This was supposed to be a big, long essay. However, I find that sometimes, simplicity is the name of the game.
"Anywho..."
...here's a novel concept for you to consider; a new idea is much like a plant. You see, in order for a plant to grow, it must first be rooted in fertile soil. So too must a worthy idea take root in the human mind.
To this, I believe that open and honest discussion is vital to the interests of quality education, not to mention a functioning society.
Nevertheless, and all too often, trying to talk about the important issues in Fairfield's educational system is an exercise in futility. Those in supervisory roles don't want to have frank discussions pertaining to relative concerns; at least, they seem quite unwilling to do so.
I personally know that any attempt to speak with school officials results in one getting the run-around, or even the silent treatment.
Yet the arrival of new leadership in Town Hall represents a chance for beneficial changes, and a new, open approach to civil discussion (at least on educational issues).
It is my personal hope that this opportunity will not be taken for granted by educational officials at our schools. Let's make it a point to work with each other, not against one another.
For those of you that may have missed it, Fairfield has a new First Selectman. Democrat Bill Gerber was sworn into office last night, having defeated incumbent Republican Brenda Kupchick by just thirty-seven votes (1).
I suppose the Democrats are hailing this as a major victory, as well they should. To this, I find myself feeling quite conflicted.
On the one hand, I am very sorry that I couldn't do anything to help the Republicans. I am acutely aware that my volunteer efforts could have swung some votes to their candidates' favor, and made a difference in that respect.
Nevertheless, on that subject, respect is what my inactivity was all about.
Personally speaking, the climate that top party officials fostered this year was abundant with disrespect, as well as a general "we can't do anything" attitude. This made the donation of my time and efforts impossible; at least, that's the way I see it.
In any event, and at the risk of sounding "holier-than-thou", I think there's a valuable lesson to be learned from what has just occurred. It is this: sometimes, it's wise to consider the possible repercussions of one's actions or inactions.
Experience has taught me that everything you do comes back to you, whether for good or bad. It's karma; "you reap what you sow". If you treat people with disregard and disrespect, don't be surprised if they want nothing to do with you.
Now, I don't claim to be the world's wisest man; I'm not a guru or a sage. And I would've preferred not to be the teacher, so to speak, of this lesson.
Notwithstanding this, life's nature is that on occasion, we all have to do things that we don't really want to do. I guess this was one of these non-preferable occasions.
That said, let me address another issue, prefacing it by saying that I apologize if my assessment is incorrect.
This is just an observation, but could it be that I'm getting a little behind-the-back trash talk from personal friends within the town Republicans? As of late, they have been giving me the silent treatment, or so it seems. I understand this, but being as respect is the name of the game, perhaps they should reconsider their attitude.
My final thoughts on this year's races are, again, filled with mixed emotions.
Obviously, a changing of the guard has taken place in Fairfield. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I see this moment as a sort of refresh; a chance to hit the reset button. Perhaps the incoming administration will bring with it a new willingness for dialogue, and a show of mutual respect; that is my hope.
Yet, even with these hopeful feelings, I must quote David Byrne and the Talking Heads:
"...and you may say to yourself, 'my God, what have I done?" (2)
The latest news in the wild world of sports comes out of the state of Michigan, where the University of Michigan's football team has been accused of cheating.
An official investigation into this matter is now underway, seemingly prompted by the University of Central Michigan. Their own football team claims that earlier this season, a man resembling former Michigan assistant Connor Stalions was on their sidelines (assumedly engaged in scouting operations, and in violation of NCAA rules) (1).
For their part, the Big Ten Conference has come down hard on the Wolverines, suspending coach Jim Harbaugh (due to "ample evidence" against the program). Nevertheless, even with this suspension, some say the NCAA has not gone far enough (2).
On Monday morning, the crew from the ESPN show "Get Up" tackled the situation, and the question of whether Michigan should be allowed to participate in the College Football Playoff.
My take on the subject is contrary to the opinion of reporter Stephen A. Smith, who said this:
"This is about the fact that (Michigan) allegedly...according to the Big Ten...acquired an unfair advantage. Why are you being allowed in if it comes down to that?" (3)
First off, let's understand the key word in the phrase, which is "allegedly". It is alleged, perhaps reasonably, that cheating and violations have taken place.
Nevertheless, these are allegations, not conclusively proven actions.
Appearances can be deceiving, and just because someone bought tickets to a lot of games, that in itself isn't enough to substantiate certain charges. The presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" applies here, as it indeed should.
On a second point, Smith makes the point that, if Michigan is allowed to play, other teams will "miss out" on opportunities:
"What about the kids at Texas? What about the kids at Alabama? Somebody is going to miss out, in favor of those kids that play at Michigan".
In case Mr. Smith didn't notice, Michigan is 10-0; the Wolverines are unquestionably one of the top teams in major college football. As such, they should have a chance to play for a championship; this shouldn't be denied on the basis of as of yet unproven claims (4).
I don't think this idea is too complicated, or difficult to understand. Winners get championship opportunities; others don't.
And until the case against Michigan is definitively proven, the Wolverines should get their title shot.
Recently, we have seen the Middle East once again ignite with the fires of war, as the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas launched an unprovoked invasion of Israel (1).
Let's make one thing abundantly clear; it sickens me to see and hear reports of beheadings, murder, and the outright slaughter of innocent Israelis. War is hell (or so they say), and anyone worth his or her salt should be disgusted by it.
Even so, the horrific actions of Hamas take evil to another level.
Hamas' sympathizers, of which there are many, try to justify this hell by calling it "resistance, by any means necessary". However, they completely miss the mark; what Hamas and their allies have been doing is not "resistance". Rather, it is genocide.
Allow me to further explain this for those who may not be aware.
Those supporting Hamas need to understand that their so-called "resistance forces" are brazenly (see definitions) committing war crimes, with no regard for human lives other than that of Arabs. Unfortunately, this is nothing new; it has been going on for over seventy-five years (2).
Although there have been lulls in this conflict, most notably during the 1990s, it has become evident that Palestinians have no interest in peace. Instead, they seek the total destruction of Israel, and the eventual establishment of a homeland for Arabs and only Arabs (as opposed to a homeland for both Jews and Arabs).
Most observers have realized that in this regard, the Palestinians would someday launch a decapitation-style attack (see definitions), meant to "wipe (Israel) off the face of the earth". The one thing that remained unpredictable was on what day they would ultimately make their move.
We now know that day to have been October 7, 2023.
As for the charge of genocide, the Oxford Language Dictionary defines the term as follows:
"The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation, with the aim of destroying that nation or group" (3).
The Nazis committed acts of genocide. Hamas is committing acts of genocide.
There are some people who, faced with the spectre of unspeakable horror, would rather be silent than speak to condemn it. I have never been one of these people; I believe that silence in such a case is equal to approval of the evil occurring.
So when it comes to the current conflict, I totally and unequivocally (see definitions)stand with the State of Israel.
And what of this idea of peace?
We'd all like to see a lasting peace; at least those of us worthy of mention would. Be that as it may, I must refer to two quotes by Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel.
First, "you cannot negotiate peace with someone who has come to kill you". Like most things, peace is a two-way street. If the other side is not interested in pursuing it, peace cannot and will not be had (4).
Second, "peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us" (5).
Far be it for me to suggest that the Palestinians do not love their children. However, perhaps they do not love their children quite enough. If they did, they likely would not strap explosives to the bodies of their kids, and frequently use them as suicide bombers, which is an exercise in futility (see definitions) in any case.
And tell me, other than possible religious martyrdom, what is gained by the intentional destruction of a human life? That is a question that both Arabs and Jews must ponder, and answer for themselves.
I pray that such an answer will someday bring peace.
Last month, the official results from the Bridgeport Mayoral Primary showed incumbent Democrat Joe Ganim defeating fellow Democrat John Gomes, albeit (see definitions) by a very small margin (1).
Now, based on allegations of ballot stuffing and other fraud, Gomes is contesting that result in state Superior Court. He asks that the Court either declare himself to be the victor, or order that a new vote be held (2).
For the purposes of fostering understanding of both sides of a debate, as well as intelligent conversation, let me attempt to break down the arguments of the defense (town clerk Charles Clemons, et al).
As in other legal analyses, I preface this by saying that I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have any sort of a degree in law. This interpretation is simply my personal opinion on the matter.
The first argument put forward by defense lawyers is that the plaintiff has not stated "a claim upon which relief may be granted". In layman's terms, they are saying that even if everything claimed by the plaintiff is true, the Court would not be justified to grant the relief sought (3, 4).
To this, I suspect that the reasoning given will be something having to do with the "will of the voters". For example; "the people have spoken, and the Court cannot overrule them"
The Clemons-Ganim team is partially correct; the voters have indeed had their say. Nevertheless, the issue now turns on what exactly the people said. If it is proven that they decided contrary to what the administration says they did, the Court should affirm this; it is their duty and responsibility to do so.
A second contention offered has to do with the doctrine of "unclean hands". To summarize, this argument states that because a plaintiff has acted unethically, that plaintiff is not entitled to the remedy that they seek (5).
In making this claim, the defense cites video footage that apparently shows Gomes supporters casting votes (by dropbox) for persons other than themselves.
To be clear, the claim of fraud rests on evidence of the Ganim team doing the same, only in much greater numbers. In either case, these are illegal actions, and according to the defense, demonstrative that the Gomes campaign has acted unethically.
In response, lawyers for Mr. Gomes seem to be questioning the significancy of that argument. The relevant matter, they say, is not whether supporters strictly adhered (see definitions) to all laws, but if the result of the primary "is seriously in doubt" (6).
On this, Gomes' representation makes a good point; the ethics or claimed lack thereof of his supporters is not the main issue of the day. However, this remains as a secondary issue. There is a "pot calling the kettle black" argument to be made here, one that could be decided in favor of the defense.
Having taken a look at the legal arguments being discussed, allow me to provide a brief update on proceedings. As of 5:34 PM on October 19, the Connecticut Mirror reports that the defense has rested its case, doing so without calling additional witnesses (7).
The case now moves to consideration of the Honorable William Clark, who is expected to issue a ruling within the next two to three weeks. His decision, whatever it may be, will likely have far-reaching consequences on the future of elections in the State of Connecticut.
In the history of presidential elections, multiple candidates have had "oops" moments. 2004 saw the "scream of the century" (audio link) doom Howard Dean's campaign; Hillary Clinton's 2016 "basket of deplorables" comment didn't work out much better (1, 2).
Now, enter stage right Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who recently had this to say about supporters of Donald Trump:
"If all we are is listless vessels (that are) just supposed to follow whatever happens to come down the pike on Truth Social every morning, that's not going to be a durable movement" (3).
I find this to be an ill-advised remark, and one that I must respond to (4).
According to Merriam-Webster, "listless" means someone or something that is "characterized by lack of interest, energy, or spirit". Thus, Mr. Governor, you imply that Trump backers have no heart.
As far as this comment applies to me personally, you couldn't be more wrong.
You see, unlike some others, I have the nerve to stand up for my rights, and what I believe to be right. I've never had any problem telling those in charge what I think (as evidenced by this article).
And when it comes to political issues, I prefer principles over party positions.
On another note, I think it should be mentioned that I have worked very hard for Republican candidates in my home state of Connecticut.
Whether it has been phone banks, writing letters to newspaper editors, or simply the general discussion of state-wide politics, I have "been there and done that" (see note). And even through a long string of losses, I have kept the faith, in what is now a deep blue state.
Mr. Governor, I'm someone who doesn't back down or easily give up, even when the odds are against him. I guess you could say I have a "fighting spirit" of sorts, which flies in the face of your derogatory (see definition) comments. No, I'm not a "listless vessel"; far from it.
Now, I can't claim to be an expert on campaign strategy. Yet in closing this article, and with all due respect, I offer you a tip.
The next time you go out on the trail, perhaps it would be wise to give a bit more thought to what you're saying. This way, you'll be less likely to have "Howard Dean moments".
It looks like Mr. "King of All Media" himself, that paragon (see definitions) of paragons known as Howard Stern, is running his mouth again.
This past Monday, the broadcasting personality bragged about being "woke", saying,
"I am woke, motherf-----, and I love it. I want to be awake. I’m not for stupidity, you know. I went over (to CVS Pharmacy) at nine AM and got myself that new vaccine for Covid. Fu----- science. This fu---- country is so great" (1).
I find this to be an interesting comment, seeing as it's coming from a man who's been pushing filth toward the "lowest common denominator" for years. Let's take a brief look at his life and career.
Howard Stern was born to a family of Jewish immigrants on January 12, 1954. Becoming interested in radio and radio shows from a very young age, he developed his own entertainment at the age of nine, using marionettes to perform "explicit" shows for friends (2).
After high school, Stern enrolled at Boston University. While there, he hosted comedy shows on the college's radio station, one of which was suspended for a time due to the airing of a racially-charged skit.
Upon graduation from BU in 1976, Stern promptly hit the professional media market, landing a job at Hartford's WCCC. About a year later, he left for "greener" pastures, quitting the station after being denied a raise.
Stern's next stops were in Detroit and Washington, after which he would land on New York's WNBC-AM working afternoons. Within a month of starting in "the Big Apple", Stern would again find himself suspended, this time for airing an off-color skit about the Virgin Mary.
In September of 1985, station management decided they had heard enough, and fired Stern for what they called "conceptual differences" regarding the content of his show (3).
Stern would not be unemployed for long, as in October of that same year, then-rival New York station WXRK picked him up for mornings.
As at WNBC, his show was filled with indecent material, including the promotion of pornography and prostitution. The broadcast ended in 2005, as Stern moved the show to satellite radio.
Here are a few choice quotes from "the man who would be king":
(sound effects of gunfire)
"This music does absolutely nothing for me. Spanish people have the worst taste in music. They have no depth" - April 3, 1995; three days after the shooting death of Hispanic musician Selena
"Did (the shooters) try to have sex with any of the good looking girls?" - April 20, 1999; a day after the Columbine High School Massacre(4)
"When are we going to stop putting up with the idiots in this country and just say it’s mandatory to get vaccinated? F— them. F— their freedom" - September 6, 2021 (5)
Add to this incidents such as what occurred in October of 2001, when Stern showed up at the 9/11 memorial "The Concert For New York City" dressed in a...shall we say, quite exposing...hazmat outfit.
Anywho, on a personal note to Mr. Stern, I say this.
I've never liked you, except for the brief time when you actually tried to be a decent person (9/11). In that case, perhaps I'm a bit biased. Nevertheless, I find you to be a purveyor (see definitions) of obscenity, profanity, and overall smut that frankly has no place on the airwaves.
You can go ahead and celebrate "wokeness" all you want; I don't have too much of a problem with that.
Just keep in mind that your crowd consists mostly of assholes. Apparently, that includes you.
