Hey! Time to wake up America!

There seems to be some difficulty with “doing the right thing…attribution is what blame is…not willing to fall on the sword”…and the entire notion of personal responsibility going on in Washington D.C. If we could indulge you for only a moment, we’ve got some issues on our minds that unless we get some real backing – or put our ostensible powers of persuasion together for you – hell let’s not mess around with fiat anything’s when in reality we should be making ourselves right with the Big Man…Upstairs.

And we hate like crazy to be pointing these idiosyncrasies out to you simply because we’d much rather be writing about all of the good that happens in our lives and how well America is doing.

But we are far past that when the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who legitimately is up to his eyeballs in this Fast & Furious operation doesn’t remember anything about it? In times not so far away, Presidents of the United States would simply request a written resignation by 0800 the next morning, if not sooner.

We are respecting the posture of the Congressional committee appointed to investigate the egregiousness of these crimes. Right now – it must be known for everyone to see and hear – that the original complaints for this operation came from those men who were in the fields, comparing notes, and like an explosion they found out that they were being set-up by other members – high ranking –perfumed Asst. Attorney Generals who have deliberately misrepresented the facts. 

There was a time in American history that when a president became under an investigation (during an election year!) then those around him through loyalty and fortitude would automatically stand-up as an honor to protect the president. Well that’s not happening here in this case; furthermore, we can’t even get the U.S. Attorney General to apologize to the Mexican authorities.

So what gives already? Many, many children, women, and men have been killed with the very weapons provided to them by ostensibly our Justice department as well as the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco, and Explosives (formerly ATF now who knows?). No excuses, no rubbish, no special rights or privileges whatsoever; if a person is implicated at all, including White House personnel, then let’s restore our nation to the “rule of law.”

Quick leap…since when does a sitting President enter into the House Chamber to rehash the same old tired rhetoric and when he’s finished goes into Rock Star Status of kissing congressional personnel, hugging and kissing members of the Supreme Court, and allowing for people to come seeking autographs? It was appalling!

These people in Washington behaved as they are – small, narrow-minded folks – that remain unable to see the true picture. And like it or not, President Obama is not the man. Say it, you’ll feel better about it and yourself! America, oh America how long do we have to play this game of words, ideologies, and begin discriminating against those who have worked the hard road only to be punished by paying more and more of it to a government that steals?

Just think…$560,000,000 to Solyndra; then think…only $400,000,000 to Indiana, Purdue University, and Ener1 for research and development for a vehicle battery. If these are examples of Obama’s hope and change then he has failed on both accounts. Please remember that 960,000,000 is close to 1 billion; yet, for that kind of spending – inappropriately all things considered on a bankrupt Solyndra, Ener1, and by the way, where is the accounting of the funds spent on the Recover and Reinvest Act more commonly known as the stimulus plan?

Examining Obama’s SOTU Address…

President Obama’s array of plans in his State of the Union speech was light on a key piece of context – namely, that his hands are so tied ahead of the election that it is doubtful many if any of them can be done in the remainder of his term. Oh, how unfortunate for him. There can be little more than wishful thinking behind his call to end oil industry subsidies – something he could not get through a Democratic Congress, much less today’s divided Congress, much less in this election year.

A look at Obama’s rhetoric Tuesday night and how it fits with the facts and political realities of the day:

OBAMA: “We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.”

THE FACTS: This is at least Obama’s third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year’s State of the Union speech. And he’s now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.

American Age: Executive function (requirement for all leaders) is planning (F), organizing (F) and time-management (F) which we feel President Obama has failed miserably.

OBAMA: “Our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

THE FACTS: That’s only half true. About half of the more than 30 million uninsured Americans expected to gain coverage through the health care law will be enrolled in a government program. Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, will be expanded starting in 2014 to cover childless adults living near the poverty line.

The other half will be enrolled in private health plans through new state-based insurance markets. But many of them will be receiving federal subsidies to make their premiums more affordable. And that’s a government program, too.

Starting in 2014 most Americans will be required to carry health coverage, either through an employer, by buying their own plan, or through a government program.

American Age: Does anyone recall any of this rhetoric espoused by President Obama. We say, Repeal it now!

OBAMA: “Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.”

THE FACTS: Economists do see manufacturing growth as a necessary component of any U.S. recovery. U.S. manufacturing output climbed 0.9 percent in December, the biggest gain since December 2010. Yet Obama’s apparent vision of a nation once again propelled by manufacturing — a vision shared by many Republicans — may already have slipped into the past.

Over generations, the economy has become ever more driven by services; not since 1975 has the U.S. had a surplus in merchandise trade, which covers trade in goods, including manufactured and farm goods. About 90 percent of American workers are employed in the service sector, a profound shift in the nature of the workforce over many decades.

The overall trade deficit through the first 11 months of 2011 ran at an annual rate of nearly $600 billion, up almost 12 percent from the year before.

American Age: If this country is ever going to lead in manufacturing again, it’s time to look where the world’s industry is going and make the necessary changes; this does not include military ordnance for sale to other countries.

OBAMA: “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

THE FACTS: Obama is more sanguine about progress in Afghanistan than his own intelligence apparatus. The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan warns that the Taliban will grow stronger, using fledgling talks with the U.S. to gain credibility and stall until U.S. troops leave, while continuing to fight for more territory. The classified assessment, described to The Associated Press by officials who have seen it, says the Afghan government hasn’t been able to establish credibility with its people, and predicts the Taliban and warlords will largely control the countryside.

American Age: Stop playing war and wipe out the entire Taliban.

OBAMA: “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.”

THE FACTS: He left out some key details. The bailout of General Motors and Chrysler began under Republican President George W. Bush. Obama picked up the ball, earmarked more money, and finished the job. But Ford, which Obama mentions as well, never asked for a federal bailout and never got one. It’s managed to get along on its own. Also, as part of its restructuring, Chrysler is not really a U.S. automaker anymore. Italian automaker Fiat now owns a 30 percent share, and it will eventually go to 51 percent under terms of the U.S. bailout and its bankruptcy restructuring.

American Age: Once again it doesn’t matter where he is or who he’s speaking with President Obama is a pathological liar.

Please feel free to read more at:

Keeping it straight about the National Defense Authorization Act…

We know that you will recall our earlier comments regarding how information is related; that being understanding the context as to what is being presented; moreover, the content, or the actual words used in the writing. Please see our previous article or just move down the page you are on. In our pursuits to bring a logical understanding of what this Act is and why all of the fuss it is important to see just how cordial our nation has been over its history in matters relative to the NDAA.

President Obama had threatened to veto the bill back in May, when the House passed one version of it, and again in November, when the Senate passed another, somewhat different version of it. But last week, after the House and Senate reconciled their two versions of the bill, the president lifted his veto threat.

His press secretary explained in a written statement that the revised bill was considered acceptable because problematic provisions had been removed, and because “the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law.”

This is unequivocal nonsense! The POTUS (President Obama) doesn’t have respect for or does he follow the rule of law in this country. As a matter of fact Obama continually delineates himself from the U.S. Constitution (the actual “rule of law”) on a regular basis when appointing his czars to cabinet positions.

Numerous human rights advocates, civil libertarians, and members of Congress disagree. Human Rights Watch said that President Obama’s decision not to veto the bill “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad.” The ACLU said, “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.”

Representative Jerrold Nadler, who voted against the bill, said that it presents a “momentous challenge to one of the founding principles of the United States—that no person may be deprived of his liberty without due process of law.”

We wonder in astonishment if these so-called “problematic provisions” which as you know are different versions of the bill by the House and Senate somehow miraculously combined their efforts, as well as President Obama’s utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution and any concerns about the “rule of law” in this country.

Founders on “the Press”

The highest duty of the press – is to inform the public about its governors – has defined in the earliest days of the United States by James Madison. In a republic, he said, the people are the ultimate sovereigns; they depend for their information on the press, which must therefore be free to “canvass the merits and measures of public men.”

As much [press] as he received, one wouldn’t think this, perhaps a bit to much, Mr. Madison was something of a romantic about the press. He wrote in 1799: “To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.”

The American press has to perform its Madisonian function today in relation to a federal government that Madison could scarcely have imagined. The size of the federal government in his day was considered tiny when compared to what happened during Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s; as New Deal programs went into effect, new governmental agencies were born and the government in Washington began to assume responsibilities that had formerly exercised by the States or even by no government at all.

Now the federal government is huge and powerful. Many of its officials often operate in secret, and they are protected by armies of spokespersons. Interestingly a government that George Washington warned of – to avoid foreign entanglements is entangled politically and militarily around the world.

Being able to cope with a government of that character requires press institutions with large resources. It is argued that the rag-tag press of the eighteenth century could not have coped with the likes of the Pentagon, or White House as they are now and even their contemporary equivalents, Bloggers wouldn’t be able to cope either.

However, this is certainly not to imply that good and responsible bloggers may someday carry that weight; nonetheless, unless bloggers reach the institutional size – which we’re sure of that every blogger strives to become – it is duly noted that it took The Washington Post to bring us into the investigation of Watergate; moreover, it was the New York Times who published the Pentagon Papers.

In his opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Stewart said the role of the press was especially important in matters of national security. In that area, he said, the usual legislative and judicial checks and balances on executive power scarcely operate; Congress and the courts tend to defer to the President. So he wrote, “The only effective restraint upon executive policy and power…may lie in an enlightened citizenry – in an informed and critical public opinion. For without an informed and free press there cannot be an enlightened people.”

By the standards mentioned by James Madison, as well documented by The Washington Post and The New York Times, there should be added an additional dictum – courageousness.

However, by that standard the American press failed sadly when it met its next great test after Vietnam: the government’s policy and power after the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, and the American people.

Within a few months of those attacks President George W. Bush claimed the power to detain any American citizen as an enemy combatant and to hold him/her indefinitely, without trial or access to counsel. Furthermore, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama.

The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things “for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad.” In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad and military modernization. The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.

The NDAA has been in use for each of the last 49 years inasmuch as it authorizes money for the Department of Defense. However, how many of us knew it has been a law for the last 49 years? Be well-assured that the last four years have been under the command of Barack Obama who feels that other provision within that law allows him to act without the normal constitutional processes.

How Much More…Can or are we willing to Take, part 2

Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland, and immigrated to the United States with his parents in 1848. His first job in the United States was as a factory worker in a bobbin factory. Later on he became a bill logger for the owner of the company; furthermore, soon after he became a messenger boy.

Eventually he progressed up the ranks of a telegraph company. He built Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Steel Company, which was later merged with Elbert H. Gary’s Federal Steel Company and several smaller companies to create U.S. Steel. With the fortune he made from business among others he built Carnegie Hall, later he turned to philanthropy and interests in education, founding the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh.

That was just a quick word about Mr. Andrew Carnegie, hard-working Scotsman, who went from a factory worker to one of the wealthiest men in American history; all this and so much more without anything from the government.

In December, Congressional Republicans forced President Obama to make a decision within 60 days on whether to approve or reject Canada’s offer to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline all the way through the U.S. and down to the Gulf of Mexico.

The Obama administration claims that three years has not been enough time to fully evaluate the environmental impact of the project; consequently, a claim we find to be totally false.

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) says that is “political bull” and explains why that excuse from Obama runs contrary to recent statements from the State Department as well as announcements made in the administration’s White House.

“We’re going to have Secretary of State Clinton come to our committee and explain why denying this plan was in the nation’s best interest.”

Terry discusses the ecological issues involved with the pipeline and has some more choice comments for pipeline critics who claim the resources in the pipeline would end up in China anyway.

“This pipeline would create energy security for us so we don’t have to rely on OPEC.” 

In an attempt to illustrate exactly what we are dissenting about comes to us by way of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). As late as November 2011 Speaker Boehner with his House of Representatives have been working on three energy bills that will be a part of Speaker Boehner’s American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act to create new jobs, increase American energy production and fund our aging infrastructure: 

“The bills before us today are not just energy bills, they are job bills. Increased American energy production is one of the best ways to help jumpstart our economy. It will create over a million energy jobs and thousands of indirect jobs in a variety of sectors in every state throughout the country. Given the tremendous economic benefits – not to mention the national security implications – there is no reason why we should not provide access to our own energy resources located here at home,” said Chairman Hastings.

“One thing that’s certain, doing nothing will not create any new jobs or generate any new revenue. During these difficult economic times, with soaring debts and deficits and a highway fund that needs to be replenished, Congress should not pass up an opportunity to create jobs and generate billions in new revenue.”

That being said what could be behind Obama’s refusal to engage with the Canadians with obviously an awesome deal? Lessening our dependence on OPEC, providing thousands of jobs, and diligently trying to do what he’s promised is what one would expect from a logical and sane person. This person does not deserve to be in political office any longer. Did Obama have three years to sort out Solyndra before investing $556 billion of taxpayer funds? Nope.

Obama is asking Congress

And this could be one of your first opportunities to speak up and put this nonsensical rubbish to rest once and for all. It seems to us at American Age that the choice is overwhelmingly obvious. President Obama is not a profound leader by any means. He may have his politicking down to a science – but please does the country need strong leadership right now, or does it need a politician at the helm?

Like I said the decision is obvious. If someone can explain with a reasonable rate of assuredness why we should take the most prosperous nation in history off of the economic system that provided the way to such historic heights and place in the ho-hum of failing systems the world over, then I’m all ears.

America as a nation is quite young as nations, empires, and imperial regimes are judged. Most countries are far older with past histories of war and violent takeover of other nations for profit. Albeit America may want the world to be pinnacles of democracy, the fact remains that some nations just want to take their time with change – like perhaps a century or so given civil rights.

So let’s ask the question: How many ladies can we get to comment about how they appreciate women’s civil rights in Iran, Iraq, or all of the Islamic countries? Come on now, in America women’s suffrage lasted how many years? Moreover, were the populace at large and finally the government supportive of those changes?

This is a selected segue we hoped to achieve. Showing the political rhetoric spewing from Washington and the actions of President Obama, the politician and not the leader he needs to be.

President Obama is asking Congress for more power to shrink the federal government. The commander in chief proposed merging six trade and commerce agencies on Friday, a move analyst are interpreting as an attempt to quiet Republican critics who say Obama wants to balloon the government.

“The government we have is not the government we need,” Obama said in D.C. to a crowd of small business owners. “We live in a 21st century economy, but we’ve still got a government organized for the 20th century. Our economy has fundamentally changed – as has the world – but the government has not.” Analysts are analyzing – we just hold our position of why are you talking to small business owners about what you want?

Obama suggested combining the following agencies: the Commerce Department’s core business and trade functions, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Trade and Development Agency.

Now before doing anything what a leader would do is to send the specifics of these agencies to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for full cost estimates while at the same time send the information over to the Government Accounting Agency (GAO) pursuant to if the agencies as they exist today are even needed. Obama still needs Congress’ okay before he can make restructuring changes.

If we may…just because somebody says something does not necessarily mean the action will produce glamorous results. Obama has been long on promises that could not from the start be implemented. Like amnesty for starters. The real point we’re trying to make is anyone can send anything they like to the Congress; however, getting that action through Congress is exactly why it is there, when one considers the separation of powers.

Return to American Exceptionalism

Throughout the many demanding days and arduous nights of seeking the “American Dream” the notion and practice of reflection has helped so many of us enjoy the laborious and grueling demands engaged in the pursuit of the most sought after dream in history. Have you ever wondered or asked yourself why humankind spends so much time at work, so little time at play, while trying to squeeze sleep somewhere in the mix.

I can remember during my intermediate school days when performing in a band, inclusive of band practice, competing in local Pop Warner football and other sports, and just like any other tween’ of the time trying to work – to be sure my family did well enough and didn’t need my meager earnings as a busboy in a coffee shop, so it was kind of cool being one of the kids who had a little spending cash.

If anything in our nation has changed it would have to be “that generation” that became the beneficiaries of entitlements. Seasonal work is what they desired, and for some it was the best and most appropriate thing to do. Seasonal work for this endeavor could easily be defined as whatever the season – NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, Ski resorts, beach assistance working as a part time lifeguard or working the head shops that ostensibly for some reason or another lined the streets of the shore.

The irony and reasons kids would lie about their age, parental support, or whatever just to land seasonal work was of course the desire for money; moreover, respect just seemed to come along with the person who seemingly gave something up to enter the workforce at an earlier age.

One reason that kids opted for seasonal work, and I am positive about this notion, that if one were a “good worker” and did the job according to standards rather than “…we don’t need you anymore…” became “…could you stand a minimal lay off”? Ah ha! That is when one became entitled to apply and accept unemployment insurance.

Although there was a significant social stigma attached to collecting unemployment – something in the American mindset that one was getting something for nothing – just did not go down well with the established working class citizenry. Therefore, one did not go to the Unemployment Commission and file immediately.

Hey, we are addressing underclass students in high school with acne, zits, and trying to find a date to the after game party. Just reflecting on that time period it becomes so easy to see the differences now as opposed to then.

Does anyone really know what drives capitalism? Why is Mitt Romney taking so much heat and pure unadulterated rubbish for his pursuits with Bain

Be passionate for America!

Capital? Talk about exploiting some real rubbish – what facts most enemies don’t mention is the idea that he was persuaded to leave his position as CEO at Bain Company and with some of his own investment capital, other investors, and Mr. Bain decided to make the spin-off private investment capital company, Bain Capital.

How many of us sleep on Sealy mattresses? Or how many of us go out to Staples Office Products to get necessary office items? We have Mr. Romney to thank for that because it was his knowledge, energy, and competitive edge that brought those companies back from the dead.

Any way this is not about Mr. Romney or a political endorsement article. What is the driving influence behind capitalism? Competition is the major factor in driving capitalism to its greatest heights. One simply is not going to succeed at capitalism as long as competition is replaced with entitlements, huge onerous corporate bonuses, or by no means allowing any other nation to perform the work done by American companies.

The continued outsourcing of jobs to other nations is placing them at the center of capitalism, although they don’t know it. So why not cut ones leg off to spite his other broken knee? People it’s time to wake up!

Boys’ And Girls’ Locker Room? Calif. Bill Would Blur School ‘Gender Identity’ Rules

Boys’ And Girls’ Locker Room? Calif. Bill Would Blur School ‘Gender Identity’ Rules

Beyond any notion of acceptance, we have brushed lightly – even to the point of bristling directly into this proposed situation on several occasions. There have been times when we directly examined the notion of cloning. Other analyses have included the reactions to special interest and advocacy groups inasmuch as because people who, without knowledge of unintended circumstances that represent a clear minority of the general population believe that somehow Natural rights or Natural laws don’t apply to them.

Furthermore, we have tried to espouse our view of small pocket groups of people who want something, begin to believe that it is their Right to have special consideration and as such special interest groups seeing the money to be gained begin endorsing such notions thus allowing the small groups to wield the power of huge outfits with the non-enlisted assistance of special interests and then what?

Government intervention! Both through legislation or regulation the government’s intervention sets the issues assail and yet, what do any of us know?

Here is a short story from CBS News in Los Angeles that, believe it–or– not is being presented either for ballot publication or simply a new act.

Days after a landmark law went into effect requiring California schools to teach about gay historical figures, a new piece of proposed legislation is likely to spark even more controversy.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), AB 266 would require schools to allow students to play on sports teams according to their “gender identity” and not their biological sex.

The bill — which is currently before the Assembly Education Committee — was initially aimed at resolving conflicts among local governments “and other interests” through the creation of a state sports commission.

However, revised language in the proposed bill would mandate that students “shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records”.

Under the proposal, a boy who claims a female “gender identity”, for example, would have the right to try out for a girls’ sports team.

In addition, the bill would also require opposite-sex access to “sex-segregated facilities” that could possibly include locker rooms.

Ammiano claims to be the first San Francisco public school teacher “to make his sexual orientation a matter of public knowledge”.

Every now and then…

We sympathize and feel for the public here in the United States as well as the world over regarding the amount of good solid information received – not only the truth of information, but its reliability and validity. Sure we all have our favorites; albeit talk radio, cable news programs or the ostensible don’t have to answer to nobody “main-stream media.” Or so they act.

So then, what’s the remedy? We either listen to the news that has a fully dressed liberal agenda, or for some, we have the right-sided too soon to be Nazi’s and terrorists so don’t listen to Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. So then again, what’s the remedy?

The remedy folks are twofold; on the one side keep looking until you find the right medium for you – or simply get involved and speak up! Although there are literally thousands, perhaps millions that want citizenship in this country, the notion of tearing down the United States as your means of speaking out is ridiculous and in earlier times would certainly have fallen into one of the Sedition Acts.

We have written about the “Occupy” movement and anyone particularly those who have participated in one or more, please comment or email us here with your thoughts.

As we’ve reported before we’ve had our experience with some; and I don’t take this lightly, but anyone who wants to speak with me or enlist me or whatever, should know the ins and outs of economics, economic systems, political alignments, and how using those alignments within a political structure somehow makes a government.

But for now let’s just keep it simple and try to engage in a dialog. First what are the differences between the top three political systems on the earth today? Good. The big three would certainly be capitalism, socialism, and communism. Maybe we should look to the assets or reasons why people would want either of them.

We must remember that given socialism (or socialistic quasi-democracy) very much like the governments in Europe the citizenry owns basically nothing or, in other words, the means of production (tractors, trucks, cranes) are all owned by the government. Ergo, it would be very hard to differentiate between whether or not the socialist government owns you as well.

Therefore, when you see Qantas Airlines, or Air Australia, or Virgin Australia one must remember that those entities are literally owned by the government. Moreover, the various costs associated with keeping the fleet flying are up to the government as well which notwithstanding are a direct proportion of the faire.

Socialist systems do not allow for a “freedom to vote” situation either. Oh no, they want everyone (by law) who claims residence in their territory to vote. Say what? Yep, gives accountability to raise taxes. Or….did you know or think it’s normal to pay $1.00 per postage stamp?

Socialist systems do work albeit mostly for very small countries or those with very little population. Communism is flat out digging deeper in the shee-it looking for that proverbial pony. Communism takes the means of production, paycheck, house, stove, and cars if need be; furthermore, within that political-economic alignment if the “One” at the top of the heap (the justified 1%) calls for a cultural revolution then everything within the country belongs to that totalitarian – dictator.

Now if a person loathes freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then they can always go to a controlling country and its people in a very strict way, without allowing opposition from another political party.

In other words one does not have an option of anything. If one decides to leave of their own accord without the blessing of the ruling authority then leaving turns abruptly into defecting. Therefore, one becomes an enemy of the state. So here’s the deal: If you don’t like having an opportunity in your life for fun, being happy, making money, going wherever you please and whenever you want, then please don’t hate America, simply go to any number of smaller nations in Africa, North Korea, or China.

We say this insofar as a person or a group of people can contribute very little money and yet, still have a chance at winning the “Big One”…the lottery.

Just a note on “Senior-itis”

 

A Colorado teenager whose yearbook picture was rejected for being too revealing is vowing to fight the ban with her high school’s administration, but the editors of the yearbook insist it was their decision alone on the photo.

This is admirable; for some unknown reason Sydney Spies does not want to deal with the editorial staff, or her peers, regarding the matter. One can only wonder into the plethora of reasons why. However, for the editorial board to think that the decision is theirs to make is really not too realistic. In public education the final say will always be done by the administration.

The five student editors of the Durango High School yearbook in Durango, Col., told the Durango Herald they were the ones who made the call not to publish a picture of senior Sydney Spies posing in a short yellow skirt midriff and shoulder-exposing black shawl as her senior portrait.

“We are an award-winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional,” student Brian Jaramillo told the paper on Thursday. (This notion gets beat up in the end of the article.)

Spies was joined by her mother, Miki Spies, and a handful of fellow Durango High students and alumni in a protest outside the school Wednesday after, she said, administrators informed her the photo would not be permitted because it violated dress code.

We take issue with this particular point; it is certainly one matter to say “it’s in violation of the dress code…” however, having the dress code on hand would assuredly bolster their argument.

“I feel like they aren’t allowing me to have my freedom of expression,” Spies told the Herald. ”I think the administration is wrong in this situation, and I don’t want this to happen to other people.”

We do a lot of writing on the entire notion on Freedom of Speech, in fact, all of the issues contained within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Sydney Spies is claiming that her freedom of expression is being abridged; it is far better to tell a newspaper journalist than to either tell it to a sitting judge or an attorney if she plans on retaining one.

Our first question would be the most obvious: “What exactly are you trying to express?” There is nothing at all with wanting to share your freedom of expression with anyone who will listen or look. However as we shall see is the notion of the appropriateness of the expression.

Short case to kick start the brain; furthermore, a lively one at that. An Austrian journalist, Peter Michael Lingens, had written articles charging a politician with the “basest opportunism.” The politician sued for libel and the Austrian courts awarded him damages. Lingens went to the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the libel judgment against him violated the Convention on Human Rights – its clause guaranteeing freedom of expression.

That freedom the court said, “constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society…It is applicable not only to information, or ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive…but also those that offend, shock, or disturb.

These are the demands of the pluralism, tolerance, and broad mindedness without such there is no ‘democratic society.’ In other words, “freedom for the thought that we hate…” according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The next position taken by the editorial staff of the yearbook, would just about qualify one as double-trouble. They also offered her an opportunity to include the photo in the yearbook, just not as her senior photo. “If she (Spies) chooses to, the picture will run as her senior ad, not her senior portrait,” Jaramillo said.

There is indeed an idiosyncrasy or glaring oxymoron as we see it. Regardless of dress code or any other short-sidedness what Jaramillo is ostensibly saying is we would be glad to use your photo to make money and perhaps bolster our yearbook sales in the Senior Ad Section, but we will not use it in the Senior Portraits Section. (So what is it going to be?)

As we indicated earlier the administration will invariably have the final say. “The editors of Durango High School’s yearbook informed a senior student in December that her photo in question would not be included as a senior portrait in the yearbook and asked her to submit a replacement. Durango School District 9-R’s administration supports this decision.”