A Smile and a Grimace
Words we seldom
hear in America – “A local man and his dog were charged by Yaks.” It seems this
guy in Massachusetts, one Mike Tierney, who had been raising Alpacas on his
farm in Westfield, decided that Yaks were potentially tastier and more “fun” to
have on his farm, so he dumped the camelids and bought three yaks. Yaks are
tall, rangy and wild Asian (originally) cattle with long menacing horns and can
reach half a ton on the hoof. Had his fence been stronger, there would be no
story, but…..
Todd
Steglinski, 42, and his German shepherd, Sarah, were hiking on the Bear Hole
Reservoir Trail several miles from the Yaks original locale at dusk. As
Steglinski tells it, he spotted three large black animals drinking at the dam
below. He assumed they were black bears, but when he and Sarah got closer, he
realized he was wrong. At this point, curious readers might ask themselves why
any sane individual hiking in the woods unarmed, seeing what appeared to be adult
bears, would approach them.
Afterward this
genius (Steglinski) told police and wildlife personnel, “It’s not a deer or
raccoon or anything,” (Really? How could you tell? It might have been three 1000-pound
racoons, right?) “How often do you see
yaks out in the middle of the woods?” One yak, which Steglinski described as “a
nice big cuddly cow” (except gargantuan), began to advance toward him and Sarah.
According to Steglinsky, his dog, seemingly not much
brighter than her owner, also had no fear. “Sarah went up to it. She went nose
to nose with it. It gave her a gentle head butt,” Steglinski recalls. Then the
yak snorted, put its head down, and charged. Steglinski decided it was probably
time to go and turned to leave. By then, the other two yaks had joined the
alpha yak. Steglinski started to run; so did the yaks; fortunately, all
involved lost interest before anyone was hurt. The next day, Mr. Tierney,
notified that his critters were astray, and assisted by animal control personnel,
corralled the Yaks and returned them to the farm, where, hopefully, he is
engaged in mending his fences. Apparently, all it took was for the owner to
bang on a grain bucket with a scoop until they followed him into a barn.
On a more somber note
Iran tested an unarmed
intermediate range missile yesterday. The test and the flight path were entirely
within the borders of the country. This would not be newsworthy if not for the fact
that we (the USA) have decided that we don’t want them to do it and told them
so. I am a 26-year Cold War veteran, but where do we get off deciding what
another nation may do inside its own borders with no harm to anyone? I am
reminded that, justified or not, we as the only nation ever to use a nuclear
weapon against humans, have decided that only we and selected allies are humane
and righteous enough to possess such capabilities.
We just sat by,
several days earlier, apparently mute, when (nuclear capable) North Korea
launched two similar missiles into the Sea of Japan, calling them a “solemn
warning” that South Korea should cease joint military exercises with the US. The
Trump administration was mute on the matter. Apparently, someone, clearly a
foreign policy guru, has decided that Iran is dangerous and cannot be allowed
to pursue anything we don’t like, even on their own soil, but the fat little
Trump wannabee in Pyongyang is trustworthy.
When this sort of thing occurs, as it too
frequently does, I can’t help thinking that, to some in the USA, the concept of
national sovereignty only applies to us and our friends, of whom we have fewer
than we did four years ago. I state this last based on several weeks in Europe travelling
with persons from all over the world, from the Philippines, New Zealand and
Australia to Slovakia, Canada, and the UK. Generally educated persons all, the
common denominator was their almost universal conviction that the current President
of the United States is a bully and not really very bright. Sad, that.
The Last Words
There is one
person who, if they walked in front of my car, would make me involuntarily hit the
accelerator. That individual is Senate Majority Leader and moral vacuum, Mitch
McConnell. If one looks up in the OED the term “political hack” there is a
picture of this waste of skin. Faced with a Democratic majority in the House,
he has dedicated the past two years to blatant obstructionism. The best and
most egregious evidence for this assertion has been his constant shameless effort
to refuse to even consider (or allow to be considered) HR 1. (note this is merely one of almost 150 Bills McConnell has tabled (barred from debate) in less than two years!)
The focus of his
bill is to reform several areas of government where there are consistent and troubling
ethics issues. “Why”, you say, “How could anyone argue with improving ethics in
government?” Here’s how: (I have, to
some extent, abbreviated it by areas of focus.”
Campaign finance
Public financing of campaigns: The federal government would
provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which
means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal
government would match it six times over. The maximum small donation that could
be matched would be capped at $200.
Support for a constitutional amendment to end Citizens
United.
Passing the DISCLOSE Act. This would require Super PACs and
“dark money” political organizations to make their donors public. You know,
like honesty?
Passing the Honest Ads Act, which would require Facebook and
Twitter to disclose the source of money for political ads on their platforms
and share how much money was spent.
Disclosing any political spending by government contractors
and slowing the flow of foreign money into the elections by targeting shell
companies.
Restructuring the Federal Election Commission to have five
commissioners instead of the current four, in order to break political
gridlock.
Prohibiting any coordination between candidates and Super
PACs.
Opposing these provisions (McConnell does) means support for
the buying of elections by unidentified persons organizations or even foreign
interests. Wow, could that happen?
Ethics
Requiring the president and vice president to disclose 10
years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president would
be required to do the same.
Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to
settle sexual harassment or discrimination cases.
Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more
oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration
requirements. These include more oversight into foreign agents by the Foreign
Agents Registration Act.
Again, opposing these provisions (McConnell does) means that
transparency in government must be considered hazardous to continued
reelection.
Voting rights
Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks
voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up
to vote. Early voting, same-day voter registration, and online voter
registration would also be promoted.
Making Election Day a holiday for federal employees and
encouraging private sector businesses to do the same, requiring poll workers to
provide a week’s notice if poll sites are changed, and making colleges and
universities a voter registration agency (in addition to the DMV, etc.), among
other updates.
Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and
prohibiting voter roll purging.
Beefing up election security, including requiring the
director of national intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.
Recruiting and training more poll workers ahead of the 2020
election to cut down on long lines at the polls.
Note that all these provisions are threatening to high
roller, big spender, forces (aka Republican establishment) which have grossly
skewed the impact of entitled and wealthy individuals and their corporations on the election process.
These changes would serve to enfranchise persons, disproportionately marginalized,
by allowing all Americans equal opportunity to participate in the process of
selecting (hopefully) leaders. But then, this explains why Mitch McConnell opposes
it, doesn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment