When Mad Men Rule

Kim Jong Un was on the news last night examining his armaments.  I commented to Hub that I wondered if he was really dumb enough to do something stupid. His response was you never know.  That's about the least comforting answer that could be given.

North Korea loves to rattle it's sabres.  Those who tell us they are in the know also tell us he wouldn't.  He just likes to jerk our chain.  Personally, I don't much trust people in the know these days.  They more often are not.

North Korea has warned us.  They have cut off the last link of communications with the south because war could break out at any moment.  We have of course condemned this latest development but that means nothing.  All our adversaries are sure we will do nothing should it actually happen. They've seen nothing to make them think otherwise as we sit back bickering about Gay marriage while regions around the world are imploding.

It's one reason why we need to keep our nukes. They just might serve as a deterrent but it's hard to tell. Four powerful nations, other than us, are know to have nukes.  Two are allies, two are iffy.  China, France, Russia and the U.K. They are the least likely to use them.  While we may not like their leaders, they are not mad men.

Then there is India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.  None are a sure bet to use discretion.  Pakistan is becoming more belligerent by the minute and they both fear and hate India. The feeling is mutual.  Israel has it's own problems but if pushed and feeling abandoned, I don't doubt they'd do what they feel is necessary. North Korea is of course the one doing the threatening and the most wild of cards.

Then there are those with ambitions.  Syria and Iran.  Iran is getting close and they will supply Syria if there is a Syria left to supply.  These two, along with North Korea who would deal with either or both are the nut cases.  Three of them.  Yet you only need one.

Whether or not Syria has actually used chemical weapons against it's own people is still being investigated.  Merely moving them was to be a game changer for the U.S.  That has happened yet what?  Nothing unless distancing ourselves even further is the game.

I have no doubt Iran will succeed.  That too will be a game changer like let's make a deal to keep them from using them on us.

North Korea is the one I most fear.  They seem so inept.  Think of the propaganda videos they've put out.  They are just as bad as the one the IRS put out as a training film parodying Star Trek.  It was awful.  Then there is the one with Hillary denying our involvement in the video that supposedly, since proven wrong, caused the attack in Benghazi.  It too was awful.

It's the ineptness though, paired with madness that worries me.  If we take comfort in the idea of them being bellicose yet impotent and someone slips on a banana peel and hits the wrong button everything goes bang. At that point it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not.

If the other countries are like us and over react to everything like we have with the sequester or Sandy Hook nukes will start falling like rain and countries like dominoes in the rush for dominance. Not that there would be anything left to dominate.

Funny, he seemed like such an innocuous little guy.  Who thought he'd actually do anything?  Well, he did warn us.

SCOTUS And The Human Condition

If justice was truly blind would we even be having the conversation about gay marriage? Actually I think she may just be cross eyed. We're trying to make her decide if legalities should apply to the usual outcome for falling in love, and at the same time cater to those who have been taught that same sex attraction is somehow evil. It would make anyone cross eyed trying to figure it out.

I have no doubt those against gay marriage believe what they preach.  Take the Catholic Church. I don't see them ever changing their stance.  It's what they believe and that it's the way for their followers.  If you follow without agreeing you're a hypocrite.

Now I see  a whole slew of politicians have suddenly become pro gay marriage in the past few days.  I haven't seen how long it has taken them to 'evolve' though at least a couple of them are now admitting they have relatives who are gay. I'm wondering how many of them actually find it to be fine and dandy or are they too hypocrites?  I have my opinion.  Political expediency always raises it's unseemly head.

The issue in and of itself doesn't bother me.  I ascribe to two beliefs.  One, I believe people are born gay, that it's not a learned condition.  And two, people fall in love.  No amount of legislation can prevent that from happening.  Unlike lesser beings, we don't just mate for the sake of continuing the species.  It's so much more complex than that.

This is why I don't think social issues and politics mix.  Politics as it is today wants a one size fits all fix for everything.  That's why Obamacare is becoming such a mess.  One size doesn't fit all.  Neither does it when it comes to love nor should it when it comes to marriage. Everything has variables.

It's easy for me to understand why two people want to marry.  Some time after the initial attraction and insane emotions of courtship a bond is formed.  That's when the relationship slips into a comfort zone, a time when you want to be with that person, you can't imagine your life if he/she were no longer a part of it.  That's when you know it's really love. Then you marry.  Why?  It's an act of faith for both the relationship and one another.  Maybe you want to have children, maybe you don't.  You do want to be with that person.  It's not a package deal.

How can you say that sex is a part of that equation? It's pure emotion that embeds itself in your being. The feeling is really beyond definition.  If you've been there you know it. You can't help it nor should you have to try.

I've said before I don't see any sane way for this to shake out if the decision isn't a universal one from a legal point of view.  People have the right to marry and to the benefits that come with it.  Also the responsibilities.  That's part of being a civilized society.

If religions don't want to accept the premise of same sex marriage it is their right.  Those who choose that path will find other religious organizations who will satisfy their spiritual needs and make them welcome.

The law is something else again. Yea or nay, make it universal in the eyes of the law on a national level, not piece meal state by state.

You see it's not just words we're dealing with here.  It's human lives.  People.  Like you and me.  We  we agree, we disagree and we love. Why should some of us be allowed to honor that love by marrying and others not?

Republican Disconnect

I've long felt many of the problems ultra conservative Republicans have is their tendancy to stick their noses in social issues which have no place on the political stage.  Take the current run up to the acceptance of gay marriage.  Ever since the Democrats have sarted saying 'no problem'  Republicans have been rushing to find their 'moral' footing.  Just today there was a headline suggesting John Kasich, Republican governor of Ohio, is conflicting over where he stands. I hope he doesn't give himself a case of whiplash.

The trend is definitely moving in the direction of acceptance. I really don't care one way or the other but I do think if it's going to be then it should be universal.  After all, how would straight couples feel if their marriages were legal in one state but not another?  Ah, but these things are not for me to decide.

That being said, there is another group of people who have genetics different from the majority who are still facing the discrimination which nearly defies description.  Just as they themselves do.  These are the transgenders.  I can think of nothing more difficult to adjust to as a child growing into adult hood then feeling the body I live in is not who I am.

In searching for statistics I've found that transgenders account for .3% of the U.S. population.  I'm wondering if they all live in Arizona or if their legislators have just had too much sun.  Of course it's a Republican to boot that's making this an issue.

His bill would require transgenders to use public rest rooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and such of the sex recorded on their birth certificates.  I wonder how many don't.  I would expect that if the person retains the physical appearance of  one or the other they'd use the appropriate facility to keep from drawing attention to themselves.  If they've had sex reassignment surgery I would guess the same is true.  They'd use the appropriate facility for their sex.

Granted I'm not s student of such things, but I just can't imagine this is such a huge issue that it requires legislation!  I've been going to ladies rooms for a good many years now and the only people of the male gender I've seen have been young boys with their mothers.  But then I don't know that I'd know.

What makes it even worse for the transgender in Arizona, the penalty for using the wrong facility would be six months in jail!  That begs to question which jail since they aren't co-ed?  Would you really send  a 'woman' to a mens jail?  I'd not like to face the prospects of what might happen there!

Then there is the practicality of the whole thing.  How would it be enforced?  Will there be monitors outside rest rooms to check birth certificates?  Does that mean everyone will have to carry one? In these times of sequestration, who will pay for them?  The states?  The Feds? Or will members of the Westboro Baptist Church volunteer?  Does any one ever think these things through before going public with them?

We visit Arizon quite often.  Next time we go I'm going to be keenly observant.  I probably won't be able to identify the transgender, but the politician?  Grim of face, tight lipped, self rightous in air and wearing a good tan.

Political Abrogation - Commissions

When  politicians want to avoid the responsibility of their jobs it seems they form a commission.  They then study the subject at hand and turn the results of their findings back to the politicians.  Most often those findings are ignored.  But it gets the politician off the hook for either a bad decision or an unpopular one.

Now when I see a commission being proposed a red flag goes up.  What's one of the hot button issues of the day?  Social Security solvency. It's a hot button issue because the politicians use it as a scare tactic then wonder why they can't come to a consensus on what to do. So form a commission to study it.

The suggestion that it stay as is for those 55 and older but revised for those younger seems eminently fair to me.  Especially since one of the options for the under 55 set would be to stay in the system as is.  What more can you ask for?  What more can a politician ask for?

Anything but something sensible it would seem.  Something so innocuous that no one could be blamed for anything.  Or given credit for - especially solving the problem.

That's why Dick Durbin, D-IL, wants to form a commission to study it.  The hyperbole sounds good.  They would have 180 days to come up with a plan.  When it gets to the point 14 members of the commission agree it would go to both chambers for a vote.

Here's where it all falls apart.  Mr. Durbin wants an 18 member bipartisan commission.  Tough way to start - with an even number.  With only 14 needed to move it to the floor there would be no need for a tie breaker.  Of course there wouldn't. If they can get to fourteen. The devil is in the details.  He wants six appointed by the Senate which is held by the Democrats.  Six from the House which is Republican.  And six from the President.  Now you have a stacked deck guaranteeing nothing will get done and Social Security will continue it's downward spiral. And no one gets blamed. Bipartisan? Maybe not so much.

Why don't you politicians all go back to square one and look at the most sensible solution out there?  If you can improve on it among yourselves, do so.  It's what you're being paid to do.  But don't shuffle it off to the obscurity of a commission!

If you can't handle the pressure of making a decision it's time for you to go.  As a friend reminded me a couple of days ago, 2016 is coming.  I'm not so sure about my Social Security check.
   

Military Eye Candy

I've got to hand it to the Israelis.  They've surely come up with a way to make the mandatory military service seem bearable even though shells and rockets from less than friendly neighbors are a constant companion!

They've chosen Bar Refaeli, a former Sports Illustrated swim suit model to be the face of a military public relations campaign. Strange.  It's not the vision of women in the military I usually harbor! It's akin to using Tom Brady's wife, Gisele Bundchen, as a recruiting tool for our military.  She's nothing like the grim faced Uncle Sam with his finger in your face telling you it's you he wants.

Not everyone is pleased, however.  It seems the lady married a friend for a brief period to side step her own military service and she is  considered a bad example for the potential enlistees at whom the campaign is aimed.  Like there's something better to do with your life maybe?

I'm wondering if they might be looking at the wrong thing about which to complain.  Most of their enemies are Islamists and you all know how they feel about women.  Especially women unveiled. Will this inflame their already hostile attitudes or stop them dead in their tracks?

This may just be the most useful thing in the world to bring war to a screeching halt.  The army with the super model leading the charge, not in military uniform, but in her modeling 'uniform' might be just enough to bring the savage gun bearing beasts to their senses.  This is what they're fighting for, not some dusty, forsaken chunk of land in the middle of no where.

This should satisfy all who think women won't be able to carry their weight in combat.  They won't have to.  The beasties will be fighting each other for the privilege of  (ahem) bringing up the rear.  It could reduce itself to nothing more a grand bar brawl while the ladies sip their Chablis on the sidelines.

My conclusions on this are still out.  It could be absolutely brilliant, incredibly stupid or sexist.  The only thing missing is race and I'm sure that too can be accommodated. Go for it ladies.