The timing couldn't be more perfect. This weekend and last, several shopping channels held their "Christmas in July" sales. Of course, there was a plethora of holiday items: trees, wreaths, ornaments, lights. There were also food items geared toward the holidays like hams, candy, dipped apples and snacks. And of course, toys, from ages 2 to 92.
But the usual items were also on sale. Ladies fashions and mens gadgets were being sold, albeit with holiday trimmings on all the sets.
And why is this? Well, holiday sales from Thanksgiving to Christmas account for 70% or more of all retail sales made in this country, so much so, that the day after Thanksgiving has been named Black Friday, and not because of any disaster, although if you have ever traveled near a mall on this day, you would think there was, with all the traffic in and around the place.
No. It's called Black Friday because this is the day every major retailer in America finally sees their books go from red to black. And their entire profit is made in the last 30 days of the year.
So why the hoopla in the middle of the summer? Why not? Every day, the shopping channels hawk their wares, 24 hours every day, with special shows every weekend geared toward items of interest for the whole family. Food items, electronics, outdoor accessories, and jewelry, all aimed at getting our dollars into their coffers. And the extended return policies and ez pays at zero interest are added enticements retailers don't give you.
Cashing in on Christmas, well, that's a no-brainer. After all, the business of America is business. And Christmas sells, probably even more than sex. Because Christmas speaks to the wholesomeness of the entire family, and people get warm and fuzzy just thinking about it.
There is also the convenience factor. By shopping on TV, like the Internet, there is a sense that you can call up and place your order, have it delivered in a few days and feel that your mission was accomplished. And unlike the Internet, there is the added benefit of having the host of the segment tell you all about the item of interest. Over and over. 3 ways from Sunday.
If you missed the holiday special, well have no fear. It will return again next month at the same time and every month after, to help you resolve that age-old question, "what should I get Suzie or Pete for Christmas." The products will be there and you will buy. But at the end, you will panic and feel that maybe what you bought wasn't quite right or you did not get enough.
And you know what? See you at the mall!
Monday, July 29, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Thank a Vet
In August, 1964, right after the world changed, President Johnson went to the Congress about an incident that he claimed took place in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam. Based on this, the Congress, once again, ceded power to the Presidency by approving a resolution giving him virtually unlimited power to escalate our role in what was then known as the Vietnam Conflict.
From that point until March 30, 1968, he increased our presence from 15,000 advisors to over 500,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. On that date, he announced that he would not seek or accept the nomination from the Democrat Party for another term. By the time his term ended almost 10 months later, over 45,000 military died and hundreds of thousands were injured. By the time the ceasefire and peace was achieved in January, 1973, over 55,000 were dead and over 500,000 were injured, some permanently physically disabled, all psychologically afflicted, along with millions of others who served, with what is now known as PTSD.
When our last marines and other servicemen left on April 30, 1975, we were so beaten and war-weary that we swore we would never return to battle. And other than a few skirmishes during the late 70s and through the 80s, that pledge was kept. Even our involvement in a six-week war and less than 72 hours of troops on the ground in the Gulf War proved to be a blessing to keep that promise.
But on September 11, 2001, the world changed again. For almost 12 years and counting, there have been children born in this country that have never not known war. Their parent or, in some cases, parents had enlisted in the armed forces before they were born and subsequently, perhaps both service people were deployed to Afghanistan and/or Iraq, leaving the child home with one parent or sometimes with grandparents, since both were deployed.
Between the two wars, almost 10,000 have died and over 50,000 have been injured. Again, this does not include all those who developed PTSD while serving. In addition, this also does not include the 22 veterans who commit suicide each day, as casualties of war.
There are still hundreds of thousands of veterans from WWII and millions from Korea and Vietnam, who were injured, suffering from PTSD, with thousands living in VA, Navy and Army hospitals, neglected by family and certainly by their country.
And has been done? Unfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs does not have the resources to care for all the injured veterans who need help. Entities like Wounded Warrior Project try to deal with the more critically wounded, but their resources depend on donations and fundraising. More traditional groups like AmVet, VFW and American Legion do what they can, but again resources are limited, relying on member contributions and dues, and contributions from the public.
As a country, we need to take better care of our veterans by acknowledging their sacrifices to our country. Perhaps, if each American sent just $5 to WWP, over $1.5 BILLION would be raised to help our veterans with their recovery. And imagine how many lives we would be helping. Every $10 raised after that would be $3 BILLION more.
What would be a better way to say "Thank You" to the men and women, and their children, for the freedom and liberty we enjoy and cherish? Or, when you see a veteran selling the poppies in the parking lot, make a donation of even $1 or $2 because you would be helping those vets who live in our communities.
And when you see one of our vets wearing his baseball cap or his windbreaker proudly displaying the war he or she was in and where they served, make sure you say "Thank you for your Service". It will go a long way.
From that point until March 30, 1968, he increased our presence from 15,000 advisors to over 500,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. On that date, he announced that he would not seek or accept the nomination from the Democrat Party for another term. By the time his term ended almost 10 months later, over 45,000 military died and hundreds of thousands were injured. By the time the ceasefire and peace was achieved in January, 1973, over 55,000 were dead and over 500,000 were injured, some permanently physically disabled, all psychologically afflicted, along with millions of others who served, with what is now known as PTSD.
When our last marines and other servicemen left on April 30, 1975, we were so beaten and war-weary that we swore we would never return to battle. And other than a few skirmishes during the late 70s and through the 80s, that pledge was kept. Even our involvement in a six-week war and less than 72 hours of troops on the ground in the Gulf War proved to be a blessing to keep that promise.
But on September 11, 2001, the world changed again. For almost 12 years and counting, there have been children born in this country that have never not known war. Their parent or, in some cases, parents had enlisted in the armed forces before they were born and subsequently, perhaps both service people were deployed to Afghanistan and/or Iraq, leaving the child home with one parent or sometimes with grandparents, since both were deployed.
Between the two wars, almost 10,000 have died and over 50,000 have been injured. Again, this does not include all those who developed PTSD while serving. In addition, this also does not include the 22 veterans who commit suicide each day, as casualties of war.
There are still hundreds of thousands of veterans from WWII and millions from Korea and Vietnam, who were injured, suffering from PTSD, with thousands living in VA, Navy and Army hospitals, neglected by family and certainly by their country.
And has been done? Unfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs does not have the resources to care for all the injured veterans who need help. Entities like Wounded Warrior Project try to deal with the more critically wounded, but their resources depend on donations and fundraising. More traditional groups like AmVet, VFW and American Legion do what they can, but again resources are limited, relying on member contributions and dues, and contributions from the public.
As a country, we need to take better care of our veterans by acknowledging their sacrifices to our country. Perhaps, if each American sent just $5 to WWP, over $1.5 BILLION would be raised to help our veterans with their recovery. And imagine how many lives we would be helping. Every $10 raised after that would be $3 BILLION more.
What would be a better way to say "Thank You" to the men and women, and their children, for the freedom and liberty we enjoy and cherish? Or, when you see a veteran selling the poppies in the parking lot, make a donation of even $1 or $2 because you would be helping those vets who live in our communities.
And when you see one of our vets wearing his baseball cap or his windbreaker proudly displaying the war he or she was in and where they served, make sure you say "Thank you for your Service". It will go a long way.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
A Real Circus
So many people have already commented on the Weiner debacle and I am sure I will sound like noise rather than a cogent voice in the debate. In addition, the former governor AND attorney general, Elliot Spitzer, is looking for his political redemption, as well.
I wrote back on May 22 in Rehabilitation, Forgiveness, and Redemption, that Anthony Weiner was entitled to his opportunity for redemption and forgiveness because we would hope we would be given the same opportunity if we screwed up. But apparently, Mr Weiner did not rehabilitate himself and has once again, dragged his wife into his dirty, muddy soup.
Ms Abedin has assured us that she has forgiven him and that we should, too. Sound familiar? Of course it does. But at least she didn't say it was a Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy. Huma has shown that, instead, it was her husband's own doing and not the fault of talk radio or Fox News.
Nevertheless, it has become apparent to most of us that Anthony Weiner should withdraw from the race and work on fixing his marriage rather than thinking that he is healed and is ready to tackle the problems of New York City. If he thinks otherwise, he is displaying the arrogance that made him one of the least liked Members of Congress.
And if he stays in the race, the voters of New York should reject and humiliate him so badly, he will never again see the political light of day.
With regard to Mr Spitzer, I never liked him and, like Weiner, found him to be arrogant and quite honestly, selective in who he prosecuted as Attorney General. In addition, remember that as the top law enforcement officer, he was breaking the law by soliciting call girls, while prosecuting street prostitutes and the "johns" who used and abused them.
As governor, he continued this practice, using state resources like the state police, vehicles, etc, to pursue his illegal activity. And like Anthony Weiner, he dragged his wife to the podium and embarrassed her while he asked for our forgiveness.
He left politics right after his resignation and secured a TV show on CNN, in prime cable TV time, as if nothing happened. The viewers rejected him and was cancelled well before his contract was up.
Ironically, he is running against his former Madame. The voters of the City should reject both these fools and vote for somebody, anybody else for Comptroller.
And now you know why New York City is known as Fun City. Because clowns want to run the show.
I wrote back on May 22 in Rehabilitation, Forgiveness, and Redemption, that Anthony Weiner was entitled to his opportunity for redemption and forgiveness because we would hope we would be given the same opportunity if we screwed up. But apparently, Mr Weiner did not rehabilitate himself and has once again, dragged his wife into his dirty, muddy soup.
Ms Abedin has assured us that she has forgiven him and that we should, too. Sound familiar? Of course it does. But at least she didn't say it was a Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy. Huma has shown that, instead, it was her husband's own doing and not the fault of talk radio or Fox News.
Nevertheless, it has become apparent to most of us that Anthony Weiner should withdraw from the race and work on fixing his marriage rather than thinking that he is healed and is ready to tackle the problems of New York City. If he thinks otherwise, he is displaying the arrogance that made him one of the least liked Members of Congress.
And if he stays in the race, the voters of New York should reject and humiliate him so badly, he will never again see the political light of day.
With regard to Mr Spitzer, I never liked him and, like Weiner, found him to be arrogant and quite honestly, selective in who he prosecuted as Attorney General. In addition, remember that as the top law enforcement officer, he was breaking the law by soliciting call girls, while prosecuting street prostitutes and the "johns" who used and abused them.
As governor, he continued this practice, using state resources like the state police, vehicles, etc, to pursue his illegal activity. And like Anthony Weiner, he dragged his wife to the podium and embarrassed her while he asked for our forgiveness.
He left politics right after his resignation and secured a TV show on CNN, in prime cable TV time, as if nothing happened. The viewers rejected him and was cancelled well before his contract was up.
Ironically, he is running against his former Madame. The voters of the City should reject both these fools and vote for somebody, anybody else for Comptroller.
And now you know why New York City is known as Fun City. Because clowns want to run the show.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Moms Day Out
So, Tuesday (yesterday), my wife and I, along with my daughter-in-law, son and her parents, went to the Ob-Gyn much like a normal 21st century family outing. It seemed pretty normal to us, so why should anyone think it strange, right?
Anyway, we went because, as prospective grandparents, we wanted to share in the news that only grandparents can appreciate: the family lives on! Now, we have known since just before Mother's Day they were having a child. And after Father's Day, we were finally allowed to tell our friends, families, brothers and sisters. But today, it was extra-special.
The appointment was for 11:30 and the Mrs and I were finally (!!) on time for something. Trust me, if it were up to me, lateness would never even be in the dictionary. But, today, something important was happening. We were actually waiting for the proud parents-to-be and her parents to make their arrival.
At precisely 11:29, they all showed up and we were all escorted to the sonogram room to learn what the legacy would be. It was a parade through the waiting room, with her Mom in a wheelchair pushed by her Dad, and the procession following in lockstep behind. It must have been funny to see, because I thought it was funny to be in it.
Finally, Mom laid on the table, with the sonogram machine all set to go and a wide screen monitor mounted above for all to see. Of course, the cellphones were clicking at the screen with no idea what we were shooting. Click. Click. Click. Phones pointed to the screen, all to capture the big moment.
But then, the tech turned and told us that we would not find out, not right then and there. The baby (YES. THE BABY) was breached and was not in the right position. The look and sound of disappointment was unmistakable in the room. The tech realized the importance of this day and suggested we go have a bite to eat and come back after 2pm. Unfortunately, the Father-to-be had to return to work. We said we would figure out how to get him in on the pm test.
It seemed reasonable and hopeful, so we went to a nice italian restaurant in the shopping center across the way. We kept the mood light and even, laughing at the silliest things, to keep her relaxed, so that perhaps the baby would move into position.
After lunch, we walked back across the lot and were escorted right in. Momma called Daddy to make sure he could hear what was going on (we tried FaceTime, but we couldn't connect) and as soon as the tech put the probe down, BOOM!! There it was! No doubt about it! Right there for all to see! At 18 weeks and 5 days!
But wait! It was not what I expected or planned for. Instead, a little dinkle. Yes, a boy! Funny thing, both my wife and I wore blue, not realizing that we did until later, as if to welcome the newest Master McHale to the family. And there you have it. Either way, the legacy lives on.
So it goes. And so it will.
Anyway, we went because, as prospective grandparents, we wanted to share in the news that only grandparents can appreciate: the family lives on! Now, we have known since just before Mother's Day they were having a child. And after Father's Day, we were finally allowed to tell our friends, families, brothers and sisters. But today, it was extra-special.
The appointment was for 11:30 and the Mrs and I were finally (!!) on time for something. Trust me, if it were up to me, lateness would never even be in the dictionary. But, today, something important was happening. We were actually waiting for the proud parents-to-be and her parents to make their arrival.
At precisely 11:29, they all showed up and we were all escorted to the sonogram room to learn what the legacy would be. It was a parade through the waiting room, with her Mom in a wheelchair pushed by her Dad, and the procession following in lockstep behind. It must have been funny to see, because I thought it was funny to be in it.
Finally, Mom laid on the table, with the sonogram machine all set to go and a wide screen monitor mounted above for all to see. Of course, the cellphones were clicking at the screen with no idea what we were shooting. Click. Click. Click. Phones pointed to the screen, all to capture the big moment.
But then, the tech turned and told us that we would not find out, not right then and there. The baby (YES. THE BABY) was breached and was not in the right position. The look and sound of disappointment was unmistakable in the room. The tech realized the importance of this day and suggested we go have a bite to eat and come back after 2pm. Unfortunately, the Father-to-be had to return to work. We said we would figure out how to get him in on the pm test.
It seemed reasonable and hopeful, so we went to a nice italian restaurant in the shopping center across the way. We kept the mood light and even, laughing at the silliest things, to keep her relaxed, so that perhaps the baby would move into position.
After lunch, we walked back across the lot and were escorted right in. Momma called Daddy to make sure he could hear what was going on (we tried FaceTime, but we couldn't connect) and as soon as the tech put the probe down, BOOM!! There it was! No doubt about it! Right there for all to see! At 18 weeks and 5 days!
But wait! It was not what I expected or planned for. Instead, a little dinkle. Yes, a boy! Funny thing, both my wife and I wore blue, not realizing that we did until later, as if to welcome the newest Master McHale to the family. And there you have it. Either way, the legacy lives on.
So it goes. And so it will.
Monday, July 22, 2013
RINOs?
Why do conservatives castigate Republicans who are more moderate, more centrist or even more liberal than they are? People like Chris Christie, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Paul Ryan are as Republican as Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, yet are criticized for working with liberal Democrats in the House or Senate. Even Marco Rubio was slammed by conservatives as a "traitor" to his conservative ideals because he worked with Democrats on the immigration bill.
Now, for the sake of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican, but I have libertarian and socially moderate leanings. I am a fiscal conservative and I admit, I have voted for Democrats many times over the years. Does that make me a traitor? Absolutely not! Instead, it makes me a free-thinking and high-information American. If we want to think monolithically, perhaps we would prefer to be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Red China, the best examples of monolithic governments from the 20th century.
Do we? I don't think so.
Instead, we are a nation of diversity, exemplified by our ancestry, race, color, creed and even sexual orientation. So why wouldn't we be diverse in our politics? I mean, isn't that what being American is all about?
Other than, perhaps, Canada, there is no other country on earth like the USA. And even Canada is mostly English-based, except for French Quebec. So, Canada is not nearly as diverse as we are. Nor are its politics.
We need to understand that it is our fault as Republicans that Barack Obama is serving a second term. Why? Because as a party, we couldn't get behind a winner early in the primary season and we allowed the MSM to define our candidates, rather than defining them ourselves. By the time Mitt Romney finally won enough delegates to secure the nomination, he was so bloodied by the battle and was so short of money, he struggled, and ultimately, lost the election.
I agree that Mitt could have been more forceful and challenging during the debates and the campaign. And as the honest man he is, Mitt would admit to that, as well. But the problem also was that during the campaign, he was still trying to win over the conservatives, who by and large, stayed home on Election Day, like a bunch of spoiled children who didn't get what they wanted.
He won over the independents, and he won over many Reagan Democrats. But he was largely unable to win over his own party's base. And guess what, folks? Whoever becomes the Republican standard-bearer for 2016, will have the same difficulties, if this attitude continues. The result will be another four years of the nonsense we have suffered through since 2009. Hillary or Joe, or whoever else is nominated by the Democrats, will be elected due to our own discord.
So, if we want to continue identifying people as Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs, soon enough we will be the 21st century version of the Whigs or the Federalists. It will be our own damn fault. And Barry will thank you all very much for completing his transformation of the USA for him.
And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Now, for the sake of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican, but I have libertarian and socially moderate leanings. I am a fiscal conservative and I admit, I have voted for Democrats many times over the years. Does that make me a traitor? Absolutely not! Instead, it makes me a free-thinking and high-information American. If we want to think monolithically, perhaps we would prefer to be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Red China, the best examples of monolithic governments from the 20th century.
Do we? I don't think so.
Instead, we are a nation of diversity, exemplified by our ancestry, race, color, creed and even sexual orientation. So why wouldn't we be diverse in our politics? I mean, isn't that what being American is all about?
Other than, perhaps, Canada, there is no other country on earth like the USA. And even Canada is mostly English-based, except for French Quebec. So, Canada is not nearly as diverse as we are. Nor are its politics.
We need to understand that it is our fault as Republicans that Barack Obama is serving a second term. Why? Because as a party, we couldn't get behind a winner early in the primary season and we allowed the MSM to define our candidates, rather than defining them ourselves. By the time Mitt Romney finally won enough delegates to secure the nomination, he was so bloodied by the battle and was so short of money, he struggled, and ultimately, lost the election.
I agree that Mitt could have been more forceful and challenging during the debates and the campaign. And as the honest man he is, Mitt would admit to that, as well. But the problem also was that during the campaign, he was still trying to win over the conservatives, who by and large, stayed home on Election Day, like a bunch of spoiled children who didn't get what they wanted.
He won over the independents, and he won over many Reagan Democrats. But he was largely unable to win over his own party's base. And guess what, folks? Whoever becomes the Republican standard-bearer for 2016, will have the same difficulties, if this attitude continues. The result will be another four years of the nonsense we have suffered through since 2009. Hillary or Joe, or whoever else is nominated by the Democrats, will be elected due to our own discord.
So, if we want to continue identifying people as Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs, soon enough we will be the 21st century version of the Whigs or the Federalists. It will be our own damn fault. And Barry will thank you all very much for completing his transformation of the USA for him.
And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Daughters
Saturday was exactly 4 months or 120 days until my daughter's wedding. They held the shower this past weekend, in order to confuse and deflect her from knowing when it would be. After all, the closer it gets the more certain the bride can figure out when the shower is planned.
It was a beautiful day for the shower, hot and humid, but no rain, a typical mid-July Saturday on Long Island. The venue was great. They went out of their way to make everything perfect for my daughter. The air conditioning was on high, too!
I waited there until my daughter showed up with her fiancé, using the ruse that we all were invited to our friends' 33rd wedding anniversary surprise party. Which, of course, it is but also of course, it wasn't. She walked in shocked, not recognizing some of the people, which, of course, she wouldn't, since they were friends of her future mother-in-law.
Her fiancé and I went out to lunch with some friends during this time. I have a pretty good relationship with her intended, which makes it better than if I didn't. That would be a difficult time for us both. Kind of like Archie and the Meathead. I thank the Good Lord we get along, more like I did with my father-in-law.
Now, I will say this: no guy is really good enough for any man's daughter. Even if you have many daughters, no one is ever good enough. We love our sons but we cherish our daughters. We know our sons will be able to care for themselves, because we raise them to be strong and tough. But our daughters will ALWAYS BE our little girls. And daddies and daughters will always have a special bond.
Some of the best movies are about father-and son-in-law relationships: Father of the Bride (both versions), Guess Who is Coming to Dinner, Guess Who, the In-Laws, (both versions), and even mob movies like The Godfather trilogy, Goodfellas and Analyze This had underlying themes of in-law issues. So did comedies like Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers. I am sure you could think of others, as well.
As you can see, it doesn't matter the race or religion of the characters, does it? All dads feel the same about their daughter's intended. And this year, especially, it has never been more clear to me how other dads feel. Every wedding we have been invited to this year, the dad was a relative or friend of mine and his child was his daughter.
Like me, he holds his daughter on a pedestal even higher than her mother, because this woman is his art, his creation. And every artist reveres his work. So to all you prospective sons-in-law out there, let's just say it's not you, it's us. Don't take it personally.
Because some day, after your children are born, and grow up, if you are lucky enough to have a daughter, you, too, will feel as I do. And consider yourself blessed.
It was a beautiful day for the shower, hot and humid, but no rain, a typical mid-July Saturday on Long Island. The venue was great. They went out of their way to make everything perfect for my daughter. The air conditioning was on high, too!
I waited there until my daughter showed up with her fiancé, using the ruse that we all were invited to our friends' 33rd wedding anniversary surprise party. Which, of course, it is but also of course, it wasn't. She walked in shocked, not recognizing some of the people, which, of course, she wouldn't, since they were friends of her future mother-in-law.
Her fiancé and I went out to lunch with some friends during this time. I have a pretty good relationship with her intended, which makes it better than if I didn't. That would be a difficult time for us both. Kind of like Archie and the Meathead. I thank the Good Lord we get along, more like I did with my father-in-law.
Now, I will say this: no guy is really good enough for any man's daughter. Even if you have many daughters, no one is ever good enough. We love our sons but we cherish our daughters. We know our sons will be able to care for themselves, because we raise them to be strong and tough. But our daughters will ALWAYS BE our little girls. And daddies and daughters will always have a special bond.
Some of the best movies are about father-and son-in-law relationships: Father of the Bride (both versions), Guess Who is Coming to Dinner, Guess Who, the In-Laws, (both versions), and even mob movies like The Godfather trilogy, Goodfellas and Analyze This had underlying themes of in-law issues. So did comedies like Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers. I am sure you could think of others, as well.
As you can see, it doesn't matter the race or religion of the characters, does it? All dads feel the same about their daughter's intended. And this year, especially, it has never been more clear to me how other dads feel. Every wedding we have been invited to this year, the dad was a relative or friend of mine and his child was his daughter.
Like me, he holds his daughter on a pedestal even higher than her mother, because this woman is his art, his creation. And every artist reveres his work. So to all you prospective sons-in-law out there, let's just say it's not you, it's us. Don't take it personally.
Because some day, after your children are born, and grow up, if you are lucky enough to have a daughter, you, too, will feel as I do. And consider yourself blessed.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Where is Wood-Stein?
On Thursday morning, I had an opportunity to watch the movie, "All the President's Men," a film of moderate cinematic ability, with a cast of great actors, and probably, the best film of political duplicity and intrigue ever made. But certainly this commentary is not a movie review, as those of you who know me, since that's not my forte.
Instead, this film is a testimony to what two unknown journalists and a great newspaper did in a time when the gathering of information was done via telephone, on foot, with a pencil and notebook, rather than with a computer, smart phone, the Internet and Wikipedia. They and it investigated our government to its highest levels, without fear of recrimination where the investigation may have led.
It took guts and nerves of steel for the Washington Post's Managing Editor Ben Bradlee and his two gumshoe reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, known fondly as Wood-Stein, to persevere on a story others couldn't bother to cover, because they felt it was a dead end story, or were afraid to, out of fear what might be revealed. In the end, Bradlee, Woodward and Bernstein, as well as the entire staff and ownership of WaPo, were rewarded with the knowledge that they had done the right thing for the country and were acknowledged with Pulitzers for their work.
As I watched the film, I remembered how much I felt at that time that WaPo was destroying the American fabric by chasing a third rate burglary as if it were a political assassination of our President, who in his right mind, could never condone such criminal behavior. But, of course, he did by agreeing to resign rather than face impeachment for his deeds. The Post was vindicated for its pursuits of a President's misdeeds. And rightly so.
And then, I wondered why this great paper, as well as some of the others like, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, along with CBS, NBC and ABC, and cable news, and the thousands of reporters, have decided to abrogate their journalistic integrity and responsibility with the potential scandals in the Obama Administration. What has happened over the years that has made the MSM give this administration a pass when they doggedly pursued potential scandals in every administration since 1972, both Democrat and Republican. Until now.
I am not accusing President Obama of wrongdoing, necessarily. But I can not say the same about key members of his administration. Just like with President Nixon, perhaps he has placed too much faith and trust in his subordinates, and has given them too much latitude to exercise the President's best interests and wishes with too much zeal.
But ultimately, it is the duty of a free press to keep an eye on the government and hold it to task when it becomes too gluttonous for the people's freedom and liberties. Or soon, the press, too, will no longer be free.
Instead, this film is a testimony to what two unknown journalists and a great newspaper did in a time when the gathering of information was done via telephone, on foot, with a pencil and notebook, rather than with a computer, smart phone, the Internet and Wikipedia. They and it investigated our government to its highest levels, without fear of recrimination where the investigation may have led.
It took guts and nerves of steel for the Washington Post's Managing Editor Ben Bradlee and his two gumshoe reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, known fondly as Wood-Stein, to persevere on a story others couldn't bother to cover, because they felt it was a dead end story, or were afraid to, out of fear what might be revealed. In the end, Bradlee, Woodward and Bernstein, as well as the entire staff and ownership of WaPo, were rewarded with the knowledge that they had done the right thing for the country and were acknowledged with Pulitzers for their work.
As I watched the film, I remembered how much I felt at that time that WaPo was destroying the American fabric by chasing a third rate burglary as if it were a political assassination of our President, who in his right mind, could never condone such criminal behavior. But, of course, he did by agreeing to resign rather than face impeachment for his deeds. The Post was vindicated for its pursuits of a President's misdeeds. And rightly so.
And then, I wondered why this great paper, as well as some of the others like, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, along with CBS, NBC and ABC, and cable news, and the thousands of reporters, have decided to abrogate their journalistic integrity and responsibility with the potential scandals in the Obama Administration. What has happened over the years that has made the MSM give this administration a pass when they doggedly pursued potential scandals in every administration since 1972, both Democrat and Republican. Until now.
I am not accusing President Obama of wrongdoing, necessarily. But I can not say the same about key members of his administration. Just like with President Nixon, perhaps he has placed too much faith and trust in his subordinates, and has given them too much latitude to exercise the President's best interests and wishes with too much zeal.
But ultimately, it is the duty of a free press to keep an eye on the government and hold it to task when it becomes too gluttonous for the people's freedom and liberties. Or soon, the press, too, will no longer be free.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Like a Rolling Stone
All day on Wednesday, we heard nothing but ROLLING STONE's cover of the younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzokhar, peering out to all of us with his piercing eyes. Like that should have been frightening to us.
First of all, I didn't know ROLLING STONE was still being published. I thought it became irrelevant about 1979 and finally died a lonesome death around 1984. How did I miss the news that 10 people still bought the rag mag.
Then I remembered hearing something about two years or so ago, that General Stanley McCrystal did an interview where he allegedly criticized President Obama and it was published in that magazine. Wow! And then he was relieved of his command in Afghanistan. Lucky him!
But, quite honestly, he deserved to be fired, because no active military should be criticizing their Commander-in-Chief, no matter who he or she is. The President, after all, constitutionally is the highest ranking officer in the military, and decorum dictates he be treated as such. If you feel it necessary to criticize or disagree with your commander, then resign first, and you regain your freedom of speech.
Anyway, back to Tsarnaev. We hadn't heard any real news about the Boston bombing since late April. What has transpired that made this kook newsworthy again? Is he going to trial? No. Is he copping a plea? No. Did he ask to go back to Mother Russia? No, again.
No, the reason he graced the cover was so that the editors and publisher could find relevance in their work. And this, America, is what they chose: a foreign-born American citizen who tried to kill other Americans on Patriot Day, of all days, in Boston, which was three months ago, this week.
Let's show the people at ROLLING STONE what we think about their choice of cover story. Just don't buy it. And, if you subscribe, cancel your subscription today.
Maybe next time they are desperate to sell their magazine, they will think twice and put the victims of that American tragedy on the cover, instead.
First of all, I didn't know ROLLING STONE was still being published. I thought it became irrelevant about 1979 and finally died a lonesome death around 1984. How did I miss the news that 10 people still bought the rag mag.
Then I remembered hearing something about two years or so ago, that General Stanley McCrystal did an interview where he allegedly criticized President Obama and it was published in that magazine. Wow! And then he was relieved of his command in Afghanistan. Lucky him!
But, quite honestly, he deserved to be fired, because no active military should be criticizing their Commander-in-Chief, no matter who he or she is. The President, after all, constitutionally is the highest ranking officer in the military, and decorum dictates he be treated as such. If you feel it necessary to criticize or disagree with your commander, then resign first, and you regain your freedom of speech.
Anyway, back to Tsarnaev. We hadn't heard any real news about the Boston bombing since late April. What has transpired that made this kook newsworthy again? Is he going to trial? No. Is he copping a plea? No. Did he ask to go back to Mother Russia? No, again.
No, the reason he graced the cover was so that the editors and publisher could find relevance in their work. And this, America, is what they chose: a foreign-born American citizen who tried to kill other Americans on Patriot Day, of all days, in Boston, which was three months ago, this week.
Let's show the people at ROLLING STONE what we think about their choice of cover story. Just don't buy it. And, if you subscribe, cancel your subscription today.
Maybe next time they are desperate to sell their magazine, they will think twice and put the victims of that American tragedy on the cover, instead.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Zimmerman Redux
No more rhetoric on the George Zimmerman case? To the contrary, it hasn't stopped. Even the great legal mind of Alan Dershowitz has entered the fray.
He was quoted in Tuesday's Newsmax as believing that George Zimmerman may have a civil case against the Florida state prosecutor, Angela Corey, for having called him a murderer AFTER the jury found him not guilty of murder or any lesser charge. I have provided you with the link to this article.
http://www.newsmax.com/
Now, he may not be innocent, which as any good attorney will tell you, there is a distinction between innocent and not guilty. But even this disinterested viewer can tell you that the state did an awful job with its evidence and with its witnesses. Casually watching some of the trial, even I could see he was going to go free.
Say what you want about the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, until it is no longer the law, it is there to be used as a self-defense tool when a weapon is discharged by one civilian against another. Perhaps, the Florida Legislature needs to revisit this law to either modify it with stricter guidelines, or even overturn it all together.
As far as the Martin family was concerned, they were as gracious and as calm as could be expected from a family who lost a son in this tragic affair. And George Zimmerman and his family were as equally subdued even though he was set free. There was no whooping and hollering in the courtroom, unlike when OJ was found not guilty.
However, I don't see the justification for people not directly or even indirectly involved in this case to show their displeasure over a verdict they didn't like. Where was the need to break windows, set cars on fire or other violence, when in fact, those individuals should be calling on the Federal government to investigate the out of control black on black crime that happens every day, 365 days a year, in just about every city in America.
Since the Martin-Zimmerman altercation happened, over 11,000 black men, women and children have been accosted in some way at the hands of other blacks. That is something the NAACP and other civil rights groups should be demanding of our government to help stop, not complain about the injustice of a verdict that the state of Florida was incompetent again to obtain, as in the Casey Anthony case.
And by the way, if this prosecutor is this incompetent, perhaps she should be impeached, for putting the state of Florida in a position of financial jeopardy because she continued to try the case in the media Q&A after the verdict was in. Short of that, maybe Floridians will remember Ms. Corey's incompetence at the next election. Or, perhaps Governor Scott will relieve her now of her duties and responsibilities, because she was not very responsible.
In any event, let's remember that one man died and another man's life is basically a mess, all because the media and the President made a circus of this disaster. And next time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton show up, tell them to leave because your tragedy isn't their business to find the spotlight for their warped egos.
Remember, they care about themselves. They don't care a wit about you and your grief.
He was quoted in Tuesday's Newsmax as believing that George Zimmerman may have a civil case against the Florida state prosecutor, Angela Corey, for having called him a murderer AFTER the jury found him not guilty of murder or any lesser charge. I have provided you with the link to this article.
http://www.newsmax.com/
Now, he may not be innocent, which as any good attorney will tell you, there is a distinction between innocent and not guilty. But even this disinterested viewer can tell you that the state did an awful job with its evidence and with its witnesses. Casually watching some of the trial, even I could see he was going to go free.
Say what you want about the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, until it is no longer the law, it is there to be used as a self-defense tool when a weapon is discharged by one civilian against another. Perhaps, the Florida Legislature needs to revisit this law to either modify it with stricter guidelines, or even overturn it all together.
As far as the Martin family was concerned, they were as gracious and as calm as could be expected from a family who lost a son in this tragic affair. And George Zimmerman and his family were as equally subdued even though he was set free. There was no whooping and hollering in the courtroom, unlike when OJ was found not guilty.
However, I don't see the justification for people not directly or even indirectly involved in this case to show their displeasure over a verdict they didn't like. Where was the need to break windows, set cars on fire or other violence, when in fact, those individuals should be calling on the Federal government to investigate the out of control black on black crime that happens every day, 365 days a year, in just about every city in America.
Since the Martin-Zimmerman altercation happened, over 11,000 black men, women and children have been accosted in some way at the hands of other blacks. That is something the NAACP and other civil rights groups should be demanding of our government to help stop, not complain about the injustice of a verdict that the state of Florida was incompetent again to obtain, as in the Casey Anthony case.
And by the way, if this prosecutor is this incompetent, perhaps she should be impeached, for putting the state of Florida in a position of financial jeopardy because she continued to try the case in the media Q&A after the verdict was in. Short of that, maybe Floridians will remember Ms. Corey's incompetence at the next election. Or, perhaps Governor Scott will relieve her now of her duties and responsibilities, because she was not very responsible.
In any event, let's remember that one man died and another man's life is basically a mess, all because the media and the President made a circus of this disaster. And next time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton show up, tell them to leave because your tragedy isn't their business to find the spotlight for their warped egos.
Remember, they care about themselves. They don't care a wit about you and your grief.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Congressional Salaries
Yesterday, I discussed Term Limits for Representatives and Senators. Essentially, we need to force Members of Congress to put forward and pass legislation which will prohibit any American from serving more than 12 years in either position.
There is, I admit, one flaw in my proposal that I failed to address and that is crossover. What I mean by this for example, if a Representative wishes to run for Senator and he hasn't exhausted the 12 year rule, he may run, and if he is re-elected and serves his remainder of 12 years as a Senator, he MAY NOT run as a Representative again. He has given more than enough to the country, with our thanks. Basically, the person serves up to a total of 12 years and that's it. At no time may the MC exceed 12 years between the House and Senate.
With regard to salaries, the 27th Amendment discusses how and when Congressional salaries are adjusted. Since Members of Congress maintain businesses outside their role in the Congress, there is no need to bankrupt the country with exorbitant salary increments. Instead, the salary increment may not exceed 1/2 of 1% of the average private industry increase.
This formula is pretty straight-forward. Remember that a Representative or Senator ran for this position to devote time to the country, not to get rich off the taxpayer. In addition, by limiting salary increments this way, one would want to leave and move on to other ventures, leaving room for new blood to take the reigns of power. "Fresh minds have fresh ideas," Kirk said to Scott in Star Trek II, The Wrath Of Khan.
Medical benefits would not be the high priced package that MC currently enjoy. Even if Obamacare is repealed and replaced, a congressional benefits package would be equal to that of an average American family, with co-pays, deductibles and employee paid premiums the rest of us pay. The benefits are lost when the Member leaves office, whether by election or retirement. There is no COBRA eligibility with a congressional position.
With regard to pensions, it is absolutely disgraceful that a Member of Congress continues to be paid his salary as a pension after he leaves office. Instead, since the MC will serve only serve 12 years, as in private industry there is vesting time to be applied to how the pension is awarded.
No pension is paid to anyone who serves less than 5 years, and since the MC can serve only 12 years, the most he or she will be awarded is 1/3 their average salary as a pension. And since an IRA participant generally may not receive the benefit without penalty before 59 1/2 years old, neither may the retired Member of Congress. But the pension will only be paid on a program of 10 Year period certain.
Finally, should the retired Member of Congress choose to take a position with a company, agency or any other type of employment or consulting that is recognized as one who is a lobby company to the Congress or any other Federal Department or Agency, the pension rights are lost forever.
With regard to existing and retired congress men and women, they will be effected by this change, as well. Effective at the time appropriate legislation is passed, the 10 year period certain will kick in for all, at 1/3 of their average salary for time served, up to 12 years. Again, if they served less than five years, any existing pension or pension rights will expire as of December 31 of the effective year. If they are lobbyists or other positions not permitted to get pensions, their payout will cease at the end of the month of enactment.
This legislation will begin to cut into unnecessary expenses that the country can no longer afford. And isn't everybody's goal to cut the deficit? Let's start with those who allowed this to happen. What do you think?
There is, I admit, one flaw in my proposal that I failed to address and that is crossover. What I mean by this for example, if a Representative wishes to run for Senator and he hasn't exhausted the 12 year rule, he may run, and if he is re-elected and serves his remainder of 12 years as a Senator, he MAY NOT run as a Representative again. He has given more than enough to the country, with our thanks. Basically, the person serves up to a total of 12 years and that's it. At no time may the MC exceed 12 years between the House and Senate.
With regard to salaries, the 27th Amendment discusses how and when Congressional salaries are adjusted. Since Members of Congress maintain businesses outside their role in the Congress, there is no need to bankrupt the country with exorbitant salary increments. Instead, the salary increment may not exceed 1/2 of 1% of the average private industry increase.
This formula is pretty straight-forward. Remember that a Representative or Senator ran for this position to devote time to the country, not to get rich off the taxpayer. In addition, by limiting salary increments this way, one would want to leave and move on to other ventures, leaving room for new blood to take the reigns of power. "Fresh minds have fresh ideas," Kirk said to Scott in Star Trek II, The Wrath Of Khan.
Medical benefits would not be the high priced package that MC currently enjoy. Even if Obamacare is repealed and replaced, a congressional benefits package would be equal to that of an average American family, with co-pays, deductibles and employee paid premiums the rest of us pay. The benefits are lost when the Member leaves office, whether by election or retirement. There is no COBRA eligibility with a congressional position.
With regard to pensions, it is absolutely disgraceful that a Member of Congress continues to be paid his salary as a pension after he leaves office. Instead, since the MC will serve only serve 12 years, as in private industry there is vesting time to be applied to how the pension is awarded.
No pension is paid to anyone who serves less than 5 years, and since the MC can serve only 12 years, the most he or she will be awarded is 1/3 their average salary as a pension. And since an IRA participant generally may not receive the benefit without penalty before 59 1/2 years old, neither may the retired Member of Congress. But the pension will only be paid on a program of 10 Year period certain.
Finally, should the retired Member of Congress choose to take a position with a company, agency or any other type of employment or consulting that is recognized as one who is a lobby company to the Congress or any other Federal Department or Agency, the pension rights are lost forever.
With regard to existing and retired congress men and women, they will be effected by this change, as well. Effective at the time appropriate legislation is passed, the 10 year period certain will kick in for all, at 1/3 of their average salary for time served, up to 12 years. Again, if they served less than five years, any existing pension or pension rights will expire as of December 31 of the effective year. If they are lobbyists or other positions not permitted to get pensions, their payout will cease at the end of the month of enactment.
This legislation will begin to cut into unnecessary expenses that the country can no longer afford. And isn't everybody's goal to cut the deficit? Let's start with those who allowed this to happen. What do you think?
Monday, July 15, 2013
Term Limits
I remember on December 31, 2011, the late Ed Koch and I debated the issue of term limits for both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is clear to me because I was sitting at my oncology center getting another chemo treatment for my cancer. And, of course, its either TV, read or play with your phone or iPad. You haves to pass the time away and keep your wits about you.
Anyway, I emailed him a commentary why term limits for Members of Congress was essential, and of course, as a former Congressman, he viewed the issue as a non-starter. His view was that while it made sense to term the Congress, no member would voluntarily limit their own power or control of the government.
My answer to him was that I read the Constitution forward, backward and inside out, and nowhere did it say that this was a civil service position that one had for life unless he or she was voted out. Incumbency, I said, was at least 2/3 of the reason people were elected again and again, even when they did nothing or did not act in the best interests of their constituents.
In addition, I continued, the Framers' intent, while not written, was inferred and implied that a citizen would devote some of his time and abilities to the good of the country and then, after a fashion, return to private life. Keeping in mind that the Congress met only for a brief time each year, this made eminently good sense, unlike now where it meets approximately nine months, spread out across the entire year.
I even reminded him that it was the Congress who brought forward, passed and ultimately was successful in creating the 22nd amendment, which limits the President to two four year terms, or a total of 10 years, in the event of a succession to the presidency by the Vice President or other key person in the line of succession, such as, the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, etc., as outlined in the Constitution. And of course, the language was not politically motivated, as it did not affect the person in office at the time it was passed by the states.
Surely, if you knew him or knew of him, Ed was a very strong-willed man, and as such, was unyielding in his position. I thanked him, of course, and we remained friends and continued to correspond right up until a few days before he died in February. I enjoyed our discourse and our debates, although on many issues, we did agree or at least, understood and respected each other when we didn't.
So now, having laid out the premise, finally, of this commentary, this is what I propose:
- A Constitutional Amendment to change the term of a Representative from two years to four years. The purpose of this is to provide for efficiency and productivity, so that the incumbent isn't beginning his next campaign six or eight months after his or her term began. The representative will be limited to two more elections thereafter, for life. Since the entire House is subject to election at the same time, this will be effective upon the first election after passage.
- In the same Amendment, change the term of a Senator from six years to four years, for the same reasons as outlined above. The Senator will be limited to two more elections, thereafter, for life. Any term not yet completed Includes the remaining years of the current term. This will be effective with the first election after passage.
- At no time, however, will a Representative or Senator's term exceed 12 years. This includes terms created by appointment, special election or any other unlisted reason as the Member has an opportunity to be elected up to two more times on his or her own.
This is, of course, subject to review and debate. But it is essential that we begin to take back our government and put its controls into the hands of the governed, not the governors. Now is the time to start.
What do you think? I am sure the Members of Congress would want to know, if they want what's best for the country and the people. Right?
Anyway, I emailed him a commentary why term limits for Members of Congress was essential, and of course, as a former Congressman, he viewed the issue as a non-starter. His view was that while it made sense to term the Congress, no member would voluntarily limit their own power or control of the government.
My answer to him was that I read the Constitution forward, backward and inside out, and nowhere did it say that this was a civil service position that one had for life unless he or she was voted out. Incumbency, I said, was at least 2/3 of the reason people were elected again and again, even when they did nothing or did not act in the best interests of their constituents.
In addition, I continued, the Framers' intent, while not written, was inferred and implied that a citizen would devote some of his time and abilities to the good of the country and then, after a fashion, return to private life. Keeping in mind that the Congress met only for a brief time each year, this made eminently good sense, unlike now where it meets approximately nine months, spread out across the entire year.
I even reminded him that it was the Congress who brought forward, passed and ultimately was successful in creating the 22nd amendment, which limits the President to two four year terms, or a total of 10 years, in the event of a succession to the presidency by the Vice President or other key person in the line of succession, such as, the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, etc., as outlined in the Constitution. And of course, the language was not politically motivated, as it did not affect the person in office at the time it was passed by the states.
Surely, if you knew him or knew of him, Ed was a very strong-willed man, and as such, was unyielding in his position. I thanked him, of course, and we remained friends and continued to correspond right up until a few days before he died in February. I enjoyed our discourse and our debates, although on many issues, we did agree or at least, understood and respected each other when we didn't.
So now, having laid out the premise, finally, of this commentary, this is what I propose:
- A Constitutional Amendment to change the term of a Representative from two years to four years. The purpose of this is to provide for efficiency and productivity, so that the incumbent isn't beginning his next campaign six or eight months after his or her term began. The representative will be limited to two more elections thereafter, for life. Since the entire House is subject to election at the same time, this will be effective upon the first election after passage.
- In the same Amendment, change the term of a Senator from six years to four years, for the same reasons as outlined above. The Senator will be limited to two more elections, thereafter, for life. Any term not yet completed Includes the remaining years of the current term. This will be effective with the first election after passage.
- At no time, however, will a Representative or Senator's term exceed 12 years. This includes terms created by appointment, special election or any other unlisted reason as the Member has an opportunity to be elected up to two more times on his or her own.
This is, of course, subject to review and debate. But it is essential that we begin to take back our government and put its controls into the hands of the governed, not the governors. Now is the time to start.
What do you think? I am sure the Members of Congress would want to know, if they want what's best for the country and the people. Right?
Friday, July 12, 2013
1962 and Today
In 1962, a year before the world changed, I was an eleven year old kid who loved to watch and to play baseball. The reason I bring this up are for two reasons: this was the first year of my favorite team, the Orange and Blue New York Mets and that I was the only pitcher that year to pitch a complete game, six inning, official Little League no-hitter in Floral Park, a little village on Long Island where I grew up. I will get to the Mets colors in a minute.
Anyway, the significance of the no-hitter is so I can tell another story, which came to light in a whole other discussion with my wife. The final score was 3-2, and I scored the winning run in the top of the sixth. Why the opposition got two runs? Walks, fielders choices and an error. The funny part of me scoring the run was that when John Fritz hit the line drive to the outfield, I was the runner on first and as I was rounding second, my helmet flew off.
I stopped to pick it up and John was right behind me. He had to stop or if he passed me, he would have been out and we would have lost the game, 2-1, since there were already two outs. Imagine, I would have pitched a complete game no-hitter and would have LOST. Because of me. But, as I said, John stopped, I picked up the helmet, and we both scored on John's home run. I pitched the bottom of the sixth, struck out two and the third guy hit into a 4-3 groundout and the game was done.
Now, as I said, as great as the no-hitter was, that wasn't the reason for the story. Instead, as my wife prompted me with something completely unrelated, the reason for this story was to tell you that because we won, the manager of the team treated all the kids to a treat at the concession stand, which was fairly customary after each win. The manager said that since this was the last game of the season (no playoff for us), we all could get two treats. So most of us took a candy bar AND a hot dog. That was swell, to use a term that died when "groovy" came into vogue in later years, after the world changed.
The next day the manager got a hold of me and wanted to tell me something very important, but also very special. When he told me I pitched a no-hitter, I was surprised because I was sure I gave up several hits. But he assured me, as only he could, that no, the grounders were force outs and not hits. And even though I had given up several walks and two runs, I did not give up any hits.
He presented me with a baseball that read, "To Frank McHale. The only pitcher to pitch a no-hitter in the Floral Park LL in 1962". Understanding that our Little League was divided into two leagues, AL and NL, with three divisions, Major, Minor A and Minor B, for a total of 32 teams with 16 players each (remember the baby boom?), even at eleven, I understood the significance. With that, I hugged the manager so tight and squeezed him until he told me to stop. With that, I released my dad and we continued to talk about the game.
I tell this story because my Dad and my Mom will both be 84 in a couple of weeks. My Dad is suffering now from early stages of Alzheimer's, which my Mom tells me with the meds he is taking, Dad still had good days. I don't know if he will remember this but I do, and I wanted to share a piece of a good man with all of you. And I wanted to give both my parents an early birthday gift, letting them know I really don't forget anything.
And the Mets colors? Well, any loyal Met fan will tell you that it was to honor all baseball teams that preceded them in New York: Yankee pinstripes, Giant Orange and Dodger Blue. All three uniforms were bright white. But the Mets have made it their own.
Anyway, the significance of the no-hitter is so I can tell another story, which came to light in a whole other discussion with my wife. The final score was 3-2, and I scored the winning run in the top of the sixth. Why the opposition got two runs? Walks, fielders choices and an error. The funny part of me scoring the run was that when John Fritz hit the line drive to the outfield, I was the runner on first and as I was rounding second, my helmet flew off.
I stopped to pick it up and John was right behind me. He had to stop or if he passed me, he would have been out and we would have lost the game, 2-1, since there were already two outs. Imagine, I would have pitched a complete game no-hitter and would have LOST. Because of me. But, as I said, John stopped, I picked up the helmet, and we both scored on John's home run. I pitched the bottom of the sixth, struck out two and the third guy hit into a 4-3 groundout and the game was done.
Now, as I said, as great as the no-hitter was, that wasn't the reason for the story. Instead, as my wife prompted me with something completely unrelated, the reason for this story was to tell you that because we won, the manager of the team treated all the kids to a treat at the concession stand, which was fairly customary after each win. The manager said that since this was the last game of the season (no playoff for us), we all could get two treats. So most of us took a candy bar AND a hot dog. That was swell, to use a term that died when "groovy" came into vogue in later years, after the world changed.
The next day the manager got a hold of me and wanted to tell me something very important, but also very special. When he told me I pitched a no-hitter, I was surprised because I was sure I gave up several hits. But he assured me, as only he could, that no, the grounders were force outs and not hits. And even though I had given up several walks and two runs, I did not give up any hits.
He presented me with a baseball that read, "To Frank McHale. The only pitcher to pitch a no-hitter in the Floral Park LL in 1962". Understanding that our Little League was divided into two leagues, AL and NL, with three divisions, Major, Minor A and Minor B, for a total of 32 teams with 16 players each (remember the baby boom?), even at eleven, I understood the significance. With that, I hugged the manager so tight and squeezed him until he told me to stop. With that, I released my dad and we continued to talk about the game.
I tell this story because my Dad and my Mom will both be 84 in a couple of weeks. My Dad is suffering now from early stages of Alzheimer's, which my Mom tells me with the meds he is taking, Dad still had good days. I don't know if he will remember this but I do, and I wanted to share a piece of a good man with all of you. And I wanted to give both my parents an early birthday gift, letting them know I really don't forget anything.
And the Mets colors? Well, any loyal Met fan will tell you that it was to honor all baseball teams that preceded them in New York: Yankee pinstripes, Giant Orange and Dodger Blue. All three uniforms were bright white. But the Mets have made it their own.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Nixon v Obama
Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, resigned his office on August 9, 1974 for his part in the Watergate break in and Democrats, Independents and the media of the time felt that by doing so, he escaped the "justice" that would have required that he be tried, convicted and sent to the gallows to rot in jail for the rest of his life. Essentially, his abuse of power was to direct the CIA to call off the FBI from investigating the cause of the break in, and other issues in the Articles of Impeachment drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee, but not yet voted on by the full House of Representatives.
If you believe the history according to Oliver Stone's "Nixon", the President is
alleged to have stood in the Oval Office with his Chief of Staff, General Al Haig, counting the number of "no" votes needed and calculating how he would get to 14 votes not to convict. In the end, of course, he decided that it would be for the "good of the country" to resign. Dr Monica Crowley, who worked as a foreign policy consultant and advisor to Mr Nixon in his final years, has written several excellent books about the former President, containing the actual events of this time.
To this time, Nixon-haters still vilify this man because they feel they never got their "pound of flesh".
I say to them to "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" to quote Commander Uhura in "Star Trek III, The Search For Spock". Mr Nixon, I agree, abused his power. As I wrote in The Legacy of 37, all presidents abuse the power the office lures and seduces even the strongest among us to commit. It doesn't make right, but it does make us understand how it can be done.
Over the last several months, we have become aware of potential abuses of power by President Obama concerning the IRS, the NSA, the CIA, the EPA, the DOJ, and now the executive orders concerning suspension of parts of the PPACA (Obamacare) and the potential shutdown of all communications in the United States in the event of an "emergency". I am providing the link for your review:
zite.to/12nWdyV
Following the story I wrote about in Suspicious Minds concerning Russian troops permanently stationed in the United States for "emergency" purposes, I now question the motives of this President. On Monday, I raised a comparable issue in Executive Order... or Decree, as a what-if scenario, that the President sign an executive order revoking the 22nd Amendment. And now? Maybe not so far-fetched.
So, Nixon-haters, can you now see that while your criticism of Nixon may have been well-meaning as a historical view, you must agree that the current President has done and is doing far worse with his actions concerning our personal and National liberties, than calling off an investigation of a third-rate burglary. If you can't come to terms that this man is the worst President in our history, then perhaps a modern-day Soviet Union or Nazi Germany is what you aspire for our country.
I, and many like me, on the other hand, would rather see President Obama impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors against his sworn duty for not upholding the Constitution of the United States.
If you believe the history according to Oliver Stone's "Nixon", the President is
alleged to have stood in the Oval Office with his Chief of Staff, General Al Haig, counting the number of "no" votes needed and calculating how he would get to 14 votes not to convict. In the end, of course, he decided that it would be for the "good of the country" to resign. Dr Monica Crowley, who worked as a foreign policy consultant and advisor to Mr Nixon in his final years, has written several excellent books about the former President, containing the actual events of this time.
To this time, Nixon-haters still vilify this man because they feel they never got their "pound of flesh".
I say to them to "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" to quote Commander Uhura in "Star Trek III, The Search For Spock". Mr Nixon, I agree, abused his power. As I wrote in The Legacy of 37, all presidents abuse the power the office lures and seduces even the strongest among us to commit. It doesn't make right, but it does make us understand how it can be done.
Over the last several months, we have become aware of potential abuses of power by President Obama concerning the IRS, the NSA, the CIA, the EPA, the DOJ, and now the executive orders concerning suspension of parts of the PPACA (Obamacare) and the potential shutdown of all communications in the United States in the event of an "emergency". I am providing the link for your review:
zite.to/12nWdyV
Following the story I wrote about in Suspicious Minds concerning Russian troops permanently stationed in the United States for "emergency" purposes, I now question the motives of this President. On Monday, I raised a comparable issue in Executive Order... or Decree, as a what-if scenario, that the President sign an executive order revoking the 22nd Amendment. And now? Maybe not so far-fetched.
So, Nixon-haters, can you now see that while your criticism of Nixon may have been well-meaning as a historical view, you must agree that the current President has done and is doing far worse with his actions concerning our personal and National liberties, than calling off an investigation of a third-rate burglary. If you can't come to terms that this man is the worst President in our history, then perhaps a modern-day Soviet Union or Nazi Germany is what you aspire for our country.
I, and many like me, on the other hand, would rather see President Obama impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors against his sworn duty for not upholding the Constitution of the United States.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
The American Roller-Coaster
We are at a crossroads in our history, with all the ills and troubles which face our country every day. We are on the downward side of a steep roller coaster, and it seems like the brakeman went on a break. No one appears to be minding the controls.
It took years for this to happen; the last time it was this bad, was probably in the period between November 22, 1963 and January 20, 1981. In that period, we suffered through the lowlights of Vietnam, Watergate, Presidential resignation, dreadful inflation, skyrocketing interest rates, Iran Hostage Crisis and an overwhelming despair on our collective American Psyche.
From January 20, 1981 until September 11, 2001, we enjoyed the ride with the ups and downs one would find in a joyful or happy experience. Yes, there was a major stock market adjustment, but the market made a markedly rapid recovery. Yes, there was a major space program disaster, but we had a President who understood our psyche and was, with soothing words and a healing tone, able to comfort our broken heart. Yes, we were involved in a war, which lasted just six weeks, was for a noble cause, and returned our military to its highest stature since our retreat from Vietnam. And, yes, we enjoyed our greatest period of prosperity across the terms of two Republicans and a Democrat, all of whom allowed the markets to expand freely with no government interference.
Since 9/11, we have been witness to one disaster after another. First, of course, this period began with the successful terrorist attacks in New York and DC. Then, we involved ourselves in two wars in Muslim countries, one which we considered "just and forthright" and one which we ultimately were thrown out by the government we helped to establish in place of the tyrannical regime we overthrew. We are finally going to leave Afghanistan, well after the mission goal was achieved by getting the man responsible for our national nightmare. What happens after we leave is certainly unknown, but I fear will end up the same as or worse than Iraq.
On the domestic front, our economy is still "recovering" from the effects of the Great Recession, which truly has been the worst recovery in our history. There are many who were laid off when times became bad and are either still unemployed, were hired in jobs for which they are overqualified, were hired as part-time workers, because of uncertainties in the economy or decided to retire because they were eligible to collect their pensions and/or Social Security.
Housing is nowhere near the highs of even the moderate levels of the last boom. Yes, the rates are the lowest in over 60 years, but if one doesn't qualify due to employment, asset or credit concerns, he isn't going to be able to buy.
The stock market has held its own, but the small investor is not the reason. Instead, institutions, pension funds, 401-k and mutual fund companies have kept the market in the highest indexes ever. Stock prices, generally, are out of reach for the beginner or little guy.
Interest rates have been held to their lowest rates for a long time, if only because the fear of inflation looms so high. And yet, consumer prices for food, energy, and other commodities continue to climb while incomes stagnate.
Finally, we are a society polarized on issues ranging from health care, gay marriage and taxes to national security, race relations and abortion, while both sides have varying or negative feelings about the President, the Congress and the government in general. Some would say this polarization is the worst since the Vietnam War. I say it is the worst in our history since the years leading up to the War Between the States and the war years, 1861 to 1865.
We need to be careful that we don't become so blinded by our fervor that we lose sight of the fact that we are part of the American family. Like all families, we can disagree with what the others believe. But schisms occur in families because people fail to understand or respect the feelings of their family members.
Let's take a collective step back before the roller coaster falls off the track at the bottom of the dip. If it does, we are ALL in trouble. Because no one is at the switch.
It took years for this to happen; the last time it was this bad, was probably in the period between November 22, 1963 and January 20, 1981. In that period, we suffered through the lowlights of Vietnam, Watergate, Presidential resignation, dreadful inflation, skyrocketing interest rates, Iran Hostage Crisis and an overwhelming despair on our collective American Psyche.
From January 20, 1981 until September 11, 2001, we enjoyed the ride with the ups and downs one would find in a joyful or happy experience. Yes, there was a major stock market adjustment, but the market made a markedly rapid recovery. Yes, there was a major space program disaster, but we had a President who understood our psyche and was, with soothing words and a healing tone, able to comfort our broken heart. Yes, we were involved in a war, which lasted just six weeks, was for a noble cause, and returned our military to its highest stature since our retreat from Vietnam. And, yes, we enjoyed our greatest period of prosperity across the terms of two Republicans and a Democrat, all of whom allowed the markets to expand freely with no government interference.
Since 9/11, we have been witness to one disaster after another. First, of course, this period began with the successful terrorist attacks in New York and DC. Then, we involved ourselves in two wars in Muslim countries, one which we considered "just and forthright" and one which we ultimately were thrown out by the government we helped to establish in place of the tyrannical regime we overthrew. We are finally going to leave Afghanistan, well after the mission goal was achieved by getting the man responsible for our national nightmare. What happens after we leave is certainly unknown, but I fear will end up the same as or worse than Iraq.
On the domestic front, our economy is still "recovering" from the effects of the Great Recession, which truly has been the worst recovery in our history. There are many who were laid off when times became bad and are either still unemployed, were hired in jobs for which they are overqualified, were hired as part-time workers, because of uncertainties in the economy or decided to retire because they were eligible to collect their pensions and/or Social Security.
Housing is nowhere near the highs of even the moderate levels of the last boom. Yes, the rates are the lowest in over 60 years, but if one doesn't qualify due to employment, asset or credit concerns, he isn't going to be able to buy.
The stock market has held its own, but the small investor is not the reason. Instead, institutions, pension funds, 401-k and mutual fund companies have kept the market in the highest indexes ever. Stock prices, generally, are out of reach for the beginner or little guy.
Interest rates have been held to their lowest rates for a long time, if only because the fear of inflation looms so high. And yet, consumer prices for food, energy, and other commodities continue to climb while incomes stagnate.
Finally, we are a society polarized on issues ranging from health care, gay marriage and taxes to national security, race relations and abortion, while both sides have varying or negative feelings about the President, the Congress and the government in general. Some would say this polarization is the worst since the Vietnam War. I say it is the worst in our history since the years leading up to the War Between the States and the war years, 1861 to 1865.
We need to be careful that we don't become so blinded by our fervor that we lose sight of the fact that we are part of the American family. Like all families, we can disagree with what the others believe. But schisms occur in families because people fail to understand or respect the feelings of their family members.
Let's take a collective step back before the roller coaster falls off the track at the bottom of the dip. If it does, we are ALL in trouble. Because no one is at the switch.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Executive Order... or Decree
I was speaking to a friend today about the state of affairs of our government in general, and the state of the presidency in particular. We have a strong government, not the agencies and departments that deal with day-to-day issues, but rather, the people of this country who are the government. But we have a weak presidency, due to the chaos of our current occupant.
I make the distinctions of the differences between the people and our employees, those who work to complete the tasks necessary for an effective government. Remember that the government exists with the consent of the governed, not that the governed exists with the consent of the government.
That would be dictatorship.
The president exists as a constitutional officer to supervise the employees of the people and to make certain that the laws propagated by the people's representatives, our elected Members of Congress, are enforced, not that he makes decrees like a lord of the manor. We are not serfs. Instead, WE are in charge.
To be fair, the power and the office of the presidency has grown since the end of WWI, when the Congress began to hand over more of its responsibilities to a more powerful central government, which exists in the Office of the President. In so doing, agencies and departments were created to deal with specific issues, like energy, the environment, Homeland Security, education, and other imbedded divisions of the executive branch.
Since 1950, with the exception of President Carter, we have had fairly strong presidents, who understood the power of the office, their responsibilities to the people under the Constitution and were able to govern effectively. Now, we have a man who never held a leadership position, either in or out of government at any level, a chairmanship or even a junior or middle management role in any job he may have held.
And it shows.
Since taking office in 2009, President Obama has issued more executive orders than any other President, including one last week, which essentially violates a law he so vigorously fought for in his first term, and up until now has been his legacy moment in an otherwise dismal and failing presidency. Now, by delaying full implementation of Obamacare, even he admits that this law will be doomed to failure. But my point is, his wild and reckless abuse of a privilege granted to him by the constitution and presidential custom, not to circumvent the Congress, but instead exercise his executive power to make decisions when the Congress is unavailable, is being used and abused like a dictator making decrees. He does this because he doesn't know how to lead. And now, finally, the people have had enough.
President Obama has approximately 3 1/2 years to complete his presidency. Knowing that the Congress, as presently constituted, would never pass an amendment to overturn the 22nd Amendment, which concerns presidential term limits, he would be wise not to issue an executive order decreeing such an event.
For sure, impeachment, and possibly, jail would be his destiny. Certainly, he wouldn't want that for an ignominious legacy, would he?
I make the distinctions of the differences between the people and our employees, those who work to complete the tasks necessary for an effective government. Remember that the government exists with the consent of the governed, not that the governed exists with the consent of the government.
That would be dictatorship.
The president exists as a constitutional officer to supervise the employees of the people and to make certain that the laws propagated by the people's representatives, our elected Members of Congress, are enforced, not that he makes decrees like a lord of the manor. We are not serfs. Instead, WE are in charge.
To be fair, the power and the office of the presidency has grown since the end of WWI, when the Congress began to hand over more of its responsibilities to a more powerful central government, which exists in the Office of the President. In so doing, agencies and departments were created to deal with specific issues, like energy, the environment, Homeland Security, education, and other imbedded divisions of the executive branch.
Since 1950, with the exception of President Carter, we have had fairly strong presidents, who understood the power of the office, their responsibilities to the people under the Constitution and were able to govern effectively. Now, we have a man who never held a leadership position, either in or out of government at any level, a chairmanship or even a junior or middle management role in any job he may have held.
And it shows.
Since taking office in 2009, President Obama has issued more executive orders than any other President, including one last week, which essentially violates a law he so vigorously fought for in his first term, and up until now has been his legacy moment in an otherwise dismal and failing presidency. Now, by delaying full implementation of Obamacare, even he admits that this law will be doomed to failure. But my point is, his wild and reckless abuse of a privilege granted to him by the constitution and presidential custom, not to circumvent the Congress, but instead exercise his executive power to make decisions when the Congress is unavailable, is being used and abused like a dictator making decrees. He does this because he doesn't know how to lead. And now, finally, the people have had enough.
President Obama has approximately 3 1/2 years to complete his presidency. Knowing that the Congress, as presently constituted, would never pass an amendment to overturn the 22nd Amendment, which concerns presidential term limits, he would be wise not to issue an executive order decreeing such an event.
For sure, impeachment, and possibly, jail would be his destiny. Certainly, he wouldn't want that for an ignominious legacy, would he?
Monday, July 8, 2013
Suspicious Minds
I found on Wednesday, right before Independence Day, that the following links discuss a program that the United States has entered into with Russia concerning a FEMA/RESM (Russian Emergency Service Ministry) activity via a coordinated disaster recovery joint task force. This agreement was signed on June 25, 2013.
I have provided the links below:
fb.me/2daf38Bk5
or
www.digitaljournal.com/
Please note that there are other sources which review this program. However, other than a quick mention on FoxNews and stories on the Internet, there was no other story or blurb in the mainstream media.
The country is divided into sectors where Russian troops essentially provide security in the event of a disaster, which requires possible military "assistance" to FEMA and/or the US military. Presently, there are 50,000 permanent Russian troops dispersed throughout the US, and a total of 100,000 soldiers are training here.
At first blush, it appears innocuous and mundane that our government would find it necessary to employ and enlist foreign troops to assist our military or civilian defense forces in protecting Americans in the event of a disaster so tragic that the military would be that undermanned or overwhelmed. After all, ours is the pre-eminent military in the world that many countries, including Russia, have relied on for over 100 years to wage war and end war.
So why this "agreement"? Could there be a darker, more sinister side to have Russian troops present on US soil, without the consent of the Congress? I would hope not, but many unusual events have transpired or come to light over the last several months, that ordinary Americans would not believe could or would happen here. So the suspicion flag is flying a little higher than normal.
I am not, as many of you know, a believer or chaser of conspiracy theories generally, although I, too, have beliefs which make sense to me, for example, the Kennedy assassination. But not many others.
I find this, however, somewhat unseemly that we would need to agree to this. I have not found any article that discusses American troops deployed to Russia, which if they were, then I could at least accept that this action were part of some greater exercise in military cooperation with an adversary.
As it stands now, this seems to be a unilateral deployment of troops by Russia to our shores, which is not permitted our Constitution. This certainly is a gross misinterpretation of the phrase "provide for the common defense". I think it is incumbent upon us as concerned citizens to ask our Representatives and Senators for an explanation of such questionable activity. We are entitled to know what our government is doing in our name. It is our right to know.
The last time citizens of a country took the position that they didn't know what their government was doing in their name was in 1945, and that was a tragedy against humanity, as well as, against both a race and a religion. Ignorance did not excuse the Germans and it will not excuse us either.
So, get those pens and keyboards warmed up. We need to get on our Congress to answer the questions the media are unable or unwilling to ask. Brave men and women who challenge their government are revered as heroes all throughout history. We all would like to be thought as a hero. And in this country, at least for now, there is no recrimination for standing up for what is right.
After all, it is our responsibility to ourselves and to our posterity.
I have provided the links below:
fb.me/2daf38Bk5
or
www.digitaljournal.com/
Please note that there are other sources which review this program. However, other than a quick mention on FoxNews and stories on the Internet, there was no other story or blurb in the mainstream media.
The country is divided into sectors where Russian troops essentially provide security in the event of a disaster, which requires possible military "assistance" to FEMA and/or the US military. Presently, there are 50,000 permanent Russian troops dispersed throughout the US, and a total of 100,000 soldiers are training here.
At first blush, it appears innocuous and mundane that our government would find it necessary to employ and enlist foreign troops to assist our military or civilian defense forces in protecting Americans in the event of a disaster so tragic that the military would be that undermanned or overwhelmed. After all, ours is the pre-eminent military in the world that many countries, including Russia, have relied on for over 100 years to wage war and end war.
So why this "agreement"? Could there be a darker, more sinister side to have Russian troops present on US soil, without the consent of the Congress? I would hope not, but many unusual events have transpired or come to light over the last several months, that ordinary Americans would not believe could or would happen here. So the suspicion flag is flying a little higher than normal.
I am not, as many of you know, a believer or chaser of conspiracy theories generally, although I, too, have beliefs which make sense to me, for example, the Kennedy assassination. But not many others.
I find this, however, somewhat unseemly that we would need to agree to this. I have not found any article that discusses American troops deployed to Russia, which if they were, then I could at least accept that this action were part of some greater exercise in military cooperation with an adversary.
As it stands now, this seems to be a unilateral deployment of troops by Russia to our shores, which is not permitted our Constitution. This certainly is a gross misinterpretation of the phrase "provide for the common defense". I think it is incumbent upon us as concerned citizens to ask our Representatives and Senators for an explanation of such questionable activity. We are entitled to know what our government is doing in our name. It is our right to know.
The last time citizens of a country took the position that they didn't know what their government was doing in their name was in 1945, and that was a tragedy against humanity, as well as, against both a race and a religion. Ignorance did not excuse the Germans and it will not excuse us either.
So, get those pens and keyboards warmed up. We need to get on our Congress to answer the questions the media are unable or unwilling to ask. Brave men and women who challenge their government are revered as heroes all throughout history. We all would like to be thought as a hero. And in this country, at least for now, there is no recrimination for standing up for what is right.
After all, it is our responsibility to ourselves and to our posterity.