Because Facebook Is Being Snotty....

...I'll post it here.

Facebook is making it more difficult to share posts now...but I had to share this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iMbRfAO1z-DFT7Z7HsFmadldPCUrVrcR/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VEFL62PPtmd1odEd6AxnRR8XLGV3b2QU/view?usp=sharing

Commentary: Opinion, Free Speech, Choice, and "The Right To Lie"

 In reply to this article in the "CT Examiner" (1).  

We are indeed faced with great troubles and challenges in the America that we call home.  In Connecticut alone, crime has greatly increased, not to mention the ever-rising cost of living.  Education is now a controversial subject, as is whether or not one chooses to be vaccinated against COVID.  And in Hartford, many of our elected politicians only give lip service to the idea that the people have a voice.  

Against this backdrop, Mr. Deshefy opines that liberty and freedom of speech are outdated notions.  Using big words like "cavalcading", he tries to convince the reader that these ideas are examples of "extremism", even going so far as to call critics "stupid".  

Allow me to address some of Mr. Deshefy's statements.  

• "Cancel culture" is a "myth"

I guess the author forgot about Disney and Dr. Seuss being overwhelmingly censored, simply because of (for example) there are illustrations depicting characters who are Chinese.  And actress Gina Carano has been "canceled" not for saying outlandish statements, but for posting facts on various social media accounts (2).  Perhaps I'm wrong, but these instances of censorship don't seem like myths or "tall tales" to me.  

• "When we give license to the injurious and facts take backseats to belief, freedom of speech becomes gnarly and twisted"

Opinions and beliefs notwithstanding, what does the author believe is "injurious" (that is, causing injury)? I submit that it is not his place to decide for others what is opinion, and what is fact.  

• "No one has First Amendment rights to defraud by lying, or (to) falsely accuse a citizen"

Let me clarify something here.  The First Amendment protects one's right to worship in accordance with their beliefs (or if they choose, not worship at all).  It also protects rights to free speech, a free press, peaceful protest, and the right to ask the government to do or not do something.  Nowhere does it speak of lying, or saying things that some might find to be "offensive" (3).  Thus, the author himself is making a false claim; he is assigning the Amendment a meaning that does not exist.  

• "Legal entitlements to public self-expression are neither constitutionally guaranteed nor vital to the nation, if...they spawn dangerous elements"

On this topic, I find myself to be in agreement.  As with most other rights, the rights of free speech and free expression are not absolute.  You don't have the right to express yourself in any manner that might endanger the safety of others, or infringe on their own free speech rights (this is where the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" example comes in).  Similarly, you can't express serious intent to commit any "imminent lawless action".  

• "Freedom of speech isn't a license to beguile or deceive"

Perhaps not, but it doesn't disallow possible deception, either.  Again, there is nothing in the First Amendment that precludes lying.  Whether or not to be honest is a choice that the Constitution leaves to the individual.  In my opinion, this is right and proper.  

• "There was a time when Americans routinely doffed their hats and extended common courtesies without feeling stripped of their rights. We could improve by such politeness again"

Yes, we probably could improve in this way.  In recent years, manners and chivalry seem to have become things of the past, at least to some extent.  Holding a door open for someone, or silencing your phone at dinner, isn't just good etiquette; it's good sense.  

• "After all, how hard is it to be politically correct, protect one another...wear masks and avoid prolonging a pandemic?"

Regardless of how difficult it might be to do as such, these choices are up to each of us as individuals.  If you choose to wear a mask, I'm not going to say that you can't, as it's not up to me.  In the same manner, if I decide not to wear a mask, the author shouldn't demand that I do so.  After all, we're talking about my life, not his.  As long as someone's choices don't clearly physically harm another, they should be left to their own devices.  That's what liberty is all about.   

Reading the Riot Act

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.  

Right now, things in Connecticut are in a tailspin; they've been that way for the last three years.  In my opinion, the proper remedy for what's happening would be to at least impeach the governor, and force him to answer to the state legislature.  Unfortunately, the General Assembly's hands are effectively tied, since they cannot meet unless the governor calls them into special session.  

I find that the situation is approaching that which led to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.  Allow me a moment to explain this.   

The purpose of the Declaration was to disclose the tyrannic practices of King George, and assert that due to this tyranny, it had become "neccessary" for the thirteen colonies to govern themselves.  In a similar manner to the Declaration, "let facts be submitted to a candid world" (1).  

The history of the present governor of Connecticut is a "history of repeated injuries and usurpations".  He has:

• Refused his assent to laws that are neccessary for the public good. 

• Made municipalities obtain his permission to enact neccessary laws.  Where such permission has been sought, the governor has utterly neglected to attend to such matters.  

• Effectively abandoned legislative representation, because some members of the General Assembly have opposed "with manly firmness" his invasions on the rights of the people (1, 2). 

• Made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices.  

• "Sent hither swarms of officers to harass the people, and eat out their substance"

• Suspended operation of the legislature unless they, on his whim alone, are called into special session.  

• Declared himself invested with power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.  

• Unreasonably infringed on the rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom of religion. 

• Encouraged violent crime by tying the hands of law enforcement, and refusing to address the safety and protection of the people (3, 4).  

• Declared the right to bear arms to be non-existant (5).  

• Plundered our towns, and "destroyed the lives" and livelihoods of the people (2).  

In doing these things, the governor has "undermined the integrity of his office, betrayed his trust, and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury..." of the people of the State of Connecticut (6).  

Furthermore, "in every stage of these oppressions", the people "have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms".  As it was in colonial days, "repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injur(ies)" (1).  

So, how do "we the people" of Connecticut change the current situation? How do we make things better, and get the state back on its feet again? The only way to do this is to demand accountibility from our government, and "vote the bums out" in 2022.  Otherwise, to quote the late comic George Carlin, things will "never get any better.  Be happy with what you got".  

It's now or never, folks.  It's time for a change!

(Apologies for the vulgarity in the video below; remarks cited start at 1:36) (7)

Just Another Rant (Or Two)

Just when you think life in the State of Connecticut can't get any worse, it does.  

Let's talk about it:

• Draconian and continued restrictions on business (not to mention sky-high taxes) have sent the state's economy into a tailspin.  

Here's a quick example of what local businesses are facing.   It appears that the small store across the street from me will be closing up for good at the end of the year.  They're already down to almost bare bones, and the owner of the place says that continued operation is "not worth it".

• Connecticut is in the midst of an epidemic of violent crime.

One day, it's "somebody got shot at one of the casinos" (1).  The next time, it's "somebody got their car stolen"; the next, it's "cops on a routine traffic stop were shot at".  Nevertheless, something happens every single day.  Yet by recently enacted state law, there's almost nothing that law enforcement can do to address this issue.  All the while, the liberals that run this state say "we've done what we can" (2).  A word of advice to those visiting Connecticut: "watch your back, Jack"!

• There is no form of state-wide representative government in existance. 

Stop me if you've heard this one before; every state is guaranteed to have a government "of the people" (3).  That apparently doesn't apply to Connecticut.  I can hear you now; "well, what about the legislative branch"? Ah, "there's the rub".  

Normally, the General Assembly would be the organ of representative government for this state.  So what's the problem? Namely, it is that the Assembly doesn't meet regularly; they're not allowed to.  Yes, you read that correctly; the Assembly may meet only when called into special session by the governor.  That doesn't quite sound like "representative democracy" to me; it sounds more like one-person rule.

•   Regarding COVID, the state has overreached in its powers.  

This one isn't even a question anymore, at least not in my mind.  State workers have been told to either get the vaccine, or lose their jobs.  So you want a religious exemption? Sorry; those don't exist here.  

And don't try going to the courts for relief, because they all say the same thing; "although we have 'grave concerns' about the matter, it's within the government's power to mandate vaccinations" (4).  I would say that they are in the governor's pocket; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the governor is in theirs.  

Also, now we're talking about "vaccine passports"? "Oh, they won't be mandatory" (5).  Give me a break! Do I look like I was born yesterday? Moreover, is this what the state has come to? A Nazi-like regime that says, "papers! Show me your papers"? 

This is getting...no, this IS ridiculous.  When will enough be enough?

____________________________________________________________

Oh, you thought I was done? "But wait, there's more"!

I guess it's time for me to relate a little story.  

This past Thanksgiving Day (as is my usual routine), I went down to my alma mater to check out the yearly rivalry game in football.  It wasn't much of a contest; the "good guys" (so to speak) were getting blown out, and frankly, it didn't appear to me that they were even trying hard.  

Eventually, halftime rolled around.  The referee's whistle blew, play stopped, and the two teams went to their respective sidelines.  That's when I piped up that the "good guys" should "have some pride" and "be embarrassed".  After all, they were letting their arch-rival do a number on them, and on their home field too.  

All of a sudden, one of the home coaches bolted off the sideline, and yelled at me to "shut the hell up".  You should've seen the look in this man's eyes; it was like his name could've been "Mr. Psycho".  Not backing down, I gave him a few "fighting words" (I regret doing that, but what's done is done).  

So what happened next? Apparently, "Mr. Psycho" decided it was a good idea to at least attempt to rush the stands.  If he had not been held back, I'm pretty sure we would've come to blows.  

It's my opinion that the coach got a little hotter than what was appropriate.  My "fighting words" notwithstanding, he had no call to rush off the sideline the way that he did.  The coach could've just ignored me, and gone to the locker room with his team.  If he had done this, there wouldn't have been any sort of issue.  However, the coach chose to try to confront me; by doing so, he placed myself (and possibly others) at clear risk of imminent harm.  

Yet when it was all over, I found that I was escorted off the school's premises.  Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to say that my behavior here was saintly.  I realize that I'm partially to blame for the situation unfolding as it did.  For that, I apologize to all concerned.  

Nevertheless, I find myself somewhat disturbed by what happened here.  I've never been kicked out of any high school sports event, not even when I was in school.  Some people don't like my mouth, but I say it comes with the territory.  If you're in the field of competition, you should expect this kind of thing (at times).  

In any event, I think that the coach (I'm not sure what his name is) owes me an apology.  When a man is wrong, a good man will have no problem with admitting the same.  I have apologized for my actions; it would be a class act for him to do likewise.  

Random Thoughts: Governor Lamont and Free Speech

In Waterford, a man is seemingly in hot water for allegedly threatening the governor via Twitter.  

Via WTNH News 8:
Waterford Man Charged With Threatening Lamont (1)

Allow me to share with you my thoughts on the matter.  

From the start, I must make it clear that I absolutely do not condone what this man appears to have said.  Even so, I question where the governor is going on this.  My lack of a law degree notwithstanding, it doesn't appear to me that the person in question violated any law.  

To explain this, let's examine the relevant facts. 

Every American has the right to free speech, and the right to speak his or her mind without fear of reprisals from the government.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (2).

Moreover, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut also weighs in on the subject:

"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" (Article I, Section Four) 

Obviously, this freedom is not absolute; notice that the state constitution talks about "abuse" of freedom of speech.  You can't say things that, reasonably considered, pose a "clear and present danger" to another's safety (think shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire).  And you can't express serious intent to engage in any "imminent lawless action". (See: "true threats", Note 1)

That said, let's look at what Connecticut state law says on the subject of "threatening".  

According to Section 53a-62 Chapter 952 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a person is guilty of the charge when:

"(1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury,

(2) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, or 

(3) violates subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection and the person threatened is in a building or on the grounds of a (A) house of religious worship, (B) religiously-affiliated community center, (C) public or nonpublic preschool, school or institution of higher education, or (D) day care center, as defined in § 19a-87g, during operational, preschool, school or instructional hours or when a building or the grounds of such house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center are being used for the provision of religious or community services, or house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center-sponsored activities".  

It seems to me that this person did not pose an "imminent" threat to the governor's physical safety, nor have the clear capability to carry out such a threat.  By the accused's own admission, he did not have any clear intent to harm the governor.  As such, the speech that this man expressed cannot be construed as a "true threat".  

Here's something else to consider.  According to a research report by attorney Susan Price-Livingston (representing the State of Connecticut), state courts don't always consider whether or not a perceived threat is serious.  "Rather", she says, they "resolve(d) the pure speech cases that (have) come before them under the First Amendment's 'fighting words' doctrine" (3).  

I won't get into whether or not the state has erred by applying this criteria as opposed to the "true threat" example.  Nevertheless, even by the "fighting words" standard, the accused is innocent of the charge, as the speech expressed does not meet the associated tests.  (See: Note 2)

That being the case, what exactly is going on here? "True threat" or not, does Governor Lamont think so little of free speech that he will seek to punish anyone that dares utter a word against him? The answer, apparently (supported by my own experience with him), is yes (4).  

You see, in Ned Lamont's world (to paraphrase wrestling personality William Regal; see below) he is "your ruler, your better, and your superior" (5).  

All hail "King Ned". 

Note 1: See also "Watts v. United States", Supreme Court of the United States, 1969.

Note 2: The "fighting words" doctrine applies only when all of the following conditions are present: 

1. The speaker addresses his words directly to a specific individual.

2. The encounter is face-to-face.  

3. The words used are likely to provoke the “average addressee” to violence under the circumstances. and

4. The threat of a violent response is imminent (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942)) (3).  

Since there was no face-to-face encounter with the governor, and no apparent threat of a "violent response" from such, this test must fail.  

An Essay on Race and Racial Education

If you've been following the latest news, then perhaps you've heard of something called Critical Race Theory, or CRT.  This is an academic concept that attempts to discuss the issue and history of race (as it applies to America) (1).  

CRT has ignited a firestorm of sorts; many parents have engaged in heated debates with educators over its teachings.  Frankly, I share the concerns of these parents.  Personally, I have no problem with Connecticut schools teaching the history of race and racial relations.  I think that this is a subject that should be examined under a critical light.  

The issue, then, is with the specific ideas that CRT advances:

• America is a racist nation, and has been from its founding.  

• Being black or having black skin makes you better than others who are not black.

• The best way to address racial issues is to practice Communist principles.  

Yes, this is what is currently being taught in our public school systems (2).  And it's not so much of a new concept as it might seem to be.  Unfortunately, the idea of division based on race (as well as other factors) was being discussed a long time ago.  

Twenty-some years ago, I was a senior at what was then known as Fairfield High School.  At the time, there were certain classes that the state required students to take.  One of these was a course called "Islamic Studies"; it included lessons about the history and religious beliefs of Islam.  

As surprising as it might be that this was a state-mandated course, what was taught in that class was even more shocking.  I can still clearly recall something that my teacher, a female Dr. Kelly, once said (in the process of lecturing the class):

"Islam is a religion of peace, and Roman Catholicism is a cult" 

The really scary thing is that as a student, you were expected to agree with statements such as this.  If you questioned them, you would likely find yourself with a failing grade.  And sure, you could perhaps opt out of the class; just not if you ever anticipated graduating.  

I fear that this sort of thing is still happening in our schools.  That is, students are being told that if they want to pass a course, they must say what the teachers want to hear (3).  

These days, that is most likely "all cops are bastards", "(only) black lives matter", and "America was never great".  

Maybe it's time we taught our children not to judge people based on the color of their skin, but instead on "the content of their character" (4).  

Random Thoughts: Another Election

 A few random thoughts for today.  

- Another election year, another big defeat in my hometown of Fairfield.  The GOP lost the majority on the town's legislative body, the "Representative Town Council".  To make matters worse, it also lost the town Board of Finance (1).  

What does this mean? It means that going forward, every new big building project proposed will be approved....except for the ones that go against the "woke" agenda (Chick-Fil-A, anyone?).  And don't get me started on how the town will see higher taxes.  In short, Fairfield will continue to devolve into "Little Bridgeport", so to speak.  

Is this what we really want? Do we want a sky-high level of crimes such as car thefts and burglaries? Do we want Democrats to be able to "deny and deflect" any responsibility for the fill pile scandal (started under the previous Democrat First Selectman)? Do we like the fact that town Democrat "leaders" frequently use scare tactics (such as calling all Republicans "Nazis", which they did this year) to intimidate Fairfielders into voting for them?

And do we want our children to be taught that if someone has black skin, that alone makes them superior to anyone else (see Note 1)?

Think about it!

- Lately, it's been rather difficult to "keep the faith".  

It's always the same old story after elections; we say we're going to win big, and then we don't.  Don't get me wrong, I like the direction that the Fairfield (and Connecticut) GOP is going in.  What greatly disappoints me is the final outcome of major races; they haven't really developed in our favor recently.  And seemingly, one can't blame me for being disheartened.  

Take a quick look around you.  Fairfield is becoming urbanized, and losing the small town New England charm that has served it so well.  And every day, we lose a little bit more of our rights and freedoms.  This is true not just for Fairfield, and not just for Connecticut, but for the entire nation.  

There is a song that I sometimes listen to which speaks to this rather well.  

If I may, here's a small excerpt of "Broken Dreams" (as written and performed by "Shaman's Harvest"):

"Almost to the mountaintop

You slip and fall just like a stone,

Rolling ever faster

To this nightmare you have sown.

You had it all right in your grasp,

But in a breath, your minute passed.

Now at last the end has come,

You are all alone"

Maybe I'm a bit too traditional in my beliefs, or perhaps too old-fashioned for my own good.  Nevertheless, as I see it, people are no longer living the "American dream", but an "American nightmare" (apologies to wrestler Cody Rhodes).  

"Don't you look behind the curtain

No one's there, the end is certain" (2)

Random Thoughts

 And now, some random thoughts on random people.

• Mindy Porten:

        Hearing about her death has broken my heart.  Mindy was one of my earliest and dearest female friends; I can still remember chasing after her in elementary school.  

        To some extent, I feel to blame for what happened.  Perhaps if I had kept in contact with Mindy, she wouldn't have come to such a tragic end.  That's a feeling that I have to deal with, I guess.  I haven't felt this sad since my father died, six years ago.  

• Rob Maresca:

         Good friends are hard to find, and even harder to keep.  Robbie and I are polar opposites on basically every political issue known to man.  Nevertheless, we've somehow managed to not tear each other limb from limb, LOL.  "Mucho respecto" on that one, my man!

• Courtney Claytor:

         Happy to see she's having success in the real estate business.  Personally speaking, my father worked with Courtney's grandmother for many years in that same industry; it's obvious the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.  Maybe I should've taken up the family business...oh well!

• Julie Sherwood:

        Well, here we go again with "all the feels".  Julie helped to lift me out of one of the darkest times of my life.  And then, I fell totally in love with her.  I can't adequately express how much Julie means to me. 

         The unfortunate reality of being a man is that every now and then, you have to watch your dreams die..."and never breathe a word about your loss" (see Note 1).  That's the way life is, and that's the way that this has gone for me.  Even so, I'll never ever stop loving this woman.  

• Beth Jastroch:

         Allow me to attempt a bit of "full disclosure" for a moment.  Years before I met Julie Sherwood, I fell pretty hard for Beth.  However, as sometimes happens in this life, we eventually grew apart.  

        Now, Julie is the love of my life, but this woman is also very special to me.  I don't exactly know what happened between us; perhaps I said something that I shouldn't have, making her upset.  If that is the case, then I sincerely and completely apologize for doing so.  I'm not one of those people who gets a rise out of getting on someone else's nerves; that's just not me.  

        Anyways, to make a long story short, my feelings for Beth are...how should I put this...very strong.  It's hard to love someone when you've already given your heart to another; somehow, I manage.  

• Jacqueline Honulik:

         Maybe it's just me dreaming, but it looks like this woman's got it going on.  Pretty, talented, a good head on her shoulders (seemingly), AND a Mets fan? I know I've said this before, but "be still my heart"!

         Now, to quote former pro wrestler Lance Storm, "let me be serious for a moment".  

         It has come to my attention that a few years ago, Jackie hit the romantic jackpot (so to speak), but had the situation fall apart.  Honestly, that's kind of a downer for me.  A woman like her deserves to be happy, as far as love is concerned.  

         As far as heartbreak from failed relationships goes, "I've been around (that) block a time or two" (to paraphrase singer Don Henley) (see note 2).  You know the deal; "lucky in cards, unlucky in love".  

        To this, I've sort of thought that perhaps we could help each other out.  Maybe I could help heal her heart, and she could heal mine.  Then again, maybe I'm just having one of my pie-in-the-sky dreams.  

        Anyways, it is what it is.  Life's weird like that, isn't it?

Time Warp: 1997

On September 29 1997, I turned sixteen years old.  Here's a quick look at some of the big headlines for that year.  

1997 Recap

• April 13: Tiger Woods wins the Masters Golf Tournament, finishing a full twelve strokes ahead of runner-up Tom Kite.  At the age of twenty, Woods is the youngest person to ever win the competition (1).  

• May 11: IBM's "Deep Blue" computer defeats world chess champion Garry Kasparov in a six-game series, taking the victory by a score of three and a half games to two and a half games.  The achievement is a major milestone in the development of artificial intelligence (2).  

• June 28: During a heavyweight boxing title fight, Mike Tyson bites the ear of opponent Evander Holyfield.  Tyson loses the bout by disqualification; subsequently, his boxing license is suspended for a year (3, 4).  

(Note: The following video may be difficult for some to watch...discretion is advised)

• July 5: Scottish scientists announce that they have successfully cloned a female sheep.  "Dolly" becomes the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell (2).  

• August 14: Convicted of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Timothy McVeigh is sentenced to death by lethal injection.  The sentence will be carried out on June 11, 2001 (5).

• August 31: Diana, Princess of Wales and companion Dodi Fayed are killed in a Paris car crash.  At the time of the accident, the car that Diana was traveling in was being pursued by press photographers.  The Princess was thirty-six years old; Fayed was forty-two (2, 6).  

• October 26: The upstart Florida (now Miami) Marlins win the 1997 World Series, defeating the Cleveland Indians four games to three.  It is the first of two world championships for the Marlins; they will also take the title in 2003.  With the victory, Florida becomes the first wild card team to win a World Series (7, 8).  

Next up, we take a special look at 2000; the year that saw my nineteenth birthday, as well as the turn of the millennium.  

Time Warp: 1991

Continuing with my birthday series, here's a look at what was happening in 1991; the year that I turned ten years old.  

1991 Recap

• January 17: War begins in the Persian Gulf, as a coalition of forces led by the United States attack Iraq by air.  The military action, dubbed "Operation Desert Storm", is taken in response to Iraq's invasion of neighboring country Kuwait (1, 2).  

• January 27: The New York Giants defeat the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV.  With the game on the line, Bills kicker Scott Norwood misses a forty-five yard field goal try wide right.  New York's win gives the Giants their second Super Bowl victory (3, 4).  

• March 3: In Los Angeles, African-American motorist Rodney King is severely beaten by white officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.  King was being arrested for the alleged crime of driving while intoxicated.  All four officers involved were later acquitted of assault charges in the incident; this subsequently touched off the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.  (Note: Due to graphic content, I've chosen to not include the amateur video of King's beating here) (1)

• June 25: In Yugoslavia, Slovenia and Croatia each declare independence.  These events lead to beginning of the Yugoslav Wars, and a long period of bloodshed (5).  

• July 10: Change comes to the Soviet Union, as Boris Yeltsin is sworn in as the first elected president of Russia (1).  

• November 23: Freddie Mercury, lead singer of the British-based rock band "Queen", announces that he has AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).  Mercury dies from the disease a day later, at the age of forty-five (6).  

• December 21-26: Eleven Russian republics (including Russia itself) declare independence, and form the "Commonwealth of Independent States", or CIS.  Subsequently, the Soviet Union is declared dissolved; Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev resigns his position on December 25 (1, 7, 8). 

 

In my next entry, I'll take a closer look at what happened in 1997; the year of my sixteenth birthday.  

Time Warp: 1986

On September 29 1986, I celebrated my fifth birthday.  Here's a quick look at some of the things that were making headlines that year.  

1986 Recap

• January 28: Just seventy-three seconds after its launch from Kennedy Space Center, the space shuttle Challenger explodes.  All seven astronauts aboard the spacecraft lose their lives (1, 2).

• April 26: In what is still considered the deadliest and costliest nuclear disaster in history, a reactor facility at the Soviet Union's Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant explodes.  The nearby town of Pripyat Ukraine is evacuated and abandoned; today, it is a ghost town (3, 4).  

• April 27: A Home Box Office (HBO) broadcast of "The Falcon And The Snowman" is interrupted by broadcast pirate "Captain Midnight".  Instead of the scheduled movie, viewers in the eastern half of the US see color bars, and a message protesting against what the intruder believes to be unreasonably expensive access fees.  The interruption lasts for four and a half minutes (5).  

• October 27: The New York Mets win the 1986 World Series, defeating the Boston Red Sox four games to three.  It is the second world championship for the Mets, who also won in 1969.  New York will appear in two more World Series (2000 and 2015), but lose both (to the New York Yankees and Kansas City Royals, respectively) (6, 7).  

• October 28: The one hundredth anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty ("Liberty Enlightening the World") is celebrated (8).  

Next up, we'll take a look at 1991; the year that saw me turn ten years old.  

Time Warp: 1981

With my fortieth birthday fast approaching, I've decided to take a look at some of the big news stories for certain years of my life.  Let's take a look at a couple of these years, starting with 1981.  

1981 Recap

• January 20: Just minutes after new US president Ronald Reagan is sworn into office, Iran releases fifty-two Americans whom they had held as hostages.  In total, the hostages spent four hundred and forty-four days as captives of the Iranians (1).  

• March 30: Ronald Reagan is shot and wounded by John Hinckley Jr., an obsessed fan of actress Jodie Foster.  Hinckley believed that the assassination attempt would impress the actress, thereby winning her favor (2, 3).  

• April 12: Columbia, the world's first reusable spacecraft, is launched on its maiden mission (STS-1) by NASA (4).  

• May 5: In Northern Ireland, Irish Republican Army ("IRA") member and political activist Bobby Sands dies while on a hunger strike.  Sands was attempting to secure better prison conditions for himself and his fellow inmates, many of whom had been branded as terrorists by the then government of the United Kingdom (5).   

  

• May 13: In Vatican City, Pope John Paul II is shot and wounded by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca (6).  

• May 18: Reports begin to emerge surrounding an "exotic new disease" occurring in gay men.  This disease is later named "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome", or "AIDS".  By the end of the 1990s, it is estimated that five to ten million people (worldwide) are living with HIV/AIDS (7). 

 (Note: The following video may be difficult for some to watch....use your discretion) (8)

• August 1: MTV makes its first broadcast, promising that "you'll never look at music the same way again" (9).  

Next up: 1986, and my fifth birthday.  

On Afghanistan

Just thought I'd write up a response to something I saw on Facebook today.

In an opinion piece that has been re-posted by a friend of mine, author Cree Hardegree talks about the current situation in Afghanistan. She writes:

"Why is everyone acting like we handed control of the country over to the Afghans just yesterday? They've had SEVEN (expletive) YEARS. This is cultural. They don't WANT to leave. They want us to stay there forever to fight their battles for them while they use the 45-year-old specter of a rooftop in Saigon to force us to strain and drain our resources until we’re (expletive) bankrupt" (1)

I will agree with Ms. Hardegree on one thing; many Afghanis don't want to leave that country. After all, Afghanistan is their home. Would the author want to leave somewhere she loved, and was likely born and raised in? In a similar situation, I think she might oppose such an idea.

However, I think Hardegree's argument that Afghanis "want us to stay there forever" is illogical at best.  Certainly, there are some people who "just want to watch the world burn", but I would guess that most civilized humans prefer peace and order to death and destruction.  Being that Afghanistan has been in the latter condition for many years, why would most Afghanis ever want the status quo to continue indefinitely? That doesn't exactly sound like (for lack of a better term) a "good deal".  

The piece continues,

"Leaving a country always poses a huge risk.  That's why we leave behind equipment and supplies — 'moving day' is too dangerous.  There was very little we could have done differently in Saigon.  There is nothing we can do now except postpone this exact same scene to a future date.  The lessons we thought we learned last time and the lessons we need to learn this time are not lessons about withdrawal.  The lessons we need to learn are about how to avoid going in the first place.  Sometimes we just need to keep our (bleeps) on the ground"

I don't know if Ms. Hardegree realizes this or not, but our military's policy is not to leave anything on the battlefield that an enemy could possibly use.  For example, during the evacuation of Saigon, American helicopters were ditched in the waters off of Vietnam.  This is because it was feared that our Viet Cong enemies might capture the equipment, and use it for their own purposes (see Note 1) (2).  

In any event, I have digressed; let me return to the issue at hand.  

Perhaps the author is correct that, in the case of Saigon, "there was very little we could have done differently".  By that point, American and South Vietnamese forces had been largely overrun; Communist tanks were rolling into the city, and approaching the seat of power.  The only thing that was left to do was play "White Christmas" (the signal for the evacuation to begin), and get Americans out of harm's way (3).  

This fact notwithstanding, I don't agree that in the current situation, there is nothing else we can do but "postpone (the) exact same scene".  History often repeats, but we are not doomed to reprise the same events and the same outcomes.  If indeed we have made mistakes and gaffes during wartime, let us learn from such errors, rather than duplicate our past blunders.  In this way, we may better ourselves, and ensure that the tragedies of Saigon and Kabul never happen again.  

A Thoughtful Retort

 Posting this as a retort to an article posted by a friend of mine.  

"Q: What did the Confederacy stand for?

A: Rather than interpreting, let's go directly to the words of the Confederacy's Vice President, Alexander Stephens. In his "Cornerstone Speech" on March 21, 1861, he stated "The Constitution... rested upon the equality of races. This was an error. Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Mostly true. The Civil War was fought mostly over the question of slavery. Southern states regarded the owning of slaves as a "right", while the Union sought to free slaves. When Union forces attacked Fort Sumter, it was on.

"Q: But people keep saying heritage, not hate! They think the purpose of the flags and monuments are to honor confederate soldiers, right?

"A: The vast majority of confederate flags flying over government buildings in the south were first put up in the 1960's during the Civil Rights Movement. So for the first hundred years after the Civil War ended, while relatives of those who fought in it were still alive, the confederate flag wasn't much of a symbol at all. But when Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were marching on Washington to get the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) passed, leaders in the south felt compelled to fly confederate flags and put up monuments to honor people who had no living family members and had fought in a war that ended a century ago. Their purpose in doing this was to exhibit their displeasure with black people fighting for basic human rights that were guaranteed to them in the 14th and 15th Amendments but being withheld by racist policies and practices."

That was in the South in the 1960s. Over fifty-five some years later, many things have changed, including the attitudes of some toward differing races. You seem to be saying that there is an all-encompassing anti-black stereotype. To claim that is stereotyping in itself. Not all whites are racist, not all blacks are thugs, and not all Native Americans own casinos.

"Q: But if we take down confederate statues and monuments, how will we teach about and remember the past?

A: Monuments and statues pose little educational relevance, whereas museums, the rightful place for Confederate paraphernalia, can provide more educational opportunities for citizens to learn about our country's history. The Civil War is important to learn about, and will always loom large in social studies curriculum. Removing monuments from public places and putting them in museums also allows us to avoid celebrating and honoring people who believed that tens of millions of black Americans should be legal property."

If we're going to take down "monuments and statues" of this nature, then let's also get rid of any memorials to people such as George Floyd. After all, such monuments "pose little educational relevance". Do we have a deal?

"Q: But what if the Confederate flag symbol means something different to me?

A: Individuals aren't able to change the meaning of symbols that have been defined by history. When I hang a Bucs flag outside my house, to me, the Bucs might represent the best team in the NFL, but to the outside world, they represent an awful NFL team, since they haven't won a playoff game in 18 years. I can't change that meaning for everyone who drives by my house because it has been established for the whole world to see. If a Confederate flag stands for generic rebellion or southern pride to you, your personal interpretation forfeits any meaning once you display it publicly, as its meaning takes on the meaning it earned when a failed regime killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in an attempt to destroy America and keep black people enslaved forever."

First off, this is "apples and oranges", as the Bucs just won the Super Bowl last year. Anyways, I digress.

You may be right, to some extent. If I fly a Chinese flag, that means I'm a Communist. If I fly a "pride" flag, that must mean I'm OK with same-sex marriage and pedophilia. And if I fly an American flag, it means I'm a card-carrying member of the GOP. That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Regardless, this is more about free speech rights; everyone has the right to say what they wish, and hold whatever beliefs that they do (as long as doing so doesn't endanger anyone else). This includes the right to be...pardon my French...an asshole, as long as that works for the person that's being such.

(For example, I think it's stupid that you smoke weed....but do I bug you about it? Nope. Whatever floats your boat)

"Q: But my uncle posted a meme that said the Civil War/Confederacy was about state's rights and not slavery?

A: 'A state's right to what?' - John Green"

I'll take "Random Comments That Mean Nothing" for five hundred, Alex.

"Q: Everyone is offended about everything these days. Should we take everything down that offends anyone?

A: The Confederacy literally existed to go against the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the idea that black people are human beings that deserve to live freely. If that doesn't upset or offend you, you are un-American."

Meanwhile, our "elected president" goes "against the Constitution" every single day. The very fact that he occupies the White House right now flies in the face of the Constitution, and the idea of free and fair elections from "we the people". Yet I don't hear too many complaints about that from the likes of you. "It is what it is", right?

Also, if we're going to eliminate anything even remotely offensive, then let's take down the Pride flag that flies at Fairfield's Town Hall....because to me, that flag is "offensive". Let's quit allowing cursing on TV, too. And let's stop allowing anything associated with World Wrestling Entertainment to be broadcast (after all, this is a company that, in the past, has told viewers to "suck it").

Give me a break. There will always be something that is "offensive"; that's just the way life is. There's an easy way to deal with that. If you're upset by something that someone says, quit listening to them, and/or walk away from them. If you're "offended" by something that you see or hear on TV, switch to another channel....or just turn the damn thing off. Just don't destroy something that doesn't offend me simply because you happen to be upset by it. Live and let live.

"Q: Taking these down goes against the First Amendment and freedom of speech, right?

A: No. Anyone can do whatever they want on their private property, on their social media, etc. Taking these down in public, or having private corporations like NASCAR ban them on their properties, has literally nothing to do with the Bill of Rights."

Assuming this is correct, please show me where the First Amendment makes any distinction between ideas expressed on public property and speech that is expressed on private property. I don't think that it does so; but then again, I may have missed that part of history class.

Anyways, banning the display of Confederate flags does indeed go against the First Amendment. It infringes on the right of free speech, which is one of the rights guaranteed by the Amendment. Whether this speech is public or private makes no difference; a US Congressman has as much of a right to free speech as an ordinary citizen does. In that respect, this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights.

"Q: How can people claim to be patriotic while supporting a flag that stood for a group of insurgent failures who tried to permanently destroy America and killed 300,000 Americans in the process?

A: No clue."

Likewise, I have "no clue" how people can support the Democratic Party, and still claim to be in their right minds. It happens, though.

"Q: So if I made a confederate flag my profile picture, or put a confederate bumper sticker on my car, what am I declaring to my friends, family, and the world?

A: That you support the Confederacy. To recap, the Confederacy stands for: slavery, white supremacy, treason, failure, and a desire to permanently destroy Selective history as it supports white supremacy."

Nope nope nope. Flying a Confederate flag no more means that I support these things than wearing pink means that I am a woman. You're assigning this a meaning that does not exist (see above re: "What if...it means something different to me?").

Anyways, that's how I see it.

Addendum to "Twenty Rights"

 It has come to my attention that, as of 11:15 Eastern Time this morning, the Capitol Building in Hartford has been re-opened to the public (1).  At the time that I wrote "Twenty Rights", this fact was unbeknownst to me.  Let the record show this as a correction of sorts.  

Twenty Rights

 Via the "Declaration of Rights", Constitution of the State of Connecticut (1).    

    1.  All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.

        Status: In Place

    2.  All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such manner as they may think expedient.

        Status: VIOLATED (as of this writing, the Capitol Building in Hartford is not open to the public) (2)

    3.  The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

        Status: In Place

    4.  Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

        Status: VIOLATED (see "Ridicule Law", Connecticut General Statutes Title 53 Chapter 939, Section 53-37) (3)

    5.  No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.  

        Status: VIOLATED (see above)

    6.  In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court.

         Status: In Place

    7.  The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or things, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

        Status: VIOLATED (police have been known to plant "evidence", as well as enter homes without having a warrant or consent to do so) (4, 5)

    8.   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his behalf; to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great; and in all prosecutions by indictment or information, to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall excessive bail be required nor excessive fines imposed. No person shall be held to answer for any crime, punishable by death or life imprisonment, unless on a presentment or an indictment of a grand jury, except in the armed forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger. 

        Status: VIOLATED (see explanations of Amendments 6-8 to the US Constitution, "The Bill of Rights In Connecticut") (6)

    9.  No person shall be arrested, detained or punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law.

        Status: In Place

    10.  All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.  

        Status: VIOLATED (as of this writing, many courts are not open to the public) (2)

    11.  The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor.

        Status: VIOLATED (see "Kelo v. City Of New London") (7)

    12.  The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; nor in any case, but by the legislature.

        Status: In Place

    13.  No person shall be attainted of treason or felony, by the legislature.  

        Status: In Place

    14.  The citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

        Status: Semi-violated (see restrictions on large gatherings, Capitol Building being closed to the public) (2, 7)

    15.  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

          Status: VIOLATED ("right to bear arms"? Are you kidding me? Limits on types of guns, amount/type of ammunition used.  Mandatory gun registration; gun confiscation for those non-compliant) (8)

    16.  The military shall, in all cases, and at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power.  

        Status: In Place

    17.   No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.  

        Status: In Place

    18.  No hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this state.

        Status: In Place

    19.  The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.

        Status: VIOLATED (see explanation of Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution, "The Bill of Rights In Connecticut") (6)

    20.  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin.

        Status: In Place