Recently, the SCOTUS has been busy whittling away at the imperial presidency. In a pair of rulings, the SCOTUS has restricted the POTUS's agenda of merging the executive with the legislative branches of government into one unit that bypasses Congress and imposes its will on the American people.
In the NLRB v. Canning decision, a unanimous Court held that the Obama administration could not claim that a brief recess allowed it to make recess appointments to the NLRB. The administration stretched the meaning of recess appointment as per the Constitution to pack the NLRB with members that would do its bidding. Fearful of Republican obstruction prior to a change in the filibuster rules in the Senate that would delay votes on his nominees, the administration looked for loopholes to get its way and decided to stretch the meaning of recess appointment well beyond its original definition. That the decision was unanimous is a severe rebuke to the POTUS's attempt to grab more legislative power from Congress.
In more practical terms, there are probably a few thousand rulings made by the NLRB by these renegade appointees that now have to be vacated. This throws thousands of employees and employers into a legal limbo while the courts sort out what happened during the time the appointees were voting on cases and issuing rulings. In his haste to grab more power for himself, the POTUS has added yet another layer of frustration and uncertainty to the everyday lives of the citizenry.
This frustration and uncertainty is even more pronounced in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. Contrary to popular opinion, this was not another step on the putative war on women. This case involved two federal laws -- Obamacare and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") of 1993 -- that were in conflict. To be sure, the portion of Obamacare that was at issue was the requirement that Hobby Lobby, run by Evangelical Christians, provide contraception coverage to its employees. Again, contrary to what is being reported, Hobby Lobby only demurred on four contraceptive methods known to be abortifacients, or ones that cause abortions, not every contraceptive method known to exist. In a narrow 5-4 ruling the SCOTUS ruled that closely held companies can, under the RFRA, raise their religious beliefs as an objection to the Obamacare requirement to provide health insurance including abortifacient contraceptive coverage.
Liberals are outraged. They seem to think that there is a legal right to contraceptive coverage somewhere in the Federal Code. There is not. There is, however, a First Amendment to the United States Constitution that provides for the freedom to practice one's religion without government infringement. What could be more invasive than being told by government to do something contrary to one's religious belief? That people can't see this is stultifying.
Those who are in disbelief at the Hobby Lobby ruling better brace themselves. In the near future the SCOTUS may rule on a similar lawsuit that involves the Catholic Church's opposition to providing contraception coverage. Unlike Hobby Lobby, the Catholic Church is not a for-profit organization (although there are those who would disagree) but a truly religious body whose faith disagrees with abortion. Nuns in Kentucky were told they had to provide contraception coverage under Obamacare to their employees. If Hobby Lobby was exempt from this requirement, how can nuns be required to follow it? Stranger things have happened, I suppose, but I think this will form the third leg on the stool that the POTUS will be forced to sit in the corner to think about his overreaching.
Meanwhile, momentum continues to build to impeach the POTUS. For reasons I've set forth elsewhere, I think it would be foolish to impeach him, no matter how warranted. Better would be to focus on both the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential election. By no means does this suggest satisfaction with the POTUS's job performance. It's simply a strategic decision whose goal is to reassert the true American form of government.
In the meanwhile, something occurred to me with the Canning decision: The POTUS should stay away from anything that uses an abbreviation as its designation. Consider the problems he's had over the last couple of years: The IRS, the VA, the NSA and now the NLRB.
It's fitting that he's having trouble with abbreviations, considering how he's been trying to abbreviate the rights of Americans.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 30, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Favorite Fictional Characters
I was watching one of my favorite war movies the other day -- We Were Soldiers -- which is based on a true story. No matter how many times I see that movie, I'm riveted by the actual story. Having read Hal Moore's book, We Were Soldiers Once...and Young, I know how faithful the movie is to the actual events.
But it also got me thinking -- forgive the illogical detour here. There are characters in books and films that captivate me. People who would be cool to know were they real. I'm not talking about a James Bond-like character who's so surreal as to defy credulity. I mean people who, for whatever reason, would make me want to be their friend. So I thought I'd put a list of them together, with the actor who portrayed them if it was a film or a television series.
Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin) -- Homeland was interesting the first year, less so the second year and with an uncertain future going forward. Regardless, Saul Berenson as played by Mandy Patinkin is just fascinting. He's cerebral, thoughtful in a sensitive way, clever, reticent and thoroughly human at the same time. Most of all, he's loyal and patriotic.
Gus McRae (Robert Duvall) -- One of my favorite novels is Lonesome Dove, and the mini-series of the same name is equally fantastic. McRae is at once puckish, childish, brave, determined, playful, loyal and sentimental. He's a good man with a devil-may-care attitude. Not that this would be a determining factor, but I'd much rather have him on my side than against me. Mr. Duvall portrayed the character brilliantly; in the hands of another actor, I might not feel as I do.
Basil Plumlee (Sam Elliott) -- I know I'm cheating here, since Plumlee was a real person, but Mr. Elliott was utterly great in his depiction of Mr. Plumlee. If the latter is as the former portrayed him, I'd want him as a friend, too.
Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) -- Likewise, Mr. Gibson did Mr. Moore proud. Mr. Moore was a thinker, a strategic genius who was also very well read. He was also very caring, very concerned about the men whom he led into battle. He was forthright, no-nonsense and a devoted family man.
Major John Reisman (Lee Marvin) -- For once, a movie that was better than a book on which it was seemingly based, Mr. Marvin is excellent as the no-nonsense maverick who is given a chance to lead a suicide mission with a bunch of misfits. I wish I had Reisman's coolness.
Edmond Dantes -- From my favorite book of all time, The Count of Monte Cristo, Dantes shows how revenge doesn't have to be served cold to be done well. And how he walks away from the woman who had no faith in him is absolutely chilling and correct at the same time.
Professor John Kingsfield (John Houseman) -- I saw this long before I even went to college, and the image of Professor Kingsfield terrifying students using the Socratic method still fixes me in my place. He was probably an excellent chess player.
George Smiley (Alec Guinness) -- This will be the only Brit on the roster. Smiley is the thinking man's spy, a master of investigation and interrogation. I remember how in one interrogation he terrified the suspect with his pregnant and very silent pauses. I wish I had more of a poker face like Smiley. And Mr. Guinness was the excellent choice to play the role.
The Naked Prey (Cornel Wilde) -- The title character doesn't have a name, so we'll go with the Naked Prey Guy. Mr. Wilde did a phenomenal job with this largely silent role. He's nimble both of foot and mind. The extended scene where he protects a child orphaned by slavers is touching, especially considering Naked Prey Guy himself is being hunted down.
Damien O'Donovan (Cillian Murphy) -- From the movie The Wind That Shakes The Barley, Mr. Murphy portrays an Irishman who must navigate the often-confusing and nettlesome Ireland of the pre- and post-partition era. He is a fighter and a protector and a loyal Irishman who tries to do the best for his country and his family.
Nate (Jon Voight) -- There were a couple of different characters from Heat that I could go with, but Mr. Voight's portrayal of the enigmatic Nate is superlative. It was an understated performance that worked to move the story along at critical junctures.
Capt. James Miller (Tom Hanks) -- From one of the best war movies ever, Saving Private Ryan, Mr. Hanks was robbed of an Oscar by that Italian buffoon. The salient scene for me is when Capt. Miller is discussing with Private Ryan his wife back in the States, and Ryan asks him a question, to which Capt. Miller replies, No, not that one. I keep that one for myself. It was a magnificent and complex portrayal.
Sean Thornton (John Wayne) -- Based on a short story by Maurice Walsh of the same title, despite himself, Mr. Wayne does a credible job as The Quiet Man. His worst scene was probably the fault of the director John Ford, who probably prompted him to refer to a Church of Ireland minister as padre, harkening back to Mr. Wayne's roles in sundry Ford Westerns. The only problem with that is that Mr. Wayne's character grew up working beside the slag heaps outside of Pittsburgh which, last time I checked, wasn't anywhere near the West. The only reason this character makes the list is because he ends up with Mary Kate Danaher, played by Maureen O'Hara.
As if there could be any other reason for his inclusion.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
But it also got me thinking -- forgive the illogical detour here. There are characters in books and films that captivate me. People who would be cool to know were they real. I'm not talking about a James Bond-like character who's so surreal as to defy credulity. I mean people who, for whatever reason, would make me want to be their friend. So I thought I'd put a list of them together, with the actor who portrayed them if it was a film or a television series.
Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin) -- Homeland was interesting the first year, less so the second year and with an uncertain future going forward. Regardless, Saul Berenson as played by Mandy Patinkin is just fascinting. He's cerebral, thoughtful in a sensitive way, clever, reticent and thoroughly human at the same time. Most of all, he's loyal and patriotic.
Gus McRae (Robert Duvall) -- One of my favorite novels is Lonesome Dove, and the mini-series of the same name is equally fantastic. McRae is at once puckish, childish, brave, determined, playful, loyal and sentimental. He's a good man with a devil-may-care attitude. Not that this would be a determining factor, but I'd much rather have him on my side than against me. Mr. Duvall portrayed the character brilliantly; in the hands of another actor, I might not feel as I do.
Basil Plumlee (Sam Elliott) -- I know I'm cheating here, since Plumlee was a real person, but Mr. Elliott was utterly great in his depiction of Mr. Plumlee. If the latter is as the former portrayed him, I'd want him as a friend, too.
Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) -- Likewise, Mr. Gibson did Mr. Moore proud. Mr. Moore was a thinker, a strategic genius who was also very well read. He was also very caring, very concerned about the men whom he led into battle. He was forthright, no-nonsense and a devoted family man.
Major John Reisman (Lee Marvin) -- For once, a movie that was better than a book on which it was seemingly based, Mr. Marvin is excellent as the no-nonsense maverick who is given a chance to lead a suicide mission with a bunch of misfits. I wish I had Reisman's coolness.
Edmond Dantes -- From my favorite book of all time, The Count of Monte Cristo, Dantes shows how revenge doesn't have to be served cold to be done well. And how he walks away from the woman who had no faith in him is absolutely chilling and correct at the same time.
Professor John Kingsfield (John Houseman) -- I saw this long before I even went to college, and the image of Professor Kingsfield terrifying students using the Socratic method still fixes me in my place. He was probably an excellent chess player.
George Smiley (Alec Guinness) -- This will be the only Brit on the roster. Smiley is the thinking man's spy, a master of investigation and interrogation. I remember how in one interrogation he terrified the suspect with his pregnant and very silent pauses. I wish I had more of a poker face like Smiley. And Mr. Guinness was the excellent choice to play the role.
The Naked Prey (Cornel Wilde) -- The title character doesn't have a name, so we'll go with the Naked Prey Guy. Mr. Wilde did a phenomenal job with this largely silent role. He's nimble both of foot and mind. The extended scene where he protects a child orphaned by slavers is touching, especially considering Naked Prey Guy himself is being hunted down.
Damien O'Donovan (Cillian Murphy) -- From the movie The Wind That Shakes The Barley, Mr. Murphy portrays an Irishman who must navigate the often-confusing and nettlesome Ireland of the pre- and post-partition era. He is a fighter and a protector and a loyal Irishman who tries to do the best for his country and his family.
Nate (Jon Voight) -- There were a couple of different characters from Heat that I could go with, but Mr. Voight's portrayal of the enigmatic Nate is superlative. It was an understated performance that worked to move the story along at critical junctures.
Capt. James Miller (Tom Hanks) -- From one of the best war movies ever, Saving Private Ryan, Mr. Hanks was robbed of an Oscar by that Italian buffoon. The salient scene for me is when Capt. Miller is discussing with Private Ryan his wife back in the States, and Ryan asks him a question, to which Capt. Miller replies, No, not that one. I keep that one for myself. It was a magnificent and complex portrayal.
Sean Thornton (John Wayne) -- Based on a short story by Maurice Walsh of the same title, despite himself, Mr. Wayne does a credible job as The Quiet Man. His worst scene was probably the fault of the director John Ford, who probably prompted him to refer to a Church of Ireland minister as padre, harkening back to Mr. Wayne's roles in sundry Ford Westerns. The only problem with that is that Mr. Wayne's character grew up working beside the slag heaps outside of Pittsburgh which, last time I checked, wasn't anywhere near the West. The only reason this character makes the list is because he ends up with Mary Kate Danaher, played by Maureen O'Hara.
As if there could be any other reason for his inclusion.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 23, 2014
Watergate and the Twenty-First Century
In modern terms, Watergate is the most scandalous incident in this country's history. There have been plenty of scandals from our earlier history -- Burr-Hamilton duel, slavery, separate but equal, the Teapot Dome scandal, Monica Lewinsky -- but none reached the depths of Watergate, and for good reason. The burglars in Watergate tried to subvert the democratic process, gaining an unfair advantage in an election that was likely to go to Nixon in any event. It's a black mark on our history that is always used as a yardstick when another scandal appears, with the suffix -gate is appended to any scandal to link it to and measure it against Watergate.
The Obama administration seems to be trying to overtake Watergate with the number of incidents in which it has been involved, questionably. Benghazi mirrors Watergate in that it appears to be an attempt to color public opinion in advance of an election. After cries were heard about the inconsistencies of the official story and what later revelations showed were the true motivations for the attack, the administration did its best to release information and documents in an excrutiatingly slow fashion so that the public would lose interest in the story. In fact, later incidents involving the administration, not the passage of time, overtook the Benghazi scandal and pushed it to the back of the room.
The IRS scandal broke after Benghazi and it continues to resurface every so often. So far, it's encompassed targeting of conservative groups with audits, refusal to process not-for-profit applications, the pleading of the Fifth Amendment by Lois Lerner in a congressional hearing, hearings at which officials promised to provide all documents -- including all emails from Ms. Lerner and six other officials -- and now the revelation that all emails from Ms. Lerner for a two-year period were inadvertently deleted.
Needless to say, skeptics are having a field day with this latest announcement.
The question begs whether this was incompetence, corruption or a mixture of the two. Time will tell, as the tangled web is slowly and unsurely being untangled. Either way, confidence in the American people is not being inspired. The government was either involved in perverting the democratic process or it was so stupid that it begs the question how it was ever elected into office. If it was both corrupt and incompetent, then all bets are off.
There are, whatever the case, some interesting commonalities between Watergate and the IRS scandal. First, both involved corrupting the democratic process. The IRS was putting pressure on conservative groups, hamstringing their ability to support conservative candidates. Watergate involved stealing the opponents' playbook. Watergate involved a missing segment of eighteen and a half minutes of tape of conversations in the Oval Office between President Nixon and his advisors. The IRS scandal now involves two years' worth of missing emails from the woman who pleaded the Fifth in front of the congressional hearing. At the same time, the President has said that there wasn't a smidgen of corruption earlier this year. How can one of his appointees plead the Fifth when there's not a smidgen of corruption?
The old saw is true, typically: Where there's smoke, there's fire. I have no doubt that there will be something actionable uncovered, eventually, in the IRS mess. It may not be as bad as Watergate, but I have no doubt that something criminal was done. That no independent investigator, no special counsel, no one without ties to the administration that is able to investigate the claims that the IRS unfairly and illegally targeted conservative groups is shameful. During Watergate, the Congress had the testicular fortitude to investigate the wrongdoing. Now, there is no spine in Congress that will initiate a similar process.
History will render its verdict. Historians with no political sinecures to protect will conduct thorough examinations and unearth what was done. The trouble with that is that by the time they gain access to the materials they need to piece the story together accurately, statutes of limitation will have run and the malfeasors will get away with their crimes.
Power corrupts. Unfortunately, time waits for no man, even corrupt men.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
The Obama administration seems to be trying to overtake Watergate with the number of incidents in which it has been involved, questionably. Benghazi mirrors Watergate in that it appears to be an attempt to color public opinion in advance of an election. After cries were heard about the inconsistencies of the official story and what later revelations showed were the true motivations for the attack, the administration did its best to release information and documents in an excrutiatingly slow fashion so that the public would lose interest in the story. In fact, later incidents involving the administration, not the passage of time, overtook the Benghazi scandal and pushed it to the back of the room.
The IRS scandal broke after Benghazi and it continues to resurface every so often. So far, it's encompassed targeting of conservative groups with audits, refusal to process not-for-profit applications, the pleading of the Fifth Amendment by Lois Lerner in a congressional hearing, hearings at which officials promised to provide all documents -- including all emails from Ms. Lerner and six other officials -- and now the revelation that all emails from Ms. Lerner for a two-year period were inadvertently deleted.
Needless to say, skeptics are having a field day with this latest announcement.
The question begs whether this was incompetence, corruption or a mixture of the two. Time will tell, as the tangled web is slowly and unsurely being untangled. Either way, confidence in the American people is not being inspired. The government was either involved in perverting the democratic process or it was so stupid that it begs the question how it was ever elected into office. If it was both corrupt and incompetent, then all bets are off.
There are, whatever the case, some interesting commonalities between Watergate and the IRS scandal. First, both involved corrupting the democratic process. The IRS was putting pressure on conservative groups, hamstringing their ability to support conservative candidates. Watergate involved stealing the opponents' playbook. Watergate involved a missing segment of eighteen and a half minutes of tape of conversations in the Oval Office between President Nixon and his advisors. The IRS scandal now involves two years' worth of missing emails from the woman who pleaded the Fifth in front of the congressional hearing. At the same time, the President has said that there wasn't a smidgen of corruption earlier this year. How can one of his appointees plead the Fifth when there's not a smidgen of corruption?
The old saw is true, typically: Where there's smoke, there's fire. I have no doubt that there will be something actionable uncovered, eventually, in the IRS mess. It may not be as bad as Watergate, but I have no doubt that something criminal was done. That no independent investigator, no special counsel, no one without ties to the administration that is able to investigate the claims that the IRS unfairly and illegally targeted conservative groups is shameful. During Watergate, the Congress had the testicular fortitude to investigate the wrongdoing. Now, there is no spine in Congress that will initiate a similar process.
History will render its verdict. Historians with no political sinecures to protect will conduct thorough examinations and unearth what was done. The trouble with that is that by the time they gain access to the materials they need to piece the story together accurately, statutes of limitation will have run and the malfeasors will get away with their crimes.
Power corrupts. Unfortunately, time waits for no man, even corrupt men.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Administration End Runs
A few blogposts ago, I raised the issue of the Department of Justice putting pressure on banks to close accounts of holders whose industries are frowned upon by the administration, such as gun dealers, gambling sites and porn stars. Legal though it may be, it's not exactly what was contemplated by the separation of powers. Those industries should be regulated by Congress, not the executive branch.
Today news broke that the United States Patent Office has cancelled the trademark registration for the NFL's Washington Redskins franchise finding, some seventy or eighty years after the team was formed and named, that the name is disparaging to Native Americans. An earlier ruling, filed in 1999, was overturned by a federal appeals court. Legal experts expect the same result this time.
I have no interest in the discussion as a football fan. As anyone who follows this space knows, I am neither a fan of the Redskins team, I am at best a casual fan of pro football and I have somewhat of a conflict of interest in that my alma mater, the University of Illinois, is called the Fighting Illini and had its symbol, Chief Illiniwek, taken away by the NCAA for much the same reason, with which I disagree. I think there are differences between the two cases, as Chief Illiniwek is not even comparable to Redskins when it comes to ethnic disparagement. Furthermore, as an Irishman, I could take issue with Notre Dame's Fighting Irish and its dancing leprechaun, but I don't see the point.
Even so, it's an interesting debate. By no means am I suggesting that Native Americans have no business to feel denigrated. I'm not Native American and don't presume to speak for them. But that's not the point.
What's worrisome to me is this extra-legislative way of effecting changes that this administration wants. If it can't work with Congress to forge a legislative solution, the White House either issues an executive order or uses the force of the Department of Justice which, unlike Congress, is not filled with elected officials, to do its bidding. Although technically there's nothing illegal with this -- compared with other things the administration has done -- this should worry every American. This administration is dictating what is allowable by how it uses its office. Gun rights, interest in porn or gambling and now whether Redskins should be an acceptable team name in a private enterprise are ripe for attack by this administration.
Ironically, the largely conservative Congress has the power to hamstring the administration. It could easily get it to back off by using the power of the purse. It could vote to cut funding to the Department of Justice or the White House, for that matter, deeming the President's trips to fundraisers unnecessary to the government. It could pull funding for DOJ because it refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to look into such scandals as Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal or any of the other dozen scandals that have plagued the administration over the last couple of years. It could defund anything that Susan Rice does on the principle that she's a nitwit. Ms. Rice might actually thank Congress for doing her that favor. But these plays by the administration call into question the traditional separation of powers and should give plenty of cause to people about what is becoming an activist administration.
It's one thing to oppose something. It's another to work toward changing that with which the White House disagrees. But it's another to use means that go behind Congress's back to effect a change that should be within the purview of Congress.
This should point out to people just how important the mid-term elections are.
Again, this is not to suggest that the Redskins name and logo should be left alone or even stay. Perhaps it should go. But it's not the White House's role to effect social change. This borders on an abuse of power. The White House would do better working on its messaging and trying to tell the truth than worrying about whether a private entity is offending someone.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Today news broke that the United States Patent Office has cancelled the trademark registration for the NFL's Washington Redskins franchise finding, some seventy or eighty years after the team was formed and named, that the name is disparaging to Native Americans. An earlier ruling, filed in 1999, was overturned by a federal appeals court. Legal experts expect the same result this time.
I have no interest in the discussion as a football fan. As anyone who follows this space knows, I am neither a fan of the Redskins team, I am at best a casual fan of pro football and I have somewhat of a conflict of interest in that my alma mater, the University of Illinois, is called the Fighting Illini and had its symbol, Chief Illiniwek, taken away by the NCAA for much the same reason, with which I disagree. I think there are differences between the two cases, as Chief Illiniwek is not even comparable to Redskins when it comes to ethnic disparagement. Furthermore, as an Irishman, I could take issue with Notre Dame's Fighting Irish and its dancing leprechaun, but I don't see the point.
Even so, it's an interesting debate. By no means am I suggesting that Native Americans have no business to feel denigrated. I'm not Native American and don't presume to speak for them. But that's not the point.
What's worrisome to me is this extra-legislative way of effecting changes that this administration wants. If it can't work with Congress to forge a legislative solution, the White House either issues an executive order or uses the force of the Department of Justice which, unlike Congress, is not filled with elected officials, to do its bidding. Although technically there's nothing illegal with this -- compared with other things the administration has done -- this should worry every American. This administration is dictating what is allowable by how it uses its office. Gun rights, interest in porn or gambling and now whether Redskins should be an acceptable team name in a private enterprise are ripe for attack by this administration.
Ironically, the largely conservative Congress has the power to hamstring the administration. It could easily get it to back off by using the power of the purse. It could vote to cut funding to the Department of Justice or the White House, for that matter, deeming the President's trips to fundraisers unnecessary to the government. It could pull funding for DOJ because it refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to look into such scandals as Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal or any of the other dozen scandals that have plagued the administration over the last couple of years. It could defund anything that Susan Rice does on the principle that she's a nitwit. Ms. Rice might actually thank Congress for doing her that favor. But these plays by the administration call into question the traditional separation of powers and should give plenty of cause to people about what is becoming an activist administration.
It's one thing to oppose something. It's another to work toward changing that with which the White House disagrees. But it's another to use means that go behind Congress's back to effect a change that should be within the purview of Congress.
This should point out to people just how important the mid-term elections are.
Again, this is not to suggest that the Redskins name and logo should be left alone or even stay. Perhaps it should go. But it's not the White House's role to effect social change. This borders on an abuse of power. The White House would do better working on its messaging and trying to tell the truth than worrying about whether a private entity is offending someone.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 16, 2014
Monday Musings
It was a full weekend, so I'm going to be lazy and mail it in today:
-- How is it possible for the IRS to lose two years' worth of emails? This is the same outfit that requires meticulous record-keeping from taxpayers, but it can't keep emails? Have they not heard of thumb drives?
-- The country can breathe a sigh of relief: San Antonio defeated Lebron James and the Miami Heat.
-- There are plenty of commercials that have the disclaimer that such and such is only available or valid in the forty-eight contiguous states. Are there commercials that carry the disclaimer that something is available or valid only in Alaska and Hawaii and not in the forty-eight contiguous states?
-- I don't think I could keep track of who's who and what's happening to whom in Game of Thrones even if I had an interactive roster, the author of the books sitting by my side and a copy of the season's script.
-- If I get this straight, we can trade five hardened terrorists for one American soldier who may or may not have deserted, but we can't get one wayward Marine out of Mexico, our neighbor to the south. I think I know why: Bergdahl left his weapon at the base, while Tahmooressi crossed the border with three guns. We all know how much the President hates firearms.
-- Chicago may have dodged a bullet when it lost the bidding to host the 2016 Olympic Games. Considering the unrest that Brazil is experiencing in this World Cup, and how unfinished many of the venues were for the start of the tournament, Brazil only has problems in its future.
-- Cankles' unannounced presidential campaign is off to a rocky start. Perhaps the country is saved.
-- I take offense when historical fiction rewrites history. I take greater offense when shows purporting to explain history distort it for entertainment purposes.
-- As good a ballplayer as Tony Gwynn was, he was an even better person.
-- This week begins the six weeks' long moving season. As if on cue, the weather's getting hotter and gas prices are soaring.
-- If anyone's truly serious about gun control, the issue of mental health has to be addressed. All those memes about confiscating or registering knives, or calling the fire department instead of using a fire extinguisher, are true. In very, very few cases has it been a person who was mentally stable that went on a rampage.
-- I wonder if anyone's actually collected enough coupons to redeem at 1/20th of a cent for a penny.
-- Watching our cat Bupkes grow up has been a revelation. Watching Custer get jealous over a two pound animal has been hysterical.
-- Along those lines, pinning a diaper on a bulldog is not something I ever foresaw myself doing.
-- I'm so glad I took typing in high school. I hated it when I took the class, but I'm so thankful now.
-- On second thought, I wish I'd taken more shop courses. I still think I'm the only kid in the history of the school to take typing, shop and be in NHS.
-- Of all the sites where movies were filmed, the one that hits home the best is Field of Dreams in Dyersville, Iowa. If one has never been there but has an interest in either the movie or baseball, it's a must trip.
-- Limeade is better than lemonade.
-- Interviewing is such a hit-or-miss thing. If one interviews with a person that likes him, the qualifications may not matter at all. Similarly, if one interviews with a person that dislikes him for whatever reason, the qualifications don't matter either. It's such a crapshoot.
-- These people using their cellphones to videotape crimes -- usually physical altercations -- would do better to call the police than gain fame on Youtube.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- How is it possible for the IRS to lose two years' worth of emails? This is the same outfit that requires meticulous record-keeping from taxpayers, but it can't keep emails? Have they not heard of thumb drives?
-- The country can breathe a sigh of relief: San Antonio defeated Lebron James and the Miami Heat.
-- There are plenty of commercials that have the disclaimer that such and such is only available or valid in the forty-eight contiguous states. Are there commercials that carry the disclaimer that something is available or valid only in Alaska and Hawaii and not in the forty-eight contiguous states?
-- I don't think I could keep track of who's who and what's happening to whom in Game of Thrones even if I had an interactive roster, the author of the books sitting by my side and a copy of the season's script.
-- If I get this straight, we can trade five hardened terrorists for one American soldier who may or may not have deserted, but we can't get one wayward Marine out of Mexico, our neighbor to the south. I think I know why: Bergdahl left his weapon at the base, while Tahmooressi crossed the border with three guns. We all know how much the President hates firearms.
-- Chicago may have dodged a bullet when it lost the bidding to host the 2016 Olympic Games. Considering the unrest that Brazil is experiencing in this World Cup, and how unfinished many of the venues were for the start of the tournament, Brazil only has problems in its future.
-- Cankles' unannounced presidential campaign is off to a rocky start. Perhaps the country is saved.
-- I take offense when historical fiction rewrites history. I take greater offense when shows purporting to explain history distort it for entertainment purposes.
-- As good a ballplayer as Tony Gwynn was, he was an even better person.
-- This week begins the six weeks' long moving season. As if on cue, the weather's getting hotter and gas prices are soaring.
-- If anyone's truly serious about gun control, the issue of mental health has to be addressed. All those memes about confiscating or registering knives, or calling the fire department instead of using a fire extinguisher, are true. In very, very few cases has it been a person who was mentally stable that went on a rampage.
-- I wonder if anyone's actually collected enough coupons to redeem at 1/20th of a cent for a penny.
-- Watching our cat Bupkes grow up has been a revelation. Watching Custer get jealous over a two pound animal has been hysterical.
-- Along those lines, pinning a diaper on a bulldog is not something I ever foresaw myself doing.
-- I'm so glad I took typing in high school. I hated it when I took the class, but I'm so thankful now.
-- On second thought, I wish I'd taken more shop courses. I still think I'm the only kid in the history of the school to take typing, shop and be in NHS.
-- Of all the sites where movies were filmed, the one that hits home the best is Field of Dreams in Dyersville, Iowa. If one has never been there but has an interest in either the movie or baseball, it's a must trip.
-- Limeade is better than lemonade.
-- Interviewing is such a hit-or-miss thing. If one interviews with a person that likes him, the qualifications may not matter at all. Similarly, if one interviews with a person that dislikes him for whatever reason, the qualifications don't matter either. It's such a crapshoot.
-- These people using their cellphones to videotape crimes -- usually physical altercations -- would do better to call the police than gain fame on Youtube.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
2016
I have elsewhere warned about the next presidential election providing the country with a continuation of the Chicago-bred line of candidates. In case anyone's missed it, rumors abound that the Democratic dream ticket in 2016 will be Cankles for president, Rahm Emanuel for vice president. This would, from a sociological perspective, prove to be formidable: The first ever female president and the first ever Jewish vice president. Combine that with their know-how and political savvy and it may well prove indomitable.
At least that't the thinking.
Meanwhile, Cankles is doing everything she can, unwittingly, to sink her as yet unborn campaign on her book release tour. So far, she's made stupid comments, argued with Diane Sawyer and NPR and written a book that many are calling boring. What she may provide in terms of novelty she's undercutting with a surprisingly inept lack of preparation and self-control. Her husband is a far better politician than she is, but one would have thought that some of that would have rubbed off on her by now.
Her popularity is being eroded, although with more than two years to go before the Democratic National Convention, that could change. The problem is that, with enough baggage already packed, she's adding more baggage with each press conference, each appearance at a book signing, each revelation of what is in her book. She's not doing herself any favors.
In an eerie presage of things to come, Cankles visited her hometown -- the one she had before she became a New Yorker -- of Chicago to appear with none other than Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel is already supporting Cankle's presidential bid, raising money for something called Ready for Hillary which, to my mind, is nothing but a transparent attempt to lobby for the running mate nod.
Give Mr. Emanuel this: He knows politics. Just days after Cankle's horrible attempt at portraying her and Slick Willy as Everyman by claiming they left the White House dead broke, Mr. Emanuel's first question to her was, Hillary dead broke. Really? That gave Cankles the opportunity to walk her comment back and admit she's perhaps made a poor choice of words. Slick, Rahm, slick.
Those that will vote for Cankles and Mr. Emanuel come hell or high water will do so regardless of this self-immolation tour. Women may vote for Cankles just as blacks voted for Mr. Obama out of a sense of pride, irrespective of party, competence and other factors. Jews may vote for the ticket to see Mr. Emanuel in Blair House. Of course, loyal Democrats will vote the straight party ticket as well.
But the independents who might otherwise be swayed have to be a little disappointed by the showing Cankles is making. Her blunders are both worrisome and troubling. Given that judgment has sorely been lacking during the Obama presidency, what is needed is someone who is going to work with members of both parties and make the right decisions. Cankles, while secretary of state, made horribly wrong decisions and is now running from them. She is a polarizing figure that many hate. And worst of all is her surname.
It's high time that this country had a female president, but this woman isn't it.
And as for Mr. Emanuel, it's not wise to make the transition from being a despised mayor of the third largest city in the country to a position that is largely ceremonial but which is seen as a launch pad for the presidency, especially since the vice presidency doesn't do anything to clean up a woeful record as mayor.
The problem with both of these people is that for neither of them is it love of country but pure ambition that is driving both of them. The country needs better than them.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
At least that't the thinking.
Meanwhile, Cankles is doing everything she can, unwittingly, to sink her as yet unborn campaign on her book release tour. So far, she's made stupid comments, argued with Diane Sawyer and NPR and written a book that many are calling boring. What she may provide in terms of novelty she's undercutting with a surprisingly inept lack of preparation and self-control. Her husband is a far better politician than she is, but one would have thought that some of that would have rubbed off on her by now.
Her popularity is being eroded, although with more than two years to go before the Democratic National Convention, that could change. The problem is that, with enough baggage already packed, she's adding more baggage with each press conference, each appearance at a book signing, each revelation of what is in her book. She's not doing herself any favors.
In an eerie presage of things to come, Cankles visited her hometown -- the one she had before she became a New Yorker -- of Chicago to appear with none other than Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel is already supporting Cankle's presidential bid, raising money for something called Ready for Hillary which, to my mind, is nothing but a transparent attempt to lobby for the running mate nod.
Give Mr. Emanuel this: He knows politics. Just days after Cankle's horrible attempt at portraying her and Slick Willy as Everyman by claiming they left the White House dead broke, Mr. Emanuel's first question to her was, Hillary dead broke. Really? That gave Cankles the opportunity to walk her comment back and admit she's perhaps made a poor choice of words. Slick, Rahm, slick.
Those that will vote for Cankles and Mr. Emanuel come hell or high water will do so regardless of this self-immolation tour. Women may vote for Cankles just as blacks voted for Mr. Obama out of a sense of pride, irrespective of party, competence and other factors. Jews may vote for the ticket to see Mr. Emanuel in Blair House. Of course, loyal Democrats will vote the straight party ticket as well.
But the independents who might otherwise be swayed have to be a little disappointed by the showing Cankles is making. Her blunders are both worrisome and troubling. Given that judgment has sorely been lacking during the Obama presidency, what is needed is someone who is going to work with members of both parties and make the right decisions. Cankles, while secretary of state, made horribly wrong decisions and is now running from them. She is a polarizing figure that many hate. And worst of all is her surname.
It's high time that this country had a female president, but this woman isn't it.
And as for Mr. Emanuel, it's not wise to make the transition from being a despised mayor of the third largest city in the country to a position that is largely ceremonial but which is seen as a launch pad for the presidency, especially since the vice presidency doesn't do anything to clean up a woeful record as mayor.
The problem with both of these people is that for neither of them is it love of country but pure ambition that is driving both of them. The country needs better than them.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Random Observations
So many thoughts, so little time:
-- Eric Cantor was defeated because he took his constituency for granted, not because he's Jewish. The funny thing is it's liberals who are raising the anti-Semitism charge.
-- I wonder if Chuck Hagel saw that his real title wasn't Secretary of Defense but Sacrificial Lamb.
-- Road work is a necessary evil, but it sure is a pain.
-- Cats are interesting creatures.
-- I'm currently reading four books at once. I've already finished one this month. Is there a Twelve Step program for bibliophiles?
-- We can't wait to move. Only eight more days until the closing.
-- Facebook is the ultimate social petri dish.
-- Reading comprehension in this country is at an all-time low. And I'm not referring to young people but those of my own generation.
-- Karen and I are going to try to attend a couple of minor league games this summer. Big league games are too expensive.
-- I'm only 168 points away from five more free books. Woot.
-- I've said it once and I'll say it again: I love inclement weather.
-- I see a game of HORSE in my immediate future.
-- Has any other president sidestepped responsibility or knowledge of so many issues that took place in his administration?
-- I think I need to have a beer this weekend.
-- Hollywood has been awfully quiet politically of late. I wonder why?
-- No, I won't be buying or reading Cankle's book. How can anyone seriously consider her for president?
-- Illegal immigration has to be stopped -- now. It's beyond ridiculous.
-- Treatment of veterans is better than it was during and after Vietnam, but it still needs improved.
-- Online commentary to letters to the editor is very instructive. There are thoughtful people around, but they wisely steer clear of such fora.
-- Cleaning is in my immediate future, but I'm not nearly as excited about that as I am the game of HORSE.
-- Although I'm not a fan of late nights, I love the painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper.
-- Considering how they share a talent for saying stupid things and resemble each other not just a little, I wonder if E. Gordon Gee, the former president of Ohio State University, and Senator Harry Reid were separated at birth. You decide:
E. Gordon Gee
Harry Reid
-- This Independence Day holiday is going to be a working holiday.
-- I think tonight calls for some limeade.
-- I can't decide who the conservative candidate for president should be in 2016.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- Eric Cantor was defeated because he took his constituency for granted, not because he's Jewish. The funny thing is it's liberals who are raising the anti-Semitism charge.
-- I wonder if Chuck Hagel saw that his real title wasn't Secretary of Defense but Sacrificial Lamb.
-- Road work is a necessary evil, but it sure is a pain.
-- Cats are interesting creatures.
-- I'm currently reading four books at once. I've already finished one this month. Is there a Twelve Step program for bibliophiles?
-- We can't wait to move. Only eight more days until the closing.
-- Facebook is the ultimate social petri dish.
-- Reading comprehension in this country is at an all-time low. And I'm not referring to young people but those of my own generation.
-- Karen and I are going to try to attend a couple of minor league games this summer. Big league games are too expensive.
-- I'm only 168 points away from five more free books. Woot.
-- I've said it once and I'll say it again: I love inclement weather.
-- I see a game of HORSE in my immediate future.
-- Has any other president sidestepped responsibility or knowledge of so many issues that took place in his administration?
-- I think I need to have a beer this weekend.
-- Hollywood has been awfully quiet politically of late. I wonder why?
-- No, I won't be buying or reading Cankle's book. How can anyone seriously consider her for president?
-- Illegal immigration has to be stopped -- now. It's beyond ridiculous.
-- Treatment of veterans is better than it was during and after Vietnam, but it still needs improved.
-- Online commentary to letters to the editor is very instructive. There are thoughtful people around, but they wisely steer clear of such fora.
-- Cleaning is in my immediate future, but I'm not nearly as excited about that as I am the game of HORSE.
-- Although I'm not a fan of late nights, I love the painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper.
-- Considering how they share a talent for saying stupid things and resemble each other not just a little, I wonder if E. Gordon Gee, the former president of Ohio State University, and Senator Harry Reid were separated at birth. You decide:
E. Gordon Gee
Harry Reid
-- This Independence Day holiday is going to be a working holiday.
-- I think tonight calls for some limeade.
-- I can't decide who the conservative candidate for president should be in 2016.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Impeachment
Over the last couple of days I've been engaged in a give-and-take with one of Karen's cousins about the possible impeachement of President Obama. Mike makes a strong case that the grounds are there for a bill of impeachment, based mostly on how the President sidesteps laws with which he disagrees when it suits him. I can't argue that it would be wrong, legally, to pursue impeachment. Mike's technically correct.
I part company with him, however, when it comes to the advisability of pursuing impeachment. There are myriad reasons for this, not the least of which is, to borrow a phrase, what difference would it make? Here, then, are my reasons for my demurrer:
First of all, as I already alluded, there are only two and a half years left on the President's term. By the time all the legal wrangling was over, there might only be a year left on his term. Even assuming impeachment would be rendered, then what? Uncle Joe Biden runs the country? I remember when discussion about taking Hitler out were had. Two nagging questions were always, who would replace him and would he be worse? The same would happen here, although we already know that Uncle Joe Biden would step in to replace Mr. Obama. As Osama Bin Laden even knew when he counseled his minions to take out President Obama, leaving Uncle Joe in the ultimate position of authority would be disastrous for the country.
Second, going after the first black president is only fraught with peril. There is a substantial block within the black community, and an even larger one within the white liberal community, that view any criticism of the President as being motivated by racism. That being said, no matter how that position contradicts Martin Luther King's dictum, these substantial voting blocks will automatically activate to defeat any Republican candidate after a bill for impeachment is begun, and they may even sway unaffiliated voters with their cries of racism, no matter how inapposite.
Third, keeping a focus on the mid-term elections to elect a veto-proof Congress is far more effective than removing the President. With an immovable Congress hamstringing him and even repealing his signature piece of legislation, not to mention lanuching investigations into the plethora of scandals that have been brushed aside by the administration and a compliant MSM, the President would twist in the wind publicly and be called upon to answer why things went the way they did during his terms.
Fourth, find a solid candidate and unite around that candidate for the 2016 presidential elections. A bill of impeachment would only serve as a distraction from this. Getting rid of Mr. Obama only serves a purpose for two years; solidifying a strong candidate for 2016 means at least four years of governance, with a possible four year renewal after that.
Fifth, the GOP has greater need to make inroads into minority communities, and should put more effort into that rather than attacking this man. Again, most within those communities will only see a largely white party attacking a successful black man and chalk it up to racism.
To summarize, impeaching the President may be legally actionable and even warranted. I do not believe he's guilty of treason -- unless there are things of which I'm unaware -- that militate in favor of removal. There are plenty of good reasons to work on weakening him and the Democratic Party's candidates to reassert control over the country's future instead of pursuing vengeance.
But if the conservatives are successful, they'd better be very, very careful to fulfill their campaign promises. Eric Cantor's loss in the Virginia primary is a loud and clear message that incumbents had better deliver or suffer the consequences.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
I part company with him, however, when it comes to the advisability of pursuing impeachment. There are myriad reasons for this, not the least of which is, to borrow a phrase, what difference would it make? Here, then, are my reasons for my demurrer:
First of all, as I already alluded, there are only two and a half years left on the President's term. By the time all the legal wrangling was over, there might only be a year left on his term. Even assuming impeachment would be rendered, then what? Uncle Joe Biden runs the country? I remember when discussion about taking Hitler out were had. Two nagging questions were always, who would replace him and would he be worse? The same would happen here, although we already know that Uncle Joe Biden would step in to replace Mr. Obama. As Osama Bin Laden even knew when he counseled his minions to take out President Obama, leaving Uncle Joe in the ultimate position of authority would be disastrous for the country.
Second, going after the first black president is only fraught with peril. There is a substantial block within the black community, and an even larger one within the white liberal community, that view any criticism of the President as being motivated by racism. That being said, no matter how that position contradicts Martin Luther King's dictum, these substantial voting blocks will automatically activate to defeat any Republican candidate after a bill for impeachment is begun, and they may even sway unaffiliated voters with their cries of racism, no matter how inapposite.
Third, keeping a focus on the mid-term elections to elect a veto-proof Congress is far more effective than removing the President. With an immovable Congress hamstringing him and even repealing his signature piece of legislation, not to mention lanuching investigations into the plethora of scandals that have been brushed aside by the administration and a compliant MSM, the President would twist in the wind publicly and be called upon to answer why things went the way they did during his terms.
Fourth, find a solid candidate and unite around that candidate for the 2016 presidential elections. A bill of impeachment would only serve as a distraction from this. Getting rid of Mr. Obama only serves a purpose for two years; solidifying a strong candidate for 2016 means at least four years of governance, with a possible four year renewal after that.
Fifth, the GOP has greater need to make inroads into minority communities, and should put more effort into that rather than attacking this man. Again, most within those communities will only see a largely white party attacking a successful black man and chalk it up to racism.
To summarize, impeaching the President may be legally actionable and even warranted. I do not believe he's guilty of treason -- unless there are things of which I'm unaware -- that militate in favor of removal. There are plenty of good reasons to work on weakening him and the Democratic Party's candidates to reassert control over the country's future instead of pursuing vengeance.
But if the conservatives are successful, they'd better be very, very careful to fulfill their campaign promises. Eric Cantor's loss in the Virginia primary is a loud and clear message that incumbents had better deliver or suffer the consequences.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, June 6, 2014
Update on the Generals
It's been awhile since I updated the world on our two bulldogs, Sherman and Custer, and there have been some happenings with the two of them that should be noted.
First, after a long hard winter, Sherman especially was hit with allergies that were compromising his immune system. He was having all sorts of skin issues, which in turn caused him to scratch himself endlessly, which in turn caused him to scratch himself raw in a few places. Custer wasn't as affected, although he required some treatments himself.
We had to bathe them both in special shampoo and then give them medicines and steroids the vet prescribed. In order to get them to eat them, we had to put them in coconut oil, because putting them in peanut butter would defeat the purpose. Thankfully, their appetites never wavered, so we were able to get the pills down them regularly.
When the weather warmed up we began taking them for walks around the village millpond. Needless to say, they were rock stars. I told Karen we should make it easier on ourselves and just print up information sheets to hand out to people, because we ended up telling the same thing over and over to the point that I felt like an automated recording.
The biggest change, however, after the time we spent with Dee Dee, also known as Deedles, the rescue bulldog we fostered until her forever home was found, was the introduction of a cat. Because we're about to move into a house in which we found a dead mouse in the basement, Karen decided we needed to have a mouser, or a cat that was a mouse killer, to keep the mice away. Because I've never had a cat, I know next to nothing about them. Add to that the fact that I've always been allergic to them, and one can guess just how enthusiastic I was to get one, no matter how sensible the decision was.
If I was unenthusiastic about it, one can only surmise how interested Sherman and Custer were about the introduction of yet another distraction in the house. Sherman, for his part, had lived with cats before and took a decided disinterest in the cat. Of course, Sherman exudes disdain for anything with four legs, unless it shows him disrespect, in which he has a feral interest in dismembering it, and really thinks of himself more as human than canine. Custer, for his part, either sees a mobile snack or an enticing new toy with which he can play. From the confused look on his face as he sniffs the cat, we can only guess at what he's thinking.
The cat -- who we've named Bupkes because that's how much he cost us -- was at first uncertain about his new home. As Karen explained it, he'd basically been taken from his siblings, his mother and the only place he called home, which makes sense. But because I had no reference points, this was all new to me.
Suffice it to say that the generals weren't the only ones whose heads were exploding from the introduction of Bukpes into the fold. Because of our space limitations -- and because we didn't know if Custer was going to try and eat him for a snack -- we had to keep Bupkes in the master bathroom. That meant his little box, his water bowl and his food dish, not to mention his bed, had to be put in there, right in front of the shower. Well, Bupkes has decided that it's not so much a ltterbox as a sandbox, so there's grainy litter everywhere; it's like walking on the beach after he's gotten in there.
Custer snuck in last night while we weren't looking and ate Bupper's food. He got scolded terribly for that. Bupkes, meanwhile, has ventured out of the bedroom and into the living room, where he has learned to stay on the couch and chairs. Sometimes Custer pays close attention, most of the time he's non-committal. We still have to separate them when we're not at home, just to be on the safe side.
One of the joys of the generals' weeks is to make a stop Dairy Queen on our walks around the millpond. We buy them a small cone each and ask for a bowl of water. The sight of those two devouring their cones is a showstopper. Needless to say, we get plenty of comments from other customers.
Sure, the walks are good for them. The exercise helps keep the weight off and gives them a chance to stretch. The best part about those walks, however, is that it knocks them out for the rest of the night.
We're not stupid.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
First, after a long hard winter, Sherman especially was hit with allergies that were compromising his immune system. He was having all sorts of skin issues, which in turn caused him to scratch himself endlessly, which in turn caused him to scratch himself raw in a few places. Custer wasn't as affected, although he required some treatments himself.
We had to bathe them both in special shampoo and then give them medicines and steroids the vet prescribed. In order to get them to eat them, we had to put them in coconut oil, because putting them in peanut butter would defeat the purpose. Thankfully, their appetites never wavered, so we were able to get the pills down them regularly.
When the weather warmed up we began taking them for walks around the village millpond. Needless to say, they were rock stars. I told Karen we should make it easier on ourselves and just print up information sheets to hand out to people, because we ended up telling the same thing over and over to the point that I felt like an automated recording.
The biggest change, however, after the time we spent with Dee Dee, also known as Deedles, the rescue bulldog we fostered until her forever home was found, was the introduction of a cat. Because we're about to move into a house in which we found a dead mouse in the basement, Karen decided we needed to have a mouser, or a cat that was a mouse killer, to keep the mice away. Because I've never had a cat, I know next to nothing about them. Add to that the fact that I've always been allergic to them, and one can guess just how enthusiastic I was to get one, no matter how sensible the decision was.
If I was unenthusiastic about it, one can only surmise how interested Sherman and Custer were about the introduction of yet another distraction in the house. Sherman, for his part, had lived with cats before and took a decided disinterest in the cat. Of course, Sherman exudes disdain for anything with four legs, unless it shows him disrespect, in which he has a feral interest in dismembering it, and really thinks of himself more as human than canine. Custer, for his part, either sees a mobile snack or an enticing new toy with which he can play. From the confused look on his face as he sniffs the cat, we can only guess at what he's thinking.
The cat -- who we've named Bupkes because that's how much he cost us -- was at first uncertain about his new home. As Karen explained it, he'd basically been taken from his siblings, his mother and the only place he called home, which makes sense. But because I had no reference points, this was all new to me.
Suffice it to say that the generals weren't the only ones whose heads were exploding from the introduction of Bukpes into the fold. Because of our space limitations -- and because we didn't know if Custer was going to try and eat him for a snack -- we had to keep Bupkes in the master bathroom. That meant his little box, his water bowl and his food dish, not to mention his bed, had to be put in there, right in front of the shower. Well, Bupkes has decided that it's not so much a ltterbox as a sandbox, so there's grainy litter everywhere; it's like walking on the beach after he's gotten in there.
Custer snuck in last night while we weren't looking and ate Bupper's food. He got scolded terribly for that. Bupkes, meanwhile, has ventured out of the bedroom and into the living room, where he has learned to stay on the couch and chairs. Sometimes Custer pays close attention, most of the time he's non-committal. We still have to separate them when we're not at home, just to be on the safe side.
One of the joys of the generals' weeks is to make a stop Dairy Queen on our walks around the millpond. We buy them a small cone each and ask for a bowl of water. The sight of those two devouring their cones is a showstopper. Needless to say, we get plenty of comments from other customers.
Sure, the walks are good for them. The exercise helps keep the weight off and gives them a chance to stretch. The best part about those walks, however, is that it knocks them out for the rest of the night.
We're not stupid.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
People Lost
I'll never forget you. People say this all the time, especially at graduations when people are moving in different directions to different locations far away. Granted, it's something girls say more than guys, but it's said by both nonetheless. At the time it's said, I have no doubt it's meant in earnest. But then life gets in the way and more important priorities intrude. Not until later in life is thought given, usually in passing, to people that have moved on and exited our lives, either permanently or just in terms of location.
I have a decent memory. It's imperfect, to be sure; just ask Karen. But every once in awhile, I think of people that I used to know, people with whom I went to school, people I knew at work or relatives who died and wonder about their lives, what they might have been and whether they are even remembered by anyone other than their families. I don't know why I do this, I just do.
Without revealing any identities, I thought I'd take the time to remember a few of these people, how I knew them and what I remember about them.
Chuck R. Chuck was a year behind us in grade school. He was best friends with the manager of our eighth grade basketball team and the younger brother of our May Queen. In high school, he was riding in the back of a friend's pick-up truck when it hit a bump in the road. Probably because he was seated on the edge of the bed, he was thrown from the vehicle into the other lane, where an oncoming car hit him after he hit the road. I never heard what killed him, the fall or the impact with the car. But every time I look at our team picture, I look at that bright-faced Irish kid whose life was cut short but a silly mistake.
Steve E. A classmate in our grade school class and one of the team managers of that team, Steve later caught the flu while I was in college and died, probably of pneumonia, leaving a wife and a daughter behind. His daughter is probably a young woman now, never having had the chance to know her father. Steve had some slight physical disability but was a joy to be around. He never played him his challenge and was always pleasant and well-liked.
John R. John was a classmate with Steve and me. He was a bit of a wildhair, being neither athletic or very bright. He wasn't a bad kid, but he was always on the fringe, being the most likely to engage in pranks or get someone else in trouble if he could. During high school, he lost control of his motorcycle and slid under a parked car, killing himself in the process.
The K Brothers: These guys moved into the district only a couple of years before they died. They were hockey players when hockey wasn't yet as popular as it became after Lake Placid. They were also hard partiers who had spent the day at a reservoir with Pat C., the driver who was either drunk or high or both. Pat C. drove the car they were in into a big oak tree at the second bend of a slight S curve, killing the K brothers and the other occupant in the car. Because Pat C. wasn't wearing his seatbelt, he was ejected from the car, suffering only minor injuries. To add insult to injury, Pat C. later married one of the prettiest cheerleaders and moved away, leaving the K brothers' family behind with their memories and sadness.
Mrs. C: The mother of my best friend Greg in grade school and high school, she was killed when a brick truck took a turn too fast at an intersection and overturned on her car. I can remember crying like a child in the locker room when we learned of her death. I'd only met her a couple of times before her death, but that incident affected my friend tremendously. It probably pushed us to be closer, because Greg's older brothers used to beat the hell out of him with tough love and his father was harder on him still. I often wonder what Greg would have been like had this not happened.
Denise P: I worked with Denise for only a short time. She seemed to have problems in her private life, although I never guessed what they were. We shared a love of all things Irish, so when she visited Ireland, she thoughtfully and generously brought back a government-approved bottle of poitín, or Irish moonshine, which still sits, unopened, on my office bookshelf to this day. Shortly after I left the firm I learned that Denise died of complications from alcoholism.
John G. A fellow albeit senior attorney, we shared a love of books. John was a smoker with the raspy, deep voice to prove it. I leant him a copy of James Dickey's last novel, To The White Sea, which he read and actually returned. He was a literate man with an understated, dry sense of humor. Shortly after he died, almost poetically, James Dickey died. I attended his wake with a fellow attorney just to pay our respects.
My grandfather and grandmother: I loved my grandmother. She was the sweetest, calmest person I ever knew. I didn't know my grandfather as well because he died when I was eight. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to talk more with grandpa and spend more time with grandma. I miss grandma a lot.
Henry Lilienheim: Violating my intention not to reveal identities, this is one person about whom everyone should know. Mr. Lilienheim was a survivor of Dachau. After the war ended, he turned down a request from David Ben Gurion to be in the first-ever Israeli cabinet to search postwar Europe for his wife instead. It proved to be a wise decision. Mr. Lilienheim spoke about seven languages, was licensed as an attorney on two continents and practiced as a patent attorney. Despite having been to hell, he was as jovial a person as I ever knew, having a deep love for flamenco dancing. One day, however, when I visited him he asked me if I believed in God. Not wanting to offend him but unwilling to disavow my faith, I trod cautiously through that minefield and we remained friends. Mr. Lilienheim later wrote a book called The Aftermath, which should be required reading in our schools. I can't do the man justice; here's his obituary:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-12-18/news/0212180333_1_camps-nazi-lithuania
I miss Henry.
Our Mother: Of all the people who have passed on, the one person I think of every single day of my life is our Mother. She taught me everything, made me who I am. She gave me a love of language and literature, of movies and art. She taught me how to cook -- no matter how much Karen may question that -- and how to throw a baseball. She was my confidante, my best friend, my best cheerleader. We had our moments, but by and large, we always got along. Yesterday was the eighteenth anniversary of her death, and I miss her just as much today as I did eighteen years ago.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
I have a decent memory. It's imperfect, to be sure; just ask Karen. But every once in awhile, I think of people that I used to know, people with whom I went to school, people I knew at work or relatives who died and wonder about their lives, what they might have been and whether they are even remembered by anyone other than their families. I don't know why I do this, I just do.
Without revealing any identities, I thought I'd take the time to remember a few of these people, how I knew them and what I remember about them.
Chuck R. Chuck was a year behind us in grade school. He was best friends with the manager of our eighth grade basketball team and the younger brother of our May Queen. In high school, he was riding in the back of a friend's pick-up truck when it hit a bump in the road. Probably because he was seated on the edge of the bed, he was thrown from the vehicle into the other lane, where an oncoming car hit him after he hit the road. I never heard what killed him, the fall or the impact with the car. But every time I look at our team picture, I look at that bright-faced Irish kid whose life was cut short but a silly mistake.
Steve E. A classmate in our grade school class and one of the team managers of that team, Steve later caught the flu while I was in college and died, probably of pneumonia, leaving a wife and a daughter behind. His daughter is probably a young woman now, never having had the chance to know her father. Steve had some slight physical disability but was a joy to be around. He never played him his challenge and was always pleasant and well-liked.
John R. John was a classmate with Steve and me. He was a bit of a wildhair, being neither athletic or very bright. He wasn't a bad kid, but he was always on the fringe, being the most likely to engage in pranks or get someone else in trouble if he could. During high school, he lost control of his motorcycle and slid under a parked car, killing himself in the process.
The K Brothers: These guys moved into the district only a couple of years before they died. They were hockey players when hockey wasn't yet as popular as it became after Lake Placid. They were also hard partiers who had spent the day at a reservoir with Pat C., the driver who was either drunk or high or both. Pat C. drove the car they were in into a big oak tree at the second bend of a slight S curve, killing the K brothers and the other occupant in the car. Because Pat C. wasn't wearing his seatbelt, he was ejected from the car, suffering only minor injuries. To add insult to injury, Pat C. later married one of the prettiest cheerleaders and moved away, leaving the K brothers' family behind with their memories and sadness.
Mrs. C: The mother of my best friend Greg in grade school and high school, she was killed when a brick truck took a turn too fast at an intersection and overturned on her car. I can remember crying like a child in the locker room when we learned of her death. I'd only met her a couple of times before her death, but that incident affected my friend tremendously. It probably pushed us to be closer, because Greg's older brothers used to beat the hell out of him with tough love and his father was harder on him still. I often wonder what Greg would have been like had this not happened.
Denise P: I worked with Denise for only a short time. She seemed to have problems in her private life, although I never guessed what they were. We shared a love of all things Irish, so when she visited Ireland, she thoughtfully and generously brought back a government-approved bottle of poitín, or Irish moonshine, which still sits, unopened, on my office bookshelf to this day. Shortly after I left the firm I learned that Denise died of complications from alcoholism.
John G. A fellow albeit senior attorney, we shared a love of books. John was a smoker with the raspy, deep voice to prove it. I leant him a copy of James Dickey's last novel, To The White Sea, which he read and actually returned. He was a literate man with an understated, dry sense of humor. Shortly after he died, almost poetically, James Dickey died. I attended his wake with a fellow attorney just to pay our respects.
My grandfather and grandmother: I loved my grandmother. She was the sweetest, calmest person I ever knew. I didn't know my grandfather as well because he died when I was eight. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to talk more with grandpa and spend more time with grandma. I miss grandma a lot.
Henry Lilienheim: Violating my intention not to reveal identities, this is one person about whom everyone should know. Mr. Lilienheim was a survivor of Dachau. After the war ended, he turned down a request from David Ben Gurion to be in the first-ever Israeli cabinet to search postwar Europe for his wife instead. It proved to be a wise decision. Mr. Lilienheim spoke about seven languages, was licensed as an attorney on two continents and practiced as a patent attorney. Despite having been to hell, he was as jovial a person as I ever knew, having a deep love for flamenco dancing. One day, however, when I visited him he asked me if I believed in God. Not wanting to offend him but unwilling to disavow my faith, I trod cautiously through that minefield and we remained friends. Mr. Lilienheim later wrote a book called The Aftermath, which should be required reading in our schools. I can't do the man justice; here's his obituary:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-12-18/news/0212180333_1_camps-nazi-lithuania
I miss Henry.
Our Mother: Of all the people who have passed on, the one person I think of every single day of my life is our Mother. She taught me everything, made me who I am. She gave me a love of language and literature, of movies and art. She taught me how to cook -- no matter how much Karen may question that -- and how to throw a baseball. She was my confidante, my best friend, my best cheerleader. We had our moments, but by and large, we always got along. Yesterday was the eighteenth anniversary of her death, and I miss her just as much today as I did eighteen years ago.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Liberal Epiphanies
Every once in awhile, the planets align in such a fashion that weird, unexplainable things happen in our cosmos. More often than not, they're unexpected, so much so that one has to listen twice to make sure that what was heard was actually what was said.
A couple of months ago, the arch-Leftist Bill Maher had Kamau Bell, a member of the Forever Selma sect, on his show and had an exchange wherein he quoted something Michelle Obama said but attributed it to conservative Paul Ryan. Mr. Bell immediately jumped on it, labeling it to have racial content, until Mr. Maher told him he intentionally misattributed it to Mr. Ryan to prove that not only do blacks discuss race differently with white folks, they will cry Race! when the truth of the matter spoken is something that they themselves acknowledge.
Here's the link to that exchange: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2014/03/30/bill-maher-quotes-infamous-racist-michelle-obama
I tried to find the Youtube video but it's been removed...suspiciously.
What prompted Mr. Maher to veer into a pseudo-defense of conservative principles? Heaven only knows, but it's refreshing to see that not everything conservatives say is white noise to all liberals. What's more, Mr. Maher deftly proved a point, that no matter how truthful a statement may be, if it comes from a conservative -- white or black, but white especially -- liberals and blacks will trample the statement as if it's heresy of the first order.
I doubt Mr. Maher is changing his colors, but that one detour into sanity was nice.
Meanwhile, the man out to sink the NRA, Michael Bloomberg, made a brave and very unexpected speech at Harvard's commencement. To sum it up, Mr. Bloomberg basically called out colleges and universities for being bastions of intolerant liberalism equal to the worst scourges of McCarthyism. Mr. Bloomberg can be viewed here:
That two otherwise liberal people can take these positions is as noteworthy as it is heartening. Not every conservative, nor every conservative position, is so outlandish, racist, uncouth, misguided, sophistical, imaginative or unrealistic as liberals believe them to be. As with fans of sports teams, every side has its knuckleheads, and conservatives aren't exempt. But at the same time, much of what conservative thought espouses is not meant to subject people to another set of principles or goals.
At the same time, conservatives also need to recognize that there are elements with the liberal establishment who are able to discern truth from propaganda, good from evil, and honestly crave for many of the same things conservatives seek, with slightly different twists. Not every liberal is the devil himself.
Sometimes, people just need to sit back and listen and stop yelling at each other long enough to hear what the other person is saying.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
A couple of months ago, the arch-Leftist Bill Maher had Kamau Bell, a member of the Forever Selma sect, on his show and had an exchange wherein he quoted something Michelle Obama said but attributed it to conservative Paul Ryan. Mr. Bell immediately jumped on it, labeling it to have racial content, until Mr. Maher told him he intentionally misattributed it to Mr. Ryan to prove that not only do blacks discuss race differently with white folks, they will cry Race! when the truth of the matter spoken is something that they themselves acknowledge.
Here's the link to that exchange: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2014/03/30/bill-maher-quotes-infamous-racist-michelle-obama
I tried to find the Youtube video but it's been removed...suspiciously.
What prompted Mr. Maher to veer into a pseudo-defense of conservative principles? Heaven only knows, but it's refreshing to see that not everything conservatives say is white noise to all liberals. What's more, Mr. Maher deftly proved a point, that no matter how truthful a statement may be, if it comes from a conservative -- white or black, but white especially -- liberals and blacks will trample the statement as if it's heresy of the first order.
I doubt Mr. Maher is changing his colors, but that one detour into sanity was nice.
Meanwhile, the man out to sink the NRA, Michael Bloomberg, made a brave and very unexpected speech at Harvard's commencement. To sum it up, Mr. Bloomberg basically called out colleges and universities for being bastions of intolerant liberalism equal to the worst scourges of McCarthyism. Mr. Bloomberg can be viewed here:
That two otherwise liberal people can take these positions is as noteworthy as it is heartening. Not every conservative, nor every conservative position, is so outlandish, racist, uncouth, misguided, sophistical, imaginative or unrealistic as liberals believe them to be. As with fans of sports teams, every side has its knuckleheads, and conservatives aren't exempt. But at the same time, much of what conservative thought espouses is not meant to subject people to another set of principles or goals.
At the same time, conservatives also need to recognize that there are elements with the liberal establishment who are able to discern truth from propaganda, good from evil, and honestly crave for many of the same things conservatives seek, with slightly different twists. Not every liberal is the devil himself.
Sometimes, people just need to sit back and listen and stop yelling at each other long enough to hear what the other person is saying.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 2, 2014
Humpty Dumpty Mouthpiece Resigns
Last Friday, Jay Carney, President Obama's second press secretary, resigned. Mr. Carney's resignation came the same day that the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Eric Shinseki, resigned, which could be nothing more than a comic coincidence. Still, it's a good thing that Mr. Carney resigned, both for himself and for the country.
Never having been to Washington, D.C., and never having been to the White House, much less having served in a president's administration, I have no idea what it takes to be a press secretary. I can only go by what Mr. Carney's predecessors have said about the job. It may have its rewards, but it appears to be thankless job that takes its toll on the person in ways the rest of us can only imagine. The stress, the hours, the tasks he or she must perform must go beyond anything any of us can appreciate. It's a job with great responsibility, immense pressure and long hours.
Even so, Mr. Carney's performance was the first time I'd ever really paid attention to a press secretary, and the reasons for that attention are not good. First, Mr. Carney was nothing if not smug. He was always the smartest person in the room. The way he talked to correspondents, especially those with whom he disagreed, was downright rude. He often groped for words that he knew conveyed a meaning that was opaque at best. He parsed his own replies so carefully that he basically said nothing in response to the question.
And part of that is by design. He was paid to represent and protect the President. I get that. But did he have to be so rude?
Mr. Carney also lied, or was complicit in lying. The position the White House took on the Benghazi consulate attacks was for media consumption, and as the point person for the adminstration, Mr. Carney necessarily had to be involved in the formation and the delivery of the message. To claim ignorance of the perversion of the talking points is an outright lie.
Even though he's leaving his position, Mr. Carney continues to twist words to fit an agenda. With the controversial deal brokered by the administration with the Taliban to exchange five hardened terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl, Mr. Carney is attempting to rebut charges that the White House negotiated with terrorists by claiming that Mr. Bergdahl wasn't a hostage but a prisoner of war, captured by the enemy on the battlefield. Reports are issuing that Mr. Bergdahl deserted and was taken by the Taliban, not captured in battle, putting a lie to the new spin being furthered by Susan Rice and Mr. Carney. Apparently, even with one foot out the door, Mr. Carney is intent on salvaging Mr. Obama's reputation.
I'm curious to see whether Mr. Carney will write a memoir wherein he'll refute much of what he said and did or at least try to shift blame away from himself or try to justify it as being the truth. The problem is that Mr. Carney is engaged in cognitive dissonance of the first order, telling people one thing that is diametrically opposed to what reality exists. Combined with his smug demeanor, his lack of hesitation to lie and his endless parsing of his own words, it makes Mr. Carney one of, if not the most, insufferably press secretaries to ever hold the position.
Americans deserve better. We're entitled to the transparency promised us when Mr. Obama was first elected. Mr. Carney has aided and abetted this administration to paint black the windows of his government so that no one can see inside and only what is allowed out through an open door is what we receive. Mr. Carney may not have committed any crimes, but he is complicit in treating his fellow Americans like serfs.
It is my hope that historians will one day provide the transparent balance to what this administration labored so hard to conceal. Mr. Carney may suffer very badly at their hands, but he is responsible for perpetrating the concealment.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Never having been to Washington, D.C., and never having been to the White House, much less having served in a president's administration, I have no idea what it takes to be a press secretary. I can only go by what Mr. Carney's predecessors have said about the job. It may have its rewards, but it appears to be thankless job that takes its toll on the person in ways the rest of us can only imagine. The stress, the hours, the tasks he or she must perform must go beyond anything any of us can appreciate. It's a job with great responsibility, immense pressure and long hours.
Even so, Mr. Carney's performance was the first time I'd ever really paid attention to a press secretary, and the reasons for that attention are not good. First, Mr. Carney was nothing if not smug. He was always the smartest person in the room. The way he talked to correspondents, especially those with whom he disagreed, was downright rude. He often groped for words that he knew conveyed a meaning that was opaque at best. He parsed his own replies so carefully that he basically said nothing in response to the question.
And part of that is by design. He was paid to represent and protect the President. I get that. But did he have to be so rude?
Mr. Carney also lied, or was complicit in lying. The position the White House took on the Benghazi consulate attacks was for media consumption, and as the point person for the adminstration, Mr. Carney necessarily had to be involved in the formation and the delivery of the message. To claim ignorance of the perversion of the talking points is an outright lie.
Even though he's leaving his position, Mr. Carney continues to twist words to fit an agenda. With the controversial deal brokered by the administration with the Taliban to exchange five hardened terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl, Mr. Carney is attempting to rebut charges that the White House negotiated with terrorists by claiming that Mr. Bergdahl wasn't a hostage but a prisoner of war, captured by the enemy on the battlefield. Reports are issuing that Mr. Bergdahl deserted and was taken by the Taliban, not captured in battle, putting a lie to the new spin being furthered by Susan Rice and Mr. Carney. Apparently, even with one foot out the door, Mr. Carney is intent on salvaging Mr. Obama's reputation.
I'm curious to see whether Mr. Carney will write a memoir wherein he'll refute much of what he said and did or at least try to shift blame away from himself or try to justify it as being the truth. The problem is that Mr. Carney is engaged in cognitive dissonance of the first order, telling people one thing that is diametrically opposed to what reality exists. Combined with his smug demeanor, his lack of hesitation to lie and his endless parsing of his own words, it makes Mr. Carney one of, if not the most, insufferably press secretaries to ever hold the position.
Americans deserve better. We're entitled to the transparency promised us when Mr. Obama was first elected. Mr. Carney has aided and abetted this administration to paint black the windows of his government so that no one can see inside and only what is allowed out through an open door is what we receive. Mr. Carney may not have committed any crimes, but he is complicit in treating his fellow Americans like serfs.
It is my hope that historians will one day provide the transparent balance to what this administration labored so hard to conceal. Mr. Carney may suffer very badly at their hands, but he is responsible for perpetrating the concealment.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)