Princess Kate shows up at some event wearing an outfit able to be purchased in some store. The store sells out of that design before the end of the day. Some guy wearing a red sweater asks a politician a pointed question and the next thing you know, red sweaters begin popping up everywhere. The point is, people like to copy others. Sometimes they copy celebrities, sometimes fictional characters, and sometimes a guy in a red sweater and sometimes the kid sitting next to them in class..

I’m not sure why some folks sag their trousers below their ass cracks. Maybe they are confused between looking tough and looking stupid? Some folks wear their baseball caps backwards. I don’t know why they would want people to think they aren’t bright enough to figure out what the cap’s bill is for, unless they are imitating Michael Jackson’s “moon walking”. In that case it would make sense because the cap would be worn correctly for the direction of travel.

It seems like the movie industry can’t produce two movies in a row that don’t include a “gangsta” theme.  “Gangsta” rap music is all over the place.

When was the last time the media reported the shooting murder of an opera singer? How about a country singer, new wave singer, folk singer or rock star? When was the last time the media reported the shooting murder of a rap artist?

This past weekend 17 people were shot to death in Chicago. 42 were wounded. There have been 638 homicides in Chicago this year alone. That’s 217 more than last year at this time. In all, 3662 people have been shot dead or wounded in Chicago this year so far. Now that’s saying something for a city with some of the nation’s toughest restrictive gun laws. With those statistics, Afghanistan could be considered a safe zone.

Hooray for Hollywood!

Former Attorney General, Eric Holder, has written an article for the Washington Post, appearing on-line today.

Holder was Attorney General from 2009 until he resigned under pressure in 2015. In his article, Holder notes his disagreement with FBI Director James Comey’s decision to make public information on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and noting that no criminal charges would be filed. That was in July of this year. Since then, new information has arisen. Holder wrote, ” That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public and political interest.”  This came at an inopportune time for Hillary with the Presidential election less than two weeks away. Holder further noted how Comey’s decisions ran contrary to the rules of secrecy Holder had instituted four years ago.

Holder wrote, “The Director said in July that he chose to take that extraordinary step in response to intense public interest. During my 12-year service in the Public Integrity Section and as attorney general, I worked on some of the most politically sensitive cases that our country saw. The additional public scrutiny such investigations provoke makes it even more important that we handle those cases consistently and responsibly. That is exactly why guidelines are put in place: so that Justice Department leaders, including FBI directors, will not substitute their own judgments and opinions for reasoned, fair, coherent and time-tested policy.” Holder also notes, “I served with Jim Comey and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes.

Questions:

Isn’t this the same Eric Hinton Holder Jr. who was senior legal advisor to Barack Obama during Obama’s presidential campaign? Wasn’t he one of three committee members on Obama’s vice presidential selection committee?

Isn’t this the same Eric Holder who was the first Cabinet member in the history of the United States ever to be held in Criminal Contempt of Congress for failing to disclose 92% of the documents demanded by Congress regarding the FBI’s ill-conceived “Fast and Furious” gun running scheme in which Mexican drug cartels were sold numerous untraceable weapons? Is this the same investigation during which Holder ignored Congressional subpoenas and silenced Justice Department employees from discussing the case? Is this the same partisan who refused to take seriously the contempt charge because he didn’t respect the Republicans who voted for the charge (although 17 Democrats also voted in favor)? Is this the same attorney general who had the responsibility of bringing that contempt charge against himself to court, but failed to do so?

What is wrong with this picture?

Answers: Continue reading ERIC HOLDER VS. JAMES COMEY →

I will be referencing a Pittsburg Post-Gazette on-line article (October 27, 2016,  11:27 pm) as the source of some information below.

Obama recently announced more pardons for mostly non-violent drug offenders. (Mostly?) 872 convicts have had their sentences shortened , granting clemency to 688 this year alone. That figure surpasses the actions of the last eleven Presidents combined.

Obama apparently believes (as do very many others, myself included) the sentencing policies of “The War On Drugs” were harsh and many did not fit the crimes. It makes little sense to me to incarcerate a casual drug user alongside hardened violent criminals; thus, often creating serious criminals out of harmless folks who just like to get high. Continue reading I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. →

Jurisprudence is the study, theory or science of law. This can be rather complicated, so allow me to put its practice into a nutshell for the layman.

There are four players in this game. At times, not all are used. For this examination, we will assume all players are of the male gender because I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about political correctness.

1. First there is the “Judge”. His jobs may vary according to circumstances, but he will always roll two or three 1/2″-3/4″ stainless steel ball bearings around in the palm of his left hand, (three if he’s a really talented judge) and chew gum. He is the one who gets the last word (and, thus, the last laugh).
2. Then comes the Prosecutor. He is the well dressed fellow (with stubby horns), who points his finger at the guy sitting on the other side of the courtroom and screams, “He did it!”
3. Next comes the Defense, a bearded octogenarian, in a full body cast and oversized candy-apple red sunglasses who climbs onto a table and chants, “Did not! Did not!”.
4. Finally, there is the jury. It is comprised of a predetermined number of people chosen from the thousands originally invited to audition.

To begin a trial, the judge is presented with a simple idea.  It then becomes the job of the two opposing attorneys to take that idea and disassemble it into its composite parts ( land, sea, and drama ). This is only complete when the original idea has devolved into a chaotic pile of shrapnel.

Now the building of the opposing cases begins. Often, this is when the jury (which has been chosen by both the prosecution and defense for its ability to sleep with its eyes open) is treated to every reason they should wish to be elsewhere. Unanimously, the restroom.

The prosecutor begins by making grand statements of his high regard for all those present (except the accused) and hints that there will be cookies served afterward if the judge or jury decides in his client’s favor.  Then he will call “witnesses”. These are usually flora and fauna he’s met at the track or Walmart, the night before.

In return, the defense points out his client’s innocence due to the accused’s inability to ride a unicycle (this, being his parole officer’s fault).

As much time is wasted, each side constructs a scenario which bears no resemblance to the idea originally presented.

Next, comes the summation (Thank God). This is a long winded monolog given by each side which is simply a multisyllabic version, delivered in an array of languages, dialects and sound bites for the media, of what they said in the first place.

If the accused has waived his right to a jury trial, the judge will rule by throwing his ball bearings at the defendant or the prosecutor ( as the case may be ). If a jury was involved, the jury foreman will announce the verdict and duck, because the judge will throw his ball bearings at him.

Sentencing: The judge does the sentencing and is bound by law to impose at least the minimum sentence prescribed by law, or decide on anything from a death sentence to throwing an Oprah style block party.

So, now you know.

Obama was focused on acting like a President rather than being one. While he prioritized  his legacy as his goal, the JV team scored the goal. This will be Obama’s legacy.

I understand he has chosen Chicago as the site of his Presidential library. I hope he is provided with the appropriately ornate kiosk.

It was 12:00 noon today and I’d just finished showering (I sleep late). The last thing I donned while getting dressed was my footwear (I keep a selection beside my bed).

By 5:10 pm. I was home from running several errands and finally sat down. When I did, I noticed I was wearing two different style boots. On my left foot I wore a comfortable, brown, above ankle boot. On my right, I wore a black, above ankle, tactical, policeman’s style boot. I cocked my head to one side as a dog might do when wondering why the motorboat noise coming from under his owner’s chair is being blamed on him, and murmured, “What the hell?”. How did this oversight occur? Am I getting old, blind, fat or just lazy?

How did I not notice the fact that I was putting on non-matching boots in the first place? I don’t know. The lighting?

When I stand up straight, I can no longer see my feet. So that didn’t help. I blame Ben and Jerry’s.

Of all the people I met with during the day, not one embarrassed me by mentioning the issue. Rather kind of them, really.

When I did finally notice this myself, did I see fit to remedy the situation ? No.

So, to resolve my original question(s), I guess the answers are (in order of appearance): eh?, affirmative, uh huh and you betcha.

But at least my fly wasn’t open. Um..Oops! Correction….At least my fly isn’t open.

District of Colombia. A brief  history:

Columbia is the old poetic name for The United States and was personified by a woman (later essentially displaced by the Statue of Liberty around 1920). “Columbia” was first coined (in reference to America) in 1738 in Great Britain as a pseudonym for the “colonies” in a published review of British Parliamentary debates in Edward Cave’s “The Gentleman’s Magazine. Printed versions of the debates were illegal at the time, therefore other names and titles were substituted in order to keep Mr. Cave out of gaol.

The District of Columbia is neither a state nor a territory, but instead , a very silly place (as well as a hide-out for some very unsavory characters).

“But why is it called Washington D.C.?”, you might ask. And well you should. Some people believe this was a tribute to George Washington (who, by the bye, never cut down a cherry tree and was known to tell a fib or two). The actual reason for calling the area Washington was an act of trickery. The reasoning was, when an elected official would need to go on the lam, it was hoped the posse would search around the Pacific Northwest for him because there was a state by that name out there. It was assumed the posse would get waterlogged by the climate and fall desperately in love with the seafood, thus throwing it off the scent. This proved very successful for a while. Especially due to the tiny, delectable, albeit pricey, oysters and salamanders native to the area.

We all know where these politicians hang out now, so the hiding is over. If they wish to continue calling D.C. “Washington”, that’s okay. But considering the fact that “District”  remains not fully defined and “Colombia” historically denotes an air of freedom and opportunity, “D.C.” is due for a change. Don’t you think? Perhaps the “D” should stand for dopey or duck-like and the “C” could stand for…..? I’ve never been good at this. You choose. But try to keep it politically correct and free of expletives (if that is at all possible.)

The extermination of ISIS was a prerequisite before the group’s inception.

There are three branches of which the United States government was originally comprised.

1. The Executive.
2. The Legislative.
3. The Judicial.

The three branches of which the United States government is currently comprised.

1. The Top Narcissist.
2. The Top Narcissist Wannabes.
3. The Perpetually Confused.

Where would Trump stand in the polls today if he hadn’t claimed that HE alone could “Make America Great Again”, but that his leadership could? What if he had developed a list of experts in various fields (business, international trade, climate change, military, energy) that he would choose as his team and touted their qualifications and accomplishments during his campaign speeches? Granted, this would have been less entertaining than his bellicose wise cracks, but there still would have been time to point out Hillary’s foibles and alleged felonies.

Where would Hillary be today if Trump had done that? Where would she be today if she understood what the definition of the word “is” is in the following sentences…”Subterfuge IS wrong.” “Prevaricating IS wrong.”?

Where would both of them be if the public gave a damn?

Where is the public going to end up?

……and now a word from our political sponsors: The Internal Revenue Service, The Vladimir Putin Project, The Jerry Springer Show, Discount Lobotomy Clinics of America and Liars Not So Anonymous.