In the century's second decade, here are some contemporary definitions of obscenity (in no particular order).
Paying someone $330 million to play baseball.
Driver with five DUI convictions kills someone.
Teacher convicted of molesting disabled student.
Retired U. S. Navy admiral only censured for his role in the "Fat Leonard" scandal.
Boys claiming to be girls winning female athletic events.
Horrible military family housing.
Vietnam claiming they treated POWs humanely.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's net worth.
Continued employment in a public university by an instructor calling for the killing of police officers.
No prison for Bowe Bergdahl.
Taxes on gasoline in California.
"Sanctuary" states.
The national debt.
Individuals serving in Congress for five or more decades.
California's rules for voting in primary elections.
Investor owned utilities.
No jail time for rapist.
Fiddling with school ASB funds.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Take your choice
Take your choice. Is it rank hypocrisy? Blind political avarice? Lack of intellectual capability? Uncontrolled emotion? Absence of integrity? Greed? Hysteria? Rabid partisanship? Ethical void? Amorality? Simple ignorance? Rampant initiative unfettered by a scintilla of judgment?
On all sides of the political, media, social, educational, labor, cultural, ethnic, and paradigms the loudest members appear predisposed to offer immediate judgment, criticism, commentary about anything, anywhere, by anybody on the "other" side.
In doing so, what was acceptable a day, week, month, year, or decade ago for "their" side must now be condemned. Likewise, what was deplorable a day, week, month, year, or decade ago for the "other" side can now be fully embraced by their side.
If so-and-so's grandfather uttered something decades ago, so he/she from the "other" side must be tarred by that sentiment. Yet, if so-and-so from "their" side has a relative who expressed the wrong view, no responsibility should be visited upon the current day individual. Can't be both ways folks. One standard that cuts both ways is needed.
Particularly troublesome is when an individual clearly and unequivocally states one view or position, then changes to the exact opposite with the flowing winds of perceived public views. "I've evolved," the miscreant exclaims when called out. Yet if an individual from the "other" side acts identically, out come the brash, intense, no holds barred criticism. Can't be both ways folks. One standard that cuts both ways is needed.
Amazingly, as the political, media, social, educational, labor, cultural, and ethnic personalities act rashly, they simultaneously demand to be accepted as genuine in the moment. Heaven forbid, however, if someone from the "other" side exhort the same from the public.
Is it rank hypocrisy? Blind political avarice? Lack of intellectual capability? Uncontrolled emotion? Absence of integrity? Greed? Hysteria? Rabid partisanship? Ethical void? Amorality? Simple ignorance? Rampant initiative unfettered by a scintilla of judgment?
Take your choice.
On all sides of the political, media, social, educational, labor, cultural, ethnic, and paradigms the loudest members appear predisposed to offer immediate judgment, criticism, commentary about anything, anywhere, by anybody on the "other" side.
In doing so, what was acceptable a day, week, month, year, or decade ago for "their" side must now be condemned. Likewise, what was deplorable a day, week, month, year, or decade ago for the "other" side can now be fully embraced by their side.
If so-and-so's grandfather uttered something decades ago, so he/she from the "other" side must be tarred by that sentiment. Yet, if so-and-so from "their" side has a relative who expressed the wrong view, no responsibility should be visited upon the current day individual. Can't be both ways folks. One standard that cuts both ways is needed.
Particularly troublesome is when an individual clearly and unequivocally states one view or position, then changes to the exact opposite with the flowing winds of perceived public views. "I've evolved," the miscreant exclaims when called out. Yet if an individual from the "other" side acts identically, out come the brash, intense, no holds barred criticism. Can't be both ways folks. One standard that cuts both ways is needed.
Amazingly, as the political, media, social, educational, labor, cultural, and ethnic personalities act rashly, they simultaneously demand to be accepted as genuine in the moment. Heaven forbid, however, if someone from the "other" side exhort the same from the public.
Is it rank hypocrisy? Blind political avarice? Lack of intellectual capability? Uncontrolled emotion? Absence of integrity? Greed? Hysteria? Rabid partisanship? Ethical void? Amorality? Simple ignorance? Rampant initiative unfettered by a scintilla of judgment?
Take your choice.
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Something must change
Arguably, our law makers and the courts have not found the right combination of approaches to tackle driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence, and just plain drunk driving.
For example, in San Diego a 19 year faces trial for an accident in which multiple innocent people were killed. He was reportedly involved in three previous accidents in a short period and was driving on a revoked license. The revocation was totally ineffective, as witnessed by the deaths in this accident. Why did he have access to an automobile? Where is the hue and cry to confiscate his car, similar to hue and cry to confiscate firearms?
In another mind boggling example, "Democrats on the Charlotte, North Carolina City Council have asked the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) to 'cut back' on enforcement of drunk-driving laws in neighborhoods with large illegal immigrant populations, because illegal immigrants apparently are 'nervous to see the cops.'” Are these local officials not aware of the very real and present danger drunk drivers pose in the community?
And here is a report from Idaho of a drunk driving man convicted of killing a young mother, but receiving no prison time. Is not the judge aware of the propensity for recidivism by drunk drivers, like told in this story of a woman causing the death of three, including herself, while driving drunk...after four previous DUI convictions? (Of course, no one will know how many times she drove drunk and did not get apprehended or hit someone.)
From inadequate laws; to complacent, inept judges; to utterly stupid local officials, the entire system is not aggressively attacking this wholly preventable loss of life.
Something must change.
For example, in San Diego a 19 year faces trial for an accident in which multiple innocent people were killed. He was reportedly involved in three previous accidents in a short period and was driving on a revoked license. The revocation was totally ineffective, as witnessed by the deaths in this accident. Why did he have access to an automobile? Where is the hue and cry to confiscate his car, similar to hue and cry to confiscate firearms?
In another mind boggling example, "Democrats on the Charlotte, North Carolina City Council have asked the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) to 'cut back' on enforcement of drunk-driving laws in neighborhoods with large illegal immigrant populations, because illegal immigrants apparently are 'nervous to see the cops.'” Are these local officials not aware of the very real and present danger drunk drivers pose in the community?
And here is a report from Idaho of a drunk driving man convicted of killing a young mother, but receiving no prison time. Is not the judge aware of the propensity for recidivism by drunk drivers, like told in this story of a woman causing the death of three, including herself, while driving drunk...after four previous DUI convictions? (Of course, no one will know how many times she drove drunk and did not get apprehended or hit someone.)
From inadequate laws; to complacent, inept judges; to utterly stupid local officials, the entire system is not aggressively attacking this wholly preventable loss of life.
Something must change.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Non Football Lecturing (NFL) (UPDATED)
Sunday morning, a neighbor and I stood on the sidewalk, chatting about this and that, smiling at and acknowledging those walking by. It is a good neighborhood for these polite exchanges.
He asked if we were going to watch the "big game," referencing the Super Bowl. In response, I explained we would not.
Left unsaid was the primary reason: the National Football League and this particularly game are no longer solely about athletic competition. A mix mash of political and "social justice" commentary overshadow the game.
A review of the print and on-line pieces leading up to the game and the Monday morning headlines on a variety of so-called news sites reveals the overwhelming number of articles were about either political or "social justice" issues, rather than the game itself. Politically inspired commercials, the performer boycott of the half-time show, Kaepernick, the National Anthem, male cheerleaders, and even POTUS comments about the game received more print and on-line presence than the competition itself. It was totally predictable.
And that is why I chose not to watch the game. Setting aside the obscene amounts paid to the uniformed entertainers referred to as players, athletic competition should be about the sport, not everything or anything else.
Certainly folks can use any platform they choose to peacefully protest or advocate. Just as I can choose not to be subjected to their protests or commentary. Unfortunately for the NFL, it has been captured as the primary sports based platform for such protests and commentary. And the players, teams, and NFL management have done a very poor job controlling it. So it was an easy decision not to watch either the NFL or the Super Bowl.
One might even quip that NFL now stands for Non Football Lecturing.
Thank you, no! I watch sports to be entertained by the athletic competition, not be lectured to.
Update: Looks like I wasn't the only one. Check this report.
He asked if we were going to watch the "big game," referencing the Super Bowl. In response, I explained we would not.
Left unsaid was the primary reason: the National Football League and this particularly game are no longer solely about athletic competition. A mix mash of political and "social justice" commentary overshadow the game.
A review of the print and on-line pieces leading up to the game and the Monday morning headlines on a variety of so-called news sites reveals the overwhelming number of articles were about either political or "social justice" issues, rather than the game itself. Politically inspired commercials, the performer boycott of the half-time show, Kaepernick, the National Anthem, male cheerleaders, and even POTUS comments about the game received more print and on-line presence than the competition itself. It was totally predictable.
And that is why I chose not to watch the game. Setting aside the obscene amounts paid to the uniformed entertainers referred to as players, athletic competition should be about the sport, not everything or anything else.
Certainly folks can use any platform they choose to peacefully protest or advocate. Just as I can choose not to be subjected to their protests or commentary. Unfortunately for the NFL, it has been captured as the primary sports based platform for such protests and commentary. And the players, teams, and NFL management have done a very poor job controlling it. So it was an easy decision not to watch either the NFL or the Super Bowl.
One might even quip that NFL now stands for Non Football Lecturing.
Thank you, no! I watch sports to be entertained by the athletic competition, not be lectured to.
Update: Looks like I wasn't the only one. Check this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)