There Is No Such Thing As Race

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday June 21, 2017 · 11:28 AM PDT

2017/06/21 · 11:28

There is, of course, a widespread social agreement for the use of a concept of race. It is frequently used as a means to racial prejudice (as in prejudgement, not necessarily hostile) — often used in a “weaponized” way to convey bias or animosity, but also used relatively (or so perceived as such) innocuously to observe differences. But ultimately: any foray into racism of any kind has no scientific leg to stand on.

Ostensibly, the people who believe they are against “racism” are venturing to make the scientific fact of this the social understanding as well. You know, when people will be judged on the content of their character and not (prejudged) on the color of their skin.

But then there is this WORD. An extremely unique word. It’s not like “fuck,” or “cunt,” or even “fag,” (although that last one comes closest) because there are myriad situations where they can be used without significant outcry, for example, explaining why a moron got his ass kicked at a gay bar one might recount to the listener that it was because, “he was running around acting all agro and calling everybody a ‘fag.’” But this WORD that we’re talking about would not be said, even if an allegoric scenario were to be described at a “black” bar.

Well I mean, not used by “white” people who have any sense of the decorum they are told to have. I guess if they’re “black” they can say it.

So who is “black?” Is this a “one drop” rule? How many drops? Does the “white” girl with proven ancestry to slaves get to say it? Will she need to carry her papers? Can an African-American whose ancestors came here not as slaves but much later — can he say it? What if his ancestors were “beneficiaries” of the West African slave trade? Yes, no… maybe? As long as he doesn’t tell anybody about his family history?

It appears we’re going to have to get very fucking racist if we’re going to know how this WORD is to be properly allocated.

No "white" people, you do not get to.... (whatever)

I don’t see a lot of “content of character” in that assertion. Or this:

I don’t trust white people until I get to know them...what have white people done as a sociological entity to and for black people that would ever inculcate a feeling of “trust?’

That is some seriously racist shit. I mean, that’s not even just the innocuous racist, that’s full-on racial bias.

I, personally, don’t say the WORD (not 100% true as I’ve had to have conversations with my “mixed” “race” family about the word, but I’ve never had any compulsion to use it as Bill Maher did, nor in any way similar).

I am also very “white” according to the standards of this “racism.”

And these things might seem so easy to comprehend when Ice Cube is sitting next to Bill Maher in the most quintessential of diptychs, but — spoiler alert — my family is not all “white.” On top of that, I live in a part of the world where racism and racial-bias-ism is even more socially acceptable than in the US.

As far as I can ascertain the only people who ought to be able to use the WORD with an exclusive right clause ought to be Filipinos. And take that a degree further and just say Filipinas, because at least the men are “only” chattel while the woman, also chattel, are the only type of “house chattel” and in this world — right now — that is not in any way a benefit. It is the stuff of all the horror stories you have ever heard. Physical abuse. Rape. It’s happening right NOW. Filipinos and Filipinas live the bulk of their lives away from their families. They are subject to incredible racial-bias-ism.

I’m curious: can my son say the WORD? Should I submit his photo? And my daughter, much, much darker — like her aunt and grandfather — can she say the WORD that she has heard directed towards her?

I’m trying to get the rules clear here. I can’t get my mind around it because until recently I was under the impression that the non-racists in the world were trying to move toward a world that is aware of the scientific reality that there is no such thing as race.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now I’m fairly certain this kind of talk is flirting with BOJO, but I’ve been reading so much tripe here in the past weeks and back through the primary that I truly don’t care. It’s so much outrage obsession; righteous indignation addiction that it hasn’t been useful in any capacity to be able to come here.

I have been annoyed perpetually by user “inclusiveheart” and I can’t figure out if her ban may be justified by her calling out of DOV’s remarks about her grandmother — but despite all that, I’m pretty confident that it’s obviously absurd that her poorly articulated objection to “chitown kev” in his blatantly racist diary is a sign of some fucked up shit going on.

I think y’all live in too routine a bubble of “black” and “white” as it regards America only.

Racism has many faces. It’s not “black” and “white.” We are all racist. The tipping point is when it becomes your logic for bias.

I have to raise a family that is not “white,” though I am “white.” In our world, when the “black” girl (as you would describe her) in my family describes “Diego” as “the blue one” we… don’t exactly know what to say… but we accept that she’s talking about clothes, not skin, and try to absorb it in its context.

Of course, that gets into some sexist shit since “Dora” is pink… but what the fuck! One battle at a time, eh?

Racism is delusion. It’s the delusion that makes “racists” or, more accurately, “racial-biasists.”

To argue that we need more racism in defense of ending racism is fundamentally fallacious.

I love my family and all their “blackness.” I try to raise my kids in that idyllic (scientific) fantasy world, and as every day goes by that fantasy gets closer to crumbling. But every day that they absorb a raceless world as true… it becomes one more arrow in their quivers.

Resorting to racism is foolish and short-sighted.

What is everyone afraid of? Some racially biased moran says something stupid? then says, “well Bill Maher said it, so I can say it too!”

Fuck that. Bill Maher is an idiot who thinks you shouldn’t turn your lights on when it’s raining because, somewhere up there, above all that cloud cover, there is still a sun, even though it’s dark as night. Now that’s stupid.

If some moran says the WORD in a “weaponized” way then deal with that. Going on racist rants about “white” people is not the answer.

This Is The Fight: Merkley Clarifies The Position

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday April 02, 2017 · 8:47 AM PDT

2017/04/02 · 08:47

YouTube Video

This vid of this Senator has gotten far too little attention. Instead it’s Heitkamp and Manchin tucking tail, if any discussion at all.

With all the nonsense being promoted and discussed it’s nice to see an arrow fly straight and true.

Even with the garble presented by Joe Scarborough, Merkley was unfazed.

“But, but… this is ‘Scalia’s seat’...”

No. It’s not.

“But, but… Claire McCaskill and ‘keep the powder dry...’”

That makes no sense. If they’ll nuke now, they’ll nuke then.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right...”

There’s no need to accept that the first wrong is fait accompli. Garland is still alive and able to be “heard” in a hearing and voted on in a vote.

There’s only one way out of this clusterfuck which will have no positive outcome if Republicans force the country to choke it down like an abused child his brussel sprouts: The institution — on its last threads as it is — will be made laughable (which, in my opinion, is the best argument against Gorsuch: that he would accept the nomination to a tainted appointment… he’s a “constitutionalist” don’t you know! except on this one, crucial issue of who may make appointments and when...), will lead to lawlessness (I, personally, don’t plan on following any 5-4 decisions that Gorsuch would have a judgement on) and the end of the institutional backstop that the SCOTUS has been, and the dam that breaks that takes America into banana republic status.

Politicize the SCOTUS in this way and that’s the ballgame. Nobody wins.

Jonathan Turley is Not a Reliable Authority on the Constitution

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday February 10, 2017 · 7:00 AM PST

2017/02/10 · 07:00

"Constitutional Scholar" Jonathan Turley, finds new life as Trump defender

Jonathan Turley is not your ally. He poses as a liberal, as a Democrat, but he never fails to attack liberals. Now he’s got a new gig: defending Trump.

I’m not a big fan of the concept of a “constitutional scholar” in the first place. A Shakespearean scholar, now that’s impressive. But the Constitution is not long and is not cryptic. I have read it several times since I was but a lad. Hell, it’s on my phone right now and occupies me during bowel movements at times (TMI? Yeah, I know).

Laurence Tribe is another one. Imbued with prestige as a “constitutional scholar.” You might agree with him that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be president, but that doesn’t make him right. What would make him right would be the text itself, which is ambiguous enough that he can make a case, but that’s his opinion only, granted to any American who bothers to learn about our constitution. The thing that would definitively make him “right” would be precedent (or “president” as it’s spelled now) and there is no definitive legal precedent on the subject. He’s been on TV plying the “what can you do, he’s (Trump) the president,” argument as well.

Ultimately, what I’m trying to say is: reject the notion that these ideas about the interpretation of our Constitution are, somehow, like so many arcane and esoteric things in our culture, the exclusive bailiwick of “experts.” Last I heard this was supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. So if someone comes on TV as an expert in British mercantile law well, I guess, in that case, I’d defer — skeptically — to their expertise. But this concept, that too many wrap themselves in, that their opinion is definitive because they’re a lawyer who’s studied the Constitution is fundamentally offensive as a citizen.

Not to say that people who’ve studied the intricacies of specific decisions shouldn’t be afforded their due deference, but when it comes to the Constitution the cynicism meter ought to be on 10, and you ought to be grabbing your copy of the document (don’t be grabbing other things… unless they’re yours and that’s your thing… who’m I kidding, that’s everybody’s thing) or googling it (don’t google your “thing” though… unless that’s your thing… I’m a true liberal: I don’t care).

But Turley. He was on the scene in the early Obama years being absurdly harsh on the new President in his hysterical falsetto. He even got John Cusack to cite him (in the usual way: “Jonathan Turley is a ‘constitutional scholar’ and he agrees with me so there!”) as he was in a “disenchantment” tizzy over the then President. Somehow, he fell out of the scene to a major degree, but he found plenty to do backstage like, help Republicans fight Obamacare, which, ironically, was because of his so-called fear of executive authority overreach.

Now, Turley is enjoying his role as Trump defender on Morning Joe (his new buddy) as well as other places, essentially arguing that the EO on these countries is the prerogative of the president and his broad and overwhelming power. He’s disparaging the 9th circuit, gleefully. I kinda would’ve thunk that those 3 judges might qualify as “constitutional scholars,” but I guess the tummy rub from Scarborough is more valuable than integrity.

He picks and chooses what has relevance under the guise of “constitutional scholarly-ness.” If the not-in-the-executive-order “Muslim ban” talk, in his opinion, can’t be included in the legal argument, then he declares it so. If the not-in-the-executive-order claim that “Obama chose these countries,” sustains his argument in his opinion, then he declares it so. It’s that simple. All to be the contrarian liberal who gets to be Joe Scarborough’s best friend.

“Constitutional scholar” is a spurious term. Obama is, ostensibly, a “constitutional scholar,” but somehow his interpretations were not “constitutional scholarly” enough for Turley. So is Obama a charlatan?

Of course not. The Constitution does not belong to Tribe or Turley: It belongs to us.

I certainly won’t let them determine my opinion when they’re on TV preaching their babble.

I Don't Like Bernie Sanders...

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 08, 2017 · 6:18 PM PST

2017/01/08 · 18:18

What is the point of Bernie Sanders anymore?

He fired up Susan Sarandon and her ilk, to the tune of 80,000 votes, and delivered the Presidency to one Donald J. Trump.

Now he won’t shut up, despite his obvious effect on the current situation.

He is not the new leader of some “progressive” coup. Things have not changed that much. The Left is still a coalition (or is supposed to be) of everything from young, “progressives” to liberal old ladies with modest assets to fret about. Bernie might excite a small percentage of that coalition, but he is obviously hostile to a significant part of it as well. If this were not evident then there would have been very different results in the primary (and leave your “ DNC, ‘rigged’ bullshit on your uvula, cause that is some A-grade dumbassedness).

I’m of the opinion that Bernie Sanders is someone who should be ashamed of himself right now. Instead, he’s out and about, presuming to claim the mantle of the Left.

He doesn’t speak for me.

Bernie Sanders does not speak for me. He didn’t when he tried to primary Obama in ‘12 and he didn’t when he failed to answer the only relevant political question of “how?” as he masturbated through the ‘16 campaign with easy promises and no address to what would be required to accomplish any of it, except vague references to “revolution.”

Well where, in the fuck, is that revolution?

Somewhere in Susan Sarandon’s parlor, one presumes. Amidst all the glib talk of the “progressive,” rich and annoyed.

Well fuck Sanders and fuck Sarandon. They need to take responsibility for what they created.

It’s hard not to notice that everyone who wants to blame Hillary Clinton for losing sounds like someone who’s been paying attention for about 5 minutes.

Well fuck all you johnny-come-latelys. Study ‘94 and ‘10. Y’all dropped the ball. Now you bitch like noisy cunts. Fuck off and fuck you and your “progressive” -ness. I bet you a lifetime that I’m more progressive than you or Bernie Sanders, but I’m not stupid enough to think that being so is the end of the story.

If you can’t see that Bernie Sanders is getting a whiff of his own fart from all the accolades he gets from you, while being a mere fraction of the Left coalition, then you’re irredeemable.

There are the deplorables… then there are the irredeemables.

Losing the Plot on the Bernie/Pope Story

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday April 09, 2016 · 8:41 AM PDT

2016/04/09 · 08:41

night-light-bridge-st-peters-basilica-vatican-city-wallpapers.jpg

Come on! Let’s get real here, okay?

If the very popular Pope Francis had invited Bernie Sanders to a meeting in the middle of this primary it would be epic. It would have ramifications that would upend all the math.

That’s how I perceived it as I watched it live on Morning Joe.

I want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee of the Democratic party. I’m also, officially, Catholic, as are my relatives. I heard the words and immediately stopped what I was doing:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I don’t know if this is new. Have you heard that he’s going to the Vatican? Has anyone—

BERNIE SANDERS: You have the story, Mika. Tell the world.

BRZEZINSKI: Tell me. You’re going to be going to the Vatican to talk about how to create a moral economy that works for all people rather than the top one percent. How did this come about?

SANDERS: It was an invitation from the Vatican.

SANDERS: I was very moved by the invitation, which just was made public today. I am a big, big fan of the Pope. Obviously there are areas where we disagree on women’s rights or gay rights. But he has played an unbelievable role. An unbelievable role of injecting a moral consequence into the economy. And here’s what he is saying. There are people who think that Bernie Sanders is radical. Read what the Pope is writing. What he is saying is not only that we have to pay attention to what he calls the “dispossessed.” And again, we don’t talk about it enough. These are the children who have no jobs all over the world. Youth unemployment is off the charts. The elderly people who are watching this program now who are trying to get by with $11,000 a year. We don’t talk about that. But you know what else he’s even doing—he’s talking about the idolatry of money. The worship of money. The greed that’s out there.

So let’s stop the “Bernie didn’t say he was invited by the Pope” defense.

First off, what was Mika encouraged to “tell the world?” Be honest. It wasn’t to tell them that he was invited by some so-and-so to be an attendee at some so-and-so symposium. It was to say that “The Vatican” (wink wink, the Pope) had invited Sanders to meet with him. In the highlighted text it is clear that he was conflating “the invitation” as coming from the Pope.

Later, Mike Barnicle lamented that after his “40 years of attending Catholic mass” he didn’t get an “invitation from the Pope,” and Bernie smugly chuckled in pride and they all moved on.

Finally, he was on The View, and it is unequivocal that he is asserting that this huge thing has happened.

So yeah. If this is indeed the story then I am amazed. Hats off to Sanders. I’m still voting for Hillary in New York, but I’m feeling a lot more concerned about what the results will be. Things just got real.

But that’s not what happened, at all.

Bernie Sanders is not being embraced by Pope Francis. In fact, Pope Francis won’t even be in the Vatican when Sanders is there to attend a symposium.

What Sanders has done is frankly, despicable.

I can’t even believe it isn’t more of a story.

This guy, who wants to be POTUS, and runs on this premise of having the moral high-ground, casually conflates attendance at a symposium as an endorsement by the Pope.

The fucking Pope!

This guy is so much worse than I originally thought he was.

If no one's going to say it then I will

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 27, 2016 · 9:54 AM PDT

2016/03/27 · 09:54

Bernie Sanders is a dead man walking.

If you want to hang on to this idea that he’s somehow turning a corner well that’s great.

But the candidate, who’s running to be the Democratic nominee cannot continue to be so obviously ignorant.

His new stratagem is, ostensibly, to compel super-delegates from states he’s won to support him in equal measure to the wide margins he’s won in those states.

Fine. Let’s do that.

So then all the super-delegates from Clinton’s blowouts should then do the same, nay?

And then all the states that were won 51-49, 55-45, 60-40 etc, ought to be allocated equally proportionally then, yes?

So then you have a contest in which the super-delegates have no influence. They would only add to the sum of each total, having no effect on the ratio.

So again, fine, let’s do that. I never liked super-delegates anyway.

That’s where the real calculation is unearthed:

Sanders is not asking for equal allocation of super-delegates, he’s asking for super-delegates in states he lost to subvert the results of the states they represent to make him the nominee, against the popular will.

Now I can understand if you think the results today are a harbinger of a turn in momentum that will catapult Sanders into the lead…

But don’t pretend that is what Sanders is saying.

He knows what I know: that he’ll be crushed in New York, if not Wisconsin. He’ll then face, a week later, 5 large contingencies of Democrats in closed primaries and will likely lose dramatically.

If you’re counting on that to somehow not happen then you’re not who I’m talking to. To you I’d say: I disagree, but good luck, nonetheless.

I’m speaking to those that know this is true, and I’m asking them: why is Sanders the better candidate when he will obviously lie to his supporters? Why is he the better candidate when he will pretend that a request for the super-delegates to support him extraordinarily is not a request to subvert the democratic reality?

Let’s face some facts.

Alaska: 440-99

Hawaii: 23,530-10,125

Washington: 19,159-7,140

Idaho: 18,640-5,065

Utah: 61,133-15,666

That’s people.

So in a population of 14,000,000, 161,000 were heard.

But, for example, in Arizona, near 400,000 Democrats cast votes.

One state. Not even a particularly big state, just a primary state instead of a caucus. A state that didn’t even let everyone vote, whether it be for Clinton, Sanders or Trump.

Those 400,000 — in that one state — chose Clinton by a wide margin.

And as much as Sanders obfuscates, he knows this too.

He’s agitating to subvert the popular will. He’s proposing that: because he won a few caucuses, the bulk of the super-delegates should support him, despite the inevitable loss he faces, democratically.

How can someone who bases his campaign on the idea of fairness, on the idea of a revolution that makes democracy real, retain any credibility when he obviously perceives his only path to the nomination only by undermining the process of democracy?

Bernie's in a Vermont State of Mind

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday March 19, 2016 · 8:51 AM PDT

2016/03/19 · 08:51

Bernie Sanders inspired me to revisit an old art project.

Originally the stars were New York (because that’s my home state).

I must point out that, to understand the point of my original artwork (the NY stars), that I traveled a lot back then. I guess I still do, since I’m currently overseas, and haven’t felt I’m home in decades, but as it relates to the art, those Subaru jaunts in my teens and early 20s are the most poignant.

It’s hard to convey how extensively I traveled our huge nation.

I thought of Colorado as a day away (28 hours non-stop).

I’ve driven from coast to coast 10 times.

I drove to Alaska and back. Alaska! I cruised down Kenai’s main drag watching whales swim in the bay below the mountain backdrop on the one side, while trying to find the Pizza Hut among the “civilization” on the other side.

I rode my mountain bike 1200 miles from Steamboat Springs CO, following the Colorado river, with a detour to ride the Slickrock Trail, all the way to Old Mexico.

I want to tell of all the things I saw, all the people I met, all the micro-cultures I discovered, but I could never, in a million pages, convey what it taught me.

But understand that, having been to 36 states — by car — I have and have had a particular perspective on this thing called America.

So, there I was in an art class. I’m not an artist, it was an accident that I was there. It was caused by a misinformed advisor who said, “if you’re enrolled in the VPA (visual and performing arts) college then you have to take ‘Design 101’.” I was there for music and I challenged her but, I was young. Maybe “Design” was some abstract thing about the Arts in general. Whatever.

So I’m in this art class and the assignment was Repetition, essentially.

Well, since coming home after years of travel, the prevailing feeling I had been mulling over, chewing on, was the culture shock I experienced in coming home.

Culture shock in my own home!

As you all might be aware, New Yorkers are not afraid to voice their opinions. I have no problem with that, of course. It’s a beautiful micro-culture!

But I’d just been to so many places that did not have the same perspective: it was hard not to notice how myopic many of these overtly expressed opinions were.

It struck me like lightning that this is the essence of our dysfunction, as a nation.

We all see it from where we are. We talk in dictums about how “Independent voters will do this!” “my candidate will unite people around x!”

I guess, at this point, it’s fairly obvious how I came to make the above piece of art with New York State as the stars. People always perceive the other 49 states as being roughly some version of their own state. The reality could not be further from the truth.

Now, to address the redux.

Bernie Sanders has been baffling in how he has shown very little awareness of what I was taught by my travels. I don’t think one needs to travel to learn it, but it is a trait that must be acquired. A deep study of Presidential and Congressional electorates will bring you to the same revelation.

Sanders, ensconced in his Blue seat in the congress, provided to him by the comfortably liberal residents of Vermont (not one of the states I’ve been to, though I’ve seen it, across the way from Lake Champlain), talks and campaigns in very primary colors. He never approaches even a feint at the complexity of this country.

He lives in a an insular world, from Burlington to D.C., always wondering why he hasn’t won in a landslide already, giving not a second of contemplation as to the meaning in the facts of the primary results.

He, literally with his hand, waves off brutal losses in the “Deep South” as if they’re merely a nuisance.

He tries to redefine the Midwest, claiming he has “strength” there, because he won a surprise in Michigan, just after he lost in the states of Illinois and Ohio. As far as I’ve ever understood it Illinois and Ohio are in the Midwest.

He keeps postponing and postponing when he will face the American electorate as it is and show that he can win.

His 4.5 state strategy (home state Vermont, Michigan, a few caucuses here and there and… California!!!!) is getting tiring.

And... I can’t put this in a nice way... Bernie Sanders has no chance in New York. I know that because I know the people of my home, but if you don’t care to accept that, there’s also this poll from yesterday showing him down 71-23%. Remember, it’s a closed primary.

I don’t know any calculation of “progressive” that ignores New York.

On thursday, Rachel Maddow interviewed Sanders. He admitted to something quite offensive.

He sees the numbers and he knows he can’t win the nomination of the Union, as it is. He suggested that he’s not above using Superdelegates to overturn a Pledged Delegate lead by Clinton.

One of his arguments for such an act of hypocrisy was based on his supposed advantage in polls against the potential Republican nominee, which any honest person would laugh at, since it’s quite plain that Sanders has not begun to be vetted on a national scale.

When, or if, he is vetted, it would be a form of ruthlessness that would be mesmerizing and shocking, yet quite predictable (see: Hillary Clinton).

But also, he confessed his pitch to Superdelegates for betraying their own inclinations as well as those of the Pledged Delegates in their respective states: that he may not have won the majority, but he won in the “progressive states.” So if the Democratic party is to proceed toward their goal, they must disenfranchise those who did not vote the way they should have.

Bernie Sanders is in a Blue Bubble, and he’s encouraging his supporters to believe the whispers that they hear inside that same bubble; that it is not a slog; that it’s just the matter of “feeling the bern,” feeling the “revolution”.

Now he’s openly contemplating how to subvert the electoral results of the Democratic coalition that is not composed exclusively of people in “progressive” states.

It’s bodes badly for the longtime coalition that has been, step by step, with body blows to show for it, trying to arrive at electoral opportunities to achieve progress.

Sanders is swelling the ranks of those who believes there are shortcuts. Thus he is swelling the ranks of those who will find out the hard way that answers like “I’ll say hey Mitch, if you don’t want to lose your job, you better start listening to what we have to say” is just not reasonable governing strategy.

Sanders is running out of time to get out of this without doing long-term damage.

It’s a big, diverse country. Bigger than most people can accept. Gonna have to deal with that in your thinking, sooner or later.

If you’re not careful it’ll turn you into a Republican.

Trump Just Shot His Own Foot

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday February 26, 2016 · 10:18 AM PST

2016/02/26 · 10:18

I love Trump.

Contrary to the delusionary diaries on this site, Trump will NEVER be president of the United States.

He’s been doing a great job of convincing the drones with the power to vote in a Republican primary — who are the 10% of the 10% of the 10% (but who bothered to register to vote) — that he’s the most “klongslervative” cuz, let’s face it, that word doesn’t mean anything anymore…

But en route to an assured victory, a douchebag who needs to be punched in the face (that’s Marco Rubio, if you’re not paying attention) manages to get Trump to overreact in splendorific fashion!!

So…

Trump goes on that epic rant — which he’s still doing, a I write — and commits to securing Governor Bridgegate, ye of 2% polls as his running mate… I mean, good buddy.

This has surpassed my wildest dreams, my most disturbed imagination...

Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen, End of Story

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday January 09, 2016 · 10:06 PM PST

2016/01/09 · 22:06

President Elect (circa 2056) Johnny Lub with father, mother and aunt

I know this is a rather pointless exercise since the gangs on this site have a lot of fury and no humility. Somehow everyone is absolutely right about everything they say!

I am not like that. I confess to being unsure about many things. I’m not sure how I feel about Hillary Clinton as the nominee for the Democratic party. I’m not sure how I feel about Bernie Sanders as the nominee for the Democratic party. I’m not sure what to make of the fact that it’s always the diaries against each candidate that pushes me towards the candidate being attacked. But whatever…

There is something I’m absolutely sure about, even if the repercussions are less than thrilling:

Ted Cruz is a natural born American citizen. There are no “ifs” to it, other than the “ifs” that could be applied to you, assuming you are an American citizen.

If he hasn’t actively pursued and achieved the renouncing of that citizenship then he is, regardless of any other action he may or may not have taken, legally considered to be, by this glorious and embosoming country of ours (at least on this issue) a natural born citizen having no delimiting requirements. Period. He needn’t fill out any form nor even live in the country for a single day yet he is considered by our great nation (and I will be effusive, for on this issue I am quite proud of and impressed by our country) as a natural born citizen. As it should be.

If you might wonder, as I did, how this could be and not lead to a large contingent of people who inherit citizenship who have never even been to America well, there are stipulations: on his children. Ted Cruz’s children (not Ted Cruz) would have to live in the US for 5 years before the age of 14.

But Ted Cruz has no such stipulations. No CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) or any other such thing is necessary. The CRBA is not a birth certificate. It may function like one but the rights and privileges to citizenship are legally considered to apply at birth. The sins of the mother — being on a foreign voter role, not submitting the proper paperwork — are nothing more than breaches of ceremony, not law. He was considered, by the smart and benevolent nation, to be a natural born citizen at birth.

I know a little something about this as I have children who are in the same situation as Ted Cruz on this issue. And I take great offense at those who insist they are to be treated as 2nd class citizens who must prove something that the people demanding it are not being and would not be asked.

We had a thorough discussion at the consulate, many months after my son was born. The hectic nature of becoming parents was the pressing concern of our weeks, not some paperwork issue. The byzantine laws of the country we lived in were motivating me to procrastinate as well. The country we lived in has no birthright citizenship, so I imagined my new best buddy to be a stateless child. I was filled with anxiety. When he was finally old enough for us to take him on the long trip to the capital and the embassy I was bracing myself for a lot of red tape.

What ensued was the opposite. The embassy employees began to prepare and fill out documents on his behalf — practically in lieu of the parents and their shortcomings — in order to establish his credentials — mind you not his citizenship. One official flatly said (in answer to my question about if he will be “American” when the passport arrives), “he was a natural born citizen at birth. You don’t even need to do this now. He could do it himself when he turns 18, but the longer you wait the more difficult it becomes bureaucratically, but not legally.”

This was actually one of the more joyful moments of my life. Learning that no decision on my part could harm or degrade the beautiful gift I could give my child of 100% American citizenship.

I inquired much further and at every turn was informed that there are no “ifs ands or buts” to this established law and tradition. After a long list of patient answers that shot down all my “what if” scenarios the official stated one caveat: “unless he commits an act of treason against the United States.” To which I said (I was giddy at the time), “like vote Republican?”

They just looked at me with no response since they are professionals (god bless’em) doing important things (no joke). But com’on, that was pretty funny, considering the serious business of that place and the seriousness of the real issue of treason.

I cannot convey how unequivocally and uniformly they — the members of our foreign services department — address this as I described it. A child born to an American overseas is a natural born citizen, with all the rights that contains, including being eligible for president. The failures and foibles of the parent are irrelevant. My son is a natural born American despite me (though yes, also because of my small contribution of DNA).

So anyone disparaging my children as 2nd class citizens, all in a quest to sully Ted Cruz is just wrong on the facts.

I also believe you’re wrong politically because I would love to run against Ted Cruz. I can’t figure out if he or Trump would get less of the vote in the general but I know that neither of them could win. I’d prefer Cruz though because when Trump loses they’ll write it off as an anomaly. If Cruz lost there’d be no denying that they got their “conservative” candidate and it would finally expose to the bright light of day that, contrary to the fantasy fevers of these morans, “conservative” by their definition is just not what this country is about. Let him win the nomination, and lose spectacularly in the general. I know my Republican father doesn’t like him at all (nor Trump). He’d be the real bringer of the rift between the business conservative and the “conservative” stupid in the GOP.

But that’s just my opinion and not the point.

The point is, when Obama was running (and actual up to this very day) there were the accusations about his ineligibility. It was infuriating to me (especially as that was the time my son was born), that even defenders of Obama would slide into the world of defending him on the basis of his status as a Hawaiian. I and a few others knew that it did not matter even if he was born in Kenya. He wasn’t, but I had the same resentment for anyone who either argued that this would make him not a citizen as I did for those who would at least imply that he would somehow be a 2nd class citizen if born in Kenya by arguing he was born in Hawaii. I didn’t and don’t care where he was born because my concern ends with the name Ann Dunham.

We are, on this issue, a reasonable and practical country. We have — for hundreds of years — acknowledged the rights of our citizens to give birth to children abroad and, even in the most reactionary times (my own son was born under Bush II), considered those children, matter-of-fact, to be natural born citizens. If you think about it you can imagine why, since travel has not always been as simple as a plane ride (not that an expensive, nerve wracking plane ride is so simple either) and we have always engaged with the world diplomatically and with business and Americans have and do find themselves having children outside the country. It’s not really very hard to understand why it is dealt with this way and the talk that implies that there is some sense to treating it like a game of “pickle” whereby if you don’t successfully get to a safe “base” (or acquire some document that absolves you) then you’re “out” is just silly. Look at my son. What would he be, if that were the nonsensical law and I had not gotten the proper paperwork? He’d be stateless, and fortunately America is not that stupid.

That’s what the expression natural born means. To be a US citizen by virtue of being born. In contrast to naturalized in which a person was not born a citizen and must petition to become one. In their case they are, on a few “small” issues (like eligibility for president), perhaps unfortunately, 2nd class citizens. That’s not my opinion I’m just observing the reduced status, though it may appear to be only on the issue of presidential eligibility. Natural born citizens born outside the US are NOT naturalized. There are only 2 classes of citizens in the US: natural born and naturalized. Children born to US citizens wherever they may be born are the former, no exceptions.

I know many people just don’t know what’s going on with what, if it doesn’t pertain to you personally, can seem confusing. And since Obama got viciously accosted on this issue it seems juicy revenge to play a game of innuendo, casting aspersions on the Americanness of a Republican. But what you do is at least disrespectful to your fellow, natural born citizens, and potentially harmful in disseminating a notion about people like my children that they are somehow not full Americans who must prove their Americanness, against long established law and tradition.

Some people are very righteously throwing around demands for such and such document and that nonsense is just wrong, and illiberal, and feels no different than any other “papers please,” divisive point of view that I thought Democrats would and should reject and despise. That there are diaries on the rec list espousing these things is demoralizing.

People born to Americans outside the US are natural born citizens, a.k.a. Americans with full rights and privileges, at birth. That is the law and the fact on the ground. They don’t need to show you any papers nor answer for the acts of their parents. End of story.

"You Goddamn Well Better Vote for One of the 2 General Election Candidates"*

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday December 21, 2015 · 8:17 AM PST

2015/12/21 · 08:17

I think it’s a good time to at least understand something of the 2 party system that is America’s political system, if not to embrace it (as I have) or to love it (as I can’t, yet, with so many voters not understanding and abusing it).

The mistake so many make when they accuse those who would vote, unflinchingly, for Hillary in a general election is that they are not really “progressive,” they are squishy, “neoliberal (or some such other nonsense),” spineless and unaware of all the deep problems in our country. A vote for a less-than-stellar Democratic nominee is, they accuse, no different than voting for a Republican.

The provable facts say the opposite. Knowing that there is a verifiable difference between a Democrat and a Republican, at any time period in the history of these two parties, is easy to observe. Knowing that, in America, on the day of a General election, and voting for one of those 2 parties demonstrates the intelligence of these people, even if it is one of the few things they are intelligent about, as in the case of the “conservatives” who march to the polls religiously to vote for candidates they don’t like.

Back to the point. Understand the American system.

In Europe people can vote, more or less, for their essential beliefs. They can vote Green (as in environment), they can vote Green (as in legalization), they can vote for Nazis or for cat’s rights. To the extent that other people vote likewise for their particular passions they will have a bloc of influence. Those members can use their influence to form coalitions with other blocs — compromising their ambitions to become part of a majority bloc. It is even possible, if unlikely, for a member of a small bloc to become the leader of the coalition.

This majority coalition then does something extraordinary: they choose the leader of the country. Not the electorate, not the citizens of the country but, essentially their House of Representatives picks the boss. That’s incredible.

We don’t do that here. But, when you vote for Jill Stein for President in a general election you are not getting her a seat in a bloc where she can negotiate a position in a coalition. She, and your votes, are nothing. They don’t exist. You are, effectively, showing up to a barbeque in the middle of a snowstorm.

You might want to complain about that, thinking that it is impossible, then, for someone like Jill Stein to become president. That is true, but not for the reason you would likely accuse.

The system is not rigged. It does have a logic.

In our system the negotiating of minority blocs is done before the election. There are two parties that are essentially the bargained and brokered concerns of many small blocs of interests. Jill Stein, as righteous as she may be (or anyone else for that matter), must convince one of these groups of blocs (or any combination of blocs, so long as it is a majority) that either their interests should be her platform, or that she can best represent all their interests. Either way, the fact remains that it is a Democracy, and for a minority bloc to insist their candidate be the leader despite an ability to gain the support of a majority is not righteous, it is destructively selfish.

Our system, when it works well, when the voters understand it, prevents a person who is distinctly unwanted by a majority from having the power of the presidency. It is specifically that. It might not sound like much but the consequences of the alternatives to such occurrences can, and have been dire. (insert example of Republicans winning — and governing — here).

Also, the 51 who are aligned in not wanting candidate B are given ample time to argue, cajole, negotiate and to have caucuses and primaries to determine who will be the candidate that will represent their “not candidate B” campaign. They can, of course, be even more appealing than that, and have been to varying degrees throughout history, but a fundamental, if uninspiring (though that is enough for me) cornerstone is that “we’ve fought and bickered, we’ve debated and voted, and candidate A is supported by the most people to do many things, but first and foremost: beat candidate B.

To the extent that I support candidates that cannot win the Democratic nomination, I know that supporting the ones that do get the nomination - by assuring the stability of that coalition and proving that it is a strong, reliable force - paves the ground for my as-of-yet unelectable candidate to eventually get that nomination as the coalition grows more confident and sure-footed. In contrast, every time there’s a Gore losing because of a Nader, the coalition becomes more insecure and moves more to the middle (perhaps in some vain attempt to recover a majority by gaining moderates on the Right). Imagine Sanders running in 2004, or anytime in the 80s or early 90s. He wouldn’t have gotten more than 10% (probably closer to 1%).

Now that the Obama years (especially that remarkable, well managed victory in 2012 — mind you 51% to 48%… a razor thin majority — cuz honestly, thanks to Bush, any Democrat was going to win in ‘08) have injected confidence into the coalition of “Democrats,**” people are getting cabin-fever. Some suddenly believe that if you don’t elect Elizabeth Warren and her socialist brother then you are a Republican, or a Republican sympathizer. Chances are, not one of them acknowledges the savvy of Obama (that corporate sellout) that has afforded them the luxury to be so righteously indignant and expectant.

If you don’t appreciate that our system allows you to elect the candidate - the person - you want, to one of the major parties, and therefore to a runoff for the most powerful position in the world (if you have the commitment and patience to make it happen) then you are being careless.

If you don’t understand that you have ample years to accumulate a coalition of 51% to support your candidate, win a major party primary and send your candidate to the general election then you are just being petulant. Your righteous indignation is a tantrum.

If you don’t understand that our 2 party system is the ultimate runoff, supposed to pit the consensus candidate of one would-be 51% coalition against the other, consensus would-be 51% candidate, then you are just lazy and ignorant.

You want Bernie to be the nominee? Then win the primary. Your whining and threats have done nothing to me but push me to a candidate (Clinton) I don’t inherently have a lot of enthusiasm for.

Align with the Democratic coalition and yet decide to “vote your conscience” on Runoff day (the general election)… well then, go fuck yourself, you arrogant, ignorant, ignarrogant, self-absorbed, petulant, lazy-minded, careless fool.

*The title is a quote from the excellent Teaching Assistant (which any large University grad knows is who does most of the in-the-trenches teaching) of one of my Political Science classes. It was not said in hostility but as the conclusive flourish (which got a good laugh for its style and a lot of nodding heads of agreement for its logic) to one of his expositions on the 2 party system.

**Democrat is a strange word. Some Democrats proudly embrace it and some Democrats reject it. All it means to me — and I’ll say I’m a Democrat (though most probably of the latter variety) and I’ll vote, without other info, for the person with the (D) next to their name — is that you are a practical person who understands that 51% is the holy grail. There may be — and is — sharp division over micro issue x or micro issue y, but a Democrat knows that at this imperative line, or on this imperative issue, “you shall not pass.” At its best it stands for highfalutin ideas, and at its worst (but still acceptable) it stands for being the bulwark against the most insidious urges in our country. I am a Democrat. Not proud, but grateful that there are 50% +1 who prove I’m not crazy to believe the bulk of what I do. I am a Democrat.

Liberals attacking Trump is Missing the Real Game that is afoot

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday July 21, 2015 · 9:38 AM PDT

2015/07/21 · 09:38

So Trump is a moron, duh.

At what point did people not catch on to the fact that the GOP is a frankenstein?

The "left" may be fraught with problems, but it is roughly consistent in its ambitions. The range of method and speed by which those goals might be attained is vast and paralyzing, but the earnestness is not in question.

Meanwhile, the Republican party is a fraudulent entity, has been for years. The 20% of very wealthy want such and such "Tax" such and such, but would never have a chance if they were straightforward so, they brew up a jingoistic, racist stew peppered with regulation blah blah, EPA blah blah to rile up the 20% of the dumbest, most paranoid and then cross_their_hearts_hope_to_die on the bible to get another 5-11% to create a "coalition" that has no common thread actually, but manages to put a hand-picked operator of that original 20% in the Whitehouse from time to time (and to the honest greater good's detriment).

So into this political reality strolls a goddamned gift to the Left. A guy who buys the hype (as many do) that the GOP is a legitimate party, vaguely representing the desires of its constituents and not the manhandled illusion that it truly is.

He believes that by riling the 20% dumb that he is starting a revolution, rather than engaging in a rather predictable dance.

Meanwhile, the handpicked stooges of the sponsors don't know what to do with this monkeywrench juggernaut - they can't "explain" his supremacy atop the polls since, remember, the potatoes in their party's supper is essentially stupid.

So they're at in impasse.

Then, when the predictable happens and the Trump, drunk on the false superiority of polls skewed to express the wishes of the dumbest among us (A GOP primary poll, which does not include the rich who are too affluent to deal with such banality) thinks he's the next Christ or Reagan, says something obviously ridiculous...

Well that's the money shot. That's what I, as a liberal, have been waiting for.

Let their perverse tribe sort it out - probably in ugly fashion - amongst themselves! DO NOT COME TO THEIR DEFENSE.

Duh.

But I've seen liberal after liberal, from Jonathan Capehart to Jon Stewart spend their capital defend John McCain.

Just play dumb. Leave them to sort it out. This would make Trump stronger if it was only infighting. A Rubio or Graham who defends the McCain would face a buzzsaw of tantrum from the unreasonable, illogical coterie called the Republican base.

But if the Left asserts its existence, reminding folk - even dumb folk - that there is a whole country out there, then they get skittish and start following marching orders from the top again.

Your expressed revulsion to Trump only serves to help the rich 20% to get their Jeb - or whomever - elected.

Shut up and let the bull blow the walls off that bogus china shop.

Wasn't it a glaring clue that the more outrageous comments went underided?

If this goes how pop-culture, Washington insider clodhoppers want it to go then the next step is stories about how "liberal" Trump actually is, while the Dumb 20% absolve themselves of having ever liked him.

If this goes how a true liberal would want it to go then all the liberals will shut up and let this be a destructive infight.

get it?

The Real Crime Here is that I Have to Defend Brady

jack23

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday January 24, 2015 · 3:26 AM PST

2015/01/24 · 03:26

Warning: I'm just having some fun tackling a serious issue, on a work-free Saturday after a looong time of not being healthy enough to enjoy wasting time. So feel free to read and comment, but don't think I'm more vested than in the simple pleasure of writing some stream-of-conscience nonsense (stream-of-nonsense) that means nothing.

Note: Don't bother reading if you aren't fairly familiar with the NFL over the past 15-20 years (25, if you want to get all the references). I try to clarify my bonafides as an unabashed and rightful Brady-hater but I do not fill in all the details but would be understood by those familiar with division rivalries and the fate of each season and, at least peripherally, the arc of each franchise. In other words, if you watch football you'll know what I'm talking about. If not it's Greek.

I am from Buffalo. I am a football fan - an unrequited Buffalo Bills fan.

I. Really. Don't want to talk about that.

But as such, I also have a particular vitriol for the Pats, especially "mr. perfect," Brady. And there is salt-in-wound accompaniment to that.

I moved to California in 2000. On the way out I stopped at a brother's place in Colorado and after the 29 hour drive there was a delirious reunion, a deep sleep and, as luck would have it - a playoff game wherein the Bills had the lead with seven seconds left and we were very happy cracking celebratory beers at an ungodly (or perhaps ultra-godly) hour of the day (I don't understand how people regularly enjoy football in the West).

Something happened in those seven seconds, I'm not sure what. I've been advised by my therapist to "leave it in the box" or whatever... but ultimately, that was the last time anyone from buffalo had the illusion that there could be happiness in this world.

So I found myself living in Oakland, of all places, and employed in a job that put me in the society of truly excellent people, despite the fact that they were Raider fans. I had no particular dislike of the Raiders, as long as they knew enough to have a losing season when That Most Holy Year the Bills finally won the Bowl That Is Super.

Well, as it turned out, that was the beginning of what would be - and still is - the era of unfiltered hopelessness for Buffalo. Don't get me wrong, even this year - 15 fucking years on - I still had the pathetic stupidity to get up at 3 AM (I'm overseas), and screw up my biological clock (I mean WTF? do I drink coffee or bourbon? I guess both...) to put on my Flutie jersey and stream me some Kyle Orton cuz yeah, he's gonna take us to the...

"leave it in the box, Leave it in the box..."

So...

Oh yeah, OAKLAND!

So I'm in Oakland, I've got no hope for the Bills and the Raider-philes I work with are not only truly excellent people but they have a pretty good football team. Now I'm not gonna ever be but a Bills fan, but by 2002 or whenever it was, and certainly by playoff time, it wasn't beneath me to accept invites to playoff parties and to catch a little contact high from these happy, Black-jersied, truly excellent people.

So there I was a recovering Bills fan, certainly not over my addiction, but learning to cope. Things aren't so bad, I dared to think. I mean, here I was, soaking in the sun at an outdoor viewing, surrounded by truly excellent people who were showing me how it's done, how it's truly done. How to be a winner. Confident, casual... win.

And in perfect fashion, the Raiders were doing just that to my nemesis Patriots, and their goofy, second string quarterback with the ridiculous name - I mean really? Tom Brady? All he needs is a supermodel girlfriend and he's a goddamn character in a really bad movie. Of course he'd have to win a superbowl or two first, and that wasn't going to happen cuz there was ice and snow and of course those Raiders.............

"Leave it in the box."

So, what I remember is that goof fumbled and I stand by that. It was the ruling on the field and it was the right call and it's not possible that anything unseemly happened to those truly (previously) excellent people... I don't want to talk about it anymore.

Needless to repeat - but I will - Tom Brady is a person whose misery I relish. I woke up in the middle of the night (again, I'm overseas) to watch the Ravens cuz I knew they would prove that Brady and the Pats were frauds. Two fourteen point leads ought to have done that, but...

And that one doesn't go in the box cuz there's too many Bills miseries in there. Fuck the Ravens.

And the Colts never had a chance so fuck them to.

And Seattle seems like a faux team too, so it was very annoying to see the team (Packers) that can beat the Pats, royally screw up.

So I turn off the game knowing I have to root for (yuck) the Seahawks because, as should be clear, a super bowl can only go to A)Buffalo, or B)anybody else besides those totally overrated clowns from Foxboro, especially because this win (excluding this Ballghazi stuff) would be the defining moment cementing the Brady and the Belicheck as a Dynasty, which would just make me sick and in need of a bigger box. And conversely, if they lost it would take the shine off those ancient super bowl wins and put them in an entirely different category regarding the past 10-12 years as a team that is a perennial power, division winner, conference winner, but just can't get it done in the big game (not unlike another team that used to rule the AFC but loses respect because they just couldn't win in the big one... but their name eludes me... they were in the AFC East... great, no-huddle offense... 4 losses in 4 years.........)

"Leave it in the..."

FUCK!

Excuse me, where was I...

Oh yeah. The lame Seahawks. I mean, I would root for Miami or even the Jets against the Pats. If you know football you know what that means. I would even root for the Giants, Washington or even (god I can't believe I'm gonna say it) the Cowboys Twice, (again, if you know football you know what I'm talking about) if it was in service of beating and belittling these particular Patriots. And here I get none of these seeming conflicts of interest to have to stomach with the Seahawks and yet, I'm uninspired. I don't know what it is exactly about them that irks me. It's nothing footbally in terms of grudges or rivalries, but they are just... I don't know... I mean what's with the colors of those uniforms? What is that, seafoam green? There's no seafoam in football! WTF?! There's dirt, and mud... black, brown.. Browns - now there's a respectable color and name. And that name, Seahawks. How graceful. Sounds like they'll win the choreographed calisthenics cup or something. Definitely a cup and not a bowl. Bowls are for Bills, and if not Bills then Bears or Bengals... Lions and Chiefs. Seahawks? I'm not optimistic. And that "victory" over the Packers (another bowl winning moniker - is there any more bowl winninger? oh yeah, Bills) did not inspire. And Pete Carroll is such an I-don't-pass-because-I-want-to-pass-I-pass-because-I-don't-know-how-to-run, USC paper tiger charlatan that New England knew well enough to get rid of him after watching him get eaten alive by real football teams, particularly AFC east teams, and it would be apparent that he's a college coach were it not for Marshawn Lynch who, as we all know, is a beast who was smartly drafted in the 1st round by another team but was let go because he had frequent ankle problems early on. Don't know what team would be stupid enough to let him go...

Keep. it. in. the. BOX! Gack!

Anyway, so it has to be Seattle. So I put my mojo beads and my lucky charms into the ring of hoodoo but I did so with little confidence, yet unequivocally cuz, fuck Tom Brady, Fuck Bill Belicheck and fuck the Pats.

Then it happened. "The Patriots cheated!" "Brady Cheated!"

I fucking knew it. They're fucking overrated cheats, they always have been, since the day they needed a clear fumble to be overturned to feebly squeak into the Super Bowl. Fuck'em and good. Make history and yank'em. Postpone the SuperBowl and let the Ravens play the Colts for the slot. Asterisk Brady, Belichek and their fucking Dynasty. Life is good.

Then I learned more.

Are you fucking kidding me? A pound of air pressure?

It looked like a football to me. And we got plenty of opportunity to see it as it was flying through the air 500 times as the patriots scored 25 touchdowns.

What's the great pertinence of 12.5 lbs? Is it some Masonic thing? Is it religious, what?

And it helped how? By making it a tad easier to grip? Since when did needing to be a chore to throw a ball become part of the game? I like to watch football, you know, a game where guys run, kick, pass a football in cool-ass ways in order to score points. Why the fuck does some guy with smaller hands have to be left out of the fun, perhaps glory even, because he succeeds better at his role with a bit more squeezability (of course, I'm blocking out that Brady is one of the people whom this may include).

And as far as I understand it, the ball loses distance in this case - a self-harming detriment - and "floats" a little longer - thus more vulnerable to Interception - so I don't get it?? When did it become obvious cheating to say, "You must have difficulty gripping and throwing and catching. This is an entertaining and essential part of football." Fuck that. Let'em do what they will to execute that beauty that is football. If Aaron Rodgers "likes his balls overinflated" then let him have his balls overinflated (ahhh, it never gets old). Hell, if someone wants to try and win with a basketball or a lemon let'em have at it. That'll last a couple minutes. Then everyone'll get real and remember that a regulation football - give or take a few pounds of pressure - is the ultimate object for the run, kick, pass tasks that are what we know as football.

And also, it's not like baseball, where an altered ball made easier for one team is detrimental to the other, like a pitcher's preference hurting a batter. These balls are there for the defense to intercept more easily as well. And as far as the Colts balls go then same deal. Let'em have their balls as preferred.

Now I know that's not the rule as it stands so technically that's cheating. But I can't get behind the idea that it is of great magnitude. I want the game to be football, not I-hope-your-hands-are-big-enough-to-grab-it ball.

Last thing: I want the patriots to lose because, even though they're good they are not dynasty good, and luck and circumstance have played a larger role in their wins than any other multiple title winner and I want that to be shown by an epic loss. If a minor adjustment to a ball - one that isn't nefarious and doesn't hamper the defenders of that ball at all (in fact gives them an advantage as well) - is the grounds upon which an unbelievable amount of shaming has been given, then I have to put in my 2 cents in defense of Brady, and I fucking resent that. Remember, it was still a football for god's sake. It's not like it had a guidance system or magnets.

I'm done.

Poll

29 votes Show Results

Will the bills win a SuperBowl in Jack's lifetime?

29 votes Vote Now!

Will the bills win a SuperBowl in Jack's lifetime?

Next year, buddy!

0 votes

Need some rebuilding, but soon.

1 vote

I don't know about that Rex Ryan hire...

10 votes

"Introducing the Toronto Bills!!"

4 votes

"My balls are perfect"

3 votes

Heh heh, heh... heh HA HA HAHH...

11 votes

Newer
Older

RSS