TERM LIMITS

I am writing this week's column on December 28, 2012 two hours before the White House meeting between the President and Congressional leaders. The issue they will be considering: How to avoid the fiscal cliff.

I expect nothing good to come out of the meeting. A proper resolution is no longer in the cards. A partial one is as good as none at all.

Our leaders continue to fail us. I say a plague on both their houses. These Washingtonians are out of touch with the American public. Or maybe they are not out of touch. They just do not care.

They speak for themselves or each other. Not for you and me.

Some of the elected beauties have political careers set in concrete. They have Congressional careers running thirty to fifty plus years. For the populace, life long jobs with an employer are a thing of the past.

Salaries are interesting also. Presently, most Senators and Congressmen receive $174,000 per year. With guaranteed increases that they voted for themselves some twenty years ago. And no union. How many earn that much and have the guarantee of salary increments? Few in our society.

The simple solution bandied about is term limits. A legislator is elected for a specific number of years or terms. Maybe two terms at best. Then good bye. They go home to farm or run their businesses as the Constitutional framers intended.

In the latter 1900s, some States were becoming concerned with the number of years Senators and Congressman were remaining in Washington. These states established term limits for their federally elected representatives.

You don't screw with Congress! The Senators and Congressmen went to Court. Their case ended up in the United States Supreme Court.

In 1995, a conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that term limits were not available for implementation without a Constitutional amendment. The bad guys won! In present times, a Constitutional amendment takes years.

The people screwed again. This time by the highest Court of the land.

The framers of the Constitution and those living back then envisioned a citizen legislature. Men would travel to Washington a few weeks a year, do the people's work, and then return home to their farms and businesses. It was that way once. No more. Now they go to Washington and do whatever is necessary to stay as long as they can. What about the farm back home? What about the business back home? They do not exist.

The framers of the Constitution initially intended that term limits be a part of the Constitution  However, there was a space problem. The framers wanted the Constitution to be as short as possible. Since the framers were farmers and business persons themselves, they could not envision how any one could or would want to serve twenty or more years.

Another consideration was the life span as it existed at the time. Life expectancy was 35 years.

Term limits were left out of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson is considered to be the Father of the Constitution. He drafted the document. Jefferson saw the problem with professional legislators. He said at the time: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the.....version of the first."

James Fenimore Cooper of Leatherstocking Tales fame saw the evil of long term government representatives also: "Contact with affairs of state is one of the corrupting influences to which men are exposed."

We have a problem! One with no simple solution. We better find a solution before these career Washington politicians screw up our lives even more.

BIG BROTHER

We all recognize government can be Big Brother. One we do not need nor want. It is accepted that Big Brother has no place in people's lives. Not only should the government stay out, also other people. My business is my business. Not someone elses.

Recall George Orwell's classic 1984. People were constantly watched by cameras integrated into their television screens.

It took a while, but what was described in Orwell's book is here. There is now the capacity for a person's TV set to watch that person. Phrased another way, some one can watch a person while that person is watching TV.

And hear conversations, also.

All via camera and microphone.

.

It is others watching while I watch TV in my bedroom and living room. Watching while I have sex with a wife or girl friend. It is watching as I argue with some one in the living room. There is no discrimination. Everything is filmed and recorded.

A joke this is not.

Verizon filed a patent in 2011 for a set top box. The box would operate when the TV did. Total visual and audio would be captured and available instantly to outsiders. Comcast and Google already have similar patents, either for the box approach or directly embedded in the television set itself. Samsung's 2012 plasmas and LED HDTVs already have camera and microphone built into the unit itself.

Intrusive! No question about it.

The purpose is marketing. The various organizations mentioned wish to tailor advertisers to what TV viewers are doing. Doing is the operative word.

If a couple is arguing, an advertisement for a marriage counselor might be in order. If cuddling or love making, advertisements for romantic getaway vacations or flowers.

Beware!

HONOR KILLING

Recently in the Pakistani administered town of Kotli, 15 year old Anusha was murdered by her parents. Anusha and her parents were Pakistani. They also were Muslims.

 

Anusha's perceived wrongdoing was she would turn her head to look at boys. Such conduct was viewed by her parents as bringing shame upon the family. Dishonor.

 

Her parents were 53 and 42. Anusha had six brothers and sisters, all under the age of 10.

 

Anusha's mother threw acid on her. The intent was that the acid would result in Anusha's death. It did. Two days later.

 

The reports were unclear as to whether Anusha received  medical attention. Most suggest none. She was left on a cot or the floor in her home to die. A slow agonizing death over forty eight hours. The reports indicate the parerts had no money to pay a doctor. I came across one report that indicated  Anusha received  medical attention after 24 hours.

 

In the Muslim world, such deaths are known as honor killings. A daughter's death upholds  family honor. Family honor is viewed as more important than the life of the daughter.

 

Some areas of Pakistan have begun frowning on honor killings. Anusha's home town is one of them. Her parents have been arrested for murder.

 

Anusha's case is not an isolated one. In the year 2011, there were 943 honor killings in Pakistan. Only 20 of the 943 young women killed received medical attention. Even worse, in many situations the daughter was subjected to rape and gang rape before being murdered.

 

Why do these killings occur? Why do Muslim parents feel compelled to murder for honor's sake a young daughter?

 

I thought it might be required by the dictates of the Quran. Turns out, honor killings are not. Honor killings are the result of man made law. Muslims are a male dominated society. Women are considered possessions. Over the years, the custom of honor killings has developed.

 

The Quran is to the Muslim what the Bible is to the Christian. In both instances, man made law has developed which is not to be found in the written word of each religion. Difficult interpretations have arisen. Honor killings being one.

 

Do not think that honor killings are limited to Pakistan or a Muslim nation. Muslims are immigrating to European nations and  North America. Honor killings have been documented in Europe and Canada. I am not aware of any honor killings in the United States.

 

I have written this piece for awareness purposes. Muslims are immigrating in effect to the four corners of the earth. They bring with them their old world customs and religion. Neither should be a problem. But where the Muslim is concerned, they are.

 

The Muslim comes to a new country and wants to live by the old country's rules. They want the new country to enforce  criminal and civil law based on the Quran and what they believe the Quran says. Besides honor killings, that would include stoning a woman to death for adultery, cutting a person's hand off for stealing, making it easy for a man to divorce, making it difficult for a woman to divorce. And so on.

 

Such is called Sharia law. I have written and spoken of the dangers of Sharia law for several years. Generally, my words fall on deaf ears. Americans do not want to believe that any one coming to this country would want to live under the old laws. But, they do.

 

The message is beware! Be vigilant. Be concerned.

POPCORN LUNG LAWSUIT

Wayne Watson of Denver, Colorado, enjoyed popcorn. He enjoyed it so much that for a period of ten years he would eat two bags of microwaved popcorn each evening.

 

Watson developed what is known as microwave popcorn lung. A condition similar to lung cancer caused by smoking and mesothelioma caused by asbestos. Watson is suffering. He cannot work. He soon will die. His suffering and death caused by the fumes arising from the artificial butter in microwave popcorn.

 

A jury agreed such was the case. The jury recently awarded Watson $7.2 million.

 

Turns out microwave popcorn, prior to this lawsuit of course, contained a chemical called diacetyl. A toxic substance known to cause  an illness similar to lung cancer. An individual develops popcorn lungs when fumes from the heated popcorn containing diacetyl are inhaled.

 

Watson is going to die. Life has a court room value. However, $7.2 million on its face appears excessive. Not in Watson's case.

 

The manufacturer of the microwave popcorn had known for several years of the dangerous implications of inhaling the butter flavorer containing diacetyl. The knowledge was obtained from the numerous Worker Compensation cases brought by their employees who had inhaled diacetyl fumes while working to make the microwave popcorn.

 

Once a manufacturer has knowledge of the dangerous propensities of its product, it is obligated under law to cease and desist in its manufacture. The manufacturer is also required, if he is stupid enough to continue to knowingly produce the product, to place a warning on  the label of its product of the product's dangerous  propensities. Similar to the warning on a pack of cigarettes.

 

In this instance, the manufacturer did neither. It knowingly continued to manufacture the microwave popcorn containing the diacetyl and at the same time failed to provide the consumer with any warning.

 

The $7.2 million verdict was divided into two parts.

 

Watson received $2.2 million for his pain, suffering and and all direct ramifications of the inhalation. This is known as compensatory damages. The law allows a wronged person to collect money for all damages directly flowing from the wrong doing of the manufacturer.

 

The remaining $5 million was awarded Watson as punitive damages. When a manufacturer does something so bad as to shock the conscience of the community, the manufacturer must pay an additional amount by way of penalty. It is a warning to the manufacturer that it should not have done what it did. In Watson's case, (1) knowingly continuing to manufacture the microwave popcorn with knowledge it was dangerous and (2) further failing to warn it's inherent danger stretches matters beyond credulity.

 

The manufacturer was penalized for its egregious wrongdoing. The huge punitive award is punishment to the wrongdoer and warning to the rest of the world not to do things such as occurred in the instant case.

 

A lot of good the $7.2 million is going to do Watson.The manufacturer has the case on appeal. By the time the appeals process is exhausted, Watson will be long dead.

 

 

LIFE BEGINS FIRST DAY OF WOMAN'S LAST MENSTRUAL CYCLE

You read it correctly! Life begins before conception. Even before the sex act giving rise to the conception takes place. It occurs the first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle.

 

That is what the State of Arizona says.  Arizona's Governor recently signed such a bill. It is now the law of Arizona.

 

The new law clearly defines when the life of an unborn child begins.The law basically claims that fetus life begins not at conception, but up to two weeks before. It is measured from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.

 

The new law is an attempt by the abortionist faction to shorten the time frame within which legalized abortion may take place. The first twenty weeks of a pregnancy is the time within which an abortion can be legally performed. 

 

Conception is generally recognized as when the woman's egg and male's sperm unite. Such has been the date from which the twenty  weeks was measured. By pushing the date for conception from a legal perspective back to the first day of the woman's last period, the abortionist have shaved two weeks off the twenty weeks. Now, in Arizona at least, the twenty weeks will be measured from a date two weeks earlier.

 

Ridiculous. Arizona is playing amongst other things with God's work and scientific teaching.

 

The Bible, other religious writings, the Church, various religions.....all cannot tell us with any degree of certainty when life begins. God never spelled it out. Scientists and religious have blessed us with their opinions. However that is all they are. Opinions. Even the tablets God gave to Moses failed to identify when life began.

 

My lifetime has revealed to me at least four different instances when life begins..

 

When I was in law school more than fifty years ago, it was when the baby was born. The fetus had to come out kicking, screaming and breathing. Otherwise the law generally took the position that no life had begun.

 

Then came the theory with which most of us are familiar. Life/conception begins when the woman's egg and male's sperm unite.

 

During the ongoing abortion war, a third theory was offered. One which many believe is the true time when conception begins. it is the time when the sperm inoculated egg adheres itself to the uterine wall. Without the adherence, there can be no life. The egg and sperm are flushed down the toilet.

 

Now comes Arizona with a new definition of when life begins. The first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle. A folly as there has been no conception in any form. The sex act giving rise to the conception has not yet even occurred.

 

Arizona's new law represents a form of insanity. Anything to achieve a result. Even in the face of scientific impossibility. Who can object, if it is law.

 

I object. Many of you may object. The Governor and legislators of Arizona do not. An example of why politicians are becoming less desirable creatures with every passing day.

 

Religious philosophy teaches us that the end does not justify the means. Something erroneous/wrong cannot be used to effect a desired result.

 

Manipulating the law as Arizona has done in this instance is a wrong means. It is like rewriting the Bible, contradicting scientific fact. It is not correct. It should not have been done.

1712 SLAVE REVOLT IN NEW YORK CITY

Man's crimes against his fellow man are historical and never ending. Death and torture are intrinsic to man's nature. Always with us.

 

One example is a 1712 slave revolt which occurred in New York City.

 

Note that as of 1712, New York City was not a part of what would ultimately become the United States. There was no United States. There would be no United States for at least another fifty years. A United States free of English rule was not even a thought in anyone's mind.

 

New York City was a thriving community by 1712. Under English rule, it prospered. A huge population. Many African natives and descendants were a part of the population. Some free men, some slaves. One out of every five persons making up New York's population in 1712 was a slave. A significant number.

 

The Africans lived in close quarters. They were able to communicate easily. Eventually they conspired.

 

On the evening of April 6, 1712, a group of slaves held a midnight tavern meeting. They were tired of being used and abused by the white population. They were constantly maltreated. The meeting resulted in a decision to revolt. Some seventy slaves were involved. Their express purpose in revolting was to arouse the rest of New York's
African population to join them. To do what? To incite their African brothers and sisters to join them in massacring all white people. A major undertaking. A plan fraught with danger to both blacks and whites..

 

The revolt began. The slaves were armed with guns, hatchets and swords.Twenty three slaves started a fire to a home on Maiden Lane. Today a part of New York's financial district. Whites tried to stop the fire. Other whites, primarily slaveholders, ran out of their homes to protect their homes from additional fires.

 

A battle ensued between the slaves and whites. Nine whites were killed.

 

Seventy blacks were arrested and jailed. Twenty seven tried. Twenty one convicted and executed.

 

The thrust of today's column is the method of execution.

 

Twenty African men were burned at the stake. One was executed by being tied to a wheel which separated the bones in his body. Arms and legs from the torso. Internal organs from each other.

 

Each African man was conscious at the start of his execution and throughout a part of each.

 

Burning at the stake  had been a popular European method of punishment/execution. Reference Joan of Arc and the Spanish Inquisition, for example. However the white people of New York had long before 1712 done away with burning for execution purposes. They preferred the more charitable hanging.

 

Why then were the Africans burned at the stake? The whites were in such fear of a black insurrection that in the end the form of the punishment was out of proportion to the crimes committed.

 

Teach the blacks a lesson they will never forget was the cry of the whites!

 

Burning had become increasing less used into the 1600s. This made the New York City slave revolt punishment even more horrendous in the early 1700s.

 

The last Englishman living in England to have been burned at the stake was Edward Wightman in 1612. For heresy.

 

Hanging was considered more charitable. Henry VIII's wives who were killed were initially sentenced to death by burning. Their crimes were allegedly treason which was punishable by burning. Henry was a softy. He did not want his former wives to suffer. He reduced their method of execution from burning to hanging.

 

Historically women were treated with sensitivity when they were to be executed. To reduce a woman's pain factor dramatically, she was first hung till dead and then burned.

 

Those of the Muslim faith do not execute solely by stoning. They too burn at the stake. In 2006 in one Iraqi city, Sulaymaniyah, 400 women were executed by burning. The thought occurs: Where was the American influence?

 

1712 New York City is a shame on our English forebeareers. It is a shame on the white slave owners who feared their homes and lives would be lost.

 

Societies and religions world wide continue to look with favor upon burning while alive as an appropriate means for execution. Pain before death. Burned alive.
Ghoulish.

 

Man is not beyond such cruelty. History is repeating itself. Twenty first century man in various parts of the globe is still resorting to the tried and true method for painful execution. Burning at the stake. 

THE SPITTING LYON

It is unquestionable that our Congress of today is dysfunctional. Members of the opposing political parties are disrespectful to each other. The lack of respect contributes to the dysfunction.

 

Politicians of opposing parties dislike each other. They speak poorly of each other. Even of the President.

 

I hear people comment how they long for another day when our elected officials showed respect to each other and got along.

 

Guess what? There was another time when Congressional representatives were disrespectful of each other and showed disdain for the President. Today is not new.

 

The time is January 30, 1798. The place the United States House of Representatives. Then sitting in Philadelphia, which was the capital of the U.S. at the time. The players Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont and Congressman Roger Griswold of Connecticut.

 

The two men were of opposing political parties. Lyon was a Democratic-Republican, also known as a Jeffersonian Republican. Griswold a Federalist.

 

Lyon had a checkered background. He was an experienced fighter, having fought Indians with the Green Mountain Boys. Durinmg the Revolution, he fought with the colonists against England. He ran into some problem during the Revolution and was court martialed for being a coward.

 

The preceding did not prevent him from being elected to the fifth and sixth Congresses of the United States.

 

On January 30, 1798, Lyon got into a heated argument on the floor of Congress with Griswold. Griswold reminded Lyon of his purported cowardness during the Revolution. Lyon spit in Griswold's face.

 

Lyon became known as the spitting Lyon. Even in those days, a play on words was common.

 

Congress had an Ethics Committee. Same as it does today. No one had ever been charged for an ethics violation to that time. Lyon became the first. The ethics carge was gross indecency. Spitting fell under gross indecency in the Committee rules.

 

Lyon now had two distinctions. The first to spit on a fellow Congressman and the first to be charged with an ethics violation by the Ethics Committee.

 

It was not the end of Lyon's mishaps, however.

 

Two weeks after the spitting incident, Lyon and Griswold physically fought on the floor of Congress. Lyon started beating Griswold with a cane. In defense, Griswold struck Lyon with fireplace thongs.

 

Lyon's political problems were still not at an end.

 

John Adams was President during these times. Lyon did not like the President. At the time, the Alien & Sedition Acts were in force. One of the provisions prohibited any one from slandering the President. Could you imagine if such a law were in effect today. Lyon accused the President of being pro British. 

 

Lyon was jailed. His time for reelection came up while he was jailed. The people of Vermont reelected him. He subsequently was found guilty and fined $1,000. An exorbitant sum at the time.

 

Does all this sound familiar? Without question. Political hatred today. Political hatred yesterday. 

DEFECATING ON THE AMERICAN FLAG

The title is respectful to you the reader when the term defecation is used. But should be viewed it in its proper context in relating the facts at hand. Down and dirty.

We are talking about shitting on the American flag!

Disgusting! Vile! An abhorrence!

Shot the S.O.B. might be your first reaction. On calmer reflection, throw the bum out of the country!

This column is motivated by the news media picture this past week of an alleged Occupy Wall Street protester defecating on the American flag. There he was. Pants pulled down. Squatting. Doing it on the American flag.

Turns out the media jumped too quickly to report the news. Again. And in so doing, did it erroneously. The picture was taken at another protest more than four years earlier somewhere else.

Nevertheless, the erroneous news release provides an opportunity to share the law as it specifically applies to defecating on the American flag.

It is not a crime! It is Constitutionally protected! It is protected as free speech. A basic right. One each of us has.

Whether Wall Street or four years ago, each individual has the right to so express himself/herself. As disgusting and reprehensible the act may be, it does not violate the law.

What does bother me is that these malcontents who abuse our flag do not appreciate our country. Otherwise they would not act in such a repulsive fashion. It should be our country, right or wrong. If wrong, then we fix it. But don't shit on it! Just like the initial Texas flag.....Don't Tread On Me.

A final interesting consideration.  What would happen if this same act was done in Iran or Syria for example to the flag of those nations. Stoning, beheading or hanging. For sure.

People should think before they act. The outer limits are rarely required.

CHINESE WOMEN REBEL

It is a toilet revolution.

 

There are many public toilets positioned in China's cities. They are used big time. Their need exceeds their availability. Keep in mind that the public toilet of today was the street of yesterday. Fifty years ago public toilets did not exist. Streets were the direct recipients of body wastes.

 

The problem is especially acute as it concerns women. Men and women have separate public toilet facilities. However, there are not enough toilets for women. They are always waiting in line to go. Whereas, the men's facilities have no waiting lines.

 

The problem is not confined to China alone. It is world wide. American women generally wait in line at a public event, wheres the men suffer no such problem.

 

The differnece involves the clothes worn by each sex. 

 

A man walks into the men's room and goes right up to a urinal. He pulls his zipper down, takes out his male member and urinates. When he is finished, he shakes it and then returns it into his  pants. He zips his fly and the process is complete. He generally leaves the facility without washing his hands since he has only handled his private part.

 

It is more cumbersome for women. They start out behind the eight ball. They are involved with many more clothes than the men. Women are required to pull a piece of attire up and then their undies down. They then must sit. Generally a moment is taken to make sure the unit is clean by covering it with toilet paper. Having finished her business, the woman wipes and then returns her clothing to its original position. This routine is followed by the washing of her hands.

 

More steps require more time. This accounts for the long waiting lines in front of a women's public toilet.

 

Chinese women decided they would take it no more. They have demanded additional public facilities for the women. The Chinese government sets the ratio of men's  toilets to women's toilets. Prior to this revolution, it was 1:1. The women have minimally won. The government promises the ratio will be adjusted to 1:1.5.

 

The ladies are still not happy. Not enough, they say.

 

Chinese city women have organized. It is called Occupy Men's Toilets. I suspect the name is a take off on our Occupy Wall Street.

 

The female rebelliousness is presently twofold. The women block the doorway to the male side of a public toilet for ten minutes at a time. This is so the ladies can make use of the men's facility to shorten their waiting time. The women are also demonstrating. There have been demonstrations/marches. The women loudly chant as they demonstrate and march.....We want to pee! It is repeated over and over.

 

So far the government is acquiescing. The ladies are being given free reign. However things are getting testy. Tempers flare on occasion. The police are now involved. At this stage, only to observe.

 

I find it interesting that the women are being afforded the right to protest. I recall many years ago when students took to a Chinese square to complain. The government called out the tanks. No tanks this time. At least not yet. The Chinese government has enough other problems with which to deal. This is a new China. The government appears not to want to rile the ladies further.

 

I suspect that the new 1:15 ratio will soon move to 1:2. The problem is real and the ladies have every right to be made happy.

KISSING

 

Kissing.

 

A pleasant pass time. Quite enjoyable.

 

Anything so popular and good is not without its detractors. There were persons and institutions that attempted to ban kissing.

 

At the beginning of civilization, men would sniff and smell each other. People were identified by their body odors.

 

At some point in time, the heads slipped during the smelling process and lips touched. Kissing was born.

 

Early kissing continued to be part of the identification process. Romantic kissing did not come into existence till around 1,000 B.C. India was its birth place.

 

The first identification of kissing as a romantic sense of expression was contained in a poem. The poem was written by an Indian poet, Mahabharta. He wrote "...she set her mouth to my mouth and made a noise that produced pleasure in me."

 

Alexander the Great conquered the known world at his time. Kissing was known in certain of the middle east countries he conquered as romantic in nature. Alexander and his men enjoyed the experience so much that they introduced kissing through out Europe.

 

By the time of Julius Ceasar, Romans had become big time kissers. Romans of Ceasar's time have been described as "kissing fools." The Romans especially enjoyed "soul kissing." The soul kissing of Ceasar's time is the French kissing of today.

 

Emperor Tiberius did not like kissing. Leprosy was a problem during his reign. He believed kissing caused the transfer of leprosy from one person to another. Tiberius banned kissing.

 

The ban was ineffective. The people enjoyed kissing too much.

 

The biggest romantic kissing killjoys were the Christians. Sex has always had an evil connotation of sorts in the Catholic Church. Pope Clement V in 1312 decreed sensuous kissing a mortal sin. "...kissing done with intent to fornicate is...a mortal sin."

 

From Pope Clement V forward, the Catholic Church sought to ban romantic kissing. Just as some Christians of today would ban pleasurable sex.

Of course, the ban did not fly with the people. Interestingly, the missionaries to the New World are credited with the spread of kissing here. It is humorous to learn that the early missionaries were responsible for spreading kissing, as well as the word of God. For what ever reason, they encouraged those they sought to convert to indulge in it.

 

There is a corollary between yesterday and today. Just as early law makers and the Catholic Church failed to effectively ban kissing, today's politicians and Catholic Church will fail similarly with regard to pleasurable sex.