6 posts tagged “current events”
Yah know, I may come off as being very unpatriotic and that is not the case but when I woke up thus morning and heard that President Gerald Ford had died, other than feeling for his family, I was like "so what".
For those flag wavers who are not up on their history. Gerald Ford was the first president never to be elected to the office. Each other President who had gained the office by death of a president had been been later elected at least once.
Now, check this out. Gerald Ford was not even the Vice-President by selection. He gained the office following the resignation of Spiro Agew, the Vice President under Nixon. So, Agnew resigns, Ford moves up, Nixon is forced to step down under the Watergate scandal and Ford moves up again. Kinda like a lucky pawn in a chess game. Ford spent 1973-74 as vice president and 74-77 as president (the books stretch is since inaguration of the 1976 President Elect is sworn in during the month of January).
Ford did not figure out on his own that Nixon was at the helm of the Watergate scandal as had been reported. Post investigation, Chief of Staff Alexander Haig tells Ford that they have a "smoking gun" that Nixon was directly involved in Watergate. The President resigns and what does Ford do when Nixon resigns? He gives him a FULL UNCONDITIONAL Presidential pardon!
Many speculate that the pardon was a part of an undercover deal that stated if Nixon resigned that he would not be charged nor impeached. That would save tax payer money, court time and Nixon's embarassment. Hmm wonder if we should have applied those principles when Clinton was getting head in the oval office. I think that I'd rather spend MY tax dollars prosecuting a president that has breached the electoral process or lied about weapons of mass destruction that resulted in thousands of dead American's versus one who got his dick sucked...but that's just me.
Ford was so popular during his presidency that he was the target of not one but two assassination attempts. One by a member of the Charles Manson family and then seventeen days later, another woman, Sarah Jane Moore, also tried to kill Ford while he was visiting San Francisco, but her attempt was thwarted when bystander Oliver Sipple deflected her shot. One person was injured when Moore fired, and both women were later sentenced to life in prison.
Ford ran for president in the 1976 election against Jimmy Carter. He ran during a climate that the Republicans were being held responsible as a party for the events of the prior couple of years. The Republican's had lost most of their seats during the congressional mid-term elections and it was anticipated that a republican presidential candidate would probably NOT win the presidential seat. Well they were right. Ford was defeated by Carter in the 1976 presidential election. Sorry Gerald.
Now, with all that said. I do not take away from him any of his military or congressional accomplishments. It does appear to me though that the same people who are boo hooing and flag waving about his death are the same people who DIDN'T elect him into office. They are the same people who shook their heads and fingers at him for pardoning Nixon and scrutinized everything he did in his short tenure as president. Now that he's dead, it's all hail the cheif.
If that's not hypocracy......what is?
I am a huge Oliver Stone fan and up until this point, have always been satisfied with the amount of historical accuracy in his films. That is until now. No, I'm not going to say that Oliver Stone now sucks...I'm just not really sure how this happened.
Oliver Stone's movie "World Trade Centers" was released on DVD just this passed Tuesday. I saw it this evening and was really surprised when I saw that Sgt. Thomas, one of the two Marines who, out of civic duty, not orders, arrived on the scene to assist rescuers was portrayed by William Mapother, a cousin of Tom Cruise.
The rescue efforts of everyone involved were commendable, however, none were as highlighted than the rescue of Port Authority Officers Will Jimeno and John McLoughlin on which the movie revolved. This rescue was a major part of the storyline and I'm unsure how it was that the "fact finders" missed this. Or did they?
The entertainment industry as well as American politics have been accused many times of "white washing" history and historical events. Since I don't have the necessary information to confirm or deny that this was the case with Jason Thomas, it would, without a doubt, throw another log on that conspiracy fire.
In August, the real Thomas held an interview with the Associated Press at which he said:
"Someone needed help. It didn't matter who," Thomas told the Associated Press. "I didn't even have a plan. But I have all this training as a Marine, and all I could think was, 'My city is in need.' "
Film producer Michael Shamberg issued an apology to Thomas citing that the inaccuracy was discovered after production had started. Shambergs apology came after African American groups started sending out notices via e-mail to various internet listserves and other "grass roots" media.
Thomas admits that he was disappointed that his character was not portrayed by an African American but also stated that he didn't want to create a huge controversy and shed a negative light on the film. Thomas was not an advocate for the boycott of the film that was proposed by some African American interest groups. Thomas felt that it was much more important to have the story told and for people to see the film.
I applaud Thomas's professionalism and acts of true patriotism however, others have argued that by him not being more forceful that he has adopted the "forgive and forget" mentality that many blame for the accomplishments of African American's being surpressed in US History.
What I truly hope people learn from all of this is that dignity prevails and closer attention should be paid when recreating historical events.
There is a current move in congress for enact a law which will force a journalist to choose between jail time and divulging their source of information.
Journalists of course are vehemently against this idea and with good reason. They argue that such a law violates their first amendment rights. In addition to that being a valid argument, I look at the bigger picture.
I know that what I'm about to say seems like apples and oranges but if you hang in there with me, you'll see where I'm headed with this.
There are some professions where the anonymity of a source is very important. Bodyguards, journalism and some law enforcement agencies really rely on information from others to get to the root of things. Bodyguards are a bit different, they are just bound to see and hear nothing that is not harming or threatening harm to the one they are guarding. When Bill Clinton's bodyguard was forced to testify as to the presidents activities, I really feel as if the courts had overstepped their boundaries. Never before was such a demand placed on a bodyguard for any other president, even when the presidential affair was much less discreet.
I knew then that if a presidential confidant was not protected from judicial scrutiny that the rest of us were screwed. People who give up criminal or scandalous information do so either for monetary gain, to clear their conscience, revenge or some other incentive. I feel very confident that if an informant knows that he/she may be named as a source of information, that well will run dry.
At the moment, the push is for journalists to give up their sources, would that still be the case if journalists had not exposed so many Capitol Hill wrongdoings? I'm not so sure. I think this is an expensive way to keep white collar secrets white collar.
Since we had the ice storm last week, yesterday was our first full day back in the office. That was very apparent as almost all of us were working later than normal. About 5:30 one of the women in the office asks
"Does anyone smell something burning?"
Now the she mentioned it, I did detect the very familiar of burning materials very different than those you would smell from a fireplace.
Being on the 4th floor of this building and smelling smoke was not the most comforting feeling in the world. Each of us decided to take our position at one of the windows and lean out to see if we can detect the source of the smoky odor. I automatically looked right as I wanted to make sure that if I had to move my car I could....LOL. I know that sounds horrible but honestly, that's what I thought. It was after 5 and I should have been on my way home anyway.
As it turns out, there was a fire but not in my building. The 4-star hotel that sits immediately next door had a two alarm grease fire. I'll bet anything that for it to be a two alarm fire, some genius tried to put water on a grease fire. Wonder if he still has a job?
Monday, November 27 12:00 AM ET
Los Angeles , CA -
The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.
MPAA head Dan Glickman says this needs to be regulated before things start getting too far out of control, "We didn't act early enough with the online sharing of our copyrighted content. This time we're not making the same mistake. We have a right to know what's showing in a theater."
The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.
The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.
The bill also stipulates that any existing home theaters be retrofitted with the technology or else the owner is responsible for directly informing the MPAA and receiving approval before each viewing.
"Contagious shooting" is what the NYPD calls the phenomenon formerly known as "Group-think". The New York Times defines Contagious Shooting as "gunfire that spreads among officers who believe that they, or their colleagues, are facing a threat. It spreads like germs, like laughter, or fear. An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too."
This is the expert explanation of why police officers fired multiple times in New York over the weekend, killing Shawn Bell just hours before his wedding. According to the reports, Bell and friends became involved in an altercation with undercover police officers in a strip club during this bachelor party. What happened next is pretty sketchy as I've read a few articles on this and the only things that are really consistent are the altercation and at some point the vehicle that Bell was in hitting a minivan, followed by the shooting.
The fact that Al Sharpton has arrived at the scene tells me that they will try and play the race card on this and that bothers me. Hell, Sharpton bothers me...but that's another blog entry. Camera is rolling...Lights, Camera...Sharpton.
Anyway with that in mind. It's reported that five police officers fired 50 rounds into the vehicle that the bridegroom was in. How does that happen? What is now being called "Contagious Shooting" is a variation on a 1972 theory by Irving Janis. Janis defines group-think as "A mode of thinking when people are engaged in a cohesive group, when the members striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."
This same theory is also known as "mob mentality" and now "contagious shooting". When do peoples actions become "responsibility related"? It seems that the experts are so fast to label and analyze behavior yet are not as apt to encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions. At what point do we, as a society use reason in conjunction with accountability? Simply stated, continue to understand why people do what they do but still encourage them to not let it be a crutch and admit when they have made a bad decision?
Click Here To Read The New York Times Article
