TEA Party on Wall Street?

Joe Biden said on Thursday that the Occupy Wall Street "movement" (OWS) had a lot in common with the TEA Party. He said, "There's a lot in common with the tea party. The tea party started why? TARP. They thought it was unfair -- we were bailing out the big guy."

This is one of the most intelligent things Biden has said in a long time, and one of the stupidest at the same time.

He is correct. Both groups started because of dissatisfaction with financial issues affecting the richest people and organizations in the country. But beyond that, the similarity between the groups can be likened to the similarity between oxygen and plutonium.

Where the TEA Party has tried to affect change through the political process and democracy, the OWS protesters seem to have no real rudder. The TEA Party gathered and held rallies, making a point, and speaking of change through effective means, and MAKING the changes they wanted through the use of the political system.

The OWS gathers (and stays), hold rallies (and stay), have chants and signs that attack what they call "The 1%" (a separate blog on that to come very soon), but not really doing more than that (except defecating on police cars and trying to storm the National Air and Space Museum). At TEA Party protests very few arrests have been made (no numbers easily available), and it is hard to say that any of those have been TEA Partiers. Whereas the OWS movement has had (at least) 700 arrests attributed to its members.

Think about that a second. The movement of "evil" conservatives, who "hate" many groups of people in the country and oppose the rich getting enriched by government aid have been more peaceful, less disruptive, and better behaved than the group of "thoughtful" liberals, who are tolerant of all, and oppose the rich not "paying their fair share".

The OWS is not just citizens who are disenfranchised with the government bailing out big corporations as presented by the more liberal media outlets and on the liberal blogosphere. They represent a group of citizens who do not like the idea of capitalism. The seek to not allow those who have money, whether earned or not (and let's be honest. There are more than a few big executives who hit the freakin' lottery with the position they are in and salary they "earn"), to keep it. They refer to "The 1%" of the super-wealthy who, in their estimation need to do more to help the other "99%" of the "middle class" and poor in America. Because operating giant national and multi-national companies that employ millions of people (many of whom, while not in the fabled "1%", still make more than enough to be considered richer than "middle class") isn't enough. In the estimation of those protesting, all people need to be given a "living wage" (a socialist idea given new life. The idea is that employers should be REQUIRED to pay employees enough money to live on, no matter the type of work done, service provided, or level of difficulty of the task involved), so that "social justice" is achieved. "Social injustice" is defined, of course, as "making more money than me" and/or "making more money than I think is reasonable". The whole "movement" is concerned with the absurd idea of "fairness".

I work more than 40 hours a week engaged in physical labor, processing used oils and sundry items like by-products from floodwater clean-up in ways better than has been done since the new owners took the company over, driving a 6-year-old Hyundai, renting a place to live, and only seeing my family for barely more than 30 minutes daily (except on weekends), while a first grade teacher who doesn't regularly engage in heavy lifting in the course of her job at my kids' school drives a 2-year-old (if that) Jaguar to her owned home, with a set schedule, and known vacation time, AND did her job so poorly that my daughter went from looking forward to learning at school to dreading the thought of having to sit in her homeroom.

I defy a single person to tell me how that is "fair". Yet this teacher is paid (much) better than I am for what she does. I suppose I could protest something like that. But what exactly will that get me? Sure, I might get some satisfaction in making the teacher in question feel bad about herself, and she would cry all the way to her home in the "rich" suburb, dabbing her eyes while listening to uplifting music on an in-car sound system that is better than my in-home sound system, but what does that do for me?

I'd rather engage the system by doing something of value, like voting for school board members who agree that there just might be some teachers who are overpaid, and, if elected, start cutting some salaries.

And that also happens to be the major difference between the TEA Party and the OWS.

TEA Partiers might occasionally act crazy, dressing up like colonials, or wearing hats with teabags hanging from them. But they aren't just making noise. They are engaging, and have engaged quite successfully, the system. You ask a Senator or congressman to consider some piece of legislation, and one of their first thoughts is now "how will the TEA Party members react to this, and if it is negative, can I overcome it, or will I have to negotiate?"

The TEA Party has, like it or not, agree with them or not, MADE themselves a voice in the places where things happen. They have gone from protests to actual involvement in the democratic process in this country.

Senators and congressmen don't think "how will one of those zombie-dressed, like-a-bandit-bandanna-wearing Wall Street Occupiers react to this, and if it is negative, can I overcome it, or will I have to negotiate?" At this point, the OWS "movement" is nothing more than hot air. They have no real political power.

They like to think of themselves as being similar to the "Arab Spring" movements that overthrew decades-old regimes in the Middle East, but there is a fundamental difference. One reason those protests in the Middle East had any sort of effectiveness was the fact that the governments did not know how to deal with THAT much dissent. They were used to crushing individual and small groups (100-200 people) of dissenters with the police and/or military, and that was that. They didn't know what to do when it was a veritable sea of dissenters, and NOT call down world-wide condemnation. Tienanmen Square is a footnote rather than a turning point in Chinese history, because, while the actions of those students were brave (I mean, staring down a column of tanks. That guy had some gramba, that's for sure), they were doomed to fail because their group was too small.

The OWS has one thing that the "Arab Spring" protesters or Tienanmen students did not have. The God-given (and human codified) RIGHT to protest, speak out against the government (or whomever), and gather in large groups of like-minded people. There is no similarity, because they don't understand what they already have, and take for granted in the worst way possible (again, defecation on police vehicles comes to mind).

I dismissed at one point, on a friend's facebook wall, the majority of the OWS as being spoiled college kids who are wasting mom and dad's hard-earned money by listening to hippie professors who never came down off that last high who describe participating in democracy as protesting and making noise while "fighting the power", rather than actually, oh, I don't know, VOTING (I'm pretty sure that most of the parents of the younger protesters would rather their kids study and live in the dorm rooms rather than sleep in a park for a few weeks shouting slogans and carrying signs. Call it a hunch). I stand by that dismissal.

Too many of these protesters, including the more "mature" ones, like that guy in that video railing against Fox News (really. You could take all his "points" about the actual protest and edit/condense that video to a few seconds. Instead he hits on all the major liberal talking points slamming Fox News, Newscorp, and several prominent conservative TV and radio hosts, not all at FNC) seem to think that protesting is more important than actually DOING something.

Really, I'm all for assembly, protest, opposition, what have you. I support, and have participated in, several of the annual Marches for Life in Washington DC, as a for instance. But just protesting, marching, and making noise is not enough. You MUST back it all up with action in the political arena. Abortion issues are always a topic debated in national elections, not because they have protesters and counter-protesters, but because those various protesters, on either side of the issue, try to vote and put into place those who support their views.

Some have said that this is not an option for the OWS "movement", because all the politicians are in "The 1%". Well, maybe so. That just means that you find someone from your ranks who is willing to run, and you throw ALL your support there, and stop supporting those who have narrowed the political process in America down to "Thing 1 or Thing 2".

It worked for the TEA Party. If you want the Wall Street Occupation to mean more than the "Million Man March", it is something that has to be done. Otherwise these thousands of voices raised will be barking in the dark, and the similarity to the TEA Party will forever be just a punch line for fake news pundits like Jon Stewart.

Update:

Representative Nancy Pelosi is STILL floating the myth that TEA Party protesters spat upon Congressmen they disagreed with on the steps of the Capitol building. Thing is, no one was ever arrested or even fined for doing so.

Spitting on someone is a personal thing. You likely are going to remember the face of anyone who would spit upon you, especially when they are doing so from behind a barricade, or in the presence of a police escort, and have those people dealt with. Maybe Nancy should concern herself with ACTUAL things, and not mythological occurrences in an attempt to find some moral equivalency between the TEA Party and the OWS.

To date, one group has conducted itself in a proper, mature, and legal manner, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the group I'm speaking of is NOT the one sitting in a park in New York for the past several weeks.

Aretha Franklin and Erasure had it right...

I just watched a very distressing video clip. The "ladies" on "The View" going back and forth about whether or not NJ Governor Chris Christie, a possible Republican candidate for president, is "too fat" to be president. This "issue" has become something being discussed on op-ed pages across the country now.

Quips from "The View" included how fun it would be to have a president who could say "Cheetos not vetoes", and when asked about what he would bring to the race and/or presidency, Joy Behar called out "Krispy Kreams".

In this day and age of taunting a person being called "bullying", in what way is treating the governor of a state in this manner acceptable?

Can you imagine the outrage if there were a candidate for president who were gay, and a panel on Fox News were to have a member who said that this candidate brings a mesh tank top to the race?

Yet suddenly Mr. Christie's weight is fair game. It is being discussed as readily as his stance on taxes, even though he has not even declared an intention to run. Is this some sort of indication that "bullying" is acceptable, but only if it is directed at the "right" victim?

Homosexuals or alleged homosexual behavior are off limits. Same for Muslims. Gender-based comments are forbidden. Don't even THINK about skin color. But you have a person who is overweight? It's okay to tell them to "put down the fork", or "eat a salad". In fact it almost seems to be encouraged.

Maybe it's time for a new viral video campaign. One that declares "it gets better, unless you're a fattie". Skinny models, actors and actresses, and everyday people can record quick youtube commentaries saying that just being you is fine, and something you should be proud of, unless of course, you are fat. Then, you are a punchline.

Let me be clear. I don't care if a political candidate is black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or Arab. They can be Catholic, Jew, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Zoroastrian. They could be fat as Jabba the Hutt, or skinny enough to make Kate Moss look corpulent. They could be a 7 feet tall giant, or a 2 foot tall dwarf. Straight, gay, or somewhere in the middle. If you believe in what you preach, and I happen to agree with it, you will have my vote.

So I would, in fact, vote for an Inuit, lesbian, little-person, who worships Tiamat, and is built like a blimp who holds to the same conservative philosophy I do sooner than I would vote for a Caucasian, straight, Roman Catholic, knockout who looks like Angelina Jolie who holds to some views that I do not agree with.

In politics, these labels are all meaningless to me. All that matters is that you believe what you say you do, and I'll vote for the one(s) who most closely match what I believe in.

In life, I am the same way. I don't judge anyone by how they look or what they do in their spare time. I listen to what they say or believe as a person. Why is it so damn hard for everyone else to do the same, and stop with the categorizing of others in ways that suggest that SOME people are worthy of respect and encouragement in themselves, but others are not?

I refuse to fall back on "can't we all just get along", because that is a garbage tagline anymore. Can't we all just stop behaving like petty piles of crap to one another, and start behaving like humans to each other? Is simple respect so damn much to ask?

So... That happened...

And now it's back to what counts as "normal". I arrived home from a week in Florida where I went to a zoo, got into gulf coast waters for the first time in my life, and hid in my dad's air conditioning.

And now it's back to the grind. I anticipate that I'll have some clean up to do on my first day back to work, in addition to the typical workload, and here at home, I have a lawn to mow, some boxes to finish unpacking from the move, dishes and laundry to wash, and cat hair to vacuum. I turn 37 on Wednesday. Chicken in in the fridge to be prepared for dinner tomorrow night.

In short, back to "normal". Except not really. I have a feeling. Maybe it's a subconscious thing about my birthday. Maybe it's a wish to be closer to my family. I just don't know. I feel like I'm flipping along through a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book.

The weekend after next, I have a trip to Maryland for my nephew's baptism, which I am looking forward to greatly. Not only for the event itself, as a new soul enters my faith, but for the chance to see (most of) my family. We don't get together as often as we should, and I hate to think that the next event that brings us together might be a death in the family, as it turned out to be a few years ago when mom passed (words cannot describe how much miss that lady).

Efforts have been made, but there always seems to be a snag. I know that I bear part responsibility for that, and I have pretty well promised myself that I am going to restructure my priorities, and make sure that I am not a part of one of those "we all have out separate lives" kind of families. We do have separate lives, but dammit, siblings are always siblings. Marriages and kids don't change that, they only add to it. Letting distance build up between my sibs and I is something that I can really say I hate.

I don't know. It seems that I came back from Florida more pensive than usual. I almost feel like I have a big choice to make soon, and I have no idea how to deal with it, let alone know what the choice might be.

"May you live in interesting times". Boy, the Chinese really knew how to make an innocuous sentence into a curse. While I ponder all that, I get a fortune cookie tonight that reads "Soon, life will become more interesting".

I'm not one to put anything into a mass-produced slip of paper in a cookie. But I have had a feeling that something is going to happen soon. It's a feeling that started around about Wednesday while I was on vacation. I almost feel like I am about to turn to page 15 if I choose to go left, or 34 if I choose right.

So, Universe, what's up? What are you trying to tell me? And why do I think it could be absolutely fantastic, but only if I make a critical choice, without the ability to back-track because I didn't take my finger off the last page?

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon". Fun and...

Violent. Oh, so very violent. If you don't like watching stuff get blown to $#|+, do yourself a favor, and skip going to this movie.

Robots blow all kinds up stuff up, and even get some down-n-dirty fighting in that would make a UFC champ flinch (don't expect "Cybertronian street fighting" to show up as an MMA fighting style anytime soon). There were holes in the story, especially where the characters are concerned (Why did Megatron choose an Earth vehicle form, after shunning the idea before? And why did he pick the one he did?), but that happens in all but the very best movies. I also had a couple of other issues that I go into great detail about in a moment.

Visually, the opening sequences that involved the lunar landing were spec-freaking-tacular in 3D. I mean, right up there, quality-wise, with the Imax movie "Magnificent Desolation". The 3D throughout was really good, and once you adjusted to it (took my about a half hour, including the previews), you start to really get into having depth in what you are watching, and it just seemed to be "natural". I mean even the leaves on a tree in the background looked good. And it was just set dressing.

As a side note, 3D technology has been in movies for decades now. It's only recently that it has been possible to really enjoy it without losing any of the true coloration. Gone are the red and blue 3D glasses, and thank goodness. Having said that, there were only a couple of places where I felt that something was tossed at the viewer just for the 3D effect, and a really wish directors would knock that off already. The 3D effect stands on its own very easily, and I don't need the reminder of the gimmick (as a side-note to the side note, I just wonder when someone will design disposable 3D glasses that don't make you look ridiculous. I know I'm not the best model to begin with, but I'll post a picture tomorrow on facebook of what I mean).

The story itself was a lot better that I would have thought, given that this was sequel number 2. I would say that this was the strongest of the trilogy, by far.

The first was good, but mostly for the "lifelong geek fanboy getting to see Transformers blow real crap up on screen" kinda way. The story was kinda "meh", but I was more than willing to overlook that because of the whole "lifelong geek fanboy" thing. That it helped to revive a 20-year-old story and garner new interest in what started out, basically, as a commercial for toys really said something.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" was not as interesting, in part because it did what far too many long-term stories have done. It rushed elements that needed time to simmer. The character of "The Fallen" was a fairly recent addition to the Transformers mythos, and deserved a much larger build-up than what he got. It took them years to get around to him in the comics (the only vehicle for the better Transformers story for a number of years), and given his mythic proportions, should have been a much more developed character.

As it was, he was portrayed as a mere shadow of his potential, and cut down far, far too quickly (kinda like Venom in the "Spider-man" movies. It took DECADES for the comics to develop and flesh out Venom. Now, anything Spider-man has Venom as a foil to the hero almost instantly, and usually with a weaker than should be background that fans will recognize as a rushed origin). The titular villain in the second TF movie was a disappointment, which was a shame. And the overly done, attempted kid-friendly, forced attempt at comic relief with the Autobot twins really didn't help the second movie at all.

But, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" pretty well made up for all that. A look (even if all too brief) into a little more history of the long conflict on the home world, and weaving Transformers into human history (covered up and kept secret, of course) helped to make the story a little more interesting (not to mention having Buzz Aldrin and Optimus Prime having a mutual respect moment. That was just so FREAKING cool). My jaw hit the floor at the moment the true enemy was revealed, if for no other reason than how (seriously, it was both brutal and saddening at the same time. Poor guy can't catch a movie break, after being killed in 1986's "Transformers: The Movie" as well). Old enemies return (though definitely worse for the wear), and heroic deception works like a charm, as it always seems to.

"Transformers" was like a paint-by-numbers kit. In the end, you get exactly what you set out for. Pretty to look at, but just not as good as the original. You just KNOW that something is missing.

"Revenge of the Fallen" was more like someone took the paint and carefully tossed it at the wall. I say carefully, because it wasn't random. There were in fact recognizable patterns in what showed through, if you looked hard enough. It was almost an abstract look at the Transformers.

"Dark of the Moon" is like a fine reproduction. You know it's not the original work, nor does it claim to be, but you feel like you can hang it up without embarrassment.

Having gushed on at length, now I must speak to my disappointments in the movie. The first one had to do with the fact that for the first time, humans were not just simply "collateral damage", being hurt or even killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the previous movies (and of course cartoons), humans were not targets. Sure, they would be hostages, and threatened with bodily harm, but ultimately, they were off-limits to the wages of the Transformer's war.

This time around, it is implied (and shown explicitly) that any human with specific knowledge was hunted down and killed for knowing too much. Also, after conquering a city, several humans were used as "examples" to strike fear into the hearts of the others, and specifically targeted by Decepticon guns, and seen to explode (literally. I'm glad that Michal Bay decided to NOT have sprays of human blood from those who were slaughtered in this manner, but that one skull rolling around was a bit much). Sure, I understand that the idea is to show war, and all its evils, and be as realistic as possible (with 40-foot tall shape-shifting robots). The deaths of characters in movies is not something to make me squeamish. Even in the "Transformers" movies (and current cartoon show).

On the contrary, I think it is a good idea, because of the times we live in. Back in 1984, America was not involved in any wars. Sure, kids understood what war was, and that people died, but it was an abstract thing. Now however, with our country involved in a few wars, death of the combatants in fiction, even kids fiction, is almost needed. Too many kids in our country have either lost parents, siblings, or other relations, or they know a peer who has. The fact that people die in wars is not as abstract a concept as it once was, so having characters who are fighting a war die seems to be a natural progression, even in kids entertainment. And, it offers a chance to open the discussion with kids about death without having to have a relative or even a beloved pet die.

But, the purposeful destruction of non-combatants, even if by the "bad guys" seems to be too much. It's like Anakin in "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith". He became evil, and just to cement that in the viewers' minds, the first thing he did was to go and slaughter children. Might as well had him kick a puppy while he was at it, so there was no doubt as to his new status as the "bad guy".

Evil is easy to spot. In "Dark of the Moon" it was in the attempt to go back on the promise of safe passage (setting up the heroic deception of later in the movie). It was in the promise of making humans into slaves (not at all unpredictable, and in fact done many times in the original cartoon series). The blasting of non-combatants "just because" was unnecessary, and, to me as a parent who has kids who want to see this, off-putting.

Another problem I had was with the heroic deception I mentioned a couple of times. In every iteration of Optimus Prime, he has placed the importance of the life of all but his enemies above all else. Hell, in the comics, he once laid down his life because his actions in a virtual competition with his rival Megatron caused the death of non-combatant video game critters. Now I am to think that he would allow people to be killed, just to make a point?

The movie Optimus has done a few things that I just simply cannot reconcile in my head with the Optimus Prime I know as a lifelong geek fanboy. The the first movie he would willingly sacrifice himself to keep the Allspark from Megatron, but such an action would leave humanity undefended against his foe. In this one, he lets humans suffer so they can see how wrong they were about trusting his enemy. Even if all else is the same about Optimus (which it really seems to be), this seems to be something the writers just forget. That, above all, Optimus is all about protecting those weaker than him, not leaving them to the wolves, so to speak. I can't explain this flaw, except that they want Optimus to be a little more "ends justify the means".

But to lifelong fans, we know that he just never believed that. Optimus Prime was always a principled rock. He would never compromise his beliefs, and didn't buy into allowing some to perish in service of the greater good. Better to save all. And that was just one reason I laughed out loud in the theater (I was the only one), when Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy) said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." If you need the other reason why I would laugh at that, then you obviously don't know me.

But I digress (okay, I followed that tangent like a trail of breadcrumbs). With one of two minor issues (one a characterization thing, the other a "let's make something blatant because movie goers are idiots" thing) causing an exception, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" was a thoroughly fun movie. Pretty much the epitome of non-award-winning summer blockbuster.

Because, you know, the only movies worth getting non-technical awards are those that have 18th century period dress, "prithee" in the dialogue, or involve heart-rending tales that are designed to make a Doberman cry.

Intentional cluelessness?

Either that, or Good Morning America gloriously missed a point.

This morning, they aired a segment in which they talked about Disney Channel actress Demi Lovato and her public apology to her fans via social media. I have no idea what she had to apologize for, outside of hearing about her having some sort of fight with a back up dancer or somesuch at a concert. *shrug* I dunno.

I know she stars in a show my kids have watched (and truth be told had a couple of really clever segments. I liked the one in which she and a couple of co-stars played the part of Disney princesses on a "Real Housewives"-type of show. Hi-larious), and I know that Disney is doing all they can to squeeze every cent out of her tween/teen years by having her do a whole pop star thing as well (like they do with almost every actress on any of their shows) before dropping her when she decides to shed her squeeky-clean image (that's a whole other blog right there), but I digress.

The point here is that GMA this morning sees her addressing her fans via social media as "the star taking control" of her re-emergence after being out of the public eye, rather than allowing the traditional media to have a hand in it.

The reason they miss the point is that there is no comparison to Hugh Grant, Jamie Foxx, or any other star that has ever engaged in an all-out mea culpa media campaign.

While the examples I stated above can show up on Leno, Letterman, Dateline, etc to be seen by their fans, tween/teen stars cannot. Their fans don't WATCH Leno, Letterman, etc. Their fans will pay attention to social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

It's less that the star involved wants to take control of their own exposure, and more the stars involved want to be seen by their fans, so they are doing what traditional media has failed to do, and recognize that social media is the way to do this.

These young stars and their handlers see that the "old media" just simply doesn't speak to the Internet generation(s). Sure, CBS has Facebook pages, and Leno's monologues can spread like wildfire if there's a funny clip involved, but the vehicle by which such things take place remains the same. Social media.

For years, the national attention span has been dwindling. If it cannot be communicated within a few minutes, as dictated by Youtube limitations, then it is just simply not important enough to know.

While I recognize that this is true, it is sad. That the important news of the day (of which Demi Lovato, or the Royal wedding are NOT) gets lost in quick stories, and the majority of what we laughingly call news is garbage like this. Thousands are dying in what is basically a civil war in Libya, and the only indication that too many Americans have about this is rising gas prices.

But teens know all about Pippa Middleton, an English girl who is sister to a future princess. They know all about Charlie Sheen's mental breakdown, including a video where he is seen drinking from a bottle and waving a machete from a rooftop (video on Youtube).

It seems that the traditional media might need to keep up with social media in order to keep any sort of relevance as those who seek their news online become those who MAKE the news as elected officials, business owners, and the labor force in this country.

Otherwise the United States faces a collapse from within, as did Rome. When people have their bread and circuses, they tend to not worry about what is really going on, leaving those who are making things happen to allow divisions to take hold.

And right now, our young have all the circuses they could possibly want, while the decision makers are divided. History doesn't have to repeat itself, but it sure looks like it is heading in that direction.

And the "old media" is too busy paying attention to the wrong things, and too busy wondering why no one under the age of 30 seems to listen to them, to notice and report it.

Been a while...

Yet again, it has been a while since I've posted anything. Not too much this time, but something that has bothered me since I heard it.

President Obama said something recently, in his effort to shore up "bipartisan" support for the extension of the Bush-era middle-class tax cuts (I thought there were no middle-class tax cuts? I remember hearing long and loud that the Bush tax program was nothing more than breaks for rich buddies?), said something that was incorrect (well, to call it incorrect would be an understatement, but, it's what I'll have to go with).

The president of the United States, who, presumably, knows about the history of the United States (and that there aren't 57 of them), made the statement, "...this country was founded on compromise". While Obama was in school in Jakarta (ages 6-10), I understand that American history might not have been a major subject, but upon his return to the states, I would assume he would have learned that America was founded in the midst of war, not with hands reaching across a table in compromise.

"This country tends to move to the center" is something that i hear time and again. Or that the people want a centrist government. This statements are simply not true. There may have been a time when they were true, but that time is long past.

This country wants something other than what it has had, which is why election cycles seem to have a pendulum swing to them. For most of the late half of the 20th century, the Congress was owned by the Democrat party, regardless of the political affiliation of the president. For a nation that "likes the center", that is a rather consistent lean in one direction.

It seems that now that the Republicans have been able to mount a reasonable counter to what the Democrats have been working with/for for more than 50 years, suddenly, there's a desire to govern from the middle, and a tendency toward a "non-partisan moving forward".

This country was NOT founded on compromise. It was founded on conflict and disagreement over tyrannical rule by one who was out-of-touch with the people he governed. At the suggestion of compromise, the ruler's response was to send the military to try and quell the rebellion. Perhaps if the lessons of history could be better learned, political games might become less and less prevalent.

This idea of compromise ueber alles is a flawed one. It is impossible to make a decision if you are constantly seeking to compromise with others. Sometimes, an unpopular decision MUST be made, and followed through on. It's called leadership, and it is what we HAVE a representative form of government for. Yes, occasionally, giving something up for a gain that benefits the greater good is necessary, but that is no way to govern, no way to lead.

Rather than try to shed "labels" or partisanship, maybe what is needed is a little more basic respect. Compromise without respect is pointless.

You want a country with more compromise? Start by respecting that there may just be opinions and stances that you do not agree with, and dismissing them with insulting language may not be the best thing to do. Get rid of labels like "homophobe" applied to any who disagree with the idea of gay marriage, or "racist" applied to any who think that a uniform language in the country might be a better idea than police needing to be bilingual just to do their jobs.

Respect for opinions you might disagree with is the first step to compromise, and closer to what this country was founded upon. When the colonials were not given the respect of the king, they stood tall and earned it through force, not just in the Revolutionary War, but over the next half century.

These days, the idea of earning respect through force is somewhat absurd. But in some cases it almost seems necessary, since too many people have the attitude that ANY respect must be earned. I tend to speak on this topic (respect) a lot, and one lament that I have mentioned many times, is that the default for too many people is one of DISrespect. It seems people would sooner spit on someone as look at them. Add politics, and this amplifies.

Would it not be easier to start from a place of neutral respect? Imagine that everyone you see has a number floating above their heads. From the time you first see them up until the time you "encounter" them (speak to them, nod a hello, hold open a door, etc), what is that number? Is it a negative? Or a zero? You see them walk in your direction, and they stop to pick up and put back on the shelf, a can of soup that someone else dropped in the store. Does that number move at all upon seeing this? You see them almost trip over a small child, carelessly running across their path. Their face contorts in a mask of irritation, and they snarl to the parent about keeping their kid under control. What does this do to their number?

That was something of a tangent, but it is something to think about. If you want to meet someone halfway, do you first not have to respect at least some of what they do, represent, or are motivated by?

Sure, let's compromise. But let's find our respect, first, and learn that compromise is not what allowed these 57 states to be founded.

The immigration blog...

I have seen is written, and heard it said that the immigration issue is not simply about the law, that it is a human issue, and one of love, acceptance, and recognition of our (as in Americans) own immigrant heritage.

Yes, this is a nation of immigrants, in that every American has immigration to this country in our heritage. But by the same token, this is a nation of laws, set down by "immigrants".

My forebears came to the US from Ireland and Italy (mostly. I have blood from most of Western Europe in my background).

They learned English (if they didn't already know it). But they also learned the American way of life. Yes, they held on to their own traditions, and interacted with "their own" people, but they also went outside of that comfort zone, and became American citizens, rather than "Irish-Americans", or "Italian-Americans".

Packages in stores were not changed wholesale to accommodate them. They either learned English, or shopped where they could get products in packages printed in their native languages. Unless they were in a store that catered to them specifically, they didn't expect the clerk to speak their language, and they most certainly did not get upset if the clerk couldn't speak their language.

They did not come to take advantage of a system that will provide assistance to them, they made their own way through hard work. And all along the way, they became Americans, both in legal status, and in tradition.

This seems to be lost on this new generation of immigrants.

The 80's were called the "me" decade, when selfishness was the order of the day. It seems that this "me" phenomenon has hit outside the US about 20 later than it did within.

Today's immigrants (primarily Latino) expect that the US will do all that is needed to accommodate them, regardless of weather or not the rules were followed. There seems to be a sense of selfish entitlement that this country owes them something because they made the trip to get here. And regrettably, there are many in this country who encourage this mentality, and enable the abusers, much as a friend might enable an addict by justifying their habit.

They cast aside the laws they find inconvenient, such as the ones governing how they enter the country to become citizens, and hold up those that allow them to ignore the legal way to immigrate to this nation, such as the 14th amendment (a totally separate blog post in itself). They demand protection under the law, after breaking the law first.

This seems to be a rather cynical way to take advantage of the legal system in this country, and too many people (almost entirely those of a liberal mindset) are willing to go along with it. It seems to be comparable to saying that the teenager who kills his parents should be shown mercy, because he is an orphan. There is too much looking at the effect, without first addressing the cause.

But too often, the idea is that "they are here now, and there are too many to deal with easily, so better to accommodate them than enforce the laws".

Many packages in stores are now in English and Spanish (occasionally I find French, but I chalk that up to product availability in Quebec). Calling customer service for many products/services has the option to press a number for English, and another for Spanish (what number would I press to speak to someone in Mandarin, Russian, Gaelic, or Swahili? What? That's not an option? Why only Spanish? That seems a little racist/elitist to me. But I digress). In some cases it is a requirement for getting a job to be able to speak Spanish.

While the United States has no "official language", English is the de facto language (odd, using a Latin phrase to make the distinction). This means that while it is not codified as such in law, English is the language that is "accepted" as being the one to use while interacting in the country. This is a distinction we share with the United Kingdom and Australia.

Wait, hold on a second. Stop the blog. Are you telling me in the United Kingdom, England, that English is not the official language?

Feel free to look it up. English is language that is simply accepted as the proper language to use, though it is not actually the "official", as set down in law, language to speak/read/write in England. As in the United Sates, where there are scattered laws establishing English as the official language in one region (or State in the US), there is no national law establishing English as the language to be spoken.

Back to the point at hand...

Not having English as the official language DOES NOT mean that any/all languages should be spoken here by all citizens, nor does it mean that an immigrant population gets to try and force THEIR language into a secondary role for interacting with people like the police.

The United States has always been described as a "melting pot". A place where people from all over the world could come and be welcomed into society. All that would be asked in return is a willingness on the part of the people who come here to assimilate into our society after joining it through the proper channels. This doesn't mean abandoning your heritage. This means embracing that you have come to a place that recognizes and celebrates our differences through recognizing and celebrating our similarities.

Too often lately (to stretch the "melting pot" metaphor), it seems as though there are some who wish to barge into our kitchen, mix their own ingredients, and add them to the pot, totally changing the final flavor to better suit them.

Simply accepting those who break the law to enter this country as citizens, and offering them all they ask for in terms of (especially financial) assistance is not an expression of love, it is foolhardiness. And while the two are very often indistinguishable from one another, the stability of a nation cannot depend upon either emotion or foolishness.

Ahhh, Independence Day...

The great American summer holiday. In Spring, we've Easter. In Autumn, Halloween. In Winter we've Thanksgiving Day and Christmas.

In the Summer, we celebrate our Independence Day. Every July fourth, Americans break out the grills, the red white and blue, the frisbees, the sodas, beers, the hot dogs, burgers, steaks, and potato salad. Stores have mattress sales, patio furniture sales, pool supplies, car sales, and we all love watching people blow stuff up. Professionals light up the sky with fireworks, and amateurs keep emergency rooms busy with the same.

All to celebrate America's... what?

Many say birthday, but, to anyone who knows me, it should come as no surprise that I disagree, have my own opinion about it, and what I believe to be a reasonable argument as to why.

Look back in history. For many, I know this might involve dusting off the memory, or even *gasp* looking it up on-line or in an encyclopedia, or, if you don't want to go through all that, just read on.

On May 14, 1607, the Jamestown colony was established in Virginia, in what is now called Williamsburg. This was the first successful British colony on the mainland of the New World, and the first permanent settlement that would become a major factor in being able to establish the 13 colonies that would become the first 13 of the United States.

To me, this speaks of the birth of our nation. Following the whole birth metaphor, Britain would be the parent, and the Colonies (US) the child.

Fast forward from 1607 to the early 1700's. The colonies have grown into a child who started to resent the rules of its parent. By 1776, the Colonies have reached their surly teens, and started to rebel against the rules laid down by the parent. Britain said "my house, my rules", and Thomas Jefferson offered the words that allowed the surly teen to say, "Fine! I'm moving out!"

So as you grill the meat, eat the potatoes and slaw, and watch crap blow up, keep in mind that the United States isn't celebrating its birthday today, so much as telling off its parent.

And for at least 234 years, been able to get away with it without having to beg to move back in.

Gracious grumbling...

Okay, so I have issues where my wife's father is concerned. Plain and simple, he's not my favorite person.

He hurt my wife and mother-in-law many years ago, vanished, then came back into her (an my, since we were dating at this time) life. Things were okay, then he went Houdini at Sprout's baptism.

Several years later, he's back again. Personally, my limit was reached when he walked out on my daughter's day. Far as I was concerned, my father-in-law died before I met him (my wife's step-father, the person she thinks of as "daddy" died from cancer many years before we met). Doubt (a nickname for blogging purposes) was just my wife's father at that point.

Let me explain how I make this distinction.

Any idiot can perform the physical actions needed to become a father. Many have been for thousands of years. But it is a truly exceptional man who manages to become a daddy, especially if he has no blood in common with the one calling him that with affection.

So Doubt is my wife's biological father. He is back in her life, and is known to my kids, who have affection for him in that way that kids do ("We're related? Then that's all I need to know. I love you"). To say I'm not thrilled is an understatement, but I deal with it, because I don't want to be one of THOSE dads who will tell his kids from on high who to like or not like. I try to keep my snide comments where Doubt is concerned out of the kid's earshot, and limit what I REALLY want to say so as to not upset Wyfster. She (and by extension, my kids) are willing to give him another chance, to maintain that tie to some part of her family, and I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone.

I keep wandering, so please forgive me. If I can maintain focus here's the good stuff.

Doubt and his wife are coming over for Father's Day tomorrow. They are giving us the gift of a full-sized gas grill, and will help inaugurate it. I appreciate the gift enormously. At the moment I am using a small camp grill perched upon two TV tray tables that are falling apart. But despite my appreciation of the gift, I still have my issues where Doubt is concerned. The gift doesn't change that.

He and I spoke very briefly at Sprout's dance recital (I really need to get that video on-line one of these days), and while I wasn't rude, I was... curt. I spoke to him as little as possible, and as I said, I wasn't rude. I held my tongue from what I really wanted to say, and kept to pleasantries. I just simply didn't want to a) create a scene, and b) allow him to cause any further emotional harm to my wife through having enough control over the situation to make me lose my cool.

But I think tomorrow (or later today, depending on how you look at it) will be tough. I will have him in my house, and short of being obvious in my prolonged absences there will be no practical way to not deal with him for an extended period.

I try to not be rude, but fear I may fail at this in tomorrow's light, and that might be what upsets me so much at the moment. I can't even say that I hate him. I hate what I have inside of me BECAUSE of him.

I know that sooner or later, I will forgive Doubt his transgressions against my family. But in the meantime, to keep the peace and maintain my family's emotional stability, do I surrender my own, and allow Doubt to have a passive control over me that he doesn't even know exists?

This is gonna be a rough Father's Day.

In defense (at least a little) of BP

Okay. So we have, what, about a billion gallons of oil streaming into the Gulf of Mexico, and threatening to follow currents, swing around Florida, and come up as far as North Carolina on the east coast.

The oil company, British Petroleum (BP) has said they are responsible, and they are. It was their "Deepwater Horizon" rig that exploded and sank killing 11 workers (their names don't get published nearly enough. They have become a sidebar to the oil and the *gasp* oil covered birds. for those curious, they were: Jason Anderson, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Shane Roshto, and Adam Weise). This explosion and sinking caused the well to malfunction, and start leaking oil into the water (roughly a mile deep).

Since that time, BP has done all they can to try to staunch the flow of oil, but because it's not happening fast enough, and we now have Exxon Valdez-esque photos of oil covered birds, turtles, and other sea life, the predictable accusations have begun. I mean the ones that say that BOP is trying to find a way to still collect oil from the well, so they can make a profit.

Really? Let's examine some facts. The technology to prevent this kind of disaster does exist, but in a short-sighted money saving move, BP opted to NOT use a specific type of safety cut-off valve. Since the disaster, BP has engaged in several attempts to cap, plug, cut a damaged pipe and re-cap this well. You are talking about something at almost a mile deep. Contrary to what movies would have you think, we do not possess the technology to safely get humans down to that depth in any sort of functional manner. All attempts to stop this leak would have worked with a leak that was not so deep.

This is a situation where there is all sorts of unexplored issues, because a leak has never happened at this depth, and as such, STOPPING a leak at this depth has never been done. Conventional methods of responding to leaks have not worked, again, because of the variances that occur at such great oceanic depths.

So maybe think for a few seconds. BP isn't stalling to try to figure out how to continue to use the leaking well for money in the future. As it is, the want of a half-million dollar valve system has already cost billions of dollars in lost oil and environmental clean-up, and that is before the serious lawsuits by the families of the 11 victims start.

Maybe BP is doing all they can to stop this leak, and figuring out the best way to do it, so they only have to do it once. A short-term solution won't do anyone any good, because if it fails, we're right back to square one.

Rather than assume the worst in BP, because they are "a big evil oil company out for profits", maybe try to understand that this disaster is unprecedented, and as such will require an unprecedented solution.

A young woman (19-year-old genius college professor) pitched an idea to BP. I have no idea if it will work. Neither does she. Nor does BP. The best they can do is try. But at least she is offering something more constructive than "I wish BP would do something about this that doesn't involve them making a profit".

Maybe we all can take a cue from that. Rather than randomly criticize things about which we know nothing, and seeing a sinister motivation, think about how to make it better, or at least trust that if the solution were as simple as everyone thinks, either BP, or some group of nutjobs with a bankroll would have tried it.

Maybe cut some slack, instead of looking for the worst in everything.

Just a thought.