Politics is funny. Everyone says how things don’t change and things are stagnate and how it’s the same ol’ same ol’ BS (bullshit not bachelor of science) every time. Why haven’t the women candidates pointed out the obvious. It’s the same because you keep electing the same gender. Maybe it will change if you grew a pair and voted for someone that didn’t have……I don’t know what to say here……it’s obvious what should go here….I don’t want to disrespectful but I’ll go for it….. if you voted for someone that didn’t have a pair??? Man, I was trying to help out and came off sounding sexist, but it’s a little funny so I’ll leave it. Maybe the problem, if there is one, is that the office needs more pink and less blue. Huh, no one above is wearing pink and Warren is wearing blue. What I mean is the constant, like a good math equation, is always the difference maker. Change the constant and maybe you get the change you want. In this case only men have been President and everyone complains about how we are not getting the job done, both constants. So, maybe if you change it then maybe you get the difference you want. This is about an article I read that the women get asked if a woman can be President, maybe they should ask if a man should ever be President again. I mean of course they should, but because they’re right for the job not because they can pee standing up. I find stupid questions to be unfair but I also find that the responses aren’t assertive enough. This question is a slam dunk for the female candidates and should have taken the reins on it but they didn’t, why the hell not. It was a time to shine, a time to put that none sense to bed and give yourself a boost. Missed opportunities.

Give me a million like her and I could fix the planet in one month. Her determination to give her family a better life is the same determination needed to fix what ails us

I have gotten some ridicule lately about the women I dated. People seem to judge on blips. The truth is that all the women that I dated for an extended period were all intelligent, all graduated from college, some with great adversity staring at them and trying to hold them back, they were all beautiful, to me and seemingly everyone else  judging by the way they were hit on constantly, even when I was right there asking the person if they could see me, and they were kind. While I admit that their looks, their external appearance, was the first thing I saw, the relationship wouldn’t have lasted more than a week if they couldn’t carry on an intelligent conversation. They were all hard working and caring. When people disparage a woman, it generally means that they didn’t cut the grade to be with someone as special as them so they like to call them names and belittle them. While I’m not with them any longer, I was very lucky to have known them. For those people (men) that disparaged these amazing women, be yourselves, that should be punishment enough, because obviously you’re a miserable prick with nothing better to do.

In the age where the norm of mass shootings is routine (your tax money hard at work), what has also become routine is to attack any organization that upholds those rights that have a cursory connection with those situations. The attacks on the NRA come after each mass shooting even though most of the people that have committed those attacks have nothing to do with the NRA. If you really wanted to be honest about those mass shootings then the NRA wouldn’t even be in the conversation. Maybe we want to blame optometrists, podiatrists, orthopaedics (those are the closest to thumb doctors), EENT doctors or maybe the oceans that are full of waves. You can even blame Copperfield, now is he an illusionist or hypnotist or both? They have more of a cursory connection then these organizations. Once you start focusing on the real perpetrators then you will find a solution but until you do, attacking organizations like planned parenthood and news organizations (first amendment), NRA (second amendment), ACLU (all the amendments)… is just a waste of time and a deflection of the real problem. You can bury your head in the sand if you want but I choose to see the real problem and find a real solution, which may actually save someone’s life.

I warn against any entity that tries to limit our right to choose. You start with one amendment and the next guy will go after the other and before you know it, The King has returned.

I have been very lucky in my life to never have contracted a venereal disease, or VD, mainly because the women I dated were beautiful decent women that cared about themselves. That being said, I have had some, let’s just call them mutual short relationships, and we should all be wary and stay safe. I think that if a person has a venereal disease, it should be listed on their license. Right along with height, weight and eye color, there should be a VD category that should state a type or state at least if they have something that is incurable.

China just hit us with some awesome tariffs and the stock market and if I had an IRA, just took a major hit, but all I can think of now is opportunity. If someone had the money to take some of these boarded up factories, like in my home state of NJ, and would invest or even if the SBA would give out loans to start up a tech factory and if the people that started the business would give wages and were not looking to be overnight multi-millionaires, get rid of that greed, all I see right now is opportunity to start up an amazing high tech electronics factory that can grow into something massive. The biggest point here is not to be greedy, to do it right. Pay good wages and have good happy workers. How does the old saying go “someone’s mess is someone else’s treasure”. That’s not it, but you know what I mean. There’s opportunity afoot, lets see if someone, that isn’t Amazon, goes for it. I’m not a supporter of any political ideology, I am one of seeing people getting paid good wages.

Why this is what everyone is talking about and not Williams beating Hurd for the super welterweight title is beyond me. I’ll weigh in on this matter because I really have nothing better to do. The biggest thing in this case is privilege or wealth getting things or favors that people that don’t have those lofty means can get. Loughlin and others paid money to fake transcripts and/or make sure that their kids were able to get into a really good school. Lets be honest, if I could make sure that my son would get admitted to a school that would benefit him in the future by donating money, I would do it. We all love our kids and we all want to make sure that their future is as set or as favorable as we can make it for them, even the people prosecuting this case. The problem with this case is not that these people were wrong for what they did, it’s because you want to jail them for loving their kids. Do they deserve jail time, I don’t think so, they do deserve a large fine and to have their kids take the appropriate steps to be readmitted into the school. What ever ends up happening, I think that Loughlin and the people that are fighting the charges are right and not because they didn’t do anything wrong but because the prosecutors are flexing muscles that they shouldn’t be. What they are saying is they can get up to 40 years of jail for not hurting a single person but because they didn’t just do what the prosecutors wanted them to do. This was never more evident when they didn’t take the plea deal and the prosecutors decided to add money laundering charges, which by the way is a stretch because money laundering is used to charge people that got ill gotten gains and decided to put into the world and then have it returned to them in a legal manner, i.e. drug smugglers that use a laundromat, bodega or any cash business to say that their money was legally obtained. Since the defendants in this case never had the money come back to them or earned their money in a fraudulent way, money laundering seems to be a huge stretch, but I’m not a lawyer or play one anywhere so we’ll have to see what happens. If I had to guess, Singer would be the money launderer and the people that paid him would unwittingly be co-conspirators in that that scheme. I think that the prosecution would have to show proof that these defendants were aware that was Singer’s intent when they paid him or whatever charity he was affiliated with.

I personally think that jails are for people that are a danger to other people and society, not for people that wanted to put their kids in a good school, no matter how rich or privileged they are. Singer is obviously a predator and deserves jail but these defendants, I opine, just made a dumb fucking mistake, albeit a serious one. They deserve to pay a hefty fine and forced to open or donate to a scholarship program for underprivileged youths that would otherwise would be able to attend such schools but don’t have the means to do so and add community service, what, 500 hours seems fair. If the prosecutors had decided to impose that punishment, the defendants would have surely agreed and everyone would have benefited and they would have helped intelligent under-privileged families to boot. They, the prosecutors, would have been the good guys with a moderate approach and solution to a problem and would have sent out a message that this would not be tolerated by Singer types, the people you are really trying to dissuade in the first place. They instead chose to focus their fire power on the rich folks, not that us poor or lesser means folks wouldn’t be glad to see rich yuppies go to jail, just not for loving their kids. The problem here is if these people were poor and had done the same thing by taking out a second mortgage, thinking that I’m going to do whatever I can to make sure my kid has a better chance in life, would you be as upset? The crimes are exactly the same, except one is rich and one is poor, and if you said I wouldn’t do that to a person that put a second mortgage on a home, then you shouldn’t do that to a person just because they didn’t have to do that. That’s the law, you shouldn’t punish someone because they are rich just like you shouldn’t punish someone because they are poor.

Speaking of being poor, do you know how many times poor people had to agree to plea deals because they had no representation or couldn’t afford one, this is why I am happy these defendants are fighting this case. These cases, these fights, they help the poor and people of lesser means. You might look down at Loughlin and the other defendants but I hope they give the prosecutors one hell of a fight and force them to be reasonable in their sentencing because when I sell everything I own and go live in my car to bribe someone at Harvard or Princeton to put my son’s name up a notch, just enough to be accepted, I want to do community service, not go to jail for 40 years. I’m joking of course, but this case is about checks and balances, because some poor family out there is going to get taken advantage of, either for school admission or admission into this country, and the punishment should be fair and even handed and the sad truth is that these rich folks set precedents in cases just like this, that limits the abuse of authority that prosecutors sometimes wield. These rich folks will help us poor folks fight battles that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to fight. They are not the good guys, or even the bad guys, but I offer that neither are the prosecutors, at least not in this case. Not one soul was injured and you want to lock them up, why? Because they are rich, not a good reason. And if your thought is that it happens to poor people all the time, then you should be rooting for these defendants so we have case law to prevent it from happening. I look at things a little differently I guess, but I consider the adding charges when they didn’t appease the prosecutors a little bit of a crappy move on their part but that happens all the time to us poor folk, I would like to see it stopped.

My opinion is mine alone and I’m assuming that no other person was hurt or kept out of the school due to these activities. If there were, then we’re in a different ballgame altogether.

I do have a couple of questions for you

Would you send a student to jail if he got caught cheating on a SAT test at a SAT test site?

Would you send a student to jail if he lied on his application for college about things they did or sports they played in?

Those are the exact same crimes but I don’t think that you would file charges on those students and it happens and they have been caught, why would you jail the parents? Singer was an opportunist that approached these parents because of their wealth, he is the criminal and you shouldn’t equate Singer’s actions as equal or the same as the parents’ actions. Read the story of Sam Eshaghoff. He basically did the same thing as Singer and got community service and the students that paid him, well, they received no punishment that I read about. The amount of money paid is not the same and I believe Singer to be a scam artist and should receive jail time but, if you are going to be fair across the board, then the parents should have gotten the same deal as Sam, who was more liable then the parents.

I went on a date to a club in NYC and was dancing with my girlfriend, later to be my wife. Some drunk guy started to dance behind her and she kept dancing away from him. He didn’t get the message and started to grind on her. I yelled at him to back off and his friends who were laughing said, “leave him alone he’s drunk”. So now we’re suppose to give drunk idiots a pass to rub on a woman because they are drunk. I don’t now how he ended on the floor.