"No Chance In Hell"

For a few years, there has been a fierce battle raging in the arena of scholastic athletic competition.  At issue is the participation of transgender athletes, and whether they can deprive a biological woman of any chance at victory.   

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just said that they can. Let's look at the ruling in this matter, and break down the associated opinion (1).

First, the Court said that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to sue the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (who are the defendants in this case; Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools) (2, 3).

In this, it is argued that the plaintiffs did not suffer any "injury in fact", and were not "deprived of a chance to be champions", as their complaint alleges.

I find this to be an asinine statement.

Biologically speaking, it is a scientific fact that males are bigger, stronger, and faster than women.  Therefore, a female athlete has almost no chance to defeat a male or transgender counterpart.

The two genders are simply not on a "level playing field"; there is nothing that judges and politicians can do that will ever change this. Be that as it may, it seems like the Court believes that this is simply hyperbole (see definition 1), and an overstatement of the situation.

It appears that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths; on page 21 of the opinion, the Court actually acknowledges that injury may have been done. Nevertheless, they assert that "not every harm is an injury".

Excuse me? By definition, when you "harm" someone, you cause them "physical or mental injury" (3).

Thus, on this subject, the Court appears to have taken leave of all sense of logic.

Regarding standing, the Court also said that even if there was an injury, it cannot be redressed by granting the relief that plaintiffs seek.

To bolster their argument, the Court cited precedent in the case of Steel Co. v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), as such:

"Relief that does not remedy the injury suffered cannot bootstrap a plaintiff into federal court".

Here, the Court conveniently ignores the very crux (see definition 2) of the matter, and the fact that a ruling in the plaintiff's favor would force CIAC to re-write their record books. It is exactly this outcome, and this "remedy", that plaintiffs seek.

As such, I must again scratch my head at the Court's conclusion.

Finally, the Court said that the plaintiffs failed to "state a claim upon which relief (could) be granted".

In doing so, the Court cited precedent in a case that they refer to as "Pennhurst", saying that in order for plaintiff's claim to advance, it must be shown that the defendant "had adequate notice that they could be liable (under Title IX)".

To this, the Court stated that "OCR" (the US Department of Education's "Office of Civil Rights") "never clearly provided that allowing transgender students to participate...violated Title IX".

This is, however, incorrect. Under the presidency of Donald Trump, the Office did in fact state this as a matter of policy. This is something that the Court itself acknowledged, specifically in a footnote to page 24 of the opinion.

Therefore, it seems that CIAC did indeed have "adequate notice" of possible liability. Accordingly, the plaintiffs did in fact "state a claim", and the Court's argument must fail.

Obviously, I am shocked/appalled/outraged by the decision of the Appeals Court in this matter. It seems that the honorable judges have said that there was no harm done, and that even if there was, there's nothing that the Court can do about it.

By ruling in this manner, the Court has effectively declared that high school and college women's sports don't matter.

There are but two methods by which this injustice may be rectified.

One is through the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court. The other is through the State of Connecticut passing a law saying that transgender persons who wish to compete athletically must do so based on their biological status.

While there is a small chance for the former to occur, the latter event doesn't seem likely.

And that leaves biological females with "no chance in hell".

"J-J-Jaded"

Back in 2001, the rock band Aerosmith released a song called "Jaded".  You'll have to excuse me, but that is an appropriate description for the way I feel right now (1).     

You see, I'm so tired of hearing the same old talking points from the same lame politicians.  They talk about positive change until they're practically blue in the face.  Yet every time it comes down to brass tacks (so to speak), it's always "thank you sir, may I have another?".  NOTHING EVER CHANGES!

What's worse, it used to be that some politicians truly cared about serving their communities; no longer.  These days, everybody's in it for themselves, and themselves only.  It's all about looking good for the camera, raising one's own social and professional profile, and "never mind the public...what's in it for me?"   

And politicians that actually look out for our interests? Brother, please.  Hartford and Washington know full well what they are doing, yet do it anyway.   

If not, then please explain to me how the US Secret Service and FBI knew about the "January 6th incident" before it happened, even planting an instigator (by the name of Ray Epps) among the protestors.  Was it time travel, maybe? (2)

If not, then tell me how there can be on-record visual evidence of wrongdoing by those in charge of the 2020 presidential election; yet that evidence is routinely dismissed.  And yes, it does matter...but "nothing to see here, move along", right? (3)

And if not, then explain to me how the Chinese lab that produced COVID-19 was funded (for the most part) through money from American taxpayers.  How is that even remotely possible? (4) 

 

Also, just by a show of hands, can I see how many average people think that this last election was "free and fair"? 

(crickets)   

Nobody? OK then.  

Politics is a dirty business.  To quote the late Glenn Frey, there's "lots of shady characters, lots of dirty deals.  Every name's an alias, in case somebody squeals.  It's the lure of easy money; it's got a very strong appeal" (5)

It is image, power, and control that drives most politicians, not a desire to make things better.  

And that's "what's jading me".  

Disturbing Thoughts

First off, I condemn yesterday's attack on Paul Pelosi (the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) in the strongest and most unambiguous terms.  Any way you slice it, this act of violence was especially heinous (1).  

Second, it amazes me how quickly some in the "Twittersphere" have reacted to this story.  In particular, the liberal blockheads over there didn't waste much time before jumping to a conclusion; specifically, that Republicans are responsible for this attack.  

Now, here's the section of the article where I express an idea that's somewhat controversial; hold on to your hats.  

If you are a movie buff, then perhaps you've heard of the 1962 film "The Manchurian Candidate".  The original version of this movie centers on an American veteran; he has been brainwashed and "programmed" by Communists.  Subsequently, our man is an unintentional participant in a plot to assassinate a major nominee for president (2).  

Disturbing though it is, I can't shake the thought that perhaps we're having a "life imitates art" moment.  

And we've been here before, haven't we? Time and time again, the left has seen fit to trot out the "by any means necessary" argument.  That is, they have used any and all means to hold on to their power.  This includes the harassment of ordinary, law-abiding citizens, the incitement and encouragement of violence, and making "true threats" to political opponents (see definition) (see also note 1).     

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that this act was committed by a Democrat, or left-leaning liberal.  For all I know, it could be a church-going, everyday conservative that did this.  I'm simply saying that I would not be surprised to learn that the assailant is, indeed, a liberal.     

And as the government has proven before, they have ways of making you do what they want.  Does this mean that they are engaged in brainwashing, or that they are even capable of doing so? No, not at all.  Just because you might suspect something is happening doesn't mean it's actually taking place.   

Nevertheless, this admittedly somewhat eccentric mind finds the idea of brainwashing not so far-fetched (see: "Project MKUltra") (3).  

Then again, maybe I've watched one too many "Uncle Howdy" videos (see note 2). 

News Checklist

Just a quick checklist of things that have been in the news this week.  

• The State of Pennsylvania says that it will ignore an order of the US Supreme Court to not count undated ballots (1).  

It must be getting close to election time, because the shenanigans and legal maneuvering have already started; in fact, they've been in full swing for a while.  

I shouldn't be too surprised by this latest chicanery (see definitions) by state officials; nevertheless, I am.  It's one thing to ignore an order of your state courts (as Pennsylvania did in 2020); it's quite another to state that you will disregard an order from the nation's highest court, although such a declaration has been made before (see note).    

This expressly violates the Constitution, which states that federal laws made in accordance with it are "the supreme law of the land...any thing in the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" (2).  

No sweat off the brows off those concerned with elections in "the Keystone State", huh? 

• "Free speech? That's gonna cost ya"

Breaking news from my home state of Connecticut; media personality Alex Jones has been ordered to pay nine hundred sixty five million dollars to families of Sandy Hook victims (on the basis of Jones' claims that the shooting was a hoax).  You read that right; almost a billion dollars (3).  

This despite there apparently being no conclusive proof (at least none presented) that because of Jones' statements, serious threats were made to the safety of the families.  This despite the personality's repeated apologies, and shows of remorse.  

This despite Jones' testimony that he is bankrupt, and cannot pay the fine.  

And all of this despite the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of "excessive fines" (4).  

Besides money, what the hell do these families want from Mr. Jones? The answer to this question is quite apparent; they want to shut him up, and shut him down.  Effectively, they appear to have done so.  

• Back to work for the "January 6th Committee" (5)

Yesterday, the Committee returned from a four-month break, apparently to discuss some so-called "damning evidence".  Never mind that most of the members of such committee are now "lame ducks" (see definitions); never mind that once again, no defense witnesses were allowed.  

And why are they doing this; more specifically, why are they doing this now? I'll tell you why; it's because they realize that the public is starting to turn against them.  They are terrified of losing their power; as such, they are trying everything humanly possible to hold on to it.   

The Democrats and their RINO enablers are running scared, and they know it.

• Time to get the Nikes out (and I don't mean the shoes)   

Some of you may know that during the post-World War II years, US military forces were in possession of a defensive weapon called the "Nike".  This was a ground-based missile system designed to intercept nuclear missiles; many Connecticut towns were protected by batteries of such (6).  

Fast-forward about thirty-four years from the end of the Cold War.  As they were never needed, all but a few of the old Nike bases have been dismantled; the ones that remain stand as historical relics. 

Yet today we are faced with a situation which, in earlier times, might have required the maintenance of such stations.  This is due to a bumbling president, a Russian counterpart who believes that the Cold War never ended, and that person's perception that Americans are weak.  It is clear that we are on the doorstep to Armageddon.  

For my part, I think that the Russians need to be diplomatically reminded of the concept behind Mutually Assured Destruction ("MAD"); that is, in a nuclear conflict, nobody wins (because both warring nations will destroy each other).  

Anywho, can anyone give me directions to the nearest fallout shelter?

Resolutions on Free Expression

Addressing the topic of free expression in local schools.  I won't rehash what I've already said on the subject; rather, I'll say this.  

Fairfield Warde High School and Fairfield Ludlowe High School should be places where diversity is welcomed. This should extend to diversity of thought and opinion, not just diversity of race and ethnic background.

To that end, I propose that the following Resolutions on Free Expression be taken up, and agreed upon by, officials at each school.

1. Everyone has the right to speak their mind, and express their opinion in a manner that does not encourage violence nor significantly disrupt school operations.

2. Everyone has the right to hold their own beliefs, according to their own conscience.

3. Everyone has the right to disagree with the opinions of teachers and staff, even on official policies.

4. Everyone has the right to engage in non-violent protest, as long as such protests do not significantly disrupt school operations.

5. Everyone has the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they choose to, or even not to have a religious belief at all.

6. Everyone has the right to know and clearly understand the rules of the school, as well as to seek explanation of the nature of such rules.

7. Everyone has the right to be treated fairly in cases of disputes, or accusations of wrongdoing.  This includes the right to hear/see the evidence against them, the right to defend themselves against accusations, the right to ask questions of and confront witnesses, and other due process considerations.

8. Everyone has the right to speak, write, listen, and learn to the best of their ability.

9. The faculty and staff of Fairfield Warde and Fairfield Ludlowe support the statements made hereof.

Let's strive to make public schools in Fairfield places where free thought and honest inquiries are protected, not punished.

"As the State Turns": Episode II?

On today's edition of "As the State Turns", we address yet another scandal in Connecticut politics.  This one has to do with elections, the first selectwoman of the Town of Fairfield, and that town's Registrars of Voters.    

Recently, information has come to light questioning First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick's role in the control of equipment used to tabulate votes at elections.  The Democrats claim that following a state-wide primary, Kupchick abused her authority by illegally "(seizing) control of the storage facility where...election tabulators, memory cards, and ballots are stored" (1).  

In her defense, the first selectwoman has argued that her actions were allowed by law, and needed to protect the vote.  On the Fairfield Patch website, she explained that as part of election operations, the Democratic registrar took several actions that threatened vote security;

"It was reported on July 23 that the Democratic Registrar was, on his own, against state statute and over a weekend, going to the portables where the tabulators were stored, where he unilaterally set up 12 tabulators with only Democratic ballots in advance of the August 9th primary"

    - First Selectwoman Kupchick (2)

Kupchick also claimed that the Democrat deleted a large number of files regarding the election from the town's official website;

"A postcard was created to send to voters to ensure they knew where to vote. The post cards had a QR code on the postcard to make it easier for residents to pull up the website to find their polling location. 

After first attempting to halt production of the postcard with the vendor, Democratic Registrar (Matt) Waggner deleted a large number of records, files and pages on the Town’s ROV website, including the QR linked page, 'Where Do I Vote?'. Waggner’s actions were in clear violation of state statute and the Town’s technology policy".  

To this, Mr. Waggner has remarked that the allegations made against him are "entirely false".  Let's examine his version of events, and do a bit of "fact checking" (3).    

Statement I –

"It is not a violation of statutes for the tabulators (voting machines) to be set up over a weekend, nor for each party to set up tabulators separately for each primary".  

    - Registrar Waggner

Truth Rating: True. General Statutes on this matter (Title 9, Chapter 147, Section 9-247) say only that tabulators shall be prepared and tested "before the day of the election", and operable "not later than one hour prior to the opening of the polling place".  They do not address the specific time frame in which such devices must be set up (4).   

Statement II –

"I proposed the polling place notice postcard in our FY23 budget, designed and provided it to my fellow Registrar for his approval on July 11th, and finalized the production details with the printer on July 15th. The reason it had not arrived by August 1st was that the First Selectwoman personally intervened to stop production because she did not want it to be sent to every address in Fairfield, and to modify the postcard, violating her own office’s policy requiring mailings be approved by both Registrars".

    Truth Rating: Unclear.  There isn't enough information to prove whether the statement that "the First Selectwoman personally intervened to stop production" of the postcard is truthful or not.

Statement III –

"When I called the printer to see if changes had been made, they confirmed it had, and that it had already been printed and was on the way to be delivered. I did not ask for production or delivery to be stopped, nor was it".  

    Truth Rating: Unclear.  Again, more information/proof as to the truth of this statement is needed.

Statement IV –

"When I consulted with the town webmaster, I was advised that the Chief of Staff had directed her to remove the list I had published of the polling places that had been approved by the RTM (incidentally, on the 'Where Do I Vote' page they accuse me of deleting)"  

"The 'Where Do I Vote' page was not removed by me or anyone else at any time".  

    Truth Rating: Mostly False.  In his statement, Mr. Waggner admits that the page in question was indeed removed (albeit not by himself, but the town webmaster).  

According to the first selectwoman, the webmaster "confirmed in the system that (registrar Waggner) did in fact delete these pages and files"

If this is so, then it brings up another set of questions.  What kind of access to the voting system did Mr. Waggner possess? Why did the registrar delete the associated files? And what authority, if any, did he have to make these deletions? Can the Democrats explain what is happening here? 

Statement V –

"I can provide the documents where the state tells us Registrars are separately responsible for setting up tabulators for their party’s primary, where I was the person who ordered the print job that Kupchick says I tried to stop, and showing that the webpages Kupchick says I deleted were not deleted".  

As to this claim, I cannot give it a truth rating, or conclusively determine the accuracy of the statement.  I can only say that if Mr. Waggner is in possession of documents that prove his innocence in this matter, he should produce them immediately.  

To quote Cuba Gooding Jr. in "Jerry Maguire", "show me the money".  Either put up or shut up; the voters of Fairfield deserve no less (5).

So what's going on in this latest "he said-she said" involving Connecticut politics? Is the Democratic Party attempting yet another instance of "distract, deflect, and deny"? And what impact will this latest scandal have on statewide polls? The only way to know is to "be with us for the next episode of 'As the State Turns'!"

AEW: A Fan's Thoughts

Those of you that share my passion for professional wrestling have doubtless heard of "All Elite Wrestling", or AEW.  

For the past three years, the Florida-based promotion has given World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) a run for their money.  Subsequently, AEW has succeeded in a way that perhaps no competing company has; at least not since the "Monday Night Wars".  

Nevertheless, AEW seems to be going through some growing pains as of late.  Consider what happened at the company's latest pay-per-view event, "All Out".  The show itself went well; the ensuing press conference, not so much (1).   

With various media representatives in attendance, AEW's CM Punk had a few things to say about fellow talent "Hangman" Adam Page:   

"When somebody who hasn't done a damn thing in this business jeopardizes the first million-dollar house that this company has ever drawn...it's a disgrace to this company".  

Punk also unloaded on some of AEW's top brass, saying:

"I have to sit up here because we have irresponsible people who call themselves EVPs (Executive Vice Presidents), yet they couldn't (expletive) manage a Target.  They spread lies and (expletive), and put into the media that I got someone fired, when I have (expletive) all to do with him" (2).   

What happened after the press conference is a bit unclear.  Apparently, a legitimate fight broke out between Punk and other talent.  As is often the case in pro wrestling, there are a lot of rumors going around regarding this; here's what's known at the moment (3). 

After the press conference concluded, several AEW officials attempted to talk to an upset Punk.  These officials included fellow wrestlers Kenny Omega, as well as Matt and Nick Jackson (the team collectively known as the "Young Bucks").  This broke down into a physical altercation, during which it is said that Omega was bitten by a backstage employee of the company (4).  

It is thought that Punk started the brawl, doing so by throwing a chair as well as punches at the Jacksons.  However, this account has not been confirmed as fact.  

Having described the general mayhem that took place in the immediate aftermath of "All Out", allow me to share my thoughts about what's going on. 

Let's go back a couple of years in the timeline of professional wrestling.  At the beginning of the 2000s, all the major competitors to WWE had met their demise.  Unfortunately, this resulted in a kind of identity crisis, as many shows became predictable in their nature.  

Wrestling needed not only a facelift, but a revolution.  AEW brought this revolution to pass, ushering in a new era for the industry.  Yet the continued success of this new era seems to have come into question.  

The issue, as this fan sees it, is that the egos of certain talents have become too big.  A modest ego is somewhat acceptable, but when you start to have a unchecked version of such, well...then you run into problems.  

To paraphrase a certain Connecticut-based promoter, no one person is bigger than the company that he or she works for.  Knowing that the average major era of competitors to WWE lasts about five years, I believe that the AEW locker room would be wise to keep this in mind (see note).  

A note to those in charge of AEW; you have given rise to a new age in pro wrestling.  

Don't let that age end before its time.  

An Independent Controversy (Or, "As The State Turns")

It appears that the race for governor of Connecticut just got a little more interesting, if not more complicated.  Allow me to explain.    

This past Tuesday was statewide caucus night for a "minor party" (see definition) known as the "Independent Party of Connecticut", who were meeting in Guilford.  Regarding the group's endorsement for governor, the choice was between party member Rob Hoteling, Republican Ernestine Holloway, and Republican Bob Stefanowski (the latter appearing on a write-in basis) (1).   

After general balloting on the question of the nominee, the tally stood even, at seventy-five votes for each candidate.   

Announcing this result, Party Chairman Michael Telesca took it upon himself to break the tie, casting a vote for Hotelier.  Subsequently, the Independent candidate was announced to have won the party's endorsement. 

  

Bear with me, because here's where "shenanigans" come into play.    

It seems that Chairman Telesca had already voted once on the question of the party nominee.  Thus, according to "Robert's Rules of Order", he could not then cast another vote to break the resulting tie (2).  

In addition, the bylaws of the Independent Party clearly stipulate that the party nominee for office is  the candidate that, at caucus, "receives 51% of the votes" (3).  

Failing this, to wit:

"If there are three or more candidates for an office, and no one gets at least 51% of the votes, then...a new vote will take place until a candidate receives 51% or more of the vote" 

Pursuant to the party bylaws, a second round of voting should've been called for.  Yet the chairman failed to open such a vote, in admitted violation of these very bylaws.   

This issue aside, the matter gets even more complicated.  Connecticut General Statutes state thus:  

"Not later than five days before a minor party holds a party meeting to nominate a candidate for public office, the presiding officer of such meeting shall give written notice of the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting to, in the case of a municipal office, the town clerk of the municipality served by such office, or in the case of a state office or district office, the Secretary of the State.  

Concomitantly, the presiding officer of such meeting shall cause the written notice of such meeting to be published in a newspaper with a general circulation in the applicable town for such office"

"All minor parties nominating candidates for any elective office shall make such nominations and certify and file a list of such nominations, as required by this section, not later than the sixty-second day prior to the day of the election at which such candidates are to be voted for.

If such certificate of a party's nomination is not received by the Secretary of the State or clerk of the municipality, as appropriate, by such time, such certificate shall be invalid and such party, for purposes of sections 9-460, 9-461 and 9-462, shall be deemed to have neither made nor certified any nomination of any candidate for such office" (4)

It appears that the Independent Party may not have given notice of its caucus in a timely manner, nor have filed a list of nominations in such a way.  The Secretary of the State has not responded to inquiries as to whether or not this has occurred.  

On Thursday, the Stefanowski campaign formally objected to the Independent Party's endorsement/nomination, sending a letter to Secretary of the State Mark Kohler.  

The letter (particularly noting the violations, and admittance that those violations occurred) cited state statutes on the nomination of statewide candidates.  Further, it requested the Secretary "decline to accept the purported endorsement letter at this time", or alternatively to review the facts of the case.  

One day later, Secretary Kohler refused this request, saying that "there is nothing (that he) can do".  This is despite his constitutional duty to provide for free and fair elections (5).  

Frankly, I kind of saw this result coming.  After all, Secretary Kohler is a Lamont appointee, one that was not reviewed or consented to by the General Assembly to boot.  Mr. Kohler doubtless knows that "King Ned" himself signs his paychecks; thus, he wouldn't want to do anything to anger "His Highness" and master (6, 7).  

A word of advice to the Secretary; if you are unable or unwilling to perform your constitutional duties, then you should resign, just as your predecessor (former Secretary of the State Denise Nappier) did. 

So what will become of the legal case surrounding the Independent Party's nomination, which Mr. Stefanowski has said that he will contest in court? And how will this affect the very important race for governor of Connecticut?

As always, there's only one way to find out; "tune in to the next episode of 'As the State Turns'!" 

A Few Thoughts

Taking a little time out to address a few things that have been on my mind.  

On Cynicism and Criticism    

I find myself as a frequent critic of things that go on in the town where I was raised. Although proud of where I grew up, my attitude is one of cynicism, and not necessarily being proud of the current “state of the town”.

Some people might question why I’m so critical. Perhaps they think that since I don’t live in Fairfield any longer, I should mind my own business. To them, I say it is better to stand up for what I believe to be right, than to allow what I know to be wrong.

It's much more preferable to challenge ignorance than to let it spread in an unabated fashion; it is better to seek the truth than to allow the existence of a lie.

It has been said that there are two roads that you can go by; you can either be part of a problem, or part of the solution to that problem. I choose to take the latter road; "starve the beast", don't "feed the beast"! (1)

On Freedoms, and Mixed Messages

In today's society, we are endlessly told that the safety of others is of the utmost importance. The powers that be say that in order to secure this safety, each of us needs to sacrifice some of our own freedoms; "God, they're great at that stuff" (2).

It seems that we have forgotten the wise words of Benjamin Franklin; "those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither".

For a moment, I will paraphrase a quote from actor Carroll O'Connor's "Archie Bunker"; I bet you won't find Joe Biden giving up any of his essential liberties.  

"If (he) did, (his) secretaries would get up and go home"      

Anywho, I move on to another matter of consideration.  

These days, we see an awful lot of "virtue signaling", and the sending of mixed signals regarding fact and fiction.  It's not only those messages going out to society as a whole, but specifically to our children which are worrying.  Let's look at some of these. 

We are increasingly told that:     

• Americans are racists and bigots by nature, and that our country is not exceptional in any way.

• Some people are superior to others; this superiority is solely because of the color of their skin (see note).  

• We should celebrate what makes us unique; yet we must apologize for who we are.  

• There is no truth other than that which the government and media tells you is the truth.  If you dare disagree, you are a lowlife/racist/bigot/idiot/danger to society.  

• There is no such thing as a "natural right", such as free speech and free press rights.  There are only those rights which the government sees fit to grant unto us.  

• The rights that we claim to have are not worth protecting, nor are they worth fighting/dying for.  Our best option is simply to surrender them without a fight.  

• And we're told that violence and killing are sometimes justified; that is, as long as acts of such are committed in order to get one's own way, or to shut down the speech of others.  

This isn't common sense, freedom, or the American way.  Rather, it is stupidity, hypocrisy, and the teaching of tyranny.  Be a slave from the cradle to the grave! That's all it really is.  

During my time attending the former Fairfield High School, there used to be (and presumably still is) a notable mural near the school's auditorium.  The mural read, "and this above all, to thine own self be true" (3).  

I wonder whatever happened to this idea?        

Note: Apparently, this is consistent with the thinking of a top employee within the Fairfield Public Schools (Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Digna Marte) (4).  

"Confused? You Won't Be..."

Lately, I've been considering the implications of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022).  You may or may not know that this case had to do with the "right" to seek an abortion, as affirmed in Roe v. Wade (1973) (1, 2).    

On its face, the language used in the opinion is pretty straightforward.  However, when one looks at another part of the Constitution, the meaning of this passage gets a bit murky. 

For reference, let's examine Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, a section of text that is commonly known as the "Supremacy Clause".   

To wit:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (3).    

The gist of this is twofold.  

First, when it comes to conflicts between state constitutions and the federal constitution, it is the latter set of laws that take precedence.  

Second, the individual states have the right to make laws for themselves, as long as the federal constitution hasn't already weighed in on the matter at hand.  Again, in such cases, it is the federal law that is superior.    

Returning back to the decision in Dobbs, we find the language of the Court to be the following:    

"Held: The (US) Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives".  

As you can see, this is somewhat confusing in the fact that the Court referred the issue to the states, yet notably mentioned that Roe was overruled.  In my (strictly unprofessional) opinion, this calls for some clarification.  

Having examined the context of this ruling, this is what I believe the Court meant/should've specifically said:    

"There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically confers a right to abortion.  Thus, the several states may determine this issue for themselves, deciding on a state-by-state basis whether to overrule Roe and Casey".  

In short, the assembled justices should've declared that because the federal constitution doesn't weigh in on abortion, it is not specifically within the authority of the Court to overrule Roe.  That question is left to each individual state, and the elected representatives within such states.    

Unfortunately, abortion for any purpose is legal in Connecticut, up until about five months after conception (that is, the second trimester).  I oppose this, and would like to see a law enacted that limits such abortions to when they are needed to save the life of the mother (4, 5).    

Sadly, both incumbent Democrat Governor Ned Lamont and Republican challenger Bob Stefanowski have said that they support the current law (6, 7).  

So there it is.  Hopefully, the above explanation makes the issue a bit more clear for you.  

Open Letter to Mr. David Crockett, Conrad Thompson, et al

I'm up early today because I need to write about something that is on my conscience.  As the subject line states, you may consider this an open letter to those concerned.  

As an avid wrestling fan, I have for years admired the career of one Ric Flair.  Whether he has been in WWE, WCW, Impact, or NWA/Jim Crockett Promotions, Flair has always been the greatest pure professional wrestler ever.  His style and accomplishments speak for themselves; indeed, there is nothing I can say in his praise that hasn't already been said.  

Flair was, is, and will always be "the Nature Boy" and "the Man" (apologies to Becky Lynch, but he had it first).  

This notwithstanding, I am distressed about the main event in "Ric Flair's Last Match" (1).  My concern has nothing to do with perceived jealousy, selfishness, or wanting to be Ric Flair.  Rather, it involves questions of health, and a worry about Mr. Flair's well-being.    

Let's consider the facts of this matter:   

• Professional wrestling is a very physical activity, and one that comes with many "calculated risks".  

• Both serious injuries and deaths have occurred as a result of these activities.  See Darren "Droz" Drozdov in October of 1999, Mick Foley in 1998, and Owen Hart in May of 1999. 

• Flair is seventy-three years old, and has wrestled for the better part of fifty years (2). 

• In recent years, Flair has had kidney failures, heart surgeries, and various other medical problems.

In a certain sense, I know what this is all about; Flair has said that he "will never retire", and that he wants to die while in a wrestling ring (3).  

Like Flair, I too love professional wrestling.  And I realize that it is difficult to pull yourself away from doing something that you truly love, no matter what that might be.  Indeed, even the great Undertaker seems to have had trouble realizing the truth; that it was time for him to step away from activities inside the ring.  

Please don't misunderstand me; I realize that if Flair truly wants to go out this way, he has the right to do so.  I'm not him, nor do I claim the right to make decisions for "the Man".  If this is his choice, let him make it.  

Nevertheless, I must mention that at a certain point, people are unable to make certain decisions for themselves, or even to understand what might happen as a consequence of such choices and actions.  This is, ultimately, what worries me about the current situation.  

Simply put, if Flair doesn't understand the risks involved, or if he is no longer capable of making rational decisions for himself, the scheduled main event must not be allowed to take place.   

Now, Flair has nothing left to prove to me, the wrestling world, or to the world in general.  He has already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is the very best to ever do what he has chosen to do.  That much is beyond question.  

That said, there is no need to assist in what could well be Flair's own suicide.  In this fan's opinion, the end does not justify the means.    

This is not to say that the show must not go on.  It is perhaps possible to find a replacement for Flair in the main event, and have the match that is expected.  And it is well within your rights to make such a substitution; indeed, the match card is always "subject to change".  

However, I believe that some consideration should be given to changing the main event in this manner.  Even if he needs the money, there's no need to have him go out in what I call a "Chris Benoit moment", or something at all similar (see note).  In this fan's opinion, it just isn't worth it.     

Thus, I urge you to consider the health and mental state of Ric Flair before going ahead with this event.  If he's mentally sound, then by all means, have the match as scheduled.  That said, let's do the right thing for everyone concerned.  

Why Independents Need To Think About Their Vote (For Governor of CT)

Here we are again, Connecticut; we're smack in the middle of another campaign season, and another governor's race. As it was four years ago, the choice is largely between Ned Lamont and Bob Stefanowski. Regarding those candidates, you probably know at least some of the particulars by now.

What you likely don't know about this campaign is that it once again features a third-party candidate.

The Libertarian Party has seen fit to nominate Mr. Aaron Lewis for the state's highest office. It's all well and good that there is a third choice this year; I have no problem with the existence of such an option. My concern lies with the possibility that independents might vote for Lewis.

Here's why that doesn't work for me ("brother"), and why I strongly recommend that libertarians support Stefanowski instead of their party-endorsed candidate (1).

First, the chances of Mr. Lewis actually being elected are of the "no chance in hell" variety. Let's keep past independent performances in mind.

In the 2016 gubernatorial election, third-party candidate Joe Visconti got a whopping one percent of the statewide vote. In 2018, three independent candidates mustered a combined four percent of the vote (approximately).

Obviously, these were not a lot of votes. Yet they were enough to be the difference four years ago; the final margin of victory was forty-nine point four percent to forty-six point two percent, in favor of Lamont (2, 3).

The fact is that Connecticut is a one-party state that's trying to become a two-party state. Libertarians and Independents might have a shot at winning office in other states, but not here. In this race, all they can do is play "kingmaker", and secure another four years in office for "King Ned".

Second, I expect that this race will be very close, with perhaps as little as one percent separating the two major candidates. As such, independents and libertarians will likely decide its outcome.

Traditionally speaking, most libertarians tend to lean toward the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. In many cases, this means more votes for Republicans as opposed to Democrats.

This year, however, Libertarian Party leadership is urging that independents not vote for "Red Ned" (as they call Stefanowski), and instead cast their vote for Lewis. Any such selection will take votes away from the challenger; these are votes that he will very much need in order to win election.

Thus, a vote for Aaron Lewis will effectively be a vote to continue the reign of Ned Lamont.

Now let's talk about political platforms.

Contrary to the claims of Libertarian leadership, Bob Stefanowski does indeed have a plan to restore prosperity to Connecticut. This plan includes lower taxes, investing in job growth, and restoring trust in public safety and leadership (among other issues) (4).

Mr. Lewis doesn't seem to have any such plan at all, at least not one that is known publicly. What will be do about the ever-rising cost of living in Connecticut, or the sky-high taxes that Democrats seem to love to assess? That's a very good question, apparently; I don't know.

On highway tolls, the governor has implied that if re-elected, he will once again raise the issue before the General Assembly. We've had this discussion multiple times already; every time, tolls have failed to be approved. Where does the Libertarian stand on the possibility of another round regarding this issue?

And by the way, what does Mr. Lewis propose to do in order to reduce violent crime, instances of which have recently skyrocketed in this state? Is it his position that we've (in the words of Governor Lamont) "done what we can" on this issue? If not, what will he do to ensure the safety of our towns and communities? On this point, your guess is as good as mine (5).

Therefore, if you're talking about a candidate that doesn't seem to have a clue how to get the job done, you're talking about Aaron Lewis, not Stefanowski. Is this really the best that the independents can do?

Also, did you know that Mr. Lewis used to be a Democrat? That's right; in 2019, the Hartford Courant reported that, as part of an unsuccessful campaign for mayor of Hartford, Lewis changed his party registration from that of "the donkeys" (6).

Knowing the Dems' usual tactics, that strikes me as a bit of a "red flag". At the very least, it is quite inconsistent, as well as concerning.

Fifth, voting Libertarian in this instance would be going against the very ideological principles of the liberty movement.

It is a key tenet (see definitions) of libertarianism that if one does harm, it is only to themselves. That is, personal choices that clearly harm others are regarded as unacceptable in their nature. In this sense, a vote for Lewis would not only hurt the liberty-minded Nutmegger, it would also hurt others, as it would effect their lives in quite the negative manner.

I have previously written about the stakes in this election; in short, they are higher than they have ever been in Connecticut. What we are talking about is the future of this state (7).

If Lamont should win a second term, the result will be the end of any hope to "take back Connecticut". Future generations will know our state as the bad joke of America, laughable in its failure and reputation. Is this really what libertarians want?

Vote Lewis if you will, but don't you dare complain when after Lamont wins again, things get even worse than they are now!

Finally, excuse me for quoting Led Zeppelin, but in this campaign (as their perhaps best known song says), "yes, there are two paths you can go by" (8).

If you want change, as well as a road back to prosperity, vote Bob Stefanowski. If you would rather prefer the status quo at best, vote for Lewis or Lamont.

This notwithstanding, you should "consider what you do here" (9).

Even if one wins the day, if such an outcome destroys the lives and hopes of others, it is no victory. It is, at best, one of the Pyrrhic (see definitions) variety.

Again, is this really what you want for the future of "the Nutmeg State"?

Just Another Random Vent

"Imagine, if you will", an American school where:   

- There is no First Amendment right to freedom of speech or expression.  Even a free and unmoderated student press is forbidden; the only opinions allowed are those that are permitted by school administrators.  

(Disagree? You're suspended or otherwise disciplined, even to the effect of not being allowed to graduate)  

- Walkouts in protest of "gun violence" and "racism" are officially sponsored events, requiring mandatory student attendance at them.  

(Yet unofficial events, such as an off-campus Halloween party, are strictly forbidden.) (1)

- There is no Fourth Amendment right to "be secure in (your) persons...papers, and effects".  If school officials suspect that there is "evidence that (a) student has violated...either the law or the rules of the school", they are entitled to search anything that may belong to that student.  A lack of "reasonable suspicion" does not preclude such a search; nor is it permitted for a student to object to such (2).      

- There is no right to due process, or assumption that one is "innocent until proven guilty".  If administrators say that you are guilty of violating a school rule, then you are guilty of it.  No appeal may be made, no evidence to the contrary may be presented, and no confrontation/questioning of witnesses is permitted.     

- Rather than preaching equality of race, the school routinely tells its students that certain races and nationalities deserve to have more rights than others.      

- If someone from the school witnesses you criticizing the coaching or performance of a school team, it's perfectly acceptable for that person to physically confront you over such, even to the point of putting others in danger.  This applies even to those employed with the school in an official capacity.  

(However, attempt to defend yourself, and you will be politely escorted off school property) (3)    

The above plot sounds like it could have come from a "Twilight Zone" script; Rod Serling might call it one of his best works.  Yet such a scenario is not the stuff of science-fiction shows, but a sad reality of life at Fairfield Warde High School (as well as, I infer, Fairfield Ludlowe High).  

The rights mentioned are not simply imaginary privileges; they are the rights that make up the cornerstone of the United States Constitution, and civil society in general.  Nevertheless, my alma mater seems to regard these as nothing more than figments of an overactive mind.  

In this, they apparently disagree with the Supreme Court, who has held that the public does not lose constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression "at the schoolhouse gate" (4).  

In past articles and publications, I have pleaded for school administrators to change this narrative. 

I have taken my concerns to meetings of the Fairfield RTM; this only to have elected officials interrupt me, and forbid me to speak about the issue.  

I have submitted relevant letters to the Fairfield Citizen-News, only to have the paper decline to publish them.  

And when attempting to address the subject via e-mail to Superintendent of Schools Mike Cummings, I have been totally ignored; the multiple letters that I have sent to him have all gone unanswered.  Did I mention that Mr. Cummings is now resigning his position (5)?  

So let me ask an important question of Fairfield town officials, including those employed with the Board of Education...

...why?

Why is it that whenever I try to bring up this issue, you run "like scalded dogs" (6)?  

Now, to some extent, I understand your hesitation.  The issue of rights in schools is controversial, and not necessarily politically expedient (see definition).  People don't move up on the political "totem pole" by mentioning them in frequent discussion.  

Nevertheless, do you not have a responsibility to the community at large to address these concerns? Is there no duty for you to help develop strong and forthright citizens, or to safeguard the very foundation of American life?

And if there is such a duty, isn't that part of your job description, and the task that Fairfielders have elected you to do?    

Why is the idea of the protection of freedom (rather than the abandonment of it) so antithetical to you that you refuse any consideration of it? 

It is indeed part of your job to review the community's concerns regarding this issue.  If you are unwilling or incapable of doing such, I suggest that you should resign your positions, and find another line of work.  

By the way, don't hate me because I say what's on my mind....heh.  

A Chief Opinion on Gun Control (and the Second Amendment)

Prefacing this by saying that I'm not a lawyer of any kind, nor do I claim to be a legal expert.    

Gun control advocates have recently presented an interesting take on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  As reasoning for their agenda, they point to a published (in 1990) quote from former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger concerning the subject:   

"The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires" (1).

I find it somewhat necessary to refute this argument. The Amendment reads thus:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (2).

Moreover, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut declares that:

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state" (3).

So saying, allow erstwhile (see definition) political commentators Penn and Teller to explain the matter at hand (with apologies for brief vulgarity).

 (4)

As Penn points out, the Amendment is talking about "the people", not specifically the militia (that is, the National Guard).  

Go read that section again; the language says that the people have a right to bear arms, not specifically and particularly the Guard.  This, according to the Amendment, is a right that "shall not be infringed".  If the framers of the Constitution meant for this right to only be applicable to the "militia(s)", don't you think they would've said that?   

By the way, what is the National Guard comprised of? The individual state units are not made up or commissioned officers from the armed forces.  Rather, they are composed of ordinary citizens; those who have volunteered to serve and defend their communities.  To this extent, the Amendment has indeed entrusted the right to bear arms to ordinary citizens. Therefore, the reasoning detailed by the former Chief Justice is demonstrably incorrect in its logic.

Now, let's look at exactly why the Second Amendment speaks of "the people".    

Referring back to the video, Penn mentions that at the time of the Amendment's writing, the people of the United States had just fought a war against a tyrannical force (that of the King of Great Britain). They knew that a time might come where a similar conflict would take place. As such, the writers of the Constitution put the right and duty of self-defense on the people, not just the militia.

Having detailed the error of the associated argument, allow me to explain one final point.

There are some types of firearms that clearly should not be easily accessible to ordinary citizens, especially those with mental health issues or a record of violent crime. AR-15s, combat rifles, and Uzis come to mind; these are weapons of war, not simply guns for one's defense.

You don't need to carry such a gun around; that is, not unless you intend to shoot up a school or something (bad idea).

Nevertheless, a responsible and law-abiding American citizen should be able to legally purchase a weapon meant for self-defense.

Obviously, we need to have a national discussion about what guns are appropriate. Even so, such a debate should balance the right to bear arms against the need for, and responsibility to, law and order. This topic will, perhaps, be addressed in a future post.