Every year we hear the same old story - "I'm going to create some New Year's Resolutions and I'm going to stick with them." The second part is where people get it wrong. Haven't they learned anything from politicians? It's perfectly fine to create a set of promises - whether they be to others or to ourselves, but its an absolute no-no to plan on keeping them. What's wrong with you people, anyway? Why buck the system? Why set yourselves up for disappointment and disaster?
Here are some of the resolutions that often abound, with a side of commentary, of course:
Resolution: I'm going to lose weight.
Reality: Liar! You've just spent the last three weeks eating like you've just entered the Dittsville Pie Eating contest and oh - now - now you plan on dropping the weight? I bet you have a refrigerator full of ice cream, cheese-cake, pies, cheeses, cookies, and tons of other stuff that doesn't exactly make Body for Life's top 10 foods for a healthy lifestyle. Oh, and don't forget to throw in an unattainable goal while you're at it, like planning to lose 30 pounds by June! Live in a house with others? Oh, good luck with that - I bet they all look forward to a diet of salad and tofu? Hmmm. Yeah right!
Resolution: I'm going to find a new job.
Reality: I like this one myself. But, easier said than done. Hell, losing weight is easier to achieve than making this one come true in an Obama-economy, and for those in Connecticut - an Obama-Malloy-economy, hell it will be a two-for! The problem with this one is that you have to be willing to enter the fray of new style resume writing (whatever "fashion" HR types are looking for this year), schedule management, answering stupid questions, and the desire for humiliation and rejection based on the slight of gamesmanship from the moronic-HR team. After all, they need to pretend to look busy and strategic too, you know. No HR job is safe unless they have a million appointments on the calendar, thousands of unreturned phone calls, and a line out the door longer than any ride at Disney. Am I saying, keep your crappy job - no, I guess not. Just don't go into the job finding effort half-hearted or you'll be worse off from wasting time going in no direction with lots of aggravation in return, feeling 10x more miserable than before.
Resolution: I'm going to take up _____.
Reality: This could be anything from golf, to playing a musical instrument, to learning to cook like Betty Crocker. As someone who could have a world class tag sale based on bits and pieces of nearly every hobby imaginable, you might want to invest in a hobby that is - nearly free, so that when you quit, you won't feel more depressed than necessary, and you can cheekily say you gave it the old college try. And you won't have even more clutter than necessary laying around reminding you of the day when you tried Polo, or Scuba Diving.
Resolution: I'm going to get outside more.
Reality: This isn't such a bad idea, but the problem is that New Year's Resolutions are made in January when its minus 16 degrees outside, and after about five minutes of breathing like Jack Frost you realize that your lungs have crystallized and that man was made for better things like sitting inside the warm house watching reruns of Sanford and Son or the Food Network. With any luck, you'll resort to this resolution in June, when the sun is warm and you can't slip and kill yourself on the ice.
Resolution: I'm going to be a better person.
Reality: This only worked for Ebenezer Scrooge. And remember his case was special; if a dark robed scary skeleton-looking guy brought you into a graveyard at 3 am and threatened you with death by pointing to a gravestone with your name on it in ALL CAPS - I bet you'd promise to make big changes too. I think you are born how you are, bad genes, personality and all, and you can make some changes here and there, but a wholesale personality change looks and smells of severe metal illness. The friends you have like you for who you are, or else they wouldn't be your friends. And if you don't have any friends do you want to win over some new ones by pretending you're Elton John or Jerry Seinfeld? C'mon get real.
I guess I could go on. And on. And on.
So here is what I recommend.
Don't make ANY New Year's Resolutions about ANYTHING. If you have an inclination to make a few modifications to your life, some by choice, and others by circumstance, than make them life-long changes and commit to them. If they don't work, abandon them and go with what feels right.
Obviously, there is one place I do deviate from this check and tongue entry - if you have health problems and the doctor tells you to give up the gallon of ice cream you inhale each night, then find a way to get it done. You can start by throwing out all the empty calories in your refrigerator and stop shopping for food filled with salt, sugar, mega-carbs and fat.
Other than that. Like Mr. Roger's said, "I like you just the way you are." If you're good enough for Rogers, than you are good enough for everyone else.
So be it resolved, no more resolutions.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Every year we hear the same old story - "I'm going to create some New Year's Resolutions and I'm going to stick with them." The second part is where people get it wrong. Haven't they learned anything from politicians? It's perfectly fine to create a set of promises - whether they be to others or to ourselves, but its an absolute no-no to plan on keeping them. What's wrong with you people, anyway? Why buck the system? Why set yourselves up for disappointment and disaster?
Friday, December 24, 2010
But we have a long way to go.
There is still a lot of undoing of what Obama and his cronies have passed that needs to be REVERSED and STOPPED. Note that I didn't write amended, or retooled or make reference to anything that remotely mentions keeping his socialistic bills in place in some other form.
The economy is in shambles, and taxes are at an all time high. Things may appear somewhat stable, but the double digit unemployment figures tell the tale of what things are really like. Make no mistake, things could unravel further if Obama gets his way.
The next two years will be harder than this year. The wicked witch Pelosi and that SOB Reid were easy demons to expose by their own words and and deeds. Starting next year, the bullseye will be on us. The so-called President, and his Democrat buddies will spend 90% of their time working with their friends in the media to make Republicans and Tea Party members out to be cruel, heartless, and the party of "no" even if the bills we are trying to reverse - should have never been introduced, let along passed, in the first place.
Remember, if we cave a little or compromise a little - we still lose. Republicans who talk about amending the Healthcare Reform Bill are just a stupid as those who put the whole ridiculous thing in place. The only option that makes sense in a Capitalist Society is repeal. Anyone uttering the word "replace" should be accosted publicly.
If we aren't going to be strong, than we are wasting our time. I suggest we look at root causes to solve issues, and control the dialogue, instead of playing the reaction game and letting the far left dictate our every move. The one thing we lack is coordination within the Party. I'm hoping we find a voice in the crowd (other than that ridiculous Sarah Palin) or we are going to be doomed.
In liberal Connecticut, we really have problems. We lack a principled Republican party, we have no organization, and a lot of angry people, divided and worn. Chris Healy has got to go. I don't care where. But he must go NOW! If we settle on an establishment, big money tycoon who lacks charisma and leadership skills, then we continue to be on the verge or losing Party status in Connecticut. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment! The last election was evidence of pure INCOMPETENCE of the Connecticut Republican Party. Oh sure, we sort of tried - well effort is admirable, and success is valuable.
So, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans - all of you - take a few days to rest up! Have a Great Christmas with your families and friends! The King will be back in full force next year! Hope to see many of you on the battleground!
Lastly, a quick note of thanks to those serving in our Armed Forces and sacrificing so much for the rest of us. For you guys - we just can't pay you back enough for all you do!
Again, Merry Christmas from the King! May God Bless you!
Sunday, December 5, 2010
|Dodd: disgraced like his father|
Chris Dodd would still be running (and likely re-elected even if he ran against Linda McMahon) and we'd be looking at six more years of Dodd's continued advancement of a socialist state which given his votes is Dodd's true legacy. Never once did Dodd either recognize or stand up to the corruption of his party or of Washington because he has been a steady recipient of its self-serving policies. Dodd was a liberal loyalist who was in the pocket of big labor unions his entire life, as they rewarded him with steadfast support, he never once wavered in filling their pockets with benefits and rewards. Dodd and labor is a sweetheart story that never subsided. He spent 30 years of public service dedicated to taxing Americans and expanding Government involvement in our lives. Much as a leader of his party, exposing hypocracy at every turn.
A revelaing article on Chris Dodd's corrupt activities can be found here. It's interesting reading backed full of citations and factual references which even Dodd and his cronies won't deny. Dodd's guilt is so clear that even the biased Connecticut press or his party collegues could not find a way to keep him in office for six more years. The evidence of his crimes was too damning, and too obvious. Just like his father, Thomas Dodd, he leaves the U.S. Senate under a dark cloud, and instead of taking accountability, is heard murmuring against the very system of bribe and con that he helped to forge.
The biggest irony came last week in his admonishment of the Congress during his farewell speech on the Senate floor where he claimed that Government at the Federal Level had become ineffective, and partisanship has paralyzed Government. Yet not once did he make the point that the Obama Presidency has been clearly the MOST partisan in the history of our nation. Like a loyal Democrat, he wouldn't dare criticize his own party, or his own President. Here was the disgraced Senator from Connecticut lecturing his peers on morals and effective Government. What an joke by one of the Senate's longest serving hyprocrites. I can't image what his colleageus were thinking of this incredible shrinking character and his stammering indignation.
But we all know, Chris Dodd will leave the Senate to the spoils of his victories at the expense of taxpayers. Retiring with millions in campaign donations, homes all over the world, and endless connections through favors and patronage. What a life. A life of corruption and shame - a tale that history won't hide.
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out, Mr. Dodd. So glad you are gone! I pray that history records you as just another corrupt Senator feeding at the troth, corrupt and indignant to the end.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
|Social Networking Addiction|
If you're on the internet these days, you're most likely involved in some form of social networking whether its Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Foursquare or the dozen other sites used for connecting with people. For months I've wanted to write about this all consuming portal which has invaded our lifestyles, and charged our habits to probably the same extent that microwave ovens altered meal preparation.
And before I get on my high horse, I should fully admit that I'm no different than the the punk kids with their baseball caps on sideways that you see banging away on their cell phones to shoot virtual objects in the sky or pretending to race the Grand Prix, or what-have-you. And for the record, any jab I take at users of social media also applies to me as well. So if I can take the heat, so can you.
First, let's look at Facebook. Back about two years ago, as if out of nowhere - Facebook caught like wildfire. It became almost like a game to see if you could connect with as many people as you knew (or didn't know - and I'll get to that later). And at first, the majority of users never realized the implications of bringing together work associates, high school buddies, and even neighbors together in the same place. It's sort of like a terrible seating arrangement at a wedding.
Not that it would surprise anyone, but my original Facebook friends were like-minded college- based political friends who stayed in touch with each other well beyond our college years. So after some time I began to receive requests from high school friends, and junior high school friends, and others - and that's when things began to get weird. First it was sort of fun to find out what people had become after 15-20 years of elapsed time. And I have to admit - it was interesting to find out who ended up married, divorced, or never got married at all. After a while, the novelty became sort of old - and it occurs to you why you never kept in touch with some people, and why you did keep in touch with others.
Fast forward to the present. After a few years of using Facebook, I've come to some hard and fast rules about its use.
1. Much like email, tone and inflection can be misinterpreted
2. People can be fickle. Roll with it.
3. Don't put work friends on your page, ever. People at work have no need to know your business.
4. You can learn a lot about people from their writing. Including how smart or how stupid they are.
5. Facebook is best used among friends and associates whom you've actually met. (I think I have a handful few contacts whom I haven't met in person on my list).
6. Adding family to Facebook is a bad idea - almost worse than putting work associates on Facebook.
7. It's your wall, and your page. You don't have to appease anyone, so if people unfriend you because they don't like what you write or think - don't worry about it.
8. Don't expect your real-life friends to support your politics or positions on Facebook because some aren't as courageous as you.
9. Weed out your friend list once in a while. Social Networking means actually socially interacting and networking. Lurkers not wanted.
10. If you go on vacation, you don't need to tell your Facebook friends. Remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships"? Well, they also share gossip about friends not being home. And there have been a few cases where bragging led to break ins. Be smart.
And that's that!
Twitter is a twilight zone of sorts. And I like it a lot for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, for information gurus - like myself - its a wealth of information at your fingertips. Enter any topic preceded by a hash sign and your likely to get the most up-to-date, unfiltered stories or updates in seconds! Further, ask any question with the right hash sign and you're more than apt to get several answers back on your query from product questions, to what stain to use on decks.
Twitter allows you to participate in group conversations in an inconspicuous manner. Unlike Facebook where your name and face appears on group pages along with your comments, you can be one-hundred percent anonymous. I think this is particularly important since there are no privacy settings on Twitter, and anyone can follow you or look at your feed to determine what and when you send things.
There is nothing dishonest about being anonymous. But there is something moronic about giving everyone your real name, sharing your every move, and taking the risk by assuming that some jerk might not use your tweets as a weapon against you in some unexpected form. There are a lot of weirdos out there waiting for their chance to prey upon some victim so try to mitigate the risks by not being too revealing of your own personal information. The whole world can read your tweets, and some people can query where you are, by running location queries on cell towers. After a while, anyone who puts their mind to it can figure out your usual tracks through hints and details over a period of time. Humans are creatures of habit, and sometimes it can lead to their demise.
All in all, my experience with Twitter has been enjoyable. It's fun to watch sports games, debates and shows with Twitter on hand. You make "twitter friends" pretty quickly, and find you have a lot in common with people down the line on a variety of topics. And it can become pretty entertaining if not challenging to be clever within the limited 140 characters.
During the Chesire Home Invasion Trial, I met some great people who shared the same mindset about what should happen to the evil creep Steven Hayes and his cowardly associate. It can be refreshing to come across like-minded people through group connections like this. A bunch of us formed a congenial relationship and continue to chat now and then about less serious stuff. That's a benefit of Twitter.
I think you also have to have a tough shell to play on Twitter. People follow and unfollow you without warning. It's a good lesson in recognizing that these relationships are temporary and you can't take it personal if someone drops you because they don't like your point of view, or even if they do, they may find you too verbose, one dimensional, or simply boring.
Twitter is a tool that allows you to see the best and worst in people. There isn't much of a filter, and people don't need to hold back because there isn't much risk in typing what you think behind a phony persona. Twitter is less visual than Facebook, so I know some people simply hate it for that reason. Many of these people are that types that need to see everything, and leave little to the imagination - like a little kid that hates books without pictures. Oh well, to each their own.
Driving and Social Networking
Yep, this topic has everyone buzzing. With the advent of the new mobile phone products, you can not only talk while driving, but you can also type or message on social networking sites. Social networking is damn addicting! Checking in with your tweeps, and sending out useless information as if its the most important thing in the world to do at THAT VERY MOMENT is part of the habit and addiction. Some think it has to do with rewiring of the brain so that you need to multitask at a constant rate, and tweeting, listening to music, talking or what have you satisfies the urge to do so much at once.
The problem with the driving and texting or surfing or whatever is that we now have a ton of distracted drivers doing everything except driving and focusing on the road. Admittedly, I'm not much different than some of the teenage punks, although I've become better over the last few months. Of course, it only takes a second, and better isn't part of the equation if I smash my car into a thousand pieces and end up like roadkill.
So that's my take on social networking. What can I say.... tweet, tweet, tweet.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Has the world gone mad?
This is a question that I continue to ask myself as I watch the endless horror on the morning newscast. The news is so bad that its impossible to watch it without getting physically sick.
Case in point. Last week, a woman was taking her morning jog in West Hartford in plain sight on a fairly busy street, and suddenly she was attacked, dragged into the bushes, and brutally assaulted and raped.
Case in point. Court documents reveal that a 10-year old girl, Zahra Baker, was murdered and dismembered, her body parts scattered in various places near Charlotte, North Carolina.
Case in point. A 30 year old military soldier takes a 13 year old girl to an Old Saybrook, Connecticut hotel, and rapes her. This week he's brought back to Connecticut by authorities in irons, and both lives are permanently damaged forever.
Case in point. Two 29 year old twins shot each other at point blank range at a Colorado shooting range in what may have been a double-suicide attempt.
Case in point. Today a toddler, Thomas Chrisholm, went missing and was found drowned in the Pequonnock River near the Beardsley Zoo.
These are not stories about far away Islamic terrorists planning their next attack, or Obama taking control of drinking water and food. Nor are they stories about oil leaks, airport scanning devices, or stupid kids print "F-U on Burger King receipts. No, these are stories about the poor quality of humanity. These stories speak to the deepest, darkest elements of our own society.
There are those who see the world through rose-colored glasses, and the reason they do so is that its plainly their way of coping with reality - to disregard it. Then there are those who choose to take the passive-aggressive route and argue with people for pointing out the ills of society - "oh, you're just a Debbie downer." or "you are always so negative." Well, I've got news for you - rape, murder, torture, child abandonment, and all the other stories are hardly trivial. It's evidence that mankind is approaching a boiling point, and the types of people around us do not value life or expect to take accountability for their crimes.
The stories about are not scattered over a month or two. No, these stories are simply a few days worth of what's clearly the ongoing decline of our society. We spend plenty of time worrying (and correctly so) about madmen half a world a way trying to kill us by any means possible. But what about the villainy in our own midst? What we do to ourselves as a society is almost as bad as the terrorists themselves.
I suppose there is no point to this essay since I have no solution, or remedy. There is no quick fix, and the problems seem to mount and grow each day. It's almost as if we've become numb to what we see and hear. Movies about bogeyman are no longer a interesting substitute for the evening news - stories far more real and graphic then could be dreamed up by Steven King.
This chapter being written by humanity is a pathetic one.
Has the World gone mad? Yes. And our local world has too.
The best you can do is watch and protect your children, be alert, and simply be prepared to trust no one. I just have to wonder what kind of world our children and children's children will live in. Don't you?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
|Dr. William Petit: Class Act|
Once in a while the world surprises you. Monday was one of those days.
Like many of my colleagues, I watched the news reports and read the tweets from the Steven Hayes penalty phase over the past several weeks. I read and dissected each statement, if not each word tweeted from Room 6A. At times my blood boiled visualizing the acts of arrogance and terror committed by Hayes and his counterpart Komisarjevsky. And I was outraged by the ridiculous marathon testimony by the defense's hired gun, professional testifier Dr. Eric Goldsmith.
Based on the testimony provided, I was convinced that Steven Hayes made a conscious and independent decision to do what he did - commit heinous acts of rape, torture, and murder. That being the clear case, without hesitation I believed that Hayes absolutely deserved the death penalty.
But would this jury actually have the courage hand down a verdict of Death?
Honestly, I had my doubts. Everyone knows that Connecticut is a notoriously liberal State full of so-called intellectual thinkers who are often so philosophical that they lose sight of the plot. It probably also didn't help that just days before deliberations began, Connecticut residents elected a new anti-death penalty Democrat to the Governorship who's made public commitments to sign a bill to do away with capital punishment.
Then came the knocks at the door. And the chicken-scratch notes, including one which appeared to illustrate a hung jury, followed by the question - what are the next steps? My heart sank. And not just for me, but for Dr. William Petit and his family.
Then on Monday afternoon, we got word that the jury had come to a verdict. I stared at my computer monitor - banging the refresh key over and over and over again - praying, hoping, and waiting. And then... one by one, on all six counts, Hayes was given Death. I felt both joy and relief. And in strange way - happiness for the Petit-Hawke family.
Typical disappointment from the Courant
It didn't take long for the Hartford Courant editorial board to take its usual left wing position on the Hayes verdict. In their November 9th editorial "Death penalty serves no purpose", they attempted - rather poorly - to rationalize their anti-death penalty position.
First, they start from the interesting premise that "it is wrong to take a life except in self-defense." A curious position to take since this trial is about three innocent women who's lives were certainly not taken by an act of self-defense, but out of lust for murder, and in attempt to dispose of the witnesses to their crimes.
Second, this whole argument about whether it is right for the State (or Government) to take a life is faulty from the start. All Governments make policy decisions which both directly and indirectly result in the act of taking lives, this is most evident with acts of war. Only a fool with both eyes closed wouldn't recognize that utilizing armed forces and military machines in either a defensive or offensive action results in death by the hundreds - and its all state authorized, if not outright mandated by Congress and President.
Moreover, the Government extends permission to the armed forces to interrogate, try, and execute active military combatants for certain crimes. Just because the executions are carried out by men in a military uniform doesn't remove the accountability of the civilian leaders and legislators who provide the oversight and funding to carry out justice.
The idea that the State has no right to authorize murder is so broad a statement that its impossible to realistically defend. Would the editors at the Courant believe American actions in World War I, and in World War II were unnecessary, illegal, and immoral? Certainly not all actions taken by the Allies were defensive in either of the World Wars. But they may have been necessary to end the conflict, and save American lives.
Third, how ironic is it to see liberals bring up the argument that its too expensive to seek and carry-out the death penalty? This is one of the few scenarios, given progressives usual nature to find a million reasons to spend like thieves, where they champion the desire to "save the taxpayer" money. If the system is too expensive, then perhaps they can find ways to reduce their own fees around the process and procedures that they've created.
Forth, let's remember that it was the State that pushed to seek the death penalty under the provisions established under Connecticut Statutes. And, it was the State that urged and convinced Dr. Petit to agree with the decision to seek the death penalty. A decision not taken lightly. We seem to forget that he death penalty is within the extent of the law. It exists not out of barbarity, or as some deem it - the natural human desire for revenge and bloodlust, but as a long established punishment under the law for vile acts of murder.
In their final analysis the Courant argues "if he is crazy... than he'd be unfairly executed." Well, we already know from the testimony that he was quite aware of his action and in complete control of himself. Even if he did feel betrayed by Jennifer Petit because she told the bank teller that she and her family were being held prisoner and robbed, and he killed her out of rage, that doesn't justify insanity - nor should it save him from lethal injection.
The editors at the Courant don't want to see the rationale for holding Hayes accountable and putting him to death. They can't bring themselves to understand the pain caused to the Petit-Hawke family, and the community at large. It's so much easier for liberals to not have to make the tough decision and just send him away to a life of television, air conditioning, three square meals a day, and recreational activities like taking classes to pass the time - none of which seems like much of a punishment to me. After a while, he'd become accustomed to his living situation and adapt to the reality.
The death penalty is the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes like the one's Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky committed. If the editors at the Courant really want to make sure "he is never heard from again", then rest-assured, after a period of appeal as mandated by Connecticut law, he'll have a period to reflect on his crimes in a lonely cell on death row. And then he'll lose the gift of live that he took from innocents, and squandered himself.
The Courant is right about one thing - killing Hayes won't bring full closure. As Dr. Petit said in his post-penalty phase press conference, "[The idea of closure is was created by imbeciles... there will always be a hole in my heart and in my soul"]. Well said, and all of us will sleep a little better knowing that Steven Hayes is no longer with us, and facing the music - where ever that may be.
In closing, may God Bless the Petit-Hawke family, and all those who have stood by them in support of Jennifer, Haley and Michela. We will never let their memory fade.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
|Foley: enthusiasm deficit|
Here are my thoughts by race....
The Gubernatorial Race
So it wasn't until November 9, 2009 - when it was ridiculously late - that Republicans learned the Rell wasn't going to run for re-election. Republicans had to scramble in a half-hearted effort to try and get their campaigns going in any direction. Had he not been screwed over by the Governor, Lt. Governor Michael Fedele probably could have been better prepared, and inserted in the pre-election process to give him a bit more name recognition and a public presence which would have helped him score a foothold for contention. Instead, Republican candidates, from Jeff Wright to Oz Griebel visited near-empty RTC meetings looking for support just prior to the Republican Convention.
Once the primary season started, we saw what turned out to to be a three way battle for the nomination that featured both Mike Fedele and Tom Foley beating the living hell out of each other on television, and Oz Griebel sliding off into oblivion. Tom Foley painted Lt. Governor Fedele was as part of a long standing problem who has been nothing short of disengaged and in the shadow of Jodi Rell for years (hardly a positive commentary on the Rell administraton as a whole). And Mike Fedele painted Tom Foley as a corrupt, job killer, raising the spectre of Bibb and other issues that would later become the weapons of choice to be used by the Democrats to to beat Tom Foley down into the ground.
I don't know what happened between Tom Foley and Govenor Rell, but it was clear to anyone watching that she wasn't interested in helping Tom Foley campaign, never mind win. Rell's radio commercials (which sounded similar to the ones she appeared in for Linda McMahon) had to be about as unenthusiastic as I've ever heard. One pictured her being dragged to a dungeon to read the script, she sounded so uninterested. And the commercials weren't even aired until about two weeks before election day.
Meanwhile, while Tom struggled to overcome the Bibb accusations, and a series of other attacks, we had a chance to see the Malloy camp in action. Better organized, the Malloy camp mobilized volunteers - from college students to hundreds of Union members to work and campaign on his behalf. Malloy, to his credit, learned a valuable lesson from his first attempt to run, and it was apparent to everyone that he knew how to mobilize forces to deliver the votes (and even the voters).
Very similar to my earlier complaints about Peter Schiff, Foley also didn't spend a great deal of time away from home base. He decided early on to disregard the second district - and campaign in his own neck of the woods. Election results do show that against previous Republican statistics, he could have done remarkably better, had he showed more visibility.
From a personality standpoint (and I don't really mean to belabor this point), Foley came across very reserved, quiet and sort of weak, and many folks I spoke with viewed this as Fairfield County arrogance. Now in contrast, Malloy came across brash, cocky, arrogant, and rude. But given the two styles, and the anger out on the street about jobs, people were willing to give the guy who spouted ideas and suggestions the nod on November 2nd. It's hard to go into such critical debates as reserved and lacking charisma. And the first debate was awful for Foley, as it appeared that he let Malloy beat him to death at the podium, and he just took it, looking like a deer in headlights. We believe that after the first debate, many people had made their mind up. And in the remaining debates, while Foley did much better, he still never delivered a knock out punch that he needed to climb above Malloy and surge ahead. Although Foley did close the gap in the last few weeks of the campaign, his slow start and melancholy approach did him in.
It doesn't matter how qualified you are (and I believe Foley was far better qualified to deal with Connecticut's economic problems than Malloy is), if you can't articulate your ideas and positions in a coherent way that appeals to the audience, than you're done for.
Connecticut will likely regret putting Dan Malloy in the Governor's Mansion. High taxes, business unfriendly, pro-union, pro-spending policies are likely to do even more damage to Connecticut's economy. And what's worse is the the Connecticut Legislature is solidly Democrat. It burns me that Republicans would let this happen. Connecticut, with a Liberal Governor, and Dems in control of both chambers of the Legislature will mirror the exact chemistry that we've seen in Washington for the past two years that has been so disastrous. Tom Foley didn't even make the case that Democrats have controlled the State Legislature since 1972 - do you think that might have helped?
The United States Senate Race
Saturday, October 30, 2010
It's very hard to debate with some people. It's not always the point of winning the argument as much as it is presenting the facts that support your position. When it comes to some topics, abortion, for example - you may never get a person to concede their point of view in light of statistics, facts, or information because the argument (IMHO) is extremely emotional and personal for some.
However, there are plenty of topics where a rational person, using logic and the evidence presented, will examine the facts and see they are are not in dispute, and formulate a reasonable conclusion. Rational thinkers can be swayed if the facts support sound judgement. Irrational thinkers will not move off their positions. It's nearly impossible to argue with someone who is not concerned with facts, and I often find that this occurs with people who tend to be either extreme, or simply hell-bent on being right.
The political season affords Republican thinkers the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with emotional Democrats and frankly, its like mixing oil and water. The video below shows a very typical argument between a conservative and a liberal. You would not believe from my own experience how precise this illustration really is. I particularly like the part where the liberal becomes so frustrated that she resort to insults, name calling, and fiction to support her arguments.
I tell my conservative friends all the time. Do not bother arguing with liberals in a one on one scenario. It is a waste of time and energy except when a neutral party is listening to you debate. The only person you care about convincing that your positions are sound is the only the person who you may have a chance to influence.
I laugh when people say Republicans and Democrats are largely the same. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Unfortunately, when it comes to results; spending federal money on frivolous nonsense, that has been known to be true. The lack of sticking to principle, is what lost Republicans control of the House of Representatives just a few years ago. When you act against your own facts, you lose all ground to defend your arguments.
But issue for issue, pound for pound, Republicans and Democrats are generally on completely opposite sides of the equation. Of course, you can't always get some people to act the way they know they aught to because its easier to do what's expedient than to do what is right. But that's a different topic for another day.
Check out the video below. Have you ever had a similar argument with a liberal?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Democrat John Larson has one of his thugs attack former West Hartford Councilman Republican Joe Visconti
Yesterday CBS News Morning News co-anchored by loyal Democrat activist Harry Smith aired an early morning interview with a MoveOn.org activist Lauren Valle who claimed she was stomped on by a Rand Paul supporter. Without a doubt, this scenario follows the usual pre-election tactic by the Democrats which is to invent scenarios to paint Republican (and now Tea Party) activists as violent bigots suppressing minority vote, blocking voting booths, and doing whatever else they can think of. Without a doubt, MoveOn.org is the socialist front for the Democrat Party which engages in high profile activism (organized protests, voter fraud, and theatrics) to advance the cause of the far left-wing's agenda.
Valle, it's been learned, perpetrated violence at a Rand Paul event by getting in several Paul supporter's faces and yelling. Unfortunately, one Paul volunteer got a little overzelous and fell right into her trap. He's become the perfect scapegoat for the season. I know this happens on both sides, yet we NEVER see the media run stories about how Black Panther operatives bully people at the polls in New York, or how Act-Up and MoveOn.org crowds riot and destroy property to advance their causes. Liberal lunatics are always depicted as victims and Republicans as the aggressors.
One group on the left that is particularly violent and destructive are the organized labor or union thugs. The Unions often pay and transport contractors to rally in front of businesses, poll locations, and attend candidate appearances to make it appear as if their Democrat candidate has more support than he or she really does in front of the camera. Labor unions are well organized, and without a doubt the second strongest special interest group in the mix, only the teacher's union weilds more power. The union thugs have been known to destroy property and intimidate people through pushing and shoving and other violent acts.
Well, on October 26, 2010, a cell phone captured an incident where Democrat John Larson appeared at a scheduled debate with Ann Brinkley. Video below.
As usual, the Union thugs were out in full force, but this time - Republicans and Tea Party actvists were also outside to show support for Ann Brickley. If you look closely, on the left, you can see a person holding the Gadsden Flag. That person is former West Hartford Councilman Joseph Visconti. You will also see one of Larson's thugs dressed in a pink shirt violently push Joe down to the ground. Despite that this video has gone viral on Youtube.com, the national or local media hasn't bothered to air or even investigate the story.
This is evidence of two things, the fact that liberal bias continues to exist when it comes to election coverage, and that supporters of Democrat candidates aren't beyond becoming violent and unruly at events.
One final note, Visconti may have gone down hard, but to his credit he made sure the Gadsden Flag never touched the ground.
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Tea Party movement is the most misunderstood and misrepresented organization on the planet. Most people (myself included) have had a difficult time understanding exactly what and who comprise the Tea Party. The problem being that, organizationally, it's very hard to know who's running the show. The answer - "we all are" really doesn't cut it. Even in 1773, when the Sons of Liberty embarked on their campaign against the tyrannical British Government and their colonial representatives, there was a known group of ring leaders who reponsible for public protests - John Adams and Paul Revere among them. That aspect of the Tea Party is still very much unknown. Moreover, Republicans, with whom the Tea Party seem aligned have also been suspect of the national movement.
The commerical below is somewhat helpful in defining who their members are.
I recognize that commericals like the fabulous one above take capital to air on television. But Connecticut Tea Party organizers can surely find someone in their ranks with enough savvy technical experience to create similiar commericals like the one above. Instead of allowing local media like The Hartford Courant to determine exactly who and what the Tea Party is, Patriots can control their own destiny and show voters what they are all about. They can dispel the notion that they are raviing lunatics with guns. Or Libertarians without conscience. Clips like this show people that they are moms, dads, students, and working people who are fed up with the status quo.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
While most of the country has been focused on the upcoming mid-term elections, many of us here in Connecticut have divided our time between politics and -- the Steven Hayes trial. Since that horrible day in 2007 when two souless creeps broke into the Petit home and committed henious crimes against Dr. Petit, his wife, and children, all of us have attempted to imagine the horror happening to us, and recognizing that it could happen to any of us, at any time. Admittedly, since the news of the tragedy, we've all become a little more cautious about personal security, and far more protective of our loved ones.
It's been three long years since Hayes and Komisarjevsky murdered the Petit women, and yet it seems like yesterday. The media still uses the same mug shot of Hayes when they report on the story. He appears like a clueless, bald-headed freak - and in truth, I'm sick of his face. We all are.
Connecticut doesn't allow television cameras, or electronic recording equipment in its courtrooms, so we are stuck with artist sketches - some very good, and some very cartoonish. But surprisingly, the courtroom does allow ipads, cell phones (on silent), and computers. Which has permitted those watching the proceedings to tweet - sometimes word for word, what witnesses are saying. And of course, we also get observer's color commentary on everything from facial expressions of the jury, to one reporter referring to another as the moocher reporter.
So, over the past month, I've been glued to my Droid, reading all the court activity via Twitter - while on the road, at work, and even at the gym. While we rely on 140 character rapid-fire reports from neutral eyewitnesses (mostly journalists), we in reality - are thinking, feeling, and monitoring the proceedings through the eyes of Dr. William Petit and the Hawke family. Every word, quote, and observation is carefully measured by those of us out in the global, virtual peanut gallery.
Twitter is a marvelous tool. It's so unlike the medium of television, and radio - where you tune in and take what's dished out by the press in a one-way format. Twitter allows us to interact with reporters and observers, real time, as they report proceedings. And sometimes, we outsiders pipe in with color commentary of our own.
While some reporters, like George Colli, sort of get into the whole interactive format of the medium - often asking people what they think and provoking dialogue, I'm sure some reporters dislike the idea of being on a level playing field with a hundred amateur voices. I've been fortunate enough to have sone incredible interaction with not only reporters, many people who feel strongly about the trial (including some close friends of the family). And I do admit, not all the commentary I've seen is in good taste, and some of the retweeting by individuals becomes a little tiresome. Do we really need a nonstop echo?
In some ways a lot of this is probably not healthy. And I mean the obsession of wanting to constantly stay connected, and wanting to read every #Hayes tweet, and feeling the need to join in the conversation, or even vent. Then again, the interaction with paid journalists, lawyers, and Twitter Nation is almost a sort of group therapy.
When witnesses told of the extreme horror and detail of events of that night, we shared in the pain with reporters. And when Steven Hayes was found guilty, we read it on Twitter and jumped for joy in celebration. When we saw the rediculous boastful journal entries by Joshua Komisarjevsky, we became angry, and when we heard Hayes whining about the size of his cell, and wanting to commit suicide, we all wondered-- why stop the sick SOB?
As we continue with the sentencing phase of this trial, its good to know we have a place to interact with Petit-Hawke family supporters. I'm glad I can add my voice to the dozens of people online who hope and pray that justice is served, and Hayes and Komisarjevsky will be no more.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
We often talk about just how much Government interferes in our everyday lives. If not directly, then indirectly through the government's imposition of taxes, imposing fees on any activity they can collect revenue on, and passing legislation, some necessary, but much of it ridiculous, such as telling people they can't buy alcohol on Sundays, or trying to regulate talk radio.
Government agencies are the extended arm of Government officials which act to enforce the whims of the latest "hot issue of the week", or make it difficult to open a business, or even register your car. This reminds me of the well-known quote by President Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."
Well the problem of Government isn't limited to just laws and mandates, it also comes in the form of abuse of power, or extended influence. Richard Blumenthal, for example, has spent most of the last 15 years manipulating businesses, and utility companies, in what he's calls - the public interest. Of course, its not the public interest he's really concerned with as much as the advancement of left-wing causes, or using his office to win lawsuits so the state can collect revenue for their never ending programs. All of this, done to give the public the impression that he's their hero under the false pretense that he's out for the little guy, who Blumenthal just caused to lose his job.
Following in Blumenthal's footsteps is Connecticut Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz. She is embroiled in a new controversy that is receiving national attention. Yesterday, Bysiewicz said that polling workers (likely Democrats) would have the right to deny voters the right to cast ballots if they entered the polling place wearing World Wrestling Entertainment merchandise. While she didn't have the courage (or legal backing) to mandate an actual ban, she simply gave her henchmen at the polls the right to make life difficult for Linda McMahon's supporters.
This is obviously an abuse of power by Bysiewicz who is trying to influence the vote. It's also an example of how lucky we are that the State Supreme Court decided that she wasn't qualified to be Connecticut's Attorney General. Can you imagine the level judicial activism by a Bysiewicz AG?
I'm also trying to remember if anyone was turned away from voting for John Kerry if they were wearing a Heinz Ketchup logo, I mean after all the Heinz fortune just about bankrolled his candidacy.
You also have to wonder how far you could go with mandating merchandise bans at the Polls? Will unions be denied access for wearing Local 890 T-shirts? Will people wearing NRA hats be turned away? Maybe we could turn away people who wear a happy face logo - after all I'm sure they are suspect of some mischievous act promulgated by a Republican in such a stoic State.
You have to really wonder how poll workers, many who know nothing about Professional Wrestling, are going to recognize what WWE merchandise looks like. With all due respect to Linda McMahon, exactly how many poll workers, who are usually older ladies mostly in their 60s know who John Cena or Stone Cold Steve Austin is? Maybe the Democrat Party is holding special training sessions to teach Democrat poll workers how to recognize "Austin 3:16" or the angry face of "The Rock".
It's funny that we haven't heard from the ACLU on this issue. They are quick to chase high school graduations away from church buildings, but they've mysteriously been silent thus far on this obvious free speech issue. We also haven't heard from our current Attorney General, who I'm sure wasn't all to pleased to see his own party give Linda McMahon an issue to beat him and the Democrat party over the head with. If Dick is smart, he'll make a statement that he doesn't care what clothes people wear to the polls.
For my purposes, I hope everyone who owns WWE clothing merchandise, whether they are a Linda McMahon supporter or not, goes to the polls dressed in their best wrestling garb. Let's show Secretary of State Bysieiwicz and the Democrat Party that we are tired of Connecticut's government officials endless abuse of office.
Maybe Linda McMahon is right after all, it is "time for something different."
Video to the story carried by WTNH - New Haven can be found here for a limited time:
Thursday, October 21, 2010
This is the third televised debate between Tom Foley and Dan Malloy. This one is being held at Fairfield University. From the looks of things, the union slobs got in very early because you can see them sitting right behind the moderators all wearing their bright yellow union shirts. Well, that what unions get paid to do - work for Democrats and make a lot of noise. Republicans are too busy working. I'm watching this as a replay on but I know full well it was live at 3pm - which is when normal people are working.
Anyways, we have Face the State's Dennis House - he is usually pretty fair when he conducts interviews on his show. Most the questions he asks are softball questions which is why everyone running for office can't wait to go on his show. And then we have John Dankosky from National Public Radio (NPR). Well you know if they are from NPR, they probably reek of liberalism. I expect John to put pressure on Foley all night, and ask Malloy what is favorite color is. Honestly, speaking - anyone who works for NPR has a personal self interest in seeing Malloy win because it helps to preserve NPR funding and thus keep them employed.
I re-edited this and opted where it isn't obvious to put my comments in [brackets] so as not to accidently attribute my opinions to either candidate.
Here we go. First question to Dan Malloy.
Dankowsky jokes, "Mr. Foley you can feel free to give us more than three". Foley attacks the $3 million dollars in additional budget spending. He promises to have a hiring freeze for state workers. Wants to use the commissions report on waste and duplication and enact those ideas. Use of outside contractors, and talks about Riverview Hospital savings. Transition Elderly medicaid patients to Community based care which he says patients prefer.