Headline In "Daily News" (October 30, 1975)

 

(1)

Insert Title Here

I can't really think of a good title for this entry. Anywho, here are a couple of thoughts on matters of the day. 

(Ugh; the formatting of this blog service really stinks. Apologies if it doesn't look "pretty")

In the past few days, I've seen some people I know ramp up the pro-Democrat rhetoric in regards to this election. Obviously, they are terrified of a GOP win in November, as well they should be.

 
It might be more accurate, then, to say that they are not so much for Kamala Harris than they are against Donald Trump.

Democrats trot out the same tired lines; "Trump's a racist, he's a womanizer, he's crazy", etc. They have nothing new or productive to offer, just the same old thing, over and over and over.

In any event, for those of you thinking of voting blue this year, let me ask you a few things. 

Do you know how many times Harris, in her capacity as vice president, has been to the southern border? The correct answer is zero times.

Also, how many times in the past month has the vice president been to North Carolina, or the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast of Florida? Not even once; I guess her schedule's too full to bother with that.

In addition, how many times has Harris even mentioned those disaster areas in speeches? Again, the answer is zero; not even one time. 

That's probably because she hasn't held one press conference period; at least not one in about eighty-seven days (1).

In fact, the very federal agency that is designed to deal with disasters (FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency) has basically told Carolinans and Floridians to "drop dead" (see note) (2, 3, 4).

Do you think they care about them? Do you think they care about anyone, other than themselves? Do you think they care about you? 

Don't make me laugh.

If Democrats really cared about you, then maybe they'd do something about Connecticut's sky high electric rates, like convene the special session that citizens have been clamoring for. They've gone completely radio silent on this issue.

Perhaps they'd address the rising tide of crime in not just our cities, but the suburbs as well. That's not happening, because it's all exaggerated; "crime is down". Am I right, Governor Ned Lamont?

And if Democrats in power really gave a damn, maybe they'd choose a nominee for vice president who has a few credentials to his name. 

Instead, they've nominated an unabashed Communist, pathological liar, and military deserter in Tim Walz. Disagree with that if you will; I invite you to do the associated research for yourself. (5)

The fact is that the elite big shots at the head of the Democrats don't care one bit about you. All that matters to them is power, and the sound of their own laughter (cackle cackle Kamala Harris). 

Maybe it's me, but I can't understand how anyone would want to support them; and, after all this nation has been through in the past four years, say "thank you sir, may I have another?".

"Wait 'Til Next Year"...Again?

As a fan of New York sports, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the phrase, "wait 'til next year".

Right now, Boston doesn't have that problem; their Celtics just swept the Indiana Pacers out of the Eastern Conference Finals. TD Garden will be rocking for another couple of weeks. Madison Square? The Rangers notwithstanding, not so much (1).  

That said, let's take a look at the recent history of the New York Knickerbockers. While other teams such as the Bulls have enough NBA titles to sink the Titanic, New York has a grand total of two of them, none coming in my lifetime (2).

Since 1973, the team has been in the Finals only twice; in 1994, and 1999. And the last time that the Knicks won a division championship? That would be 2013; eleven years ago.

It seems that a 2000 quote from professional wrestler Kurt Angle was correct: "if we wait for Patrick Ewing and the New York Knicks to bring home an NBA title, we'll probably be waiting forever" (3).  

And the "Amazin's"? They haven't fared much better as of late.  

Four years ago, current owner Steven Cohen bought the Mets from previous ownership.  What has Mr. Cohen done to improve the team, you ask? The answer is this; a whole lot of nothing (4). 

Like James Dolan of the Knicks parent company (Madison Square Garden Sports), he cares more about money than winning titles.  

Where's Craig Counsell, the man who would be/could be the Mets' manager? Helming the second place Chicago Cubs. 

Where's Yoshinobu Yamamoto, the Japanese wonder? Pitching for the first place Dodgers.

And where are the Mets in the NL East standings? Almost at the bottom of the barrel.  As of today, the only team trailing them is the Miami Marlins.  

You read that right, folks....THE MARLINS (5).  

Some might say that the Knicks had a good season, and that the Mets are "making progress".  I think I've heard just about enough of that.

You see, "a good season" isn't just getting to the conference semifinals; it's winning the title.  It's not enough to simply be in the conversation; "you play to win the game" (Herm Edwards) (6). 

Results matter; championships matter.  Get it done, or get gone.  

New York deserves no less than the absolute best.  

"Watery" Observations: History Repeating?

By now, you likely have heard about the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago, the palace-like Florida residence of Donald Trump. It seems that the feds were looking for certain documents that Mr. Trump may have had in his possession. 

Never mind that President Biden may have the very same documents, as well as other classified intelligence that he is not legally allowed to possess; but I digress (1). 

Without additional political commentary, I suggest that the whole situation looks similar in appearance to certain aspects of Watergate. Students of history will note that this was the affair that eventually took down President Richard Nixon.   

Let's go into some background behind that scandal, and how it happened.  

At the time that Watergate took place, the political climate in the US was fraught (see definitions) with tension, if not outright suspicion. Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Sr. had been assassinated in 1968, and there were serious questions being asked about the direction of the nation.

Enter onto this scene the publication of "the Pentagon Papers". This was a study that sharply critiqued the size and scope of America's involvement in Vietnam (2). 

The "papers" were supported by various internal leaks of classified documents; leaks that Republican president Richard Nixon decided to try to put a stop to. As such, later that year, a group called the "White House Special Investigations Unit" was formed; they would become unofficially known as "the Plumbers" (3).

Now, let's go to June of 1972, when a crew of would-be robbers is caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. According to reports, they were there looking for information regarding the party's campaigning and activities (4).

This apparent lapse in security alarms members of Congress, who quickly begin to investigate whether there was any official connection to the crime.

At this point, you may be asking what all of this has to do with "Document-gate". 

You see, the scenario is the same; it goes like this. A group loosely affiliated with the White House (in this case, officials with the FBI) wants to know what the other side is doing, and thus violates property rights in the guise (see definitions) of obtaining "important documents".  

Then, a gag order (see definitions) is placed on the property owner, forbidding him from any mention of the affair in public.

In the previous case, the story ultimately ended with Richard Nixon resigning as president, and somewhat of a vindication of his political opponents. Perhaps the similarities between the two instances should be considered (5). 

After all, those who forget their own history are often doomed to repeat it.

(A Short) Eulogy For A Statesman

This morning, I found myself witnessing a somber affair; the funeral of former US Senator Joseph Lieberman, who died this past Wednesday at the age of eighty-two. It's not often that I give out high praise for Democrats, but by way of eulogy, I will do so here (1).    

When thinking of the deceased, the first word that comes to my mind is "decent".    

Joe Lieberman was a man of common decency, the qualities of which are sadly uncommon today. He may or may not have gotten my vote; I didn't always agree with his positions. However, he met with my admiration because he was always willing to stand up for his own principles, even when doing so meant he had to go it alone.

As a public servant, Lieberman was a person of great candor (see definition); a straight-shooter with, dare I say, refreshing honesty. And as an everyday citizen, the Stamford resident seemed to approach life with good humor, and a smile.

Joseph Lieberman served his state, country, and God with honor and distinction. He was a friend to many, and a political role model for some. I regard him as one of the last "good Democrats".  

Ultimately, Lieberman was an intelligent and sensible voice; one of reason and humility. In this world that seems to have turned upside down, he will be greatly missed (2).

My Thoughts On The FCC

For the past few days, I’ve been reading about how small microbroadcasters are routinely harassed by the“powers that be”. One such story of interest has greatly grabbed my attention. 

In May of 1998, a low-power outlet known as “Steal This Radio” brought an action against the FCC in federal court for the Southern District of New York. The operators claimed laws against unlicensed broadcasting to be unconstitutional, and requested that the Commission be legally barred (through injunction) from seizing the station and its equipment (1).

On March 16 1999, after a contentious ten months of argument on the matter, judge Michael Mukasey decided in favor of the government, denying the station’s request (2).

Again mentioning the disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer, here’s why I think the Court got this one wrong.

First off, the judge discusses the topic of jurisdiction, holding by implication that the Court is not the proper venue for a challenge to Commission regulations; the Commission itself is.

I find a good deal of fault with this; the judge is basically saying that the Commission is “judge, jury, and executioner” on all matters regarding licensing. To me, that idea seems to fly in the face of “redress of grievances”, and is thus misguided (3).

Also, if the FCC is the sole arbiter of its own rulings, how can one effectively challenge such decisions? In such cases, hoping that a judgment against you will be overturned is an exercise in futility and false hope; for the “big boys” will always look after their own. It’s a bit like a prisoner getting to decide his own punishment.

Second, the defense asserted that “there is no First Amendment right to broadcast”. I think this argument is fallacious (see definitions) in its nature.

Let’s take a quick look at the Amendment in question. It says,“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Now, past precedence notwithstanding, I don’t recall seeing anything there to the effect of “except on the airwaves”. Maybe I missed it, but it doesn’t appear that such a phrase is included among the right to free press and free speech.

Having discussed the “Steal This Radio” case, let’s examine some statements that the Commission has made in defense of its enforcement tactics.

1: “Broadcasting isn’t a public forum. We can’t allow everyone to broadcast: there would be anarchy!"

Somehow, I don’t think everybody and their brother are clamoring to get on the air. People have other hobbies...like stamp collecting. And the airwaves don’t belong to Washington.

2: “Unlicensed broadcasters are a danger to the public, because they interfere with emergency services.”

It could just be me not paying attention, but I haven’t heard of even one station that has intentionally done this (have you?).

3: “Low-power stations interfere with full-power stations.”

In my experience, many such stations take great pains not to do this. By the way, how is a dinky five watt station in the middle of nowhere going to interfere with a fifty thousand watt powerhouse? Scientifically speaking, this makes no sense at all!

4: “Some people don’t cooperate with us.”

Constitutionally speaking, people don’t have to. See the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, right not to engage in self-incrimination, and right to refuse to speak unless accompanied by an attorney. And in the event that you want to inspect, get a warrant, flat-foot!

5: “Well, the rights cited in Point 4 only apply to those accused of a crime.”

Oh, pardon me then. As similarly explained before, I must’ve missed the part of the Fourth Amendment that says, “except in cases where no crime has been alleged”. 

Here’s the bottom line; the FCC seems to be nothing but a big bunch of bullies. Since when do I need to ask the government for permission to speak? And since when does the government, if it doesn’t like what I’m saying, get to deny me that permission?

That’s not what “a free country” is all about!

Considerations (And Commentary)

Some thoughts on the ongoing saga that is professional wrestling. I will preface this by saying I have absolutely no involvement with World Wrestling Entertainment/the TKO Group; what follows is simply one fan's opinion.  

If you haven't heard, the somewhat checkered coat of Vince McMahon just got a little more colorful. A former WWE employee has accused him of sexual assault, as well as other crimes that are of a similar nature (1). 

Everyone's been talking about these claims; for one, the press seems all too eager to proclaim the fall of the House of McMahon. That said, before we throw "Vinny Mac" into the slammer (and slam the door shut), let's go over a few things.  

First, let's consider the idea of due process. 

Right now, the whole "dogpile on Vince" thing seems to be the cool path to follow. The problem with this is that McMahon has not yet had his day in court. 

Like any other American so charged, the accused has a right to defend himself before judge and jury. Why so many people are willing to declare McMahon guilty, even though he has not yet been proven to be so, is beyond me. That's not exactly the way it works. 

Second, let's talk motive. 

Even with all the talk of what McMahon might or might not have done, there's a possibility that this is simply a power play of sorts; a false narrative concocted by those scheming to control a vast business empire. 

That wouldn't completely surprise me. After all, the allure of power and money can be very intoxicating, and you don't get to the top without making a few enemies along the way. 

It is also within the realm of possibility that this controversy is merely part of a wrestling storyline, or "work". Traditionally, WWE has done a very good job of "blurring the lines"; perhaps this instance is yet another example of the time-honored art of "kayfabe" (2).

Finally, let's review the historical legacy of WWE.  

From its earliest days, the company has always been run by McMahons, having been founded by Vince's grandfather (as the "Capitol Wrestling Corporation") in 1953. The fact that multiple generations have played a part in its success should be a point of pride for the family; at least, it would be in mine (3).

 

And love him or hate him, nobody can deny that Vince McMahon has created a product that is enjoyed by millions of people throughout the world. It's not right to try to destroy a family legacy based solely on a "he said, she said" affair. 

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that this is what's happening. Nevertheless, I think we should take a step back before jumping to conclusions. Let us not determine a man's guilt before that man has had his say. 

And as always, if you don't like what you see on television, stop watching it. You have freedom of choice, which includes the choice to turn the TV off.