Considering that tomorrow is Labor Day and that for the better part of six years I've been gainfully underemployed, I thought today's blogpost should be about jobs that in no way would I or should I be allowed to do. Mind you, this isn't a take on Dirty Jobs, or am I commenting on jobs that I don't want or would never want to do. These are jobs that, for the public weal, I should not be allowed to attempt. Brief explanations behind each will clarify.
Chef: I hate eggs and am allergic to scallops. As anyone who watches television cooking competitions could tell you, those are the two fallback ingredients in any challenge. What's more, I have a very heightened capacity for spice and a low tolerance for bland. I don't like creamy dishes, so something like risotto would result in an epic failure. For as much as I love to eat, and for as much as I believe I'm competent in the kitchen, having a job cooking for other people is something the CDC and FDA would balk at, correctly.
Artist: I'm incapable of drawing a stick figure, so the notion that I could do art for commission is laughable. The best I could do would be to imitate Jackson Pollock or an elephant with a brush in its trunk flinging it at a canvas. Even then, I'd probably miss the canvas more often than not.
Judge: I know what's being thought: He's an attorney, why couldn't he be a judge? For one, I lack the patience to do it. Second -- and this will dovetail nicely into the next non-job for me -- I'm not exactly the most tactful person. If nothing else, the fact that I don't even wear a robe around the house should disqualify me from consideration.
Diplomat: Trust me on this one: Ain't no way homey is going to be a judge. Karen, when she reads this, will guffaw and guffaw. I don't have a diplomatic bone in my body. I've learned some self-restraint in my dotage, but that's about it. That I can spell diplomacy is a wonder.
Auto Mechanic: I don't know the difference between an alternator, a carburetor and a radiator. I barely know what any of them do. Other men wax nostalgic for the cars of old and their clean lines and muscled power. I hope my car gets me where I'm going inexpensively.
Politician: For one simple reason: I'm too direct.
Salesman: I've never had a job in sales. That should say something as to why this job is on the list.
Actor: I can't pretend. It's as simple as that. What's more, I think most of what comes out of Hollywood is crap anyway.
Computer Tech Guy: That I hate Bill Gates probably disqualifies me already, but it's more than that. I don't know the difference between a gigabyte and a megabyte and don't know what's bigger. Clouds are something in the sky or things Georgia O'Keefe painted. Besides that, my sense of logic in no way corresponds to what these guys do. And when I hit three keys and something happens to my screen that they can't explain, well, what's the point?
Sports Reporter: I remember John Schulien explaining that he left sports reporting when he realized he was standing in the shower interviewing eighteen-year-olds about their exploits on the playing field. Yeah, I like sports. I just don't think they're as important as these guys make them out to seem.
Sports Agent: On one level, the creative negotiating would be cool. But bailing my client out of the drunk tank at 2.30a isn't my idea of being an agent.
Gambler: My views on gambling are set forth in earlier posts, so I won't belabor the point. I just see no allure in gambling, either as an avocation or a vocation.
Barber/Hairdresser/Stylist: No.
(2014) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Being African-American in America
Last nigth while channel surfing, Karen and I heard Kerry Washington, the lead actress on the show Scandal, being interviewed on the red carpet. Although we had just turned the channel on, we were regaled by Ms. Washington telling the interviewer that she was having a time wrapping her arms around what being an African American in America means because she had watched the Michael Brown funeral that morning. For those people unaware of the chaos going on in Ferguson, Missouri, during the last ten days or so, Mr. Brown was shot and killed by a policeman in circumstances that are at best confused and at worst conflicting. As of this writing, the results of the investigation have not been released, although that hasn't stopped plenty of people from weighing in on the incident. The two most obvious outcomes are that Mr. Brown was gunned down in cold blood by an over-anxious officer or that the officer killed Mr. Brown to protect himself from being assaulted by Mr. Brown. Darren Wilson, the office involved, hasn't spoken nor has a report of the incident from him been released to the public.
In other words, people need to be patient and let the process work its way out.
Unfortunately, that's not what's been happening. Ms. Washington is the latest example of this.
Ms. Washington, in her most disingenuous, doe-eyed manner, asked the question as if to convey her inabiliy to process what was happening, when it was clear to anyone with functioning grey matter that she's highly offended by the death of Mr. Brown at Officer Wilson's hands. Although this is a gross generalization, I feel comfortable lumping her into the same camp as Jesse and Al, although she has more education than either of them in how she delivers he message.
Even so, since Ms. Washington is having such trouble understanding what it means to be African American in this society, I thought I might pose some questions for her to ponder that might lead her out of her quandary.
-- As a highly paid actress married to a former NFL player, what about America has assisted you or hindered you in your mutual careers?
-- Do you believe that innocent until proven guilty only applies to blacks and other minorities or should it apply to all Americans irrespective of race?
-- Is it possible that the judicial system is the best in the world but imperfect nonetheless, which explains the sometimes uneven results in cases, as opposed to racism?
-- What about America's racism allows a black man to become President of the country, a black woman to become Secretary of State and another black man to become Attorney General?
-- At the time of the SCOTUS's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, how many SCOTUS justices were black?
-- Likewise, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, what was the racial composition of the Congress? To simplify, how many minorities were in the House and Senate that passed the legislation before a white president signed it into law?
-- Do you believe that only whites can commit hate crimes?
-- Is looting by blacks of stores owned by people unnconnected to the shootings a reasonable, logical or legal action to expect? Please explain.
-- Do you believe criticism of the only black Justice on the Supreme Court as being an Uncle Tom is just and proper?
-- In your opinion, is it fair for the MSM to have labeled George Zimmerman, the man charged with and then acquited of murdering Trayvon Martin, a white man of Hispanic descent? Similarly, if you believe that's fair, would it be fair to describe President Obama as a white man of African American descent, given that he, like Mr. Zimmerman, is biracial?
-- Given your stature and visibility, what are you doing to end black-on-black crime, such as occurs in Chicago on a weekly basis?
-- If Major General Greene had been black and a white president has ignored his funeral, would you feel equally indifferent about that?
-- Does the shooting of an unarmed white teen by a black cop merit the same scrutiny that the shooting of Mr. Brown does, or is that different?
-- Is looting by blacks of stores whose owners are unnconnected in any way to a given shooting a reasonable, logical or legal response to the shooting?
-- Recent reports have come out that in Mississippi a white Marine was attacked by and lynched by a mob of black men for no apparent reason other than that he is white. Does this rise to the level of a hate crime for you?
-- Can you explain the difference between your disgust of racial profiling when police look at black youth and the argument that black crime is the indirect result of whites failing to provide economic opportunities to blacks? Before you respond, please consider your and your husband's careers.
-- What do you believe the root causes of the disintegration of the nuclear family unit within the black community? Do blacks bear any responsibility for this, or is it only because of white oppression?
-- Given that economic opportunity underlies many of black America's complaints, please explain the following examples of success: Dr. Ben Carson, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Myron Rolle, Michelle Howard, Harris Faulkner -- only one of whom, it should be mentioned, is either an actor or an athlete.
-- Since affirmative action is nearly thirty-years-old, I would like you to state whether you believe it has remedied, to any degree, the past injustices against blacks in this country. Does affirmative action need to continue and, if so, for how long? Furthermore, I wonder if you think similar set asides are reasonable for other aggrieved groups such as Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, Irish and Latins. If not, please explain why they do no merit similar treatment.
-- Comment on the murder of the Australian exchange student by three black and Latin youths who hate white people and the two black youths who murdered a World War II veteran and how those do not qualify as hate crimes.
-- Finally, since America seems to be such a disappointment to you, please list the alternative countries where you would consider living that would afford you and your family the same opportunities without the indignities you and other African Americans face here. Please be specific and state your reasons for your choices.
-- Does Martin Luther King's famous dictum about his children not being judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character still apply to blacks? Should that dictum be extended to other racial groups or is that a goal only for blacks?
-- Can you explain Sharpton's championing of Tawana Brawley and Jackson's support for the Duke lacrosse rape accuser and whether you think those incidents harmed or helped the cause of black Americans? Assuming you believe, as I do, that they harmed black Americans' cause, whom would you suggest as an alternative to them?
In no way am I capable of dictating to an African American what it is like to live in this country. The history of slavery, degradation and inequality here is indeed deplorable. At the same time, steps -- major steps -- have been taken to remedy and make up for these iniquities.
Enough is enough already.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
In other words, people need to be patient and let the process work its way out.
Unfortunately, that's not what's been happening. Ms. Washington is the latest example of this.
Ms. Washington, in her most disingenuous, doe-eyed manner, asked the question as if to convey her inabiliy to process what was happening, when it was clear to anyone with functioning grey matter that she's highly offended by the death of Mr. Brown at Officer Wilson's hands. Although this is a gross generalization, I feel comfortable lumping her into the same camp as Jesse and Al, although she has more education than either of them in how she delivers he message.
Even so, since Ms. Washington is having such trouble understanding what it means to be African American in this society, I thought I might pose some questions for her to ponder that might lead her out of her quandary.
-- As a highly paid actress married to a former NFL player, what about America has assisted you or hindered you in your mutual careers?
-- Do you believe that innocent until proven guilty only applies to blacks and other minorities or should it apply to all Americans irrespective of race?
-- Is it possible that the judicial system is the best in the world but imperfect nonetheless, which explains the sometimes uneven results in cases, as opposed to racism?
-- What about America's racism allows a black man to become President of the country, a black woman to become Secretary of State and another black man to become Attorney General?
-- At the time of the SCOTUS's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, how many SCOTUS justices were black?
-- Likewise, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, what was the racial composition of the Congress? To simplify, how many minorities were in the House and Senate that passed the legislation before a white president signed it into law?
-- Do you believe that only whites can commit hate crimes?
-- Is looting by blacks of stores owned by people unnconnected to the shootings a reasonable, logical or legal action to expect? Please explain.
-- Do you believe criticism of the only black Justice on the Supreme Court as being an Uncle Tom is just and proper?
-- In your opinion, is it fair for the MSM to have labeled George Zimmerman, the man charged with and then acquited of murdering Trayvon Martin, a white man of Hispanic descent? Similarly, if you believe that's fair, would it be fair to describe President Obama as a white man of African American descent, given that he, like Mr. Zimmerman, is biracial?
-- Given your stature and visibility, what are you doing to end black-on-black crime, such as occurs in Chicago on a weekly basis?
-- If Major General Greene had been black and a white president has ignored his funeral, would you feel equally indifferent about that?
-- Does the shooting of an unarmed white teen by a black cop merit the same scrutiny that the shooting of Mr. Brown does, or is that different?
-- Is looting by blacks of stores whose owners are unnconnected in any way to a given shooting a reasonable, logical or legal response to the shooting?
-- Recent reports have come out that in Mississippi a white Marine was attacked by and lynched by a mob of black men for no apparent reason other than that he is white. Does this rise to the level of a hate crime for you?
-- Can you explain the difference between your disgust of racial profiling when police look at black youth and the argument that black crime is the indirect result of whites failing to provide economic opportunities to blacks? Before you respond, please consider your and your husband's careers.
-- What do you believe the root causes of the disintegration of the nuclear family unit within the black community? Do blacks bear any responsibility for this, or is it only because of white oppression?
-- Given that economic opportunity underlies many of black America's complaints, please explain the following examples of success: Dr. Ben Carson, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Myron Rolle, Michelle Howard, Harris Faulkner -- only one of whom, it should be mentioned, is either an actor or an athlete.
-- Since affirmative action is nearly thirty-years-old, I would like you to state whether you believe it has remedied, to any degree, the past injustices against blacks in this country. Does affirmative action need to continue and, if so, for how long? Furthermore, I wonder if you think similar set asides are reasonable for other aggrieved groups such as Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, Irish and Latins. If not, please explain why they do no merit similar treatment.
-- Comment on the murder of the Australian exchange student by three black and Latin youths who hate white people and the two black youths who murdered a World War II veteran and how those do not qualify as hate crimes.
-- Finally, since America seems to be such a disappointment to you, please list the alternative countries where you would consider living that would afford you and your family the same opportunities without the indignities you and other African Americans face here. Please be specific and state your reasons for your choices.
-- Does Martin Luther King's famous dictum about his children not being judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character still apply to blacks? Should that dictum be extended to other racial groups or is that a goal only for blacks?
-- Can you explain Sharpton's championing of Tawana Brawley and Jackson's support for the Duke lacrosse rape accuser and whether you think those incidents harmed or helped the cause of black Americans? Assuming you believe, as I do, that they harmed black Americans' cause, whom would you suggest as an alternative to them?
In no way am I capable of dictating to an African American what it is like to live in this country. The history of slavery, degradation and inequality here is indeed deplorable. At the same time, steps -- major steps -- have been taken to remedy and make up for these iniquities.
Enough is enough already.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
White House Hypocrisy
The recent flare-up in Ferguson, Missouri, has brought race to the fore again. A young black man, Michael Brown, suspected of a robbery at a convenience store was later shot dead by a police officer. The ensuing protests have turned violent, with opportunists burning down stores and looting others. Riot cops and the National Guard have been called out to quell the mayhem, with mixed results. Predictably, Al Tawana Brawley Sharpton has gone down there to stir his Forever Selma base, Jesse Jackson has shaken off the dust to add to the hysteria and the MSM has trained its laser focus on the police brutality storyline sure to sell more ad space.
First, at this point, it is unknown whether Michael Brown's family has a cause of action against the police. There are conflicting stories as to whether the policeman used excessive force or engaged in self-defense. Details are beginning to emerge that would suggest the latter, but not all investigation results are in yet. It's very simple, actually: If Mr. Brown assaulted the officer, the officer was justified in the use of deadly force. If not, the officer should be charged with a crime.
But that's not the point of this blogpost. I'm experienced enough, patient enough and smart enough to wait for the process to run its course. The White House, however, collectively lacks these attributes. Either that or its agenda trumps them, because it has no business getting involved in this issue at this point. Just as it did in the Trayvon Martin death, the White House is weighing in out of personal and political self-interest. I don't think it's too far-fetched to declare that because the President is biracial, he's viewing this through his personal and not his presidential lens. At the same time, invoking the Emanuel Edict of never letting a good crisis go to waste, the POTUS is using this to energize his base for the upcoming mid-terms.
Call me a cynic. I dare you. But at least wait until after this blogpost is completely read.
Again, as with the Martin case, if it's proved that the shooting of Mr. Brown was racially motivated, there should be charges commensurate with the crime. By no means am I arguing that the shootings were justified simply because a young black man was shot. Far from it. I'm cautioning patience.
Still.
Isn't it interesting that the White House can find the time to comment about these two shootings yet, when an innocent white man is the victim of murder at the hands of black youths, no outcry is heard from the White House? No statements from the podium, not third autopsy conducted by a federal agency, no visit by Eric Holder to the site of the crimes. Nothing. Bupkes.
Take, for example, the heinous, cold-blooded shooting of the Australian exchange student in Oklahoma by three youths, two of whom were black. The youths were quickly apprehended, the investigations conducted to reveal that at least one if not two of the youths had demonstrably rooted hatred for whites, yet not only was no hate crime charged, the White House, as far as I'm aware, never even commented on it. It didn't even send the Australian government condolences. A quick search on Google reveals no reports that the White House uttered a peep about the murdered Aussie, who was shot by the youths because they were bored. It can be argued that he was also murdered because he was white. Despite this, the deafening silence from the White House gives an indication of how it feels.
As if that weren't enough, later last year an eighty-eight-year-old World War II vet was beaten to death by two black youths. The black youths have pleaded not guilty. Delbert Shorty Belton served his country honorably, only to lose his life in one of the most undignified ways possible. Again, the White House did nothing. No hate crime charge, no Department of Justice involvement, no comment from the President. Imagine if the outcome would have been different if racist white youths had murdered a black Korean War vet. To imagine a different reaction isn't terribly difficult.
Whether the President should get involved at all is one issue. Unless something akin to the Watts riots or the aftermath of the Rodney King trial verdicts were to occur, I believe the President has much more pressing matters on which to concentrate. But if he's going to get involved, he should get involved on behalf of every decedent where there's a question of racial hatred. If the President is the leader of the entire country, he should pay attention to cases of racial injustice no matter which way the injustice flows.
Then again, last week the funeral of the highest ranking general to be killed in action since Vietnam took place. Major General Harold Greene was killed in Afghanistan in a case of green on blue murder. Somewhat shockingly, not only did the President not attend the funeral, he didn't express publicly his condolences to the family.
Then again, Major General Greene was white.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
First, at this point, it is unknown whether Michael Brown's family has a cause of action against the police. There are conflicting stories as to whether the policeman used excessive force or engaged in self-defense. Details are beginning to emerge that would suggest the latter, but not all investigation results are in yet. It's very simple, actually: If Mr. Brown assaulted the officer, the officer was justified in the use of deadly force. If not, the officer should be charged with a crime.
But that's not the point of this blogpost. I'm experienced enough, patient enough and smart enough to wait for the process to run its course. The White House, however, collectively lacks these attributes. Either that or its agenda trumps them, because it has no business getting involved in this issue at this point. Just as it did in the Trayvon Martin death, the White House is weighing in out of personal and political self-interest. I don't think it's too far-fetched to declare that because the President is biracial, he's viewing this through his personal and not his presidential lens. At the same time, invoking the Emanuel Edict of never letting a good crisis go to waste, the POTUS is using this to energize his base for the upcoming mid-terms.
Call me a cynic. I dare you. But at least wait until after this blogpost is completely read.
Again, as with the Martin case, if it's proved that the shooting of Mr. Brown was racially motivated, there should be charges commensurate with the crime. By no means am I arguing that the shootings were justified simply because a young black man was shot. Far from it. I'm cautioning patience.
Still.
Isn't it interesting that the White House can find the time to comment about these two shootings yet, when an innocent white man is the victim of murder at the hands of black youths, no outcry is heard from the White House? No statements from the podium, not third autopsy conducted by a federal agency, no visit by Eric Holder to the site of the crimes. Nothing. Bupkes.
Take, for example, the heinous, cold-blooded shooting of the Australian exchange student in Oklahoma by three youths, two of whom were black. The youths were quickly apprehended, the investigations conducted to reveal that at least one if not two of the youths had demonstrably rooted hatred for whites, yet not only was no hate crime charged, the White House, as far as I'm aware, never even commented on it. It didn't even send the Australian government condolences. A quick search on Google reveals no reports that the White House uttered a peep about the murdered Aussie, who was shot by the youths because they were bored. It can be argued that he was also murdered because he was white. Despite this, the deafening silence from the White House gives an indication of how it feels.
As if that weren't enough, later last year an eighty-eight-year-old World War II vet was beaten to death by two black youths. The black youths have pleaded not guilty. Delbert Shorty Belton served his country honorably, only to lose his life in one of the most undignified ways possible. Again, the White House did nothing. No hate crime charge, no Department of Justice involvement, no comment from the President. Imagine if the outcome would have been different if racist white youths had murdered a black Korean War vet. To imagine a different reaction isn't terribly difficult.
Whether the President should get involved at all is one issue. Unless something akin to the Watts riots or the aftermath of the Rodney King trial verdicts were to occur, I believe the President has much more pressing matters on which to concentrate. But if he's going to get involved, he should get involved on behalf of every decedent where there's a question of racial hatred. If the President is the leader of the entire country, he should pay attention to cases of racial injustice no matter which way the injustice flows.
Then again, last week the funeral of the highest ranking general to be killed in action since Vietnam took place. Major General Harold Greene was killed in Afghanistan in a case of green on blue murder. Somewhat shockingly, not only did the President not attend the funeral, he didn't express publicly his condolences to the family.
Then again, Major General Greene was white.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Thoughts on Food
I've had a lot of contact with food lately -- long, boring story -- and some thoughts have occurred to me about food, the way we approach it and what our tastes are. There's a great deal of randomness to this, but that's how it has to be:
-- Uncooked eggs are fine. I can bake with 'em, eat 'em raw if I have to. But cooked? Blech.
-- Why people insist on putting fruit in things that don't naturally go with fruit boggles my mind. Why ruin perfectly good beer with fruit flavor, or put fruit chutney on steak?
-- I wonder who the first person was that thought eating eggs would be a good idea.
-- Pizza without pepperoni isn't pizza. I'm not sure what it is. The only worse way to make pizza is to put pineapple (there we go with fruit again) and anchovies on it.
-- That being said, grilled peaches or pineapple are wonderful.
-- The person who came up with nesting cans ought to be awarded a medal.
-- It cracks me up when I see a name brand food stocked right next to a store brand of the same flavor. I don't know why.
-- I never knew there were so many different ways to can tuna.
-- If pickled asparagus counts as a pickle because, as one know-it-all told me, anything that's pickled counts as a pickle, where does that leave pickled bologna and pickled eggs?
-- I repeat: Chocolate chip ice cream is the most perfect ice cream there is.
-- Skillets without eggs are a great breakfast. Why people insist on putting eggs on perfectly good foods, like skillets or hamburgers, mystifies me.
-- Besides my aversion to eggs, another reason I could never be a successful chef is that I can't eat scallops due to a food allergy and wouldn't be able to cook them correctly as a result.
-- I wish we could find my iced tea jar now that we're back in the land of decent water. I miss my iced tea.
-- As with tuna, I'm stunned by the number of different ways baked beans are made.
-- Shoepeg corn. What a name.
-- I'm encourage by manufacturers who have managed to infuse products like crackers and the like with new flavors like chipotle, vinegar and BBQ. Variety is a good thing. But it's like toys: When we were growing up, where was all this variety?
-- Speaking of BBQ, I prefer rubs to sauces. It's less messy and tastes just as good.
-- Sunflower seeds are a good snack.
-- My preferred soft drink now is Dr. Pepper. No, Mr. Pibb is not an acceptable substitute. And although I grew up a Coca-Cola fan, I have never liked the taste of Pepsi. The two taste nothing alike.
-- I prefer my meat to be cooked medium well. Well done just gives the cook license to incinerate it.
-- I've come to appreciate agave sweetner for tea. I doubt it would do any good for coffee, however.
-- Whatever interest I once had in Mexican food is gone. Tex-Mex is the only way for me now.
-- Speaking of foreign cuisines, I'm not much into Asian food. I would like to try some Middle Eastern food, though.
-- I've had yucca. It tastes as its name implies.
-- Eating rice with a spoon is so much easier than trying to eat it with a fork. Don't even start about chopsticks.
-- I'm all into sharing food, but someone who feels the liberty to sample something off my plate without being invited may easily lose a hand.
-- I prefer grub to haute cuisine.
-- Blueberries make just about anything better, from cereal to bread to ice cream.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- Uncooked eggs are fine. I can bake with 'em, eat 'em raw if I have to. But cooked? Blech.
-- Why people insist on putting fruit in things that don't naturally go with fruit boggles my mind. Why ruin perfectly good beer with fruit flavor, or put fruit chutney on steak?
-- I wonder who the first person was that thought eating eggs would be a good idea.
-- Pizza without pepperoni isn't pizza. I'm not sure what it is. The only worse way to make pizza is to put pineapple (there we go with fruit again) and anchovies on it.
-- That being said, grilled peaches or pineapple are wonderful.
-- The person who came up with nesting cans ought to be awarded a medal.
-- It cracks me up when I see a name brand food stocked right next to a store brand of the same flavor. I don't know why.
-- I never knew there were so many different ways to can tuna.
-- If pickled asparagus counts as a pickle because, as one know-it-all told me, anything that's pickled counts as a pickle, where does that leave pickled bologna and pickled eggs?
-- I repeat: Chocolate chip ice cream is the most perfect ice cream there is.
-- Skillets without eggs are a great breakfast. Why people insist on putting eggs on perfectly good foods, like skillets or hamburgers, mystifies me.
-- Besides my aversion to eggs, another reason I could never be a successful chef is that I can't eat scallops due to a food allergy and wouldn't be able to cook them correctly as a result.
-- I wish we could find my iced tea jar now that we're back in the land of decent water. I miss my iced tea.
-- As with tuna, I'm stunned by the number of different ways baked beans are made.
-- Shoepeg corn. What a name.
-- I'm encourage by manufacturers who have managed to infuse products like crackers and the like with new flavors like chipotle, vinegar and BBQ. Variety is a good thing. But it's like toys: When we were growing up, where was all this variety?
-- Speaking of BBQ, I prefer rubs to sauces. It's less messy and tastes just as good.
-- Sunflower seeds are a good snack.
-- My preferred soft drink now is Dr. Pepper. No, Mr. Pibb is not an acceptable substitute. And although I grew up a Coca-Cola fan, I have never liked the taste of Pepsi. The two taste nothing alike.
-- I prefer my meat to be cooked medium well. Well done just gives the cook license to incinerate it.
-- I've come to appreciate agave sweetner for tea. I doubt it would do any good for coffee, however.
-- Whatever interest I once had in Mexican food is gone. Tex-Mex is the only way for me now.
-- Speaking of foreign cuisines, I'm not much into Asian food. I would like to try some Middle Eastern food, though.
-- I've had yucca. It tastes as its name implies.
-- Eating rice with a spoon is so much easier than trying to eat it with a fork. Don't even start about chopsticks.
-- I'm all into sharing food, but someone who feels the liberty to sample something off my plate without being invited may easily lose a hand.
-- I prefer grub to haute cuisine.
-- Blueberries make just about anything better, from cereal to bread to ice cream.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
More MSM Hypocrisy
Back in 2002 and 2003, the Bush administration used what turned out to be faulty intelligence as its pretext to invade Iraq. Nevermind that it has sufficient reason to topple the despot who had invaded a peaceful neighbor: Directing his military to fire upon American and British warplanes that flew over the No-Fly Zone and using chemical weapons against the Kurds would have been reason enough, but President Bush sought to obtain international support to take out the WMD's that his intelligence services vouchsafed were held by the Iraqis.
Although I'm not convinced there weren't WMD's -- I believe they were spirited away to the largely Sunni Syrian regime -- the fact is none were found. In the aftermath of the revelations that no WMD's were found by the invading Allied forces, the MSM and the Democrats had a field day, accusing the Bush administration of concocting the WMD story to justify the invasion to make up for, in their eyes, the mistake of the father, George H. W. Bush, of not finishing the job in 1991 by removing the Saddam Hussein regime. Although the notion that, twelve years removed from the event, the son would clean up the father's mess by condemning some four thousand American servicemen to death is ridiculous, the MSM and Democrats feasted on that story all the way to the White House in 2008. In fact, the present POTUS is blaming President Bush for going into Iraq in the first place and leaving him to clean up that mess.
Were the assertions true, the now-denied movement for impeachment of George Bush would have garnered far more support.
Regardless, what is interesting now is that it would appear from several sources -- although not the MSM or Democrats -- that President Obama denied intelligence reports about the growing threat of ISIS. In fact, he downplayed the threat, referring to ISIS as the JV team. In view of recent reports on the depth and depravity of the crimes committed by ISIS in the name of Islam, the POTUS has had to backtrack a bit. This also comes after his declaration that Al Qaeda was on the run, another false conclusion.
Does this hurt the President? Not a bit. The MSM is quietly continuing as the POTUS toady, referring to ISIS as Islamic militants or rebels, but not terrorists. Had this President been confronted by the Nazis, the MSM would have referred to the SS as Boy Scouts.
This is the same MSM that took President Bush to task for prematurely declaring Mission Accomplished, yet it gives the darling of its collective eye a pass on doing the same thing. At least President Bush defeated the enemy. This President allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and take the battle elsewhere, namely Syria, where more militant and criminal elements within Al Qaeda formed ISIS, bent on establishing a caliphate within which sharia law would rule. In its advance on a weakened Iraq, which this President has allowed to founder on its own incompetence, thereby threatening the region and necessarily inviting Iran into the equation, ISIS has relied not only on its battle-hardened troops, an influx of volunteers and the weakness of its enemy, but terror built on beheadings, live burials and rape. Yet these are the same people the MSM labels only as militants and rebels. To label them as terrorists would point out just how badly the President underestimated the threat -- and how badly he turned a deaf ear to the intelligence community.
Someday, the MSM is going to wake up and realize how complicit it was in hurting this country.
I just hope they do it while there's still a country left.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Although I'm not convinced there weren't WMD's -- I believe they were spirited away to the largely Sunni Syrian regime -- the fact is none were found. In the aftermath of the revelations that no WMD's were found by the invading Allied forces, the MSM and the Democrats had a field day, accusing the Bush administration of concocting the WMD story to justify the invasion to make up for, in their eyes, the mistake of the father, George H. W. Bush, of not finishing the job in 1991 by removing the Saddam Hussein regime. Although the notion that, twelve years removed from the event, the son would clean up the father's mess by condemning some four thousand American servicemen to death is ridiculous, the MSM and Democrats feasted on that story all the way to the White House in 2008. In fact, the present POTUS is blaming President Bush for going into Iraq in the first place and leaving him to clean up that mess.
Were the assertions true, the now-denied movement for impeachment of George Bush would have garnered far more support.
Regardless, what is interesting now is that it would appear from several sources -- although not the MSM or Democrats -- that President Obama denied intelligence reports about the growing threat of ISIS. In fact, he downplayed the threat, referring to ISIS as the JV team. In view of recent reports on the depth and depravity of the crimes committed by ISIS in the name of Islam, the POTUS has had to backtrack a bit. This also comes after his declaration that Al Qaeda was on the run, another false conclusion.
Does this hurt the President? Not a bit. The MSM is quietly continuing as the POTUS toady, referring to ISIS as Islamic militants or rebels, but not terrorists. Had this President been confronted by the Nazis, the MSM would have referred to the SS as Boy Scouts.
This is the same MSM that took President Bush to task for prematurely declaring Mission Accomplished, yet it gives the darling of its collective eye a pass on doing the same thing. At least President Bush defeated the enemy. This President allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and take the battle elsewhere, namely Syria, where more militant and criminal elements within Al Qaeda formed ISIS, bent on establishing a caliphate within which sharia law would rule. In its advance on a weakened Iraq, which this President has allowed to founder on its own incompetence, thereby threatening the region and necessarily inviting Iran into the equation, ISIS has relied not only on its battle-hardened troops, an influx of volunteers and the weakness of its enemy, but terror built on beheadings, live burials and rape. Yet these are the same people the MSM labels only as militants and rebels. To label them as terrorists would point out just how badly the President underestimated the threat -- and how badly he turned a deaf ear to the intelligence community.
Someday, the MSM is going to wake up and realize how complicit it was in hurting this country.
I just hope they do it while there's still a country left.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, August 11, 2014
The Criminal Element and ISIS
Recently, a terrorists organization going by the acronym ISIS (there are other labels, but I'm going to stick with that one) is wreaking havoc over large swaths of Syria and Iraq, hell bent on establishing an Islamic caliphate. Its methods range from outright modern warfare to barbaric ancient methods such as beheadings and burial alive of its victims. The stated goal is to convert kaffirs, or infidels, to Islam, and to extend the reach of the caliphate.
History has seen plenty of depotic regimes and movements. In the twentieth century, two of the worst almost brought the world to its knees with its eugenics and expansionist movements. Japan, in the 1930's and Germany in the late 1930's and the early 1940's tried to install regimes based on racial purity and at the same time set up governments that would control the societies to be established. Expecting their programs to garner new adherents and birth rates commensurate with programs encouraging fertility, the Japanese and German regimes went on land grabs with various excuses, from protecting indigenous peoples with ties to the homeland to spurious provocations that were later proven to have been instigated by the allegedly aggrieved parties. World War II turned out to be the worst conflagration the planet has ever known.
The trouble is that most historians focus on the eugenics and the expansionist movements with economical underpinnings. To be sure, there were those factors involved in each case. Both Japan and Germany had those stated intentions as their reasons for their belligerent actions. Many citizens of the two countries may also have supported those goals. The national policies may even have reflected those goals, officially. But there was something far more nefarious behind those stated goals.
Little attention has been paid to the people who formed the Japanese and German governments of the era. Both governments were run by thugs who pushed aside the career politicians and military men or cowed them into acquiescence with their brutal tactics.
In 1932, naval recruits succeeded in murdering the Japanese Primer Minister, Inukai Tsuyoshi, due to his support for the London Naval Treaty, which severely restricted the tonnage and types of ships Japan could build. Supported by the ultra-national League of Blood and cadets from the Japanese Army, the eleven murders received light sentences after a letter-writing campaign convinced the Emperor to reduce the sentences. This milquetoast response led to another uprising four years later which had more severe consequences for the upstarts, but the two events caused a general cowering within Japanese society that led to a criminal element seizing control of the Army and major diplomatic posts. During this period, Japanese military units ran riot in China, during which the infamous Rape of Nanking occurred. During the Rape of Nanking, two Japanese officers had a beheading contest in which the two men sought to best the other in beheading the most Chinese captives in an hour. Despite protests from some modern-day Japanese as to the authenticity of the crime, Japanese newspapers covered the travesty for its readers back home:
The Nanking incident also saw thousands of women raped and other live Chinese used for bayonet practice:
To this day there are Japanese who deny this ever happened, but that's another story altogether.
The Germans, meanwhile, were more organized than their Japanese cohorts. Hitler was a singularly persuasive entity and rallied such luminaries as the morphine addict Hermann Goering, the chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler and the anti-Semite Josef Goebbels to his standard, where they worked together to overthrow the mainstream German government from within, culminating in Hitler's ascension to Chancellor in 1933. From that point forward Germany began its descent into the nine rings of Dante's Inferno. Anti-Semitism, theft, murder, war and sundry other crimes against humanity, the most heinous of which was the Holocaust, left an indelible mark on history (it should be mentioned that the Japanese also had area 751, whereat it ran experiments on live humans that defy credulity).
Now, more than seventy-five years later, another movement, this time cloaked in religion, is foisting itself on the world. Much like pre-war Europe, many countries are standing on the sidelines and watching. ISIS promises to come to the United States and raise its flag over the White House. That's a dubious boast at best. But what ISIS is doing to fellow Muslims and other Iraqis is similar to the ravages brought down on peoples by the Japanese and Germans. And like those groups, ISIS is populated by a criminal element. Besides murdering innocent civilians under the guise of Islam, ISIS has been funding itself through extortion, robbing banks and extracting tolls on infidels. As a ragtag band of religiously fantatical terrorists, it's unclear whether ISIS has used any of that money to benefit the supporters whom it claims to have liberated. In all likelihood, it's plowing the money back into furthering its military goals. Irrespective of that, ISIS is clearly a terrorist organization at heart with perhaps some idealistic adherents mixed in who believe that things will improve once final victory is achieved. The sad thing is that mirrors what many Prussians thought would happen with Hitler.
I don't fear ISIS taking over the United States. I foresee more pinprick attacks at softer targets. A lot of the rhetoric is bluster from someone who so far has found little successful opposition to its aims. Unless and until the world unites to combat this movement, however, it is facing a world war that will make the last two look like intramural scrimmages.
(c) 20145 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
History has seen plenty of depotic regimes and movements. In the twentieth century, two of the worst almost brought the world to its knees with its eugenics and expansionist movements. Japan, in the 1930's and Germany in the late 1930's and the early 1940's tried to install regimes based on racial purity and at the same time set up governments that would control the societies to be established. Expecting their programs to garner new adherents and birth rates commensurate with programs encouraging fertility, the Japanese and German regimes went on land grabs with various excuses, from protecting indigenous peoples with ties to the homeland to spurious provocations that were later proven to have been instigated by the allegedly aggrieved parties. World War II turned out to be the worst conflagration the planet has ever known.
The trouble is that most historians focus on the eugenics and the expansionist movements with economical underpinnings. To be sure, there were those factors involved in each case. Both Japan and Germany had those stated intentions as their reasons for their belligerent actions. Many citizens of the two countries may also have supported those goals. The national policies may even have reflected those goals, officially. But there was something far more nefarious behind those stated goals.
Little attention has been paid to the people who formed the Japanese and German governments of the era. Both governments were run by thugs who pushed aside the career politicians and military men or cowed them into acquiescence with their brutal tactics.
In 1932, naval recruits succeeded in murdering the Japanese Primer Minister, Inukai Tsuyoshi, due to his support for the London Naval Treaty, which severely restricted the tonnage and types of ships Japan could build. Supported by the ultra-national League of Blood and cadets from the Japanese Army, the eleven murders received light sentences after a letter-writing campaign convinced the Emperor to reduce the sentences. This milquetoast response led to another uprising four years later which had more severe consequences for the upstarts, but the two events caused a general cowering within Japanese society that led to a criminal element seizing control of the Army and major diplomatic posts. During this period, Japanese military units ran riot in China, during which the infamous Rape of Nanking occurred. During the Rape of Nanking, two Japanese officers had a beheading contest in which the two men sought to best the other in beheading the most Chinese captives in an hour. Despite protests from some modern-day Japanese as to the authenticity of the crime, Japanese newspapers covered the travesty for its readers back home:
The Nanking incident also saw thousands of women raped and other live Chinese used for bayonet practice:
To this day there are Japanese who deny this ever happened, but that's another story altogether.
The Germans, meanwhile, were more organized than their Japanese cohorts. Hitler was a singularly persuasive entity and rallied such luminaries as the morphine addict Hermann Goering, the chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler and the anti-Semite Josef Goebbels to his standard, where they worked together to overthrow the mainstream German government from within, culminating in Hitler's ascension to Chancellor in 1933. From that point forward Germany began its descent into the nine rings of Dante's Inferno. Anti-Semitism, theft, murder, war and sundry other crimes against humanity, the most heinous of which was the Holocaust, left an indelible mark on history (it should be mentioned that the Japanese also had area 751, whereat it ran experiments on live humans that defy credulity).
Now, more than seventy-five years later, another movement, this time cloaked in religion, is foisting itself on the world. Much like pre-war Europe, many countries are standing on the sidelines and watching. ISIS promises to come to the United States and raise its flag over the White House. That's a dubious boast at best. But what ISIS is doing to fellow Muslims and other Iraqis is similar to the ravages brought down on peoples by the Japanese and Germans. And like those groups, ISIS is populated by a criminal element. Besides murdering innocent civilians under the guise of Islam, ISIS has been funding itself through extortion, robbing banks and extracting tolls on infidels. As a ragtag band of religiously fantatical terrorists, it's unclear whether ISIS has used any of that money to benefit the supporters whom it claims to have liberated. In all likelihood, it's plowing the money back into furthering its military goals. Irrespective of that, ISIS is clearly a terrorist organization at heart with perhaps some idealistic adherents mixed in who believe that things will improve once final victory is achieved. The sad thing is that mirrors what many Prussians thought would happen with Hitler.
I don't fear ISIS taking over the United States. I foresee more pinprick attacks at softer targets. A lot of the rhetoric is bluster from someone who so far has found little successful opposition to its aims. Unless and until the world unites to combat this movement, however, it is facing a world war that will make the last two look like intramural scrimmages.
(c) 20145 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Bergdahl
Now that the focus has shifted to yet another crisis created by this administration, it's time I chimed in on the Bowe Bergdahl-for-five-terrorists swap that occurred last month. Hailed by the administration as the return of an American soldier who served with honor and distinction, according to the administration's shameless fall-person Susan Rice, the trade for five hardened Taliban terrorists was widely derided by critics who questioned whether this signaled a shift from the traditional position of not negotiating with terrorists.
There are multiple parts to this. The first has to do with Bowe Bergdahl's service. From reports in the media and from shared opinions from fellow members of his platoon, Bergdahl abandoned his post. He left his weapon at the base and wandered off in search of English-speaking Taliban, allegedly with the confused idea of talking with them about improving the plight of Afghanis. That and other information gleaned from emails he sent to family and friends suggest that he was not taken in action but seized when he wandered into a Taliban stronghold.
In the unlikely event that Bergdahl was taken in action, the question still begs: Do we negotiate with terrorists? Historically, there is some support for the proposition. Thomas Jefferson negotiated with the Barbary pirates during his time in office, so it's not unheard of for there to be talks with terrorists. But that was in a day when terrorists couldn't reach out the way they can now. Barbary pirates had no means of attacking the United States homeland. Taliban, through Al Qaeda, do.
Then there's the issue of the five terrorists traded for Bergdahl. They were, according to those in the know, among the hardest detainees still in Gitmo. Some have described them as the equivalent of four star generals. Assuming that estimation is correct, how do we trade a private (at the time of his capture, he was a private; during his captivity, he was promoted to sergeant) for five four star generals? That makes no sense. Not even Jerry Jones would make a trade that stupid.
The rules regarding the Obama Five's stay in Qatar are ridiculous. Supposedly, the Obama Five are supposed to be monitored there by the Qataris. The only problem with that supposition is that similar restrictions were placed on detainees formerly returned there and they were back on the frontlines within months of their return. Moreover, there is no restriction on the type of activities they can conduct there. They can meet with fellow Taliban, plan strategy, direct actions and raise funds all in the comfort provided to them by the Qataris.
Meanwhile, Bergdahl has been evaluated, medically, by military specialists and returned to active duty, albeit behind a desk. There may well be a sound reason, legally, for doing this. It seems pretty stupid to put someone who's expressed such anti-American sentiments in writing and then allegedly deserted his platoon back into circulation, unless it's to monitor him and observe him. Personally, I suspect that's the reason.
Then earlier this week reports surfaced that the military was beginning to question him about his departure from the base, his time in captivity and sundry other things. My take on it is that eventually, he'll be dishonorably discharged from the military for desertion and will forfeit his accumulated pay and pension. The Obama administration will howl in protest, the MSM will be thoroughly confused and vets everywhere will applaud.
On a side note, there are reports that some in the military are being more vocal about the disastrous trade the administration made to get Bergdahl back. Allegedly, one official labeled one of the Obama Five a psycho. Given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, it's not surprising that within that movement there are a few nutjobs. The problem is that the Obama Five nutjobs have homicidal propensities and the knowledge to carry out their propensities with for maximum effect.
The trade was not a good one. That nothing has happened yet is of no consequence.
It will happen.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
There are multiple parts to this. The first has to do with Bowe Bergdahl's service. From reports in the media and from shared opinions from fellow members of his platoon, Bergdahl abandoned his post. He left his weapon at the base and wandered off in search of English-speaking Taliban, allegedly with the confused idea of talking with them about improving the plight of Afghanis. That and other information gleaned from emails he sent to family and friends suggest that he was not taken in action but seized when he wandered into a Taliban stronghold.
In the unlikely event that Bergdahl was taken in action, the question still begs: Do we negotiate with terrorists? Historically, there is some support for the proposition. Thomas Jefferson negotiated with the Barbary pirates during his time in office, so it's not unheard of for there to be talks with terrorists. But that was in a day when terrorists couldn't reach out the way they can now. Barbary pirates had no means of attacking the United States homeland. Taliban, through Al Qaeda, do.
Then there's the issue of the five terrorists traded for Bergdahl. They were, according to those in the know, among the hardest detainees still in Gitmo. Some have described them as the equivalent of four star generals. Assuming that estimation is correct, how do we trade a private (at the time of his capture, he was a private; during his captivity, he was promoted to sergeant) for five four star generals? That makes no sense. Not even Jerry Jones would make a trade that stupid.
The rules regarding the Obama Five's stay in Qatar are ridiculous. Supposedly, the Obama Five are supposed to be monitored there by the Qataris. The only problem with that supposition is that similar restrictions were placed on detainees formerly returned there and they were back on the frontlines within months of their return. Moreover, there is no restriction on the type of activities they can conduct there. They can meet with fellow Taliban, plan strategy, direct actions and raise funds all in the comfort provided to them by the Qataris.
Meanwhile, Bergdahl has been evaluated, medically, by military specialists and returned to active duty, albeit behind a desk. There may well be a sound reason, legally, for doing this. It seems pretty stupid to put someone who's expressed such anti-American sentiments in writing and then allegedly deserted his platoon back into circulation, unless it's to monitor him and observe him. Personally, I suspect that's the reason.
Then earlier this week reports surfaced that the military was beginning to question him about his departure from the base, his time in captivity and sundry other things. My take on it is that eventually, he'll be dishonorably discharged from the military for desertion and will forfeit his accumulated pay and pension. The Obama administration will howl in protest, the MSM will be thoroughly confused and vets everywhere will applaud.
On a side note, there are reports that some in the military are being more vocal about the disastrous trade the administration made to get Bergdahl back. Allegedly, one official labeled one of the Obama Five a psycho. Given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, it's not surprising that within that movement there are a few nutjobs. The problem is that the Obama Five nutjobs have homicidal propensities and the knowledge to carry out their propensities with for maximum effect.
The trade was not a good one. That nothing has happened yet is of no consequence.
It will happen.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, August 4, 2014
Monday Musings Return
Lately some questions have come to mind that have me pondering minutiae in the universe. None of this is really deep, but I wanted to put it down so I could revisit it later if I ever get an acceptable answer to any of it:
-- With the recent movie on Franki Valli and the Four Seasons, I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone how weird it was for Valli was singing Walk Like A Man with his incredible falsetto.
-- I can only imagine what Travolta was thinking, but what in the world was Olivia Newto-John thinking when she agreed to participate in this monstrosity?
-- Maggie Gyllenhall is hurt? Wahhhhhhhhh....
-- Is it unreasonable for an outfit that specializes in communications to be able to communicate internally about a customer's account such that the customer doesn't have to repeat his information each time he's transferred to a new department within the company?
-- Will the Democrats stop at nothing in their bid to rescue the midterms?
-- Can anyone explain the wild fluctuation of gas prices to me?
-- Is the summer schedule of television offerings almost over?
-- What is a Shia Labeouf anyway?
-- Is it still impolitic to refer to it as Indian Summer?
-- Instead of going after sugared drinks, why aren't legislators going after diet drinks that have chemicals whose effects on the human body doctors admit they don't fully understand?
-- Why don't more municipalities put road construction projects on during the nights and not during the days?
-- What does the public have against chocolate chip ice cream that they have to bastardize it with mint, cookie dough and chocolate ice cream?
-- Is the vampire/zomibie cycle of movie antagonists about over yet?
-- Liberals and their supporters are infamous for calling it Faux News. What do they make of that laughing stock MSNBC, which has had such luminaries as Al Sharpton, Melissa Lewis-Perry, Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir, who notoriously suggested that someone defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth?
-- Why would anyone willingly pay to attend preseason football games?
-- Paul George, meet Kevin Ware. Both of you meet Joe Theisman.
-- Since when was Geraldo Rivera relevant?
-- Does anyone know where my batteries and charger are for my weed wacker? I really need 'em.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- With the recent movie on Franki Valli and the Four Seasons, I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone how weird it was for Valli was singing Walk Like A Man with his incredible falsetto.
-- I can only imagine what Travolta was thinking, but what in the world was Olivia Newto-John thinking when she agreed to participate in this monstrosity?
-- Maggie Gyllenhall is hurt? Wahhhhhhhhh....
-- Is it unreasonable for an outfit that specializes in communications to be able to communicate internally about a customer's account such that the customer doesn't have to repeat his information each time he's transferred to a new department within the company?
-- Will the Democrats stop at nothing in their bid to rescue the midterms?
-- Can anyone explain the wild fluctuation of gas prices to me?
-- Is the summer schedule of television offerings almost over?
-- What is a Shia Labeouf anyway?
-- Is it still impolitic to refer to it as Indian Summer?
-- Instead of going after sugared drinks, why aren't legislators going after diet drinks that have chemicals whose effects on the human body doctors admit they don't fully understand?
-- Why don't more municipalities put road construction projects on during the nights and not during the days?
-- What does the public have against chocolate chip ice cream that they have to bastardize it with mint, cookie dough and chocolate ice cream?
-- Is the vampire/zomibie cycle of movie antagonists about over yet?
-- Liberals and their supporters are infamous for calling it Faux News. What do they make of that laughing stock MSNBC, which has had such luminaries as Al Sharpton, Melissa Lewis-Perry, Alec Baldwin and Martin Bashir, who notoriously suggested that someone defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth?
-- Why would anyone willingly pay to attend preseason football games?
-- Paul George, meet Kevin Ware. Both of you meet Joe Theisman.
-- Since when was Geraldo Rivera relevant?
-- Does anyone know where my batteries and charger are for my weed wacker? I really need 'em.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, August 1, 2014
More Democractic Cognitive Dissonance
The last month or so the Democrats have provided more evidence of their inability to deal with reality when reality conflicts with the prepared script the liberals insist guides the world. Make no mistake: Certain conservatives are guilty of heinous misstatements and outlandish comments as well, but they're usually so based on opinion that they're more appropriately classified as loons than as elected officials or serious candidates for office.
Instead, the Democrats seem to have taken leave of what little sense with which they were born. Most worrisome, for Democrats as well as their constituents, is that fact that at least two of the three examples cited herein involve officials in leadership roles. The amazing thing about these statements is that the people saying them and to whom others look up as pillars of democracy have got to know that what they're saying is simply false. There are public relations people that don't have the chutzpah to lie as brazenly as these elected officials do.
We begin with the irrepressible Harry Reid. Infamous for making comments on a par with those made by his brother-by-another-mother E. Gordon Gee, the disgraced former president of Ohio State University --
Mr. Reid suggested during the last presidential campaign that Mitt Romney hadn't pay taxes. Then he assailed the conservative Koch brothers as being un-American. When confronted with the fact that liberal billionaire Tom Steyer was donating to liberal causes at roughly the same rate as the Koch brothers, Reid lauded Mr. Steyer's Americanism. How he said this with a straight face is beyond me and indicative that Mr. Reid is as crooked as a slithering snake.
Not to let the boys outdo her, Nancy Pelosi leapt into the Hobby Lobby ruling controversy by recasting the narrow and limited ruling as one outlawing contraceptives for women. Nevermind that the SCOTUS took great pains to limit its ruling to preventing closely held corporations from having to fund abortifacients in direct conflict with their religious views, nevermind that Hobby Lobby pays for three quarters of contraceptive coverage in health plans, nevermind that the SCOTUS refused to address slippery slope issues that it admits are on the horizon, Ms. Pelosi saw fit to completely misconstrue the ruling, for which she was taken to task in a brisk two-and-a-half minute debunking by Megyn Kelly, a trained attorney:
Within the last week, a wannabe national legislator slammed erroneous reports that Republicans were seeking to impeach the President by claiming that Democrats never saw fit to impeach George Bush despite the fact that, in her opinion, he committed much worse during his terms. Unfortunately for Sheila Jackson-Lee and fortunately for the American public, there are such things as Congressional Records and video tape. Ms. Jackson-Lee was one of twelve co-sponsors of House resolution to impeach Mr. Bush --
If Ms. Jackson-Lee's goal is to join the ranks of transparently deceptive liars such as Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, she's laying the groundwork for a successful application in that club. If she's trying to dispel the notion that she had anything to do with a Democratic effort to impeach President Bush, she's not succeeding.
Cankles? I don't have enough bandwith to cover her versions of reality.
These four, of course, are trumped by the Liar-In-Chief, who promised a transparent administration only to impose the most opaque in modern history and promised that the American people could keep their doctors and their insurance plans. His false comments were buttressed and explained by a junior liar Jay Carney, who often sneered as he repeated the lies his boss told. And the MSM, large segments of the population and the Hollywood elite continued to support him and make excuses for him.
By no means is this phenomenon limited to liberals. Since they've held power, however, they seem to have assumed that since they are in power, liberals are free to do or say whatever they like no matter how outrageous. I don't remember such outrageous acts when the conservatives were in power -- the search for WMD's was based on flawed intelligence -- although they may have. No matter how flawed the reasoning, no matter how compelling the evidence against the statements, the liberals persist in spinning their messages for public consumption via a thoroughly compliant MSM.
Beware, conservatives: When your turn in power comes around, it would behoove you to behave differently. No matter how unfair it would be, the American public's tolerance with such shenanigans is wearing thin, and any similar attempts by you to repeat what liberals are doing might be met with a far sterner response.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Instead, the Democrats seem to have taken leave of what little sense with which they were born. Most worrisome, for Democrats as well as their constituents, is that fact that at least two of the three examples cited herein involve officials in leadership roles. The amazing thing about these statements is that the people saying them and to whom others look up as pillars of democracy have got to know that what they're saying is simply false. There are public relations people that don't have the chutzpah to lie as brazenly as these elected officials do.
We begin with the irrepressible Harry Reid. Infamous for making comments on a par with those made by his brother-by-another-mother E. Gordon Gee, the disgraced former president of Ohio State University --
Mr. Reid suggested during the last presidential campaign that Mitt Romney hadn't pay taxes. Then he assailed the conservative Koch brothers as being un-American. When confronted with the fact that liberal billionaire Tom Steyer was donating to liberal causes at roughly the same rate as the Koch brothers, Reid lauded Mr. Steyer's Americanism. How he said this with a straight face is beyond me and indicative that Mr. Reid is as crooked as a slithering snake.
Not to let the boys outdo her, Nancy Pelosi leapt into the Hobby Lobby ruling controversy by recasting the narrow and limited ruling as one outlawing contraceptives for women. Nevermind that the SCOTUS took great pains to limit its ruling to preventing closely held corporations from having to fund abortifacients in direct conflict with their religious views, nevermind that Hobby Lobby pays for three quarters of contraceptive coverage in health plans, nevermind that the SCOTUS refused to address slippery slope issues that it admits are on the horizon, Ms. Pelosi saw fit to completely misconstrue the ruling, for which she was taken to task in a brisk two-and-a-half minute debunking by Megyn Kelly, a trained attorney:
Within the last week, a wannabe national legislator slammed erroneous reports that Republicans were seeking to impeach the President by claiming that Democrats never saw fit to impeach George Bush despite the fact that, in her opinion, he committed much worse during his terms. Unfortunately for Sheila Jackson-Lee and fortunately for the American public, there are such things as Congressional Records and video tape. Ms. Jackson-Lee was one of twelve co-sponsors of House resolution to impeach Mr. Bush --
If Ms. Jackson-Lee's goal is to join the ranks of transparently deceptive liars such as Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, she's laying the groundwork for a successful application in that club. If she's trying to dispel the notion that she had anything to do with a Democratic effort to impeach President Bush, she's not succeeding.
Cankles? I don't have enough bandwith to cover her versions of reality.
These four, of course, are trumped by the Liar-In-Chief, who promised a transparent administration only to impose the most opaque in modern history and promised that the American people could keep their doctors and their insurance plans. His false comments were buttressed and explained by a junior liar Jay Carney, who often sneered as he repeated the lies his boss told. And the MSM, large segments of the population and the Hollywood elite continued to support him and make excuses for him.
By no means is this phenomenon limited to liberals. Since they've held power, however, they seem to have assumed that since they are in power, liberals are free to do or say whatever they like no matter how outrageous. I don't remember such outrageous acts when the conservatives were in power -- the search for WMD's was based on flawed intelligence -- although they may have. No matter how flawed the reasoning, no matter how compelling the evidence against the statements, the liberals persist in spinning their messages for public consumption via a thoroughly compliant MSM.
Beware, conservatives: When your turn in power comes around, it would behoove you to behave differently. No matter how unfair it would be, the American public's tolerance with such shenanigans is wearing thin, and any similar attempts by you to repeat what liberals are doing might be met with a far sterner response.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)