Bad Governments: A Lesson in History

There are those that believe President Obama the worst offender of the Constitution to ever hold office; a socialist at best and a tyrant at worst.  A popular comment I've seen on many online message boards labels Obama the “worst President ever!” without truly considering the 43 other people eligible for consideration.  An additional detail omitted from most labeling of “socialism” is that in 1917 (at the height of the Bolshevik revolution) the socialist vote averaged 20% in many elections.  I believe Americans have long held a selective memory when it comes to aggrandizing the infamy of contemporary political leaders.

Woodrow Wilson, the champion of early 20th century progressives, was behind one of the most aggressive wartime removal of civil liberties in our nation's history.  The Espionage Act of 1917 barred "false statements" impeding military success and prohibited interfering with the draft.  Even worse (if such a thing is possible) was the Postmaster General's elimination of any mailings critical of the administration.  In 1918, the Sedition Act was passed criminalizing any speech or print that encouraged interference with the war effort or would cast scorn on the "form of Government".  Labor leader Eugene V. Debs was convicted under the Espionage Act in 1918 and gave one of the more monumental speeches in American history protesting his conviction.

During World War I citizens could be imprisoned for making statements critical of the flag or for being disloyal to the state.  Men in some cases were routinely stopped in American cities and compelled to produce draft registration cards while federal agents seized files and documents of labor leaders throughout the country.  An Anti-German movement swept the United States changing hamburgers into "liberty sandwiches" and sauerkraut into "liberty cabbage".  A 1907 law authored in Indiana allowed the use of sterilization on insane inmates in mental institutions to prevent the passing of genes.  Persons arrested for crimes against the state where held for months without charges or warrants brought up against them.   A young J. Edgar Hoover (future head of the FBI) compiled records on thousands of Americans thought to hold radical views while in his position as director of the Radical Division of the Justice Department.  It was most certainly a turbulent time featuring a profound contracting of civil liberties and human liberties in general.

To those who hold President Obama (and his "hope") as their champion, I direct you to the story of another promising mid-western man who seemed poised for presidential success.  Herbert Hoover, a wealthy former mining engineer, accepted the Republican party's presidential nomination in 1928.  Famous British economist John Maynard Keynes labeled Hoover as "the only man" to leave the 1919 Versailles Treaty "with an enhanced reputation" while novelist Sherwood Anderson opined that Hoover "had never known failure".  Hoover's presidency, as we know, would later be defined by massive unemployment and misery throughout the country.

The lesson here is to understand that presidents are mortal and should be judged against their peers and not by the prevailing notions during the time in which they serve.  I am of the opinion that history will eventually look kindly upon most presidents as individuals begin to understand and recognize the enormous responsibility inherent in the office itself.  Anyone who truly understands the requirements and rigors of the American presidency would most certainly produce a "shermanesque" statement if asked to serve.

The NRA: A Cheap Super PAC?

Wikipedia defines the NRA (National Rifle Association) as an "American non-profit 501(c)(4) lobbying group[1][2] that advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States." But in my opinion its oh so much more than that. The group has effectively become almost a "Super PAC" of sorts, mobilizing voters, funding endorsed candidates and playing a pivotal role in many elections across the country. To be an outsider looking into a private group or organization reminds me of the adage "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". So I took that into consideration when writing my thoughts on the NRA.

What better person to analyze the actions of the NRA, then a member himself! I have been a registered NRA member since July 25 2011. I joined the group because I thought the group's purpose and drive was to protect second amendment rights, crucial in the formation and continuity of this country, and ensure citizens always had the ability to rise up against oppression. What the group really consists of is far from that and a detriment to its members. The group routinely sends out spam and otherwise unnecessary emails peddling gun insurance, general insurance and other non-essential services. Some of the emails are written to be intentionally deceiving telling a member that the group "hasn't heard back from them on their insurance" and that they "are at risk without action". Other tactics of the group involve sending unsolicited promotional material to members and then demanding payment for it. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself!

But perhaps the NRA is preserving second amendment rights; spam advertisement and cheap marketing tactics aside.  Perhaps by removing elected officials who stand in the way of second amendment rights the NRA can best utilize its massive funding capacity  In a recent senate primary race between incumbent Dick Lugar and a relatively unknown Tea Party darling Richard Murdock, the NRA was largely influential in the incumbent's defeat.  In an official NRA statement from Chris W. Cox the NRA was "was fully vested in this race with a comprehensive campaign that encompassed thousands of radio and television ads in the months before the today's primary election.  This effort also included 600,000 web ads."  Murdock, an unrelenting partisan, virtually opposed to any form of bipartisanship, is certain to make zero impact in a governing body requiring work across the aisle, outside the box thinking and commitment to country and NOT party.

Gee, what a great way to spend our membership fees, on radio and television ads for a political candidate who might make 1-5 critical votes in their senate membership lifetime.  Let's not spend it on firearm education (to prevent firearm accidents and educate the public why firearms are important to our freedom), actual membership benefits leveraged by over 4 million members (no, spam emails and incessant requests to join insurance programs don't count!), or interesting and relevant publications.  Here's my tip: Take the money you would have spent the NRA and donate to your favorite politician, because that's just what's going to happen to it.

Health Care Reform: What's at Stake?

There are many misconceptions regarding the health care reform legislation that is being argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Many people wonder why there is a mandate that every individual be insured. While there are many nuances involved in the legislation it basically boils down to a need for the coverage pool to be as large as possible. Because the legislation mandates that no insurer can refuse coverage or drop a person because of pre-existing or developed medical conditions, it needs a bunch of healthy people paying into the system to balance it out and keep the overall pool solvent.

This "individual mandate" is where people find the most amount of differences with the legislation. Some argue that they, as healthy people" should not be subsidizing the health care of sickly people who could theoretically raise prices for the rest of the healthier members of the overall pool. Some find fault with the mandate itself and think Government should not be allowed to force citizens to purchase a product from a private entity. Lastly, some believe that Government run-insurance will bring many of the inefficiencies associated with Government/public-sector involvement in a matter.

I'm interested to see how the Supreme Court Rules and what case-law is cited. Some argue that President Obama and the White House will win either way. If the legislation is upheld, Obama gets the validation his law is not only here to stay but constitutional. If the law is overturned, Obama can rally his supporters to the polls in November. What's your take?

Kony 2012

Kony 2012 is a great independently produced film that highlights the plight of children captured by Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony. The video is about 27 minutes long and does a great job of bringing people up to speed on where the struggle stands today. Prior to the video, I had never heard of the LRA, Joseph Kony or the Invisible Children organization, but I definitely am aware of them today. The video introduces us to the director, Jason Russell and how meeting Jacob, a boy whose brother was killed by Kony, changed his life.

Critics argue the film oversimplifies things; they argue that the video is too little too late and that it won't bring about real change. I disagree and cite myself as the primary example. Prior to watching this video I knew there was conflict in Africa and children were involved but I had no idea of any details or stories based on a personal level. I was ignorant to the existence of Joseph Kony and the kidnapping, manipulation and mutilation of children that has occurred under his orders. I challenge you to watch the video for yourself and make up your own mind.

Product Review: Easton Synergy EQ20 Hockey Bag

I recently purchased the Easton Synergy EQ20 Hockey Bag, (32'' Red). I play a few in a few ice hockey leagues and use it to tote everything to and fro. The bag had a lot of promise as it sports some pretty good looks like initially seemed to be very durable. However within the first month of usage, the bag's seam split underneath of where the shoulder strap is anchored. Seeing as though it hadn't been punctured by anything sharp, I can only conclude the manufacturing is shoddy.

Additionally the bag doesn't have any large zippered pockets or even closing pockets on the sides. It had one measly zipper pocket on the inside that probably can hold your keys and wallet and that's it. Where are all my little things and tools supposed to go? Reccomendation: Do not buy this bag.

A Memory of The 90's: Inspector Gadget

I will be starting a new little segment where I bring back some of my favorite memories from the 90's. Inspector Gadget was always one of my favorite cartoons growing up. I was always interested in Gadget's car and how it could transform into many shapes and vehicle-types depending on the situation. Take a look at this Youtube video:

The Defense of The Environment

Perhaps you've had a chance to view the new TV series Terra Nova, a fictitious show that follows a group of settlers going into the past to settle a prehistoric Earth. The frightening portion of the show is the depiction of Earth in the year 2149. There appears to be very little water, almost no plant life and air quality so poor that filtering masks are required to travel outside. While fictional, one is only left to ponder just how far fetched the idea truly is. Are humans the primary drivers of global warming and rising world temperatures or are we in the midst of a natural cycle experienced by Earth? The Committee on the Science of Climate Change (2001) responded to the question of "Are greenhouse gases causing climate change?" by writing:

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. The stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainty remains because of (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionable ability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can be placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years. Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols.

While it is agreed upon that there is much uncertainty surrounding the Earth's climate, most scientists are in agreement that the last twenty years have produced "particularly strong" observed warming events. One could assume these events coincide with the industrial rising of countries such as India and China where carbon monoxide levels are increasing at a troubling rate. The United States and other countries are also responsible with more than 18% of CO2 emissions occurring from America. Although one could argue that Earth may be in a natural warming cycle, it is undeniable that pollutants released by humans are growing at a rate that will be unsustainable for the planet if allowed to continue.

Republican candidate Rick Perry has gone on the record stating he believes that global warming is a "hoax" and that the climate has been changing "ever since the Earth was formed". While true, Perry's response plays down the argument questioning the human aspect of the warming and seems to paint the issue as something fabricated by scientists eager to make a profit off the funding of new projects. Perry's chief rival for the nomination, Mitt Romney, has distanced himself from Perry's remarks by stating: "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that".

Perry's stance is troubling because it conveys (in my opinion) a refusal to even consider the idea as plausible and downplays the idea that humans and Americans should consider what they can do to reduce global warming. For a moment, let's consider that Americans reduce greenhouse emissions and make painful lifestyle changes throughout the country that result in lost jobs, elimination of useful and effective products and an increased responsibility by every citizen to take ownership of the problem. If those such as Perry are correct and the Earth is in a natural warming state or not in one at all, then dollars and livelihoods will be affected and measures put in place will be for naught, ineffective or unnecessary. While unfortunate, those outcomes would hardly seem to be painful to swallow.

On the other hand if humans had the ability to take measures to stop the trend and do nothing, the outcomes would be painful and terrifying. Humans would watch as biological diversity slowly dies away and an increasing number of species become extinct due to inability to adapt to climate change. Sea creatures such as plankton, a nutrient source for many creatures, could be affecting by rising sea temperatures causing uncertainty over the survival of much aquatic life. Humans would cope with decreasing water supplies, proliferation of deserts and arid land and world-wide competitions for ownership of water and natural resources supplies. Rising sea levels would affect coastal communities and islands, forcing millions of people to relocate or risk being swallowed by the sea. In short, images from movies such as The Day After Tomorrow, while extreme, could become a reality for many populations throughout the world.

If the costs of being proactive are small compared to the risks of inaction, why aren't many humans concerned with global warming? Is it apathy, ignorance, conflicting beliefs or some other viewpoint that creates lack of action? For me, the risks of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of doing something. For those opposed to the idea of global warming, an eventual validation will lead to a brief "I told you so" moment and a platform for political maneuvering. A validation of global warming coupled with inaction could lead to annihilation and a plot line from Terra Nova becoming reality.

Dear 16 Year Old Me

Dear sixteen year old Ryan. You're doing a good job, you're doing well in school and are going to get into a great college and do well in life because of all your hard work. You're going to move around a lot, explore new places and new people and generally have a great time. On May 14th, your 24th birthday, the doctor is going to call you up and tell you you've been diagnosed with malignant melanoma on the top of your back.

As you sit stunned, the doctor is going to tell you that you have a great chance for recovery but he's going to need to cut a hole into your back in order to get the cancer out. As you hang up the phone and linger in a daze, you'll think of all the times that you could of put on sunscreen, but were too busy or too in a rush to do it. You'll think about how thankful you are that your mother made you go to the dermatologist in the first place to get a checkup.

As you sit on the operating table holding back tears because the pain is so great, you'll think about all the ways that you could of prevented this, how you could have been more responsible with your skin. You'll think about how lucky you are that you caught it fast and how some other people won't be so lucky, because they don't know yet. You'll think about how posting a simple video might be able to spread the message of skin awareness better and how maybe, just maybe, you'll save someone's life.

The Tea Party Blues

A couple of posts ago, I ranted and raved (which I have a tendency to do) about how the Tea Party was fringe and non-relevant. Boy was I wrong (as happens from time to time, or all the time!). As I write this post, Christine O'Donnell has defeated Mike Castle in Delaware for the Republican Senate nomination. For those that don't know, I lived in Delaware for four years and Mike Castle is as much of a favorite son as you can be. What's even more shocking is that O'Donnell had the "perennial candidate" syndrome where she was always on the ballot for something but never seemed to get any traction.

To get back onto a little more of a philosophical note, I think 2010 has been the season of tea for several different reasons. For starters, the most involved and dedicated voters (especially in the primaries) are arguably the "hard-core" partisans and ideologues. For Republicans this means ultra-conservative partisans dominate the process, and for Democrats it's progressive and liberals. What has been different in this season is that Democrats have been more lenient to their moderate members while Republicans have brought the hammer down on them with force. For examples, I use Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who survived a left-wing primary challenger and Mike Castle/Lisa Murkowski, two arguably moderate Republicans who were shocked by tea party upstarts.

To summarize the conversation so far, one could argue that the Republican tent is getting smaller while the Democrat tent is for most purposes staying the same. Republicans are demanding ideological purity while it is common knowledge that most Americans are moderates/independents. Does this help the party? You can argue both sides effectively but you can't argue the fact that it makes Democrats more competitive in many races where they were all but written off. The larger question is what does it mean for the future of the Republican party? Does it move right and assimilate the tea party-ers into its base, or do two separate factions develop that threaten to virtually hand the races to Democrats?

I've been on the record saying that moderate candidates are good for America. This means people like Mike Castle, Scott Brown, Tom Kean, Claire McCaskill, John Warner and Jon Tester. You can argue that I've named all liberal politicians here, but if you check their voting records you will find that they buck their party more than most for the good of their constituents (and to save their hides!). It isn't about being Republican or Democrat, it is about being able to go against your party and vote for your people. You can call that a RINO if you want, but I call it a moderate.

High Fructose: Nah I'll Just Take Sugar

Are you eating something right now? If so, stop eating it and turn it around and look at the nutritional label on the back of the product. Does it say "High Fructose Corn Syrup" on the back? You may have just noticed it and are now thinking to yourself "WTF is this?!?!?!". HFCs are literally syrups from corn that have undergone processing to convert themselves into a sweetener used in commercial products. If the light bulb went off in your head and you are saying "ahh sugar!", turn the light bulb off, it is not sugar!!!

So what is the problem with HFCs? Well first off all, in lab tests, rodents that consumed HFCs gained more weight than rodents given just 10% sucrose with the same caloric content. Now, another light bulb should be going off in your head, haven't obesity rates been drastically increasing in western civilization over the last 20 years? While it is very much speculation, it does lead one to wonder whether there is correlation between the two figures.

An additional group of rodents were tested, this time being allowed to eat as much as they wanted (of an HFC based product) but being restricted to a sedentary lifestyle, which would emulate that of many Americans. Within just four weeks, the animals showed signs of Type-II Diabetes and and fatty liver disease. An obviously disturbing discovery.

So should you throw out all you products containing HFCs out the window? Probably not, but it is always good to be mindful of exactly what you are eating and how it can effect your body. My recommendation would be to seek out all natural products that use cane sugar or other naturally occurring sweeteners. While many sugars are not good for you at all, perhaps those with a naturally occurring makeup, may be better for you in the long run.

The "Tea Party": Fringe and Non-Relevant

The "Tea Party" movement has been dominating news lately after the passage of the health care reform bill. One might think the movement would be protesting the bill with candid well-thought argument and discussion in newspaper editorials, online blogs and through radio shows. However, the "Tea Party", already bordering on irrelevance and questionable effectiveness, has decided to set its members loose on Democratic representatives who voted for the health care bill.

What a bunch of cowards! The T.P movement will forever be branded as a fringe and radical collection of characters after their actions. If they want to bring about change in Washington, they should do it at the polls and not with their fists. What's worse is some in the movement such as Sarah Palin seem to think it's a good idea to fan the flames of hate.

My words of warning are to remember that the political winds can shift on a dime and those who spark conservative rage should be careful to avoid the liberal push-back that will inevitably follow. Those who were so quick to plant the bullseye on others, may eventually find themselves in the cross hairs of karma.

Republican Moderates: Good For the Nation

I've gone on the record as saying moderates are a good thing for both parties. For the Democratic Party you have Ben Nelson and to a lesser extent; Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman who occasionally cross party lines on legislation. For the Republicans, the only moderates seemingly left were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine. With Scott Brown's election, it seems being a moderate New England Republican is trendy again.

Some conservatives view this as a sellout on the part of Brown. I don't necessarily think that is the case. Brown's only responsibilities are to the Massachusetts people; if he believes a piece of legislation is something they'd support, he should be under no obligation to conservatives or "tea-party-nistas". Now if we could only wrangle up Lincoln Chafee to come back to the Senate and we would be set!

I think bipartisan legislation can only be accomplished through moderates who are willing to cross party lines for something they believe in. People like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid may make a lot of noise and show, but in the end, it is in the hands of moderates that true groundbreaking legislation rests.

New Jersey's First District: The Fighting Firsts

New Jersey Democratic Congressman Rob Andrews will be running for re-election in 2010 against familiar nemesis Dale Glading, you may remember Dale for granting this interview to the American Portrait back in 2008. Glading was only able to garner 26% of the vote in 2008 and while he will definitely fare better in the current climate, his chances of election are slim.

Dale writes on his campaign page that with "career politician" Rob Andrews, "not much has changed". Much has been made of Andrews complete debacle in 2008 when he had his wife keep the congressional seat warm for him while he tested the waters for Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat. Andrews tried to claim he changed his mind after deep personal reflection although it was clearly and objectively a bogus story. You may recall me observantly pointing out the fact that Camille Andrews (Rob Andrews' wife and placeholder for his house seat) didn't even bother to put up policy stances on her campaign website. She may be very friendly and nice in person but she was definitely a lousy candidate.

While Glading definitely hits some points home against Andrews, mainly the argument that Andrews has an "insatiable" appetite for higher office, he faces a daunting election against a congressional juggernaut. County Republicans would love to brand Andrews as liberal and socialist in the hopes of it gaining traction with a frustrated electorate, but do the facts back that up? The New York Times (an arguably biased source) brands Andrews as a "fiscally conservative...and socially moderate". Glading on the other hand, doesn't give any hints as to his stances on social issues via his website.

As Glading has cast himself as a conservative, one would think he would be socially and fiscally conservative. This perceived social conservatism (whether true or untrue, he hasn't said anything to the contrary) goes squarely against the traditional New Jersey mold. In fact, New Jersey's 1st congressional district scores a DVI of +12 (Democratic) in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. So while Glading would more than likely be an agent of change for South Jersey, his social stances might be a tough pill to swallow for many South Jerseyans. So while Rob Andrews' actions were clearly questionable, if no suitable candidate attuned to the county's political leanings emerges, it is this blog's opinion he will be comfortably re-elected in November.

Healthcare Reform: Gone With The Wind

I think everyone can agree the cost of healthcare is staggering for someone who is out of work or has a low paying job without benefits. A couple of weeks ago it seemed almost certain we were going to finally have health-care reform. With Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, it seems like politicians can't get away from the platform/issue fast enough. Nobody wants to hang out their political neck for something as emotionally-charged as this issue.

I can't knock uncertainty, as I don't even know where I stand on the issue. Part of me wants to protect the people most at risk (children, low-wage workers) from the high costs of health coverage and treatment. Everyone deserves the right to have access to top-notch healthcare and physicians. The problem comes with the staggering cost and burden of trying to create a program out of nothing.

The financial cost of the healthcare program is absolutely unacceptable. In my opinion, we should be trying to reach budget neutrality in any was possible. That doesn't mean completely abandoning health care reform, as I would be in favor of the "piece-mail" approach championed by some members of congress that would introduce portions of health-care reform one at a time. The obvious drawbacks to this would be the lengthy time-period for effectiveness to kick in.

Inaction is not an option. Reform needs to happen now, but as they say "Rome wasn't built in a day", neither should the foundation of this legislation. Starting now and getting something done, is better than doing nothing at all. Even if there are members of Congress steadfast in their desire to score political points should the issue fail, there are no excuses for President Obama to not get this done.

The Ultimate Act of Betrayal

I don't know which I feel more upon reading this article; fascination or disgust. If we were to take this article at face value it portrays both John and Elizabeth Edwards as being the lowest possible degenerates of society. As some may recall, I supported Edwards in his early days for the presidency. I liked his personable demeanor and populist platform and thought he was a nice mix of experience and change (see Barack v. Hillary).

To have Edwards invade our televisions to drivel on about standing up for impoverished members of society and then blackball a faithful campaign staffer when the cameras weren't on, really hurts the core of anyone who supported Edwards at anytime. I feel like I've lost a little respect for all politicians today, who can you trust when you don't know what happens behind closed doors?

It's like finding out there isn't a Santa Claus or that the Tooth Fairy will no longer be bringing you cash in exchange for clunkers (teeth). It all boils down to...who can you trust?

What Did We Learn?

I hate it when national correspondents are of the notion that they have a beat on the pulse of a town or city. The Two-Line Pass, a hockey-themed blog, is a great example of this. While covering the American Portrait's favorite team (The Philadelphia Flyers), he had the audacity to make this statement:

"End of an era. Randy Jones was put on waivers as the first step to getting his 2.75-million cap hit off the books. But it begs the question, who is going to attempt to cripple Patrice Bergeron and have Flyers fans falling all over themselves to defend it come Winter Classic time?"

For those who don't know, Randy Jones was probably one of the mildest tempered Flyers on the entire team last year. While he did perform an illegal hit on a Bruins forward, it was hardly of the vicious variety. If you had read the Two-Line Pass, you would probably think him something along the lines of a Marty McSorley or a Tie Domi. So at the very least, you could critize this blog for being grossly misinformed, and at the worst, the author being an enormous a**hole for perputrating the bias against Philadelphia fans. But then again, he's just being another "national" writer, and we do seem to collect them these days, don't we?

Eagles Players Come to Town

Take a look at the sweet picture I snapped, when Philadelphia Eagles linebackers Chris Gocong and Omar Gaither came to the local PNC Bank for a photo opportunity. They were very nice and friendly in person and chatted with me for a few minutes regarding the Eagles.

Nancy Pelosi: Living In America

You may remember Eric Cantor (R-VA) scoffing at Nancy Pelosi's fear of violence in regards to the current political climate. He felt she was "living in a different world". Apparently that world is America, as a U.S. Census Bureau worker was attacked and killed in rural Kentucky. Normally this wouldn't have any relation to the happenings of Washington, except for the minor detail of "Fed" being written on the man's body.

We haven't heard a peep out of Cantor regarding this, nor any of the Republican establishment for that matter. When people carry out signs portraying Obama as Hitler, brand Democrats as Socialist and openly muse as to if the Census will lead to WWII Japanese-style internment, how can they be baffled when the fringe of their party takes it to heart.

Having tea parties is one thing, but people need to understand when they are going too far. The President isn't evil, he is not a reincarnation of Satan, he is not the anti-Christ and he will not eat your first-born. It is ok to disagree with him on the issues but to brand him as if he were a creature out of Grimm's fairy tales is not only misguided, but as the events regarding the census worker have proven, very risky.

Dan Aykroyd & I: Best Friends

Dan Aykroyd happened to be in the Maryland area the other day, promoting his new line of wine and Crystal Skull vodka. I apologize for the picture quality, but that comes with a low quality cell-phone camera I guess. Like some famous people, I would describe him as being quirky but not elitist or overly smug. He is most animated when talking about things of a metaphysical or paranormal nature. From what I heard, his brother is a practicing medium/psychic.

A Lack of Understanding?

I've gone on record saying I do not like religious extremists or people who attempt to force feed you their religious principles whether you like it or not. Jay Riemersma, a bench-warming former Pittsburgh Steeler, thinks he has seen the light and decided to make a run for congress. His claim to fame is a little editorial gem entitled "How could Christians vote for Obama?"

He feels any Christian who voted for Obama did so from a "lack of understanding". Translated, this means: unless you agree with me and vote the way I like then you are not a true Christian. His brillance continues with: "Moving forward to the next election, I implore all Christians to base their vote not on a political party or a polished politician, but rather on Biblical principle."

I strongly dislike people like that. Nobody has mandated that Jay stay in this country if he dislikes it so much. Perhaps he had too many knocks to the head from his playing days. Sometimes the bench jumps up and bites you I guess.