Thursday, December 31, 2009

Dancing Joshua Trees Under a Blue Moon for the New Year and New Decade

Dec. 31st, 2009

To begin the new decade and the New Year and to say goodbye to the last, the metaphysical powers-that-be have given us a blue moon to mark the event. If you happen to be anywhere near the region where the Mohave Desert meets and mingles with the Colorado Desert in the southwestern United States, beware of the tribes of dancing Joshua trees and the huge clusters of partying rocks. It has been said that in this mystical and magical region of the earth that the Joshua trees and the rocks seem to animate themselves and come-to-life under a full moon. After all, the early settlers passing through this region didn’t name these trees after a person for no reason, let alone that person being their prophet. So, given it is a no less a blue moon for the passing of the decade, one would think that if the rocks and Joshua trees were to ever come to life, such would happen on this cusp of calendar years that we will call New Years Eve 2010. I hope to be given the chance to blog more on this subject in the decade to follow. And, I hope that we are all here in good health to enjoy life and my blog in the new decade as well. :)

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Constitutional Question: Amendment XIV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution

December 9th, 2009

Of course, we all are aware that to question the nation’s debt could be unconstitutional per Amendment XIV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution. But have we ever wondered why such is so? Have we ever wondered why such wording was added to the Constitution and, maybe more importantly, why such wording survives to this day?

Friday, November 20, 2009

Routine Denial of Employment to Americans Because They Don’t Speak Spanish

November 20th, 2009

Maybe such a question is not politically correct, but, per chance do any of you lawyers or politicians out there care to help us otherwise ordinary Americans that are routinely denied employment by all types of employers because we don’t speak Spanish? Are you aware that in several regions of the nation Americans are routinely denied employment for only speaking English?

Of course, as Americans it was never historically required or envisioned that we would need to learn to speak Spanish due to an essentially open border and a never-ending flood of well-meaning immigrants from the south (regardless of the reasons for such or whether in fact the closing of the border made it so the immigrants could never return home). And of course, many employers would seem to prefer bilingual employees speak Spanish so that the business can better cater to those that don’t believe it necessary to learn to speak our language - apparently because they don’t have to learn our language.

We could be sure that if any of us were to emigrate to a nearby Spanish-speaking country, it is unlikely that any employers in that country would deny employment to the local populace and cater to us for our being unable to speak the local language – and we could be fairly sure that we could not protest such employment language requirements in their streets waving flags from our home country.

But anyway, can anyone do anything to help English speaking Americans to maintain their general employability? Can we get reimbursed for Spanish lessons as part of any economic stimulus bill? I mean, several years ago, English should have been made the official language of the United States – we can be sure that it is unlikely any official language of English will ever be designated in the United States because surely such an act now could be considered racist by those that would not like such a designation. However, is it not essentially racist to routinely deny employment to ordinary American-born individuals because they can not speak Spanish? Do the CEO’s and Board of Directors for these firms that deny employment [to English speakers] also speak Spanish?

This blog is not intended to express nor forward any ill-will, unkind thoughts, or the likes to any group [with the exception of some domestic employers, maybe]. It is not intended to be a reflection of any sentiments or affinity relevant to any Spanish-speaking peoples. Personally, I have many friends of such a heritage. Furthermore, to be clear, I find the Spanish language to be attractive and I enjoy listening when the language is spoken and even find much of the music to be pretty cool. However, this blog is merely to express my opinion that myself, and people like me, should not be denied employment in our home states and nation because we can not speak the Spanish language when such has no real bearing on any ability to perform the essential functions of the job. If communication is an issue in any domestic workplace because one can not speak Spanish, then the others should be required to speak/learn English.

This matter seems ripe for a legal challenge, possibly under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Wouldn’t you agree?

PS. Some may say that this blog is not politically correct. I would offer that such a sentiment [as this blog not being politically correct] is bordering on infringement of the Right to Freedom of Speech; because such an infringement often seems to be lurking just under the surface of any guise that claims political correctness.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

An Open Letter: Continued Racism on Good Day LA, Fox 11 Los Angeles

November 18th, 2009

Good Day LA Television Morning News (Fox Channel 11, Los Angeles),


November 20th, 2009

Ok, well…, I’ll let that one go and chalk it up to entertainment. But…., I’m just here to say, that as a ‘white’ male I am tired of being made the brunt of racially-motivated and insensitive comments, and, because I am a ‘white’ male I am apparently supposed to take no offense at such statements. It would not be acceptable for these television personalities to make light of other racial groups, would it? Of course not. So, why as a ‘white’ male I am supposed to be accepting of racially derogatory statements that apparently are aimed at me?

Monday, October 5, 2009

Grandmother Arrested for Buying Pseudoephedrine / Sudafed in Indiana

October 4th, 2009

As reported this morning on Fox Cable News Network (approx. 0800 EST), grandmother Sally Harpold was arrested in the State of Indiana for buying a larger amount than the monthly ration allowed by law of the over-the-counter allergy product Sudafed / Pseudoephedrine. She exceeded the legal amount of the allergy product by fractions of a gram; which probably means she bought two units of the twenty-count container of the product for her multiple family members. As an allergy sufferer who also often depends on pseudoephedrine for easier breathing, I have to blog that the recent/current national laws concerning pseudoephedrine are absolutely absurd and surely represent another example of the ineffectuality of any government intervention into the lives of Americans.

Of course, the law that rations pseudoephedrine maintains the reported good intentions of preventing easy access to amphetamine products from those that can’t seem to control themselves without feeding their addictions for these substances. Regardless of my libertarian leanings and any stance I may have concerning the exercise of one’s free will, I can hereby blog to you that these laws are ridiculous regarding pseudoephedrine – similar to most laws passed in the modern era with the government intent to protect any individual from one’s own stupidity or vices. As the matter has clearly shown us, the laws restricting pseudoephedrine are totally ineffectual because the number of ‘speed-freaks’ in the nation has not appeared to decrease since the invocation of these laws, these laws have merely forced those individuals improperly seeking this product to become more creative in gathering the product for subsequent processing into the desired compound [or whatever].

Anyway, as a first-hand regular user of the pseudoephedrine products for relief of my sinusitis / allergy symptoms, I can tell you that this law has apparently only negatively affected and restricted the law-abiding retailers and citizens – as do most laws of this genre. As an example, since these laws have been enacted, the pseudoephedrine products have rarely or never been on sale at any reduced price and often difficult to obtain because of demand/low inventory levels. Since these pseudoephedrine laws have been enacted, the average cost of these products has increased twenty-five to fifty percent. And, when legally buying these pseudoephedrine products, one has to show their state-government-issued identification and the merchant has to enter the user’s driver’s license/identification card number in the pharmacy’s computer system (so much for medical-related privacy). In addition to extending the wait for any individuals in the line behind the pseudoephedrine purchaser while all the information is entered in the computer, the purchaser can be denied sale of this product and denied access to the legal, over-the-counter medicine because of a driver’s license being from another state [than the state which the pharmacy is located – which has personally happened to me]. Furthermore, if the purchaser of pseudoephedrine were to be going overseas / away from home for an extended excursion, that person probably would not be allowed to buy enough pseudoephedrine to ensure oneself the ability to easily breathe without sinus congestion throughout any extended trip without becoming a criminal for such a single purchase.

So the point that I am trying to make with this diatribe, again, is that these laws have apparently inconvenienced no one other than those that abide by the laws of our nation. Those individuals that purchase this product for any ‘improper’ usage care not of any national pseudoephedrine laws. These pseudoephedrine laws should be repealed so that law-abiding citizens can buy reasonable amounts of this product without becoming a criminal. Furthermore, any law that seeks to prohibit access to pseudoephedrine products without an unjust total ban of the product, appears as barely worth the paper on which such a law is written; as is evidenced by the continued and reported levels of improper pseudoephedrine-related amphetamine usage within our nation.

Regardless, however, bravo, kudos, and a ‘job well done’ to Fox News for broaching the subject of the absurdity of these pseudoephedrine laws as they currently exist within the United States.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

More Troops for Afghanistan and No Anti-War Protests?

October 1st, 2009

President Obama is reported to be currently considering whether to send more U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan. The news agencies also report that the troop levels are already at record-high numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So I wonder, to where did all the anti-war protesters disappear that were so boisterous and prevalent during the last president’s administration? Regardless of my stance on the subject of the wars, does not such a disappearance of the anti-war protesters make many of those protesters appear as possible hypocrites that merely sought to protest against the last presidential administration and likely to not have been protesting against the wars at all?

P.S. Personally, I support our troops irrespective of their mission. However, I would prefer to not have our troops involved in any mission that I did not support. Nevertheless, I hereby pass my wishes for all our troops to return home safely.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

To Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Arrested for Breaking Into His Own House

Professor Gates,
Some time ago in a town very near Cambridge Massachusetts, I was detained by the local police for 'breaking into' my house (as I did not have a key, for whatever reason). However, I didn't get to have any beer with the president as a result of the matter. But then, I was not a member of any elite class nor was I entitled to any special privilege as an apparent result of who or what I was.

After thought, March 24th, 2015
Though to be clear, in my situation it was termed 'protective custody,' not 'arrest.'  'Protective custody' is a term that is used in Massachusetts to detain individuals which then denies the detained individual any rights to which they would otherwise be entitled if placed under 'arrest' - as near as I can tell, anyhow.