The recent events in the East Bay (CA), towards the end of March 2009, are disturbing to say the least.
We here in the SF Bay Area lost four fine people on Sat. March 21st. ~ Sgt. Mark Dunakin, Officer John Hege, Sgt. Ervin Romans, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai ~ Family men, public servants, proud members of the community - and, Oakland city Police Officers. Four genuine community helpers gunned down in a vicious display of cowardice and frustration. That day will not be soon forgotten, and certainly not in that community, as we prepare for a memorial such as is rarely seen outside of celebrity or larger public office.
The reason is simple - these four officers became bigger than their own individual lives simply by doing their jobs, by serving and protecting. And in losing their lives, while keeping the peace, these officers have certainly elevated above the rest of us. They are deserving of our respect, our prayers, and our remembrances of them. And if nothing else, their passing serves as a valuable reminder of just how dangerous and important their position in our community can be, and of how selfless some people are by taking on such responsibilities.
But during these grieving times, it is strangely apparent that some choose this moment to spread their own frustrations, by somehow showing “respect” for the thug who gunned down four men who were simply doing their duty. This is what makes it hard to accept society as a whole, and these are the reasons that keep many of us separated.
Unrepentant thug, Lovelle Mixon, was a wanted parole-violator. He had used a phony ID when stopped for a traffic violation on Sat. March 21, 2009. He showed no signs of care when he opened fire on the two officers who had pulled him over.
Lovelle’s sister, Enjoli, was upset that the news kept referring to Lovelle as “the parolee.” She went on record to the media touting Lovelle as someone “who was turning his life around” and was “not a monster.” He just “didn’t want to go back to jail.” Well, who does? But shooting at police offers is about the worst way to work out problems.
Lovelle didn’t just shoot two officers and run. He came back to fire more rounds, execution-style.
- But he is “not a monster.”
He then ran like a coward and hid in his sister’s apartment, placing her in possible danger as well.
- But he is “not a monster.”
When he blasted more officers through a door, killing a third, it was to be “expected”, and even as they dragged him out of the apartment, he was able to kill one last officer.
- But he is “not a monster.”
He has a violent background, committed armed robbery, and has committed at least one previous murder.
- But he is “not a monster.”
He has been linked to six rapes, including that of a 12 year old school girl.
- But he is “not a monster.”
If that is not a complete description of a human monster, then what is?
Yet, Lovelle Mixon got his wishes - he did not go back to jail, and he definitely “changed his life” permanently.
And with that, the tale turns bizarre, as a handful of others in the neighborhood claim the shooting of the officers was a sign of the mounting tensions between the community and the police. “Remember Oscar Grant.” came some chants. Somehow that was meant to justify the actions. It almost seems as though this ragtag select group of Mixon supporters felt his death was in the wrong. From the malicious intent Mixon posed, it was so very right to shoot him.
It’s strange that this particular group of people never look at themselves as part of the problem. They see only what they accuse others of seeing - black skin. This does not by any means apply to the majority, except to those who feel their lives have become pointless. They wear their blackness not as a culture, but as a mark of shame. To them, it is the equivalent of wearing cross-hairs. Whenever opportunity arises, it will be the cry of “What about the black man?” as a sign of suffering. These are the people who drag down their own. The fact that there are countless black role models, many in the highest positions in our country, doesn’t seem to make a difference. The fact that our country has moved so far ahead as to have elected our first black President, as well seems to leave them unfazed. We have seen Martin Luther King’s dreams begin to unfold. And yet the complaining, and almost ritualistic, spiritual self-flagellation continues.
And that’s when these fringe portions of the community got together during everyone’s time of mourning, to cry out injustice for the shooting of poor, misunderstood Lovelle Mixon. They have formed a march in remembrance of their own new-found hero, a martyr by the name of Mixon. One doesn’t have to be black to feel that this type of action could cause 400 years of black American ancestry to collectively roll over in their graves. Martin Luther King was a hero. A man of peace who had a plan, an idea, a dream. But yet, todays’ society chooses a thug, a murderer, a child rapist - a monster - to represent them as their new idol. To this thug they bestow respect? The word “pathetic” is hardly even applicable. I truly feel sorry for those people. Nothing productive comes of it.
To the rest of the community, to those whose hearts have poured forth in understanding that this was a tragedy to everyone, I feel for them. I feel for the families and friends of the slain officers. I feel for the Oakland Police Department. I feel for all the people, on all sides, of the Oakland community who feel less safe, less secure for losing those who patrolled their streets. I feel for anyone who has honest feelings of compassion for the real tragedy that took place.
A coward may have taken the lives of four of Oakland finest, but he will never remove their memories. Brave men may have been taken from us, but their purpose and souls continue.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
How Bad Are AIG Execs? Compare 1940s Nazi Germany vs AIG 2009
After hearing so much from both sides of the coin about AIG and their executives - who have suddenly realized how the law works, when it benefits them - I finally figured out a proper analogy over the situation at hand.
To begin with, assess what a "bonus" really is. It is an enticement, an award for a job well done. It is given to someone who has benefited others. To go back a bit, there used to be regulations and laws against bad risks in business. Eventually the system was deregulated, which is how problems began. AIG was just another insurance company, who found a way to jump onto the mortgage industry. They began guaranteeing banks around the world, opening doors for very bad risks in the housing market. Practically anyone could buy a house, in some cases even with no job.
AIG basically said, "Just do it." to the risky lending and never thought it would bottom out. Sounds like a pyramid scheme. Well, the inevitable, and unthinkable happened - it bottomed out. All the top AIG execs had been pushing in that direction, and they got the pay-off - a failed company. And now that the Fed and American people have to foot the bill to get it back on its feet (and basically cover some bad home buyers too), the AIG execs expect bonuses that they were promised in contract. The bad thing is - it's a legal demand. The moral thing is - it's wrong! It was those same execs that got us into this mess to begin with. They should be in prison for doing what they did, essentially a sham. But alas, it still was legal at the time.
Moving back to where I started, my analogy. Follow this (partially) hypothetical thought -
Nazi Germany, 1940s.
An Auschwitz prison guard is entrusted to "do away with" the prisoners. He is contractually offered a bonus if he "keeps his numbers up." And so he does, because that is the law of the land at that time.
1945, America wins. Recognizing that Germany itself is essentially good and necessary (unlike the Nazis), America offers to pay reparations to rebuild Germany into a sound structure again.
The Nuremberg trials (which represents America's current outrage, 2009). All the prison guards are being questioned for their part in atrocities. The one particular Auschwitz guard brings up, and demands his bonus for his exemplary work in what he was asked to do.
The moral question here:
1) Is the guard entitled to his contractually promised bonus, for "doing a good job" for his superiors, as he was asked to do. Or,
2) Should he go to prison for being part of the whole problem, hurting people along the way, and helping to get Germany (as in AIG) into the very mess of needing to ask for reparation money to begin with?
And so it's no wonder that AIG head Edward Liddy has asked his employees to give back the bonus money. BUT, it's doubtful that Liddy's intentions were honorable. Liddy in fact made it public that the very executives who received their bonus money, were now (justifiably) receiving death threats. So the money return is more to ensure that no harm comes to AIG employees or their families.
Note to Edward Liddy and the AIG cronies -
Japanese culture has had a long-standing ethical custom called "Hari Kari." That is suicide by blade, done when one has committed shame upon his family or superiors. Although, I would suggest that more for Bernie Madoff, whose actions actually have caused suicide in innocent people.
To begin with, assess what a "bonus" really is. It is an enticement, an award for a job well done. It is given to someone who has benefited others. To go back a bit, there used to be regulations and laws against bad risks in business. Eventually the system was deregulated, which is how problems began. AIG was just another insurance company, who found a way to jump onto the mortgage industry. They began guaranteeing banks around the world, opening doors for very bad risks in the housing market. Practically anyone could buy a house, in some cases even with no job.
AIG basically said, "Just do it." to the risky lending and never thought it would bottom out. Sounds like a pyramid scheme. Well, the inevitable, and unthinkable happened - it bottomed out. All the top AIG execs had been pushing in that direction, and they got the pay-off - a failed company. And now that the Fed and American people have to foot the bill to get it back on its feet (and basically cover some bad home buyers too), the AIG execs expect bonuses that they were promised in contract. The bad thing is - it's a legal demand. The moral thing is - it's wrong! It was those same execs that got us into this mess to begin with. They should be in prison for doing what they did, essentially a sham. But alas, it still was legal at the time.
Moving back to where I started, my analogy. Follow this (partially) hypothetical thought -
Nazi Germany, 1940s.
An Auschwitz prison guard is entrusted to "do away with" the prisoners. He is contractually offered a bonus if he "keeps his numbers up." And so he does, because that is the law of the land at that time.
1945, America wins. Recognizing that Germany itself is essentially good and necessary (unlike the Nazis), America offers to pay reparations to rebuild Germany into a sound structure again.
The Nuremberg trials (which represents America's current outrage, 2009). All the prison guards are being questioned for their part in atrocities. The one particular Auschwitz guard brings up, and demands his bonus for his exemplary work in what he was asked to do.
The moral question here:
1) Is the guard entitled to his contractually promised bonus, for "doing a good job" for his superiors, as he was asked to do. Or,
2) Should he go to prison for being part of the whole problem, hurting people along the way, and helping to get Germany (as in AIG) into the very mess of needing to ask for reparation money to begin with?
And so it's no wonder that AIG head Edward Liddy has asked his employees to give back the bonus money. BUT, it's doubtful that Liddy's intentions were honorable. Liddy in fact made it public that the very executives who received their bonus money, were now (justifiably) receiving death threats. So the money return is more to ensure that no harm comes to AIG employees or their families.
Note to Edward Liddy and the AIG cronies -
Japanese culture has had a long-standing ethical custom called "Hari Kari." That is suicide by blade, done when one has committed shame upon his family or superiors. Although, I would suggest that more for Bernie Madoff, whose actions actually have caused suicide in innocent people.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Nadya Suleman should have her uterus ripped out and fed to her
I can safely have the satisfaction of knowing I'm not the only one feeling this way.
Current mental-case newsmaker, Nadya Suleman, should have her uterus ripped out, cooked over a flaming pit, and fed to her.
Nadya Suleman, the baby-spitting walking uterus, is setting the worst possible example as a human being. I thought Bernie Madoff (the billion dollar Ponzi scheme thief) was greedy, but this woman takes the award.
The words just to begin my rant are: self-centered, self-absorbed, delusional, and obsessed.
Here is a woman who wants what she wants, at any cost, and at any justification. I am judging by her name, but she really appears as the stereotypical J.A.P. (Jewish American Princess). "Daddy's going to buy me a billion babies any time I want! N'yah n'yah!"
A supposedly lonely woman, who always wanted siblings herself, is - admittedly - recreating the childhood that she wanted in her own universe, by having lots of kids. She already had six, but that wasn't enough (it is for most normal people), she went back for more and got eight more! "Oh well, silly me."
1) She's jobless
2) She's without a husband, therefore no father-figure role model (yes, respecting the fact that other household run fine that way, but we're talking 14 kids here).
3) She quit school to knock herself up.
4) She says she's "doing it herself," but in fact is relying on outside help
5) She has moved into her mom's house - a somewhat decrepit-looking home with nowhere near the amount of rooms needed for the task of child raising (14 kids, no doubt!).
6) Again, in saying that she is asking for no money - she has a website, with a Pay-Pal donations acceptance section.
7) She stated that her church is helping her - except that the church denies even knowing who she is and made their own statement that they are NOT helping her out.
And did I forget to mention that she has a very apparent Angelie Jolie obsession? The same hair, the same pouty lips (they plump when you cook 'em), similar mannerisms, and... oh yeah... that need to keep adopting new pets... I mean kids.
With no hubby in tow, Nadya Jolie has somehow conned a male friend of hers of his joy juice to fill up those frozen eggs of hers. (This begins to sound like some perverted breakfast. The new McHump, only at McDonald's.) At some point, I was just imagining the paternity suit facing this poor guy, in case the contract between them wasn't spelled out right.
When Nadya was interviewed by Anne Curry, Nadya herself stated clearly that this was all about her, and her needs. That she was bringing her childhood desires to life, only using brand new (actual living, breathing) human lives to do so. There is something so very wrong, so very sick about that concept of hers. We're not talking about an obsessive doll-collection here. We're talking about children who didn't ask to be born. There were created out of the sheer wants of the mother. Not out of love between a couple. Not out of the desire to leave a legacy and share her genes further. But out of the need to quell her supposed abandonment issues suffered in childhood (which, it turns out are false accusations anyway).
"Mom didn't love me enough." she says. And yet, how could Nadya possibly give the proper amount of attention to 14 children? There are critics and advocates (Dr. Phil included) who do not want to see these kids go into foster care. And yet, in some way, that's exactly the type of life they are living in at this very moment.
Nadya is not even some financially well-off person who can afford to toy with human lives. She is an unemployed, selfish person who's only cares first and foremost are her own needs.
I pity the children and hope the best for them.
As for the mom... may her vaginal innards fall out so that this heinous selfishness cannot be repeated by her. And let's hope that no copycats exist out there who will try to beat Nadya's record. Ugh!
Current mental-case newsmaker, Nadya Suleman, should have her uterus ripped out, cooked over a flaming pit, and fed to her.
Nadya Suleman, the baby-spitting walking uterus, is setting the worst possible example as a human being. I thought Bernie Madoff (the billion dollar Ponzi scheme thief) was greedy, but this woman takes the award.
The words just to begin my rant are: self-centered, self-absorbed, delusional, and obsessed.
Here is a woman who wants what she wants, at any cost, and at any justification. I am judging by her name, but she really appears as the stereotypical J.A.P. (Jewish American Princess). "Daddy's going to buy me a billion babies any time I want! N'yah n'yah!"
A supposedly lonely woman, who always wanted siblings herself, is - admittedly - recreating the childhood that she wanted in her own universe, by having lots of kids. She already had six, but that wasn't enough (it is for most normal people), she went back for more and got eight more! "Oh well, silly me."
1) She's jobless
2) She's without a husband, therefore no father-figure role model (yes, respecting the fact that other household run fine that way, but we're talking 14 kids here).
3) She quit school to knock herself up.
4) She says she's "doing it herself," but in fact is relying on outside help
5) She has moved into her mom's house - a somewhat decrepit-looking home with nowhere near the amount of rooms needed for the task of child raising (14 kids, no doubt!).
6) Again, in saying that she is asking for no money - she has a website, with a Pay-Pal donations acceptance section.
7) She stated that her church is helping her - except that the church denies even knowing who she is and made their own statement that they are NOT helping her out.
And did I forget to mention that she has a very apparent Angelie Jolie obsession? The same hair, the same pouty lips (they plump when you cook 'em), similar mannerisms, and... oh yeah... that need to keep adopting new pets... I mean kids.
With no hubby in tow, Nadya Jolie has somehow conned a male friend of hers of his joy juice to fill up those frozen eggs of hers. (This begins to sound like some perverted breakfast. The new McHump, only at McDonald's.) At some point, I was just imagining the paternity suit facing this poor guy, in case the contract between them wasn't spelled out right.
When Nadya was interviewed by Anne Curry, Nadya herself stated clearly that this was all about her, and her needs. That she was bringing her childhood desires to life, only using brand new (actual living, breathing) human lives to do so. There is something so very wrong, so very sick about that concept of hers. We're not talking about an obsessive doll-collection here. We're talking about children who didn't ask to be born. There were created out of the sheer wants of the mother. Not out of love between a couple. Not out of the desire to leave a legacy and share her genes further. But out of the need to quell her supposed abandonment issues suffered in childhood (which, it turns out are false accusations anyway).
"Mom didn't love me enough." she says. And yet, how could Nadya possibly give the proper amount of attention to 14 children? There are critics and advocates (Dr. Phil included) who do not want to see these kids go into foster care. And yet, in some way, that's exactly the type of life they are living in at this very moment.
Nadya is not even some financially well-off person who can afford to toy with human lives. She is an unemployed, selfish person who's only cares first and foremost are her own needs.
I pity the children and hope the best for them.
As for the mom... may her vaginal innards fall out so that this heinous selfishness cannot be repeated by her. And let's hope that no copycats exist out there who will try to beat Nadya's record. Ugh!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Happy Obama Day! A new day is coming...
Hello to everyone...
Let's hope that today begins a change, and a new chapter in America that we can be glad about, and hopeful for.
It's Inauguration Day, when Barack Obama steps into the biggest shoes he's ever tried on.
This is no longer just a debate, or a test, or just some words. This is the time when America sees if it made the right choice.
To those who doubt - have hope. And if you don't, then you must have lost hope in our country long ago.
To those who worry - don't. Instead of sending empty emotions, do as Kennedy said decades ago - "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
To those of color who see White America as a hindrance, or a successful Black man as an Uncle Tom - get over it. The time for change include, and involves everyone. This isn't about petty grievances, nor about who did what to whom in the past. This is beyond color, and politics and parties. This is the time when we all need to hold hands and cross a bridge.
Never look back at what crumbles behind. Look forward to where the sun shines.
At the lowest, the only place you can go is up. We can only hope that we have the right balloon, and enough helium to make it rise.
Regardless of blames, and mistakes that were made, this day - January 20, 2009 - marks a historic event that should uplift us all. We should stand proud, and know that we indeed are strong. We should all smile, if even for a moment, through any of our darkest times, and feel the sense that we indeed are moving forward.
Instead of pondering, fretting, and complaining, we need to do whatever it takes to offer our own assistance to the bigger picture, and to the greater good. Together we are everything. And together we can make the world whole.
So today, take a moment to reflect, and to smile. You are above ground, you are breathing free air, and we have a new President.
Happy Obama Day! Jan. 20, 2009
~ Philip Anderson ~:)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
TSA Agent Busted Stealing Over $200,000 Of Passenger's Luggage (And You Wondered Where It Went)
You've got to feel so patriotic and protected now that we have Homeland Security and the TSA protecting our American interests. Sure. But who's protecting us from those agents? They're only human, right? Temptations arise. Power corrupts. Etc.
In the news yesterday...
A man named Pythias Brown, a TSA agent from Maplewood, NJ, has been busted stealing over $200,000. worth of traveler's personal belongings. Being the brainiac that he appears to be, I believe he was caught primarily due to his last big haul - (pay attention) a $50,000. camera belonging to an HBO employee. Pythias was hawking it on eBay, apparently thinking no suspicions would arise. I'm sure all TSA employees earn enough to buy a cheap camera like that. Pythias was busted with a large cache of inventory, most of which was going up for sale on eBay. Funny enough, he has a near-perfect record of customer satisfaction on eBay. Not so with the airline industry - where, thanks in part to creeps like him, customer "satisfaction" is at an all-time low.
Keep in mind that travelers are no longer allowed to lock their luggage, and/or that TSA agents have every authority to break into luggage. Somehow that makes me feel LESS safe than before.
You can read more about the story here:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/107092
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention, after doing a bit of research, apparently Pythias Brown was due to marry Natalie Zackery on this past Sun. Oct. 12th. I wonder if he made it to his nuptials. How do you explain that one to the new in-laws (or your own folks).
Now, as a final note...
This isn't meant to come off racist, but one can't help to comment...
Upon further research, I found that Pythias Brown has a Reunion.com personal profile. On there, we find that he is a 6' tall, bald man, who goes by the nickname of "Hershey." That leads me to believe that he very possibly could be a black man... OR has some anal fixation. Not sure which. But I'm pretty sure his name isn't because he's from that particularly infamous town in Pennsylvania, and I doubt he's named after his favorite candy bar.
It's always something, I tell ya. This is why I do carry-on luggage ONLY. New aviation websites are suggesting that if you have anything of value, you should consider doing a FedEx advance shipment to the destination. My, how times have changed. Thank YOU, Mr. Pythias Brown, for instilling more confidence in travel, airlines, and the American way. Douchebag.
In the news yesterday...
A man named Pythias Brown, a TSA agent from Maplewood, NJ, has been busted stealing over $200,000. worth of traveler's personal belongings. Being the brainiac that he appears to be, I believe he was caught primarily due to his last big haul - (pay attention) a $50,000. camera belonging to an HBO employee. Pythias was hawking it on eBay, apparently thinking no suspicions would arise. I'm sure all TSA employees earn enough to buy a cheap camera like that. Pythias was busted with a large cache of inventory, most of which was going up for sale on eBay. Funny enough, he has a near-perfect record of customer satisfaction on eBay. Not so with the airline industry - where, thanks in part to creeps like him, customer "satisfaction" is at an all-time low.
Keep in mind that travelers are no longer allowed to lock their luggage, and/or that TSA agents have every authority to break into luggage. Somehow that makes me feel LESS safe than before.
You can read more about the story here:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/107092
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention, after doing a bit of research, apparently Pythias Brown was due to marry Natalie Zackery on this past Sun. Oct. 12th. I wonder if he made it to his nuptials. How do you explain that one to the new in-laws (or your own folks).
Now, as a final note...
This isn't meant to come off racist, but one can't help to comment...
Upon further research, I found that Pythias Brown has a Reunion.com personal profile. On there, we find that he is a 6' tall, bald man, who goes by the nickname of "Hershey." That leads me to believe that he very possibly could be a black man... OR has some anal fixation. Not sure which. But I'm pretty sure his name isn't because he's from that particularly infamous town in Pennsylvania, and I doubt he's named after his favorite candy bar.
It's always something, I tell ya. This is why I do carry-on luggage ONLY. New aviation websites are suggesting that if you have anything of value, you should consider doing a FedEx advance shipment to the destination. My, how times have changed. Thank YOU, Mr. Pythias Brown, for instilling more confidence in travel, airlines, and the American way. Douchebag.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)