Thoughts of a Vigilante Thinker/Author

Feeling it Really Tough in Big Sky Country.

2009-08-14T18:20:00.000-07:00

One remark that has stuck with me for a while for different reasons is the one made by Rush Limbaugh either before or after President Obama came into office, but I do believe it was right after. He talked about how he wanted Obama to fail and spoke even further about this saying that we would be heading into a dangerous path if we come to a point where it is not correct to criticize the president or be bold in what we say in arguments or disagreements.

Whether I agree with the remark made by the apparent king of AM radio (if his ratings matter, which they do) is irrelevant in my mind and if I were to say something along the lines of agreeing with Rush or disagreeing with Rush, it is not likely to change your opinion of him, his remarks or any of your feelings towards me or politics in general (that means 'as usual', by the way).

What I'd like to focus on for my second blog post are some thoughts about criticism and the role it plays (or has played) in our everyday lives. If you will be patient with me, I hope to generate some thoughts in your head about the subject and go from there. Eventually, we'll go to the president's trip to Belgrade, Montana on Friday and we'll see just how far-reaching criticism is or isn't in this nation.

Far back to the days in which we were children, capable of speaking, eating, dressing ourselves and tending to the needs our parents didn't tend to for us we had the ability to form opinions. Sometimes they made no sense, other times they were spot on and even more times, we just let them go and move on to the next matter of business without even a second thought.

Ah, to have the wisdom of a child and not the treachery of an adult even as age hits us just like the ton of bricks known as reality. Perhaps then, we'd understand that we have a voluntary responsibility to our fellow man and woman to know that harm done on them is harm that's, in effect, done on ourselves. We are all different, yet still all the same and can be quite concerned about the thoughts of others even if we say we aren't.

This is said not to be 'Captain Obvious' or to seem like I know as much as the person next to me or halfway around the world, but the fact is that opinions matter. If you don't believe me, look back to your childhood. It's easy if you try. From there, just imagine and think of all the things your mom or dad told you to either do or do better like tucking in your shirt, painting your room that shade of green and not the other, telling you what they didn't like about your first date, how your report is far from grammatically correct when it's due tomorrow morning and the laundry list of criticisms goes on and on.

As much as we wouldn't like to, they stick with us through the time of adolescence and come back into our heads to remind us that someone out there was looking out for us, attempting to inform us of something for our own good, warning us or just making sure that we didn't sway too far off the path most traveled.

And then we grow up. The harsh sting of that reality is yet another interesting paradox as we throw into the equation the facts of life which, to be fair, I've only heard in passing. Perhaps someone out there is luckier than myself.

In any case, we have to play a large balance game during the prime of our lives and on into the very end. From having to deal with a spouse who has nothing but new, old and new-old criticisms to drop upon your lap, to kids who think that you should wear that tie or that dress or that shirt to work and not the other. Then comes the bills, the car, the kids growing up, the driving lessons and college and you hear thoughts and criticisms from all sides as another reality hits you that your kids aren't princes and princesses, yet you hold your head up knowing you did the best you could.

Do I even have to mention work and your boss? Yeah I didn't think so, either.

You'd think with this constant criticism, both fair and otherwise, that we'd know to think of the other side when we try to make a point or take a stand as they have to argue just as we do. But no! We're insecure bastards that are angry, tired and want change. No, seriously. We've gotten a couple of nibbles at life but truly crave the entire smorgasbord wanting to keep it for ourselves leaving nary a morsel to the other side (or everyone else).

We're tired of criticism, not caring that it shaped us and made us into the people we are (or once were) and we just want our vision to take center stage without people complaining about every little detail. They're the devil after all! We want our planned projects to be the talk of the town and the envy of all others. We want to reach for the brass ring not knowing (or caring) that there will always be another up there for someone else.

We want control. Bottom line. No one wants to answer to anyone or be subject to review and criticism like an item at auction. We don't want to pay high amounts of taxes, but at the same time, we don't want to be criticized for what we want. Most people don't desire a scenario of 'either you're with us or against us', but this and the previous administration and Congress have been tolling this very same bell. One did it for a supposed 'War on Terror' and the other is now using the economy as a similar lynch pin. I suppose lessons can be learned by Bush 43; I just wish they were to the benefit of us all.

Back to the point of criticism, no one desires that kind of life. What kind of life is that? None at all! Ask any Joe Blow on the streets and they know it isn't. So why do we tolerate it? Well, to be fair, most don't. The only problem is that it's for the wrong reasons.

People storm town hall meetings instead of asking questions about real issues that can improve health care in this country for real. People go in with guns instead of brains and this is why debate and planning for 2009 might denigrate into the mess that was 1993. People aren't asking tough questions any longer, such as 'Why are lobbyists for big pharma and health insurance companies even allowed to make deals or sit at the table for bill markups?'

Good question? Then it's likely to NEVER be asked in a town hall meeting or debate, or on cable news for that matter. How about another? 'Why are there so many anti-competitive restrictions currently in the laws for small businesses that wish to provide quality health care or insurance information to their employees at a low cost?' Perhaps the question could even be asked 'What Constitutional role does the government have in health care and/or its regulation?' Or even (and this one is a real clincher, too) 'Why can't all Congresspersons and Senators with any recorded ties, connections, questionable relationships or conflicts of interest with the drug, pharmaceutical and health insurance companies recuse themselves from the bill markup and debate process in the full interest of fairness and benefit to the American citizens?'

Actually I can answer that last one, believe it or not. If they did that, probably the only Congressman left standing would be Ron Paul. (Hmm. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing in hindsight. It's change, after all!) Perhaps criticism is a bad thing in that regard because anybody who comes to a debate with the right criticism and not just criticism at the end of the barrel of a gun or in a screaming contest to argue against so-called 'death panels' (credit: Palin, Sarah) and 'pulling the plug on grandma' (credit: Grassley, Chuck) is truly dangerous and can really get the people in D.C. (be they red or blue) riled up by their mere voice or presence.

But we don't really hear about people like that anymore, right? I thought so.

And for those who think that Obama is any better in this debate because he ran on change should, with all due respect, think again, and again and one more time to be safe. He's done deals with big pharma so they don't lose as much money on what no longer appears to be a public option, but now a cooperative health care proposal. It's not as bad, but it's the difference between a .357 and a .44 aiming for your head, and those don't take criticism well.

And, obviously, neither does the president. This has been the case for quite some time, too. You know those news conferences that he has? Well, go all the way back to President Nixon and you're bound to find proof that the president is fed a list of reporters to speak with (no word yet on whether the name of Helen Thomas is still there) and answer questions to that are given in advance. I don't necessarily mean word for word, but the essence of each question has already been screened and all the reporters that the presidents (from Nixon to now) speak with are already pre-packaged and ready for consumption by a mass audience.

This is also likely the case for most (not all, but most) of President Obama's town hall meetings, including the one in Montana. Real, hard-hitting questions aren't gonna be had at these meetings unless you dig the thinkers out of their tanks, but we shall be sure to keep an eye out for all of these gatherings and see what can be found. And even if you had a good question that found its way through the cracks, it's not likely to be answered by the president. No, that would mean that the truth would be known and people would learn that he's got about as much control over health care reform as this blogger (i.e., none at all).

So where are we, now? Does the president get health care reform and what he wants or does he fail? Believe it or not, both. He called for the public option, but the harsh sting of Congress (reality) bit back at him and told him that you can't fight the 'big boy' version of city hall. So he butters the American people up and blames it on Congress. Great...IF you had not taken door number one like everyone else before you and made a deal!

Perhaps this could mark a turning point, though. Maybe there are those out there that can see through the aforementioned cracks, learn about the backroom deals and actually call Obama out on it, whether walking through the streets, in e-mails, on Facebook and Twitter (that actually might require a few hundred tweets, though, if I had my way). Get the word out, though! It's affecting you, more than any of us might think, so if we do something, levy these smart, honest and truthful criticisms at town halls and call people out for the truth, something can be done to really fix this.

Use your words, like your mom taught you. Use them, like loudmouth Rush, and be bold, but come with the facts and the truth. Call for real, sound reform in health care that doesn't involve middlemen that we can't see and don't be afraid to criticize people as it might actually help shape them in the end.

Folks, bottom line; wake up and heed the words of The 5th Dimension; 'Let the sunshine in.' Let's see this through and if we fail or he fails (as Rush wants), let's be optimistic and remember that we can always get right back up with something new and better.

It's in the Declaration of Independence, people! Come on!

(Not those exact words, mind you, but the idea remains the same.)

And that's just the second post!

Sonia Sotomayor Gets Confirmed

2009-08-03T11:22:00.000-07:00

How's that for a first post?

Okay, yes, I know that she has not yet been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, but the day will soon come when that will happen--and it will happen. She needs only fifty votes from the Senate because the Vice President is the one who has to break any ties and he won't go against Obama in this instance. Sotomayor already has six GOP senators who will vote for her confirmation, though she needed none and she has the support of Bar Associations and Yale School of Law to go along with that. It's been said that she is the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court in a century. Many wonder what more you could ask for in a nominee and given her seventeen years on a federal bench, the question is very valid.

But what are the thoughts of a 22-year-old Libertarian, African-American male about the nomination? In one word, mixed. Yes, this is quite a historic achievement, I'll never deny that as long as I live. Sotomayor's nomination and overall story is deeply rooted in the longstanding American Dream and her family should be exceedingly proud of this woman who has shown that even she, from the Bronx, can rise to the highest court in the land and do it the right way.

The richness of her experience is a topic of question, though. As a justice of the United States Supreme Court, her oath (which stands for life) calls for her to administer justice without respect for person. This is why the woman holding the scales of justice is blindfolded, because that is what justice is supposed to be. I don't believe for a second that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist or a prejudiced person. I do believe, however, the following:

1) The Constitution of the United States, and no other document, domestically or internationally, is designed to guide a federal judge in his or her decision making . The interpretations of the constitution, while they may differ amongst the different justices, are supposed to be the cornerstones for these decisions they make as administrators.

2) After enough thought and consideration of the different sides in the fight against racial discrimination, I do find it to be wrong. I also, however, find reverse discrimination to be equally wrong and for it to have no place in society. Despite this, I doubt that laws or legislation (especially from the bench) should tear down such walls and not consider people and their free will might not be as open to the idea of change as a neighbor would be. The Ricci decision was the wrong one, plain and simple.

Just as curbing a test so that more students pass is wrong, so are throwing out results just because a certain amount of black firefighter applicants did not pass the written exam. If this is the exam that all firefighters in the state of Connecticut must take to become a firefighter, then it is fair. Being a firefighter is a privilege and not a right and in order to take part in this privilege, one must pass a litmus test according to those higher-ups who have a hand in making the test and providing such a benchmark. It's not fair, but what in life really is?

3)"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the relevant portion of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution dealing with the right of the people to own weapons. Sonia Sotomayor has been very hush-hush about it, even though it's her job to tell people that they still have a right to their weapons; to protect themselves from government getting out of control, and not just for leisure. If she truly does not believe or stand by this principle, then she is not truly on the side of the American people. I understand the controversy and feel it only necessary to remind people that guns don't kill; people do.

That's the bottom line; guns and weapons are only dangerous when they are used and/or they are in the wrong hands. If people wisely use weapons (i.e., they know how to use them properly) , then they become less dangerous and less crime takes place as people moderate between their own disputes, settling them before they get out of hand. If less crime takes place, then less police carrying guns and having fear in their hearts for all the wrong reasons are out on the streets committing less crimes with these guns by killing people who haven't broken the law and who's only crime is the color of their skin. This comes as a result of people having the right to their guns.

Do you understand, President Obama, Attorney General Holder and (future) Justice Sotomayor? The reason why people cling to their guns is because it is their right! People cling to their guns for fear that they believe their rights are being unlawfully taken away and I feel for them, even though I don't own a gun myself. It is not for you to decide on people's rights and this is one of the main reasons why I'm mixed with the Sotomayor confirmation.

Though like I said, even with my feelings, I just think that there's nothing stopping this choice. Sotomayor will be justice number 111, will be the third female judge and will be the first Latina judge, making history on those counts. I just have some concern given her record, her cases and 'the rich experiences of a wise Latina woman'.

I just don't know if they are right for the highest court of the land with no chance of an appeal and her decisions potentially affecting the lives of all of us...for better or for worse.

Now, how's that for a first post?