Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

Could "unemployed" become a protected class?

2012-01-24T22:15:00.001-05:00

It's possible.

According to this NY Times story, President Obama Proposes Protecting Unemployed Against Hiring Bias

Say you own a business. You interview two individuals both of whom have the experience and background you are looking for. Now depending on the needs of the company, some employers may choose to hire the already unemployed person because since both are qualified and one is already employed, they'd like to give the unemployed person an opportunity. I think that's great. But what if for some reason, the employer feels the need to go with the already employed person (could have to do with needing up-to-date experience or skills in that area, who knows?). Does this mean the unemployed person can sue for discrimination? How does the unemployed person prove discrimination is involved?

Americans seeking employment are already protected against discrimination based on race, religion, gender, religion and national origin. I'm ok with that since none of those things should prohibit an individual from being able to carry out their duties so it should not be a factor in employment. However, when it comes to things like experience, education, skills, we need to let the employer have the final say. Competition is tough today and some companies may find it's imperative to hire someone who has the training/skills which are the most current than someone who is behind because they've been unemployed.

I'd love to see every person who is unemployed and wants to work, have a job right now but we should tread carefully in this area that we don't let the government have too much of a hand in the decision-making process. Once we open the door, there's no closing it.

Two great analyses of [H]ouse, M.D. that you will enjoy reading.

2012-01-24T21:38:00.007-05:00

The first one is an excellent piece titled "House...Deconstructed" by Flo, a writer and former cinema student: http://wellwellwelles.livejournal.com/5746.html

The second is another fantastic piece titled "Comments and interpretation/translation of Kath Lingenfelter's comments during her interview with Barbara Barnett" by Kate at http://t.co/biTtkCu

Both authors touched on things many of us have been saying for a while now. There's no need for me to offer my own commentary here as these authors did an outstanding job in theirs.

Enjoy!

[H]ouse, M.D. Episode 8x09 "Better Half"

2012-01-23T22:25:00.101-05:00

Folks, I had a really great piece written, then I hit a wrong key and lost it all, even the draft I'd saved. So instead of trying to recreate the goodness, I'm just going to be brief here. Now let me just preface this by saying when I say "I'm just going to be brief" it's not actually brief in the sense you're thinking of. My "brief" is still only slightly shorter than a thesis. :)

The dislikes:

I miss the puzzle normally associated with the POTW. There wasn't this big mystery or build up to it. In addition there's usually some underlying personal issue that contributes to the illness. House prides himself in the theory that everybody lies is generally at he root of his patients illnesses, but not this time.

Foreman's obnoxiousness and attempts to one-up House are annoying. Foreman once said he didn't want to be like House, which is odd because he is like House and as Cuddy once said, he's House-light. Foreman misses the puzzles, he's not cut out to be an Administrator. I really liked him better as part of the team. I was just telling someone the other day about some of Foreman's best moments which include attempting to one-up House in "Mirror Mirror" and what I thought was an awesome performance in "House Training" where I actually cried at the end as he hugged his mother.

Who wants to see more of Chase's humanity? I like Chase but enough already. We've been teased with a Chase-centric episode. Could I be more unexcited? It's House's humanity I want to see!

Park. Adams. Some say the actresses are underused. I say they shouldn't be used at all. What is the point of having them there? Park and Adams add no new dimensions to this show. This is how I see them. First, Park is an extremely intelligent young woman raised in a very strict household. She craves friendship but is socially inept and has a hard time making friends. She's boring with a very dry sense of humor. As to Adams, I see her as straight-laced, moral, and feeling guilt over being born with a silver spoon in her mouth, which is by the way in House-land a very crappy reason to do want to be a doctor. Nothing worse than trying to do good out of a feeling of guilt. You do good because you want to not because you have to. That was one of the differences between Adams and Cameron. Like Park, she doesn't add anything to the development of House's character or the show. If she's supposed to be his conscience, it's not working, that's been done, her name was Cameron, and of course there's Wilson, who seems to be less of House's conscience as he's drawn into the dark side. In all honesty, Adams and Park feel like mere placeholders.

Finally, House and Wilson's games. Is it a bit overdone? Has the common-sense, down-to-earth Wilson suddenly succumbed to the dark side? With Cuddy gone they've got to make this friendship even more meaningful but there's no replacement for House's other half. Both Wilson and Cuddy offered something important to House's character and now Wilson has to fill both roles which isn't working. Note that the House-Wilson antics in this episode are also listed below in my likes!

The likes:

House and Wilson. Those two are so good together. The scene with the cigars was hilarious. Also early on the bet in the cafeteria--who didn't think that House would find a way to circumvent the rules without forfeiting the bet? We know it's not all about the money, that was evident when House burned that bill. It was about the game. House once again established his intellectual superiority by solving the puzzle without breaking the rules of the game. With Cuddy out of the picture the only person he can sparr with is Wilson, but it's not sparring, it's frat-boy antics. Wilson is really all House has left and TPTB have to make to in Lisa's absence but Wilson can't be to House what Cuddy was to him and we still feel the loss.

That part about Park having banged thirty guys in college--saying that she lived next door to a Jewish fraternity--was that supposed to be funny? Hey, even Jewish guys have standards! What I did like about this part was that House actually was interested enough to want to know more about it! No doubt an effort to use it against her later on. We know that House loves digging up dirt on his team. This piece was just handed to him on a silver platter by Park herself. Poor girl, she'll learn eventually.

Plot A was the POTW case, while there was no great puzzle and it kinda bored me, I felt bad for the wife who had been married only a few months when her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. She gave up a lot to take care of him. As to plot B, the clinic patient, House may have been right about that case in that there was a medical reason for the perceived asexuality, albeit it wasn't on the part of the patient but her husband, however House, being the misanthropic son of a bitch that he is who doesn't believe in happiness or true love would have been thrilled if he could have proven the reason it didn't bother the wife was because she was getting it elsewhere, which actually wasn't the case at all. She lied about being asexual herself because she loved her husband. We can be sure House was annoyed by that heartfelt act of sacrifice.

Foreman finally figuring out that he can't continue to try and reign House in by threatening a return to jail. He should know better than anyone that House works better unconstrained by the same rules that apply to everyone else. House needs to be free of this constraint even if it costs him. It could very well backfire on Foreman in the future. Who knows what crazy stunt House will pull because Foreman has loosened the reigns? But the thing is that Foreman is not a very good boss for House, we've seen him as his supervisor a handful of times over the years and it never worked and it's never going to work. Cuddy was really the only person who could reign House in but she knew just when and how to do it.

Foreman's epiphany won him the right to claim he solved the case but in the end he knows House is the better diagnostician and I think it shows. Foreman clearly misses diagnostics and while I dislike that he gave it up to be hospital administrator, I like that he can't give up the puzzles so easily. He's torn and he should be. He once said he didn't want to be like House but he respects the hell out of the man. I recall in Season 4 when House was testing the fellowship candidates and Cuddy appointed Foreman back on the team to keep an eye on things, Foreman proved himself (again) to House and impressed House so much that as they walked out of the hospital together, House complimented Foreman. Remember that? I loved that scene. Foreman has a fragile ego, House knows that, and he knows when to compliment a job well done. There's never been a doubt that he respects Foreman as a doctor but he has just never respected him as an administrator or boss. Why? Because Foreman was never good at that. He did however respect Cuddy as an administrator because she was damn good at it.

Taub was absent last night. I didn't even miss him.

Speaking of Taub, I laughed my ass off at House's comment about Taub being in his backpack. By the way this and the comment about Foreman's vests were both ad libs by Hugh Laurie!

And this comment: “You mean you think they’re..?” asks Park doing this weird hand gesture that made no sense whatsoever. To which Chase replies, “If they’re having sex, they probably use their genitals." LOVED THAT ONE!

Foreman being called on the carpet by a donor for his administration of the hospital. No shocker as we've been doing it all season.

The parallels between the clinic patient and the POTW. Both women lying to their husbands (albeit by omission). Which lie was the worse one? Lying about a secret relationship or lying that you are asexual because your husband is and you love him enough that you don't care about that.

House calling Foreman "Dr. Blackenschmirtz" "Black Pawn" and "Cuddy Dark". Come on, that's no worse than my personal favorite "Blackpoleon Blackaparte". Hey, if House went through one complete episode without making a racist or sexist remark I think I'd keep over.

All in all, parts of the episode were great, but overall I thought it was weak. I'm sorry, I'm still comparing these episodes to past seasons and I really can't help it. *Sigh* Something is still missing. House, our hero, our protagonist, needs his foil! It's not Foreman and it can't be Wilson. Wilson is House's sidekick, he's the nice charming guy that helps bring out House's humanity every now and then. He doesn't have the personality to be House's nemesis, he wasn't designed for it in the first place. Foreman is like House, he's no adversary because House doesn't consider him his equal or his rival. Think of it this way, House is modeled after Holmes. Holmes's sidekick was Watson but his nemesis was Moriarty. Who was House's Moriarty? Cuddy. House considered Cuddy a very worthy adversary, she could go toe to toe with him every step of the way, without fearing him and without backing down. House respected it. He loved it. He reveled in it. I told you when Lisa Edelstein left the show that without both Wilson and Cuddy (the sidekick and the foil) to balance House, it would feel as if something were missing and I'm right. Something is still missing. You can't just take Foreman's character and try to reshape him into Cuddy. Not. Going. To. Happen.

This episode did take the number one spot but my belief is that there were two factors. First, the lack of competition. CBS aired a repeat of "How I Met Your Mother" while the other networks ran a variety of unpopular shows. Second, House just came off a long hiatus had something to do with its 19% increase in th ratings. I don't expect that to be the norm. For the record, below are the numbers since the season premiere. I've included the date the episode aired followed by it's rating/share of audience, and number of people who watched.

01/23:   3.1/8   8.2m
11/28: 2.6/6   7.3m
11/21:   2.5/6   7.3m
11/14:   2.5/6   6.7m
11/07:   2.7/6   7.5m
10/31:   2.5/6   6.5m
10/17:   3.1/7   8.4m
10/10:   2.3/6   5.9m
10/03:   3.9/9   9.7m

The optimal number to shoot for regular season ratings is in the mid 3's range. House hasn't been able to do that since the season premiere Twenty Vicodin. During sweeps week shows strive for at least a 3.5 or higher but House did not achieve that during November's fall sweeps. Maybe in spring? Who knows? I will say that when you compare these numbers to House numbers in prior seasons, this season just doesn't hold up.

There are 14 more episodes left this season we know about at least four of them:

1) In next week's episode, "The team treats an underage and homeless female patient but when her symptoms worsen and call for an invasive surgery requiring adult consent, House and Adams argue over whether they should contact social services. The patient confesses that she ran away from home after struggling to take care of her mother, a recovering drug addict. But when her mother appears at her bedside, a more complicated relationship is revealed and the patient's mother must put the past aside and make the best decision for her daughter. Meanwhile, Taub has a difficult time connecting with his infant daughters and House threatens to exploit Foreman's relationship with a married woman."

2) In episode 11 (I'm looking forward to this one) "A violent incident involving a patient has serious consequences for one staff member, House and the team are placed under review by Dr. Walter Cofield, Foreman's former mentor and current Chief of Neurology. As House and each member of his team recount the details of the dramatic and life-threatening incident, Cofield must weigh the team's unconventional brand of collaboration against their ability to save lives."

This episode is supposed to be what Yaitanes calls a "game changer" and we can only wonder what it is. Considering that House's Diagnostics department was created especially for him by Cuddy I can only wonder if PPTH is going to decide that the risks taken by House and the team outweigh the benefits and that it is better to close the department although that wouldn't be the kind of episode you'd air halfway through the season.

3) The the green-card wife (uggh!) returns shortly for episode 13 in which the Immigration folks have to verify the marriage is not a sham. Though it is, in fact, a sham, House will need to endure a crash course in marriage (no doubt his instructor will be the three time married Wilson) so that he doesn't go to jail for fraud. Can I just say that when I read Kath Lingenfelter's interview about House's "family" (his mom, Wilson, etc) and how the green-card wife is in a sense, a member of that family, even if it is a fake marriage and she's not family in the traditional sense, I wanted to hurl. By the way, what exactly did David Shore mean when he said they were not going to revisit the green-card wife mess? They were going to essentially pretend it never happened by just dropping it and never mentioning it again.

4) Sometime in March, House's mother Blythe (the fabulous Diane Baker!) returns for a visit with her new boyfriend portrayed by actor Billy Connolly and House can't be happy about that. Diane Baker and Billy Connolly? This should be a hoot. House can't complain much about his mother's choice of boyfriends considering in an effort to piss off Cuddy, he married a foreign chick who agreed to clean his apartment in exchange for a marriage of convenience to get a green card.

House writer Kath Lingenfelter said that the last five episodes are serial, in that they all flow together. A lot of people, me included, were hoping they could find a way to convince Lisa to return and give the series a proper farewell. Whether or not that happens, a lot of us who have followed this show since day one are extremely concerned at what crazy way they plan to end the season, and possibly the series. Funny thing about the series ending, we still don't know if this is it. It's crazy too because they've shot half the episodes for the season and still don't know what's going to happen with the series yet. This is highly unusual!

That's all for today folks. We'll see what happens next week.

Thoughts on the four Marines, urinating on dead insurgents, and Rick Perry.

2012-01-10T21:22:00.058-05:00

Been thinking about the story of the four Marines who urinated on the bodies of dead insurgents.

First, I'm not overly concerned. Why? Because just as in civilian life, there are consequences for breaking the law, so exists such in the Armed Forces. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has very specific provisions for dealing with the behavior and actions of those subject to it. Article 134 covers the actions of the four Marines:

"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of the court."

I know firsthand from having served that servicemen and women are held to a higher standard of conduct. than civilians. There are a great number of punishable offenses in the military one will not find in the civilian world. There's a reason for that: in order for the military to carry out its mission to defend this nation, it requires adherence to rules and order, for without it there would be no United States of America. The four Marines who perpetrated this act brought discredit and dishonor to our military services and should be prosecuted in accordance with the UCMJ. I've got no problem with that. That said, but they should be tried ONLY for violating the UCMJ and not for anything else. They should not be punished to appease politicians or the American people, or to keep the peace w/our friends abroad, or to keep the enemy from retaliating.

Second, do these Marines deserve the flack they've received? Was what they did that big a deal? What they did has been called despicable. Rick Perry attempts to downplay the actions of these Marines by stating very publicly and without regret that what happened to Daniel Pearl and the US contractors in the Middle East years back is what is really despicable. I agree with the Governor on that but I disagree with his attempt to justify the actions of these soldiers by deflecting using Pearl, the contractors and the words "mistake" and "young men". These aren't "kids" these are professional soldiers, an elite group of soldiers at that, and they knew better. By the way, I just thought that Perry bringing this into the debate was pointless. His point could have been made without it. He was hoping to capitalize on it and no doubt he did.

Third, I think pissing on the dead bodies of the enemy just brings us down to the level of the terrorists. Come on, we're the USA, we're better than that right? We champion human rights, we fight for the little guy, we try to do the right thing. I'm not talking about our government so much as I am the people who make up this great nation. What would we think if the enemy soldier did that to our troops or civilians? All hell would break loose and rightly so. We'd be mad as hell! Remember what the terrorists did to the dead bodies of the federal contractors? Sure, the federal contractors weren't hurting anyone while all the terrorists do is kill people. That's true, but it doesn't justify us acting like them. Just because the other guy does it, doesn't mean it's okay for us to do it too.

That said, I'll add one more thing which I feel is very important. War is hell. Period. Nobody knows better than the soldier who has to fight it. Our soldiers in the Middle East are stationed in what can only be referred to as hell. They are thousands of miles away from home in a country where they are not wanted, where they were not invited, and thrown into a war that cannot be won. In addition, while our soldiers are required by our government to fight in accordance with rules of engagement, they are fighting an enemy that has no such rules. There is no way a person who has never been subject to this kind of warfare can even begin to comprehend the magnitude of this situation in which our brave soldiers have been placed. And that brings me to another thought...can we condemn the behavior of these soldiers without considering the situation they've been placed in that likely contributed to such behavior? Was this behavior inevitable considering the stress these soldiers face every single day? I wonder....while they are at fault for their actions and are being held accountable, who is at fault and should be held accountable for putting them in that situation in the first place?

I'm sure there will be mixed reactions on this post. There's two sides to every story and this situation is certainly proof of that.

Editing in....if I sound like I'm contradicting myself here, it's possible. I've mixed feelings on this issue but I felt compelled to write about it.

Hey! So what if Romney likes to fire people! I do too.....

2012-01-04T20:04:00.030-05:00

The anti-Romney crowd has been spreading the word that Romney likes to fire people. In fact, it's gone viral! All over the internet people are talking about how awful Mitt Romney is because he likes to fire people. This is especially targeted at the lower and middle-class crowd who suffer more in this weak economy. Now I'm not a Romney supporter but in all fairness, we're only getting half the facts here.

The big headline is "Mitt Romney likes to fire people." Google that and you'll get 217 million results. Seriously!

What you're not getting is the entire quote. Without the entire quote you don't get the context and the whole thing is just misleading as hell. So me, being of sound mind and one who likes to set the record straight whenever possible, will give you the exact quote and then you can make up your mind how you feel about it. It all began when Romney was discussing health insurance and competition among insurance companies.

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."

“You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

Hey I say that all the time. I say it when I'm on the phone with Bell South for an hour trying to get someone to fix my bill, or when I'm at the local Target store and the cashier can't ring up my one purchase in a timely manner because she's too busy talking to her girlfriend in the other aisle about her date Friday night or that fifth piercing she's going to get in her nose, or when I'm at a restaurant and my food is getting cold as I wait for the silverware I asked for thirty minutes earlier.

I mean seriously, who of us hasn't at some point in time bitched about crappy customer service and made the statement that people who can't or won't do their jobs should be fired?

Don't hide, I know you're out there!

What do we do when we can't trust food labels or the government agency that monitors them?

2012-01-03T21:24:00.004-05:00

We're all concerned about health and nutrition and we should be. Heart disease, cancer and strokes are the top three causes of death in the United States. Diet is the biggest risk factor! Did you know at least 30-40% of all cancers can be attributed to diet and lifestyle?

The government became interested in the nutrition of its citizens in the 1930s and 40s and during WWII was especially concerned about making sure American soldiers were receiving the proper nutrition. Since that time we've relied on the government to establish guidelines and regulations related to food and drink. The RDA, which is the Recommended Daily Allowance establishes the "optimal amount for health and well-being." The group responsible for the RDA standards is the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council.

In order to be sure they are eating healthy and getting the proper nutrition, the American people must be able to rely on food labels. But labels can be deceiving. In 2005, John Stossel did an excellent segment of his 20/20 "Give Me A Break" series in which he exposed the lies and misconceptions related to food labels and portion size. It's about five minutes long and you can view it below.

While some things have changed since Stossel's report, there is till much work to do and we're left wondering if we can believe what we're reading on food labels. Conducting our own research is cumbersome and time-consuming, most Americans don't have time for it, which is one of the great things about labels. I'm not saying that we should rely solely on the government or that we shouldn't do our own research but the fact of the matter is that a government agency whose purpose is to establish and monitor nutrition standards is supposed to make sure food companies do this for us and that the information is correct and in line with the agency's guidelines.

So what do we do when the established guidelines of the government agency are absurd and food companies mislead us on the labeling?

Late for work in my dreams again...

2012-01-02T19:52:00.000-05:00

Last night I had a dream that my sister, brother and I were riding to work together and they made me late for work. In my dreams I'm always running late because of them or something else beyond my control. I was stuck making the lunches again, we were living at mom's house. In the same dream, I recall being over at my grandmother's house, I had a backache and she gave me a bottle with pills and on the front of the bottle was the brand name "Control" and the pills were green. I took one for my backache. Then I woke up.

I won't even go into how there was a scene from "All in the Family" in the dream. That was strange enough...

My job interview with President Obama and Hillary Clinton

2011-12-30T22:01:00.000-05:00

The night before last I had a dream I was at the White House and walking up and down the hallways and I wound up talking to a man and woman who were waiting there. The man was in his late 20's, dark hair, and he was obnoxious. The woman was an African-American woman in her late 20's, early 30's, she was a very nice quiet person.
Where we were talking was in a large open area, there was very nice wooden desk near where we were and an older woman sitting at it. The office behind her was where President Obama resided and his personal assistant also had her desk in there next to his. The office did not look anything like the Oval Office, in fact much different.

We'd heard President Obama was looking for a new assistant because his was leaving. I thought it would be really neat to work for the President so I told the other two I would apply for the job. I was wearing jeans and a tee shirt though, while they were dressed up so I really couldn't expect to apply for the job at that moment. But President Obama came out of his office to get something from the outer office and he said we could interview with him. The guy in the suit went first and he came out telling me "it's a done deal" and "it's in the bag" and acting all obnoxious. I just wanted to smack him. The girl interviewed but she seemed very quiet during the interview. We could see into the office but couldn't hear much of what was going on. She came out and smiled.

I was worried because I didn't have a resume with me and wasn't dressed for an interview. But the President called me into his office. I sat across from him and the first thing I said was, "Mr. President that guy who interviewed said that it was a done deal. Is that true? Also, I'm not dressed for an interview and I don't have my resume with me so I really don't want to waste your time." He told me that it was fine and said "so he said it's a done deal eh? We'll see about that." and he seemed to move the guy's name around on the list on his computer. Apparently I interviewed well. I can't remember anything after that.

Last night I had a dream I was in my office on campus and Hillary Clinton was there. I am not sure why she was in my office but she was there. I called her Mrs. Clinton and she asked me to call her Mrs. Hillary, so I did. Apparently she wanted me to interview for a job with her. She was really nice and we got along well.

While she was visiting my office, there was some woman in another office nearby who was making a ruckus. Apparently this woman had been fired and she had a drill in her hand and was drilling holes into her desk and just ruining all her office furniture. I stood up and yelled at her and told her to get the hell out. Others in the room just looked at me, actually glad I'd done it.

Later on, a few of my students came into my office with these huge boxes, I mean HUGE boxes and they asked me if they could send them off USPS. It would have cost a fortune and I told them they were better off using UPS.

What in hell were these dreams about?

Rethinking the Death Penalty

2011-12-27T15:19:00.006-05:00

"With age comes wisdom"

I do not know exactly when it was that I changed my mind about the death penalty; all I know is that it happened. At one time I believed we should put to death the most heinous of criminals. Of course if something of this magnitude hit close to home for me, it is possible my thoughts on this would be quite different. After all when something this tragic affects us personally, we tend to sometimes have a very different outlook. But I would hope that at some point I could get past my anger and stick to my conscience. I hope I never have to find out.

"Legal vs. Moral"

There are essentially two justifications for punishment: legal and moral. I'm not interested in the legal aspect of this at the moment because as we know just because something is legal does not make it moral. Also I believe the first step in making it illegal is to realize it's immoral. That said, there really are two good moral reasons for being against the death penalty. First, there is the issue of whether or not we human beings have the right to sentence other human beings to death and second, there is the issue of possibly executing innocent individuals. Given that innocent individuals have been wrongly convicted and incarcerated based on what was thought to be "solid evidence", we must then assume individuals have been executed based on that same "solid evidence". It does make you wonder, doesn't it?

"But...it was good enough for our ancestors"

It has been argued that the death penalty is much less barbaric than it used to be and if it was good enough for our ancestors it should be good enough for us, after all it made society a better place when criminal behavior was not tolerated. And what a great deterrent it was. Or was it? If it had been a deterrent there would have been no crime after the first few executions, right? Our civilization has evolved a great deal since the days of the Hammurabi Code and since 7^th Century BC in Athens where the death penalty was the final punishment for all crimes. We’ve come a long way since the days when the death penalty was carried out in the form of drowning, crucifixion, boiling, beheading, hanging, impalement and burning at the stake. Gone are the days when (in most countries) people were executed for theft, marrying into the wrong faith, and adultery. As human beings moved into more modern times, they began to see punishment by death in a different light. As our society evolved, juries became wary of the death penalty because of the brutality of its execution and so were often reluctant to impose the sentence.

"If it's not for deterrence then what?"

Theoretically, the purposes of any form of punishment are to keep the person who committed a crime from committing further crimes, showing that society disapproves of the criminal acts, deterring others from committing similar crimes, and allowing the perpetrator to make amends. Given of those purposes for punishment, where does the death penalty fall in there? It doesn't seem to fit. We could assume the death penalty is a deterrent but if that were the case, the murder rate would have decreased over the years, which overall it has not. And given the death penalty is well...death, there's no chance of rehabilitation or making amends with the victims families. So, the only reason left to support execution is vengeance for one's crime(s). In a civilized society vengeance cannot be considered acceptable reasons to take a person's life, no matter how heinous their crimes.

"But it shows we're tough!"

Unfortunately in some parts of this nation it is difficult if not downright impossible to carry out a simple discussion regarding banning the death penalty because politics tends to get in the way. Many politicians use their pro-death penalty stance as a means of getting elected. This is how they show they are tough. Since when did executing an individual make you tough? Since when is it acceptable to brag about the number of inmates that have been executed in your state? Why is that something to be proud of? My experience in discussing this issue has been that many who support the death penalty generally do not want to listen to the other side. I've been in arguments with people who support the death penalty, some based their support on religious views, others just wanted to see justice done. I'd ask "what kind of justice is there in killing the person?" and the general response to that usually involves "an eye for an eye". The thing is that if we really lived in an "an eye for an eye" society, many of those individuals who use it as a basis for their pro-death penalty argument would probably be very sorry indeed.

"The dilemma"

"What is the difference between a criminal killing his/her victim and the state killing the criminal?"

Hey, it's a good question. On the surface it may seem ridiculous to ask but can you answer it logically, where it makes sense? I can't. The way I see it, it is wrong for an individual to go out and commit murder (and rightly so!) but it is not wrong for the state to do it. Is it the motive that makes the difference? What motive would the state have for killing a convicted murderer? Now if you say "ah but the state isn't murdering the criminal, he/she is simply being punished" then the next question I have is:

"If the purpose of any form of punishment is to keep the person from committing further crimes, showing that society disapproves of the criminal acts, or deters others from committing similar crimes, or allowing the perpetrator to make amends then why aren't we just sending these individuals to life in prison instead?"

That leaves once again, only one rational answer doesn't it? Vengeance. And is that really a justifiable reason for the state to kill anyone? I'm just asking you to think about it. In the end, history will judge us for our actions. I'd like to think that when the time comes we'll have evolved. We are better than this, we can do better.

Occupy Wall Street: Another example of a grassroots movement in danger of being 'hijacked' by politicians, PACs, and astroturf organizations. Part 2 of 2.

2011-12-22T19:05:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago I blogged this post about the Tea Party Movement and the danger of it being co-opted by entities with ulterior motives. Here is part 2 in which I briefly discuss the same dilemma facing the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Occupy Wall Street is a very important movement and must be free of intrusion from those who will stop at nothing to use it to further their own political or personal agendas. There is as much a danger of co-opting the OWS movement as there is the Tea Party movement.

The grassroots movement Occupy Wall Street (OWS) began with demonstrations initiated by a Canadian activist group in response tosocial and economic inequality, unemployment and corporate greed in America. Whilecentered on Wall Street in New York City, thanks to social networking, protestsbegan taking place in cities all over America. True to the principles ofgrassroots movements, there is no designated leader of the OWS and though thereare varying objectives on the part of protesters, there is an underlying commontheme: ordinary average Americans tired of corporate greed and corporateinfluence in politics.

The OWS is under the umbrella of the New York CityGeneral Assembly which is composed of “dozens of groups working together toorganize and set the vision for the #occupywallstreet movement” (New York City General Assembly, 2011).According to its website, the NYCGA states that New York General Assemblies“are an open participatory and horizontally organized process through which weare building the capacity to constitute ourselves in public as autonomouscollective forces within and against the constant crises of our times"(New York City General Assembly, 2011).

To date, donations exceed half a milliondollars and given by people from all walks of life from ordinarycitizens to celebrities. The funds are used for all kinds of OWS-related purposesincluding food, storage bins, dry socks and underwear(for protesters who march in the rain), tarps, coffee, medical supplies, andbail. Two bank accounts for the organization have been set up in New York Cityand every major expenditure over $100 must be approved by the General Assembly. So far, those handling OWS finances seem to be doing a good job. However, as the movement grows and with the increase in donations comes an increased risk of outside influence from influentialorganizations with big money and the possibility of being co-opted by otherswith alternative agendas.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Alliancefor Global Justice agreed to assist the movement by sponsoring OWS in the formof lending its tax-exempt status so that donors could write off donations. Whilethe Alliance makes no decisions on behalf of OWS, it is affiliated with GeorgeSoros’s philanthropy the Open Society Institute. Though there is no evidencethat Soros has any connection to the OWS movement, there speculation of hisinfluence. Even there mere speculation can detract focus away from the cause.

Several large labor unions have pledged support for the demonstrations inthe form of protesters and monetary donations. There are some in the media whohave expressed great concern over the labor unions involvement in the OWSmovement because of their heavy political influence and funding. Labor Unionsare heavily political with members generally voting for Democrat candidates. TheService Employees International Union which is staging an “Occupy Congress”protest in Washington DC from December 5-9, 2011 (Sargent, 2011). SEIU President Mary Kay Henry said in aninterview,

“The reason we’re targeting Republicans is because this is aboutjobs. The Republicans’ insistence that no revenue can be put on the table isthe reason we’re not creating jobs in this country. We want to draw a starkcontrast between a party that wants to scapegoat immigrants, attackpublicworkers, and protect the rich, versus a president who has been saying hewants America to get back t owork and that everybody should pay their fairshare” (Sargent, 2011).

SEIU spent $28million (more than any other organization) supporting the Obama campaign in2008 and supports primarily Democrat candidates in other elections. Political and legal blogger Glenn Greenwaldcalled the SEIU out saying,

“Having SEIU officials…shape, fund, dictate, anddecree an anti-GOP, pro-Obama march is about as antithetical as one can imagineto what the Occupy movement has been” (Greenwald, Glenn, 2011).

New York Representative Carolyn Maloney stated on aweekend morning talk show recently that the message she got from talking toindividuals in the OWS movement was that Congress should pass the President’sjob bill. However, in stark contrast to that, Glenn Greenwald stated in aninterview with Democracy Now,

“What this movement is about is more importantthan specific legislative demands. It…is expressing dissent to the systemitself. It is noy a Democratic Party organ. It is not about demanding thatPresident Obama’s single [jobs] bill pass or anything along those lines. It issaying that we believe the system itself is radically corrupted, and we nolonger are willing to tolerate it. And that’s infinitely more important thanspecific legislative or political demands” (Greenwald, 2011).

The independent online publication Truthout publishedan article in October 2011 about the dangers of OWS being co-opted byMoveOn.org and other democrat-party backed organizations. It stated,

“OccupyWall Street, now three weeks into the occupation, now finds itself in a pivotalmoment. Will the nonpartisan, anti-establishment movement allow itself to beco-opted by the Democratic Party serving powers that be, ie. By the MoveOn.orgsand Center for American Progresses of the world, or will it remain a strong,left, independent force that grows with each passing day and strikes fear intowhat the late sociologist C. Wright Mills calls the power elite” (Horn, 2011).

Occupy Wall Street is at its heart, a movement of the people. Forget for a moment what you've been reading and hearing in the news media, this movement isn't about forgiving student loans, abolishing capitalism, making America a socialist nation, violence, hating Republicans, or any of the other nonsense spewed by some radicals. Rather the heart of the movement is so simple and should appeal to all of us. It's about the corruption that takes place involving the highest ranking executives in some of America's richest corporations and elected officials within our government. We should all be pissed off about that. It's why I support the OWS movement, while at the same time denounce many of the radical statements from some its supporters.

Grassroots movements are essential to democracy in this great nation. In grassrootsmovements, the people, not the politicians set the agenda and hold thepower. If the politicians, big corporations and PACs are allowed toinfiltrate, influence and co-opt these movements, it negates the objectives andsilences the voices of the people. Grassroots movements have been taking placein America since colonial times and some even changed the course of AmericanHistory. Examples of successful Americangrassroots movements include the colonists’ quest for independence, women’ssuffrage, abolition, and the civil rights movement. All of these began through ordinarypeople making a difference through action in their local communities. Throughrallies, protests, boycotts, and letter-writing, ordinary citizens were able toexpand their causes and change the course of the nation.

Grassrootsmovements are one of the few ways Americans can have a direct impact and in orderto protect it, those involved in the movements must be educated on the objectives andprinciples of true grassroots activism. The only way to prevent grassrootsmovements from being co-opted and subverted is if the individuals involved inthe movement refuse to allow it to happen. This means grassroots movements mustmaintain their distance from political parties and candidates and they must bevery careful of what organizations or individuals sponsor the movement. Grassrootsmovements cannot endorse or show favoritism of any candidate or party. Theycannot accept support of any kind from any organization which supports anyparty or candidate. Of course, this becomes difficult because PACs can behidden beneath layers and layers of organizational bureaucracy, but to maintainthe integrity of grassroots activism it has to be done.

The only way to protectthe legitimacy of grassroots movements is to stay strictly neutral in regards to politics and stickstrictly to the objective of the movement. Grassroots activism is an important part of Americanhistory and our heritage and must be protected and preserved so that its principles can bepassed down to future generations.

References:

Greenwald, G. (2011, Oct 26). Glenn Greenwald onOccupy Wall Street, Banks Too Big to Jail and the Attack on WikiLeaks. (A.Goodman, & N. Shaikh, Interviewers)

Greenwald, Glenn. (2011, Nov 19). Here's whatattempted co-option of OWS looks like. Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, http://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/heres_what_attempted_co_option_of_ows_looks_like

Horn, S. (2011, Oct 11). MoveOn.Org and FriendsAttempt to Co-Opt Occupy Wall Street Movement. Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, fromTruthOut:http://www.truth-out.org/moveonorg-and-friends-attempt-co-opt-occupy-wall-street-movement/1318259708

New York City General Assembly. (2011). About Us.Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, from New York City General Assembly:http://www.nycga.net/about/

Sargent, G. (2011, Nov 19). Here Comes the Left'sAttempt to Co-Opt Occupation Wall Street. Retrieved Nov 28, 2011, fromEconomic Policy Journal: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/11/here-comes-lefts-attempt-to-co-opt.html

Get out and do something nice for someone today.

2011-12-21T20:34:00.000-05:00

When you have the opportunity today, why not do something nice for someone?

Stand up and be a human being, have compassion, show that you care. Just look around you, there are countless opportunities to do random acts of kindness. I don't need to give you examples because you're all grown boys and girls, I think you know how to be nice to people and I'm quite sure you can think of all sorts of really neat things you can do for others.

Don't tell me you don't have the time, that's crap. Now go forth and do good deeds. Remember don't reserve this for the holidays, do it all year round!

"Despite the perfect—simply perfect—performance of Hugh Laurie as the Sherlock Holmes stand-in Dr. House, a crabby medical genius, House ran out of steam long ago"

2011-12-20T21:12:00.036-05:00

Screencrave listed its five TV shows that should end in 2012. This is one of the best quotes so far on the direction the series has taken this season...

"Like The Office, House, M.D., has been running for eight seasons now. And, like The Office, House, M.D. ceased being relevant and excellent sometime around the end of season three. Despite the perfect—simply perfect—performance of Hugh Laurie as the Sherlock Holmes stand-in Dr. House, a crabby medical genius, House ran out of steam long ago. The problem? House essentially begins every series introducing a series of changes and plot shake-ups, only to close every season returning to the exact same status quo the showrunners seem to believe the audience demands. No matter what happens (House falling in love, House falling out of love, House losing his team, House regaining his team, House trying to change, House refusing to change, etc), the show’s writers force the show to always return to where it started, always hitting the reset button rather than allowing the show to evolve and grow. The final result? House grew stagnant sometime around season three or four, and the past four years have been nothing but replicating the model established by the first four seasons. For a show about a genius, House, M.D. sure seems dedicated to mediocrity."

The author nailed this one almost perfectly! That's what fans have been complaining about most--that House tries to change, gets an opportunity to grow just a little, and then by the next season it's all for nothing, he's right back where he started. Who wants to continue watching a show that essentially hits the reboot button at the beginning of each new season? We know House is a sarcastic, misanthropic son of a bitch but for crap's sake, let's see some growth in character here. We want to see him move forward. I've thought all along that the writers got lazy as time went on. It's so much easier to write House going downhill and getting back into his old habits than writing a tough, challenging storyline about him struggling to change and actually doing it. We know from interviews that Hugh likes a challenge in his role as House and he likes crossing the line and pushing boundaries (after all that's what separates good actors from great actors) but even as an EP for the show he's not the decision-maker. He's made it very clear that his job is to give us the "how" while TPTB give us the "what" so I don't blame him for this at all, Hugh's not the one plotting the direction of the show.

The only thing I disagree with the author on is his view that the show ran out of steam end of Season 3. I loved House having to audition the new team in Season 4, loved the increased banter and games between House and Cuddy and thought the season finale was amazing. I also enjoyed Season 5 and how House began going downhill due to so many things happening in his life. Losing Wilson's friendship, getting it back, House's father dying, finding out for sure that John House was not his biological dad, being taken hostage, acknowledging his feelings for Cuddy, the kiss, Cuddy adopting Rachel, Kutner's suicide...all these things led to the increased use of Vicodin to numb both his physical and emotional pain, which eventually led to the hallucinations that nearly killed Chase, nearly killed a few of House's and wound up with him in a mental institution. I loved Season 6 with House trying to really change. I liked it except for two things: the Lucas-Cuddy arc (I still can't find anyone who liked that arc) and the episode "Black Hole" in which the team used this imaging machine to show actual images of what the patient was thinking. That ep was too sci-fi and unbelievable for me.

Season 7 could have been great, it had some funny and interesting episodes early on but then the TPTB turned Cuddy into a whining bitch instead of the strong woman we've known her to be for years, not to mention during the entire season we saw relationship at the forefront instead of in the background second to the medical mysteries. Longtime fans, even those who were interested in the evolution of a House and Cuddy relationship, knew that having the relationship take center stage in every episode was a recipe for disaster. And finally, the finale, was just so incredibly unbelievable, fans are still shocked and pissed off over it. TPTB had a great thing with House and Cuddy, even when they were just colleagues, and eventually it was ruined for the sake of the "Kaboom!" factor as Greg Yaitanes likes to call it.

I'll venture to guess the majority of fans still watching House are likely doing so because they love watching Hugh Laurie. Sure, there are probably many fans so attached to the show they will watch regardless, but I would go so far to say the majority are loyal because of Hugh. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that, after all the man is simply brilliant. However, one man should not have to carry an entire show.

SB. 1867 National Defense Authorization Act is meant to be directed towards US citizens...

2011-12-15T20:36:00.018-05:00

Big controversy here folks and people should be aware of what's going on.

Dr. Robert Chesney of the University of Texas, who is a nonpartisan expert on military detention wrote this piece a few days ago and it is MOST DEFINITELY worth reading!

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley said yesterday about this bill:

“The most bedrock principle of our government, one that our nation was founded on, is that it protects the freedom and liberty of our citizens. On this critical measure, the Defense Authorization bill falls short. Instead, it allows the government to circumvent a host of our citizens’ constitutional rights ranging from due process to public and speedy trials.

“This step takes us in a very dangerous direction and undermines the freedoms enshrined in our founding documents. While I support much of the Defense Authorization bill and the programs that support our troops and our security, I cannot support a bill that strikes at the heart of our constitutional protections.”

Senator Lindsey Graham on the Senate floor attesting to the fact that this does apply to the American people, view this short video along with the transcript of his actual words HERE :

"And I would add that Senator Lieberman would have gone further than you, and nobody I respect more than Senator Lieberman but trying to find a balanced way. So in summary here, 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility, doesn't apply to American citizens.

1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to the American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.

Are you familiar with the Padilla case? That is a federal court case involving an American citizen captured in the United States that was held for several years as an enemy combatant. His case went to the fourth circuit. The fourth circuit court of appeals said an American citizen can be held by our military as an enemy combatant even if they're caught here in the United States because once you join the enemy forces, then you present a military threat and your citizenship is not a sort of get-out-of-jail free card.

That the law of the land is an enemy combatant that went to the fourth circuit and that as I speak is the law of the land."

The Senator is a dangerous man as is anyone who supports this. What Graham suggests is that our Congress circumvent the Bill of Rights under the guise of national security. This idea of "once you join the enemy forces, then you present a military threat" is ludicrous. Whether or not a person or persons is a military threat or threat to national security is purely subjective. Some people think street gangs are a danger to our national security. Others think drug dealers are a threat. And there are those who think people like me, who speak out against atrocities like this, are a threat to our national security.

Who decides? What constitutes a threat and what doesn't?

By the definition of some elected officials in this country, speaking out against the American government is essentially assisting the enemy. Technically some would say that the mere act of writing this is consistent with aiding and abetting the enemy.

Do you see why this is so important? It's a slippery slope. Right now it's those affiliated with Al-Qaeda and other related forces, but really this can be expanded, all under the guise of "threat to national security."

====

For your reading pleasure, I've posted here verbatim sections 1031 and 1032. You can view the entire bill at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

Subtitle D – Detainee Matters

Sec 1031. Affirmation of Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the authorization for use of military force.

In General. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons. – A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored those responsible for those attacks

(2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly support such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces

(c) Disposition under law of war. – The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of titl 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Publix Lw 111-84))

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity

(d) Construction. – nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(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.

Section 1032. Requirement for Military Custody.

(a) Custody pending disposition under law of war.

(1) In General. Except as provided in paragraph (4), the armed forces of the united states shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is caputred in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) Covered Persons. – The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined –

(a) To be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated ofrce thatacts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of Al-Qadea and

(b) To have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners

(3) Disposition under law of war. – For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in 1031©, except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consisten with the requriments of section 1033

(4) Waiver for National Security. – The Secretary of defense may, in consulation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens

(1) United States Citizens. – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) Lawful resident aliens. – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

So...what are your thoughts on this? Do you even care? You should.