How is Dianne Feinstein a Senator?

I asked myself that question and did what I could educate myself on her political platform.

I've seen her hold firearms with her finger on the trigger at audiences.

I've seen her object to debates on how the US Constitution applies to laws she supports.

And in this instance I should point out Illinois Senator Dick Durbin who supposedly defended Senator Dianne Feinstein's position with the dialogue, "None of these rights are absolute.  None of them."

If I may, I'd like to add to Senator Durbin's quote to solidify its accuracy to Truth:  "None of these rights are absolute [ANYMORE]."  And it's because of Senators like Durbin and Feinstein that Constitutional scholars are forced into these debates about the limits of rights, because they hack and pick and slash at these rights as it suits them without considering the merits from which these rights found their birth.

And now she wants to question who has the right to our First Amendment?

How is she an elected representative of California?  I was frightened to discover the reality: she is literally the best they have to offer.

Consider that for a moment.  Dianne Feinstein is the best California has to offer to the United States Senate.  Can you imagine someone worse?  If so, I dare not ask what nightmares you suffer.

In other words, we are living in a time that is at the mercy of inept public servants who can barely acknowledge that politics are only possible because of such a powerfully written US Constitution, and yet they continually spit on it with every special interest group that sends them a campaign donation.

I fear for the future of this nation with every bit of news I heard out of Washington with little hope.  There are only two current political figures I find have a passion for politics unbridled by the scruples of money.  Those are Senators Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren, and I am hard pressed to find another.

Please vote.

Obesity and the Stratification of Wealth

In this post I'll attempt to address a common humor Republicans like to entertain about how the biggest problem the United States faces is obesity.  I admit, for a short time I shared their perspective that no one could possibly be "that" unfortunate that they simply became obese because of their socio-economic situation.

Consider these situations, which I'll make as abstract as possible to appeal to your experiences:

Fast food is cheap.  Keep in mind the "dollar menu"s and contrast the concept that when you sit down to eat at a restaurant they are likely to hand you bread or chips with water before your entrees arrive.  This fills you up before you even get into what you're craving, and this makes you more likely to get a take-out bag for your meal.  Servers and the companies for which they work are interested in giving you the impression that the high-dollar amount you spent was worth your while, because you're full and you might even have some for later, and you'll tip your server.  These customers are going to be spending a lot more for fewer calories and a healthier lifestyle.

Now, consider when you're out drinking.  You're spending between 3 and 500% more per drink than you would if you bought it at a convenience store or ABC store in bulk.  Again, the healthier option (both physically and mentally) is spending more money and tipping a bartender.

Now, I ask you to consider the last time you were at a restaurant.  Were you impressed with the fellow patron's health?  What about the last time you were at a buffet-style restaurant?  There is an obvious pattern, cheap food is a major cause for obesity.  As with all situations, there are exceptions; I know of people who purposefully maintain obesity in order to collect disability benefits, and it is a sad event we must deal with, but this is not by any stretch of the imagination a majority of obese people.

Now, consider the suggestion that obese people could simply purchase ingredients at a grocer and create healthy meals and improve their health in that way.  Believe me, I've thought of this having had the majority of my jobs under the poverty line.  Purchasing ingredients for a healthy lifestyle is more expensive regardless of choices if you wish to maintain a quality of life that the wealthy enjoy with respect to nutrition.  If you purchase healthy ingredients from the grocer, you need to study proper recipes to prepare them, you need to have the necessary cooking wares (pots, pans, strainers, spoons, tongs, seasonings, etc.).  This burden incurs further unreported expenses such as heating equipment like microwaves, stove-tops, and ovens.  Then there's the manual labor that goes into washing specialized utensils or cooking wares.  If hot water or washing machines are involved, those incur additional expenses.

In other words, there is a positive correlation between poverty and obesity that people (especially political leaders) do not address.  In this millennium we are expected to believe that obesity is a sign of prosperity and progress, when in fact it is more likely to be a red flag of the ever-increasing stratification of wealth in our economy.

Do not mistake this for a bleeding-heart liberal post, I leave out political slants as much as possible when I can so that readers can consider what side of facts to take and apply their own critical thought, but this sentiment is in direct opposition to those who might take this dynamic as a symptom of economic failure and call it a result of economic success.  I say here and now, obesity is by-and-large a result of economic disparity.  And in tangential commentary I'll add that if you have ever held an employed position below the poverty line, you'll know full well that it's not a hole you work out of; a poverty stricken job does not provide enough capital to save for your future, and it does not allow you to improve your standard of living, it may for a time indulge a monthly luxury, but never enough to provide a meaningful change to quality of life of provide for the future of your children the way it used to.

Unemployable

I won't be quoting more facts except in tangents.  This post will rely centrally on my personal experience with the job hunt.

I'll start by giving the old elementary style of working backward through the situation: the answer to these questions is reserve military status states a consistent interruption each month.  If you're working a regular 9-5, then you'll find a regular once-a-month interruption to your days off.

This is a primary thing for which employers hate you.

Secondly, there is the fact that I can use 5-point veterans preference for federal employments opportunity.  What this tells employers is that you've seen something that is completely incompatible with the the job world.

Third, my specific military experience is completely non-transferable to capitalist enterprise.  Even my most convincing résumé would be shot down by the fact that I'm a man, first and foremost.  Men are just not a priority in entry level positions with possible upward mobility.  And I know this isn't the most popular opinion to take, but after a year of job hunting: I can confidently say that I will never post my ethnicity, from now on, unless it is required.  "Equal Opportunity Employers" should be THE place you omit as much personal information as possible.

And then there's the experience issue.  I don't have experience literally doing that job I'm applying for...  BECAUSE I'M APPLYING FOR IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.  Crazy, I know.  I have never applied for a former job.  If I liked the job, I would still be doing it.  The requirement begs to be lied to.

In fact, at a job fair I went to recently, a man at one of the booths held my attention long enough to tell me that I need to start lying about my credentials, my job history, my education, my references, my current job.  Just everything.  He said that the only way out of this abysmal economy is to fight for yourself, and fight smart; tell people what they want to hear and what will get you your objectives.

Now, I still have heavily principles positions that deal with honor, integrity, selfless service, loyalty, duty, respect, and personal courage.  It's the Army's LDRSHIP model.  I don't want to compromise any of that.  But, the fact that someone twice my age, singled me out, and went to great lengths to offer me specific details and perspective on how to start a life, tells me that something is different about our current events than what could be done 20-40 years ago.  My family members have held jobs for 30+ years.  I have no direct relationships with people who can A) relate to my situation, or B) help me in the same way they were helped when they needed the job that defined their career for the rest of their life.

It's a rant, and I can't say that this is getting better for myself and those in my position.  in 2012, I was briefed once that the suicide rate in the Virginia National Guard (all guard components) tied with Kentucky for the most suicides by service members.  And this is an obvious result of an unemployable group of people.

In other words, if you know or love anyone who is in this unemployable category.  Give them what support you can.  If you know a way to pass on their name to employers or people you know who may help them, think of it this way: every little bit helps.  When there is a despondent soldier incapable for getting a job, I ask that you at least think about putting something positive in his/her life.  Give a phone number, give a name, or a lead, or a company name.  Something to help them go forward.  Forward motion is essential for the type of success needed to lift them up.

Hopefully this post has some use to those skimming through.  I'm regurgitating a lot of news lately on all the related topics.

Leave any comments about this kind of style and any other thoughts you might have about this post.