It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9

It's broke . . .

You may have noticed that last Sunday I didn't post a new blog (blog? blog article? blog post?). Last week was the Republican Convention, and being that I live here in the wonderful city of Cleveland, I did what any sane person would do: I got the heck outta Dodge!

(Now, to be perfectly honest, if I lived in Philadelphia, where the Democrat Convention is to take place, I'd get the heck outta Dodge too!)

Actually, Friday the 15th was the celebration of ten wonderful years of marriage to the most beautiful (and patient, and forgiving, and tolerating . . . ) woman in the world. I took that day off in order to celebrate; along with the following week for a mini-vacation. It just so happens that the convention was taking place the same time we were on vacation.

We went to Maumee Bay State Park and stayed at the lodge. The park is located on the coast of Lake Erie, between Sandusky (think Cedar Point) and Toledo (think Mud Hens and Tony Packo's). Nothing like catching a couple of Mud Hens baseball games!

Me and the most beautiful, patient, forgiving, tolerant (etc.) woman in the world!

Getting back to the topic of this post . . .

Currently we have a two-party system. The Republicans and the Democrats. A.K.A. Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Stupid. The part that pisses me off the most about both of these groups is that deep down they don't give a rat's ass about doing what is best for the country. Oh, they say that they do. But honestly? All either party cares about is doing what is best for their own party. Getting re-elected and staying in power means more to them than what is best for the very taxpayers paying their salaries.

I know I talked about third-party options previously, but no one ever takes groups like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party seriously enough to make a dent in the two-party monopoly. Though that may change. Usually, the Libertarians are dismissed as a bunch of people who only want to legalize drugs. Well, with Colorado and Washington both legalizing the dancing with Mary Jane, and many more states looking at that viable tax revenue option, Libertarians will soon seem like the "normal" of the bunch.

The 12th Amendment gives us the procedure for electing both the President and the Vice President (also known as the Electoral College). In a nutshell: the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes President AND the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes Vice President. Two separate elections. Now, somewhere along the line, our benevolent party leaders decided that it wouldn't be good to have a Democrat President and a Republican Vice President (or vice versa), so they decided to make a change and have the party candidate choose their "running mate".

You may notice that they didn't change the Constitution via Amendment (like when the 18th Amendment - prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol - was repealed by the 21st Amendment). They simply decided to ignore the Constitution for the betterment of the parties.

So, the system is broken.

My wife had a great idea, and I think it's the perfect solution: Let everyone who wants to run, run. The person with the most votes becomes the President. And the person with the second most votes becomes the Vice President. Parties be damned!

And I agree. Let the games begin!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8

It's broke . . .

Every four years we go through the same thing: A bunch of rich people spend all kinds of money running advertisements, traveling all over the country giving speeches, and holding massive conventions, all to convince the populous that they are regular people like you and me, and to convince us to go into a small booth and choose them for President of the United States. And each election cycle the amount of money spent - nay WASTED - could be invested for far more beneficial ends; like, say, the very things they want to spend money on once in office.

I’m a Clevelander. I love this city. And not just because the Cavaliers won the NBA Finals this year (breaking a 52-year curse over the town) either. This year we are to hold the Republican National Convention in our town.

And it makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

With all of the recent shootings by and of police in the last few weeks, one thing we in Cleveland don't need is a bunch of Trump hating protesters coming to town and possibly stirring up trouble. And why? Because the GOP chose to allow Donald Trump to run in the primaries as a Republican, and now regrets that they did it. They want a do over. They call "mulligan"!! And frankly, if something doesn't happen soon to correct the Good Ship "Grand Old Poopheads" they will be handing over the election to Hillary Clinton.

Though, from what I remember, Hillary Clinton may be the cheapest to elect anyway. After all, doesn't she already come with a bunch of (stolen) White House / Air Force One towels and cutlery?

I've been thinking of voting for a third-party candidate this cycle. Why? I can't stand either of these yutzes. I think these guys got it right: Everybody Sucks 2016.

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you will throw your vote away."

Or -

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you might as well vote for Clinton (or Trump), as you will give her (him) the election."

For one thing, you have to realize that your vote means squat. And if you vote absentee ballot, your vote means less than squat (as absentee ballots don't get counted anyway). As much as Americans want this to be American Idol (vote early; vote often), electing a President is not a popularity contest. Just ask Al Gore, who had more popular votes, but still lost to George Bush.

And for another thing, I am not only registered as Independent, I'm also independent of thought. I don't tow the party line. I'm not voting Republican or Democrat because my daddy was a Republican or Democrat and voted Republican or Democrat and so did his daddy and so did his daddy. There is more here at stake than the pride of whether or not your state is red or blue!

If you are reading this and are a U.S. citizen of voting age (and "hello" to all of you not from 'round these parts), you are also a tax payer. That means you pay the salaries of all of those yahoos in government. Which means, you are the President's EMPLOYER. He (or very possibly "she") works for YOU, not the other way around. Which means you are actually in the hiring position right now.

Let that sink in for a minute.

What do you do, as any good employer does, when needing to fill a position? You interview candidates for the position and look for the best.

So, as an employer, you find yourself with two individuals vying for the position that are morons. They are self-serving, rude, lying, and unscrupulous - you know, perfect politicians. So what do you do? Do you chose the lesser of two evils?

NO!

You look for other candidates. You tell both of those to hit the road and you keep looking.

Or, you look at third-party candidates.

So, my voting for a third-party candidate would not be a wasted vote. As a responsible "employer", I'm voting for the person I think is the best to do the job. If the rest don't, and my vote is over-ruled, so be it. At least my conscious is clear.

But to pull this into the title of this article: What we need to do is have all candidates submit a thesis of what they plan to do in office and why they think they are the best person for the job. And NO NAMES. That way all we voters have to work with is legitimate facts and no bullsh**.

Then maybe. Just maybe. We will stop this cycle.

And save a little of this wasted money while we're at it.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

Up in the Air

This is the 4th of July (2016) weekend, and since I normally post a blog on Sunday I thought I'd share with you something patriotic. More specifically, a story from my time in the U.S. Navy.

When I was on the USS Elrod (FFG-55), I had a leading Petty Officer named Carl Barber, who being an avid photographer, always looked for opportunities to play "shutter bug".

RM1 Carl Barber - with camera over shoulder

Because of him I purchased my first "real" camera: a Canon T50. A real beginner's beauty:

Now, Carl was a REAL photographer. He knew all about F-stops and apertures, and all that shtuff. Me? I knew the "auto" setting.

One day we took a ferry ride around the coast of Maine, navigating around a number of small islands. It was the perfect opportunity to snag some photos. We got on the boat, got settled, the boat left the pier, went around the corner and right smack dab into a fog bank. The temperature dropped and the visibility went to zero. We sat shivering, clutching our cameras for the entire ride.

Not all opportunities were misses though.

The USS Elrod was an anti-submarine vessel. Among its gear were two SH-60B LAMPS MK III helicopters. Now, in order for a helicopter to land on the back of a moving ship, the helicopter would lower a cable to a crewman on the flight deck, who would drop it through the deck to connect to a winch. The helicopter would pull back on the stick, making the cable taught. The winch would then start to pull the helicopter to the deck, with the pilot maintaining speed to match the ship. Once the helicopter touched down, it would be clamped to a trolley-type device that, after the props were folded back, would be carted into one of two hangers.

On the way back from the Persian Gulf, I had the opportunity to go into the Helo-Control Tower and take some photos. Here are a few showing you what I just described:

And for perspective, here are a few shots I took FROM the helicopter of the ship:

The Helo-Control Tower is the windowed box sticking out between the two closed "garage" doors.

So, as you enjoy a burger or brat, and maybe a cold brew, take a moment to say a quick prayer of gratitude for those serving in our armed forces. I know I will.

©Emittravel 2016

Vetting - Not Just for Pets Anymore

With the primaries basically over, the all-out scuffle for the presidency is in full swing. And with that comes the attack ads, the fake accents (depending in which state a candidate happens to be making a speech), and the repeated soundbites, providing little-to-no actual honest information for the voters.

When Hillary Clinton decided to have her husband, former President Bill Clinton, campaign with her, Donald Trump almost leaped over Trump Tower in a single bound for joy:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" - Donald Trump via Twitter (@realDonaldTrump) 12/28/15

Of course, many would say that Trump, no stranger to playing offense ("AW-fence" or "ah-FENCE" - your choice), is out of line if he attacks Bill. The question is, is he?

Funny thing about the internet. I was always told that what you post is permanent. Yet, there have been mandates made to Google from European countries that if a person requests to have their history "removed from the internet", Google has to comply. This means that if someone wants bad things in their history to be unsearchable, Google has to make it so. I guess that goes for politicians running for President as well.

You see, I did some searching, but was unable to locate the video on the internet that I KNOW I saw when it took place (in 1992), where, in an interview with Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hillary makes the statement:

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." -- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents

Whether or not Freud would think that just a slip, there are a few major implications to that quote, and in Trump's favor:

IF TRUE, then when it comes to vetting (making a careful and critical examination of) a candidate, then both the President AND his/her first . . . uh . . . mate, would be up for grabs. No longer can a candidate "hide" their spouse's past from the press and the American people. That means statements, tax forms, et cetera, are open season.

IF TRUE, then when it comes to the ballot, both the candidate AND his/her mate should be on the ticket, since a vote for one is a vote for both.

IF TRUE, then not only should the candidates have to debate each other, but their mates should also have to debate each other. Especially when you consider the mate's influence on the decision-making process ("I don't know, where do YOU want to go to eat?")

Is it okay for Donald Trump to attack Bill's history? I think so. After all, Hillary made it "clear".

One other thing. If her statement is true, according to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, Hillary may have ALREADY served two terms, and is therefore disqualified from running for President.

©Emittravel 2016

Don't You Know Who I Am?!?

As I've mentioned previously, I’m not a sports ball guy. Whereas guys my age will complain about injuries received during the big game (some while even playing and not just falling in the bleachers from too many "adult beverages"), I can show people my paper cut scars from being a book worm. Yet, I can't say that this year's NBA finals haven't gotten me a bit excited.

I’m from Cleveland, but I’m no LeBron James fan(atic). I'll root root root for the home team, and if they don't win (which, as a Clevelander I'm used to) it's a shame, but I won't go "hero worship" someone who makes a lot of money playing a game.

Yet, I have to admit, I love watching the polar-opposite playing styles of LeBron James and Stephen Curry (of the Golden State Warriors) during the finals. Whereas James' style is all brute force, muscling his way to shooting positions, Curry is all finesse - frequenting the 3-point line.

As I write this, both teams are in California (I keep wanting to say "Ca-lee-foh-ni-ah" as if I’m Arnold Schwarzenegger) getting ready to play game seven. I’m going to focus this particular blog article on a comment the Warriors coach, Steve Kerr, made in a Cleveland.com article by Chris Fedor concerning game six, where Curry fouled out of the game:

"Curry swiped the ball from Irving, had a clear layup going the other way and a chance to make it a single-digit game.

"Instead, Curry was whistled for a foul, his fifth. Five minutes later he fouled out of the game -- his first time ever -- chucked his mouthpiece and exited the court with fans waving at him mockingly.

"Following the game, both Kerr and Curry expressed displeasure with the officials and will likely be receiving a fine.

"'He had every right to be upset,' Kerr said. 'He's the MVP of the league. He gets six fouls called on him, three of them were absolutely ridiculous. He steals the ball from Kyrie clean at one point. LeBron flops on the last one. Jason Phillips falls for that, for a flop. As the MVP of the league, we're talking about these touch fouls in the NBA Finals.

"'Let me be clear, we did not lose because of the officiating. They totally outplayed us and Cleveland deserved to win. But those three of the six fouls were incredibly inappropriate calls for anybody, much less the MVP of the league.'"

Did you see the that? I love the last sentence: "But those three of the six fouls were incredibly inappropriate calls for anybody, much less the MVP of the league."

Are you kidding me?!? Listen. I’m not going to argue whether or not the fouls were appropriate or inappropriate. Frankly being a non-sports ball guy, I really have no idea that a foul even takes place, and am surprised when some actions AREN'T fouls. But the "MVP of the league" should have special dispensation when it comes to actions made is utterly ridiculous.

(I do wonder if Kerr would have been so vocal if it had been LeBron James who was the "MVP of the league" in a similar situation. Nah, I'll stop wondering.)

Currently, we are in an election cycle for President of the United States, where every word, action, tax form, and email are up for scrutiny for any candidate who decides to throw their hat in the ring. It doesn't matter how big or small the gaff, it will be played and replayed ad infinitum on the cable news outlets. Nothing is sacred (as a point, stay tuned for my next blog, where I talk about just that!)

If Curry is the "MVP of the league", shouldn't that mean that he should be under GREATER scrutiny for his actions, not less - as his coach seems to think?

I think I agree with Uncle Ben when he told Peter: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Now. Go take your free throw and quit whining.

©Emittravel 2016

A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice

As a short addendum to my "Who Told You That?!?" post, I wanted to address another example in recent social media:

"I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because I want to be a part of history electing the first woman President."

Let me make this perfectly clear: IF you vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are sexist. IF you vote FOR Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are ALSO sexist.

So what's an open-minded, 21st century person to do? You are to vote based on criteria that directly pertains to the position. In other words, if you feel that Hillary Clinton is the best person for the JOB, that you agree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then vote for her. If you don't think she is the best person for the JOB, and you disagree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then DON'T vote for her.

You do NOT vote FOR or AGAINST Hillary Clinton based on whether or not she has ovaries. THAT is sexist.

And lest you think I'm only talking about Hillary Clinton, the same voting criteria pertains to whether or not you vote FOR or AGAINST Donald Trump, or any other candidate.

The President of the United States is considered the most important and powerful position in the entire world. Why in the hell is the election process treated like we're choosing the next American Idol?!? (Which, by the way, is the reason Donald Trump won the GOP primary: he treated it like a reality show, and he knew he could win a reality show. Shame on us!)

So which is it? Is the President 'The "Leader" of the Free World' or not? You need to choose the what.

And then you need to choose the whom.

©Emittravel 2016

Stuff My Brain Says #77

I've been seeing quite a bit of Donald Trump Hate on social media.

First off, I'm no Trump supporter, so those anti-Trump protesters can keep their violence to themselves (Funny, but you never hear in the news which candidate those morons DO support!).

Much of the Trump hate I've read is pretty well deserved. He's made an awful lot of "enemies" during the primaries. Now he's trying to show himself as the joiner of the party. I guess he's the oil to the watered-down GOP (get it?)

I do want to remind those spewing the hate one thing: You do realize that your only other option is Hillary Clinton, right?

Make sure you think long and hard about that.

©Emittravel 2016