Gunz?

(Note:  This opinion piece recently appeared on Mr. Jaime Perez' fine new effort towards online and print news and opinion, "The Stallion Crest Messenger."  You can find it here, under his 'Mano a Mano' link:  (http://www.thestallioncrestmessenger.com/beyond-savagery)

Imagine, if you will, a world where adults can hold reasonable discourse on issues of the day, without one side, or the other, resorting to arguments ad hominen, or simple repetition of poorly thought out, and unreasonable position statements.  A world much like the American political scene of the 1950's and 1960's, where, believe it or not, laws were passed, and discussions were held within the Congress of the United States, without hate, name calling, and with the art of compromise shining through.

               Yes, Virginia, this really did happen frequently.  Not only that, but elected officials - who knew that they were in Congress to represent the will of the people - were actually polite to one another, addressing each other with terms like "my esteemed colleague," or "the gentleman on the other side of the aisle."  Really!  It was common!

               In a world such as that it would have been possible to hold a productive discussion on a topic such as the Second Amendment.  That's right.  Both political parties could have talked about that amendment, and its real meaning in the current world.  It is even possible that both sides could have come to an agreement about how best to interpret that amendment in today's world.

               Reasonably, I could say, for instance, that the Second Amendment was written a long, long time ago, when the world was a very different place.  That simple statement would not be met with derision, and I would not expect to be called names for saying it.  I could go on to say something like, "You know, the common firearm of the 1780's, when the Second Amendment was written, was a very simple device that was very difficult to load, prepare, aim, and finally, to fire."  At the time this amendment was written, and later, ratified by the various states, most homes, especially in rural areas, had at least one such muzzle loaded rifle, not just for defense, but also to help put meat on the table.

               I could go on, still reasonably, and point out that the reason why the framers of that 2nd Amendment talked about the need for a militia had as much to do with the fact that most of this nation was rural in nature, and that a means of rapid communications or transportation simply did not exist, directly leading to the need for some form of self defense.  Remember that this nation did not have a duly organized army at the time this amendment was written.  And, there is no mention, or even a suggestion that this nation had to do more than be concerned about general security.  No specific enemies were named or even suggested, nor was there any suggestion that either our own government, or a foreign government might be a threat to that security.

               And, still reasonably, I'd say that once an army was created, and once communications improved, and decent means of transportation were built and available, the need for militias pretty much disappeared.  Moreover, I would say that as single shot weapons became obsolete, any real need for an individual to possess more modern weapons was obsolete as well.  What need I, or you, of a weapon that will fire hundreds of rounds per minute against what threat to my security, or yours, in today's world?

               So, how about it?  Could we reasonably discuss the possibility that we might consider either applying the actual wording of that Second Amendment into this modern world - in its entirety, with emphasis on that pesky need for a well maintained militia? Or, more appropriately, could we discuss  rephrasing it to fit a world that has no need for a militia, and where we have adequate policing of our communities, and no more marauding people whose lands we've stolen, or outlaw gangs or wild animals that might pose a threat to our daily lives?

Cable Television: Legal Larceny.

As you may (or may not) know by now, I have recently and proudly cut the pay per view cable.  I refuse to pay for my television reception any longer, unless I can be sure that what I receive is what I want and that what I receive comes without commercial interruption.

"What's that?" you say.  Think about this.  When I paid AT&T, or DISH, or Time Warner for any of their packages, I was actually paying for the questionable privilege of receiving mostly dreck which was always accompanied by commercials!  I had allowed these leeches to talk me into paying twice, in a very real sense, for garbage that I literally never watched.  In order to receive those few channels that I thought I might want to watch - occasionally - I had to pay for a ton of crap content that I never, ever watched!

Do you know anyone who ever watched any Jesus channel?  Shopping Networks?  Or, any of the myriad nothing channels that are all over cable, but not OTA?  Exactly!  So, why the hell should I be forced to pay for that shite if I am not going to watch any of it?  Meanwhile, those that are not selling me something outright, are selling their air time for commercials!

So, here's my thoughts.  If I cannot pick and choose only those channels in which I am interested, do not ask me to pay for any channels.  If I pay for a channel, then it better be commercial free!  That's right.  If your content is so damn good, broadcast it to everyone for free.  TNT, WGN, ACM, and all you others, I am talking to you.  I refuse to pay for your content.

Do you have any idea how many channels are available over the air, in most markets?  Granted, there are still some rural areas where no television is available, but let's be honest, the population living in rural areas today is tiny compared to what it was back in the early days of radio and even of broadcast television.  Right here in El Paso, Texas, I can pick up about twenty channels with an indoor antenna!  And, the picture quality is better than any cable or satellite!  For free!

And, before I forget.  Monday Night Football was so much better when it was broadcast over the air, via ABC, than it is now!  And, in case you did not notice, the commercials shown on ESPN are mostly for crap products because even Madison Avenue is aware that fewer people watch ESPN than ABC.

Wanted: A Post Modern for real Cincinnatus.

Has anyone stopped to think about what we pay our "public servants" these days?  When I say public servant I am referring to elected officials at any level.  From your City Council member, through County Commissioners Court, on up to State and National representatives.

Once upon a time these various elective offices were considered to be a way of serving the public good, and they all were - and should still be - part time positions.  That is part of way they are considered to be public service.  You know, busy people taking time out of their busy lives to help the common good.  Right?  I mean, it is obvious that members of Congress only work a small portion of the time.  Actually, they all spend more time campaigning for their next election that they do performing the duties of the offices to which they were elected!

And, guess what?  Our current situation is not the way it was supposed to be!  Our founding fathers were not looking to create a new profession, that of political office holders!  The idea was for a few folks to devote some time to the public good, and then to return to their private lives.  And, let some other person serve a term.  Constant turnover would be good for the country!  Certainly better than the same old, same old of today.

Now, commensurate with this idea of short term service, for the common good, was the idea that those who were elected to public office might be reimbursed for their costs of travel to and from the place where they worked together for that common good, and maybe a reasonable stipend for their time.

Unfortunately, all we have ended up with is a new outlet for one of the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins, greed.  Here in El Paso, Texas, our County Commissioners just voted themselves a hefty pay raise, citing - if you can believe this - the huge responsibility of managing our large county budget as being a requirement that they be paid - for their part time positions - an annual salary that is more than double the median income of this poor county!

We really need to think about initiating term limits on every elective office, across the nation.  If it is good enough for the office of President, it should certainly be good enough for the folks on City Council.  Two terms, and you're out!  And, since these are ALL part time jobs, the salaries need to be commensurate with the amount of work actually done.  Likewise, since these are part time positions, there should be no employee benefits provided, although perhaps health care under medicare or medicaid might be appropriate while in office.  Naturally, reasonable reimbursement for necessary travel and/or lodging should be available.  But, no more salary and benefit packages as if these were full time employees.  And, only the President should be entitled to any lifetime benefits.

I suspect that this would save a ton of taxpayer dollars.  Or, maybe we just need to find us a Cincinnatus?

Misogyny much?

Along with the inexplicable support for a cretin (Herr Drumpf), I am unable to fathom why there seems to be so much virulent hate directed towards Hillary Clinton.  What is it that she is supposed to have done to piss off so many people?!  I mean, other than being female?  And, well educated?  And, intelligent?  Experienced?  Prepared?  Married to a pretty damn good President?  I mean, we all should know by now that Benghazi was just so much bullshit dreamed up by her detractors in an effort (largely successful for a good long while, by the way) to distract people from the knowledge that the real culprits for whatever happened there were the very critics who scream the loudest!  That's right, the very republican Congress which refused to adequately fund, and even cut funding for Embassy security.  She has been investigated from here to there, and back again, and has never been charged with any actual crimes, let alone convicted.  So, please, someone, explain why the apparently widespread hatred of this woman?

Edward R. Murrow is spinning like a wild top.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that today's "reporters," these so-called journalists, have no concept of journalism or reporting of the news?  Or, maybe, they just have no balls?  Just once I'd like to see a politician - or any other person - asked a question that they then must answer!

Every interview that is shown on television these days, whether it is with a candidate for office, or a celebrity or sports hero or whatever, shows seemingly straightforward questions being asked, but never answered.  When the person being questioned fails to actually respond to the question, we never see the reporter push for the answer their question deserved.  They let it slide, every single time!

And, this is part of what is wrong with us today.  We (my wife and I) recently watched "The Newsroom" lately, and the scenes showing life on the campaign bus of the GOP's last Presidential candidate (Mittens; you remember him?).  Only one news person dares to ask real questions, and he never receives answers.  And, his questions are only to staff members of the candidate, because they deny him access to the actual, live candidate!  How could this be acceptable to anyone?  Yes, I know that this is a fictionalized television production, but I believe it is an accurate depiction of what goes on during political campaigns.

Look at the ridiculous staged events that are still referred to as debates!  None of these staged events comes close to even resembling the active give-and-take of political debates from our history.  And, that is so sad.  Our candidates are not being shown in any real light, and therefore our political decisions are canned, pre-determined, and lifeless.

Or, in real life, with the current campaign, we see on a daily basis, an asshole like Herr Drumpf get away with making the most outrageous statements, but never, ever being called on them.  Reporters ask him questions, he goes off on a rant, and they let him get away with it!  But, then, they let Hillary get away with avoiding direct questions, too.  The only one who ever responds to questions is Bernie, and he lacks adequate support.  (He does, however, appear to be making enough difference to affect change within the Democratic Party.  And, that's a good thing).

Ultimately, I'd love to see just one so-called reporter push someone, somewhere, sometime during an interview, to the point of obtaining a real answer to a real question.  And, I don't mean, "How does/did that make you feel?"  MMMMMMKay?

We've seen this shit before

I do not know which is worse, the actual person of Donald Trump, or his idiot followers.  His most rabid followers appear to be concentrated in that hotbed of ignorance, the deep South.  Irony, anyone?  They say all those catch phrases about how he tells it like it is, and he speaks for them, and so on.  And, they totally forget that he is nothing like them.  Well, other than his racist views, that is.

Donald Trump is the worst kind of carpetbagger.  A man who only wants their vote so he can go on ahead and inflict as much damage as he can on all the world, while making himself even richer than he may have been before.  Of course, we do not know if he really is rich, since his finances seem to be so well hidden.  There are reports that his biggest benefactors are Russians who are close to Vlad the Bad!  (Can you say, "Russian Mafia?")

He has offered not one single, rational thought or idea, or plan to do anything to help any American anywhere.  His mannerisms, speech patterns, and very existence smacks of Mussolini or Hitler.  Meanwhile, the son of a bitch is like a moth drawn to the light of media attention, and what could we expect?  He is, after all, a creation of the media.  It occurs to me that the best way to finally stifle him is to just turn off the damn light!  In other words, stop giving him so much free air time!  Stop devoting pages and pages of print space and web space to his latest blurting of empty words and phrases!  Do you not notice that his campaign is not running tv ads?  Why should he spend money on advertising when he gets so much free air time?

Worse, his supporters are just like him.  They are incapable of any rational discussion on any topic, and always - always - resort to ad hominen attacks on anyone who says anything they perceive as contrary to their candidate or their own positions.

They possess very firm opinions on a great many topics, but have no factual information behind those opinions.  They are only raw emotion fed by gross ignorance, and therefore, just as dangerous as he is.

At the end of the day, another question arises:  If he "tells it like it is," why are his supporters constantly trying to explain what it was that he meant when he said his latest foot-in-mouth bushwah?

Time for a change

I read local news on the web sites of local TV stations, plus a couple other places, including some bloggers.  I read national news mostly on NPR's web site and ABC News' web site, and others.  I post my comments in Disqus all the time.  And, I think it is time that I admit that I am just wasting my time and my breath.

Most of my comments get attacked, or rather, I should say that most of my comments cause me to be personally attacked for my simple statement of personal opinion.

What happened to my First Amendment Right of speech?  Instead of attacking me personally, why do so many people fail to respond to what I actually say any more?

Now, I'm not going say anything here about political leanings, one way or the other.  I'm just going to announce that I will henceforth make every effort to ignore the personal attacks.  I will make my statements or comments, with as little embellishment as possible, and when those comments get attacked, I will try not to respond to the attacks.

Maybe I should try to create a little disclaimer to go with my comments.  Something along the lines of, "The above comment reflects my personal opinion based on my personal knowledge and experience.  If it happens to disagree with your opinion, so be it.  You may freely and publicly disagree with me.  But, keep your ad hominem remarks to yourself, because I am no longer going to respond to them."

What do you think?

P. S.  This is going to be tougher than I thought.  I posted a comment to a local article about our chief of police saying that BLM is just a racist hate group, with my new disclaimer, and am now having to resist replying to two really stupid responses.  All I said was that our Mayor should not be supporting the chief, and I got accused of using a strawman argument and questioned about whether I am physically here, and another fool wanted to know what kind of siccafant[sic] I am.