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.

Advertisements

As the world globalizes, so does advertising.  You can find advertisements on anything just about anywhere there is a source of entertainment.  Magazines, radio, newspapers, flyers, signs, email spam, even while you play your latest free online game.  So, I've told you nothing you don't already know.  So, what's this all about?  This is about a decline in culture and sophistication.  As advertisers get smarter, they realize the more broad their hook, the higher the yield in attention to their clients.

Let's take a look at what something like that looks like.  Beer commercials advertise their product giving a "fresh cold taste."  Now, aside from that being impossible, think about how many people continue to confuse cold and hot as tastes instead of feelings?  This may not trouble you and seem like a nit picky observation.  Another beer advertisement encourages you to "taste greatness."  Now, aside from that being impossible, I invite you to look at what kind of advertisement that came from:

Enter: man at crowded bar with young attractive female bar tender.

Man: I'll have a light beer.
Tender: Okay, do you care how it tastes?
Man: No, I don't really care how it tastes.

Bar Tender serves the man.

Tender: Well, when you start caring, put down your purse and I'll give you a [advertised beer].

Man slowly reveals what's at the end of the strap on his far shoulder and looks at it, then turns back to the Tender.

Man: It's a "carry-all."
Tender: No it's not.

Commercial Narrator in deep baritone:  Man up...

[commercial ends with man eventually getting the advertised beer, but still ribbed by his friends at his table].

Now, before I get into this, I'll be the first to admit I was amused by this.  But, let's see exactly what was funny about this.  An attractive woman emasculates a man who prefers no particular beer, and associates masculinity with that product.  There is a series of these commercials and they all end the same, the man caves and chooses the advertised beer.

So, not only does the syntax have problems, the humor is a bit of a paradox, as well, isn't it?  Is capitulation to female interest masculine?  I think what this ad leads us to assume is at least that doing what the pretty woman wants is a good idea, and if her antagonism is what it takes, then that's okay, you can still be a man when you get that beer.  And all of this is below the radar during the interaction, the bar scene is a dog-eat-dog environment where whit, insults, and pride are fast currency, so no one seems to pay attention to the raw interaction.  The unexpected decisive blow wins, and it seems to be understood.  In any other context it would simply seem inappropriate for a woman to bully a man into buying something.  Yet, this isn't the result of natural female behavior, this ad blatantly targets men who don't have a sense of masculinity, and reinforces a popular belief that masculinity can be purchased at a bar.

I could go into greater detail with any ad running on TV on nearly any product, but I hope this quick look at ads being run today gives people pause to choose carefully when they purchase things.  What I am most concerned about is not whether the target demographic of men buys or doesn't buy that particular beer.  I'm concerned that young people, who are forming their understanding about gender roles and communication skills are learning from these subtle and otherwise harmless advertisements.

In other words, take this ad how you will, but there are many more like it, and in a globalized economy, I think it's becoming more and more important to reward companies with solid advertisement, and avoid companies that try to manipulate and distort reality.

What If America Fails?

The question in many social circles is unthinkable, and in others still, treason.  Why is that?  The idea that such a question is so ridiculous sounding and "extreme" is a symptom of the failures of government Ron Paul's November 2012 farewell address points to in front of the House of Representatives.

Let's think seriously about this hypothetical.  The founding of our Constitution was on undeveloped land over 200 years ago, far from serious threats, and plenty of room to stretch.  If our government fails, there is nowhere to set sail, nowhere to stretch out, and no protection for new beginning on earth.  This is all we have.  If our government descends into the depth of misery that is projected, then the cascade of potential tragedies becomes blindingly huge.  Your imagination should be sufficient, you don't have to rely on me to conjure examples.

If that scares you a bit, then you're doing it right.  If you have no reaction to the thought of a failed United States government, then it's up to you to wonder why.  But, I know why I would ignore something like this.  I would ignore this had I not had a background in political science.  I would ignore this if I was not taught at my university that written and spoken news is vastly superior to what somehow still passes for news on television.  I would ignore this if I didn't have a background in history that shows what it takes to earn freedom, and more foreboding, what happens when freedom and liberty is lost.  I would ignore this if I believed it just couldn't happen.  But, based on what I see in politics, attitudes of the ignorant, and the economy; how could this not fail?  If you are unchallenged by this, I challenge you now, look at this country with new eyes.

We live in an age of distraction and complacency unrivaled throughout the ages.  It is easier now, more than ever before, to find satisfaction in ignorance.  I believe I have grown up in a generation that was given every opportunity to avoid reality.  Reality, in the broadest sense, is the beginning to growth as an individual thinker.  Reality allows people to consider their life priorities.  Reality allows people to measure themselves, their talents, their weaknesses, and their hopes and dreams against the world in which they live.

In other words, I hope to remind people that invincibility is impossible, especially to something man-made like the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that does not mean it's not worth saving.  Good can come from man, but never has good come from selfish ignorance.

I believe the United States government can fail.  And if there's anything I can do to keep our Constitution alive, I will.  Will you?

Commonweath vs. State

There are 4 commonwealths in the United States.  They are Virginia (yay), Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.  You can notice right away they're geographically eastern political territories and, generally speaking, older governments than most of the United States.  The only commonwealth not in the original 13 colonies was Kentucky, and they were at one point simply an extension of Virginia and kept commonwealth status when they gained their autonomy in 1790.

Legally, commonwealth = state under The Constitution.  So why make any distinction?  Most people don't.  Even residents of the commonwealth in which I live refer to this territory a state, and even I find it hard to remember, (but I do correct myself)!

I've found there are two reasons these 4 territories remain titled commonwealths.  First, these commonwealths have a tradition, a history, to uphold in their formation and foundation as political entities standing against tyranny and oppression.  There's a matter of pride and tradition involved in titles and historically significant events each of these governments hold.  Second, is an extension of the sentiment through the history of "the commonwealth."  Commonwealths are governments entirely devoted to the good of the people, often used interchangeably with the word republic, (keep in mind the United States is a democratic republic).  This, however, is in contrast to what is an acceptable determination of statehood.  Statehood is simply a governance of political community.  But, to what end?  Is it implied that the good of the people is the interest of the government?  I'll leave those questions to rumination.

Now, I'll address some perspectives that are bound to arise.  Is a commonwealth communist or socialist in nature?  No.  Could a communist government be a commonwealth?  Sure, (though probably not for long if history is any indication).

In other words, there's a difference between a state and a commonwealth.  It may not be a legal one, it may not be tangable in the basic sense, but commonwealth representatives are automatically held to a higher standard than other public officials.  They are responsible for good of the people, not simply entrusted with the governance or oversight like most governments.

Iran Lately

If you're not particularly keen on keeping up with international affairs, it may surprise you to know that many news agencies abroad are state controlled.  This means the government filters what stories do and don't get seen by the general public.  In the case of Iran, this is also true of certain online news agencies like the Fars, the English language outlet of news for Iranians closely controlled by the Islamic clerical Iranian regime.  What may also surprise you is that they recently decided to publish a news story from The Onion, a satire news organization that prides themselves for off-the-cuff and, at times offensive, comedy.  The Fars reprinted a (completely fictional) Onion News story that rural white Americans were polled to prefer President Ahmadinejad over President Obama.

Now, it's embarrassing enough to get something wrong, but blatent plagiarism, a pseudo-apology, and personal endorsements for the story's validity after the facts were straight leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  And the impression starts to form that a government unwilling to acknowledge the Holocaust while pursuing nuclear weapons is unstable, in the rational/sane sense of the word.

In other words, if you're wondering why Obama and Romney couldn't stop agreeing with each other about bombing Iran during their foreign policy debate, now you know.