End Of The Revolution

   Well, it finally happened.  Ron Paul decided to "suspend" his 2012 presidential campaign, which really means "end."  Why don't these politicians just call it for what it is?  Apparently this was ended for financial reasons.  If that's the case, then I say it's a worthy.  Cause.  You've got mainstream media and even your fellow Republicans against you, there's really no reason to go on.  Unless you run on an independent ticket.  What?

   The core problem with Ron Paul is the type of people he attracts.  Despite the fact that you may have heard he actually won several of the states that were previously given to other candidates, and despite the huge crowds he typically draws at his speaking events, Ron Paul will never win as long as he continues to court young Americans.  Why?  Because young Americans don't vote.

   Young people love to get excited about things.  They see a guy like Ron Paul, a nice older guy who preaches an honest, freedom-loving message, and they get their panties in a wad.  They all go crazy, building off of each other.  Seriously some of these speaking events look more like pep rallies than presidential speeches.  College kids are stupid, but that aside, no amount of excitement is going to put Ron Paul in the White House.  To get there, he needs something called "votes."  Now, the act of voting probably seems very foreign to these young people.  "You mean you have to actually get outside?"  "You have to actually interact with people?  Like, in person?"  "Wait I have to write something down?  Or I have to use this turney-knob thingy instead of just writing a text message or clicking a check-box?"  Yeah, it's old-school.

   Look I hate the voting process as much as the next guy.  I've even ranted about it a time or two.  If voting were done online, I think you would not only see an incredibly high turnout rate, but I think you would also see vastly different results in most elections.  I bet you if voting for the president were more like voting for the next American Idol, Ron Paul would be on his way to the White House.  But it's not done that way.  We have the system we have for a reason, no matter how old and antiquated that reason is, and it's the only system we've got.  Until some politicians finally pull their heads out of their asses and realize we have this thing called "The Internet" now, we're going to be going to a polling location and manually inputting our votes.

   So, am I sad to see Ron Paul pull out of the election?  Yeah, I am.  He had my vote.  I would have loved to of seen him go up against Barack Obama, or at least break up the two-party rhythm that we're going to once again endure until November.  But I think in some ways Ron Paul did exactly what he set out to do.  He raised awareness among young people.  He brought them out in droves.  And even if two out of three of those young people were high or drunk or just stupid, if even ONE of them hears the message, and if that one young person BELIEVES the message, then his job is done.  Eventually that young person won't be so young anymore, and these important decisions that affect our country, for better or worse, will fall into that person's hands.  God help us all.

Occupy A Point

   Someone posted on our Facebook page the other day about how we need to "get the money out of congress."  He followed his post with this video.  Random posts to videos on YouTube are nothing new, but I try to watch as many of them as I can for offensive content.  Also a lot of times they're interesting (or at least entertaining).  But this video really shocked me... and not for the reason you might think.

   The video itself has a very well spoken rant from a reporter, or wall street guy, or whatever, talking about how our congress is bought.  A "bought congress" has a nice ring to it... I think that's a good way of putting it, really.  And no I hadn't heard of that before, so suck it.  The fact of the matter is, this guy is absolutely correct.  I've complained many, many times about how we need to get the money out of politics.  What we've basically got right now is a system where whichever politician raises the most money wins the election.  It works too... I was just thinking the other day that I would be voting for a certain guy come election time.  "Why?" I asked myself.  And unfortunately, the only reason I could come up with was "because I saw his ad on TV."  This guy was the only name I would have recognized on the ballot, and it's just because I had seen his commercial.  I don't know if I agree with the guy... I have no idea what he stands for, or what kind of person he is.  I don't even know what he's running for.  But I guarantee you if I hadn't caught myself, when I saw that guy's name on the ballot I would have instinctively put a check mark next to it.  If you take the money out, then that candidate wouldn't be advertising any more than any other candidate, and all would get equal representation.  See how that fixes everything?

   But I digress.  This reporter's rant is not what shocked me.  What shocked me was that this whole rant, this whole idea of taking the money out of politics, was wrapped up nicely in an "Occupy Wall Street" bow. Occupy Wall Street?  Is THAT what they were all about?  I honestly had no idea.

   Seriously.  If "Occupy Wall Street" had their shit together enough to actually get that message out, instead of looking like a bunch of homeless hippies who had nothing better to do than camp out in a park somewhere, I guarantee their movement would have been more effective.  I thought Occupy Wall Street was all about how unfair it was that the rich folks have so much more money than the rest of us.  I thought it was designed to try to get the government to redistribute wealth.  I thought it was a bunch of socialists who would rather sit around smoking weed and complaining than actually fighting for a job like the rest of us do every single day.

   But no.  "Occupy Wall Street" actually had a good, valid, underlying message: get money out of politics.  Force our politicians to put their COUNTRY and their CONSTITUENTS first, not the lobbyists who pay for their TV commercials.  Maybe what Occupy really needed was a better marketing team...

The Race To Racism

   Ah, cops.  Good guys and gals, for the most part.  But every now and then they get out of hand.  Such was the recent case here in Houston where several police officers beat a suspect they had caught, and it was all captured on camera.  The trial started up just a few days ago, and the first cop to go before the judge received a "not guilty" verdict.

   As you can probably imagine, this upset quite a few people.  Look at that video again.  These cops caught a thug who had broken the law.  They did their duty, and they did it well.  But continuing to beat the guy once you have him in custody?  Too far guys... too far.  Now I don't know all the details in this case, or in the "not guilty" verdict.  I do know this: the jury was all white.  And man this has turned into a pretty intense scene between the African American civil rights leaders and the city's leaders.  Unfortunately, there's fault on both sides.  Neither side is right, and both sides need to just go home.

   First, the city has some real questions to answer.  I just don't see how looking at that video anyone could say that any of those cops were "not guilty."  I know things happen fast out there and emotions run high.  I've seen plenty of rough arrests (some of the best ones happen after a high-speed chase).  But as police officers you are trained and trusted to know where the line is and to not cross it.  These officers clearly did.  So that's bad enough... but then at the first officer's trial, you're going to allow an all-white jury?  These officers beat up a black kid, and you're not going to raise an eyebrow that not ONE member of that jury is a minority?  Doesn't that seem kind of weird?  I mean we're a big city, right?  We're supposed to know how the judicial system works.  You gotta keep it equal.

   But, on the other side, these African American Activists are just making things worse.  I understand that some people will be quite upset by this verdict.  I can even understand them protesting.  But if you think for one second that those Activists are out there for your benefit, you're kidding yourself.  Activists are trying to make a living, just like preachers and just like the rest of us.  They know what works, they know what gets people's backs up, and they know how to make money doing what they do.  I guarantee you if that were a white kid that had gotten his ass kicked, these Activists would have stayed far away.  "Equal Rights For All," indeed.

   The bottom line is this: those cops were out of line.  But this kid did break the law.  If he hadn't been a punk, then the cops would have left him alone.  That said, the cops definitely did take things too far, and if this jury were truly "impartial," I think they would have at least taken a little longer to come to the "not guilty" verdict.  This is a very touchy situation... there are a lot of ways this can go, and a lot of the ways it could go are bad.  We have a chance to handle this like adults, hold those accountable who should be held accountable (but within reason)... or we could go back to being children, giving these so-called Activists ammunition to fuel the fires of racism and further damaging the interracial relations in our city.  It's time to make a new, truly impartial jury.  And it's time for people to pay attention to the details of a case before they make a picket sign and stomp down to the courthouse to protest something they don't actually understand.

Duplicity

   From Netflix:  Julia Roberts and Clive Owen co-star in this curveball-throwing thriller as a pair of romantically involved corporate operatives who are entangled in a bitter rivalry between two mammoth pharmaceutical companies. Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson convincingly round out the heavyweight cast as warring big pharma CEOs in this intriguing espionage effort from writer-director Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton).

   My Take:  Let me just get this out there right now.  I am NOT a Julia Roberts fan.  I think she's annoying, I think she thinks she's a lot hotter than she really is, and honestly her face kind of bugs me.  That said, I am a HUGE Clive Owen fan.  So I guess that evens things out.  And what really impressed me more than anything was the chemistry between these two.  These are two very intimate roles, and there is no way I ever thought Roberts would be able to pull it off.  Honestly I wasn't sure if Owen could be convincing as this type of character either... but they both did it, and it worked pretty well.

   Great music, and great use of flashbacks... even the little boxes on the screen were a nice touch (let you know when you were about to get a flash back).  The non-linear style of storytelling really worked with a nice payoff at the end.  And the final action sequence, I have to say, really had me going pretty good.

   Now, this is not by any means a GREAT movie.  There are better ones out there.  This one can't hold a candle to "Oceans 11," or "Snatch," but it does get the job done and it was pretty fun to watch over all.  If you've got the time, or you owe someone a chick-flick favor, I think this is one that you can get away with.

   In closing, I'd just like to say that I am really disappointed in how liberal David Letterman has gotten.  I mean I get it, most talk show guys are liberal.  Being liberal on TV is a lot more fun and entertaining.  But Letterman has gone from being a run-of-the-mill liberal to basically being a spokesperson for Barack Obama.  Forget the nuanced feel of Colbert or Stuart... Letterman's monologues have de-evolved into making fun of Mitt Romney and talking about what a great guy Obama is.

   I'm a pretty middle-of-the-road guy, but this is finally crossing the line for me.  I get that you're not a journalist, David, and you don't have the same responsibilities as journalists have... but you are a grown up.  You know what kind of influence you can have over people.  And it's time for you to keep that horseshit to yourself.

Don't Kill The Middle Messenger

   Remember the BP oil spill?  That little mess that ruined thousands of lives and killed untold numbers of animals, destroyed an ecosystem, and just generally reminded all of us how nasty we human beings are?  Well I just recently heard about one of the first arrests in this case, and it happened right here in the Houston area.  No, it wasn't the CEO.  And it wasn't some saboteur who actually caused the oil spill.  It was an ordinary Joe... a member of the massive middle management team at BP.
   This guy was arrested for deleting hundreds of text messages that he had sent to BP which contained information that suggested the oil spill was far worse than what BP was telling the public during that time frame.  He posted bond and got out, but what I'm still trying to understand is why this guy was arrested in the first place.
   Do you really think it was his idea to delete all of those text messages?  Are we supposed to believe that it wasn't some upper-management jerk telling him to get rid of them?  Should this guy really be held responsible for being honest and then deleting evidence, most likely at the order of his superiors?  Does this not seem ass-backwards to anyone else?
   Look the BP oil spill was terrible.  But it wasn't done on purpose.  Sure, you could say that there was negligence, or that it wouldn't have happened if we weren't all so greedy for oil.  But I seriously doubt this engineer from Katy, Texas, had any foul play in mind when he was doing his job that day.  And I seriously doubt that he wanted to cover up how bad the oil spill really was.  I mean he sent out the messages to begin with.
   The point here is that this is going to serve as yet another perfect example of middle management taking the fall for what should be an upper-management issue.  And the worst part of it is that it doesn't even seem like the justice system is trying this time.  There's a civil suit pending against BP as a whole, and that's nice... but if you're going to blame anyone, shouldn't you start at the top and work your way down?  Find the beginning of the chain of command... the guy who doesn't have to answer to anyone, and then work your way down until you figure out where something went wrong.  Figure out who dropped the ball, and then start making your arrests.  Don't just pick some dude who happened to delete some text messages and make him the poster boy for this entire debacle.  I'll bet you we don't see much in the way of trouble for the upper bigwigs at BP.  It's too valuable a company... and probably way too powerful a force in Washington.  It's amazing what money can do...

Risky Business

   Unless you've been in outer space, at the bottom of the ocean, or in a cave somewhere, you probably heard something about President Obama coming out in support of gay marriage.  Oh what glorious chaos this has caused.  It's a journalist's dream, really... facebook pages are blowing up, entire websites are being created, everyone has something to say about this issue, and it's been a lot of fun to watch.  What I really haven't been able to figure out is why he did it.
   Before I move on, I want to preface this by stating very clearly to you my beliefs.  I am not gay.  I don't really get the whole gay thing.  But I don't need to.  I accept it for what  it is.  If you want to be gay, if you want to wear your clothes backwards, if you want to live under a bridge, if you don't eat meat, it makes absolutely no difference to me.  Just don't affect my life with your beliefs, and I will promise to have the same respect for you.  Gay marriage to me goes in two different directions.  From a civil standpoint, it should absolutely be legal.  In the end, it comes down to rights.  There are rights afforded to married couples that non-married couples cannot share.  Many of these have to do with medical and next-of-kin type situations, which are as important to gay people as they are to straight people.  What right do any of us have to refuse those types of rights to anyone based upon their sexual orientation?  Is that any better than refusing it to them because of their race?  Or gender?  It's not.  Then there's the religious side to this issue, and when it comes to religion I completely flip to the other side.  Churches are private institutions, and they should not -- CAN NOT -- be told what to do by the government in this regard.  If a church or other private institution decides that it does not want to recognize marriages between gays, then it has that right.  As long as their refusal doesn't infringe on the couple in any legal manner, then the church can do whatever it wants, and while gays can complain about it all they want, it's a battle they should not expect to win.  So those are my beliefs.  I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with them, I'm just letting you know what they are.  Now why in the world would Obama pick now to talk about gay marriage?
   Was it a political play?  I don't see how.  I think a big chunk of the gay community probably already supports Obama.  It's not like he needs to pander to them for votes.  If anything, a political move might backfire on him, because I would imagine that there are quite a few people who love everything about the guy except his stance on gay marriage... in some case maybe even enough to cause them to withhold their votes.  Now, there could have been money involved, as in gaining political donations from gay supporters... but again I just can't see how that could be enough of a push to outweigh the risks associated with such a one-sided statement.  What's been the most fun to watch though is how the Right has completely blown this whole issue out of proportion.  The right might have a political play here... I mean Obama has potentially lost some voters with this statement.  If I worked for Romney, I'd be all over this, trying to think of a way to take some of the positive steam out from under Obama and hopefully turn those disenfranchised voters my direction.  I would also come out against all of this Rush Limbaugh and "declaring war on marriage" bullshit.  Keep it reigned in, people.
   Was it a distraction?  I think this is much more likely.  I know a lot of people love Obama.  I know he's a charismatic speaker, and I know he has made some very popular decisions over the years.  But the bottom line is he has failed in many, many ways as the president.  The economy is in the toilet, and while you could argue that he inherited that, he hasn't done much to improve things.  If aspects of his Universal Healthcare proposal are deemed unconstitutional, that would be a huge blow to his plans and really complicate things for all of us.  Gas prices are through the roof, despite his promises to wean this country off of foreign oil.  Basically, he hasn't been a bad president, but he hasn't been a particularly good one either.  Romney, on the other hand, is a bit of an unknown quantity.  Sure people don't like that he's Mormon.  Sure people don't like that he tied his dog to the roof of his car.  And I guess the latest thing is something about cutting a kid's hair in high school.  But despite all of these things, most people will agree that he has proven himself to be one helluva businessman.  And I think more and more people, sometimes even the mainstream media, are getting to the point where "anything different is better" in 2012.  So what better way for Obama's campaign to save itself from all of that than by making a radical, polarizing, press-magnet of a statement such as "I think gay marriage should be legal?"  Now all attention is on that.  And it is an important issue.  But I think we can/should all agree that the economy, social security, the wars we're fighting, etc etc etc should probably take a little precedence over this particular topic.  Still, if it works, it works...
   The bottom line here is that most of us have bigger fish to fry right now.  The media is going to continue milking this puppy for as long as it can (if it gets eyeballs to the TV screen, then you can count on it).  And the sad thing is that it hasn't moved anyone any closer to legalizing gay marriage.  All it's done so far as I can tell is drive an even deeper wedge between the people of this country.  Whether you're for or against it, that gives you no right to say or do hateful things to people who don't feel the same way.  And Obama's remarks, whether they had good intentions or not, whether they were a political move, or a distraction from the important issues, or even if it was just him genuinely clearing his conscience and setting the record straight... they have successfully separated us all from one another one again, and even further than before.

The Avengers

   From Netflix: An all-star lineup of superheroes -- including Iron Man, the Incredible Hulk and Captain America -- team up to save the world from certain doom. Working under the authority of S.H.I.E.L.D., can our heroes keep the planet at peace?
   My Take:  Since I was a little kid, I've always been an Iron Man fan.  Iron Man and Collossus... two very under-appreciated heroes.  So when the "Iron Man" movies came out, you can imagine that I was quite blown away.  Finally someone was recognizing the awesomeness, and they could not have cast the part better.  Then I heard about an Avengers movie coming out, and I was even more stoked.  But I was stoked because it meant more Iron Man, not because of the other characters.  Think about it.  "Iron Man" worked because it was a normal person (albeit a rich person) who put on a high-tech suit of armor that was incredibly badass.  Now think about the rest of the Avengers squad.  A dude who wears red-white-and-blue and has super-strength thanks to a "mysterious serum?"  A demigod who has a ridiculous hammer and comes from another planet?  A guy who got too big a dose of Gamma radiation and turns into an uncontrollable green monster?  And then, even worse, a dude who is hyper-accurate with a bow and arrow and a hot chick who flips around a lot?  NOT.  INTERESTED.
   So you can imagine I was a little skeptical going into the screening of this movie.  I had seen "Thor" and "Captain America," and while neither of those movies were terrible, they weren't nearly as good as "Iron Man."  And don't get me started on the "Hulk" movies.  Garbage, except for the kick.  And here they all were, grouped together into a movie that was directed by a pretty awesome dude.  But awesome as he may be, you can only polish a turd so much.  Or so I thought.
   "The Avengers" is an incredibly awesome movie.  There really is no other way to put it.  It has all the action and visual glory of "Transformers," minus the stupid Linkin Park songs and slow-mo chicks-getting-out-of-cars.  Add in some witty dialogue, excellent character interaction, and truly deep, comic-like storyline (conflicted characters not exactly getting along, yet expected to save the world), and you've got something special.  Somehow, every single character in this movie was relevant.  Each one of them served a purpose, and this was the first movie I've ever seen where I actually enjoyed watching The Hulk (it even has a punch).
   I have two minor complaints.  First, Hawkeye was a bit much.  I mean I get that the guy probably has insecurities.  Iron Man has his armor, Captain America has his super-strength, Thor is a god, The Hulk doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, and Black Widow is smoking hot.  And Hawkeye gets a fancy bow-and-arrow.  So I can forgive him for being a bit of a douche.  But when he shoots blindly while trying to talk like a badass?  Unacceptable.  Second, where in the world was the military response to the alien invasion of Manhattan?  I heard reference to "The National Guard won't be here for an hour."  Nice try.  Could you really not spare enough budget to get some soldiers and military hardware out there?  Hell I bet they'd do it for free.  Just look at the "Transformers" movies.  I have my complaints about them, but I will say this: they always did a good job of making our military look badass.  This could and should have been a bigger priority in "The Avengers," but it just wasn't.
   Still, do not let these minor shortcomings stop you from seeing this incredibly awesome movie.  "The Avengers" is on par with both of the "Iron Man" movies, and I would even put it up there with the Christopher Nolan "Batman" movies.  Yes, it's that good.  See it.  See it in theatres if you can.  It's worth it.

  Until next time...

Happy Death Day

   Hard to believe that it was a year ago that I turned on my TV and listened to one of our anchors say that Osama Bin Laden had been killed.  And while I was initially skeptical, I now have accepted that it most likely did go down the way that they said it did.  The story behind it is just too detailed, there are too many witnesses, and it is just too widely accepted for me to continue to believe that they either killed him before hand and used this as a political booster, or that they didn't get him at all.  I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, but this one just doesn't play out.
   So it was done, but now's when the real problems start to come out.  My first big beef with this whole thing is all the attention this SEAL team is getting.  They are amazing soldiers.  We get it.  They get it.  They don't need a bunch of congressional medals, they don't need to make appearances or get big write-ups.  In fact I'd be willing to bet that most of them would rather just get out of the limelight and get back to work saving our asses every single day.  I am completely behind supporting our soldiers.  They deserve our utmost respect and should be honored in every way possible.  But when that takes them away from their sworn duty, or even worse exposes them and their families to possible threats, then I think we have crossed the line.
   It's also silly to me that President Obama is now trying to use this as a platform for why he should be re-elected.  To Obama's credit, he was smart enough to get out of the way and let the military and intelligence officers do their jobs.  He also played it cool when he was confronted with big news and did an admirable job of keeping everything under wraps for a good amount of time.  But to sit here and essentially take credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden is a complete farce.  The media is going to do it of course, partly because they love Obama, partly because in their efforts to dumb everything down they will not get into the intricacies of how this stuff really happens.  But I do find it kind of embarrassing and selfish, really, for the President to suggest that if it hadn't been for him, we wouldn't have taken this shot.  Any president with any kind of common sense would have done the same thing, and while I would much rather have this decision be in the hands of Obama than, say Bush 2, I still don't think it's fair to take the credit.
   That's especially true considering the much more dire problems our country is now facing.  You gave the okay to kill Osama Bin Laden a year ago.  That's great.  How about the economy?  Jobs?  The national debt?  Universal Healthcare?  Social Security?  These are all pressing matters that Obama has yet to prove he can control or improve.  Trying to distract by reminding everyone that he was the president when Bin Laden was killed... well it might work for a little while, but I sure wouldn't count on it carrying your election.  Romney and his buddies will have a field day with that one.  Obama had better figure out a more solid platform than that one to stand on, or he's going to have serious problems convincing moderates that he should be re-elected.
   The bottom line and the big question here: is the world a safer place without Bin Laden?  Absolutely.  But he has paid for his crimes against humanity with his own life.  Now I think it's up to us to try to understand why he thought it would be a good idea to end this many human lives.  There have been many new documents released that were found at his compound.  I haven't read them yet, but they could be a very interesting look into the reasoning behind this operation.  Bin Laden was an asshole, but he wasn't crazy.  He was a very intelligent man, and while I don't think there is any way you can justify his actions, the reason behind those actions is something that may help us all to find a way to peace.
   Like it or not, there are a lot of politics going on behind the scenes with this whole Al Qaeda thing.  They go back many, many years... like back to when we actually supported Afghanistan in fighting off the Soviet Union.  Maybe even before then.  There is so much going on behind the scenes that none of us know about, and presidents, presidential candidates, leaders in general will try to distract you from that by making broad propagandist statements like "Bin Laden was a dick!" and then waiting for your applause.  We as Americans feel like it's our duty to applaud statements like that... and maybe it is.  But in the meantime these politicians are making a fool out of you, because they aren't answering your question and they are proving that you can be convinced and manipulated like cattle.  Stop doing that.
   The only person who I have heard something other than this from is my good pal Mr. Ron Paul.  He is the only candidate who stood up there in the debates, in front of everyone, and said it's not enough to simply sit here shout propaganda that will incite more war.  It's time for us to understand why we're fighting, and what can be done to actually stop it.  Has it ever occurred to any of you that throwing more guns and weapons at these people will just make them hate us more?  Has it ever occurred to you that maybe if we stop for one second and just consider the injustices that we may have put them through, then maybe (just maybe) we will be able to at least say "okay, we get it, and while we don't condone what you've done, we understand you want to be independent and not controlled by us or anyone?"  Again, like I said there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.  Me included.  It's just something I'll throw out there, and maybe it'll help you cut Ron Paul a little slack next time he says something that isn't your typical barf about what a jerkoff Bin Laden was.  Alright enough about this.

Where Are Your Petitions Now?

   Remember SOPA and PIPA?  Those two disgusting privacy-violating bills that were shit out by congress a few months ago?  I remember.  I also remember how all the big companies in the world (like Google) banded together, shutting down parts of their sites, showing you just how bad things would get if these bills passed, and asking you to sign petitions and contact your congress people in order to stop the bills in their tracks.  It worked, and it was an excellent example of how democracy should work.  Unfortunately this illusion of all of us helping each other has quickly gone down the toilet.
   There is a new bill now, and sadly you may not have even heard of it.  I know I hadn't until Ceci brought it to my attention a few weeks ago.  It's CISPA, and the way I read it it contains a lot of the same implications as the former garbage that congress tried to make us swallow before.  So what's the difference with this one?  Why haven't the companies gotten all up in arms?  Why aren't they shutting down and begging you to fill out petitions and stop the government from such injustice?  Simple: it doesn't affect them.  It affects YOU.
   Funny how the companies will rally together and help one another (and ask for your help) when it's their asses on the line.  But now that they are protected and YOU are the one who is in the crosshairs, they are nowhere to be found.  Ladies and gentlemen, we have all just been made to look like asses.  Where's Google now?  The big friendly company who loves everyone could give two shits whether or not the stuff you post gets YOU in trouble... as long as THEY don't carry any responsibility.  It's sad, really.
   A wiser man than myself once said "With great power comes great responsibility."  Then Peter Griffin said "With great mustache comes great responsibility."  I'm not sure which statement is smarter, but I can tell you the first one makes more sense in this particular situation.  These companies need to be reminded that it is WE who made them powerful in the first place.  WE are the ones who made them all this money, who use their products, who would no longer use their products if suddenly the government came in and started arresting people.  Do they not see that they would eventually be affected by these laws too?  Do they not realize that without people to buy and use their products, they will be worthless?
   No, they probably don't.  They're way too short-sighted, and CERTAINLY too selfish to give two shits about what happens to you or me.  They only care about protecting themselves.  Sure that's capitalism, but it's not democracy.  This country used to operate with a conscience, and somewhere down the line that conscience went away.  It still looks like it's there, but look around you.  Look at the oil mega corporation that spends millions of dollars on beautiful ad campaigns that talk about how much they care about you and the environment, and then watch them rape you at the gas pump.  Look at Google's amazing, emotional commercials about how their products bring families together and stir you at your very core... and then watch them walk away when your use of their products gets you sent off to prison.  When did this happen?  How did this happen?  And how do we fix it?

Pitbullsh*t

   In case you missed it, Maryland passed a law that says pitbull owners can now be held liable if their dogs attack someone.  This has pitbull owners upset of course, and victims of pitbull attacks cheering.  And you might hate me for saying this, but I'm going to side with the victims on this one.
   First of all, let me just state that while I AM a dog person, I am not that kind of dog person.  If it were up to me the only big dogs on the planet would be retrievers, but that's because I grew up with retrievers and I have had some not so good experience with other breeds of dogs like rotweilers, dobermans, boxers, etc.  So someone please tell me, what is the appeal for these breeds of dogs?  Why do you like them so much that you will defend them to this level?  And don't tell me it's "because they look tough..." you will only be proving my point.  Seriously, I want to know.
   Regardless, I don't understand how anyone can be upset for being held responsible for what their dog does.  I have a little dachshund, and sometimes he gets a little attitude about things (for some reason little kids really throw him off).  Nothing makes me feel more terrible than watching some little kid come running up wanting to pet the cute puppy, only to be met with hair standing up and barking going on. 
   But if Frankie were to ever break out of his collar and go and bite that kid, I would ABSOLUTELY expect to be held responsible.  And to me, that's what this law is really about.  Buy one of these dogs if you want.  If you raise it well and it grows up to be friendly and loving, then you have nothing to worry about.  But if that dogs hauls off and bites someone, you are going to pay the price.  That should be the rule anyway, for all breeds, not just pitbulls.
   Look I get that pitbulls have a raw deal.  I've met plenty who are very nice, like Wooley's dogs (which are mixes, but close enough).  Not all dogs are bad.  Some are.  Not all owners can be blamed for their dog's behavior, but if that owner is irresponsible enough to do nothing about a bad dog, and allow that dog to continue functioning that way, then that owner should be held responsible for his OWN actions of allowing that dog to act that way.  Wow that was an awful sentence.  I'm too lazy to go back though, I'm on a roll here.
   Maybe instead of making this law about pitbulls, they should have made it about ALL dog OWNERS.  Dogs are dogs.  They have instincts, they are animals after all.  Some of those instincts are natural, some are taught, some are allowed to grow (knowingly or unknowingly).  But at the end of the day, you as an owner are responsible for what that dog does.  You bought into that when you bought the dog.  And I'm starting to think the real problem here is that people don't want to be told they are responsible for something.  That's scary on a whole new level.


   Here's how bad a state our country is in:  I saw a fat guy the other day at Mission Burrito.  Fat guy at Mission Burrito is no surprise, that place is like a mecca for them.  But this guy was incredible.  He had a nice macbook pro setup at his table, and as he waddled over and sat down, his gut hit the table and knocked over his drink, spilling it everywhere, including all underneath his nice laptop.
   I watched in horror as the guy sat there for a second, trying to take in what happened.  After a good 10 seconds, he finally stood up, grabbed the cup, and looked at the spillage.  He froze, obviously in a quandary about what to do.  Then he did what somehow surprised me even though it shouldn't: he chugged the remainder of his drink.  Screw the expensive laptop.  Screw the papers you had sat down on the table.  This was soda we were talking about.  Precious, precious soda.  To spill that is a sin above all others.
   It gets worse.  The guy finished chugging what was left of his soda, and I figured "okay he's fat, I get that, but you gotta take care of that laptop dude."  Sure enough, he actually started to make his way TOWARDS THE DRINK FOUNTAIN, before actually realizing how ridiculous he was acting and actually using napkins to sop up the liquid that had no doubt now seeped into his laptop's innards.
   I'm sorry, but if you've reached a point where your next sip of Coca Cola is more important to you than a laptop that probably cost more than a thousand dollars, you have a problem.  I'm not surprised though.  I guess I should just be happy he caught himself before getting a refill.  This is the state we are in, folks.  AMERICA!