December 35th, 2020

This is a political post.

Is this just a holdover fate couldn't get on the schedule last year, or is 2021 gonna try to one-up 2020?

Following most election years, the final certification of the incoming president is usually a quiet affair. The previously announced and counted electoral college votes are brought forth in ceremonial boxes, re-counted in front of everyone and affirmed. I mean, we already watched the states cast them, can do math, so we know the outcome so there is little set piece. There is the occasional objection (democrats did object in the last election), but the ceremony proceeds with such regularity that most of us were not even aware of the requirement until this year.

That's them.

But after losing the election that seemed to take forever to count, refusing to concede, and getting 99% of his challenges for non-existent fraud thrown out (note that not a single lawyer when standing in front of judge argued fraud) and then getting caught on tape trying to Godfather a state officer to do him a solid, well, long story short let's just say this hasn't been a normal election. And since the Veep kindly informed el Cheato that he didn't have the power to pick which electoral college votes got counted, and declined to even try, things have gone even less well. So of course the orange one upped the ante and held a rally on the Ellipse to tell his rabid, and apparently constitutionally ignorant, followers to go down the lawn Capitol Building where the ballots were being counted and do something. And so they did.

It took a while but that old so-and-so from Carolina was exactly right. Under Cheato the Republicans have lost the Presidency, the House and as of this afternoon, the Senate. But instead of simply brushing themselves off and learning from their defeat they're...checks notes...storming the Capitol Building during session and making America look like a banana republic or backwater dictatorship to a worldwide audience. Yeah, sounds about right.

If this happened somewhere else we'd already be looking for a reason to invade. This is America, we're supposed to be the tsk-tsking as those less constitutionally created countries have things like this happen to them. This is supposed to happen over there, wherever there is. But that was then and this is now.

In the chamber of the House of Representatives furniture barricaded the door as security drew weapons and Congressmen put on gas masks. In the Senate the Veep was rushed out as protesters screamed through the doors. Senators were evacuated and somebody smartly grabbed the actual ballot certificates before rushing out. Broken windows, American flags thrown from the roof, protesters scuffling with police and later cavorting on the floor of the House screaming at the wind. Which is amazing because the Capitol building is a secure structure. Or it was supposed to be, except for the video of security opening gates and taking selfies with the rioters.

 

Yes. Rioters. Or Terrorists. Because the instant they broke through the security barricades in an attempt to incite terror in the hearts and minds of our elected officials they became the definition. Domestic, but still the definition. Yes, it's just that simple.

Curious I turned to Newsmax and OANN to see their coverage. As expected it took them less than a minute to pretend this was just a peaceful protest and respectful of the history despite images of people battling with the Capitol Police or hanging from the gallery in the House chamber. And they tried hard to compare it a hypothetical "Antifa" attack that they quickly assumed would have involved apocalyptic damage. Then as if taking a cue, on social media the type of people who watch these channels swore that the protests had be infiltrated by agents wishing to make them look bad. They asked that we ignore there t-shirts trumpeting revolution with the date just below, or the rioters screaming about how they were taking the building or intended to occupy it all night.

 

Because reasons. 

 

The saddest part is that no one will be held accountable for this. Well, in a stunning move Twitter did suspend Cheato's account for twelve hours, which has no doubt lead to a teeth gnashing rage that we'll all be spared from. That will be the long and the short of it. Despite the law, including ones that Cheato himself approved of, and despite there being hundreds of photos and by now hours of video, there is little likelihood of real punishment. That most of these terrorists are going to walk away from this free and clear is a different kind of appalling.

 

And you KNOW why.

And that's part of the problem. If we're going to be a country of law and order, it can't be law and order for just some people. The greatest country in the world can't be great for just a few. This day, along with the elections that turned Georgia blue was supposed to be the dawning of a new America. This would have been dawn, the inauguration more like fresh coffee or that first good stretch. But instead, because as it was so aptly pointed out this morning at the rally this is no longer the republicans versus democrats or conservative versus liberals, with all the machinations, footwashing and fawing by McConnell and the boys it's become Followers of Cheato versus Everybody who is not. Maybe karma will get them. Because I'm not even going to mention that I didn't see many Covid masks at all. But then the election is over. We weren't supposed to ever hear about it again. Remember?

This level of ridiculousness can't continue if we wish to remain America. Prosecution needs to happen. A lot of prosecution. If only to demonstrate we follow the law here. At all levels. And it's got to start with Cheato.

Use Your Words

This is a political post. 

I saw a post on Twitter today that disturbed me, but for all the wrong reasons.

At some point during a rally in Minneapolis, the mayor walked out to speak with the protesters. He came out without security, in a t-shirt and indicated that he knew that there was a real problem, that sweeping changes needed to be made, listed some he was ready to work towards and that he was ready to get to work.

Then he was asked, point blank, as a YES or NO question, if he would commit to defunding the Minneapolis police department.

Really?

First, is he even able to do that? Second, what exactly does defund the police department mean? Third, did the mayor know what you meant?

On the face of the phrase is not entirely clear. It's not quite like the familiar phrase Black Lives Matter. I ask the question what does it mean because while it's a slogan that apparently has found a home in our rage at the injustice we've faced since 1865, the actual meaning is not as clear as anyone yelling it thinks it is. Even the background of the shot of a greatly demoralized mayor of Minneapolis had signs that said "abolish the police," which I believe means something different than just defund the police. Or does it? Little things like that, that disconnect, gives the impression that even among those enthusiastically supporting the idea, the meaning of those particular words in that arrangement are a little too open to interpretation. It doesn't help that it is just muddled enough that the conservative media machine can and has latched onto the phrase, subsequently giving it the worst possible interpretation in an attempt to paint the protesters as people who want to destroy America.

It's a broad phrase Defund the Police, as most slogans are, but in this case it feels like it's garbled and the because the people who originated know what they mean and are real excited to use it, but they've erroneously assumed everyone listening knows what they mean. Or worse, suggest the confused Google it to find out. Google it? We live in a HEADLINE society.

So, does "Defund the Police" mean that thirty days from the notice of defunding that policing simply ceases to exist in municipal Minneapolis? It can't mean that. What about domestic violence incidents? What happens with the trafficking of illicit narcotics? Not weed, I mean meth or something worse.  Would a young woman who has been raped just on her own? Are we going to private security or street justice?

Or does "Defund the police" mean that we're scaling back if not eliminating completely the militarization of the police and taking those resources and creating programs to help citizens instead of criminalizing them? More community outreach programs, more drug therapy, more jobs programs, etc.? On a side note, I know that I find it odd that while doctors and nurses battle a disease that has killed 100,000 Americans they must must do so in trash bags and with equipment donated by people with home 3D printers, our police, who are using police brutality against a police brutality protest, are decked out head to toe in the Boys in Blue Law Enforcement 2020 Spring Collection. I think it shows that our spending priorities are just a skoosh off.  

It's the second one if you're not clear.

Later, the Minneapolis City Council would would agree to the concept, the defunding and then further dismantling of the current police department and rebuilding from scratch. I would suggest rebuilding the destroyed precinct and using it as a new headquarters. Symbolic. Now, this is a great FIRST step, but we also need new systems and checks in place to make sure the new structure doesn't even start down the path of the old.

My next question is - so what was with that grandstanding? It's obvious from the City Council's actions that the Mayor didn't have the sole power to defund the police. And putting him on the spot to promise to do so was just cruel. Either he had to lie and say he would knowing he didn't have the authority, or say he couldn't. To his credit he didn't lie. But what really happened was they took a potential ally and set his ass on fire. Instead of taking him in and using him to work the agenda (short and long term) to suit the needs of the people, the person on the dais pulled that "I'm the captain" now bullshit. This may make other future potential allies wary. Now, in this case this one objective was still achieved, but what about the others on the list?

Seriously, that "You either wit' me or against" me aesthetic really doesn't work outside of a two person relationship. We need to learn to stop asking for absolutes in a world full of grey and trying to simplify the complex questions by framing them as all or nothing slogans.

We need to use our words.

This Should ALWAYS Happen

This is a political post.

Officer Krystal Smith, Ft. Lauderdale (still from CNN footage)

The black woman in this photo is Officer Krystal Smith. She works in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. During a Protest Demonstration in that jurisdiction a face-off occurred between the police and protesters. During those tense moments, Officer Steven Pohorence, the man at the far left of the photo, shoved a kneeling protester who had their hands raised out of his way.

Officer Krystal Smith immediately checked him. She snatched his ass up, and chewed his ass out. And he looks honest to God shocked that someone with the same uniform on as him might not agree with something he's done. Please be aware, Officer Smith is not his superior officer. She's just a cop who saw wrong and because she was in a position to do something she went and did it.

This should have happened in Minnesota.

Now, this is the important part. Officer Pohorence has been with the department for four years. But there are 71 use of force cases in his file and in at least 51 incidents in which he has drawn his gun. It's not clear if the some of these incidents occurred concurrently or if all these incidents occurred in just the four years he's been with this department. But if that is the case you have to wonder why this officer is still interacting with the public. And still possesses a badge.

I haven't slept good in five days wondering when someone is going to run into a cop with a record like this one. We've already heard ominous audio from the people who are supposed to be responsibly handling this situation. And there a people like this officer out there.

What would help right now, is more of those people who claim to be good cops to step up and be the good cops we need right now. 

I'm tired

Here we are again. Again.

How much are we as a people supposed to endure? Damn. Just Damn.

George Floyd. He shouldn't have been treated that way. That's all I got.

I'm just so tired.

Nazis and the Old South

This is a political post 

We're here now? Seriously? What the actual fuck?

If you don't know, and you should by now, in Charlottesville VA people who consider themselves the oppressed, white males, gathered together and marched while shouting....er, Nazi slogans and giving the salute that literally gets you jail time in Germany. In a supposed protest against the removal of a statue of a person who was an actual traitor to this country. We're living in one of those crackpot alternate word books right now, we have to be, and I think if we all get together and chant the right words we can get back to a place where common sense is in charge. I say that because what I just wrote is completely true but makes no actual sense.

And then, as if to add butter on the already burnt popcorn, the President's statement was the mealy mouthed political equivalent of the teacher handing out a reprimand for fighting to the both you and the bully who jumped you, because reasons. (This is also the political equivalent of the bully being the teacher's child, or at least nephew.) Someone tell the orange one there is not hate "on many sides," just the side that showed up a "peaceful" rally carrying torches, shouting slogans that give old men night sweats and toting weapons.

The new No Hoods option

I don't even want to get into why there were no police in riot gear on hand. Or why the cops just seemed to stand around and watch. When six black people get together to protest you get SWAT teams. In Ferguson MO, when black people tried to peacefully protest the failure to charge an officer with murder or even investigate the circumstances, the National Guard was called out and they were met with tanks. Because protesting unlawfulness by the people who are supposed to keep the law should be like a thing. But when white people stand in the streets protesting the removal of a statue of a traitor to the country, shouting the slogans of a group that wanted to destroy America, well, it's just something that happens, right? The cops just mull about, if they show up at all. In my opinion, it's this casualness that lead to the circumstances of Heather Heyer's death. But I'm gonna stop there, and I'll leave that to others to fight.

Are we seriously here? I used to think that Obama's presidency and the dawn of the true ascendancy of the black man (and woman) had just uncovered the long simmering and festering hatred from 1950s we'd been unable to eradicate through education, integration, civil rights laws and television. Well, if you're from the South, since last Tuesday, but you get the idea. But now I see it's much worse, because in the 1950s they may have been racist, but at least they hated Nazis. Now they want to be Nazis? Jesus, this is suddenly the 1930s but with internet.

I'm not sure where this going, but as a kid I wonder how those people who fought for my rights did it, how they found the courage and the strength. So, I guess I get to find out.

 

This shouldn't be happening.

This is a political post. 

Alton Sterling And Philando Castile.

I shouldn't know these names. I shouldn't have to know about these names. These incidents should not have happened. This shouldn't be the America I live in. I am just so tired of this.

Will these names join the list of names where justice fails. We all know the drill: Death. Suspension of the officer. Blame the victim. No charges filed/No conviction. Repeat. Are we to believe that in every single instance, now numbering in the hundreds, this is always okay? It's like the prosecutors aren't even trying. 

Let's be clear here. Even those considered THUGS have rights. The victim having a police record does not justify a police shooting. And when did we reach the point where compliance gives the officer has the right to shoot?

I just... I tried to let my thoughts settle here, to figure out what to say. But I just can't. Not right now. 

We are all Parisian

The President needs to stop mumbling again.

This is a political post.

Things are a little rough right now.

So, Syria.

You would imagine the powers that be sitting around the table riffing through the Iraq file for notes and  muttering that they wouldn't want to go through that again. Well, that's the picture you have if imagine that they have sense. The refresher from Egypt over the past two years should clearly demonstrate what happens when power vacuums exist, which is what will occur in Syria if al-Assad suddenly falls. But, I'm fairly certain the President's staff is missing a key person - maybe the Politics to English Translator, who can stand up and explain exactly why we're even considering this one more expedition, kicking in one more door, so to speak. Because right now, the impetus isn't being properly articulated.  That or the media is still all miffed about the whole NSA thing.

Clarification Note: The NSA thing stems from the Patriot Act, which passed way before Obama became  President. His only crime is not turning it off...provided the self appointed guardians of freedom in the  NSA even told him what was going on. But...it's his watch, so, there you go.

Just so we're all clear, Obama is not trying to "win" the civil war now raging in Syria, if such a thing can even be accomplished. First, it's not really our business. Second, at this point there are too many players,  too many factions, too many cloudy motivations for a "winner" to even emerge in the region. The political posturing and ideological gamesmanship on display here has far exceed the scope of the action intended by the  original Arab Spring beginnings. The quasi-apartheid/dictatorship of al-Assad is both a bad actor and a stabilizer for the region. The rebels are both freedom fighters and opportunistic fundamentalists. The outside players are all over the map.  No matter what happens in Syria, it will neither be pretty or quick. The best the Syrian people can hope for at this point is that someday their kids have a country to come back to.  

So why? Why even contemplate military action? The quick answer is Chemical weapons. The kind of weapons that fail to discriminate between combatant and civilian. Weapons so bad that the even Hitler, the default most evil man of the 20th century, thought that their effects were beyond the pale. There is evidence they've been used in Syria, and that violates the status quo that nobody uses them...ever. And if somebody gets away with using them, then the next guy, especially in a war with non-state actors, gets the idea that he can too. Which is bad for everyone. Why again, you ask, again. Because if Chemical weapons, and their bad tempered brother Biological weapons become viable weapons...then its just a matter of time before someone invents something nobody can either stop or control. If they haven't already and just haven't found the stomach to use it. 

Not that all this information isn't in most of the articles on the subject, just not in the headline. Or the first paragraph. Or the third.

Learn to speak again Mr. President. This action you've asked Congress to contemplate is based on principle, not politics. This action is in line with the treaties we've legally entered into. It doesn't involve troops on the ground. And, since, you could call in a military strike if you deem it necessary under the War Powers Act anyway, you've asked Congress for authorization because you honor democracy, understand the country is war weary, and like totally aren't a dictator like the people who hate you want to make you out to be. 

Should the President strike in Syria? I don't have that answer. But I do know that he could tell why he thinks we should a lot more clearly.

So they're making Big Explosions in Space...er, Star Trek 2

Ramblings Post #209
There is an idea, a notion if you will, that Hollywood is out of ideas. It's why you see more and more other media being transformed for the big screen. It becomes maddening, seeing perfectly good characters mangled by Hollywood screenwriters trying to stuff a story into two hours, and make them match the demographic specs. And apparently it's even worse if the owner (not author) scraps the entire original concept, counting on the impetus of goodwill for the old version to help sell the new shiny version.

This is the official synopsis of the upcoming Star Trek movie for next year....

In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes "Star Trek Into Darkness."

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.

With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

Three things.

First, why is the term "explosive action thriller" being used to describe a Star Trek film? The underlying theme of Star Trek, what made it great, was that it was actually about something. Sure there was some action, but the vast majority of the stories were about larger themes like man's place in the universe, sacrifice, honor, etc. Reducing it to a series of big budget explosions makes me wonder if Abrams even understands what he's been handed. Jean Luc Picard ring a bell? Data's question of humanity? The ecology questions, relationships, the prime directive? Where are the wonderful stories? This reboot of Star Trek has the Federation looking more and more like a failure than the triumphant advancement of society Rodenberry originally came up with. I realize you can't stuff all the nuances of the various series into a two hour film, but at some point this stops being Star Trek and becomes The Expendables in Space.

Second there's the "detonated the fleet" line. What does that even mean? Didn't you just blow up the damn fleet last time Mr. Abrams? I realize this is the future, and Starfleet officers have never really seemed to worry about money, but still methinks them puppies ain't cheap. How much gold pressed latitinum does Starfleet have budgeted for ship construction? Because somewhere in that chain, somebody is going to need to get paid. How about we shrink the story and instead of threatening all of existence everytime some one charges up a warp coil, you bring it down to a micro level. Oh, wait, that might require storytelling skills. My bad. 

Third...and probably the worst...this line right here "from within their own organization." Really? I mean really? You have got be kidding. Wasn't this the premise behind the first three Mission Impossible movies? Or all three Jason Bourne movies? Or really every spy or espionage movie made in the past two decades? Even the James Bond films have fallen into this trap. I going to go ahead and suggest that the rogue agent trope be tossed on the scrap heap of screenwriting until 2025. Maybe Abrams thinks it will all be fresh and new if you do it in space this time. Wait, wasn't this the plot of Star Trek: the Undiscovered Country? This isn't even new in space! But you know what they could try? How about a having an enemy who doesn't know who the hero is, and doesn't have a personal vendetta, or isn't a rogue agent who knows all the tricks of the trade. Sounds crazy right? Seriously, this whole thing sounds like a mess. The synopsis reads like a bad 80's action b-movie starring (fill in sweaty action star here). Maybe I'm wrong..., no, I saw the first one.

I bet the lens flare budget is the biggest expense on the books.

Even the heroic sacrifice alluded to in this still from the Japanese trailer loses weight at this point, as the we'd be mourning the old characters, from the old series, not these slick new versions. We don't know them yet. There is so little here that is still Star Trek.

Barkeep, I thought Abrams was supposed to be good or something. Something light, I need my wits about me. No Romulan Ale. 

"You cheated by winning!" screamed the loser...

This is a political post.

In the aftermath of what was the most contentious presidential election in modern history - with
attack ads, voter suppression efforts, bold faced lies and willful deceit, we have apparently learned one thing : Absolutely nothing. We are right back where we were some two years ago, only now a bit less polite about it.

GOP accuses Obama of fruit theft from Job Creator

The entire affair reminds me of a high school fight, where one combatant has "talked up his game" only to get knocked around and finally suplexed in the hallway by the cafeteria. Right in front of the cheerleaders. And then, instead of lying their quietly and feigning injury or perhaps re-evaluating their life choices, they stagger to their feet and still woozy and yell "Is that all you got?"

The reasons being floated by Conservatives for the Democratic win of the Presidency are mind boggling, ranging from the President won because the "urban" (read as black) voter turnout was high to the "white establishment " now being the minority to the President handing out goodies to minorities as political bribes. It's as though they want you to believe the Chapelle Show reparations skit was about to come to life. What's most significant is not that these theories are constructed to de-legitimitze the election results, that's expected, but it is that they're coming from Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the top pundits at Fox News and not the far right wing fringe.

Despite the reality bubble that conservatives had constructed for themselves completely collapsing - they're simply continuing to hold onto "the faith."They're not out of step with the majority, the whole thing was all a trick! People love us! In fact, they're not only still living in the rubble of that bubble, they're building a new one, using as the foundation a conspiracy about Benghazi, who knew what when, and trying desperately to inflate the Patraeus side piece story into something they can impeach the President for. Because they so want to. Really they do.

Only Newt Gingrich is making the rational argument and instead of asking what's wrong with the
electorate, instead suggesting a reexamination of conservative policy. The rest who are even suggesting any change at all are more along of the lines of a need for some touch up paint around the edges to soften the message. Not change the message...just change how it's told.

Instead of even the beginnings of cooperation, we have the Conservatives...lead by the conservative entertainment complex (phrase via David Frum)... heading right back down the rabbit hole, seeking a nice "comfort conspiracy" to soothe themselves of the crazy idea that their message no longer resonates with the majority of Americans. Benghazi! We have people who screamed USA at the top of the lungs at political rallies filing petitions to secede simply because the majority of country sees the future of the country differently. My "new" conservative black friend still posts things like a picture of the President playing golf, pointing out his leisure while people still haven't recovered from Hurricane Sandy - as though the President should be up a pole stringing power cables or personally guiding the operations (which of course would be evidence of him being power mad). Nothing has changed.

We're back to the kid in the hall. Bleeding, staggering, missing a tooth, totally embarrased...shouting at the guy who just finished beating on him... "Oh, you scared?" 

So, several billion dollars and two years...just to get us back to here. Absolutely nothing.

2014 people. Because stress is like...damn.

The NDAA and You...

This is a political post. 

My new conservative FB friend has actually proved useful, but I still miss my old conservative buddy. I miss him because he would actually defend his points, as opposed to this person who has a tendency to just post those photos with messages computer worked in that are supposed to prove their point. That and she likes to reiterate that Obama is just evil for some reason. Her rationale is never quite clear. I believe she is a basically a single issue voter - against abortion -  and is simply along for the ride.

The other day she posted a JFK quote indicating that at one point the Democrats were in favor of lowering taxes to spur economic growth. A quick Google check shows that when JFK made the statement, the top tier income tax in this country was over NINETY percent. So yes, it was a great idea at the time, but decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and at this point taxes are on the other side of fifty. In fact they're on the low side of twenty for the referenced income earners. So maybe a new plan? 

Her latest picture decries the injustice of the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization act. It has been the centerpiece of outrage for freedom loving Americans because it allegedly contains something that gives the President the right to detain US citizens indefinitely. I use the term allegedly because the item they seem to have issue with - Section 1021(b) - doesn't say what they claim it says. Now, the NDAA may give the government indefinite detainment rights somewhere, the whole thing is 565 pages of fairly dense print. But it's not where the outrage is directed. Let me explain.

You can get a PDF of the whole thing here. The section is question is on page 265 - Subtitle D - Counterterrorism.

The section covers specifically detainment for "covered persons" under the law of war, or for the lay person - who we can consider "prisoners of war" for this war on terrorism. It defines those persons in part (b) as a persons involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and persons who are part of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or those who associate with them or give them aid. That's it, that's all it covers.

Now, the disagreements stem from the language used, because it doesn't define what giving aid to those parties listed actually means. Some reporters have been afraid to speak to contacts in the Middle East for fear association would be within the scope of aid. Others whose peaceful organizations have been lumped into the same watch list type group as Al-Qaeda fear the same possible vague violations. So maybe they have a point. But wait...did they read the rest of that same act?

Now, it is this last part that makes me think that the people who argued about it in Congress don't know what's in it, that these people who went to court to get it struck down to protect Americans haven't completely read it, and that most of the people who are mad are just  upset because somebody told them to be upset - but they haven't bothered to do the homework for themselves.  

If you've looked it up, let me call your attention to the part just down 16 lines in part (e) of Section 1021.  If you haven't got your own copy, here is the text of 1021(e):

AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Nothing in this section, meaning the entirety of Section 1021, can affect the laws on the books with regard to US citizens and what happens if you break the law. So what happens to you if you are arrested (your constitutional right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus) is not affected. Note, the language does not say it has to be a Supreme court tried and tested law, nor create any other qualifications, but merely be an existing law. And in here we can fill in the Constitution if you like. Or state law. Or any law that exists now that says you cannot be held indefinitely. 

The practical upshot is that your right to a speedy trial, which may vary depending on what part of the country you were arrested in, is not affected. You still have all the same legal rights if you were to get arrested for aiding Al-Qaeda that you would get as if you'd got caught say... robbing a 7-11. The President can't send you to Guantanamo because you robbed a 7-11, can he? Then he can't send you to Guantanamo for being a US citizen who aids Al-Qaeda. 

So if this whole section - Section 1021 - can't affect existing laws pertaining to US citizens, which don't allow indefinite detention, then how can it grant the President the power to detain US citizens indefinitely? Maybe citizens of elsewhere would have an issue, but not US citizens.

Or maybe I'm reading it wrong?

The Olympics get shady

Ramblings Post #195
Sometimes you just have to find something a little off the beaten path to write about, so you can get your mind back to flowing the way it should. I've had a few things mulling over in my mind the past few days, and this is the first one that popped out. Well, the first one that popped out that looked finished. Well, the first one that looked like...aw forget it.

I don't really watch the Olympics. Not even the women's volleyball competition. Yes, I'm still salty about that Big Mac from twenty five years ago, and although I bear the games no ill will...it just doesn't dazzle me. The last time I got excited about was when the games were in Atlanta, and I could have (but didn't) ridden down and seen the world. And the opening ceremonies in Bejing were nice. But I really don't get into the sports like that...too many, too fast, where I end up cheering for reasons I'm not sure. Do I yell to sweep faster in the curling competition, or to use longer strokes. In the boxing the guy who got the knock down lost...on points. I get confused easily.

But what happened to Shin was troubling. 

In the NFL, they have fifteen angles of instant replay and will overturn a heinously bad call. In the NBA they will wave off a shot after the buzzer if the tape is clear. In the NHL, they can give you three angles of the puck in crease. In tennis, they will go to the cameras with frickin' lasers if there is a serious question of on the line or not.  So here at the Olympics, you figure they at least will have replay. Or least VHS. Super 8 maybe? So on the world stage, possibly the biggest fencing stage it will see for the next four years, what happened should not have happened.

If you're unfamiliar with what occurred, Shin A Lam (South Korea) fought Bitta Heidemann (Germany) into what is in fencing, overtime.  Whoever won would proceed to the gold medal match.  In "sudden death" with one second left and the pair still locked in steely duel, the match paused.  When the judge called "engarde" to commence the action, Heidemann dipped inside, lunged and scored a touch...only the clock hadn't moved. Looking at the replay, that she had scored the touch in one second was highly doubtful. 

The South Korean coach immediately went to the judges. And apparently instead of going to the booth..or even looking at the film...they declared Heidemann the winner. The dubious nature of the touch, considering the gold medal is at stake should have given weight to the idea of a clear and undisputed winner.

Shin Lam, defiant.

Upset, with cause in my opinion, Lam refused to leave the platform. In fencing, leaving the platform is an acceptance of the judges ruling. She waited for more than 45 minutes, until her coach's further appeal was denied...and stayed defiant until security had to escort her out. I understand how the ruling on the floor was made, but how the appeal was denied I am baffled. An athlete trains for years for a moment in the sun...only to be denied because someone does not want to admit they made an error? One we could all see on the replay? For shame Olympic judges.

And they hold out on Big Mac's too. Oh, wait, that's just an Olympic sponsor.


Barkeep....something ruddy. I'm not sure what it means either, ruddy.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

This is a political post.

Inigo Montoya by Brian Stelfreeze...

Ingio : You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- in the Princess Bride

On every political talk show, rounded up in the talking points of some of our leaders, is the continuing push from one side of the apparently rock solid contention that cutting taxes on businesses creates jobs. The way it is presented, time and time again, a listener might take away that the supposition that there is somehow a one to one ratio. That's it automatic.

The logic is that companies can't be profitable under these harsh taxes, and until they can turn a profit the economy won't recover.

This is hammered again and again, despite that looming, almost imposing evidence that the previous tax cuts, remember ...the Bush tax cuts that were extended last year, have failed to magically create those jobs the collapse of the housing bubble sucked away. Wait, didn't the collapse of the economy happen during the period of lowering taxes? And now, with taxes the lowest in a generation, even comparatively lower than those under conservative Saint Regan, using the logic that these talking points foist upon us, jobs should be plentiful. Technically, considering the number of firms that have paid little or no taxes, and that are indicating literally RECORD profits for their shareholders, job recruiters should be tackling people in the street. Instead, Phd's are lining up for work as cashiers at Target.

Lowering taxes to create jobs lacks any credible foundation. The company's have profits now, but they're not hiring. This mounting evidence shows that the given viewpoint is, and should be characterized as, almost child-like in its hopefulness. Politically this idea should be regarded for the most part as a confirmation bias with no basis.

And yet the idea is stills shouted from the rooftops, with zest and vigor.

Let me be clear : Lowering taxes to increase company profits do not make companies hire people.

Consider what you, the reader, already knows. Perhaps your own place of employ has "right sized" in the past year. And after the layoff, the remaining workers are expected to pick up the slack. And if those employees can handle it...why would a company bring in someone else just to add to their expenditures? The oil companies are making multi-billion dollar profits per quarter. Per quarter. By the conservative logic those firms alone should have sucked up the pool of unemployed. But this hasn't occurred.

Because the simplistic model being espoused seems to forget that extra people don't guarantee extra income, meaning why hire extra people to make more profit, when you can just work the hell out of the ones you have. Right now, if a company has a million dollars in profit, it keeps it in cash reserves (holding money out of the market) or in some cases distributes that to the shareholders (but paid dividends are a rarity).

On the other hand, properly structured taxes tend to encourage companies to make capital expenditures, which in turn drive the economy.

In other words, that company with a million dollar profit would have choice: buy something you can benefit from or the government wants a cut. A big cut. The company then usually gets new assets, the shareholders maintain value, the money goes back into the economy, everybody wins. Sure their cash cushion is gone and they might have to do some actual whatchamacallit, ...er, management. In a worst case scenario, if something goes wrong, like bad management, the company goes out of business instead of getting bailed out. And then, forty little replacement companies pop up to fill the void, lower prices and increase innovation as they fight for market share. Which is the American way.

Taxes, to wit, create jobs.

Profits just tend to drive wealth accumulation.

The reality is that the vast majority of jobs aren't created by the big companies lobbying for lower taxes. Jobs are created by the small companies too busy trying to stay one step ahead of the competition to worry about 3% here or 5% there. That's where the change in thinking will have to happen. That level of company can do without higher taxes. It's the guy in suits on Wall Street that need to be "shook down".

We've been told lowering taxes cures everything from corruption to the heartbreak of psoriasis, that they pay for themselves (they don't), that they stimulate growth (they don't) and I think they might even cure athlete's foot. And all it's done is ...lower taxes.

I think it's time we move on.

Maybe I missed something...

This is a political post.

Two foes getting ready to face the coming dragon.

Red Knight: We're going to face the dragon. I need you to not stab me in the back.
Blue Knight: Since we're facing the same dragon, I will not stab you. Take my short sword as proof of my honesty.
Red Knight: Not enough, I'll need your broadsword and shield as well.
Blue Knight: But after we finish the dragon, it will leave me defenseless to your assaults.
Red Knight: For the good of the battle.
Blue Knight: Um...no.

Think of it in those terms.


The good folks at Low Country Dirty Tricks, Underhanded Dealings & BBQ have few things that they would like someone to bring them up to speed on with this whole Wisconsin mess. And by bring up to speed, we mean make us understand how several square pegs are supposed to fit into holes shaped more like circles.

First, if we understand this situation correctly, the Republican Governor cuts taxes to spur job growth. Which, if I'm not mistaken, didn't work. This cut in state intake creates a budget deficit. Now to fix this self created budget deficit the Republican Governor wants to have the public employee union...the teachers if I'm not mistaken...pay more out of their own pockets for pensions. The union agrees that in these hard times, ignoring the insanity of the situation, to help meet the budget shortfall, their members will pay more for their own pensions.

And this all would be fine, except for the lower taxes to create non-existent job growth part. Lower taxes on top of the low taxes they've already had for three years of no job growth. Brilliant!

But then the Republican party says they also need to remove the union's collective bargaining agreement, so in the future the local leaders will have flexibility in working out their local budgets. Which sounds great, had the unions balked or fought at the proposed changes, which they didn't. I could even see where the need for flexibility might be needed, if the other side wasn't already willing to compromise, except this proposed change really places ALL the power in the hands of the small town government official. And saves NO actual dollars. Not now or guarantees them in the future. It only creates government without challenge.

The second part of the equation is that in the face of massive protest, the Republican party have not responded to the outrage by listening to the people...but have rallied around one another? Which sounds strange, when just last summer the Republican party as a whole (maybe not Wisconsin, I dunno) indicated that government should listen to the people and not pass the Patient's Right Act (Obamacare for those not really paying attention). And that bill was debated and fought over, this bill was introduced on Monday to voted on three days later. So the theme appears to be "listen to the people when they say what you want, and stand against them when they stand in the way of what you want to do."

Perhaps we missed a chapter. Does no one actually read history but me?

But what about the children? Especially when its not the unions that are bad, when you consider that the highest test scores in the country are in states with strong teacher's unions, and the five states with the lowest test scores...well, you see where that is going. True, unions protect bad teachers in a number of cases, but that's not all they do. And its not like the teachers are overpaid anywhere. So why are the Republicans so intent upon disarming them?

Square peg. Round hole. And now the Republicans are looking for a hammer.

Wait, what the hot phrase last year? Stuffing something down somebody's....

Ah, politics.

First, they came...

This is a political post.

Making sure you have the facts straight

For the next few weeks, the talking heads that revolve around the 24 hour news cycle will work hard to convince us that the man who shot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed Federal Judge John Roll was unstable, and worked alone, and this was a terrible tragedy that couldn't be avoided. They will pound it into our heads until we accept that as reality. Because the truth would spell doom for the current political narrative. Because the truth is that all the nasty rhetoric and posturing created the climate that made this shooting possible. And nobody wants to admit that.

Because then you have to blame somebody.

When we live in an age where people feel free to indicate they want to bodily physical harm to the President, where congress men brandish guns in their ads, where politicians words start to resemble those of terrorists...the idea that someone wouldn't pick up a gun and actually do it is naive and shortsighted. One political figure used cross hairs to show political targets. A candidate in one commercial actually shot a mock up of the cap and trade bill. One party's entire political comment right now is that "we will not compromise" - echoing the operational idea of the very fanatical extremists they claim we should oppose.

And it's all fun and games until someone gets shot.

Let me be clear I'm not blaming anyone in particular. No one candidate or political figure is responsible. But the collective has to bear some responsibility for the climate it has created, with its "taking our country back" battle cry and allusions to "Second Amendment remedies". And when the conservatives point their fingers to the extremists on the other side who should also be responsible, ask them for specifics, because I can't think of any.

But then this is the America we live in now, where bad things happen but no one is ever to blame.

To paraphrase a statement that sticks in my mine, "First they came for the poor, but I was not poor so I said nothing, then they came for unemployed, but I had a job so I said nothing. Then they came for the ...,"well, let's just see whose next.

I watched this movie...

Ramblings Post #118
I like good movies. I even like stylized bad movies, I mean, I like Hudson Hawk. But every now and then something is made in Hollywood that just says we know you aren't paying attention. Not only is what we're saying not plausible, some of the basic stuff is silly too. And you'll pay $9 a ticket to see it. And they wonder why people bootleg.

The other night, I watched the movie 2012 on one them channels I pay for. They need to stop.

I am more convinced than ever, than ever, I can be a Hollywood screen writer.

This movie throws so many basic common sense concepts in the garbage, so many simple ideas out the window, that when it was done and viewed as whole, I'm surprised they didn't market it as a comedy. Laughable is the word I want to use. It was as though they stuck every bad screen writer in Hollywood together in a room and mixed whatever came out all together. I kept looking for the name Peter Griffin, executive producer.


Transcript - 2012 - film overview meeting:
We need an action movie. Okay...Government conspiracy. Check. Speeding car scene. Check. Oooh, make it a limo. Good, good. Last minute plane escape. No, two last minute escapes by plane. No, not last minute, last second! Yeah. Wait, you know what's better than two? Three! Throw in a noble sacrifice or two, rich guy learns a lesson, poor guy gets family back and a couple of assholes who get trumped in the end. Now we got a movie!

I am so hurt.

Let me start at the beginning of things that irritated the life out of me about this film. Here we go....

Our hero in California takes his kids on vacation for the weekend to Yellowstone National Park. By car. Three states away. Not three states like Massachusetts to Maine, but three big Western States. California, a little bit of Nevada, Utah and Idaho or Wyoming. In a weekend. In a car.

They jump a fence, get picked up by the military and meet the head of the project. The head of a top secret project in the middle of the biggest event in history, with the fate of the humanity in the balance, and he takes a few minutes to check out the trespassers. And then lets them go?

The Dad drives back from Yellowstone to LA in one day. Half a conversation with a conspiracy nut, an earthquake and snarky comment from a little kid and suddenly...he pieces it all together? Rutabaga? Kiss my ass.

The racing out of LA...both the limo and the plane flight. That he was able to rent the plane for a watch is baffling.

Why did the Russian billionaire walk out of the fight, since he was STILL in Vegas that next morning? What was the rush?

They're actually there when the super-volcano under Yellowstone blows. (This part is actually based on something real, there really is a super-volcano under Yellowstone. Only we've got somewhere between 100 years and 10,000 years in the real time line. But that's creative license, so okay.) But they're within sight of it when it blows. And don't die. Outrunning it and an earthquake in a Winnebago. The father crawling out of the crevice to get on the plane was...you know what, I let that go.

Why was the President the only one conscious when the aircraft carrier hit the White House?

When they were halfway to China and knew they would be short of fuel, whey didn't they dump the cars then? The plane would have been almost 20 tons lighter? Um, more flying time? Duh.

> China moving to them was actually a fairly neat script idea though, I will admit that.

> And the "Bentley start" scene was funny.

These people have the greatest cell phones in all creation. The Indian guy is standing there, looking at the tidal wave racing at him and calls his buddy, who gets a signal in China. Inside a mountain. Who is their carrier?

Why weren't the arks submerged when the water got there? They were high up on cradles like ..um targets.

How did they get the Chinese workers to agree to build them, and not give them seats? Especially when a random workers brother apparently knew enough to get his Grandparents to safety, so it wasn't like the workers didn't have a clue. Once the arks opened up and started boarding, it should have been a free for all. Or were they all hired at the "Minion Academy"?

I sat open mouthed at the stupidity of waiting until the last second to board the "Arks" on which they'd sold seats at a billion euros a pop ( which at the time of the movie meant roughly 2.4 billion dollars) to the wealthy, and expected these people to keep civilization alive. It was the rich people and the military. Really? What would motivate the military to keep following the rich folks? Didn't Douglas Adams explain the stupidity of this in Life the Universe and Everything almost 40 years ago?

Why did you have to close the door to start the engine? Seriously.

Let me do all the escapes scenes at once : He got there in the nick of time to save, got to the airport in the nick of time to get on the plane, in the nick of time before the volcano goes, and the nick getting out after, can you say nick of time flying out of Vegas, nick of time catching the old lady's attention, to the nick of time just as the ark was sealing up. Really...not one miss?

And finally...and don't know how many folks caught this at the end, but a remark from the captain just clicked. Africa rose a thousand meters. Whole continent. And probably didn't flood. So probably more than a few million Africans survived. Which suddenly made the surviving half a million or so Caucasians and Asians a decided minority. Made it a much better movie for me.

Now this is from watching the movie...ONE TIME. These were glaring, neon glowing head scratcher moments. These are the ones I could remember. I can't imagine how many issues I'll find with repeated viewings.

I am stunned that this movie got made. That nobody thought this through. That even in the name of fun adventure escapism, you wanna kinda do a little better than this. And I'm putting this here, because it irritates me that ideas like this see the light of day.

I think this why I read a lot.

Barkeep, no, you really don't have anything strong enough.

A Man's Home is His Castle

This is a Political Post

“I’m up with a gentleman, says he resides here, but was uncooperative, but keep the cars coming,” the sergeant said.

These are the words of Sgt. Crowley as recorded by the Cambridge police during his incident with Professor Gates, a controversy I tried my best not to write about because politics are really more my brother's bag than mine. But today a facebook friend of mine denied their was any racial profiling because the 911 call did not mention race. A black friend of mine. Time does change people.

When the white people are more upset at treatment towards you than you are, then I think you missed something.

At the point in the incident the officer spoke those words, I'm not sure if Prof. Gate had produced identification or not. But I do know that once the Professor had properly identified himself as the resident, and proved it was his house (as he did) the officer should have "switched modes" and gone from investigator/defender to public servant. If you don't know what that is, it's the point in the coversation where the "sirs" change hands, in the beginning you call the officer sir, at the end he should be calling you sir. In this case, that didn't happen. Shortly thereafter, the Harvard scholar was arrested for disorderly conduct, or as the supporters of the sargent say, the gentleman was being belligerent.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. - Harvard Scholar
Photo from Wall Street Journal

Only, you can't arrest someone for just being belligerent in Massachusetts. It doesnt' matter if the Gates went on a tirade and threatened at one point, "call the officer's mother". It doesnt' matter if Gates pulled the race card or not. In Cambridge, which is in Massachusetts, you can do that. It's called protected speech. In fact, the Massachusetts courts have made it clear that a person who berates an officer, even during an arrest, is not guilty of disorderly conduct.

So why was Gates arrested? What was the officer's rationale? The REAL question is whether the officer wants to be a racist or a abuser of power? I remember watching a video a long time ago where a person getting a ticket blessed out the police officer, and I marveled because the officer took it with a straight face, never taking it personally. But here, the officer suddenly felt there was an issue with a slight man who walked with a limp (I don't know if the cane was seen) to such a degree that he would ask that they "keep the cars coming"? Black or white in the original call at this point fades from the consciousness, as here the officer is on the scene and can see who his facing. In this case the officer, perhaps a little perturbed, arrested Prof. Gates in what was an obvious show of power.

Power. Respect.

The question of the day is: Was it a show of power over everyone, to respect the police? Or was is a show of power over this little nasty black fellow, to respect the police?

I dunno. But either case, it seems I'm gonna be siding with the little black fellow. Because he can be as nasty as he wanna be. That's what the law says. So the officer, was wrong.

Barkeep...I need something that will make me grit my teeth.

I saw this movie right...

Ramblings Post #36
There are things probably best left unsaid. I mean there are certain things when you say them that cast a certain light upon you now and forevermore. Like, admitting you're scared of ballerinas. It might be because your older sister used to beat you up after ballet practice, but if you don't explain yourself, the first admission is probably better off a secret. So what does that have to do with this post? Nothing. Just thought I'd say that.

This is a movie rant. I have to get a few things off my chest.

First, I have a bad movie habit.

This weekend, on one of the pay movie channels, I watched Tropic Thunder. For the first time. Ever.

Now, this is interesting because I already have a copy of Tropic Thunder that I have never watched. I had thought about going to see it, but the only movies I'd been to in the past five years had been with Sporty, so I gave it a pass, even though I'd heard it was hilarious. Some months later walking through Blockbuster, I spotted the movie on a rack and decided to buy a copy because I'd never gone to go see it, but the film was supposed to be hilarious. Needless to say having paid for it, I couldn't find time to watch it until it came on TV while I wasn't paying attention.

And it was Hilarious.

And I can think of at least two or three other movies I've purchased and never watched. Okay, I watched the first half of Pineapple Express, but I can't think of another film that I've paid for and watched. I will eventually one day, but I think I did the same with "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins", "First Sunday", "Superbad" and "Smoking Aces", and I still have "Cloverfield", "The Dark Knight" and two or three others to go. All purchased, all never watched.

Why do I do that?

Sidenote: I don't normally like Tom Cruise. He is where Nic Cage appears to be headed film selection-wise: All his characters are heroes, or at worst badly written anti-heroes, and dimensionally as flat as they come. It's as though half of male Hollywood is all caught up in the Gary Cooper syndrome. But Tom Cruises performance as the ruthless studio head Les Grossman was inspired. You almost want his character to pop up in something else just so you can enjoy his scenery chewing performance.

Second, how exactly does the Academy pick the the Oscars?

I mean, the Oscar winners are for the most part, pretentious bullshit. How hard is it play the roles they pick for winners? No period drama should ever win again, and biopics of people alive in the last 25 years are self serving message movies not fit for viewing in most cases (I might own Milk, I dunno. It wouldn't matter, because I have not watched it). Playing someone, i.e., mimicking their mannerisms and cadences is hokey - see: Ali with Will Smith, whereas inhabiting them as a consciousness is harder - see Frost/Nixon.

But building a character from scratch? Wouldn't that be harder than simply trying to nail down an existing person? I mean you know when you've got a live character down, a made up one should be harder. How would you know when you're done?

I bring this up because in Tropic Thunder, Robert Downey Jr playing supreme method actor Kirk Lazurus remains in character at all times as the black Lincoln Osirus, in part playing as Samuel Jackson and convincingly...how is that not Oscar-Worthy? And the afore mentioned Tom Cruise, playing so far against type he might have run over himself coming back around.

What won last year? Okay, wait, I haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire either...so maybe it was better, but why does the Academy think comedy is easy? When is the last time a comedy won Best Picture?

Barkeep, I intend to shoot a movie one day, give me something to shut me up!

Bad Morning Listening

Ramblings Post #19
A few months ago I went back to regular radio for my ride into work. My ride is up Atlanta's west side of 285 and takes about 15 -20 minutes in average traffic. It used to take longer, but I discovered a shortcut that minimizes my highway time and is usually pretty devoid of traffic until I get to "le grand circuit", which is a crap shoot. I mean I've seen285 flowing smoothly and/or gridlocked at 7:35am, 8:30am, 9:30am and at any time in between. There is no rhyme or reason, no forecasting available.

And as I've said before, I never saw the need for an expensive car entertainment system until I encountered traffic on 285.

But I'm a simple guy, still. I have no TV in the headrests, or satellite radio, or iPod plug in or 10 disc CD player.... or cassette player or... even an eight track. I listen to the broadcast radio. I do have FM thanks, much. I say that because I once owned a car that only got AM. And in the morning I listen to the radio, because well, no radio is boring. And for a while I was stuck on classical because, well, because you know.

But I made the move back to regular radio, hip hop and oldies, although I still listen to NPR and all things considered on my way to class at night - to get in the right frame of mind. The mornings and after school however are a mix of Drive-time DJs, classical/jazz and contemplation. And why is the song "Do the Stanky Legg" stuck in my head? I'm considering going back to classical just because of that.

Which brings us to this little posting. How long do the DJs figure that we are actually in the car? I asked because it seems to me that a seasoned professional hired for their personality and the little group of comedians they've assembled would keep the little skits between three and seven minutes, in little neatly encapsulated little bursts of the levity or whatever it is the station is paying them to peddle. The idea being that the individual in the care wants to hear the whole bit, as opposed to part of it and since MOST people get out of the car when they get where they are going...

...okay, this is personal, since I really did want to find out who's baby it was via the paternity test the show was running. The drama had reached soap opera level with dead wives, scandalous sister in laws, infidelities, lies and deception. Then a commercial break. Then a song. Then another commercial break. Then a promo for some other shit I didn't want to hear and another commercial and damn, I'm at the office. This isn't primetime! I'm not ensconced on the couch and will sit through all the damn commercials because I now have an inane need to see if the cardboardly acted skeevy grifter really did kill the countess, or is was it her stick figure Hollywood version daughter after her already dubiously gotten gains. No, I'm in the car, I'm paying attention to signs and traffic and once I get where I'm going, I GET OUT OF THE CAR!!!

Good drive-time DJs finish each little skit before the next commercial. Bad DJs forget they are on the radio and imagine I've got a whole hour.

I don't like the bad DJs.

Barkeep. A tall glass of iced tea. I'm just in the mood.

Blackout?

I did a quick poll of the my fellow workers in the office, and a few of them are going to participate in the National Blackout that's going on today. My online buddies have already admitted to not being compliant.

Which makes the whole thing pointless.

I've gotten a little tired of the historical black leaders, the theoretical president and vice-president of Black people - Jesse and Rev. Al - who fifty years later still want to march and boycott to show strength. They worked then. In specific instances and under specific circumstances they were very effective in showing the power and solidarity of a people disrespected. But just as we set the tools of the that day and age aside in lieu of new tools, so we must do the same with these.

Should we never boycott or march again? Sometimes the old tool is the best tool for the job, so there will come a time when they are most appropriate. This is not that time.

Current estimates set the spending power of the target group at 2 to 3 billion per day. Real money to those whose minds are consumed with small thoughts. To put it in perspective, the US government lost 9 billion dollars in Iraq last year, lost as in "we don't know who we gave it to - we don't know where it is now. That was 9 billion in CASH. Not credits or monies paid toward or contracts promised... billions of actual paper dollars. And nobody's that concerned.

Last year Walmart had billion dollar sales on SINGLE days.

A famous congressional anecdote goes that, "a few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money" when discussing funding of bills and projects.

The amount we're talking is a drop in the bucket. To small minds a billion or two is ridiculous money. To the people whose minds we hope to change, it is pocket money. The stakes have changed, and the rules of the game must change with with it. The people with purpose must wrap their minds that the world has change. They dream of being Martin and leading the people, but even brother Martin would realize that those things that once worked so well need to put aside for other times.

And let's not get started on the modern March, which we turn into throwback road-trips and excuses to miss work. I listened to students boarding the bus for Jena with hardly a clue as to why they were traveling.

And since the whole project not a unified effort, it's effectiveness is questionable. Wholly questionable.

In an economy with a large number of people living check to check, stockpiling supplies for a few days really wasn't an option. It's payday Friday for a large number of Americans. Children need things and sales start today. The black American icon Denzel Washington's movie debuts today, and opening day receipts are crucial.

And a number of people enjoy the nightlife. The nightlife at black owned businesses.

Which gets me to the crux of my point. The vast majority of the people joining the protest generally tend to focus their dollars at black owned or black focused businesses already. So those businesses are the ones that will suffer as we cry into the wind.

And what was the point of that?

If we must make a statement, then let's make it. But let's find a new approach, a new language, a new tool to get our point across.

Barkeep - Do you have any ripple?