Vent Out Loud

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. Republican,

Since the election of the new Democratic President of the United States, Barrack Obama, there has been endless criticism of his first actions as President.  Republicans are watching.  Democrats are watching.  The world is watching.  A man has taken office to try and repair the negligence of arguably, one of the worst administrations in our great nation’s history.  The crisis that our country is going through did not start when the new President assumed command.  The problems we face today are results of decisions made yesterday, when Republicans called the shots.

This is a unique time for our country.  We find ourselves with many difficult decisions to make in a turbulent environment.  The country is divided on ways to solve our problems and the best decisions to move forward.  The country has been divided for many years.  We will always have our divisions whether they are financially based, religiously based, or culturally based.  We don’t need that right now.  We need to be the United States.  We need to act and work together.  A man was voted by the people for the people.  The divisions have spoken and they want Barrack Obama to lead this nation.

My tip to those Republicans out there who are spending more time criticizing the actions of their Commander-in-Chief than the their constituents should be paying for is this:  If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.  Anyone can criticize.  You have been put in your position by the people to act.  We are a country in need.  We need answers and we need action.  We need unity and creativity.  We need your help not your whining.

This story came out on Monday, January 5, and I’ve been thinking about how and what to write that wouldn’t a) target anyone, b) make me look like a racist or c) provide fuel for anyone to vent out loud at me.  Today I thought, “screw it”.  That is what this site is supposed to be about, isn’t it?  Besides, I don’t think my audience has surpassed the single digits and I know most of them.

AFP released a story on Monday, January 5, about a passenger who was awarded $240,000 from the U.S. Transportation Security Authority and JetBlue Airways when he was forced to cover his T-shirt.  The T-shirt had Arabic writing which said, “We will not be silent.”  An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, “The outcome of this case is a victory for free speech and a blow to the discriminatory practice of racial profiling.”

The passenger, Raed Jarrar, is a US resident and eventually covered his shirt with another provided by JetBlue.  In addition to covering the shirt’s “We will not be silenced” message, effectively silencing it, Jarrar lost his seat and was forced to sit in the back of the plane.  My condolences, Raed.  I’m sure you got over it.

There are so many things wrong with this story and I’m not referring to any grammatical or spelling errors. 

Let’s say over the last 20 years, a Lilliputian (tiny person from Gulliver’s Travels) walks into Starbucks and steals all of their pastries.  The thefts happen almost on a regular basis.  Everytime you turn on the news you see that some coffee shop, Starbucks or other, getting robbed of their baked goods by these tiny people who are clearly Lilliputian.  Then one day, a mass robbery occurs in which all of the Dunkin’ Donuts in Boston and Chicago get robbed of their donuts.  A subsequent investigation reveals that all of the thieves were, guess, Lilliputian.  Now, according to the ACLU, the authorities should spend just as much time and effort at screening other people, like the Brobdingnags (the giants from Gulliver’s Travels), as is spent on Lilliputians. 

That’s a mild way of supporting racial profiling as it uses fictional characters who are on the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of height.  The purpose was to draw an exagerated comparison, in which the identity of the thieves is clear.  You probably realized that but I was merely trying to provide a good bedtime story for your children about racial profiliing.

Now, the adult version.  Everyone hears about Middle East violence everyday.  Let’s assume that everyone knows about the extreme measures that some people will take to prove themselves in the name of religion.  I don’t think I learned the meaning of the word, “jihad”, until I was in college.  Today, middle school children probably understand the meaning of the word well.  If lives are being lost on a daily basis and one particular group of people are responsible for a majority of those deaths then logic should tell you to look at them closer than others.  Certain groups fail to use logic and would rather be blind.  Lady Justice is blind, that’s all well and good (sometimes).  Precautionary measures should be based on research and logic.  I’ve taken the liberty and provided the following:

1. Arabic nations have been at war with one another for thousands of years.

2. Certain Arabic nations and their citizens have a strong hatred of anyone and anything non-Arabic or non-tribal.

3. Most of the nations which make up the aforementioned statement do not like Americans.

4. Arabs were found to be responsible for the World Trade Center attacks of 2001.

5. Jihadists, or religious warriors, like to strap explosives to themselves, run into crowded public places and detonate them.

6. Jihadists are typically Arab.

7. History repeats itself.

Taking all of that into account should tell you that racial profiling is okay under certain circumstances.  The WTC towers were taken out by airplanes.  The Pentagon was hit by an airplane.  Therefore, screen airline passengers and pay closer attention to certain people.  Another way to look at it is that if you are not strapped with C-4 then you are proving to others that not all people of Arabic ethnicity are terrorists.  That message will be a bit slow in getting across but hey, they’ve been fighting for millenia.

In conclusion, someone should slap the heads-of-state of the ACLU into reality, or at least into the modern day.  Also, no disrespect was meant towards Lilliputians.  I read about what you did to Gulliver.  I don’t want any of that.

One other problem with the AFP story;  Jarrar was paid $240,000 because he had to put on another shirt?  Are you kidding me?  Someone buy the Lady Justice a spine.  She’s barely tolerable being blind but spineless too?  When did the U.S. become a nation of jellyfish bitches?  Will someone please amend the “Pledge of Allegiance” from “One nation under God” to “One nation divided into many as per the request of organizations like the ACLU, under (but not in a submissive or offensive way) the deity of your choice, unless you are agnostic, than by whatever you wish to claim, if anything (because that’s okay too)”

P.S.  I love this country but it was way better when it wasn’t trying to please everyone.

According to “The Courier of Montgomery County,” a local newspaper for residents of Montgomery County in Texas, 193 roosters were euthanized after being recovered by local law enforcement.  The roosters were used for cockfighting events.  23 dead roosters were found on the property.  In addition to the 193 roosters taken into custody, 21 hens, three chicks and a dog were also taken in for questioning and later released to the local SPCA.  Ok, that last part is a joke but not the number of hens, chicks and dog that were rescued and sent to the SPCA.  The owner of the property, Mr. Luis Arias Benitez, faces 23 counts of animal cruelty along with several lesser gambling charges.  Each animal cruelty charge is punishable by up to 2 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.  The gambling charges are misdemeanors punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

There are so many things wrong with this story.  Police arrested several others who were on the scene and issued citations for participating in gambling.  Approximately 55 vehicles were towed from the scene of the fight and around 80 people are believed to have been present when the event was busted up.  Who loses out?  The roosters.  Perhaps the hens lost their significant other but I am not really in a position to comment on chicken love.

Those people wanted to see a fight.  A bloody duel to the death.  I would rather pay to see those people locked up with those roosters.  Talk about entertainment.  On one hand, you have justice being served, and on the other you have the animals exacting their revenge.  That’s got to leave a smile on some PETA fans.  The human survivors of the real cockfight would still be required to serve their sentences and pay their fines.  The avian survivors would be released into the open country to take their chances in the world, or they would get signed by Dana White and sent into the UFC octagon.  They’d fight in the featherweight division, of course.

A sad side note is that this story was the headliner of The Courier on December 31, 2008!  While other newspapers are reviewing the year and headlining Best of… articles, this publication thought the euthanization of roosters would be more interesting.  It certainly is great for animal rights (way to go!) but, really, there has got to be something a bit more pleasant.  I suppose if there were, then I would not be citing their article, would I?

The big question which remains is… Will Benitez be allowed to return to his quarterback job?  Wait, that was another loser, wasn’t it?

The passing of Proposition 8 in the California general election on November 4, 2008, is not new news.  For those uninformed readers, Proposition 8 changed the state’s constitution and eliminated the right for same sex couple to get married.  While this topic is very controversial, the purpose of this article is not to debate the issue.  To each his/her own. 

The real issue and current event is that the passing of the proposition was appealed to California’s top court for a final decision.  That decision was announced yesterday and for those of you who keep up on current events, you already know the outcome.  For those of you that do not, we will keep you in suspense for just a little bit longer (don’t cheat and skip ahead).  Consider that punishment for not watching the news, picking up a newspaper or reading anything meaningful online.   

I will preface my next statement with an open invitation to correct me if I am wrong.  Let’s think about the process by which the California state constitution can be changed.  Please be warned, I am not a lawyer, senator, state representative or anyone in any public office.  In fact, I barely got by Political Science in college.  I may have failed it once and had to retake it.  It’s been so long.  I apologize for getting off track.  My best understanding is that the whole process is quite simple. 

Step 1: Propose an amendment to the constitution.

Step 2: Hold an election for the masses.

Step 3: If the people vote in favor, the amendment passes.  If not, it does not. 

That seems pretty straightforward to me.  I should have applied myself more in college.  California’s process appears to be democracy at work.  “Government of the people, by the people and for the people…”  So, why the appeal?  Because that is the right of the people and the way the justice system is set up.  You don’t like the outcome?  Take it to the next level.  Now for the outcome.  As reported yesterday by Reuters and mentioned earlier, the decision was appealed to the top court for a final “yay or nay”.  Way to go, California.  According to the article by Reuters, the court ruled that, to overturn the decision reached in the election would be to overturn the decision of the people.  In doing so, they would set a precedent that the court (which is arguably the least democratic branch of government) had more power than the people as a whole.  This would be a clear abuse of power. 

For the record, I don’t agree with Proposition 8.  People should be free to marry who they wish.  On the other hand, don’t expect the court system to overturn what 52% of the state (voters) elected.  You aren’t happy with decision?  Leave or fight harder next time.  It may give me something to vent about but tying up precious court time with an issue such as this is a waste of tax dollars.