Monday, January 11, 2010
It is being reported on the local Los Angeles news today that a family in Apple Valley, California had a three year old sun mauled and killed by the family pit-bull pet dog this past Saturday. It was reported that the father of the poor child apparently went inside the house for a moment and left the child alone in the company of the pit-bull dog. Responding paramedics were prevented from approaching the dying child by the crazed dog. Sheriff’s deputies apparently had to kill the enraged dog to retrieve the child’s lifeless body.
Obviously, this is a horrific situation and a terrible loss for the family. I pass along my sympathies to the family and apologize for blogging regarding this next point: Anyone that leaves a pit-bull dog in the vicinity of a lone and very young children should have those children taken from them for knowingly endangering a child – this is especially so if the dog became a family member prior to the child entering the family.
I know…, everyone says “no, no…, not my pit-bull, it’s different. … My pit-bull is very friendly and would never hurt anyone.” I’m sure nearly every pit-bull owner that has had its dog attack an innocent individual has probably said those same words. Those pit-bull owners have certainly never seen their dogs through the eyes of an individual that has any fear of dogs or through the eyes of an individual that is unable to defend themselves against a dog such as a pit-bull. Clearly, pit-bulls dogs don’t have the mental capacity to ignore any sensed fear and instead are provoked to attack any being that fears the dog.
Furthermore, I don’t understand why any anyone would ever want a dog such as these pit-bulls that have the never-ending potential to viciously turn on any family member, friend, passer-by, or – heaven forbid - even attack the family child. Barring the need to protect a junk yard [or the likes] or other commercial use for the potentially vicious dogs, what type of individual needs that type of dog? My apologies if this blog offends you, but its time for society to address this issue such that this type of situation and senseless, tragic death never occurs again. All this in spite of the fact that I really like dogs and I have strong libertarian leanings as well, too!
AVT
Monday, January 11, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
“No-Fly List,” Safeguard or Political Weapon?
January 5th, 2010
Concerning the news reports from a couple of days ago that spoke of the addition of 50,000 new names to the national U.S. “No-Fly List,” if these names are added as a result of real terrorism concerns, then those additions are likely to be justified. Personally, I would go so far as to suggest that if any individual was from a region that is a likely enemy of our state in this war on terror, then don’t let any person from that region fly on airliners from our nation. Even the slightest association with any group that would be complacent towards the mass killing of innocent civilians is reason enough to deny any individual anything above the necessities for life – in my opinion.
However, if these new names to the list include any Americans that were added merely because they utilized their rights to free speech and, as such, have upset some ‘fat-cat’ or bureaucrat, then I would suggest that we send these “No-Fly List” cognizant bureaucrats on their way out of office and send any bureaucrat remotely responsible for such an erroneous listing on their way to the unemployment office as well. In particular, if any individual added to the list is an American whose name has been added for pursuing their legal rights in a Court of Law in our nation - say for suing a bureaucrat or Agency that acted illegally - and such a suit upset the bureaucrats who in turn added the individual’s name to the “No-Fly” list in retribution, then the time may be at hand for legal action by those of us Americans that truly care about our substantive rights as guaranteed by our birthright and are offended by abuse of authority by our bureaucrats.
Are we as tax-paying Americans not entitled to know who adds the names to the list, who are those added to the list, and for what reason is anyone added to the list? Or, is the whole thing totally arbitrary and subjective and nothing more than defamation? I ask because we are all aware that our governments seem to have a difficult time trying to achieve any productive results in any effective manner.
I mean, I’m just saying…..
AVT
Concerning the news reports from a couple of days ago that spoke of the addition of 50,000 new names to the national U.S. “No-Fly List,” if these names are added as a result of real terrorism concerns, then those additions are likely to be justified. Personally, I would go so far as to suggest that if any individual was from a region that is a likely enemy of our state in this war on terror, then don’t let any person from that region fly on airliners from our nation. Even the slightest association with any group that would be complacent towards the mass killing of innocent civilians is reason enough to deny any individual anything above the necessities for life – in my opinion.
However, if these new names to the list include any Americans that were added merely because they utilized their rights to free speech and, as such, have upset some ‘fat-cat’ or bureaucrat, then I would suggest that we send these “No-Fly List” cognizant bureaucrats on their way out of office and send any bureaucrat remotely responsible for such an erroneous listing on their way to the unemployment office as well. In particular, if any individual added to the list is an American whose name has been added for pursuing their legal rights in a Court of Law in our nation - say for suing a bureaucrat or Agency that acted illegally - and such a suit upset the bureaucrats who in turn added the individual’s name to the “No-Fly” list in retribution, then the time may be at hand for legal action by those of us Americans that truly care about our substantive rights as guaranteed by our birthright and are offended by abuse of authority by our bureaucrats.
Are we as tax-paying Americans not entitled to know who adds the names to the list, who are those added to the list, and for what reason is anyone added to the list? Or, is the whole thing totally arbitrary and subjective and nothing more than defamation? I ask because we are all aware that our governments seem to have a difficult time trying to achieve any productive results in any effective manner.
I mean, I’m just saying…..
AVT
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. :)
AVT
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. :)
AVT
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?
AVT
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?
AVT
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?
AVT
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.
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?
AVT
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),
BIG AFTER-EDIT:::::
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?
AVT
Good Day LA Television Morning News (Fox Channel 11, Los Angeles),
BIG AFTER-EDIT:::::
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?
AVT
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.
AVT
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.
AVT
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)