RACHEL DOLEZAL ....WE LOVE YOU

This is a story about parents who outed their daughter. Nice job Mom and Dad.  You can now take off your white robes with the pointed hats.  This is a story about the mindless media totally committed to their craft that they don't care whose life they hurt or destroy as long as it is not their own.  Their excuse is that they're only the messengers, just the ones carrying out their marching orders.  News flash, the same excuses were used at Nuremberg.

This is a story about the NAACP who may have missed the opportunity of a lifetime by accepting Ms. Dolezal's resignation.  They already said she was doing a good job, a good advocate, a good leader.  Which genius pointed out that she checked Black on a form?  Which shameful elected officials gloated?

This is a story about a girl born to white parents, was educated by mostly black teachers, declared herself as black, passed for black and then spent her days helping black people.  Did I get this right?
So, WTF, beg her to take her job back. And, as to her parents, please self deport!

DRONES and Boots On The Ground

I usually do some research but owing to need-to-know issues,  the government has not friended me.  We had tons of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and some 5,000 of our men and women wearing those boots died.  I think some 30,000, wearing those boots,  were seriously wounded.  Compare to 4 people dying in Benghazi and the congressional investigations found Hillary to be faultless. No blood on her hands.

The excuse for those thousands of Americans dying was false credible evidence of both weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam would use it against us.  Now, there are some out there who want to not use drones and go back to boots.  Others want drones and boots.  Some intellects want 100% assurance that drones only kill the bad guys.  They should wear black hats and name plates and house prisoners far away.

I don't want boots on the ground. I don't want parents, spouses, brothers and sisters to lose their American warrior or have them wounded. I well know the other side of the issue. For these reasons, I love our drone program. 

Rand Paul

I read in cyberspace that Rand Paul requires that anything he said in the past, hereinafter, must be off limits.  Really wish I remembered the exact quote, language and context, however I think it is the most bizarre thing to emerge from the mouth of a Presidential Candidate.  He seems to feel free to viciously go after anyone's past without necessarily being encumbered by facts,   Yet, anything he said in his past, any of his flip-flops, any simply not true statements are no to be mentioned hereinafter.  Well so much for his statements

Now, I understand that in addition to not talking about what he said, he ends interviews or gets enraged if something he did comes under scrutiny.

What an ideal position to be in.  He wants to erase his utterances, wants to be assured only mutual admiration interviews, and he thus assures he's as clean and pure as Caesar's wife.  And, all the time have his way with his dis tractors.

Now, once he says something, it becomes in his past, as soon as it is said.  So, he is actually also protecting the present and future.  Brilliant!

The last person who had such free reign, was a little mustached fool in 1939.

INDIANA DOUBLE-TALK

Just my stupid opinion that Indiana's answer will be that there is no license to discriminate. To them this will simple mean that no specific law says you can discriminate.  This does not mean that a person can't discriminate, only that the State does not give specific permission to do so.  A person can still refuse service or products because there is no law stating that they can't.  Then if a person refuses service, he can say it is not discrimination, but simply exercising the laws protection of his religious beliefs.

The State must have a non discrimination law

Andreas Lubitz, GermanWings and the French Alps

In the early hours and days of this tragedy, a Prosecutor was stating to the world's news services that the co-pilot crashed the plane on purpose.  I don't know the Prosecutor's name or if it was a he or she and if (I'll call it a "he") his nationality was german or otherwise.  In the days that followed, the Prosecutor alluded to depression, that  Lubitz lied to his company, that he was seeking the help of a shrink,  then they found that doctors told him he was unfit to work but he tore the Doctor's note up.

The effort, I guess, was to make sure that the world knew, even before the first black box dried, that the Airbus plane was totally not at fault.  To keep the parent company pure as Mother Theresa, a huge effort was undertaken to tell that this 28 year old co-pilot was capable, trained and qualified  up to the highest Luftansia standards.

Since then, Andreas Lubitz took a leave of absence in mid training maybe because the psychotic drugs were slowing him down. There were articles that he became a Muslim, and he lived with a girl friend who is pregnant.  Someone wrote that he could have been Jewish. I'm shocked that this theory took so long to emerge. After all, the Europeans are hard wired to swallow a Muslim or Jewish connection.  Now I understand that the Prosecutor says Lubitz was suicidal.  Now, why would anyone think that?  Someone told me that the Governor of Indiana said Lubitz was Gay, but I rejected that notion out-of-hand as  the tell came from a Republican in the locker room of my gym.

The CEO OF Luftansia, Germanwings parent company stated that they didn't need two people in the cockpit at a time as zis vaz only von incident.  I detected an underpinning of arrogance reminiscent of B rated war movies. OK, maybe I'm just not a nice person.  Now they have the two rule.

Anyway, I think pilots, conductors, ship captains, et cetera, should undergo periodic lie detector tests snd psychiatric evaluation. As well as blood and/or wee wee analysis.

The Koch Bros. Are Advertising

The Koch brothers have joined such notables as BP and GE with institutional TV ads.  Institutional advertising is unlike most TV ads that are designed to sell products and services.  It generally has the purpose of making the public feel better about the corporation. It can be thought of as a public relations ploy to build reputation that has been tarnished owing to the way they operate.

I believe the GE ads were most likely to overcome the fact that the avoid paying taxes in the U.S.A.  The BP's handling of the Gulf spill put the disdain for their name probably on a par with those on the FBI's most wanted.  Adding insult to this, they apparently failed to rebuild, repay and clean up as promised.

Now the Koch Brothers, the champions of the 1%; the billionaire oil Barron's that also own a number of national branded products have spent many millions to influence legislation and the outcome of elections.  They are champions of the Republican Party at the state and national level.  I would venture that they are amongst the most hated by the majority sector of voters.

There has been a concerted effort to ask citizens to avoid their brands.  Just Google Koch Industries brands.  I think you'll find Northern toilet paper, Brawny and many others.  It must be hurting them else they wouldn't resort to institutional ads.

They're very smart. They show how many jobs they create, how innovative they are, how they build America.  I'm not fooled. I stay away from their brands and ask others to do the same.

Jodi Arias Before the MurderI

I looked at a collection of pictures of Jodi and her ex-boyfriend Travis.  Pictures of them taken by each other as well as by a third party.  All of these were pre-trial.

I did not read much, did not see any film, did not follow the trial, yet was still showered with words and graphics.  Thirty times stabbed, almost beheaded it seems more than self defense. It seems she wanted to kill him over and over.  For this brutality, the overwhelming comments demanded the death penalty.

So, I looked at their pictures.  Her poses were not particularly pin-up, not suggestive, but what you'd normally see fom a person committed through love to a boyfriend.  Her smile and body language seem to say that this guy is the one.  Her non smiling pictures still seemed sincere in this relationship.  A few looked less happy than the others but not in a way to diminish him.

Then I looked at his photos.  Of some two dozen shots, he smiled in only one picture - the one where he was giving, presumably, a business talk to his audience. In all other pictures, when he was with Jodi,  his face and gestures were either somber, making childish faces, disdain perhaps, and devoid of a man happily in love. In one picture he gave a "brotherly" kiss on her cheek. In just about every shot, his expressions may have been polar opposite of what he said to her, and his declarations during intimacy with her.  

I don't think she is a monster. If he really loved her, they'd be married with a bunch of rug rats. I know what transpired was monsterous. My pea brained opinion is that the day of his death was the last straw.  I think it may have been rejection growing and festering for some time.  Possibly, the feelings of being lied to, of cheated on, of just being used when she may have told her world that this was the one. Did it all make her snap?  She should have claimed diminished capacity.