Matters of Opinion 03/05/10

Content: We cover soooo much in this episode, I don’t even know where to begin. From Swiss bank accounts to communism to Fair Tax and everything in between.

Guests: Kevin Tracy and Donald Sjoerdsma

Death At Sea World Excuse For Idiots To Speak

This past week, as I’m sure all of you have read in the newspaper, a woman who was a trainer at Sea World was killed by a killer whale. This story was especially big in our (me and Kevin Tracy’s) neck of the woods, since  Dawn Brancheau, the woman that was killed by Tilikum, the whale, went to Andrean High School right here in Northwest Indiana. The whale had killed two others in the past, and from what I can find Sea World has not yet determined what, exactly, to do with this killer whale.

The bigger problem here stems from the stupid remarks made by actors like Matt Damon and Jeff Goldblum (not to mention those idiot PETA members).

“I think they should just shut them all down,” Damon told “The Insider” on the red carpet, saying that the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau was “horrible.” “I’ve never been a fan of places like that.”

“Actress Tippi Hedren, who founded a wildlife rescue organization in Southern California, is speaking out following yesterday’s death of a trainer who was attacked by a killer whale at Sea World.

Tippi’s statement, titled “Tilikum,” the name of the whale involved in the attack, reads, “Animal abuse is rampant in the U.S., right under everyone’s eyes, for the entertainment of the public. The brutal confinement and pain of training methods of wild animals in the circus, the aquatic and theatrical shows, leads to retaliation by the animals. Eventually they find the right time to strike out, and they will.

“What is it going to take to make it clear these animals are wild? These animals are innocent; it is man and the huge amounts of money brought in by the animals that allows this kind of insanity and deception to continue. It is up to the public to stop attending these theatrical, and aquatic shows, and circuses with wild animals. The rhetoric about how the animals are happy and well cared for are lies. Don’t be swayed by them. The money behind these shows is huge; there is nothing good about them.

“Federal legislation is urgently needed to stop this insanity of wild animals in captivity.”

Tippi founded the Roar Foundation’s Shambala Preserve, which is home to about 60 big cats, including leopards, lions, tigers, cougars and more.” Excert from www.theinsider.com

First let me say this: few of the quotes that I have been able to find on this poor woman’s death have shown much concern for the HUMAN that was killed. Sure, Matt Damon made the off the cuff remark that it was a tragedy, and then went on to say how all of the animals should be returned to the wild. The fact that so many people can be so callous and use this as an opportunity to peddle an agenda instead of giving her family condolences is mind boggling, and so I’ll start by going against the grain and doing just that.

To the Brancheau family, those of us at ktracy.com and mattersofopinion.net want to let you know that our prayers go out to you during this tragic time. From what I have read in the newspapers, your lost loved one was an animal lover and didn’t wish ill towards any of the aquatic life that she worked with.

Now, let’s get my opinion on this matter (since I know you’re all DIEING to hear what I have to say). 

If Sea Worldhadn’t acquired this whale, there is a good chance it would be feeding a bunch of Japanese families right now. While we here in America like to think of ourselves as better than that and recognize that the killer whale is an endangered species, the rest of the world couldn’t give a crap less. Whales, like panda bears and elephants, are mostly no longer endangered (or at least to a lesser extent) because people have found a way to make money off of them. Plain and simple. Yes, laws have deterred some. But lets use the elephants in Africa as an example. People can pay big money to go on an elephant hunt, even though poaching the large animals is outlawed. This gives those in the villages a reason to keep the poachers from poaching. It’s a little more difficult to have the same kind of idea with whales, what with the almost unlimited mobility of the aquatic animals, however the overall principle still applies here. The whales are fed like kings and trained to entertain the species with the larger brain (I don’t care what you people say, when I can hire a whale to build a house or to do my homework, THEN I’ll give up my rightful place on the “smartest species throne”. Until then, I’ll reign supreme, and I’m not too worried about handing off that scepter just yet, thank you), and a great majority of the whales do not kill their trainers. So while this one whale seems to have a history of this, the solution isn’t “shut down all of the parks”. On one message board talking about this incident, somebody had written “kill it and grill it”. While I’m sure that would feed a lot of homeless people, how about this one whale, that is the problem whale, just gets let go into the ocean? If it’s caught by Japan and eaten, great. If it’s not, great. Win win here, people. The idea that all aquatic theme parks should be immediately shut down is kind of like that fifth grade teacher making EVERBODY stay after school for detention because of the disruptions of one individual, and it simply isn’t fair.

I remember going to Sea World in Ohio when I was younger. It was awesome, and I hope that when my son is older I can take him to that same park and have a whale of a time (pun intended). So here is what I propose. All of you executives at Sea World, get out your notebooks and start taking some notes.

1. Continue your wonderful park

2. Detain all PETA members (this will of course need the President’s approval of martial law, so wait for a Republican to be in office, maybe 2012?)

3. Feed PETA members to aquatic entertainers (my fancy rewording of “big otherwise useless fish mammals”). They should go willingly if you tell them that it is to help fix the balance of nature that has been disrupted by white Anglo-Saxon protestant men.

That last part is of course a joke. Or so my lawyer advises me to say.

Working Vs. Stay At Home Moms: The Backlash?

To begin with, please, if you haven’t read the original piece (or even if you have and don’t remember it exactly) read it here: Working Vs. Stay at Home Moms

Ok, now that our memories are refreshed, let me address something that I had THOUGHT was clear in the original article. If you’re individual life situation doesn’t allow you to be a stay at home mom, then THAT’S FINE. I stressed countless times in the article this exact point, but unfortunately some people either don’t know how to read or choose not to. Regardless, the main reason that I decided to dredge this wonderful topic back up is because apparently I have a hate group regarding my articles. This doesn’t really bother me. Most ignorant people don’t like me, and that’s fine. The feeling is mutual. However, since this comment in particular (via a facebook conversation) about this particular article came up, I thought that I would ask you all, loyal readers, your input. Here it goes:

“Somebody needs to tell that fool that instead of spending time writing idiotic blogs and posting crap on facebook he should spend it with his kid (side note: Gage is almost always sleeping when I’m doing my extracurricular activities. Also, you will all be happy to know that Gage’s first word is “Daddy”. It must be from all that darn neglect.) and act like a grown up!!! He’s an idiot…”  There are some other things regarding peoples personal information and names that I won’t publish, but you all get the gist.

My question is this: what exactly did I write that was so offensive? Was my own personal thoughts, that a mother, if GIVEN THE CHOICE, should choose to stay at home with her child so that he/she is receiving the care and guidance that that child deserves? I went out of the way, in several parts of this article, to be sure to articulate that working mothers who juggle a career (ESPECIALLY single mothers) deserve a special place in heaven. I don’t understand, people. I really don’t. By the way, thanks to all of you readers, my “idiotic blogging” has made it’s way into the local college newspaper several times, has been featured in the Post-Tribune (a local paper) and I now occasionally write for the Northwest Indiana Times. Thank you again, loyal readers, for reading my useless opinions. At least I’m stimulating some peoples brains. Or rather, those that care to have their brains stimulated at all.

Ron Paul Wins “Straw Man Poll” at CPAC

CPAC, for all of you out there that don’t know what it is, is the Conservative Political Action Conference, and is a conservative staple. This years list of speakers included Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, etc. etc. Over the years Republican candidates have used CPAC to gauge the audience response as to whether or not he/she would take a Presidential stab. The ”straw poll” is a poll that indicates each individuals popularity.   

Here are the numbers and large number of people that ran in this “straw poll”.

Haley Barbour: 1%

Mitch Daniels: 2%

Newt Gingrich: 4%

Mike Huckabee: 4%

Sarah Palin: 7%

Ron Paul: 31%

Tim Pawlenty: 6%

Mike Pence: 5%

Mitt Romney: 22%

Rick Santorum: 2%

John Thune: 2%

It is important to note that only 2,395 votes were cast while the estimates of how many people showed up was well over 10,000. Of course, I’m sure this won’t stop hard-core Paul followers from proclaiming this a victory for their man.

However, if less than a fourth of those that attended voted for this, what are the odds that this poll is accurate enough to make that judgement? Also, let’s do some math. The Ron Paul section has really only two guys on this list that are in that libertarian vein: Pence and Paul. Add those two numbers up, it’s only 36%, which would mean only 36% of conservatives are of the RLC type. That leaves 64%, which is split amongst all of the other candidates, and as we all know everyone has their “pet” politicians. I’m sure most of the other 64% would be more than willing to vote for a different person if the name came up on the ballet, but the odds are most of the conservatives that  are in that 64% would not vote for Paul. Why? Most conservatives at that rally were probably “neo-cons”: which would clash quite a bit with Paul’s isolationism (OH that dreaded word again! I’m sorry, I’m sorry…non-interventionism which would force us into isolationism. My bad.) Pence, I actually like quite a bit, however he isn’t nearly as extreme about certain things like Paul is, and most other thinking people of the remaining 64% would probably still cast a vote for him.

The point of this post? The straw man poll means nothing, thank God.

Sorry For The Inconveinance…

I apologize for a lack of posts, everybody, and for neglecting to post up a show yesterday. I do hope that you all have patience with me, my time has become limited since I have begun being campaign manager/treasurer for Kevin Tracy in his campaign for Porter County Council. I’ll be sure to post up a show and some more posts next week.

If you have some time and would like to support Kevin, visit www.votetracy.com to see what we’ve been up to and to make a monetary donation. All donations are needed to put a candidate who puts service before self onto the Porter County Council.

Matters of Opinion 02/10/10

Content: First Lady Michelle Obama and her campaign against obesity, yet ANOTHER tax on cigarettes being suggested, Charlie Wilson’s death, and much much more

Guests: John Norris and Kurt Waywood

The Dumbest Thing I’ve Heard This Year (So Far)…

…and the winner is…Debra Medina!

On the Glenn Beck show, Debra Medina made a statement regarding the 9/11 “Truth” Movement that should be crippling to her campaign (and if it isn’t, then I’ve lost all faith in Texas). Here is the quote, taken from an Associated Press article:

‘[C]omments made by Debra Medina on the Glenn Beck Show that there were “some very good arguments” that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn,” Medina said. “I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.”‘

Wow.

Well, needless to say (and very very unsurprisingly) her two rivals in the race couldn’t wait to assert that THEY weren’t retarded.

“Perry said Medina’s remarks “were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones.” He countered that anyone “should be ashamed” for suggesting involvement by former President George W. Bush’s administration. Bush was Perry’s predecessor as Texas governor.

Hutchison stressed that it was “al-Qaida terrorists who declared war on America. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan and around the globe.””

Perhaps a bit more diplomatic than I think I could have been able to stay, but they both made their points quite clear. Of course, after the cat was out of the bag, Medina still tried to get that mangy feline back in with this statement, pulled from her campaign website and printed in it’s entirety (with some occasional interruptions by me, of course).

First Lady Obama Battles Obese Children…I Mean Child Obesity

I know, I know…just leave this one alone Travis. But you all know that I can’t do that! It’s some kind of mental illness I have. When something absurd is talked about I NEED to write about it.

The Associated Press printed a story today about First Lady Obama’s decision to take on child obesity. First, before I go all critical on her, I want to talk about the couple of things that I don’t have a problem with.

Major elements of Mrs. Obama’s campaign include:

“The Food and Drug Administration working with food manufacturers and retailers to make food labels more “customer-friendly.” The nonalcoholic beverage industry said Tuesday it will start putting calorie information on the front of its products.”

I have no problem with people being more aware of what they are putting into their bodies. Of course it won’t make me think twice about demolishing that wonderful McDouble and that large fry, but some people may, and that’s fine. Good for them. I’ll think about them while I lick the grease off my fingers.

“Offering $400 million in tax breaks to encourage grocery stores to move into “food deserts,” areas with limited supplies of nutritious food, and spending $5 million more to establish and promote farmers’ markets. Both steps would require congressional action.”

Tax breaks=good. As long as it is a tax break to ENCOURAGE, not DEMAND grocery stores to move in one direction or another, I’m fine with it. The 5 mil to promote farmers’ markets? Well, at first thought I was against, but considering 5 mil isn’t anywhere near the trillions that we need to stop spending, I’ll bite the bullet on that one.

“Encouraging children to exercise more; an hour a day is recommended.”

Encourage away.

“Setting up a Web site, http://www.letsmove.gov, with shopping tips, a recipe finder and other resources”

No problemo with that one either.

Now, let’s get critical.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics is encouraging doctors to monitor children’s body mass index or BMI, which is a calculation of height and weight used to measure body fat.”

In one paper or magazine you’ll read about children having issues about their weight, in the next you’ll read that the American Academy of Pediatrics is going to start encouraging doctors to monitoring kid’s weight. Which should we be concerned about again? Should little Susie Bingeandpurge really have her body fat measured? I say leave this part out of it. Fat children have enough of a complex as it is, thank you very much.

“Serving healthier food in schools. Congress is due to rewrite the Child Nutrition Act this year, and the administration is asking lawmakers to spend $10 billion over the next decade to give schools more money to make needed changes. More than 31 million children get meals through the federal school lunch program, and many kids eat up to half their daily calorie total at school.”

Here we go again. More cradle to grave crap. More money allocated to public schools to fix the problem (which never seems to fix it, so therefore more money gets thrown at it). As I recall from my own hot lunches in school, it was a pretty healthy lunch anyways (except for pizza on Friday! God forbid!!) Not only that, reread the above paragraph. Did you see the kicker? “[K]ids eat up to half their daily calorie total at school.” So, while we have an issue with child obesity from pretty damn balanced public school lunches, we also have an issue where children aren’t getting enough food while at home? Then, shouldn’t we, in theory, make the lunch foods have MORE calories and MORE fat since the kids aren’t eating as much at home?

Maybe I’m out of line here, but I think the whole idea is ludicrous. In one speech you can hear a politician piss and moan about needing more food stamp services because people are starving (which is crap, because a good portion of those people just sell the stamps for cash anyways) and then we hear about “needed changes” regarding childhood obesity.

Here’s a thinker. Don’t worry if my kid is fat! If he’s fat then that means he has enough to eat at home then doesn’t it? Why is that liberals (and to be fair a good many conservatives) feel the need to worry about stuff like this? I know the other side of the argument: if we can thin down these kids we won’t have to pay for their health care in the future. Well, I have a solution for that too! Don’t pay for their health care!

I don’t mean to rant and rave about such a mundane topic here, but good Lord, there’s only so much stupidity a man can take. Now excuse me. I believe my 4 meat pizza is almost finished cooking.

Cross posted at www.ktracy.com

Sex Cells

Sexting. I never, honestly, thought that such a thing would become an issue worthy of passing state laws over, but apparently it has become enough of a problem that such laws are necessary.

“Sexting” is the phrase given to text and picture messages that contain lewd acts/words and/or nudity. I’ve read other pieces that asked if this was a high-tech version of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours,” and from what I can ascertain that is apparently the case.

The big question, however, is whether a new law regarding these instances will eradicate the problem and whether a law violates individuals’ freedom of speech.

I’m not sure I’m qualified enough to throw my five cents in on that question in particular, but I have to say the idea of children sending nude pictures to other children is alarming. The parents should shoulder a good portion of the blame (whether the parents will admit to their own neglect is another question entirely), but the children who send the messages have to be held accountable and have it explained to them why their actions have consequences.

In this new age of technology, future employers are scanning people’s Facebook and MySpace pages and are looking up their job hopefuls on Google before considering whether to hire them. A Facebook page with pictures of an individual doing a keg stand (or, with the issue of “sexting,” a picture of an individual in the nude) does not put that person to the front of the line for a job, to say the least.

Is it disheartening to see that it may take the passage of a law to make this fact apparent? Of course! Everyone likes to think that people have more common sense than that! Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case, and one has to weigh internally which of the two scenarios he or she favors more: a law against “sexting” which might, technically, have the chance of infringing on a persons rights, or a new flock of job seeking young men and women who can’t find any serious employment because of stupid mistakes made when they were younger whom we, as society, must now pay for in the form of welfare and unemployment benefits.

Neither sounds particularly pleasing, and I’m not the type of person that usually favors societal infrastructure, but when given the choice between two very bitter pills, I find the former a bit more palatable.

Besides the societal effects of not passing legislation regarding this problem, there is the blatantly obvious reason that pops into one’s head: children shouldn’t be sending pictures and messages of a sexual nature anyway!

Written for and originally printed in the NWI Times

Ideology May Be Important, But Much More Is Needed

With the latest surge of TEA Party activism combined with an over-all nationwide jerk towards the right, names of TEA Party candidates, third party “conservative” candidates, and candidates that proudly yell from the highest roof top that they are not a part of the “establishment” (whatever the Hell that means) are coming out of the wood work. Lets get this straight right off the batsince I know far too many people don’t read past the first paragraph or two of these posts before writing mindless drivelling remarks of a derogatory nature in the comment section: I’m not saying these qualities make a BAD candidate.

ALL that I am saying is that I certainly hope that people thouroughly vet and examine these candidates before buying every cock and bull thing that pours out of their mouths. It takes a Hell of a lot more than good rhetoric and convenient timing to make person a good conservative candidate. Sure, the rhetoric at this time may make for a very winnable candidate, but that does not mean that the person is right for the job.

Depending on the position that the candidate is running for (lets use, for the sake of this post, a Senate seat) there are a lot questions that should be asked about that individual. What, exactly, is this persons qualifications? Would the seat be better filled by a person that is, on a scale of 1-10 regarding “conservativeness”, a 10 with no experience what-so-ever, or a person that is a 7 but knows the ins and outs of politics and perhaps was a high ranking member of the military? Me, personally? I would easily vote for the latter of these two candidates.

The same, obviously, goes for presidential candidates. Heck, George W. Bush is a prime example of a person who won the primary because he ran a great campaign (with the assistance of Karl Rove) and smeared the opposing candidates so much (with the assistance of the Evangelical community) that he won the primary and went on to beat Gore. Not that I thought that Bush was a bad President. I have my good things to say right along with the bad things (and usually my arguments for Bush are others against him, but that’s besides the point) however I feel there were probably others better suited for the position. But, because of timing and good rhetoric (and EXCELLANT campaigning) he became the face of the Republican party for 8 years.

Another thing that I hope everybody thinks about is relativity. No, you don’t have to be Einstein to get this (budda cha!) you only have to have more than two brain cells rubbing together and can’t be a mindless ideologue who screams one word slogans over and over again because you don’t have any substance in your arguments. However, I’ve fallen off of my beaten path for a moment (or rather, down a rabbit hole), my point regarding relativity is whether or not that cadidates views are relevant to that position. For example, a person running for city council doesn’t need to give a crap one way or another about the Iraq war. It’s irrelevant. Like wise for abortion, the national debt, etc.

Many are probably thinking: well, duh! However, too many are probably either seething because they support a candidate that has the right rhetoric but lacks the qualifications or are wiping the drool from their chin and saying, “Ohhh…I get it!”  

*Sigh*

That’s why I’m here. To put that little touch of common sense, a dash of reality, a pinch of sarcasm, and a whole pound of awesomeness in each and every day of your life.

Written by Travis Gearhart and cross-posted at www.ktracy.com

« Older Entries