Shinseki Falls on Sword

Not a huge surprise that Eric Shinseki took one for the team and tendered his resignation as secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Either he knew or he should have known that his minions were not stretching their budgets far enough to satisfy everyone and provide the level of service the American public thinks it has promised our veterans.  What remains to be seen is whether or not some of the heads of VA hospitals in various states also admit they were in on the concealment and inability to cope.

But what I'm waiting for is the mass resignation from Congress of all legislators who repeatedly voted against sufficient resources so that the VA could, in fact, comply with the expectations of the American public and veterans.  Will the lackeys of the Koch brothers publicly admit they fully understood the VA had no chance of providing the levels of care they were demanding with the budgets that were being approved?    Pretty sure I'll have a long, long disappointing wait.

California shootings

The least I can do following the actions by the deranged young man in southern California this week is to repeat my screed once again.  And for those who are counting this is the fifth time I've done this. But I think I missed at least one additional opportunity in the last year or two.


"Multiple deaths similar to the Aurora movie house massacre are the price we pay as a society to underwrite the Second Amendment “rights” for “lawful gun owners.”" This is, sadly, the fourth and likely not the last time that I will use the above statement to begin a posting. I first used it following the Aurora CO moviehouse shooting and then following the Newtown CT school shooting and at least one other lesser but equally sad shooting incident. The only differences this time around are minor. The site of the shooting was a federal installation in Washington DC."

What continues to sadden and befuddle is the fact that by now even the kneejerk pundits and reporters no longer bother to raise the specter of suggesting that our insistence on worshipping the Second Amendment   has anything to do with this excessive string of similar events.  A few people on the tube dare to offer up the same tired rhetoric of whining that surely some lesson can be learned from this so that it will not continue.   But their solutions are always Monday morning quarterbacking type claims that local authorities "should have" identified the shooter as a threat and "done something" about him.

I agree that more resources could and should be devoted to addressing the needs and challenges of the emotionally and/or mentally challenged.  But we say that and then shrug our collective shoulders with the further thought, "What and spend our hard earned money on taxes to help others? Are you kidding?"

So, no.   This event will likely not produce any helpful change designed to prevent a recurrence. I wish it were not so.

"Bait and Disappoint"

I am growing weary of the way I am treated on the Internet
by various marketers.  I shall begin this
screed with a caveat.  I understand that
as soon as I realize the message or “news article” is, in fact, a sales pitch
that I can and should terminate.  But the
fact that these people are intent on annoying me allows me to vent
nonetheless.   The actions taken that
rile me are these:

1.      
As implied above, many apparent “news articles”
end up being not the objective, impartial telling of events or causes, etc.
They are gimmicks to sell some product, process or action.

2.      
Even when I think the motives of the writer are
hidden, I sometimes am willing to consume the entire or much of an article in
order to receive information of interest to me. 

3.      
But invariably the writers refuse to share the
heart of their message, the most important points in a direct manner.  Instead they feel compelled to repeat
numerous times WHY I should believe them and why this information is
unassailable.  And they do this to the
point of distraction.

4.      
Almost never does the heart of the message
measure up to the hype, though. 

I realize that concrete examples are needed to prove my
point.  But I’m growing too weary to
provide them.   Maybe tomorrow. 

Navy Yard Massacre

"Multiple deaths similar to the Aurora movie house massacre are the price we pay as a society to underwrite the Second Amendment “rights” for “lawful gun owners.”" This is, sadly, the fourth and likely not the last time that I will use the above statement to begin a posting. I first used it following the Aurora CO moviehouse shooting and then following the Newtown CT school shooting and at least one other lesser but equally sad shooting incident. The only differences this time around are minor. The site of the shooting was a federal installation in Washington DC. Thus Americans in "flyover" country see it as less relevant. And it occurred only a week after Colorado voters had recalled two state senators who had supported enhanced background checks following the Colorado shooting. So, politicians who see this continued evidence that our lax laws are too lax will be gun-shy (pun intended) to support legislative fixes to our problems. Actually more states passed more helpful control legislation since Aurora and Newtown than I had expected. And not all of it has been subsequently repealed. So maybe there's hope. Maybe the subsequent debate this time around will help strengthen the case for those who wish to reduce, if not eliminate, future similar incidents. But, in general, I return in my mind to the conclusion of Bridge Over the River Kwai when Major Clipton sums up what he observes of the course of events: "MADNESS"!

George Zimmerman's elimination of Trayvon Martin

A comment on the George Zimmerman "innocent" verdict.I get the "reasonable doubt" on whether or not George might have thought he was acting in self defense. But I don't see the total exoneration aspect. Perhaps the issue of the flawed "stand your ground" law in FL and Zimmerman's use/abuse? of it should not have resulted in maximum penalties for George. But his wanton ignoring of directions from police to stand down or not pursue Martin should at least have resulted in a manslaughter conviction. Whether the final struggle was "self-defense" would have been avoided had he done as he was told. That being said, I also don't get those who are now comtemplating a federal civil rights charge against George. How can federal prosecution be used to trump protections against double jeopardy?

The truly sad aspect of the Boston Marathon bombing today is that it won't change anything. The perps will likely be caught and either killed or put away for a long time. If they did it for some as yet unstated cause, that cause will continue to exist beyond them. "Preventative" measures (false faux word)will be instituted. Politicians will wax eloquent about what caused or enabled this. But no hearts will change. No laws will pass. Six months or a year from now the next "terrorist" incident will occur, and we'll be back to square one.

As a mental break from househunting in Tulsa, I think I’ll blog about a recent TV trend. It involves action/detective-type shows, including the family of CSI shows and the Law and Order spinoffs. One of the staple features of these shows nowadays is the rapid-fire dialogue where various detectives or coworkers are reeling off plot details to each other as if they were engaged in “normal” conversation. Often the premise is that the various team members have been sent to do specific research into what happened at the crime scene or by the perpetrator. They get back together to brief the entire group and fire off detail after detail so that everyone is up to speed. The result (in the mind of the writers)is that the audience also has sufficient information to follow the progress of who gets chased or arrested, etc. In my recollection, this feature of these series may have begun with The West Wing, when the president’s staff members spent much of the time walking the halls of the White House bringing each other up to date on plot details. My reason for mentioning all this is that I believe most of the shows and most writers do a poor job at making their dialogue sound real, normal, natural. It sounds like what it is, that they are simply using this method of conveying information to the consuming audience. For example, in NCIS they use Abby to lay out forensic details, McGee to explain the role of computer research, and the agency director to lay out the political intrigue involved. It’s probably one reason why I like the current TV series, Burn Notice. Here the hero does a narrative as the hero/announcer. No pretense about working the transfer of info. Into the dialogue.