Despite Istanbul and the administration's ridiculous response thereto, I'm not going to address it today, preferring to wait until details come out that support my suspicions.
So in the meantime, here are some of my errant thoughts:
-- There are these things on Facebook where people my age post a picture of a dial telephone, or an early computer or some other antique and suggest that the image be shared if one used the item or know what it was for. One thing that millenials and their ilk are missing out on is seeded watermelon. Where have all the seeded watermelons gone? Why have they gone away? How do they grow watermelons without seeds? How are watermelon seed spitting contests held now?
-- Weird Al is a genius.
-- I've witnessed two drag races in traffic in the last month. These weren't just simple over-the-speed-limit things. These were people weaving in and out of traffic at niney-plus miles-per-hour. I blame it all on the Fast and Furious franchise.
-- I've only been to a Hooters once in my life, never to a Twisted Kilt. I don't see the attraction. Really.
-- Every time the weatherman tells that our ninety-degree weather missed the record high by X number of degrees and that the record was set in 1880, I wonder where the term global warming came from.
-- Does Cankles think her new grandbaby can vote for her in November?
-- I just like the name Penobscot, no matter how patrician it sounds.
-- Why have fireworks for July 4 a week before? What's the point?
-- I saw the following on foxenews.com:
In keeping with [Leonardo] DiCaprio’s ecowarrior status, the island’s almost
entirely powered by wind and solar energy, via three wind turbines and a 1.5-acre solar field.
Now, unless DiCaprio rowed or sailed to the Bahamas, how did his carbon footprint lessen?
-- It's amazing how a little thing like a new office printer makes work easier.
-- I found my bulldog mouse pad this morning, finally.
-- So I'm finally getting around to reading Moby Dick and it would appear to me that Herman Melville can be summed up in one word: Wordy. Egads. I'm reading the Library of America version and am on page 970. I still have 438 pages to go. Pray for me.
-- Speaking of books I've never read, count 1984, Animal Farm, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Catch-22, Roots, The Godfather and Gone with the Wind.
-- Last week a man named Ronald McDonald was shot at a Sonic restaurant in South Carolina. I'm not making this up. Really.
-- Yes, I called Sonic a restaurant. Please forgive me.
-- John Kerry is feckless. There's no other way to call it.
-- I will never understand the fascination with Andrea Tantaros.
-- Those who laugh at my musical tastes can bite me.
-- I'm not sure whether oven-roasted peanuts are better than salted peanuts or not.
-- What's with posting naked selfies? For that matter, what's with selfies?
-- I'm completely baffled why anyone looks to entertainment celebrities for opinions or advice on anything.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Monday, June 27, 2016
Being a Captive Audience
Well.
When I was younger I didn't go to a single musical event. Friends went to concerts, but I didn't have the money or the parents that would allow me to go see Aerosmith, The Doobie Brothers, Fleetwood Mac or any of the high-powered bands that provided the musical score to high school. As a result, when I began to attend concerts, I really didn't know much about how they operated.
Before I met Karen I attended a couple of concerts, Billy Joel's right after he got engaged to Christie Brinkley (yes, I'm dating myself) and then October Project before they disbanded. After meeting Karen, my concert attendance increased exponentially. I've seen diverse acts ranging from Flogging Molly to Ricky Skaggs to Great Big Sea. We've seen some entertaining acts -- mostly -- and a couple of clunkers. But in the process I've learned a thing or two about concerts.
One thing I haven't acquired is patience. Typically, I'm very patient with others and impatient as heck with myself. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt when things don't go just the way I want them to go because, well, things happen. But what happens with concerts is beginning to get on my nerves.
The absolute nadir was the first time I was held as a member of a captive audience. Given the fact that the Plain White T's concert was on a Sunday night, and given that we relied on public transportation to get us home in the suburbs after the concert, and given the fact that the Metra runs on a limited schedule on weekends, the timing of the concert was of major concern to us. Karen badly wanted to hear the group and I bought the tickets. When I bought the tickets, I specifically asked what time the concert began.
And that was my mistake.
Being a literalist and somewhat naïve about these things, I assumed that when I asked what time the concert began, it was understood that I meant the one band whose name was on the ticket: The Plain White T's. Big mistake. Huge.
Although they opened the doors at 5p as they told me they would, music didn't begin for at least an hour. When it began, it wasn't the Plain White T's up there. For the life of me, I can't even remember who it was, other than it wasn't memorable. Two other warm-up bands later, we were treated to a bunch of doofi (plural of doofus) who encouraged Chicago to Slut It Up -- whatever that was supposed to mean -- and the lead singer opened his raincoat to reveal a bare chest with electrical tape crossed over his nipples.
Nevermind that we didn't have seats (that's a completely different story). Nevermind that there were children there (it was the Plain White T's after all). That we were now pushing nine-thirty was the real concern.
But it wasn't over.
There was a fourth warm up band.
Just how warm an audience is needed to perform? What's more, when you're the headliner, aren't you concerned about boring or angering your audience? Even assuming that you're trying to give young acts a chance and some exposure, how many acts do you foist on your audience?
After the fourth warm-up act finished it was around 10.10p. We had a train to catch at 10.30p. There was no way we could stay and hear the Plain White T's. So we paid money to see one group and ended up seeing four mediocre acts who weren't even listed on the tickets we bought. Talk about bait and switch.
One Flogging Molly concert we attended had some lame Limey act named Beans On Toast open. Not only was he not advertised, he was politically awkward, lecturing Americans about our war. The next act, although markedly better than BOT, looked like Carter's Pills advertisements. The only cool thing they offered was the playing of the theramin.
Then there was this past weekend. Again, we bought tickets to see the main act, Weird Al Yankovic. Nowhere on the advertisement or the tickets were mentioned Stay 'Til Dawn or the horribly inappropriately named -- if unintentionally so -- Slick Jimmy. The first act was like a garage band and the second act -- which I liked better than Karen, who preferred the second -- was like a bunch of geisers trying to reclaim their youth. The worst part of Slick Jimmy -- besides its name -- was the bass guitarist's annoying habit of going over to the lead guitarist in every song and doing some ridiculous head bob after he compared guitar abilities.
The two acts pushed the six o'clock start time to closer to eight-thirty. Neither was advertised. Neither was very good. And they delayed us so much that we finally got home at one o'clock in the morning.
This is tantamount to someone coming to me for a consultation at six o'clock in the evening only to be told that they had to wait while I first finished my conference call that then lasts an hour and then my break for dinner, during which time they're forced to sit in the waiting room listening to muzak. The clients would be rightly outraged. Why music acts are allowed to get away with this stuff is beyond me. About the only time we hear complaints is when someone like Madonna doesn't show up for three or four hours after she's supposed to take the stage.
Next time we're scheduled to attend one of these concerts I'm going to make a point to ask very direct questions about who's taking the stage when. I'm tired of this.
PD: Weird Al was great.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
When I was younger I didn't go to a single musical event. Friends went to concerts, but I didn't have the money or the parents that would allow me to go see Aerosmith, The Doobie Brothers, Fleetwood Mac or any of the high-powered bands that provided the musical score to high school. As a result, when I began to attend concerts, I really didn't know much about how they operated.
Before I met Karen I attended a couple of concerts, Billy Joel's right after he got engaged to Christie Brinkley (yes, I'm dating myself) and then October Project before they disbanded. After meeting Karen, my concert attendance increased exponentially. I've seen diverse acts ranging from Flogging Molly to Ricky Skaggs to Great Big Sea. We've seen some entertaining acts -- mostly -- and a couple of clunkers. But in the process I've learned a thing or two about concerts.
One thing I haven't acquired is patience. Typically, I'm very patient with others and impatient as heck with myself. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt when things don't go just the way I want them to go because, well, things happen. But what happens with concerts is beginning to get on my nerves.
The absolute nadir was the first time I was held as a member of a captive audience. Given the fact that the Plain White T's concert was on a Sunday night, and given that we relied on public transportation to get us home in the suburbs after the concert, and given the fact that the Metra runs on a limited schedule on weekends, the timing of the concert was of major concern to us. Karen badly wanted to hear the group and I bought the tickets. When I bought the tickets, I specifically asked what time the concert began.
And that was my mistake.
Being a literalist and somewhat naïve about these things, I assumed that when I asked what time the concert began, it was understood that I meant the one band whose name was on the ticket: The Plain White T's. Big mistake. Huge.
Although they opened the doors at 5p as they told me they would, music didn't begin for at least an hour. When it began, it wasn't the Plain White T's up there. For the life of me, I can't even remember who it was, other than it wasn't memorable. Two other warm-up bands later, we were treated to a bunch of doofi (plural of doofus) who encouraged Chicago to Slut It Up -- whatever that was supposed to mean -- and the lead singer opened his raincoat to reveal a bare chest with electrical tape crossed over his nipples.
Nevermind that we didn't have seats (that's a completely different story). Nevermind that there were children there (it was the Plain White T's after all). That we were now pushing nine-thirty was the real concern.
But it wasn't over.
There was a fourth warm up band.
Just how warm an audience is needed to perform? What's more, when you're the headliner, aren't you concerned about boring or angering your audience? Even assuming that you're trying to give young acts a chance and some exposure, how many acts do you foist on your audience?
After the fourth warm-up act finished it was around 10.10p. We had a train to catch at 10.30p. There was no way we could stay and hear the Plain White T's. So we paid money to see one group and ended up seeing four mediocre acts who weren't even listed on the tickets we bought. Talk about bait and switch.
One Flogging Molly concert we attended had some lame Limey act named Beans On Toast open. Not only was he not advertised, he was politically awkward, lecturing Americans about our war. The next act, although markedly better than BOT, looked like Carter's Pills advertisements. The only cool thing they offered was the playing of the theramin.
Then there was this past weekend. Again, we bought tickets to see the main act, Weird Al Yankovic. Nowhere on the advertisement or the tickets were mentioned Stay 'Til Dawn or the horribly inappropriately named -- if unintentionally so -- Slick Jimmy. The first act was like a garage band and the second act -- which I liked better than Karen, who preferred the second -- was like a bunch of geisers trying to reclaim their youth. The worst part of Slick Jimmy -- besides its name -- was the bass guitarist's annoying habit of going over to the lead guitarist in every song and doing some ridiculous head bob after he compared guitar abilities.
The two acts pushed the six o'clock start time to closer to eight-thirty. Neither was advertised. Neither was very good. And they delayed us so much that we finally got home at one o'clock in the morning.
This is tantamount to someone coming to me for a consultation at six o'clock in the evening only to be told that they had to wait while I first finished my conference call that then lasts an hour and then my break for dinner, during which time they're forced to sit in the waiting room listening to muzak. The clients would be rightly outraged. Why music acts are allowed to get away with this stuff is beyond me. About the only time we hear complaints is when someone like Madonna doesn't show up for three or four hours after she's supposed to take the stage.
Next time we're scheduled to attend one of these concerts I'm going to make a point to ask very direct questions about who's taking the stage when. I'm tired of this.
PD: Weird Al was great.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, June 24, 2016
Brexit
I must confess that until late last week, I didn't even know this was on the agenda. Unlike a lot of Brits, who like to meddle in our politics, I don't have much interest in their internal politics. But yesterday, the Brits voted to leave the European Union. It's been called the Brexit, short, I guess, for the British Exit. How quaint.
The Brits weren't among the first countries to form what originally was known as the European Economic Community. The origins of the attempt to form a United States of Europe were to be found in the aftermath of World War II, when Euros wanted to create more economic stability to stave off a possible third world war. It was a noble experiment that veered off the stated path.
Over the course of the next five or six decades, countries that joined what eventually became known as the European Union ceded sovereignty to a centralized government. Regulations became Gordian knots of complicated rules. For an insular country like Britain, frustration grew at what was viewed as a worsening of its position by virtue of having joined the EU.
All of that is for the Brits to decide; as I said, unlike them, I don't meddle in their internal politics. But there are some interesting parallels between Brexit and our upcoming elections.
One of the biggest reasons Brits voted to leave the EU is the relaxed immigration rules that prevail in on the continent. Movement between countries is very easy for citizens...or refugees, as it's turning out. With the Chunnel now connecting Britain to the Continent, that means that refugees, which increasingly include terrorists masquerading as refugees, can gain access to Britain once they get into an EU country on the Continent. What with the terrorist attacks that have occurred on the mainland and in Britain, this is not an inconsequential concern.
Finances are also addled in the EU. Greece, having been propped up by member nations a year or two ago, is hardly doing that much better. Germany, France and Britain have been financing countries whose largesse has weakened the finances of the membership. This can't be a positive thing for the British electorate.
The similarity with the groundswell in the United States is very clear. There is a sizeable if largely silent majority of people who are frustrated and angry about the porous borders. People are upset that immigration laws are bent and twisted with no reason to allow people not only to arrive here illegally, but also to stay here and derive governmental benefits at the public trough. Beyond that, the situation at the border is alarming because it allows for terrorists to use the flow of illegal immigrants as a Trojan horse to enter the country and set up their operations on our soil.
Likewise, the spending issue that plagues Washington is gnawing at people. The Leftists' mantra of 1% versus 99% has people looking at each other and wondering why, if they're not in the 1%, their paychecks are being used to subsidize freeloaders. Washington itself spends recklessly. People are annoyed and more.
It would appear that populist movements against excessive government are beginning to take root in not only the United States but also abroad. Apparently, referenda in France and the Netherlands are being scheduled for similar exits.
Contrary to Leftist claims, people don't want more government. They confuse the notion of entitlements as a desire to be governed more closely. The one -- entitlement -- deceives the giver into thinking that it is what is desired when it is what is given is desired. If the recipient could receive it without strings, it would gladly do so. The only reason the giver keeps getting votes is because it gives; this mirage of politics continues to bedevil Leftists.
Ironically, the same day as the Brexit vote the United States Supreme Court voted to uphold a lower court ruling that held that the President's executive orders violated the constitutional separation of powers. Thus, four million illegal immigrants who were protected by the President's illegal executive orders now are deportable.
The power resides in the people, not in governments.
That was why we had a revolution in the first place.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
The Brits weren't among the first countries to form what originally was known as the European Economic Community. The origins of the attempt to form a United States of Europe were to be found in the aftermath of World War II, when Euros wanted to create more economic stability to stave off a possible third world war. It was a noble experiment that veered off the stated path.
Over the course of the next five or six decades, countries that joined what eventually became known as the European Union ceded sovereignty to a centralized government. Regulations became Gordian knots of complicated rules. For an insular country like Britain, frustration grew at what was viewed as a worsening of its position by virtue of having joined the EU.
All of that is for the Brits to decide; as I said, unlike them, I don't meddle in their internal politics. But there are some interesting parallels between Brexit and our upcoming elections.
One of the biggest reasons Brits voted to leave the EU is the relaxed immigration rules that prevail in on the continent. Movement between countries is very easy for citizens...or refugees, as it's turning out. With the Chunnel now connecting Britain to the Continent, that means that refugees, which increasingly include terrorists masquerading as refugees, can gain access to Britain once they get into an EU country on the Continent. What with the terrorist attacks that have occurred on the mainland and in Britain, this is not an inconsequential concern.
Finances are also addled in the EU. Greece, having been propped up by member nations a year or two ago, is hardly doing that much better. Germany, France and Britain have been financing countries whose largesse has weakened the finances of the membership. This can't be a positive thing for the British electorate.
The similarity with the groundswell in the United States is very clear. There is a sizeable if largely silent majority of people who are frustrated and angry about the porous borders. People are upset that immigration laws are bent and twisted with no reason to allow people not only to arrive here illegally, but also to stay here and derive governmental benefits at the public trough. Beyond that, the situation at the border is alarming because it allows for terrorists to use the flow of illegal immigrants as a Trojan horse to enter the country and set up their operations on our soil.
Likewise, the spending issue that plagues Washington is gnawing at people. The Leftists' mantra of 1% versus 99% has people looking at each other and wondering why, if they're not in the 1%, their paychecks are being used to subsidize freeloaders. Washington itself spends recklessly. People are annoyed and more.
It would appear that populist movements against excessive government are beginning to take root in not only the United States but also abroad. Apparently, referenda in France and the Netherlands are being scheduled for similar exits.
Contrary to Leftist claims, people don't want more government. They confuse the notion of entitlements as a desire to be governed more closely. The one -- entitlement -- deceives the giver into thinking that it is what is desired when it is what is given is desired. If the recipient could receive it without strings, it would gladly do so. The only reason the giver keeps getting votes is because it gives; this mirage of politics continues to bedevil Leftists.
Ironically, the same day as the Brexit vote the United States Supreme Court voted to uphold a lower court ruling that held that the President's executive orders violated the constitutional separation of powers. Thus, four million illegal immigrants who were protected by the President's illegal executive orders now are deportable.
The power resides in the people, not in governments.
That was why we had a revolution in the first place.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, June 17, 2016
LGBT Community Demands and Their Consequences
For far too long, the LGBT community has been treated with disrespect, violence and abhorrence. Contrary to Christian principles, the heterosexual world held LGBT members in contempt. With the recent Supreme Court decision and other lower court decisions, change is taking place across the country. Yet the LGBT community continues to fight as if there's still rampant discrimination at every turn.
Gays, however, should be trying to assimilate and blend into mainstream America rather than setting itself apart as a separate entity. This separation only continues to further divide the country rather than unite it. Part of the problem is that LGBTers say inclusion but, seemingly, mean participation, as in heterosexuals must not only accept LGBTers' lifestyle but embrace it and participate in it, if only passively. That's just not going to happen.
As an attorney, I firmly believe in equality under the law. That doesn't mean that I have to engage in activities with people whose beliefs, traditions and pastimes don't interest me. To take one example, there is no question that Jews are equal to anyone else in the country, but I'm not celebrating Hannukah (heck, I'm not even sure how to spell it correctly, much less celebrate it). So why must I champion the gay lifestyle?
What's more, the constant snark and glibness from the LGBTers is nauseating. The culmination of this was at the White House last summer shortly after the SCOTUS ruling gave LGBTers equal rights:
It's funny that after the Civil Rights Act was passed, blacks didn't run through the White House flipping off pictures of past presidents who did nothing to end segregation. For a community that holds itself to be urbane, sophisticated and classy, this is an abomination.
Then there's the drumbeat of LGBT couples who are taking conservative -- usually religious -- businesses to court for not providing services to them. They liken this refusal to the refusal of businesses to serve blacks before 1970. The difference is that these businesses are doing so because of religious beliefs, not racial prejudice. And even assuming that that's illegal, why is it not illegal for LGBT businesses to refuse business from heterosexual customers?
Such militancy risks putting the LGBT cause back years. The gains its made in court will never be undone, and that's fine. But the LGBTers are so desirous of having everyone accept their lifestyle and participate in it that they run the risk that people will be so offended that LGBTers will find themselves isolated and marginalized -- albeit it with equal rights -- from society at large.
We are getting away from being a melting pot and becoming more of a salad. I like salads...when I eat. I'm not so keen of them as social constructs. Sometimes, certain ingredients in a salad overpower other ingredients or, in the worst case, ruin the taste of the entire salad.
This movement, as with the Black Lives Matter movement, needs to learn that less is more. Equal is equal. But foisting oneself on other people will not do anything to endear one to other people, no matter how witty, urbane, sophisticated and classy one thinks him- or herself.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Gays, however, should be trying to assimilate and blend into mainstream America rather than setting itself apart as a separate entity. This separation only continues to further divide the country rather than unite it. Part of the problem is that LGBTers say inclusion but, seemingly, mean participation, as in heterosexuals must not only accept LGBTers' lifestyle but embrace it and participate in it, if only passively. That's just not going to happen.
As an attorney, I firmly believe in equality under the law. That doesn't mean that I have to engage in activities with people whose beliefs, traditions and pastimes don't interest me. To take one example, there is no question that Jews are equal to anyone else in the country, but I'm not celebrating Hannukah (heck, I'm not even sure how to spell it correctly, much less celebrate it). So why must I champion the gay lifestyle?
What's more, the constant snark and glibness from the LGBTers is nauseating. The culmination of this was at the White House last summer shortly after the SCOTUS ruling gave LGBTers equal rights:
It's funny that after the Civil Rights Act was passed, blacks didn't run through the White House flipping off pictures of past presidents who did nothing to end segregation. For a community that holds itself to be urbane, sophisticated and classy, this is an abomination.
Then there's the drumbeat of LGBT couples who are taking conservative -- usually religious -- businesses to court for not providing services to them. They liken this refusal to the refusal of businesses to serve blacks before 1970. The difference is that these businesses are doing so because of religious beliefs, not racial prejudice. And even assuming that that's illegal, why is it not illegal for LGBT businesses to refuse business from heterosexual customers?
Such militancy risks putting the LGBT cause back years. The gains its made in court will never be undone, and that's fine. But the LGBTers are so desirous of having everyone accept their lifestyle and participate in it that they run the risk that people will be so offended that LGBTers will find themselves isolated and marginalized -- albeit it with equal rights -- from society at large.
We are getting away from being a melting pot and becoming more of a salad. I like salads...when I eat. I'm not so keen of them as social constructs. Sometimes, certain ingredients in a salad overpower other ingredients or, in the worst case, ruin the taste of the entire salad.
This movement, as with the Black Lives Matter movement, needs to learn that less is more. Equal is equal. But foisting oneself on other people will not do anything to endear one to other people, no matter how witty, urbane, sophisticated and classy one thinks him- or herself.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Fame
Almost lost in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting was the shooting death the day before of singer Christina Grimmie. Ms. Grimmie had been a participant on The Voice. She was shot by a deranged fan while she signed autographs for fans after her concert.
Media reports suggest that the killer was obsessed with Ms. Grimmie to the point that he underwent Lasik surgery and had a hair transplant while he dieted to slim down to win Ms. Grimmie's affection. He shot himself dead after being tackled by the singer's brother after he killed Ms. Grimmie.
It's a sad and premature end to a young woman who was merely chasing her dreams. Although she didn't win The Voice, she apparently was talented enough to hold concerts. I can't say I paid much attention to her, although I vaguely remember hearing her sing because Karen watches The Voice. Had she lived she might actually have realized her dream to be a professional singer.
Beside the sorrow and the tragedy, what bothers me about this is that for putting herself out there, Ms. Grimmie unwittingly signed her death warrant, and that's just unfair. For chasing her dreams, her life is cut down. There is everything wrong with that.
On one level, we all live at risk of being killed or injured by mentally unbalanced people everyday. Someone could have a bad moment and decide to drive her car off an overpass and crash into cars on the freeway below. Someone could burst into a store with a firearm and murder a bunch of people. There are just too many ways where innocent lives could be taken by someone who is in need of mental health help.
But those people who put themselves in the public arena increase the chances exponentially. Whether it be print or media reports, there's a record available for someone obsessed with a person to latch onto and view repeatedly. The average person, unless that person is stalked, doesn't provide material for the unknown assailant. A celebrity does.
I've never been one to seek the limelight. Despite the fact that I can argue a case in court or teach a class without any qualms, being someone that is constantly in public view the way a celebrity is justd isn't for me. I love watching Jeopardy and do reasonably well playing at home, but I won't even try out for it because that would entail going on television. I run away from the limelight.
Privacy is very important to me. There are celebrities who value their privacy but find it very hard to come by because of their chose profession. There's a constant tension between celebrity and privacy as a result. The courts have already ruled on the diminished privacy celebrities can expect in the public realm. That diminished privacy does not sanction murder.
Today come reports about a trial involving a stalker of Brooke Shields. Although there will be arguments that the stalker poses no threat to Ms. Shields or her family, how can anyone be sure? What are the trade-offs that must be accepted to ensure the safety and well-being of a celebrity and at the same time allow for the liberty of the fan? When can someone be determined to be such a threat that his freedom needs to be curtailed?
The easy answer is to eschew the dreams and retain the privacy and relative safety it provides. Is that a fair choice? As with terrorism, where if fear wins, the terrorist wins, so with stalkers: If the fear of being killed by a stalker keeps someone from pursuing her dream, the stalker wins.
But it celebrity worth the risk?
Q.D.E.P Christina Grimmie.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Media reports suggest that the killer was obsessed with Ms. Grimmie to the point that he underwent Lasik surgery and had a hair transplant while he dieted to slim down to win Ms. Grimmie's affection. He shot himself dead after being tackled by the singer's brother after he killed Ms. Grimmie.
It's a sad and premature end to a young woman who was merely chasing her dreams. Although she didn't win The Voice, she apparently was talented enough to hold concerts. I can't say I paid much attention to her, although I vaguely remember hearing her sing because Karen watches The Voice. Had she lived she might actually have realized her dream to be a professional singer.
Beside the sorrow and the tragedy, what bothers me about this is that for putting herself out there, Ms. Grimmie unwittingly signed her death warrant, and that's just unfair. For chasing her dreams, her life is cut down. There is everything wrong with that.
On one level, we all live at risk of being killed or injured by mentally unbalanced people everyday. Someone could have a bad moment and decide to drive her car off an overpass and crash into cars on the freeway below. Someone could burst into a store with a firearm and murder a bunch of people. There are just too many ways where innocent lives could be taken by someone who is in need of mental health help.
But those people who put themselves in the public arena increase the chances exponentially. Whether it be print or media reports, there's a record available for someone obsessed with a person to latch onto and view repeatedly. The average person, unless that person is stalked, doesn't provide material for the unknown assailant. A celebrity does.
I've never been one to seek the limelight. Despite the fact that I can argue a case in court or teach a class without any qualms, being someone that is constantly in public view the way a celebrity is justd isn't for me. I love watching Jeopardy and do reasonably well playing at home, but I won't even try out for it because that would entail going on television. I run away from the limelight.
Privacy is very important to me. There are celebrities who value their privacy but find it very hard to come by because of their chose profession. There's a constant tension between celebrity and privacy as a result. The courts have already ruled on the diminished privacy celebrities can expect in the public realm. That diminished privacy does not sanction murder.
Today come reports about a trial involving a stalker of Brooke Shields. Although there will be arguments that the stalker poses no threat to Ms. Shields or her family, how can anyone be sure? What are the trade-offs that must be accepted to ensure the safety and well-being of a celebrity and at the same time allow for the liberty of the fan? When can someone be determined to be such a threat that his freedom needs to be curtailed?
The easy answer is to eschew the dreams and retain the privacy and relative safety it provides. Is that a fair choice? As with terrorism, where if fear wins, the terrorist wins, so with stalkers: If the fear of being killed by a stalker keeps someone from pursuing her dream, the stalker wins.
But it celebrity worth the risk?
Q.D.E.P Christina Grimmie.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 13, 2016
The Consequences of Political Correctness
Another horrific shooting occurred. This time a radicalized American citizen of Iraqi descent, armed to the teeth, went to a gay bar around the closing hour of two in the morning, and killed forty-nine innocent people, and then was shot dead himself. As might be expected, the first reaction beyond terror is that we need to curb gun sales and restrict who can buy guns. Similarly, gun rights advocates (disclaimer: I belong to this group) will retort with questions about restricting fertilizer, knives and rope, because they too can be used to kill people. Let the games begin.
On the periphery of the redundant debate there are other issues that need addressed. Gun control is not the central issue in play. It's the last issue that stems from other issues that are viewed by the Leftist pollyannas as insignificant. Unfortunately, and yet again, the Left is wrong.
First, we need to stop being politically correct. The idea that someone's feelings are going to be hurt because we identify him as a threat is non-sense. If an Arabic man is the one who is identified as a shooter, stopping Arabic men while investigating the shooting is only natural. It wouldn't make much sense to look for Swedish blondes. But we're so concerned about profiling, about insulting or offending someone who may in turn sue and win a money judgment for the pain and suffering. The touchy-feely United States is weakening itself from within.
Political correctness also preaches that guns are bad. Guns by themselves are inoperable. They take humans to wreak havoc and destruction. But by all means, so yell the Leftists, let's get rid of guns! They hurriedly tell us that they don't mean to confiscate guns from law-abiding gunowners, but mean to prevent sales to people who shouldn't have guns.
Well.
The vast majority of gunowners, such as myself, are law-abiding and bought their guns legally, after a background check. If the goal of stricter gun laws is to prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them, exactly who's the target audience? Criminals? They're going to get around gun laws. They are, after all, criminals. Children? I doubt very highly they apply for guns a lot? Blind people? Amputees? Who, exactly, are the Leftists looking to prevent from purchasing a gun?
Foreigners? I haven't heard this argument yet, but the conundrum is interesting: Come to this country, vote for our candidate...but you can't own a gun. Considering that hypocrisy is the unwritten part of their platform, I wouldn't be surprised.
But people with mental health issues -- we can't offend them either. No matter how deleterious their behavior can be to society when allowed to purchase a gun, we can't possibly stigmatize all of them for the actions of a few. On the other hand, it's perfectly permissible to stigmatize a few gunowners for the actions of a few wingbats who have an episode and kill people with guns. Better to punish those law-abiding people than a group that is infinitely more likely to snap.
The sad truth is that anyone, anywhere, at any time can lose control. There are countless examples of people who were perfectly normal one moment and then raving lunatics the next, the trigger being unseen or misunderstood by others. But political correctness says that those who complain the loudest -- not necessarily the most logically -- should be abided. Shame will follow for those who won't listen.
Political correctness, had it been in vogue during World War II or the Cold War, would have meant that the United States wouldn't have become the power that it is today. Ironically, a powerful United States allows these feckless Leftists to promote their brand of sympathy.
I'm sorry for what happened in Orlando. I don't condone it one bit. But had we had tighter controls in some things, and less controls in others, such as concealed carry laws, perhaps the tragedy could have been averted or mitigated.
Trying to explain that to some people, however, is impossible, because they have a monopoly on truth and knowledge.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
On the periphery of the redundant debate there are other issues that need addressed. Gun control is not the central issue in play. It's the last issue that stems from other issues that are viewed by the Leftist pollyannas as insignificant. Unfortunately, and yet again, the Left is wrong.
First, we need to stop being politically correct. The idea that someone's feelings are going to be hurt because we identify him as a threat is non-sense. If an Arabic man is the one who is identified as a shooter, stopping Arabic men while investigating the shooting is only natural. It wouldn't make much sense to look for Swedish blondes. But we're so concerned about profiling, about insulting or offending someone who may in turn sue and win a money judgment for the pain and suffering. The touchy-feely United States is weakening itself from within.
Political correctness also preaches that guns are bad. Guns by themselves are inoperable. They take humans to wreak havoc and destruction. But by all means, so yell the Leftists, let's get rid of guns! They hurriedly tell us that they don't mean to confiscate guns from law-abiding gunowners, but mean to prevent sales to people who shouldn't have guns.
Well.
The vast majority of gunowners, such as myself, are law-abiding and bought their guns legally, after a background check. If the goal of stricter gun laws is to prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them, exactly who's the target audience? Criminals? They're going to get around gun laws. They are, after all, criminals. Children? I doubt very highly they apply for guns a lot? Blind people? Amputees? Who, exactly, are the Leftists looking to prevent from purchasing a gun?
Foreigners? I haven't heard this argument yet, but the conundrum is interesting: Come to this country, vote for our candidate...but you can't own a gun. Considering that hypocrisy is the unwritten part of their platform, I wouldn't be surprised.
But people with mental health issues -- we can't offend them either. No matter how deleterious their behavior can be to society when allowed to purchase a gun, we can't possibly stigmatize all of them for the actions of a few. On the other hand, it's perfectly permissible to stigmatize a few gunowners for the actions of a few wingbats who have an episode and kill people with guns. Better to punish those law-abiding people than a group that is infinitely more likely to snap.
The sad truth is that anyone, anywhere, at any time can lose control. There are countless examples of people who were perfectly normal one moment and then raving lunatics the next, the trigger being unseen or misunderstood by others. But political correctness says that those who complain the loudest -- not necessarily the most logically -- should be abided. Shame will follow for those who won't listen.
Political correctness, had it been in vogue during World War II or the Cold War, would have meant that the United States wouldn't have become the power that it is today. Ironically, a powerful United States allows these feckless Leftists to promote their brand of sympathy.
I'm sorry for what happened in Orlando. I don't condone it one bit. But had we had tighter controls in some things, and less controls in others, such as concealed carry laws, perhaps the tragedy could have been averted or mitigated.
Trying to explain that to some people, however, is impossible, because they have a monopoly on truth and knowledge.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, June 10, 2016
Personal Responsibility
The recent ruling in the Stanford swimmer rape case has people up in arms, and rightly so. The decision to sentence the swimmer, Brock Turner, to six months has sparked outrage in various quarters. As far as I'm concerned, it's an indefensible ruling. Were this guy not who he is, it's unlikely his sentence would be so lenient.
The father's letter to the judge is being assailed as well, but I don't have a problem with it. That is, I don't agree with what he wrote, but as the parent of a child, which I am not, I can understand wanting to protect one's son. Had young Mr. Turner been my son, I would have handled it differently, but I can't criticize a parent trying to protect a child, no matter how bone-headed he sounds in doing so.
What's incomprehensible, however, is the judge's sentencing of the rapist. From all accounts, the rapist Brock Turner raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster until he was interrupted by two passing bicyclists. Allegedly, he's lied to the judge about his past use of alcohol and drugs. Now he's blaming everything but himself, pointing the finger at a culture that promotes binge drinking and sexual promiscuity.
This kid is an elite athlete, apparently, and he must be something of a student, considering that Stanford isn't like most Division 1 programs that gives marginal students admission to their school because of their athletic prowess. So he's accomplished and not dumb, but he is pampered and spoiled. That isn't necessarily exceptional for a Stanford student; many of them fit that profile. But combined with his other attributes, that makes Brock Turner a monster.
Yet he has the audacity to blame the surrounding culture for his crimes. He takes virtually no responsibility for his actions. It wasn't him, it was the alcohol. It was peer pressure. It was the sexually promiscuous times in which we live. In short, the devil -- in the form of booze, porn, and pressure -- made him do it. But don't blame him for it.
Then there's the case that stirred up passions a couple of years ago. In 2013, Ethan Couch was sentenced to ten years probation for killing four pedestrians and injuring eleven while driving under the influence. His defense that because he was raised in affluence, he couldn't understand the consequences of his actions. He later was caught on video violating the terms of his probation, fled to Mexico, was apprehended and is now serving two years in jail. But he's not serving time for his crime; he's serving time for having violated is probation.
What both cases share is a disdain for personal responsibility. What's worse, society, in the form of the legal system, has eschewed personal responsibility in favor of new age touchy-feely remedies that don't assess culpability but explain away the crime by blaming it on amorphous ideas instead. This is pure poppycock. What both Turner and Couch need is a good fifteen years in jail and fifty years in jail -- respectively -- with no time off for good behavior, with no reduction in sentencing, so they can ponder the consequences of their actions. If they want to ruminate on how the environment or their upbringing contributed to their circumstances, that's fine. But actions should have certifiable consequences.
Troubling all the more is the racial component to this. I'm critical of blacks who want to point the finger when discussing the penal system. Those blacks in jail for heinous crimes largely deserve to be there. But how is it that their circumstances don't warrant a reduction of their sentences? If Turner and Couch can offload their troubles not on a tough life but on the absolute opposite of a tough life, how is it that poverty, crime, lack of opportunity and the like don't mitigate sentences for blacks? If anything, I submit that Turner and Couch's crimes should warrant sentences more strict than those meted out to blacks especially because of their upbringing. A life of luxury and opportunity does not allow someone to commit crimes with impunity. That's not to suggest that blacks committing similar crimes shouldn't be in jail; they should. But these white thugs deserve every bit as much jail time as blacks who commit the same crimes, if not more.
I'm appalled at the justice system and my profession. Equal Justice Under the Law isn't supposed to be a catchy phrase. It is to attorneys what Do No Harm is to the medical profession.
There needs to be a return to original values, both in society and in the law.
I fear that isn't going to happen.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
The father's letter to the judge is being assailed as well, but I don't have a problem with it. That is, I don't agree with what he wrote, but as the parent of a child, which I am not, I can understand wanting to protect one's son. Had young Mr. Turner been my son, I would have handled it differently, but I can't criticize a parent trying to protect a child, no matter how bone-headed he sounds in doing so.
What's incomprehensible, however, is the judge's sentencing of the rapist. From all accounts, the rapist Brock Turner raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster until he was interrupted by two passing bicyclists. Allegedly, he's lied to the judge about his past use of alcohol and drugs. Now he's blaming everything but himself, pointing the finger at a culture that promotes binge drinking and sexual promiscuity.
This kid is an elite athlete, apparently, and he must be something of a student, considering that Stanford isn't like most Division 1 programs that gives marginal students admission to their school because of their athletic prowess. So he's accomplished and not dumb, but he is pampered and spoiled. That isn't necessarily exceptional for a Stanford student; many of them fit that profile. But combined with his other attributes, that makes Brock Turner a monster.
Yet he has the audacity to blame the surrounding culture for his crimes. He takes virtually no responsibility for his actions. It wasn't him, it was the alcohol. It was peer pressure. It was the sexually promiscuous times in which we live. In short, the devil -- in the form of booze, porn, and pressure -- made him do it. But don't blame him for it.
Then there's the case that stirred up passions a couple of years ago. In 2013, Ethan Couch was sentenced to ten years probation for killing four pedestrians and injuring eleven while driving under the influence. His defense that because he was raised in affluence, he couldn't understand the consequences of his actions. He later was caught on video violating the terms of his probation, fled to Mexico, was apprehended and is now serving two years in jail. But he's not serving time for his crime; he's serving time for having violated is probation.
What both cases share is a disdain for personal responsibility. What's worse, society, in the form of the legal system, has eschewed personal responsibility in favor of new age touchy-feely remedies that don't assess culpability but explain away the crime by blaming it on amorphous ideas instead. This is pure poppycock. What both Turner and Couch need is a good fifteen years in jail and fifty years in jail -- respectively -- with no time off for good behavior, with no reduction in sentencing, so they can ponder the consequences of their actions. If they want to ruminate on how the environment or their upbringing contributed to their circumstances, that's fine. But actions should have certifiable consequences.
Troubling all the more is the racial component to this. I'm critical of blacks who want to point the finger when discussing the penal system. Those blacks in jail for heinous crimes largely deserve to be there. But how is it that their circumstances don't warrant a reduction of their sentences? If Turner and Couch can offload their troubles not on a tough life but on the absolute opposite of a tough life, how is it that poverty, crime, lack of opportunity and the like don't mitigate sentences for blacks? If anything, I submit that Turner and Couch's crimes should warrant sentences more strict than those meted out to blacks especially because of their upbringing. A life of luxury and opportunity does not allow someone to commit crimes with impunity. That's not to suggest that blacks committing similar crimes shouldn't be in jail; they should. But these white thugs deserve every bit as much jail time as blacks who commit the same crimes, if not more.
I'm appalled at the justice system and my profession. Equal Justice Under the Law isn't supposed to be a catchy phrase. It is to attorneys what Do No Harm is to the medical profession.
There needs to be a return to original values, both in society and in the law.
I fear that isn't going to happen.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 6, 2016
Unconnected Thoughts
There are too many things circulating right now, but a couple of things have occurred to me lately that piqued my curiosity.
So without further ado...
-- Why is it that as phones and Ipods get smaller, watches get bigger? I hate jewelry for me, generally, and although I wear and will never take off my wedding ring, I don't have a watch that I wear right now because it's one of those that a jeweler needs to change the battery, but I don't miss it much. Even so, were I to try to buy a new watch, most watches these days look like something from out of the Star Trek series. They're so bulky, so unwieldy, I'd be afraid that one of my arms would hang lower than the other simply because of the weight it was carrying with the watch.
-- From time to time, there are cars that zip in and out of traffic at dizzying speeds. Given that our state's highest speed limit is presently 70 mph, that means, typically, that these wannabe race car drivers are going at least 80 mph, because most people go at least 5 mph over the limit as it is. When I complain about these speeders, who usually are driving smaller cars and who are zipping in and out of traffic across three lanes, Karen will chide me about how I don't know whether they have a legitimate reason for speeding: Perhaps they're on their way to the hospital in an emergency. You don't know. Given how many of these fools are putting their own and everyone else's life at risk, I doubt very highly that even ten percent of them are headed for the hospital. But then it occurred to me: This type of driving was inspired by the Fast and Furious movie franchise. I've only seen promos for the movies, but that's the only thing that makes any sense. And unless I miss my guess, like some of the characters in those movies, these fools will suffer their share of accidents, too. The only problem is that the innocent characters that get injured in the movies walk away from the accidents while people in real life don't always.
-- There's a furor over the Roots reboot. I'm flabbergasted. Rather than focus on the fact that a new generation is being educated, albeit through entertainment, about the depredations visited upon African-Americans during slavery and the Reconstruction era, we should ignore it and focus on the advances made in the present day? At the same time, self-appointed spokespeople like Snoop Dogg are criticizing that blacks are still treated the same nowadays. Really? Seriously? Please shine a light on the horror of modern day slavery in the United States, because I'm unaware of it. Yes, there is still discrimination and income-inequality. But spare me the hyperbole about modern day slavery...unless you want to invoke ISIS and Islam.
-- Mark Zuckerberg's social media accounts were hacked. That's priceless.
-- I'm not very concerned personally with Gwen Stefani's life, but I have to wonder: What is she thinking? Say what anyone will about Blake Shelton, but he cheated on his first wife to run off with Miranda Lambert and then may or may not have cheated on her during their marriage. What, exactly, makes him a good candidate as a romantic partner for Ms. Stefani?
-- The summer television season is a weird one. Thank goodness for my Alaska shows. Without them I'd be subject to lame game shows and baseball highlights, not to mention yardwork.
-- It would appear that a twenty-year-old Stanford swimmer was convicted of raping an unconscious woman. The judge, for whatever reason, gave him a six month prison sentence. Last year in Texas, some punk spoiled brat was able to convince a judge that his affluenza caused him to not understand the consequence of drinking and driving, which led him to kill four people while driving impaired. I know we like our elections, but these types of decisions by elected judges show that for the judiciary, at least, nomination and appointment might be the better path.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
So without further ado...
-- Why is it that as phones and Ipods get smaller, watches get bigger? I hate jewelry for me, generally, and although I wear and will never take off my wedding ring, I don't have a watch that I wear right now because it's one of those that a jeweler needs to change the battery, but I don't miss it much. Even so, were I to try to buy a new watch, most watches these days look like something from out of the Star Trek series. They're so bulky, so unwieldy, I'd be afraid that one of my arms would hang lower than the other simply because of the weight it was carrying with the watch.
-- From time to time, there are cars that zip in and out of traffic at dizzying speeds. Given that our state's highest speed limit is presently 70 mph, that means, typically, that these wannabe race car drivers are going at least 80 mph, because most people go at least 5 mph over the limit as it is. When I complain about these speeders, who usually are driving smaller cars and who are zipping in and out of traffic across three lanes, Karen will chide me about how I don't know whether they have a legitimate reason for speeding: Perhaps they're on their way to the hospital in an emergency. You don't know. Given how many of these fools are putting their own and everyone else's life at risk, I doubt very highly that even ten percent of them are headed for the hospital. But then it occurred to me: This type of driving was inspired by the Fast and Furious movie franchise. I've only seen promos for the movies, but that's the only thing that makes any sense. And unless I miss my guess, like some of the characters in those movies, these fools will suffer their share of accidents, too. The only problem is that the innocent characters that get injured in the movies walk away from the accidents while people in real life don't always.
-- There's a furor over the Roots reboot. I'm flabbergasted. Rather than focus on the fact that a new generation is being educated, albeit through entertainment, about the depredations visited upon African-Americans during slavery and the Reconstruction era, we should ignore it and focus on the advances made in the present day? At the same time, self-appointed spokespeople like Snoop Dogg are criticizing that blacks are still treated the same nowadays. Really? Seriously? Please shine a light on the horror of modern day slavery in the United States, because I'm unaware of it. Yes, there is still discrimination and income-inequality. But spare me the hyperbole about modern day slavery...unless you want to invoke ISIS and Islam.
-- Mark Zuckerberg's social media accounts were hacked. That's priceless.
-- I'm not very concerned personally with Gwen Stefani's life, but I have to wonder: What is she thinking? Say what anyone will about Blake Shelton, but he cheated on his first wife to run off with Miranda Lambert and then may or may not have cheated on her during their marriage. What, exactly, makes him a good candidate as a romantic partner for Ms. Stefani?
-- The summer television season is a weird one. Thank goodness for my Alaska shows. Without them I'd be subject to lame game shows and baseball highlights, not to mention yardwork.
-- It would appear that a twenty-year-old Stanford swimmer was convicted of raping an unconscious woman. The judge, for whatever reason, gave him a six month prison sentence. Last year in Texas, some punk spoiled brat was able to convince a judge that his affluenza caused him to not understand the consequence of drinking and driving, which led him to kill four people while driving impaired. I know we like our elections, but these types of decisions by elected judges show that for the judiciary, at least, nomination and appointment might be the better path.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Animals Versus Humans
Another day, another silly controversy about whether animals lives should be spared at the cost of human lives.
Sometime last year, I think it was, some silly dentist from Minnesota went on a safari/hunting trip somewhere in Africa and either mistakenly or brazenly shot a lion who was much-loved by legions of fans. How or even why an animal has fans I don't understand, but this one did. Cecil the Lion was dispatched by a dentist who was then protested at his office in Minnesota while a debate raged as to whether he should be returned for prosecution. As I remember the situation, he claims he was misled as to whether Cecil was protected or available for killing. That sounds horrible, but the fact is that some animals are protected while others are not, thereby making them available to be hunted and killed.
What I fail to understand is why people who are outraged -- perhaps rightly -- called for the dentist's death? Am I to understand that animals' lives are now on a par with human lives? Is there such a thing as a death penalty for killing an animal? There is no question that there are and should be statutes that include penalties for cruelty to animals. Jail sentences are appropriate for this kind of behavior. But I stop short of advocating that a human life be forfeited for the death of an animal. Not even Hammurabi suggested such a remedy.
So now, there's a couple in Ohio who somehow let their toddler get into the ape enclosure, where he was accosted by a 450 lb. gorilla named Harambe and thrown around like a rag doll. Zoo officials, fearful that the child would be killed accidentally by Harambe, opted not to use tranquilizers and instead shot the animal dead, thereby sparing the life of the three-year-old. Almost immediately, animal activists criticized the action, claiming the wrong choice was made and that the parents were remiss in watching their little one and therefore liable for Harambe's death.
Well. I think it's incumbent on me to point out that Karen and I have two rescue bulldogs and a cat who thinks he's a dog. We love our animals but if it ever came down to it, no human would be taken after one of our animals was saved. Human lives are more important than animal lives. They are our pets, to be sure, but in the end, they're animals.
At the same time, we both denounce animal cruelty. One of our bulldogs, Custer, was beaten so badly that he has dents in his skull, according to a vet who took X-rays of him. Anytime we see a dog or cat that's mistreated, we're heartbroken. But that doesn't mean that humans should be put to death for animal's deaths or injuries, or that where a decision between an animal and a human is to be made, the animal should be accorded the same consideration as a human.
It's a very sad outcome to see Harambe have to be put down. But that toddler's life -- through little fault of his own -- was in jeopardy and according to experts, the only way to ensure that he be save was to kill, not anesthetize, Harambe. Even the noted animal expert Dr. Jack Hanna said it was necessary. It's not the desired result, of course, but in no way should the animal's well-being be placed ahead of a human's life.
(Don't get me going about the parents. How anyone can be so unaware of their children's whereabouts when near wild animals -- even those in captivity -- is beyond me. There are plenty of measures that can be taken against the parents for their woeful parenting. But to suggest that because of their horrible parenting Harambe was killed and they therefore are subject to punishment for his death...that's stretching it. What I could see is that they are liable in a monetary sense for Harambe's death, having to reimburse the zoo for a new gorilla. But they shouldn't suffer any criminal penalty because he had to be killed).
Those who support animal rights need to get a grip. I'm all in favor of protecting animals. I detest cruelty to animals. I differ from vegans and vegetarians, but that's another issue altogether. But when it comes to the primacy of human life over animal life, even when it comes to punishment of humans for their cruelty to animals, human and animal lives are not equivalent deserving of equal treatment. If an animal kills a human when it's not provoked, it should be put down. When a human kills an animal unjustly, he should go to jail. But he shouldn't be put down.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Sometime last year, I think it was, some silly dentist from Minnesota went on a safari/hunting trip somewhere in Africa and either mistakenly or brazenly shot a lion who was much-loved by legions of fans. How or even why an animal has fans I don't understand, but this one did. Cecil the Lion was dispatched by a dentist who was then protested at his office in Minnesota while a debate raged as to whether he should be returned for prosecution. As I remember the situation, he claims he was misled as to whether Cecil was protected or available for killing. That sounds horrible, but the fact is that some animals are protected while others are not, thereby making them available to be hunted and killed.
What I fail to understand is why people who are outraged -- perhaps rightly -- called for the dentist's death? Am I to understand that animals' lives are now on a par with human lives? Is there such a thing as a death penalty for killing an animal? There is no question that there are and should be statutes that include penalties for cruelty to animals. Jail sentences are appropriate for this kind of behavior. But I stop short of advocating that a human life be forfeited for the death of an animal. Not even Hammurabi suggested such a remedy.
So now, there's a couple in Ohio who somehow let their toddler get into the ape enclosure, where he was accosted by a 450 lb. gorilla named Harambe and thrown around like a rag doll. Zoo officials, fearful that the child would be killed accidentally by Harambe, opted not to use tranquilizers and instead shot the animal dead, thereby sparing the life of the three-year-old. Almost immediately, animal activists criticized the action, claiming the wrong choice was made and that the parents were remiss in watching their little one and therefore liable for Harambe's death.
Well. I think it's incumbent on me to point out that Karen and I have two rescue bulldogs and a cat who thinks he's a dog. We love our animals but if it ever came down to it, no human would be taken after one of our animals was saved. Human lives are more important than animal lives. They are our pets, to be sure, but in the end, they're animals.
At the same time, we both denounce animal cruelty. One of our bulldogs, Custer, was beaten so badly that he has dents in his skull, according to a vet who took X-rays of him. Anytime we see a dog or cat that's mistreated, we're heartbroken. But that doesn't mean that humans should be put to death for animal's deaths or injuries, or that where a decision between an animal and a human is to be made, the animal should be accorded the same consideration as a human.
It's a very sad outcome to see Harambe have to be put down. But that toddler's life -- through little fault of his own -- was in jeopardy and according to experts, the only way to ensure that he be save was to kill, not anesthetize, Harambe. Even the noted animal expert Dr. Jack Hanna said it was necessary. It's not the desired result, of course, but in no way should the animal's well-being be placed ahead of a human's life.
(Don't get me going about the parents. How anyone can be so unaware of their children's whereabouts when near wild animals -- even those in captivity -- is beyond me. There are plenty of measures that can be taken against the parents for their woeful parenting. But to suggest that because of their horrible parenting Harambe was killed and they therefore are subject to punishment for his death...that's stretching it. What I could see is that they are liable in a monetary sense for Harambe's death, having to reimburse the zoo for a new gorilla. But they shouldn't suffer any criminal penalty because he had to be killed).
Those who support animal rights need to get a grip. I'm all in favor of protecting animals. I detest cruelty to animals. I differ from vegans and vegetarians, but that's another issue altogether. But when it comes to the primacy of human life over animal life, even when it comes to punishment of humans for their cruelty to animals, human and animal lives are not equivalent deserving of equal treatment. If an animal kills a human when it's not provoked, it should be put down. When a human kills an animal unjustly, he should go to jail. But he shouldn't be put down.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)