Life gets in the way...

Sorry this blog has been so inactive. Had a lot to say, and then once I got started on Facebook I left most of it there. Not exactly a forum for enriching discussion, but was able to vent most of what I needed. A little more conducive than some other sites that limit to, say, 140 characters. But definitely the wrong place for a manifesto (although I will link it there).

So I am dusting off the ol' blog in anticipation of a post on "gun control." Which I will at least start drafting today, and maybe even get published if it's ready. This is just one of the many heated topics of the day that are so frustrating and I wanted to give a thorough working over to.

Unfortunately, married life with a demanding job, a pet, and even minimal hobbies / interests doesn't leave much time for things like blogging creatively (at least for me - some of the bloggers I have followed seem to balance a lot more on their plates AND run very active and well-written blogs). Add-in the terrific news that I am now a father of two, and that both kids are still under two years old, and I pretty much gave up on the idea of maintaining a blog. [I'll spare you pictures and further gushery here for now - those who know me have already seen them on Facebook or live, or should get your ass on Facebook (hint, this means YOU, MOM!) because of how amazingly simple it makes keeping up with both close and distant friends and their families.]

But just when I thing I'm out, they drag me back in. "Gun control" will be the next big topic I address, and in future months if I can muster enough time and motivation I'll try to keep knocking down my little list of "big debate" issues that have congealed into simple "right or wrong" issues to me, to see if it can help others or at least stimulate a more fruitful debate. Keep reading, my friends.

C.R.A.P. Sunday - Mega Monday edition

Catch-up Rants And Platitudes - #6 - procrastination

In honor of my favorite pastime, I'm dropping a late entry here. It's been a while since I did any serious blogging - although I've had the best of intentions, of course. Once I get some things together this site will get a mega-makeover, and I'll be posting a little more frequently, with shorter (theoretically, more focused) entries. Or so I say now.... In the meantime, here are a bunch of items I have been meaning to share for a while.

Let's start with some fun. Anticipating all that upcoming Easter candy? Don't think you should eat it all? *Here* is something fun to do with leftover candy (found the link to the youtube clip in this weekend's edition of the Red Eye). If you are partial to peeps, check out Peep Research or Peeps in a library.

Blago - They have finally brought charges against the former governor of Illinois. I'm glad things are moving along finally. Where was he, by the way, when this was announced? Disney World - that seems appropriate. His appointee Burris, who didn't have the foresight to decline the appointment, or the integrity to step down once his apparent complicity was exposed (see prior entries here and here), is still occupying the Senate. Governor Quinn has thankfully turned his attention to more pressing issues once it was obvious there would be no "easy way" - we'll let the 2010 election straighten it out. I just hope we can find a respectable candidate to get behind.

Blago sure does have the wrath of the Illinois congress chasing him though - they already passed a bill to prevent him from EVER holding public office again in Illinois (see in a previous post here), and now they are passing legislation to prohibit him from making any profit on book deals. I don't know how legal that is, to redirect a potential earning stream back into the state treasury. It's not like putting a lien on his salary for child support or to repay some defined criminal or civil damages. After the trial, that might be a different story.

A victory for gay rights - for any who haven't already heard, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the law banning gay marriage. Here is an article from the Sun Times, which goes on to explain how it could be 2-4 years before there is even a chance of repealing it. In a previous post, I posed the question of how people can feel justified in depriving ANY subset of the population from rights under the law. I am not homosexual myself, but am sickened by the hypocrisy of the USA setting itself as an "example" for the world, and then denying rights (whether it be gay marriage, or fair treatment of prisoners or "enemy combatants") selectively. For now it's only Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts that are "enlightened" enough to have welcomed gay marriage. California had it briefly, until "prop 8" banned it again. Of course, having "yes on 8" as the movement to BAN marriage could easily have confused voters - I wonder how a re-vote would turn out if it lacked that inverted terminology (i.e, say "yes" for "yes to gay marriage").

Drew Peterson - More from the white-trash role model couple, apparently Christina Raines has now moved OUT again, but they intend to remain friends. I'm not even gonna bother with them anymore - just looking forward to some charges finally being raised against this schmuck. Click on their labels (right column) if you wanna read about their Springer-escapades. By way of refresher, he's a suspect in the death of wife #3 and the disappearance of wife #4 (Stacy). Raines was on-again off-again wife #5-to-be.

Gun violence, health care, and the death penalty - all too long to write about here, stay tuned for some upcoming posts.

Movie and Book reviews - I decided against using this blog for cheering and jeering for mass entertainment. I would like to direct friends to reviews on a "movie review" site - any suggestions out there? Hopefully one that is searchable by author of reviews as well as movies.... (I haven't looked yet - and not sure how soon I'd start writing anyway)

Techno-poke - No, this is not a new Facebook application (not that I know of, at least). Apparently, some computer programmer from Finland (?) that lost part of a finger in a motorcycle accident fashioned a prosthesis for himself that includes a USB drive. That could give a whole new meaning to "giving your boss the finger." And it would be a lot harder to claim you left your presentation on your other prosthesis.... (pic lifted from the BBC news page)

Ok - lemme know if you're still reading and what you wanna see more of!
Hugs n kisses,
bonz'

C.R.A.P. Sunday - Bachelor edition

Catch-up Rants And Platitudes - #3

It was a SHOWER! I've even used it a second time now, how refreshing. And thanks to kapgar for his suggestion, not only did the mouthwash fix my breath without all that effort of brushing, but it also gave me quite a nice little buzz. Shall we begin?!?

• Burris - I was hoping to be done ranting on the whole Blago / Burris thing. Now Burris has submitted an affidavit that appears to contradict his prior testimony. Briefly, he swore up and down (and under oath) before being sworn in that he was not approached for any sort of money in exchange for the Senate seat, and that he had no contact with Blago's camp. Now he is admitting to being asked to contribute to Blago's campaign fund prior to the appointment, and that he spoke with several members of Blago's camp. He is, of course, still claiming no wrongdoing, saying that no contribution was made, and that omissions were made in his testimony secondary to interruption by follow-up questions. The real story -- I'm guessing this is his last-ditch effort to avoid outright perjury as further evidence is revealed (i.e., recorded conversations between Burris and Blago's brother). Of course, the timing is after Blago's impeachment trial, so Burris's new version of events is too late to hurt him in that arena (not that it would have mattered, of course).
  
  Regardless, it's clearly shady that he was not forthcoming about these details -- and further proof of his questionable moral character. Kinda funny that he announces his "listening tour" of Illinois as this news breaks, reminiscent of his mentor Blago that went on a media tour as his impeachment trial began. So are we gonna see another circus of replacing our junior Senator before the 2010 election? Or just leave him there and laugh heartily if he even attempts to run at that time?!?


• Drew Peterson - the drama never ceases. Now they appear together on the "Today" show. Not only are they living together again and looking forward to marrying as soon as possible (hopefully AFTER he manages to divorce his "missing" wife), but there was absolutely NO MENTION of her prior statement about the engagement being "a stunt." What happened to her fear for her safety and concern about his habit of becoming bored with his wives? What about the ex-boyfriend she had moved back in with during the week or two that she was separated from Drew?!?
  
  My prediction -- he needs to marry her before his trial, so she cannot be called on to testify against him. It's obvious she knows something -- she's been very well coached about not answering questions relating to Stacy. I would not be surprised if her "resumption" of their relationship was in exchange for either 1) some sizable bribe, or 2) to prevent some sort of retaliation. Even a "Jerry Springer Girl" like her would not flip-flop so completely without some external influence. This story is far from over ... unfortunately, the drama will likely continue to play out over the next several years. I'd rather jump to the punchline and deny them further rounds of their 15 minutes. Otherwise my head is gonna explode.


• Just Shoot Me - Chicago is a pretty violent town. Robbery, mugging, rape, stabbings, shootings -- we have more than our fair share. People are frightened, I understand that. But please, please tell me how putting more guns on the street in "law abiding citizens'" hands is supposed to help that. They are trying to pass a concealed carry law, being pushed by a group of college students at DePaul University of all places. More guns will only increase the number of victims, whether we have "innocent bystanders" wounded by trigger-happy nervous people thinking they are being followed in dark parking garages, or by would-be defenders having their own guns used against them, or by angry citizens who reach for a handy weapon in a moment of rage. We need to get guns *OFF* the streets, not "levelize" the playing field by increasing fear that ANYONE might be carrying a gun. If this is really about helping women defend themselves, why not distribute mace as broadly as they hand out condoms? Non-lethal alternatives could be just as effective, and are more likely to be readily used by those uncomfortable with making the choice to fire a gun. Which would hopefully be ALL of us civilians.
  

Ok, back to the job hunt.

---

News photos lifted from Chicago Sun-Times. Showerhead and pink gun stolen from Google images. No, I don't think that qualifies for "concealed carry" - even if it took you several minutes before you spotted the gun.

C.R.A.P. Sunday - Groundhog edition

Catch-up Rants And Platitudes - #2 - a brief look at recent news items, etc.

[I realize this is officially posting on Monday - getting something in just before, at, or after the deadline is sorta a specialty of mine.] So had my interview on the East Coast this past week - travel went pretty smoothly, and the interview itself not too bad. Unfortunately, up against three other very well qualified candidates, and did not feel any strong "good vibes" with any of the faculty. Called in a favor with a former adviser who may have some influence on them for me, but not anticipating good news. Back to the drawing board....

• Octuplets - Hmmm, interesting - so she had herself a litter. Oh, there she goes, she had herself a litter again. I know, not exactly a "litter" for the first group of SIX kids, since they do range in age and I think there is only one pair of twins. But it is quite surprising how slowly information is leaking out about this woman, who is only the second to give birth to octuplets in the U.S. From what I have pieced together, she is a single mother, living with her own mother (or had been until recently), obsessed with having kids (planned to have 12), underwent IVF (in-vitro fertilization) with donor sperm and then had the embryos frozen. Somehow - after already successfully birthing six children over recent years - she managed to convince doctors to implant her with all the remaining embryos. When she hooked up with the docs that cared for her through delivery, she had seven viable embryos detected. Doctors offered to therapeutically reduce the number to give her overall pregnancy a better chance of going to term and having healthier babies. She refused - which is fully within her rights. A surprise 8th baby is delivered among all the others at about 31 weeks (9 weeks early) - fortunately far enough along that they all have a good chance of survival.
  
  Of course - all will require quite a long hospitalization before they are fully out of the woods, which is quite expensive. This single mom will be caring for 14 young children - which is an impossible task without assistance. How she managed the resources to secure IVF and then implantation for each of her pregnancies (also very expensive) is beyond me. What doctor(s) in the world would dump all remaining frozen embryos into the uterus of a mother of SIX is borderline unethical. Presumably she did not want "leftover" frozen embryos to be destroyed (will address this more in an upcoming post about abortion rights), and perhaps only wanted to become pregnant one last time, but that is so irresponsible on the part of the physicians as well as herself to intentionally place herself into a super-high risk pregnancy - risky for her health, risky for the guardianship of her current kids, and risky for the babies she would be carrying. Once everyone is back from the hospital, can you imagine what her home life will be like?!? Nuts.
  
  
• Gay & transgender rights - please see my previous post for a dedicated rant on this topic. In the wake of the California prop 8 fiasco, there has recently been a victory for gay rights in Washington state, giving domestic partners all remaining rights of spouses (without the title of "spouse" itself). And without a whole lot of ruckus. Of course conservatives are complaining that it is a doorway to eventual gay marriage legislation.... Maybe that is the way it will have to go, slowly progressive steps until "marriage" is the next logical and undeniable right to confer.
  
  Something that bothers me though is the recent lawsuit filed by two transgender people in Illinois, demanding that the state alter their birth certificates to reflect their current gender status. Because they had their surgeries overseas, the Illinois government is refusing based on a lack of physician documentation. That should be a moot point - they ARE able to get passports, driver's license, etc. granted with their "current" gender. Why should birth records be altered? How is it ever acceptable to alter that sort of documentation? They were born as "boys" - not some ambiguous genitalia issue that was later resolved. They had elective surgery to become women, and are legally considered women based on their active personal IDs. Why should an archival document be changed? When a name is changed due to marriage or some other court procedure, the original birth certificate does not need to change. Granted, there is at least a paper trail to connect person A with their records under previous name B - so maybe a form documenting the change would be something to serve whatever need spurned this lawsuit. But changing vital records because of events later in life - that just doesn't seem right.
  
  
• On the topic of Illinois government (maybe my last comment on it for a while?), driving home after a Superbowl party tonight I was unexpectedly pleased at the removal of Blagojevich's name from the open-road toll plazas. Granted, it was probably $15,000 that could have been spent for something else, but that price pales in comparison to the $400,000-ish dollars the signs initially cost. And wow - the government managed to get something done in just a matter of days from the impeachment. I guess some people were pretty anxious to see that name wiped away.
  
  
• Dining out in a city in Tuscany - Not that I have ever had the chance to hang in Italy, nor do I anticipate this in the near future, but caught a snippet that made me triple take. Apparently, the tourism board of the city (Lucca?) has banned ethnic food. Huh? Well, new ethnic food. Their existing restaurants can stay, but apparently they will not allow any new establishments whose menus focus on any sort of non-local food items. No kebabs (Greek food), Thai, etc. Not even Sicilian food. What?? Isn't that basically a part of Italy? They want to preserve the feel of the region, but apparently even local chefs are complaining because "fusion" cooking is all the rage now, and they feel this could limit their menu options. But what happened to consumer choice and freedom?!? If I go to Tuscany I should be able to choose to have "authentic" Tuscan food... but should also have the option for whatever variety is available. If / when I go to such a region, I would definitely be staying long enough to enjoy several meals - why not have the option for a good curry dish as a break? This is also discriminatory to immigrants, who often support themselves by cooking up the cuisine of their homeland. "FAIL" for attempting to curtail freedom of choice.
  
  
• Finally, I cannot hold my tongue (or fingers, I guess) on the topic of the "Snuggie." People, this is just a comfy robe, or a flannel shirt, or whatever garment is handy, worn backwards. Do you really needs these direct marketers shoveling more crap down your throats?!? I'd like to load up a garbage scow with all the Sham-Wow's, Ped-eggs, clappers, touch lights, Chia-heads, choppers and juicers and try to get the pirates off Somalia to take THOSE off our hands. SHAM-UGHH!

Well, I guess that is enough for now. If you made it all the way to here, even I am impressed. Hope you enjoyed the Superbowl - it was pretty tight, a good show right to the very end. In case you've got it taped, TIVO'd, DVR'd, or just hoping to catch highlights I won't be the one to spoil it for ya. But man - cannot believe the number of penalties ... that has got to be a record. Here's to hoping for a cloudy day tomorrow - no shadows for the little rodent.

---

Photos mercilessly stolen from Google images.

Sociopaths abound

So they finally did it - our "cloud" in Illinois has been lifted by the removal of Blagojevich, when he was found guilty at the impeachment by a vote of 59-0. I still can't believe this guy... he insists on boycotting his trial there, claiming a "set-up" and unfair rules. Even his lawyers skip it. And then he finally shows up on the last day, makes a 45 minute-long plea / speech, and gets irrevocably shot-down. This, of course, after his media blitz trying to take his case to the "court of public appeal."

But that's not why we're all doing a double-take again. The man goes home after his trial, makes a statement to the press (I have faithfully served the people of Illinois, the truth will come out, I'm innocent, blah blah blah), refuses to answer any legitimate questions from the press (why did you not follow protocol to try to bring your witnesses to the trial, etc.), and is about to duck inside his house when he goes back into the crowd and starts grabbing kids to pose with him for photographs, shaking hands, etc - like he's on a friggin' campaign trail.

For some reason he actually still has supporters, and quite a crowd was out there saying they believe him, they love him, etc. I cannot wait until the evidence is presented in the criminal trial and he gets his just desserts. The way he is so adamantly denyin any wrongdoing - it's quite frightening. I'm pretty sure he qualifies as a sociopath. Just because "pay to play" has become some sort of standard in Illinois government, any rational person should recognize how unethical it is - and you can't claim innocence to "wrongdoing" simply because you are participating in the status quo. It would be nice if Illinois and Chicago take the cue from this scandal and reform how they do business - whether it takes cleaning house to accomplish this, or if the politicians themselves can take in some supplemental moral fiber.

It amusing to note that - in addition to removal from office - the Illinois Senate passed a motion barring Blago from ever holding any public office again in Illinois. I'm not sure how legal that is, but it's nice to know they are doing their best to prevent him from escaping this debacle too easily in the near future.

Of course, he is not the only sociopath in the news lately. Remember that sleaze Drew Peterson? He was implicated as a person of interest in the disappearance of his 4th wife (Stacy) in 2007. That was after the mysterious drowning death of his 3rd wife in 2004. (Sorry, dunno anything about #1 & 2, and not motivated to dig it up). This 55-year-old was recently in the news for becoming engaged (while still married to his "missing" wife) to a 24-year-old Christina Raines. She moved in with him, and my wife and I started contemplating the odds on her long-term survival. Then on a recent Nightline, apparently good ol' Drew gave an interview talking about how he became bored with his previous 4 marriages, and how he longed to again be married to "belong" to someone. He stated to the interviewer that Christina was very happy with him and things were going great.

The day after this interview airs, she calls her father to help her move out of Drew's house and calls off the engagement, calling him very "controlling" in their relationship and worried over his "loss of interest" in his previous relationships. Take a look again at the time frames, and their ages. Sheesh. She has two small children by the way, and he has 4 of his own. He called them nice and cozy in his two-story house, like a box of baseball cards. Excuse me?? Why would you ever describe the way a group of eight living people get along like a collection of inanimate items that you stack and file away....


And to wrap up this blog, lemme mention Rush Limbaugh. I refuse to corrupt my blog with an image of this, er, gentleman, who is now the unofficial face of the Republican party. When asked about Obama, he insists, "I hope he fails." He is attempting to instigate the whole Republican party to block Obama at every turn. He got that (attempt) with the 100% rejection by the House Republicans on the newest part of the stimulus bill, which still passed of course because of the Democratic majority. However, the Senate Republicans can still cause a filibuster of the legislation - and that would be despite all the concessions made in the legislation for the benefit of the Republican agenda.

The time for hate mongering and partisan politics is supposed to be over. The election is completed, the Democrats won, and now the nation should be coming together to try to dig its way out of our woes. Obama is reaching out above and beyond the usual to bring Republicans into the fold and to keep "politics" out of the work. People like Limbaugh want to just keep the anger flowing and obstruct progress. But hey - it sure helps to keep his audience listening. Screw what the country needs.

Ok. I'm gonna go do something more pleasant for a while.

---

Photos borrowed from the Chicago Sun-Times

Political rant #1 - gay marriage

Ever since the heavy pre-election coverage this year, I've been drawn back into the medium that captures the essence of the hot news and presents it in an entertaining format - political satire, frequently well-represented by The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, both on Comedy Central.

Tonight Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee (former Republican presidential candidate) on, and engaged him in a mini-debate on gay marriage. As usual, the conservative and liberal viewpoints were framed in different perspectives and they had to agree to disagree. The arguments at their most basic seemed to be: (C) - "We must preserve the sanctity of marriage as defined between a man and a woman," and (L) - "Gay people should have the same rights and benefits granted to heterosexuals."

It was quite gratifying to listen to Stewart present a very cogent argument, and I won't hide my own support for gay marriage. I was quite disappointed with the referenda this November that shot down attempts at legalization of gay marriage in multiple states. Huckabee made reference on the show to the "fact" that 68% of the population is against passing such legislation. I won't take issue with numbers because I have no idea how that polling was conducted, the demographics, how recently it was done, or any of those details. Most of us have heard the expression "lies, damn lies, and statistics" - and that holds true more often than not; depending on how you ask the question, let alone grouping and analyzing data, you can twist numbers to support your argument either way.

To be honest, I really don't care about the numbers because THEY DON'T MATTER. I don't care if 80% of the population is against something. Just because a group of people want something - or want to prevent something - doesn't mean that it is appropriate. The reason we have government is to protect citizens and deliver services that would otherwise be unlikely to happen. If it wasn't mandated by the government, how many of us would contribute money to pay for police, infrastructure, and other social services? How many people would put money aside for their retirement? But we accept taxes and social security deductions because that is a part of our responsibility in supporting the government that protects us. And it protects us in ways we did not anticipate over 200 years ago - look at the relatively recent strides in equal rights for women & blacks, and new protections from discrimination based on handicaps and religion. Those anti-discrimination statements in many systems include "sexual orientation" - an obvious evolution of the concept to protect this portion of our population.

It was a laughable moment in the VP debate in October, when Joe Biden went on a mini soapbox talking about equal rights for partners including hospital visitation, workers benefits, etc. - that [gay] partners will have (paraphrasing) "the exact same rights and privileges as spouses" - but when asked point-blank by the moderator if the democratic ticket was supporting gay marriage, he said no. It is a sad statement that - in order to minimize alienation of a portion of the electorate - the Democratic ticket had to set aside pushing that component of the agenda.

But at its heart, the issue really is about equal rights. If people were interested in legislating about the sanctity of marriage, we'd talk about the divorce rate and banning same-day marriage (i.e., running off to Vegas), requiring "marriage classes" (like some religions do), and maybe even raising the minimum consenting age. If the issue is really about parenting and establishing a family unit for raising children, we would talk about mandated parenting classes or even more aggressive regulations about who is allowed to procreate (or adopt), and when. (Both of these arguments are exemplified with the "Brittany Spears" example used by Stewart) We know it could not possibly be about preserving a religious definition of marriage, thanks to the separation of church and state. So what is left? What possible reason is there to deny two men or two women from legally committing to each other, and being granted ALL the legal and social recognition that accompanies that?

It seems to me to be the downside of tradition, the part that is slow to change simply because "it hasn't been that way before" or "we've never done it that way." Just because religious-based organizations oppose it, or because stubborn people or not ready to accept homosexuality as a fact of our society, does not mean that our goverment can ignore this component of our population or choose not to protect their rights on this issue.

The last point I'll make is again something well-stated by Stewart - opposition to gay marriage is often based on the assumption that it is a choice to be gay. Just like choosing to convert between religions may mean changing what you eat, or how you interact with people - "choosing" to be gay means denying yourself legal recognition of a union. But religion is one of those cardinal protections, and society is barred from denying you rights based on something that is undeniably a choice. But is homosexuality a choice? Many say no - and if you are guaranteed equal rights whether you are born a man or woman in our enlightened age, the same should hold true whether you are born gay or straight.

But again - the answer to THAT question is really irrelevant. Equal rights are equal rights. How can you select out something the law should NOT apply to?