tax laws, as one-sided as they are, will have exploitable loopholes...and plugs for those holes, and more loop holes. The natural world, however, doesn't have any escape. As the ferocity of natural disasters increases (floods, hurricanes, droughts, etc.), so does the bottom line of costs associated with clean-up and restoration, only to be knocked down again. And, the paths of destruction are symptoms of the larger issues associated with global warming. Ignoring those causation only to treat the symptoms seems like a losing battle.
I know it happens to every generation, but conversations about "when I was your age" are going to change dramatically, at least for my children. Currently, the amazement is that, in 1993 and 1994, you could buy gasoline for less than $1/gallon, and the baby boomers saw gas prices at a fraction of that. I'm afraid that my kids, instead of talking about gasoline prices, will compare their childhoods by how many natural wonders they were able to see, and that's a terrifying, but completely possible outcome. In addition to the melting glaciers, questions my children will likely be asking in 30 years will be more like these:
Remember when we could grow apples outside?
Remember when we could spend more than 15 minutes at the beach without getting sunburn?
Remember when there were whales?
Remember when going further north meant cooler temperatures?
Remember when you could drink water from a well in the ground?
I hope that I'm exaggerating. I hope that this, in 30 years will seem like the silliest post. However, we know that ignoring the issues don't make them disappear. As the global temperature increases, so do our oceans. By 2060, most of New Jersey will be on a constant flood watch due to ocean rise. While this article is from 2015, additional studies have shown that we are exceeding expectations already, and the global warming is accelerating. Yes, it may hurt our economic bottom line, however we can't ignore it any longer regardless of the political leadership in this country refusing to acknowledge this very real threat. This story has slipped away from us as we learn every day who the President has screwed and when (literally and metaphorically). It's time to resurrect this cause and start beating the drums for sustainable material development and energy efficiency improvements to ensure that future generations of all species, including ours, will be able to continue to thrive.
It's this second part that is especially disturbing. The Tax laws, as one-sided as they are, will have exploitable loopholes...and plugs for those holes, and more loop holes. The natural world, however, doesn't have any escape. As the ferocity of natural disasters increases (floods, hurricanes, droughts, etc.), so does the bottom line of costs associated with clean-up and restoration, only to be knocked down again. And, the paths of destruction are symptoms of the larger issues associated with global warming. Ignoring those causation only to treat the symptoms seems like a losing battle.
I know it happens to every generation, but conversations about "when I was your age" are going to change dramatically, at least for my children. Currently, the amazement is that, in 1993 and 1994, you could buy gasoline for less than $1/gallon, and the baby boomers saw gas prices at a fraction of that. I'm afraid that my kids, instead of talking about gasoline prices, will compare their childhoods by how many natural wonders they were able to see, and that's a terrifying, but completely possible outcome. In addition to the melting glaciers, questions my children will likely be asking in 30 years will be more like these:
Remember when we could grow apples outside?
Remember when we could spend more than 15 minutes at the beach without getting sunburn?
Remember when there were whales?
Remember when going further north meant cooler temperatures?
Remember when you could drink water from a well in the ground?
I hope that I'm exaggerating. I hope that this, in 30 years will seem like the silliest post. However, we know that ignoring the issues don't make them disappear. As the global temperature increases, so do our oceans. By 2060, most of New Jersey will be on a constant flood watch due to ocean rise. While this article is from 2015, additional studies have shown that we are exceeding expectations already, and the global warming is accelerating. Yes, it may hurt our economic bottom line, however we can't ignore it any longer regardless of the political leadership in this country refusing to acknowledge this very real threat. This story has slipped away from us as we learn every day who the President has screwed and when (literally and metaphorically). It's time to resurrect this cause and start beating the drums for sustainable material development and energy efficiency improvements to ensure that future generations of all species, including ours, will be able to continue to thrive.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Another White House Fumble
I dislike the Eagles and I also dislike the Patriots. Who was I going to root for during the 2018 Super Bowl?
First, let me apologize to those who care not a wit for American Football, the NFL or my sports team preferences. There are tons of other issues that are far more important than overpaid sports legends and the machine that enables them to become who they are. Specifically, there are the issues of inner-city poverty, cancer, childhood obesity and school shootings that are far, far more important than a team winning a "world championship" where no other countries are allowed to participate.
That said, there have been a couple of changes in the NFL that have drawn much criticism. In its efforts to sideline (see what I did there) the controversy regarding the peaceful on-field demonstrations against minority social injustices, the NFL issued a new policy regarding protests at work. Namely, if you must demonstrate your 1st Amendment rights and protest during a game, you must now do so in the locker room. It's the equivalent of the NFL saying "Yeah, we hear you...but we don't want you to piss off our sponsors or our (declining) TV audience, one that perceives that you're disrespecting our flag and our Anthem [which they're not, ed.]." Take your ideals off of our field of play or get penalized financially. Why would they do this when, statistically speaking, fewer players knelt during the anthem in 2017 than 2016...except on week 3, right after the President said that any player who kneels should be fired?
What? The same law that protects their ability to kneel, protected a man whose "grab 'em right in the pussy" comment got him elected President!
There's no law requiring your to honor the flag or the anthem. And, any President who uses his podium to influence hiring and firing practices in a private company is ethically challenged at best, like he did when he called team owners and scolded them to make this issue go away. All it did was bring the matter back to the forefront. Why would he stoke the fires enough to reignite the issue? Perhaps it was because, in September 2017 he was taking heat for his stance on the Nazi...sorry, White Nationalists rally where he declared that "both sides are at fault." Perhaps because he was pissy that some of the Golden State Warriors decided that, due to his defense of those same Nazis, they weren't going to visit the White House to be honored for their championship win, and so he cancelled the visit by the team entirely before more people could call him out as an alleged racist. Sound familiar? Perhaps he's got a chip on his shoulder from when he attempted to sue the NFL for direct competition of his $8 million dollar team (10 times less expensive in 1983 dollars) in the US Football League, a competing sports league. While he won his lawsuit, the judges awarded him $3 for his efforts, and shortly thereafter his $22 million investment went bust and the entire USFL folded. Boo hoo.
So, here we go again. The President is still spreading the narrative that NFL players don't care about their country, the flag and it's anthem. The players maintain that what they are protesting is police brutality against minorities, blacks and people of color. The President doesn't care. Once he discovered that only a delegation of the Super Bowl winning Eagles were willing to make the trip to Washington, he cancelled and rebranded the event as a celebration of patriotism. This move stank of his pandering to the public who believes him over the players in the NFL, who are overwhelmingly black (70% of NFL players identify as black). How many Eagles players knelt during the 2017 season? Zero. What were the pictures that Fox News was broadcasting of Eagles players kneeling? It was the players praying before the game, something that happens before every game played and even before the anthem is played. Talk about #fakenews.
Here's the thing. Those players that Trump would have fired for not standing during the anthem...those terrible Americans, are some of the most generous humans I can think of. They regularly use their wealth to contribute to charities and causes that improve the lives of so many. Like, Patrick Peterson (Arizona Cardinals) who donates to help inner-city children have the resources to succeed during and after school. He also visited Haiti with Missions of Hope to improve conditions there. Or, how about Vic Beasley (Atlanta Falcons) who created a foundation dedicated to the scientific discovery of new treatments for many childhood cancers. Or, Charles Johnson from the Carolina Panthers who built affordable housing units for seniors in Rock Hill and Columbia SC as well as providing college scholarships to students who attend his alma mater, Hawkinsville High School. And then there's JJ Watt, who raised over $37 million for victims in Houston after the hurricane devastated that city...as well as paying for all of the funerals for the children who were murdered recently in the suburb of Santa Fe. Most recently in the news, Malcolm Jenkins (Philadelphia Eagles) created his foundation dedicated to improving the lives of children in underserved communities, and Chris Long (Philadelphia Eagles) who donated 100% of his salary for the 2017 season to charities, specifically scholarships to students from his home town, Charlottesville, Virginia, the same location where the President's defended Nazis marched and killed that woman.
That being said, this is but a short, short list of how individual NFL players give back to their communities. It's a complete misrepresentation to say that they don't care about the United States and don't honor its citizens. And, by stoking this particular fire, along with major news outlets contorting the news for their viewers, the President completely misses the point about the objectives of our nation's athletic leaders. As much as it pains me to say this as a New York Giants Fan, I have immense respect for the players on the Philadelphia Eagles players who have been vocal about our nation's social inequities. With that, Fly Eagles Fly and NFL players in general, keep doing the work that our federal government keeps defunding: affordable housing, cancer research, community development, and education.
First, let me apologize to those who care not a wit for American Football, the NFL or my sports team preferences. There are tons of other issues that are far more important than overpaid sports legends and the machine that enables them to become who they are. Specifically, there are the issues of inner-city poverty, cancer, childhood obesity and school shootings that are far, far more important than a team winning a "world championship" where no other countries are allowed to participate.
That said, there have been a couple of changes in the NFL that have drawn much criticism. In its efforts to sideline (see what I did there) the controversy regarding the peaceful on-field demonstrations against minority social injustices, the NFL issued a new policy regarding protests at work. Namely, if you must demonstrate your 1st Amendment rights and protest during a game, you must now do so in the locker room. It's the equivalent of the NFL saying "Yeah, we hear you...but we don't want you to piss off our sponsors or our (declining) TV audience, one that perceives that you're disrespecting our flag and our Anthem [which they're not, ed.]." Take your ideals off of our field of play or get penalized financially. Why would they do this when, statistically speaking, fewer players knelt during the anthem in 2017 than 2016...except on week 3, right after the President said that any player who kneels should be fired?
What? The same law that protects their ability to kneel, protected a man whose "grab 'em right in the pussy" comment got him elected President!
There's no law requiring your to honor the flag or the anthem. And, any President who uses his podium to influence hiring and firing practices in a private company is ethically challenged at best, like he did when he called team owners and scolded them to make this issue go away. All it did was bring the matter back to the forefront. Why would he stoke the fires enough to reignite the issue? Perhaps it was because, in September 2017 he was taking heat for his stance on the Nazi...sorry, White Nationalists rally where he declared that "both sides are at fault." Perhaps because he was pissy that some of the Golden State Warriors decided that, due to his defense of those same Nazis, they weren't going to visit the White House to be honored for their championship win, and so he cancelled the visit by the team entirely before more people could call him out as an alleged racist. Sound familiar? Perhaps he's got a chip on his shoulder from when he attempted to sue the NFL for direct competition of his $8 million dollar team (10 times less expensive in 1983 dollars) in the US Football League, a competing sports league. While he won his lawsuit, the judges awarded him $3 for his efforts, and shortly thereafter his $22 million investment went bust and the entire USFL folded. Boo hoo.
So, here we go again. The President is still spreading the narrative that NFL players don't care about their country, the flag and it's anthem. The players maintain that what they are protesting is police brutality against minorities, blacks and people of color. The President doesn't care. Once he discovered that only a delegation of the Super Bowl winning Eagles were willing to make the trip to Washington, he cancelled and rebranded the event as a celebration of patriotism. This move stank of his pandering to the public who believes him over the players in the NFL, who are overwhelmingly black (70% of NFL players identify as black). How many Eagles players knelt during the 2017 season? Zero. What were the pictures that Fox News was broadcasting of Eagles players kneeling? It was the players praying before the game, something that happens before every game played and even before the anthem is played. Talk about #fakenews.
Here's the thing. Those players that Trump would have fired for not standing during the anthem...those terrible Americans, are some of the most generous humans I can think of. They regularly use their wealth to contribute to charities and causes that improve the lives of so many. Like, Patrick Peterson (Arizona Cardinals) who donates to help inner-city children have the resources to succeed during and after school. He also visited Haiti with Missions of Hope to improve conditions there. Or, how about Vic Beasley (Atlanta Falcons) who created a foundation dedicated to the scientific discovery of new treatments for many childhood cancers. Or, Charles Johnson from the Carolina Panthers who built affordable housing units for seniors in Rock Hill and Columbia SC as well as providing college scholarships to students who attend his alma mater, Hawkinsville High School. And then there's JJ Watt, who raised over $37 million for victims in Houston after the hurricane devastated that city...as well as paying for all of the funerals for the children who were murdered recently in the suburb of Santa Fe. Most recently in the news, Malcolm Jenkins (Philadelphia Eagles) created his foundation dedicated to improving the lives of children in underserved communities, and Chris Long (Philadelphia Eagles) who donated 100% of his salary for the 2017 season to charities, specifically scholarships to students from his home town, Charlottesville, Virginia, the same location where the President's defended Nazis marched and killed that woman.
That being said, this is but a short, short list of how individual NFL players give back to their communities. It's a complete misrepresentation to say that they don't care about the United States and don't honor its citizens. And, by stoking this particular fire, along with major news outlets contorting the news for their viewers, the President completely misses the point about the objectives of our nation's athletic leaders. As much as it pains me to say this as a New York Giants Fan, I have immense respect for the players on the Philadelphia Eagles players who have been vocal about our nation's social inequities. With that, Fly Eagles Fly and NFL players in general, keep doing the work that our federal government keeps defunding: affordable housing, cancer research, community development, and education.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Outdated Entertainment
I have many problems with the New York Giants, primarily their performance from last season and a 3-13 record. I also understand the controversy surrounding the NFL's insistence on making a policy regarding the National Anthem. And, while I feel that first amendment rights should always be protected, the Giants have never allowed this particular issue become a headline in a paper. I believe that's due to the ownership's desire to have all press about this ball club be about the game, and not off-the-field issues. Granted, some players bring that on themselves as we saw with kicker Josh Brown who admitted to domestic abuse. He was summarily dismissed. Was he the best kicker? No, but he was able to make nearly 92% of his scoring attempts and had the 5th most field goals made in the organization. There's no place for that level of abuse in sports, and players who commit such crimes should not be allowed to be team representatives or community role models, which these athletes, and others from parallel leagues, are.
With that mentality, I also agree with the Giants position on cheerleaders. From a 2010 article in the New York Times: “Philosophically we have always had issues with sending scantily clad women out on the field to entertain our fans,” said John Mara, the Giants co-owner. “It’s just not part of our philosophy.”
Exactly. Parading around half-naked women during a sporting event where there are thousands of inebriated patrons, predominantly men, doesn't make sense. Are you there for football or are you there to gawk? Ask the Jets, where in the old Giants Stadium it was tradition to harass women to take their tops off as they walked by! Don't worry, instead of doing a better policing job and throwing this scumbags out, the Jets, in 2006, started their own cheerleading squad to better focus leering fans. Again, why are you there?
In today's New York Times I learned of another lurid tactic: in addition to the ladies who are actually required to perform dance routines during the games, there is a second group of cheer-leader-adorned models whose only purpose is to promote luxury services by either selling suites or as during-game entertainment. Basically, teams employ this secondary squad to create a Hooters-like atmosphere at games for those with cash to encourage them to keep coming. These women frequently make minimum wage, and are routinely sexually and physically harassed by the same patrons these organizations are courting.
These women are also expected to be used for photo shoots and promotional materials such as swimsuit calendars...for minimum wage. As detailed in their etiquette manuals, the restrictions on where they can appear, what they can wear, and what they can say are highly regulated, nevermind the fact that they also have to maintain waistlines and bustlines or be terminated. They even are required to sign non-disclosure agreements which has prohibited some of them for going on record with the news media about the hostile work conditions they face as their sex-symbol football personas.
Now that lawsuits have surfaced from these women about their treatment, the NFL teams needs to do some serious soul searching. How much of your annual revenues are due to mostly naked women? What real purpose do they serve? Do they impact the team's ability to win football games? I think we know most of these answers, and in the spirit of not abusing women or supporting those players and administrators who do, it may be time to end the practice of cheerleading in professional sports as it flies in the face of what this country stands for, specifically as a violation of women's civil rights in a workplace (See Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII).
Based on new policies claiming the need to honor our country during the National Anthem, this should be a no-brainer.
With that mentality, I also agree with the Giants position on cheerleaders. From a 2010 article in the New York Times: “Philosophically we have always had issues with sending scantily clad women out on the field to entertain our fans,” said John Mara, the Giants co-owner. “It’s just not part of our philosophy.”
Exactly. Parading around half-naked women during a sporting event where there are thousands of inebriated patrons, predominantly men, doesn't make sense. Are you there for football or are you there to gawk? Ask the Jets, where in the old Giants Stadium it was tradition to harass women to take their tops off as they walked by! Don't worry, instead of doing a better policing job and throwing this scumbags out, the Jets, in 2006, started their own cheerleading squad to better focus leering fans. Again, why are you there?
In today's New York Times I learned of another lurid tactic: in addition to the ladies who are actually required to perform dance routines during the games, there is a second group of cheer-leader-adorned models whose only purpose is to promote luxury services by either selling suites or as during-game entertainment. Basically, teams employ this secondary squad to create a Hooters-like atmosphere at games for those with cash to encourage them to keep coming. These women frequently make minimum wage, and are routinely sexually and physically harassed by the same patrons these organizations are courting.
These women are also expected to be used for photo shoots and promotional materials such as swimsuit calendars...for minimum wage. As detailed in their etiquette manuals, the restrictions on where they can appear, what they can wear, and what they can say are highly regulated, nevermind the fact that they also have to maintain waistlines and bustlines or be terminated. They even are required to sign non-disclosure agreements which has prohibited some of them for going on record with the news media about the hostile work conditions they face as their sex-symbol football personas.
Now that lawsuits have surfaced from these women about their treatment, the NFL teams needs to do some serious soul searching. How much of your annual revenues are due to mostly naked women? What real purpose do they serve? Do they impact the team's ability to win football games? I think we know most of these answers, and in the spirit of not abusing women or supporting those players and administrators who do, it may be time to end the practice of cheerleading in professional sports as it flies in the face of what this country stands for, specifically as a violation of women's civil rights in a workplace (See Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII).
Based on new policies claiming the need to honor our country during the National Anthem, this should be a no-brainer.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Not Necessarily At Peace
You're going to hate me, but, like Jimmy Carter I believe that this president...Agent Orange, The Donald, vulture of real estate, has a real shot at receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
I'll wait.
I hope that by the time you continue this, you've stopped vomiting in the trashcans at your collective desks. While I understand that the White House has now made a statement that the summit between Big DT and the Insane Human Rights Dictator Kim Jong-un may be delayed, if it actually happens, if they discuss nuclear disarmament, if they theoretically unite the two Koreas, then Donald J (stands for Jackass) Trump would be a clear candidate for the honor.
Take that in for a little bit.
What's the logic? Well, it could have been any American diplomat or international diplomat for that matter, sitting at that table, but it's not. The Korean war started in 1950 and bringing about its end is worthy of ridiculous praise and would be a huge accomplishment. What's more, it would be a far more concrete reason for the prize than the logic as to why Obama got one. Frankly, that was an odd and poor choice in my opinion. The Nobel committee's logic was that Obama went to "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" without naming specific peoples or events. After international criticism on the choice, the Nobel committee was quick to defend their choice indicating that he wasn't getting it because of what he would do as the newly elected American president...but what he had done. Which was what, exactly? He wrote some books, won two Grammy's for the reading of those books, won his elections by a large majority, practiced civil rights law and made an important speech against the (unpopular) Iraq invasion, became senator...um...and then became President.
I'm missing the details, and I'm happy to be wrong, but his rise to the Presidency wasn't bookended by Mother Theresa-like moves in international diplomacy and peace. He was a good person...but maybe not as good as the people who were passed on that year to receive the prize. Even the Nobel secretary has had second thoughts...especially after Obama's military accidentally bombed previous Nobel winner's Doctors Without Borders in 2015, when one Peace Prize winner bombed another.
I love to hate Trump, and I believe that Obama will be written into history as a good/productive President regardless if you like him or not. Which is why I am secretly happy that our US Government, maybe prematurely, printed commemorative coins for this now-delayed summit. You never know what you're going to get with a human-rights-abusing mad man (Trump or Kim), but if the summit doesn't happen now, at least I'll get a laugh out of this coin...and I won't have the nagging feeling that I would need to acknowledge the positive fact that Trump ended a 68 year war.
I'll wait.
I hope that by the time you continue this, you've stopped vomiting in the trashcans at your collective desks. While I understand that the White House has now made a statement that the summit between Big DT and the Insane Human Rights Dictator Kim Jong-un may be delayed, if it actually happens, if they discuss nuclear disarmament, if they theoretically unite the two Koreas, then Donald J (stands for Jackass) Trump would be a clear candidate for the honor.
Take that in for a little bit.
What's the logic? Well, it could have been any American diplomat or international diplomat for that matter, sitting at that table, but it's not. The Korean war started in 1950 and bringing about its end is worthy of ridiculous praise and would be a huge accomplishment. What's more, it would be a far more concrete reason for the prize than the logic as to why Obama got one. Frankly, that was an odd and poor choice in my opinion. The Nobel committee's logic was that Obama went to "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" without naming specific peoples or events. After international criticism on the choice, the Nobel committee was quick to defend their choice indicating that he wasn't getting it because of what he would do as the newly elected American president...but what he had done. Which was what, exactly? He wrote some books, won two Grammy's for the reading of those books, won his elections by a large majority, practiced civil rights law and made an important speech against the (unpopular) Iraq invasion, became senator...um...and then became President.
I'm missing the details, and I'm happy to be wrong, but his rise to the Presidency wasn't bookended by Mother Theresa-like moves in international diplomacy and peace. He was a good person...but maybe not as good as the people who were passed on that year to receive the prize. Even the Nobel secretary has had second thoughts...especially after Obama's military accidentally bombed previous Nobel winner's Doctors Without Borders in 2015, when one Peace Prize winner bombed another.
I love to hate Trump, and I believe that Obama will be written into history as a good/productive President regardless if you like him or not. Which is why I am secretly happy that our US Government, maybe prematurely, printed commemorative coins for this now-delayed summit. You never know what you're going to get with a human-rights-abusing mad man (Trump or Kim), but if the summit doesn't happen now, at least I'll get a laugh out of this coin...and I won't have the nagging feeling that I would need to acknowledge the positive fact that Trump ended a 68 year war.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Some uncomfortable facts...but only if you're a liberal
Listen, I hate the President with all of my heart. Why? Probably because of his disdain of science and facts. It's no secret that the President has alluded that climate change, which is very, very real, is a global hoax perpetuated by the Chinese. His administration is hell-bent on rolling back decades of environmental policy and protections. His shrinking of my/our public lands is not only environmentally unethical, but also a slight against the American tax-paying public who, you would think, should have a say in reclaimed public assets.
But, that's not everything. Several websites track his misrepresentations of the truth, and, since taking office, we've cleared the 3,000 mark on lies or mischaracterizations that have come from his mouth. However, this man's administration successfully bartered the release of 3 political prisoners that were being held in North Korea, and you can take that fact to the bank.
Being fond of the New York Times and NPR, I find it alarming that, when they speak of these three hostages and their release, they give nearly zero credit to the White House. That's just flat out wrong. In a political atmosphere where so many half-truths are flying around, this one seems plains-as-day apparent: the President, and his foreign policies with North Korea yielded the release of prisoners who had been incarcerated for as long as two years. Who were they? The BBC describes them this way:
Forget waterboarding, the North Koreans typically subject their prisoners to hard labor (read: mining, logging) for long hours, and isolated in the state's attempt to break them down. North Korean prisoners can be arrested and jailed for everything from speaking ill of the regime to watching an "illicit" South Korean DVD, to stealing a North Korean propaganda poster. These releases are of no small value from a nation that treats its citizenry worse than most western nations treat their most notorious criminals.
So, before we brush this huge accomplishment under the rug, take a minute to acknowledge that this administration under this President, actually did something fantastic where other administrations in the past had failed. That's a cold-hard fact.
Also: stop getting so excited that major corporations would have paid a low-level aide hundreds of thousands of dollars for perceived access to the President. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last...and the Russian connection is thin at best. My 2 cents.
But, that's not everything. Several websites track his misrepresentations of the truth, and, since taking office, we've cleared the 3,000 mark on lies or mischaracterizations that have come from his mouth. However, this man's administration successfully bartered the release of 3 political prisoners that were being held in North Korea, and you can take that fact to the bank.
Being fond of the New York Times and NPR, I find it alarming that, when they speak of these three hostages and their release, they give nearly zero credit to the White House. That's just flat out wrong. In a political atmosphere where so many half-truths are flying around, this one seems plains-as-day apparent: the President, and his foreign policies with North Korea yielded the release of prisoners who had been incarcerated for as long as two years. Who were they? The BBC describes them this way:
- Kim Hak-song was held on suspicion of "hostile acts" in May 2017. He had previously described himself as a Christian missionary who intended to start an experimental farm at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST)
- Tony Kim, also known as Kim Sang-duk, also worked at PUST. He was detained in April 2017 on espionage charges. According to South Korean media, he had been involved in humanitarian work in the North.
- Kim Dong-chul, a pastor in his early 60s, was detained in 2015 on spying charges, and was then sentenced to 10 years hard labour
Forget waterboarding, the North Koreans typically subject their prisoners to hard labor (read: mining, logging) for long hours, and isolated in the state's attempt to break them down. North Korean prisoners can be arrested and jailed for everything from speaking ill of the regime to watching an "illicit" South Korean DVD, to stealing a North Korean propaganda poster. These releases are of no small value from a nation that treats its citizenry worse than most western nations treat their most notorious criminals.
So, before we brush this huge accomplishment under the rug, take a minute to acknowledge that this administration under this President, actually did something fantastic where other administrations in the past had failed. That's a cold-hard fact.
Also: stop getting so excited that major corporations would have paid a low-level aide hundreds of thousands of dollars for perceived access to the President. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last...and the Russian connection is thin at best. My 2 cents.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Bolero
A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to see the band moe. Wikipedia tells me that they formed around 1989 and quickly established themselves on the Jam Band scene. They're super talented. This is the first time I've seen them, but I went with others who are far better versed in the music than I am. The truly dedicated fashion themselves as "moe.-rons." I get it. Having seen a band (Phish) well over 30 times since 2003, and studying the Grateful Dead as I am wont to do, I understand the seemingly blind devotion to something super familiar, and at the same time, new and powerful.
I try to explain this to those who see a band once and then they're done. As I'm a music snob, I equate this musical disconnect to people who bus-trip through the National Parks. The bus parks, everyone gets off at the popular spot, takes their picture, and an hour later, they're on the bus to the next one. To me, that's like having the entire menu trotted out so you can look at it, but not eat it. But my metaphors are multiplying. I digress. The point is, I get why a band that's been around since the early 1990's remains popular today. The secret is in the jam: they never play a song the same way twice.
That said, I left the show a little unimpressed (see: music snob above). My chief complaint was that the sound was off. No, they didn't play "wrong notes" as, there are no wrong notes in an improvised jam. No, my issue was the sound: levels between the vocals and the instruments weren't well balanced. It was neigh impossible to understand what the singer was crooning during a song. I get that your ability to hear well is largely dependent on where you are in a venue. Are you too close to a speaker? Are you too far back in the hall that the reverberation is causing an echo? To combat this, we were standing next to the sound board where the engineer was fiddling with microphone levels the entire night. That's usually a good rule of thumb: it makes sense to hear the band the way the engineer hears the band in order to get the best mix. Well, that night he was off.
To give the band a second chance, I bought a download of that same show. This is a common offering made by the jam band scene: you can download the show you saw weeks, days or even hours after you've seen it so as to have a perfect souvenir of your experience. Again, blame the Grateful Dead for this as they've always been friendly to "tapers" (those who set up their own microphones and recording equipment...usually in front of the soundboard, get it?) and, at times, even allowed concert goers to plug directly into the board itself for the "best" quality recordings. In these digital times, a company named nugs.net got together with Phish and Metalica (not exactly an exclusively jam band offering) and started making the music available to those who want to purchase it.
So I've given this show a second listening, and I was still not "moved." The dudes on the stage in moe. were extremely talented, especially the gentleman on vibraphone...which couldn't be heard well because, again, there were level issues. No, the real reason why I didn't fall head over heals for this show was the severe lack of climax. I call this the lack of the Bolero effect.
Have you heard Ravel's "Bolero?" It's best heard rather than explained, but the premise is simple enough: start softly and slowly crescendo over the course of many minutes within a piece, adding more complexities, more instruments, and lastly, more decibels until the music is at its peak roar, the audience is on its feat and it all ends in a fantastic explosion of coordinated sound. Jerry did this. Trey does this. But, sadly, moe. does not. The jams were good, but they started at 7 or 8 and kept them there for the duration of several 15 minute songs. Listening using 80% of your concentration on a song is hard to do over long periods (see: Frank Zappa who did this deliberately), frequently resulting in what my uncle helped coin: a swirling mind turd.
While I'm applying this to music I've recently seen, the same logic can be made with some of today's most popular movies or TV shows. Avengers: Infinity War nailed this, The Shape of Water comes close...as does Game of Thrones, sometimes over the course of the season, sometimes over the course of an episode. Would I see moe. again? To tell the truth, probably. I've got a couple of early recordings, and some of their songs are solid, despite lacking the crescendo I have come to expect from other groups. No moe.-ron here until they can match the power of what Phish does with You Enjoy Myself...but because every show is different, there's a chance that they (moe.) attain "Bolero": achievement unlocked. But, I guess I'll have to keep going in order to find that out.
I try to explain this to those who see a band once and then they're done. As I'm a music snob, I equate this musical disconnect to people who bus-trip through the National Parks. The bus parks, everyone gets off at the popular spot, takes their picture, and an hour later, they're on the bus to the next one. To me, that's like having the entire menu trotted out so you can look at it, but not eat it. But my metaphors are multiplying. I digress. The point is, I get why a band that's been around since the early 1990's remains popular today. The secret is in the jam: they never play a song the same way twice.
That said, I left the show a little unimpressed (see: music snob above). My chief complaint was that the sound was off. No, they didn't play "wrong notes" as, there are no wrong notes in an improvised jam. No, my issue was the sound: levels between the vocals and the instruments weren't well balanced. It was neigh impossible to understand what the singer was crooning during a song. I get that your ability to hear well is largely dependent on where you are in a venue. Are you too close to a speaker? Are you too far back in the hall that the reverberation is causing an echo? To combat this, we were standing next to the sound board where the engineer was fiddling with microphone levels the entire night. That's usually a good rule of thumb: it makes sense to hear the band the way the engineer hears the band in order to get the best mix. Well, that night he was off.
To give the band a second chance, I bought a download of that same show. This is a common offering made by the jam band scene: you can download the show you saw weeks, days or even hours after you've seen it so as to have a perfect souvenir of your experience. Again, blame the Grateful Dead for this as they've always been friendly to "tapers" (those who set up their own microphones and recording equipment...usually in front of the soundboard, get it?) and, at times, even allowed concert goers to plug directly into the board itself for the "best" quality recordings. In these digital times, a company named nugs.net got together with Phish and Metalica (not exactly an exclusively jam band offering) and started making the music available to those who want to purchase it.
So I've given this show a second listening, and I was still not "moved." The dudes on the stage in moe. were extremely talented, especially the gentleman on vibraphone...which couldn't be heard well because, again, there were level issues. No, the real reason why I didn't fall head over heals for this show was the severe lack of climax. I call this the lack of the Bolero effect.
Have you heard Ravel's "Bolero?" It's best heard rather than explained, but the premise is simple enough: start softly and slowly crescendo over the course of many minutes within a piece, adding more complexities, more instruments, and lastly, more decibels until the music is at its peak roar, the audience is on its feat and it all ends in a fantastic explosion of coordinated sound. Jerry did this. Trey does this. But, sadly, moe. does not. The jams were good, but they started at 7 or 8 and kept them there for the duration of several 15 minute songs. Listening using 80% of your concentration on a song is hard to do over long periods (see: Frank Zappa who did this deliberately), frequently resulting in what my uncle helped coin: a swirling mind turd.
While I'm applying this to music I've recently seen, the same logic can be made with some of today's most popular movies or TV shows. Avengers: Infinity War nailed this, The Shape of Water comes close...as does Game of Thrones, sometimes over the course of the season, sometimes over the course of an episode. Would I see moe. again? To tell the truth, probably. I've got a couple of early recordings, and some of their songs are solid, despite lacking the crescendo I have come to expect from other groups. No moe.-ron here until they can match the power of what Phish does with You Enjoy Myself...but because every show is different, there's a chance that they (moe.) attain "Bolero": achievement unlocked. But, I guess I'll have to keep going in order to find that out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)