Why Trust A Nation Still Waiting For Their Jesus?

Every one of my biggest problems in this world- even complex topic writer's block- seems to get resolved at the seat of GRACE. It was a problem trying to make sense of  an inspiration that felt a bit too complex to properly chew and digest- even for my overactive mental digestive tract.

You ask, how might the spirit of forgiveness unto salvation help a struggling writer?  What I discovered is that, in all things, don't take yourself too seriously.  In other words, forgiving yourself can be liberating towards self expression and also towards experiencing the liberating change we often expect from others.

In the spirit of GRACE, it has been a very long time since I've journalistically pricked the conscious of those prescribed as atheist or agnostic mostly because the elevating intolerance of those prescribed as Christian (me) has pricked my angst against pointing a finger at anti religion people who have religiously organized themselves to say that they want no part of religion's nonsense.


I get it.

I totally empathize with the damaging impact religion has had on God's favorability numbers. Skepticism towards God always makes sense until I find myself outside each spring pulling up the undesirables in the lawn, hoping for the prize of best grass on the block.  I have yet to win the title, but not for the lack of sincere effort.  My hours of gripping and grinding give me ample time to marvel at the majesty of life as well as the doubt of God's disbelievers.  Seeing the circle and cycle of life makes it hard to imagine that everything came without the conscious design of something greater than the designs themselves, so even my seasonal attempts at broad leaf genocide reminds me of the resiliency of life in a way that humbles me to the core.

Children killed in Syrian chemical attack

Chemical Weapon's Don't Work

I no longer spray chemicals to fight the war with weeds because, for aesthetic reasons, even shriveled and dying weeds have to be pulled up. I figure, if I've gotta pull the damn things regardless, then I will pass on the pesticides and keep on pulling.  Not to mention, my neighbor made me curious about a recipe of dandelion soup that his family in Oklahoma has mastered. My love of cooking and a Google search could certainly justify an attempt at repurposed dandelions, except my pesticide shriveled dandelions might not be soup suitable for a few years.

The impact of chemicals is clearly pronounced on the leaf pattern and on the overall size of my dandelion's, yet the three seasons of Syrian style chemical warfare on all the broad leaf weeds that inhabit my lawn has yet to eliminate them from the landscape.  Those who are familiar with chemical lawn warfare must be certain not to employ weapons that might eliminate every form of vegetation, so chemicals designed to kill broad leafs, and not your grass, have to be humane enough to kill strategically and slowly.

Within our inherant DNA for survival, every life form must modify and adapt itself.  The weed modification's from chemical lawn warfare produces a dandelion that flowers without broad leaves and actually flowers (seeds) below ground level if necessary. In essence, chemicals kill many existing weeds, but only alter the survival nature of the weeds that continue to grow in the future- especially those dandelions.

If you are no longer a little kid who picks dandelions for a bouquet for mom, or blows the seeds all over the yard because they literally invite you to do so, dandelions seem offensive.  In reality, dandelions tend to coexist with grass fairly well and will only overtake grass with the severe neglect of not cutting down the yellow soldiers whenever their heads pop out of the trench. Crabgrass, on the other hand, starts out looking similar to grass, but changes as it grows and will eventually overtake grass if allowed to stay.

Unlike the dreaded crabgrass.
Pulling up dandelions....

I mostly stopped the chemicals because I started seeding, which makes chemicals counterproductive to the young grass shoots, and mild chemicals only work on broad leaf weeds anyway, not crabgrass. One blast of crabgrass killing chemicals, and  an entire area of young grass will likely be the biggest victim.  The weakest, slowest, least of these will always be the worse victims of war, especially something so subversive and stealthy as chemical war.

.....leaves very few blemishes

In part, its the 
death of the least of these that forces 
the end of most war, because the death of children strikes a blow at society. 
That was the calculation of Syrian president Bashir Al-Assad, or whoever will be held responsible for the recent chlorine gas attacks

Syrian children killed by chemicals

on Syrian areas thought to be subversive to the Al-Assad government. Striking a blow at the heart of a society was certainly what WE had in mind when we dropped bombs in Japan to end their opposition during WWII. In the effort to finally address the ISIS threat, Al-Assad will have to soon become an ally or be removed like Sadaam Hussein.  If, on the other hand, the world community is asking Al-Assad to deal with the ISIS weeds in his own lawn, he must have the freedom to use any of the means and methods that every conscientious lawn owner has employed to varying degree's of success- since ALL weed removal bears retributive damage.

No more crabgrass.....for now.

Al-Assad appears to be a dandelion to me, and eventually the world might be forced to remove him one way or another.  In my experience, you must snatch crabgrass up by the root to  eliminate the problem.  I can pull dandelions all day long with minimal damage to the surrounding grass, but crabgrass has to be snatched at the root- which will be at the expense of some of the least of these.

What Becomes Of Those Who Deny Christ?

I realize ISIS is of major concern, but I need GRACE to help me with Benjamin Netanyahu and the nation of Israel- the shameless middle eastern Jewish caliphate that is anxiously waiting for the messiah most of the world accepts in the form of Jesus Christ.  That sometimes seems like a small religious dispute which should be easily overlooked in a world full of varying religions, but most Americans rarely stop to think about what happens when Israel's messiah arrives, and how will he impact the lawn in the middle east.  True Christian GRACE does not stack rank sin, even the sin of denial that occurs with atheists, agnostics and more fearfully, Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu who consider the Jewish messiah, Christ, a lie.

ISRAEL'S ROLE FOR HUMANITY

There is no answer without a call.  Therefore, the very purpose of humanity might be connected to the call of Abram to be the father of a people chosen for a purpose greater than themselves.  If society is searching for an answer to the middle east, we should begin with the call of Israel.

GENESIS 12 

The Call of Abram

12 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”[b]

Seperate our world into its major religious components (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), and all roads point back to Abraham, the undenied father of each religion.  Genesis 12 began the call of Israel, but the doctrine of Israel and eventual dogma of Judaism has little connection with God's call.  Israel, the founding nation of father Abraham, considers themselves worthy by virtue of a religious doctrine that the Christian messiah claims to have nullified through the act of GRACE. Stated more clearly, kosher, not Christ, is king.

Outside of the spirit of GRACE, religions and opinion bloggers with mental hurdles fall victimized by the very thing Christ hoped to save us all from, dogmatic illusions of righteousness that leave us governed more by rules and rituals (The Law) and less by the spirit (GRACE).  The Law code is perfectly fine except for its rejection of rule by the spirit.  In ancient times, dogmatic illusion of righteousness became married to the Law of Moses, which God originally gave to man to serve as a mirror for sin until the marriage of GRACE which freed man from the guilt of his sinful shortcomings.

Pastor Joseph Prince creatively describes the Law of Moses in this way.  If a glass of water has lots of dirt and sediment in it, the silver spoon (the law) can stir it and reveal the sediment.  If you let the glass sit for some time, the dirt (sin) might settle to the bottom and make the water appear worthy of consumption.  The spoon will easily stir and reveal the dirt once again, but the spoon did not cause the dirt just as the mirror doesn't cause the reflection to appear ugly- they both only show you what was already there.

GRACE came to place the silver spoon and the mirror behind a door of mystery. Every mystery door has its lure, and the curious will typically turn at the knob. Behind the door, however, is nothing more than the mirror of sin or that silver spoon (the Law).  When Christ took every sin upon himself, he locked the mirror and the spoon behind that door. Our guilt and shame can easily unlock the door, however, their power is married to the revelatory Law of Moses which, once again, came only to bring each of us to the end of ourselves (salvation by achievement) until the beginning of salvation through the simple acceptance of the complete sacrifice of Christ- the embodiment of GRACE.

Man is now dead to the demand of the law upon receiving the gift of GRACE even though sin remains fully intact in our flesh waiting to be stirred by the spoon or revealed in the mirror. Does staring in the mirror make your pimples go away or just aware that you've got them? Does stirring the dirty water produce holiness or the opposite?

Let's connect the dots.

Does stirring sin or revealing sin's reflection remove sin or increase its power? Those who live by the law are bound by its power, which means Israel is not just married to the Law of Moses, they are a nation constantly being stirred- or cornered by sin's inescapable reflection.

How do you define sin and evil in a kosher society?  Everything that doesn't comport to the code of the Law- even America- becomes potentially evil if you live in a way in which the very food you eat comports a belief of righteousness.  How does a kosher world leader comport with men and women so defiled as to actually consume swine?  Ironically, Jews and Muslims totally agree on this point of contention as well as the necessity of religious justification by virtue of other dogmatic expectations.  GRACE, on the other hand, declares a view of sin and of the Law of Moses that is more radical than even some Christian religion's can fully accept.

Pastor Prince expands his view of the law by explaining that the very first sin illustrated in the 10 Laws of Moses (Have No Other God's Before Me) was not committed by the Jews until the moment that the law was given.  In other words, the Jews simultaneously decided to melt down their gold and build the golden calf exactly at the moment that God sent instructions through Moses not to do it. From then until now, Jews have been desperately seeking  a true expression of God, including an anticipation of God's promised messianic return.  Since ancient Jewish doctrine promises a coming messiah, modern Jews can not transition from the demands of the previous Law of Moses or the present complex doctrine it generated, until a messiah arrives to document a new law. If the Law of Moses is not fulfilled in the form of a new Jewish messiah, Jews remain married to a law that was only designed to function as the bridge to salvation, not salvation itself.

What that means to me is that Netanyahu and Israel is not only a nation trapped inside of the law of Moses, waiting for THEIR messiah to arrive to prove OUR messianic theory a lie, they are geographically designed for military peril while they wait. If ever there were a nation in need of the non-judgemental hand of GRACE, it is Israel.  Upon the arrival of the Jewish messiah, how do we connect and conclude the story from Deuteronomy to the coming of the new Jewish messiah instead of the Jesus story we've heard about?  Which Jewish official will chronicle their messiah to fill in the untold portions of the Jewish bible that other Jewish forefathers (Isaiah, Jeremiah or John the Baptist) describe another way?

Will there be a manger to fulfill prophecy?  Do manger's even exist anymore?

Someday, in our life time or in the life time of our children, Israel must eventually find their messiah, and their continued search (aka., rejection of GRACE's provision) is not something to take lightly. Until Israel receives expanded instruction from the new Jewish messiah, they remain a nation governed by mirrors, silver spoons and an  unfinished bible. Jew's who believe in Jesus seem to recognize the challenge of waiting for the correct Jesus to come and finish their bible story, but few of them live in Israel.  Of the 161,000 Christian Jews living in Israel (2.1% of the population), 127,000 are actually Arab Christians.  What happens when the new messiah arrives?  Will he be called Christ too, and which Christ will prevail among the current people of Israel?

The Grass Is Always Greener

Every nation, Israel included, has the duty of its own lawn.  America's lawn might be seen as the best on the block, but from an aerial view, we are reminded that police brutality and unabashed Hillary abuse remain brown spots. Nations with a lawn full of violent weeds must do the grueling work of uprooting some of them to establish balance and order-  and grass will be sacrificed.

The middle east represents one big giant desert landscape with winds that blow your neighbors problems directly into your yard.  Whatever choice your neighbor employs in the fight to create the type of yard they prefer will impact everyone in the middle eastern community at large- which is why nuclear weapons are a major risk to the entire region.

Much like nuclear weapons, chemicals can be more problematic than useful.

Trust US.  WE know from experience.  Chemicals only appear to get rid of your problem when they actually exacerbate the width, breadth and resolve of your opponents. Your problem might relocate for a spell, but the war will resume another day.

Needing to borrow dandelions from my pesticide free neighbor is the least of the worries- for my soup recipe or the middle east.  Even a ground force of American soldiers will ignite the struggle between  middle eastern vegetation trying to fill the vacuum from the American removed undesirables, be that Al-Assad of the future or the vacuum created from Hussein and Ghaddafi of the past. However kosher they claim themselves to be, at this point, I am not entirely certain that a nation  lead by Netanyahu and still in search of their own Jesus is not a form of crabgrass themselves.

Without intervention, crabgrass, which thrives on minimum moisture, will overtake a lawn.  Al-Assad won't be able to keep the lid on Syria without chemical intimidation or something similarly heinous. Eventually, Iran, Iraq, Israel or someone in the middle east will be forced to address Syria simply to address the ISIS threat and the need to fill the vacuum when or if Al-Assad is removed. Because of Israel- the kosher crabgrass of the middle east- no matter how we achieve a military victory over ISIS and Al-Assad, there will NEVER be room for a continued US presence that doesn't ruin the landscape and make the middle eastern weed problem worse.

Grass is losing popularity, even in America, because it comes at the cost of lots of water and constant weed pulling. In the dry middle eastern landscape, even kosher crabgrass deserves a place, but achieving a peaceful balance will be at the expense of the least of these, and to the benefit of those who mock the very GRACE that keeps them the blessed and not cursed nation they are. Although this is a problem for American's (me) tired of being pulled into the middle east because of Israel, its not too big for GRACE. In the eyes of God- and the command of Genesis 12- the challenge of being God's chosen people is a journey wrought with opposition and demanding of radical forgiveness.

How to handle Israel is sort of like that problem some of us married men suffer from.  It seems many of us complain of wives who rarely admit to being wrong.  The certainty I've gained this spring lawncare season is that the marvel and majesty of life is similar to the marvel and majesty of GRACE. When I found myself complaining to God that husband's (me) have to forgive our wives like we do Israel, as if she's never done anything wrong, he say's back to me:

"Now You Understand GRACE".

Charlotte's Web Used To Be A Children's Book

Sometimes those who write a lot search eagerly for inspiration. Charlotte is mine for today.

I met Charlotte Figi the same way a lot of people might have met her.  CNN and Dr. Sanjay Gupta's reported on a little girl who was severely suffering from seizure's from the beginning of her life, and had to find an alternative to all of the drugs that were not working to keep her from having any less than 300 seizures per day.

When the family made their way to a Colorado dispensary that had a grade of marijuana high in CBD (cannabidiol)- considered the medicinal part of marijuana- but low in THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the element that makes you high, the Figi's had found an option that they hoped would work.

It did.

Within no time at all, Charlotte's seizures were reduced to one per week and her brain functions slowly but surely began to improve- not degrade as is typically believed of marijuana, especially with young brains. Charlotte's update on the CNN special has my eyes clean of all dust and pollen in the air.  Not tears just from the improvement she enjoyed, but because the little girl that seizures were totally hiding has been revealed to two loving parents who are joyfully getting to know the daughter they were only hoping to save from the damage of seizures and typical seizure medicine.

Eventually, Charlotte ran that local shop out of the strain that they couldn't sell very well anyway since it doesn't get you high, so the Figi's had to research another answer for little Charlotte.  Enter the RoC (Realm of Caring) marijuana foundation in Colorado.  RoC, run by the Stanley family, had been growing a breed of high CBD marijuana that took YEARS to develop because of the generation it took to master the process of cross breeding, and the time it took to cross breed THC out of the plant.

Mostly, the cross breeding stuff has created a bunch of really high THC weed.  However, research into the effects of marijuana has also uncovered that CBD is not only medicinal, it is the activator of THC, thus nearly every plant has some percentage (usually very low) of the CBD which produces the euphoric effect of the drug.  Without getting you high- researcher's have discovered something believed to improve crippling medical conditions that run the gamut.

Domestic research might be in its infancy , but American doctors have discovered that Israel has been researching weed for years and are currently prescribing it for a wide list of conditions, with some excellent results in the area of PTSD. The expansive list of people who are able to rid themselves of a deadly pharmaceuticals in exchange of marijuana is something that any person who takes a cocktail of drugs, or loves someone who does, should look into.

Research has found a way to remove the psychoactive elements from marijuana, yet, the federal government still maintains a federal ban on marijuana, while simultaneously holding patent number 6630507, the trump card for turning marijuana into the medicine minus the puff that its become for so many.  Marijuana might be known to have many medicinal benefits, but it can't be patented as a plant, since all plants are natural and can be grown by anyone.  Extracting the valuable aspects of marijuana into a pill that would replace so many other pills comes with the risk of replacing so many other pills and the billions of dollars they generate.

To the credit of research, medicinal edible marijuana products are advancing rapidly, but without the support of the federal lead. Families desperate for answers for epileptic children or other medical challenges have to find high CBD weed and process it into oil all by themselves or move to medical marijuana states like Colorado and hope for help from Charlotte. (Recent laws have allowed for Charlotte's Web to be transported across certain state lines).

My oldest brother grew up with seizures, and hated the medication that was supposed to fix the problem too much to take it on the regular.  Over time, he seemed to get a little control over the seizures, but I remember him squirming and moving at times in a way that I can now connect back to the condition he suffered from.  Nobody knew of very many meds to deal with seizures during the 70' and 80's, but they damn sure knew weed.  How many epileptic people unknowingly found relief in marijuana is worthy of research?  Absent a consent from my big brother, I can only say that I think I know how he occasionally avoided the medication that he was supposed to take more often than he did.

What the 80's and street weed doesn't offer is a great way to determine species or grade, so some relief  becomes a lucky shake of the dice. With today's deliberate selling of known species of marijuana, even recreational smokers who shake uncontrollably from time to time, can choose a species of marijuana that deals with the shake and the gloom all in one puff.

DOES IT REALLY WORK?

If you need to really know what the government thinks about the potential for medical marijuana, read the details (below) of the patent that WE've owned since 2003, which describes something clearly valuable, justifying the worthiness of a patent.

God Bless you RoC and the Figi family for seeking an answer for Charlotte, and helping to spread her sticky icky web across the land.  Maybe one day this patent will be used to save lives and not to insure corporate stability in the pharmaceutical industry.

United States Patent	6,630,507
Hampson ,   et al.	October 7, 2003

**Please see images for: ( Certificate of Correction ) **

---

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants 

Abstract Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

---

Inventors:	Hampson; Aidan J. (Irvine, CA), Axelrod; Julius (Rockville, MD), Grimaldi; Maurizio (Bethesda, MD)
Assignee:	The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
Family ID:	26767641

 

Hillary's Scooby Van Plan Includes Finance Reform

Poking the bear might be one method of training, but I imagine that a few bear trainers have died trying that approach.

Change is hard on all of us, and the reality is that we've asked a lot from conservative white America over these years with a communist black president.  Asking angry white men to put up with 4-8 years of a leftist woman might be the equivalent of poking a political polar  bear when it comes to deepening the polarization that has been exposed by the Obama presidency.

Have I got a plan for you. 

My greatest hesitation for a Hillary Clinton presidency is the fear that she will be forced to absorb the worst parts of Obama hatred while grappling with her own disdain from the public. Though she is playing the media like a fiddle, powerful entities hate getting played.  I've come out in support of Jeb Bush because I know that he is genuinely different than his father and brother and time will reveal this version of the Bush family to everyone in a way that will increase his popularity.  As it stands, my belief is that the most capable white male republican would be the best way to stop poking that angry polar bear, finally snapping Washington gridlock. Jeb seems eager and capable of doing the job of also calming that angry bear and finally coalescing congressional votes into collective change and not obstructionism.

Jeb, however, had better drop a hand on the table as impressive as the one Hillary just laid down with her Scooby Van tour through Iowa.  Not  a hand like the staged burrito bowl talk or wearing the sunglasses as night.  Even Hillary's support of the middle class is rather typical as each of the current candidates have observed the same illness while differing on the route to the cure.  I'm also not terribly impressed with her support of the free college ideal that Obama already offered up because it will only change things for middle class kids whose family didn't save for college but make too much money for our current financial aid system. Only a very small portion of these kids will jump all over the small/free college route. Middle class kids coming out of high school are NOT likely to embrace the value of such an approach since they've fought for 4 years to get into a "good" school- not the cheap community college option that only poor kids have to go to. Poor kids already go to these schools for free, so the plan means nothing to them.

The idea that will make Hillary the game changer is the idea of reforming campaign finance- even if it means modifying the Constitution, she claims.  Hillary is too savvy to not know that she's walking down a dangerous road with such a suggestion because her own campaign finance becomes open season- which means she's ready for a universal healthcare type fight like the one she took on years ago as a first lady.

Barack has cherry picked several important domestic and international agenda's from the left and right, but he hasn't really challenged the money engine that has taken over politics.  In many ways, he morphed it into the beast that its become.  Not that his internet based coalition building comes close to impropriety, but it did force the opposition to up the ante in response.  What happened when republicans up'd the ante? It forced the entire issue of campaign finance reform to be heard in a landmark Supreme Court case between the government and the conservative group Citizen's United. (Citizen's United .v. FEC (Federal Election Commission).  This case involved a District Court block against Citizen's United who wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to the time of the 2008 Democratic primaries.  This film was interpreted by the FEC as a violation against the BRCA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) commonly known as the McCain/Feingold agreement, however, the upper and lower level of the judiciary are at odds.

In their ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the lower court, opening the door for free spending by PAC's (Political Action Committee) like Citizen's United.  With a de facto SCOTUS green light, congress passed  an overstuffed Omnibus bill in December (and Obama signed it) that lifted the lid on spending limits of individual donors from 32,400 per year to 324,000.  At this rate, congress will add another zero in a year or two.  Though the Supreme Court verbally agreed with McCain Feingold language that attempts to insure donor disclosure,  they assumed congress would ultimately solidify the language to insur donor disclosure.

They did not!

What they did do was add a zero to the donor limit making the hope for disclosure more dim than ever before. Only a couple of notable voices in congress (Elizabeth Warren  and Bernie Sanders) spoke out against the change. President Obama accepted the change as a necessary evil of the business of campaign finance, and to bring the government away from the edge of another shutdown.

If Hillary wins this election on the strength of campaign finance reform, she will have to lay in bed with the same evil that she is trying to commit to Sheol. Simply hearing this tired suggestion felt like the highest level of pandering until she said two things.  Amending the Constitution away from big money and/or forcing every American to vote, another Obama idea that Hillary could push as president. The first fix she has repeated more often than the mandatory vote idea, which blew up social media when Obama first mentioned it in March.

Achieving a Constitutional amendment would be challenging for sure because the forces that fund elections will not let go of their grip very easily.  Individual donations to Super PAC's were already being protested before the recent bill blew them up exponentially.  A roll back to half of new levels still represents over a 500% increase from last election limits. Fighting the fight to limit the wealth driven grip on American politics must be a TRUE democratic effort.

Written before they added a zero,
raising the limits on donors.

To date, America has never achieved its democratic dreams because we've never advanced beyond the limitations of representative politics.  Even in the socially enraged town of Ferguson, Missouri, where recent elections added two new black Americans to the Ferguson city council, the election turnout was only 30%.  In a town where 67% of the population is black, a 30% election turnout was all it took to achieve the kind of demographic shift that black community members had been begging to see for years.  Ferguson can, and should be functionally governed by more than half black Americans, but less than 30% (some of the turnout was whites) of the black community in Ferguson recognizes their role in change.

To the defense of the new age voters, recent studies say that  polarized older Americans and congressional gridlock have soured them on the belief that the poll booth is the right place to invoke change. Instead, they use social media as their primary political tool.  They could be right, but WE have never tried to assume control of our nation by taking control of the vote. In fact, most of the nationwide efforts to suppress minority votes are aided by the reality that  way too few minorities bother with voting anyway.

In our desperation to deal with healthcare, we've found the value in mandating coverage.  In our desperation to recapture our nation from Big Money,  simplifying and eventually mandating the voting process is probably our best hope. So, if Hillary has plans that will move us closer to that mark, she has my ear.

Don't worry Jeb. I'm only listening.

Capital Punishment Is Necessary But Complicated

A quarter century ago I met the woman who would provide me the love of 5 beautiful daughters and the benefit of 25 years of wedded bliss.

I knew that she was the one for me when our first phone conversation became a 12 hour marathon that ended with the sun rise and ran the gamut from marriage to capital punishment.  The former we both seemed agreeable to, the latter I have recently agreed that she was right and I was wrong (the secret to 25 years marriage).

9-11 might have been an act of terrorism against America, but the response was the equivalent of capital punishment, and even a pacifist like me could relate to the emotion.  I never believed Sadaam Hussein was the right person to hold accountable for the crime, nor were the already war tattered mountains of Afghanistan a worthy place to chase after Bin Laden, the presumed mastermind of it all. What I did believe is that seeing bombs on television would help vulnerable Americans feel like they'd responded to the highest level of evil- enacting a version of retaliatory capital punishment, and it felt good to me too.

Years after we married, a dear friend came to me for support of her golf tournament designed to honor the memory of her murdered son and his girlfriend who were killed because he was scheduled to testify against a  killing that he witnessed at a party.  When Sir Mario Owens was finally convicted for the murder of Javad Marshall-Fields and his girlfriend Vivien Wolfe,
I didn't change my view of capital punishment, but I found myself suddenly eager to shoot her son's killer dead just to ease the pain of her loss.

In the wake of the recent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev conviction in the Boston marathon killings, we return to the mirrored reflection we always confront every time we decide that killing a man is the best way to deal with killing a man.  Places like Boston become more challenged in their moral convictions since they are a state firmly opposed to capital punishment. Yet, even Boston found a way to try Tsarnaev in a jurisdiction (federal) that would allow a jury to kill him if they saw fit.  Once again, even this pacifist would happily put the bullet into the brain of Tsarnaev to ease the pain of those most harmed by his brutality.

Personally, I have never seen death as a worse option to being beaten or molested for years in a prison, but Tsarnaev would likely miss out on that form of prison life even if he avoids death.  If sentenced to life, he likely gets sent to ADX near Florence, Colorado, a VERY expensive maximum security prison that is built to avoid escape, or the kind of prisoner interaction that might encourage escape attempts.  Extra heinous criminals that find their way to ADX are secured and separated in a manner that isn't quite as interactive or vicious as traditional prison.  With six levels of security, ADX inmates have to earn their way into general population interaction. Critics of this location have called the prison the Alcatraz of the Rockies or a cleaner version of hell.

Will Colorado sentence James Holmes to death?

Our uneasiness with disposing of dead weight made us give Tsarnaev the best lawyering we could imagine for the pursuit of saving his life. For the man who was partially responsible for the worst act of terrorism on American soil since 9-11, we give the best representation our system can imagine. In addition to super lawyer Judy Clarke, Tsarnaev received 3 additional public defenders including one who speaks Russian, Tsarnaev's native language.   If sentenced to life in prison, Tsarnaev will join another of defense attorney Clarke's popular clients, Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber), who was saved from death himself thanks to Clarke, and is currently residing in Florence, Colorado as well.

Killing Tsarnaev will not come without years of delay and appeal, both on our dime and at our expense.  Once the appeals run out, finding the drugs to kill Tsarnaev will be a challenge too.  Currently, the states that love to kill people are down to their last few doses of capital punishment cocktails since drug companies that make these meds don't want to be associated with the botched killings that are becoming more prevalent from our lack of skill at capital punishment.  By the time Tsarnaev gets his just deserts, medicated capital punishment's might go by the wayside unless some medicine company gets into the death business soon.


Although any medication can be fatal when used in dangerous doses or combinations, medications of all sorts are originally designed for the opposite purpose of capital punishment.  Even when they help capital punishment achieve its purpose, no medication  or combination of  meds will ever react the same given to different people.  Just as alcohol effects each of us differently, so do murderous cocktails, and these repeated botched killings are an embarrassment to any forward thinking society.

My bullet to the head idea is rather risky too, in that killing the brain doesn't insure that the body will immediately follow, yet we find this method to be the most humane way of killing cattle.  The guillotine is another oldie but goodie, though I doubt our stomachs will endure rolling heads or spurting blood since we can't handle the convulsive agony with the medicinal route we currently administer.

Way back when I first started courting my wife and challenging her on the question of capital punishment, I asked the question of "who wants the blood on their hands anymore".  Way back when, my would be wife said she would kill them herself, so that angle of argument proved hollow against my boo- but it worked with most.  The killing panels were popular a quarter century ago in which several people took part in the process so that no one knew exactly who administered the lethal injection, thus minimizing the potential for personal guilt.  When the first person sentenced to a medicated death began to slobber and convulse for a few minutes longer than expected, we instantly lost this freedom from guilt as well.

Way back when, my wife didn't argue about marrying me, so I put my energy into trying to convince her  that we should stop spending so much money on capital punishment.  I've dreamed forever of an island of ill repute where those sentenced to death could option to live and survive in an environment where we only provide access to  fresh water.  Every other aspect of survival would be the responsibility of the  islands criminal inhabitants. A new age Alcatraz of sorts, but much further from civilization and built, organized and maintained by the convicts themselves.  If a man can not be reformed to live within the order of society, this idea would force him to conform to societal order in a graphic first hand experience.  The most unruly would likely be killed and disposed of a lot faster than they are within our current system of law and justice, leaving the murderous side of capital punishment to be done by those most comfortable with doing it already.

I know what you're thinking.  WE are way too humane for that sort of idea.  Which is the same thing that I used to say about capital punishment.

Aaron Hernandez Guilty Of Murdering Uncle Odin

Nearly all of us grew up with that special uncle who was a hero in your eyes.

Odin Lloyd was the first born and the only son of three children.  His younger sisters and his mother Ursula Ward, were important and special to him as he was the man of the house growing up, and became that special uncle to all the kids of the family.

Today, a jury in Boston found Aaron Hernandez guilty of murdering uncle Odin Lloyd in the first degree.  Hernandez, the former New England Patriot tight end, did not deny the wealth of evidence that said he watched the death of Ursula's baby boy but intimates that he was not the trigger man of this crime.

In the eyes of the law,  everybody who attended the execution of Odin Lloyd is culpable to the crime of murder.  If Hernandez ordered and witnessed the murder, he is fully culpable in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the jury that convicted him.  In the eyes of the family of Lloyd, Uncle Odin was a special person that had a special place in the life of a family who can't understand why Uncle Odin is gone.  Hernandez may never admit to his crime, so understanding why it happened will be elusive.  Nothing about the WHY will change WHAT impact losing Odin will have on his close knit family. His smile was his signature, and he was known for declaring that, 'as long as he had life he would keep on smiling'.

Popular opinion is that loose lips sink ships and Lloyd was suspected of knowing too much regarding the upcoming double murder trial that Hernandez will face next.  When not blazing a trail up and down the NFL fields, Hernandez is a notorious Boston area hot head and a part time thug suspected of killing two other men over a spilled drink in the club. As an insider within the Hernandez circle, (Lloyd was dating the sister of Hernandez' fiance) smiling faced Odin simply got too close the tight lipped world that Hernandez pursued as a side gig.  Video evidence during the trial showed the fiance  of Hernandez disposing of a big trash bag with a box inside of it.  Prosecutors believed the murder weapon to be inside while the fiance claimed to be discarding a bag of marijuana.  Either answer says Hernandez was not living a life content with the wealth of sports stardom.

Upon his conviction, Hernandez struggled to keep his own tight lips shut as the shock of the moment evoked noteworthy responses from him. Like the baller he believes himself to be, Hernandez focused more on his game face than anything- even mouthing to the jury that they "got it wrong", representing some of the few words he's spoken during the course of a trial that was essentially his words against a pile of circumstantial evidence.

Based upon his reaction, Hernandez seemed to suspect the same thing that many legal experts expected as well.  The defense had presented a credible pathway towards a reasonable doubt exit for their client, but the jury was surprisingly unwilling to unlock that door.

In fact, in post trial interviews we discovered that jurors were finally given the background information of the double murder trial motive that they did not have throughout this trial. Apparently, Judge E. Susan Garsh was not willing to allow this murder trial to have ANY risk of mistrial, which included excluding any juror that already knew about the other case that Hernandez was facing.

Garsh even slapped down the prosecutions attempt to share evidence from the phone of Lloyd himself.  While feeling uneasy as he was heading off to his own execution, Lloyd sent a couple of messages to his sister explaining that he was in the company of "NFL", (presumably referring to Hernandez) "just so you know".  Judge Garsh ruled that these text messages did not automatically prove that Lloyd knew he would be killed, so she rejected them.  To the rational mind, these would be slam dunk inclusions, so their exclusion only added to the assumption that the week long jury deliberation would find Hernandez acquitted or free from a hung jury.

Had Hernandez chosen to snuff out the life of some evil heart street thug similar to himself, there may have never been a trial and almost certainly not a conviction.  The notion that money and intimidation have value in shady places is not a far fetched idea.  Hernandez, however, wasn't smart enough, rich enough or tough enough (too much gun play- not enough knuckle) to survive very long in the world he was trying to conquer. Eventually, someone would have returned the gun play on Hernandez because ignorance and arrogance force most thugs to slip up and kill the wrong person.

Like Uncle Odin. 

RIP Odin Lloyd.

Rubio Could Carry Republican Banner...if they trusted him enough.

If you're looking for the best spokesperson in the realm of politics, he just entered the race.

While listening closely to the Marco Rubio announced entrance into the presidential race, I couldn't help but notice one unmistakable truth.  Rubio is the best message deliverer in the game, and Barack Obama would already be considered the best president ever if he had had Rubio to deliver his message over the years of his presidency.

Like a slick player of 3 card monte,  Rubio can suck you into a game that you already know the outcome of and hustle you nonetheless.  If given the chance, his advanced gift of gab will make him a formidable opponent for anyone. For example, when the question of why young Rubio would be a better selection than more seasoned Hillary Clinton or even Jeb Bush for that matter, Rubio posed the question and turned the question into a campaign declaration that "Yesterday Is Over".

When he followed up his announcement with a couple of interviews, his ability to spin every question in his favor proved that he wasn't using a speech writing trick as he maintained his deft slight of hand. Whatever your cause might be, Marco Rubio could be the best person to deliver the message in your favor. Rubio wrestled every known hurdle or potential blind spot with a reasonable response that will work sufficiently while on the stump, and he seems ready for the challenge of running to be president.

Disregard the message of Marco (if you can) and Mr. Rubio appears like gold.  Take a moment to get past his dazzling image and delivery and you realize that Mr. Tomorrow's Child might not be the president to remind us that yesterday is truly over.  In fact, if Marco Rubio were elected president tomorrow, he would have to undo yesterday's mess since  today, president Obama just released Rubio's home of Cuba from the government sponsored terror list.  Yesterday is over, but apparently yesterday's 50 year old agenda on Cuba will be just fine for Rubio.

If that's not confusing enough, Rubio is running from his natural ability to win the Hispanic vote by joining yesterday's message of blocking immigration. Republicans didn't always offer a vote on immigration, but now they will consider a vote if they can fix the border first. Fix the border (which will NEVER happen) and then republicans will consider voting to resolve America's immigration problem?  Since this obstructionist posture forced the current president to make an executive action on immigration, president Rubio would likely re-write that action to resemble yesterday's policies towards immigration as well.  As of yet, Rubio nor any other republican has offered a reasonable solution for the millions of Hispanics already living in America because they believe the steady trickle of South American immigrants are a more pressing matter? Although the future should offer this voting block to Rubio and the republican party, republicans seem resigned to continually reject today's Hispanic voters due to their stronger fear of tomorrow's Hispanic voters.

 Would be president Rubio was among the group of republicans that signed their name to the "Open Letter To Iran" and he seems just as resigned against Iranian negotiations as he is against South American immigrants and the well being of the people from his family's Cuban homeland. When you are raised with Castro hatred, you can't quite rationalize the fact that America has never caused the Castro boys to miss a meal due to our sanctions- just those left behind friends and family of the Rubio's.

Rubio never said that he preferred the broken health insurance system of yesterday, but he seems none to please with the insurance system of today as he insists on being one of those people who wants to "REPEAL AND REPLACE" ObamaCare tomorrow, because modify and improve sounds too much like the offer that Obama already requested of congress.  ObamaCare could use some obvious fixes that have arisen with the new law- like allowing interstate purchasing to drive pricing down even further. Rubio offered up that suggestion, but seemed oblivious how this idea only improves the strength of OUR new healthcare law- it does nothing towards repealing it.  So long as Rubio needs to sell his plan to republicans that want someone to do something about all of the Change that Obama keeps Hoping to leave as his legacy, Rubio's message needs only to convince them. Some of the people who Rubio still thinks he'll need in his corner still need to hear someone carry the repeal and replace banner, and Rubio can sell a dead horse to a cowboy if you force him to.

Rubio dazzled his way on and off of the stage and never offered any nuanced idea for tomorrow, but reminded us that yesterday is over nonetheless.  He did prove his ability to deliver a message, but he still seems absent of a unique vision for America and of proper hydration (what's with the water dude?). Rubio will be challenged through several cases of water as he fights to win the republican primary which will toughen him up to give Hillary hell, or bruise him so bad that he will never rise to the level of his promise.

Is now too soon for Rubio?

Who knows if now is Rubio's time because Rubio is not clearly defined as a leader as much as he is a great spokesperson for the message of leadership. Rubio will easily avoid a growing flip flop label because he can flip and flop so well.  He won't have the Christian conviction of Ted Cruz or the Libertarian resistance of Rand Paul, but he could be convinced to marry these ideologies and the republican party as well if his party trusted (or knew) his personal views enough to let him be their poster child.   They don't- so he won't.

But he could.    

Why Hillary? Is Shattering Glass Ceiling A Good Enough Reason To Run?

Hillary has just announced herself as a candidate for president of the United States of America and my immediate question of her is- WHY?

Not why did she announce herself in the race- she's on her second go round at this and the announcement has mostly been a foregone conclusion.  Not even why did she announce it so soon, though a later announcement might have allowed her the freedom to ride the wave of free attack publicity that keeps driving her towards 100% name recognition.  The attacks against her began before she joined the race so they will lose their sting and their legitimacy with pointless repetition. Eventually, unwarranted attacks will be sniffed out for their misogynistic roots and become counter support in Clinton's favor, so she didn't need to join the race just to counter her attackers.

The WHY of Hillary is- why bother?  Hillary knows more than any other person in the land how difficult the job used to be when her beau was boss, and how much worse its become since diversity has invaded the presidency.  If America was tough on Brother Barack, what the hell will they do to Hillary?  Racism might be one of those shortcomings that WE struggle to resolve, but sexism is  a lonely war primarily being addressed by courageous women who fight for others by destroying typical stereotypes.

Where does Clinton stand on Loretta Lynch?

Women like Elizabeth Warren.

Once upon a time ago, Hillary Clinton was the Elizabeth Warren of her time.  Warren ascended out of the realm of academia and continues to make you believe that she is simply displaying the same kind of passion that she gave to her students.  Not that Warren

Is Elizabeth Warren a president in waiting?

is not dedicated to the cause of changing America, however, the cause of changing congress makes you wonder how often does she dream of a return to the classroom.  Despite constant encouragement to give Hillary a run for her money, Warren is not interested in splitting Hillary's support or giving the media the cat fight that they are begging for.  She might run in the future, but for now, Warren realizes that upon defeating Hillary she would immediately become the red meat that feeds the hunger of sexism.



So Why Bother?

Why does Hillary want to be president?  Does she see an opportunity to pursue to passion of her early adulthood- an opportunity to repair children and families from the top down, or is Hillary running because EVERYBODY believes she can win and women deserve such a victory?  Is this ONLY an effort to further the cause of women's rights or is Hillary Clinton truly the right answer for America of today?

I support the cause of women as much as most.  My five daughters (no son's) and wife give me ample cause to join.  Nonetheless, I recognize- at times- that even women further the cause of sexism in their distrust of one another.  Republicans did not struggle to find Carly Fiorina, the anointed attack cat for Hillary, because women are allowed to freely attack one another without their motives being assigned to sexism.  Just as blacks have been conditioned to distrust other blacks, especially ones who appear to be different, women have been conditioned in a world ripe with sexist ways and means. As a result of the conditioning of sexism, millions of women will enter the ballot box with a natural urge to further the cause of women, and will leave the box haven succumbed to a subconscious fear that women are unstable and not to be trusted. Male presidents have had sex with a gorgeous blond actress and a not as gorgeous brunette intern, yet we still assume that men are more designed for the post than the women who powerfully compromise them?

Overcoming the male ego

Undoubtedly, some of future president Clinton's advice will come from powerful men who often usurp one another in the ego driven war that is maledom. The likelihood that she will have to slap down over-driven male ego's is as certain as the first news report that will blame one of her bad decisions on being a woman. Why would any woman want to be the martyr for the almost insurmountable cause of shattering a glass ceiling that Hillary ruptured into 18 million little cracks with her last run at the White House.  Warren could win the democratic primary, but she doesn't have the kind of name recognition that will make Hillary a difficult out this time around. More importantly, Warren doesn't want the job.

Does Hillary Really Want the Job?

Until she does a good job convincing us otherwise, Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for the president of the United States because the cause demands her.  She will be in her 70's if she completes one term.  Nearly 80 if she does two.  The years of being a grandma are threatening to become worse than her years as a mother with a schedule too busy to focus on the children in her own family.  As president, children are a conceptual reality that is bigger and less tangible than the squishy fingers and toes of your own kids and grandkids that presidents sacrifice for the greater good.

I do not support Hillary for president because I don't think she wants the job nearly as much as she wants to further the cause, and this job is way too nasty to go into it blind or less than willing.  Unlike every other president before her, Hillary's hesitance is not from the darkness before her because her experience places a bright light on her path. Can she change the office of the presidency for the greater good?  Maybe, but she can clearly further the cause of women's rights, although, is that alone worth getting in the race?

Women have the power to dictate the direction of every election if they so choose.  As a result, each candidate will have to deliver a convincing message to women if they hope to win. I love women deeply and support the cause of their advancement sincerely, yet I would not wish the office of the presidency on any woman I love, nor do I believe the job is best suited for a person who's biggest inspiration for the job is the symbol she represents to women.  Hillary understands this job better than any other candidate that is likely to run, but her ability and qualifications cannot erase the question of WHY.

 If the answer becomes, "for the cause of women", Hillary Clinton will need every woman in America to join the cause or she will not win.  When she lost the last time around, she made quick reference to the ruptured glass ceiling.  Being the red carpet front runner this time around probably represents the final destruction of that already ruptured ceiling, but its not easy walking that red carpet gracefully because the stress of the limelight causes missteps. Hillary could walk her way into the presidency, but not without perfectly placed stumbling blocks along the way, maybe even the shattered glass itself. Hillary will win if she treats the little bits of falling glass as a foregone conclusion of being the first female president and convinces each of us that she wants to be president for reasons bigger than the cause of women.

Until then, the question remains.

Why Hillary?  Why?