deported veterans

This article is going to be short. I notice that most, if not all, deported veterans are of Hispanic descent. I understand that coming into the country illegally is wrong but if you wanted to deport these brave souls who put their lives on the line for our country, wouldn’t it have made more sense to have done it prior to their enlistment and their service to our and their country? What no news article has ever researched or reported on is how many illegal citizens have died in these foreign wars for us. When I served in the military, joined during the first gulf war, they checked my immigration status. They military fund me legally able to serve, doesn’t that automatically give these people the right to stay in the country when an arm of the government finds them lawfully able to put their lives on the line? Isn’t a DD-214 just as good as a green card? It’s unseemly to be seen as a country that doesn’t fight it’s own wars and battles. It almost looks like we kidnap people from other countries, make them fight our wars and then kick them back out. We should give these people their citizenship and then, if they break a law, treat them like someone who has broken a law, not an a foreign intruder or enemy combatant.



In the era of the shaming culture, pointing out perceived flaws in people to have them conform to your views is incredibly dangerous. I read some of the news articles where famous people are shamed for different things that they do, these things, all of which the shamer is being petty and nit picky and am sure has done much worse, are relatively silly funny things. As I read these articles, I start to wonder why people try and shame someone? Is it because they are so devoid of a real life that the only way they can be happy is to try and belittle someone else? Or is it that they want to feel superior to someone that they truly want to be like? It could be that they were shamed all their lives and now they have found a way to let their frustrations out. While ironic that my thoughts seem to shame the shamers, I am actually looking for the root cause. One thing is for sure, shaming is a movement that has taken hold and won’t be going away any time soon.

In the old days, and not when I was a kid as my son would like to say “the old days when you had to dodge the dinosaurs” but when this country was in its infancy (I wasn’t around then either), people would create a village by building one house at a time. Everyone would come together and help build their neighbors house, then they would help build another house until all the neighbors had a home. This constructive team building, a term I’m sure you heard in your job, was something people aspired to. Neighbor always had a positive connotation and meant something good.

Now, in the days of social media, where you can be somewhat anonymous and don’t have to confront a person that you disagree with, people become emboldened and say things that they would not normally say. I’m sure that this was not the intention of social media when it was thought of but it is what it has become.

Psychology has taken a turn to using shaming as a technique to try and bring people into conformity and to teach humility. I believe that to be an ineffective method to teach a lesson and should only be used as a last resort, if at all. Praise used to be the preferred method to bring people together and to show unity in common beliefs, but those methods don’t seem to be relevant anymore or are not talked about or highlited the way they used to be.

The problem with shaming is that once you are done with one person, you are looking for the next person to shame and it becomes an addiction to humiliation. That’s disgusting, you’re sick, what a weirdo… blah, blah, blah. This ongoing and downward spiraling method of trying to bury people under your feet instead of picking people up on your shoulders seems to be contagious.

It used to be that if you didn’t like what someone did you expressed disappointment in private, had a conversation eye to eye, voiced you opinion, listened to theirs and then decided to either break off communication with the person (what people now a days call ghosting) or you would say that it was not important enough to end a friendship or relationship and forgive and forget.

Praising always seemed like a better method of communicating. Telling someone what they did right or what you found impressive about them to fortify that train of thought seemed to have a better result that would lead to better communities. I’m not saying that you can’t express disappointment when warranted, this isn’t Pleasantville, people do do stuff wrong, what I am saying is that shaming should be used sparingly and only in private.

While I understand that shaming is a type of psychological warfare used on battlegrounds, trying to shame, lets say a political figure, a congressman or congresswoman who have their constituents, is worthless and only seems like bullying. The people that voted for them and the people that will have a voice in their election are the only people that should have a say in their political ideology and that say will come in their next election. This also goes for regular people, famous people, basically all people. What good do you get from shaming someone, absolutely none. You get more from praising their good actions, as they will most likely repeat them.

Now, if you make money from shaming someone, if people are paying you to shame a person or group of people, then I can see…… that you are hard up for cash and should find a better job. In the end… In the end it is my solemn belief that God will judge you for you actions and telling him that shaming got you that brand new TV set with the Ultra High resolution that was 72 inches is not going to go over very well or that new white SUV even though you already have two cars, probably won’t work either.

This article is in response to the person at the gym that believes that shaming is how to shape politics. It wasn’t a great conversation.


joshua v ruiz II

What a fight, ehh, boxing match. It really was a good fight for people that love pugilism. I thought the fight was good, even though non-purists will probably call it a stinker. Joshua did what he should have been doing all along in every fight, he used his physical gifts to outclass his opponent. I do think though he should have took some chances here and there to try and secure the knockout or at least a knock down, but that style will make him a more formidable opponent for all other contenders. When Joshua mixes his old style of fighting (me break you now) with his new style of boxing (float like a butterfly and sometimes sting like a bee) he will be a devastating fighter. Joshua just needs the right mix and realize when his opponent is hurt.

For Ruiz’s part, Joshua could not have shown him more respect. Ruiz still has fast hands and heavy shots, you could tell with the jabs he landed to the body. Ruiz was buzzed a little and he took it well. The problem Ruiz had was his game plan. He should have made the big man chase him by backing up all so slightly and moving in with a high guard and quick combos when his opponent moved forward, this would have closed the distance twice as fast. It was, after all, Joshua’s job to come and take the belts and Ruiz’s job to retain them. Ruiz stalked the big man and grew frustrated when Joshua wouldn’t stand and trade. Ruiz, for his part, was humble in defeat and said he has only himself to blame but we all know he was thinking that Joshua didn’t really man up but boxing is about hitting and not getting hit, so Joshua stayed disciplined, didn’t fall for the bait, didn’t let his machismo get the better of him and walked away with a solid win from a really good fighter in Ruiz, who by the way would have destroyed Buster Douglas on his best day even if he were fighting two of them.

To compare Ruiz to Buster Douglas would be like comparing a Pinto hatchback, remember those, to a Cadillac Escalade, without the spinning rims, he did lose the belts, so, no spinning rims. And, no offense to a really good fighter in Joshua, but Mike Tyson in his prime was a better fighter, not by much, even though Mike may not say it, he was. So the upset of Buster over Iron Mike, was a way much more upset then Ruiz over Joshua. I found it completely insane, the comment that it was as a big as an upset as the Tyson v Douglas fight. I hope that Joshua does give Ruiz another run at it, maybe not the next fight, but the one after that. I would like to see the adjustments both camps make and how the fight would go.



As the ongoing impeachment process turns its wheel like a soap opera straight from the day time writers, one thing is evident, there is no neutrality. Both sides made arguments that could be seen as correct and both sides are holding to their respective arguments like security blankets. As I listened, I tried my best to be impartial and what I learned was that I was not even remotely qualified to make a decision on whether impeachment is the way to go. After it was all over, I was more confused about the legitimacy of the proceedings then before it started. This article is not, though, about impeachment but how could you fix a problem that seems to be over the common persons ability to decipher and obviously does not belong in the realm of partisan politics. The answer seemed extremely obvious, at least to me. You need an impartial and neutral arena.

The government, for better or for worse and as a flight attendant that I once dated would say, is what it is. The questions that were asked by lawmakers seemed to be both relevant and irrelevant at the same time. A perfect example is the question about donations to political parties to the legal scholars arguing whether impeachment was the proper avenue to take. It was a real relevant question as it seemed to hit a bias right on the nose, the problem is though that the person that was asking the question, for better or for worse, probably did not contribute to his opposing party either and he is being a staunch defender for his side, making the question almost irrelevant. These questions are a two way street and they seemed to bog down the testimony. As I was listening to the legal scholars, I would think they are right, then I would hear the opposing view and think he is also right. Both sides can’t be right unless both sides are also wrong, it is what it is, thanks Kimberly.

So how do you get past this impasse? You need a third and neutral referee that could make that decision and they would also have to be legal scholars so they can get into the minutia of the argument and decipher the elements of the case and come up with a just decision. Wait, we do have a third part of government, the judicial branch, who happened to be experts on the law. How lucky. Or is it? This is why in past silly blogs that I have written, I expressed my concern on how judges are chosen and why they aren’t chosen by the branch of government that they work for but chosen by the two other branches of government whose fate could be ultimately be decided by them.

This article is renewed effort in trying to fix a problem which can be seen as glaring in circumstances like these. It is my belief that the judicial branch should pick their own members (judges), have the executive branch choose from one on the list and then have the legislative body confirm them. This would almost erase any conflict of interest that could come up in cases like this. While I feel that the judicial branch is as neutral as it gets, some will still argue and have argued that some judges are or were bias due to who appointed them. The phrase Obama judges and Bush judges and Trump judges have taken a toll on the impartiality that once prior seemed unquestionable in the judicial branch.

The constitution is over 200 years old, if my computer was over two hundred years old, it would definitely need updates. Maybe the constitution, which I always held was a living document because its writing affects living lives, should be resuscitated and given some new life. Our forefathers did their best to think of every scenario possible and they were pretty smart people, but as times roll along, their might have been problems that they did not foresee and that should be addressed. I believe giving the judicial branch more autonomy should be on the top of that list, at least in who should be hired to represent them.

What I am ultimately saying is that impeachment, a extremely powerful decision, should fall to the people that have nothing to gain or lose by the verdict, which should be the judicial branch and that’s why they should be free of attachments, as much as possible, to the other branches.



In last weeks debate, Joe Biden says he would not make marijuana legal until further studies are done and he was met with criticism by Sen. Booker. I’m not sure that Sen. Booker’s criticism was appropriate (I’m not saying that Sen. Booker’s stance is wrong, I’m only opining it). Marijuana is a popular drug that most people see as harmless and should be legalized. I think that they couldn’t be more wrong. I think that marijuana, if legalized, would destroy the middle class and poor people. Cheeseburgers and pizza are harmless but yet we have the worst obesity problem of any nation, do you know why, because cheese is mildly addictive and acts on the same neuro-receptors as heroin. BRB, making a myself a cheese melt (I’m not).

Marijuana is much more addictive than cheese and the problem will be more exasperated by the fact that this country doesn’t run on Dunkin but on compulsion. All these ads on every single electronic device are meant to make you want. They flicker, they’re bright, they’re shiny, they grab your attention and they’re repetitive (that should be illegalized). There is a prevailing thought that people that get addicted are people that have weak minds, that is a myth. Addiction has no boundaries and while some people will try it once only and some might do it in their college years and not really inhale, others will become addicted even though they might have strong minds. Just because it didn’t affect you that way doesn’t mean that it won’t affect someone else in a more dangerous manner.

The other problem of note is playing in courts today. Juul is defending themselves against State Attorney Generals because they targeted minors in their adds and because they made flavored vapes that would appeal to minors. The States are contending that Juul acted irresponsibly, which they did, in my opinion.

Lets add another wrinkle to this, people have died from vaping, but not from vaping nicotine but marijuana. They vape the same two products with the same two external additives, the only difference was the nicotine and marijuana. The people that vaped the marijuana became really sick with some dying while the ones vaping nicotine, did not. The news has reported that vitamin E might have been the culprit but it is my belief that came at the urging of the marijuana lobbyists, that also is an opinion.

The fact is that marijuana is a money maker. Marijuana has produced large amounts of income and some people will overlook the side effects, if they can rationalize it, to rake in the income that comes with the legalization of marijuana. That’s sad and it’s also greedy. Marijuana addicts roughly 10 percent of the people that try it (and that’s a rough estimate given by the NIH, it could be higher because studies are limited, but it won’t be lower), legalizing the product would mean that up to 30 million people could use the product. That would mean that 3 million people could get addicted to the product. If we play Russian roulette with addiction, we can say that about 80 percent (2.4 million) of the people that would end up addicted would come from the middle to lower class (poor). That addiction would eventually lead to these people to lose their homes, jobs and their families would be irrevocably harmed, but its ok, because you made that extra revenue that you are now using to treat the problem. You can also honestly say that some, couldn’t give you a number, of those people only did the drug because you legalized it.

I say, keep marijuana illegal. Reduce the sentencing guidelines for the users and force them into rehab. Make the penalties for pushers stiffer and go after the cartels. If, in your heart of hearts, feel like that marijuana is safe and would boost the economy (it won’t) then have a designated place like an Amsterdam. Maybe make it legal just in Las Vegas, hell, almost everything else is, and split the proceeds with the 50 states equally. I think that would be the responsible thing to do.

In a good note, cigarette use is down to 278 billion cigarettes from a high of 631 billion in 1980. The difference was that politicians and activists started to say that cigarettes are deadly. They prohibited television ads for cigarettes and raised the age to buying cigarettes to… 21? …18? One of those and they also started school programs depicting the use of these products as extremely harmful. So what I say is, if you are going to legalize marijuana, at least you have the game plan to reduce the consumption to a couple of hundred billion blunts when it starts ruining our country.

Don’t choose money over morals, you’ll forever regret it.

Let me add that it won’t stop illegal sales of marijuana, it will increase it. That dime bag that costs $50 at the legal dispensary, will still only be a dime bag at the corner. You are going down the same path as cigarettes but with more profit for the illegal vendors and the cost of stopping the illegal distribution, which will also come from the legal dispensary back doors, will cost you more than you will profit. It is not a worth while endeavor, it seems that learning from past mistakes is not a thing that we do. Cigarettes are an anchor in our society that create more problems and costs than the tax can cover, why would you think that a more addictive substance would prove to be the answer to your problems. Your adding another element to a shit sandwich, BLT – blunts, lard and tobacco. Our healthcare system is already overridden with problems from the lard and tobacco, which produce cancer and heart problems, you now want to add a third element in order to fix it? Doesn’t that sound crazy?

More importantly, I told my son it’s not Ok to do that shit, and you’re telling him it is, so, stop it, stop it right now.

And this not a referendum on Sen. Booker’s decision, their are plenty of politicians on both sides that feel legalizing the “green gold”, “purple haze”, “pinner”, “pacman”, “Nixon”, “Maui Wowie” or “juana”, “maria”, “mota”, “yerba santa”, “queso verde” (I just made that last one, lets see if sticks) is an appropriate way to feed the tax man, it isn’t, again, in my opinion.


Wilder vs. Ortiz II

wilder vs ortiz II

It comes down to one simple equation. F=MA… Force equals mass (x) acceleration.

Force – In science, force is the push or pull on an object with mass that causes it to change velocity (to accelerate). Force represents as a vector, which means it has both magnitude and direction

Mass – in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.

Acceleration – In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity of an object with respect to time. An object’s acceleration is the net result of all forces acting on the object, as described by Newton’s Second Law. The SI unit for acceleration is meter per second squared.

Wilder’s punches are faster, he has more behind his punches and land with more impact than anyone else in the heavyweight division.

The test is if he can reach the 50 and 0 mark and take Marciano’s record away.


demo debate 11 20 19

The Demo debate was actually better than the others. Part of it was that it did not include opening remarks, a departure from earlier debate itinerary. For some reason, I couldn’t tell you why, but it was more informative and detailed in where the candidates differed and where they were alike. For that you have to give credit to MSNBC, they found a format that worked. It could have been the deletion of opening statements, it could have been the more in depth questioning, it could have been the extended time for the candidates to answer, it could have been the candidates themselves who actually made really good points and challenged themselves on honest differences.

I agree with some of the commentary and disagree with other parts. My takeaways are that Sen. Sanders is still the most relatable candidate in the Democratic field. His mix of humor and hard nosed policy decisions stand out. Sanders is spry, quick witted and seemingly a good decision maker. The one thing that voters look at is his age. As unfair as it is, and it is, people look at his ability to do two terms as President. I, for one, don’t have a problem with it.

Mayor Pete came under the most scrutiny by his counterparts but not only did I think he handed it well, I think he got the better of the conversation. When Klobuchar challenged his credentials, he hit back by saying that you’re complaining about how things are going on in Washington but that’s where you work. When Gabbard challenged him on his readiness and judgement, Mayor Pete, well, to put it simple, he called bullshit on what she was alluding to. Mayor Buttigieg is 38 but he, along with Sen Booker, is a Rhodes Scholar, what does that mean exactly,

Mr. Rhodes’ Will contains four criteria by which prospective Rhodes Scholars are to be selected:

  1. literary and scholastic attainments;
  2. energy to use one’s talents to the full;
  3. truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
  4. moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.

Only 32 people from the U.S. get selected yearly, so there is a great honor in it. There is a certain vigorous rigor that goes into qualifying for such a prestigious honor. Mayor Pete also served in Afghanistan, as an intelligence officer, and he was elected as Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which has a population of over 100,000 people. He is young in comparison to other candidates and past Presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, 42 when he took office, was a year younger than JFK when he took office, who was 3 years younger than Bill Clinton when he took office. You might have to be a Rhodes Scholar just to understand this paragraph. All were good Presidents, Teddy being the sole Republican but maybe the best of the bunch. Bill Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar and the last President to actually balance the budget. My point here is, out of all the Presidents, the younger guys did pretty dam good. Oddly, my two favorite candidates are the youngest and the oldest in the field.

It doesn’t mean I’ll vote for them, I’m independent, I haven’t decided yet. President Trump still has a way to go before his term is up and he has to campaign but I am of the reasoning that if you put the two best people forward from their respective parties, the country can’t go wrong. Only one party has that distinction of nominating a person this time around and that’s the Demo’s, the Repub’s have an incumbent.

Sen. Harris might be the smartest person in the field of candidates. She has unequivocal logic and reasoning. Sen. Harris makes points that you can’t help but agree with because you know she is right. The senator’s problem is if it resonates with the voters and their nostalgia of what seems to be a really good President in President Obama, which seems to be leaning towards former Vice-President Biden. Her other problems were the shellacking she took from Gabbard the first time around, and I hate to say it, but the fact that she is a …well … a she. I want a female President. I want to know the difference in managing styles. It may be the best kept secret on how good a female President is or can be but there is this male hysteria that, whether we want to admit or not, makes people hesitant. People fear the unknown, they like to play it safe, it’s a natural human response. Fear is a powerful weapon. Sen. Harris has to be strong, authoritative and be a woman at the same time, not that women can’t be strong and authoritative, I’m just talking about the stigma or biases that we hold in this society. It’s completely unfair. She figuratively has to punch you in the nose and make you feel wanted at the same time. All her male counterparts have to do is… talk. If she raises her voice, people label her an angry woman or on that time of the month, if her male counterparts raise their voice, their labeled enthusiastic, committed or passionate. If she corrects you, she is labeled a know it all, if her male counterparts correct you, their labeled intelligent, at least that’s the way some people see it. Those are the biases that are holding this country back from electing a woman president.

One point I would like to make is that over 72 thousand people died from illicit drugs last year. That’s from overdoses to homicides to other factors. That’s more than all terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, I think. If you get rid of the cartels, you get rid of a lot of what is wrong on this hemisphere. If you had an idea to try and pressure and persuade Mexico to man (woman) up and that included using military factors, then, by all means, what is the military for if not to combat foreign entities of any kind to stop killing our citizens. It would also reduce other monetary and pecuniary obligations like rehab centers and prisons. Also seizing the cartels monies would be a pretty good windfall. I’m not sure what international law and foreign policy is but it should include stopping the flow of drugs in a more permanent way instead of playing the gopher pop up game. Take one cartel leader in and another pops up.

I also think Congresswoman Gabbard gets a raw deal and that Yang should get more time to speak. Yang seems like the real deal but his talk time is limited. Funny enough, it might just work out in his favor.