Obama Was Born In America. Period.

I think “birthers” – the people who believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States of America - are, frankly, a little nutty. Obama’s birth certificate has been produced and it has been verified over and over that President Obama was born in Hawaii, after it became our 50th state. There are two videos below that both show this information, plus more, confirming the information on Obama’s US birth. Yet, there are some people who, for whatever reason, refuse to believe it. My opinion is that these non-believers, these “conspiracy theorists,” are suffering from a case of severe brain damage, maybe with the side symptoms of racism and irrational fear.


Decide for yourself. Take a look at Jon Stewart’s commentary on the matter, which, while humorous, is right on target. I have also included the recent NBC Nightly News story, where Brian Williams takes a serious look at this issue, hopefully answering the question once and for all.

Will the “birthers” go away? Probably not, because brain damage often can’t be reversed.

Jon Stewart “The Born Identity”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams




All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Recipe for Stupidly: Gates + Cambridge Police + Obama

President Barack Obama took immediate heat for his comment during a press conference that the Cambridge Massachusetts police "acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home” when they arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct after he forced open a door at his own home.

The question here is – was anyone really stupid? The answer is YES, everyone was.

The Cambridge Police, legitimately responding to a call from a concerned citizen about a burglary in process, did the right thing by checking things out. But, they met their match when they came upon Gates, who is highly educated about many things, including the law. Sergeant Crowley admits that he asked Gates to step out of the house, and this may have been Crowley's mistake. Any halfway intelligent person knows that once you step out of your home, the police can arrest you. I suspect that Gates knew that was exactly what Crowley was going to do. Since Gates knew he was in his own home, I don’t blame him for not wanting to cooperate on that issue.

However, the reports from the police go on to indicate that Gates was uncooperative from the get go. It is possible that Gates’ behavior only made the police more suspicious that Gates was a burglar.

Adding fuel to the fire was President Obama’s response during a press conference; a truthful, non-politician response that used one “stupid” word.

A side issue here is the concerned neighbor who called in the burglary, who apparently doesn’t even know what her neighbor looks like.

In my opinion, everyone in the situation acted without completely engaging their brains. If the police account is correct, Gates should have kept his cool, but Sergeant Crowley should not have found it suspicious that Gates refused to step outside. You do not have to step out of your house when the police ask you to, period. Crowley should know this and this should have raised a flag that he was not dealing with just some stupid burglar. If Gates' account is correct, then the police overreacted and they should have backed off when Gates showed he did live in the house. President Obama was asked a question about the matter, admitted he knew Gates personally, and Obama responded as anyone with a personal connection and personal experience with encountering police would respond. He gave an honest, unedited answer, unlike most politicians. His choice of the word “stupidly” was probably not the right one, but it was directionally correct. This is one of those cases when the forthright president should zip his lips and give a noncommittal answer until he gets all the facts.

I have the utmost respect for the police department, but also understand that they are human beings too and sometimes they make errors in judgment. Maybe in this case, if rumored radio transmissions from this event are made public, their judgment may be vindicated. But, based on what I have read about this situation and from the extensive TV coverage, it seems to me that in this case, the police didn’t like the fact that Gates challenged them. Imagine if the police, who are armed. approached YOUR home, asked YOU to step outside, and didn’t like the fact that you refused (which is your right to do so) – how would you feel? This, in my opinion, may be the bigger issue here over the claims of racial bias. The police should be respected, but citizens also have rights. The police should be held to a higher standard because they are supposed to know and follow the law. In this case, it seems to me that when police are armed and they approach someone who is in their own home, that the police exercise extreme caution and make sure they follow the law to the letter. They should also develop thicker skin and not get suspicious when a citizen knows the law and choses to follow it. People should continue to repect the badge, but make sure they know their own rights. Knowledge is power.



All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Remembering “One Giant Leap for Mankind”

Today is the 40th anniversary of man’s first landing and taking steps on the Moon. Maybe because I have seen it replayed on television so many times the event seems like it only happened yesterday. But it truly does seem like just yesterday that I was a 14 year old kid, sitting glued to a black and white television with my parents and my sisters and brother watching the event. I can close my eyes and see us all in the living room, and remember the feelings of excitement that I had when Neil Armstrong took his first “small” step. The last time the family had spent so much time together glued to a television event was when President Kennedy had been assassinated. The moon landing was a completely different event from the Kennedy coverage, as the moon landing was not a time to mourn, but a time to celebrate the achievements of the American people, especially those who were involved in the program.

There are some people out there who say the moon landing was faked. Personally, I don’t understand how anyone could not believe it was real. When I search for information on the moon landing hoax, I can also find many web sites that disprove and discredit all the conspiracy claims. Yet, some still refuse to believe in the facts. I would like to ask the consipiracy believers that if landing on the moon was so easy to fake, why didn’t the Russians or anybody else do it first?

Landing on the moon fell out of favor and the program was later discontinued, likely due to the high cost and the low rate of return on the investment, and frankly, lack of interest. I guess once you’ve been to the moon and take your share of moon rocks and moon dust, there really isn’t anything compelling to bring a person back. I am sure that someday, if/when unmanned missions can show that the moon itself has value to those of us on earth, people will find a reason to go back. There are talks of manned missions to Mars, and despite the fact that I am all for space exploration, I think until we are able to reliably land something on Mars more than one or two times (there have been many failures to date), then we should continue to send unmanned probes to do reconnaissance.

Some people say the whole moon landing was a waste as we got nothing from it. Far from it, I say. It likely helped in the rapid leaps we made in technology over the years. But more than that, it made people feel that almost anything is possible, and shows that human beings can accomplish just about anything to which they put their minds.

When I look at all the leaps mankind has made in these last 40 years, it may not have been possible without Neil Armstrong’s one small step. And while I watched coverage of the even on various shows over the weekend, and also today on Wechoosethemoon.org I can still feel the excitement as if it was 40 years ago. It still makes me feel young.












All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

The Media Canonization of Michael Jackson – For Their Own Benefit

Enough of the Michael Jackson coverage. Enough.

The media, who was quick to vilify Michael Jackson during his trial for child (sexual) abuse years ago, has now gone in the other direction, giving constant coverage to his recent death, portraying him as a near saint.

There is an unwritten rule that one should not speak ill of the dead. The media, in this case, has gone almost overboard to follow this rule, covering Michael’s musical accomplishments and life as if he were a god, and wiping away any of the other “strangeness” that permeated his life. For me, I rarely follow silly rules.

Michael Jackson was a talented entertainer. Yet to me it seemed clear he was troubled. His bizarre Neverland ranch with its carnival rides and super-secure bedroom with a tiny secret room in his closet, his constant cosmetic surgery, his now apparent drug abuse – all seem to be signs that this was a man who needed mental help. He appeared to have been surrounded by sycophants and “yes men” who had no power or desire to get help for this seemingly troubled man. I suppose as long as Michael Jackson was making money for them, no one wanted to rock the boat.

The media never hesitated in the past to cover the strange life of Jackson. But now, because it can bring them more viewers, the media is ignoring the past and going overboard in praise to Jackson in his death, in effect fueling the desire for people to attend his memorial. So many people want to attend the memorial at the Staples center; over a million had registered for tickets, yet fewer than 9,000 people could be selected. The city of LA is concerned that many people will still descend on the area in order to be a part of the memorial and that chaos may ensue. If course, the big television media outlets are sending some of their top people to cover “THE EVENT” because, after all, they want it to be a big deal. It would mean more viewers. It will also give the media another chance to canonize Jackson into entertainment sainthood.

I will admit that, at one time, Michael Jackson was a pivotal entertainer who was hugely popular. But in all honesty I can’t think of one piece of music that he has done in many years that is memorable. In fact, the music industry seemingly has passed him by long ago. Maybe, like Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson had his core group of die-hard followers who, through thick and thin, thought he was still a superstar. And these are the people to which the media will cater for now. Likewise, I suspect that Michael’s family could very well be working behind the scenes right now to find a way to milk the fans’ love for Michael for years to come, with the media speculating that Neverland will be a destination for fans just as Graceland is for the fans of Elvis. Even in death, people can find a way to make a buck.

But give the media time. After the “king of pop" is buried, the media will turn their attention to the seedy side of Michael Jackson’s life and begin to expose it and tear it apart. After all, a person can’t be canonized as a saint until the devil’s advocate has his/her turn. Based on what has already been exposed and/or speculated about Michael in the past, the media will have many months of even more coverage. It’s sad really, with all the things going on in the world that this death seems to occupy so much of the media’s time. What they may not realize is that while people are talking about Jackson's death, many people I encounter comment that they are tired of the story already and they want the media to move on. And they will, after they have played their devil’s advocate role and squeezed out every last drop of the story. For me, while I extend my sympathies to Michael’s family on his death, I won’t be spending any time mourning him or glorifying him – or watching any of his memorial coverage on TV. There are more important things – and people – in my life that are more deserving of the attention.




All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Governor Sanford Goes MIA, Abandons South Carolina

This past week when it became known that no one – including his wife and his security people – seemed to know where South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has been for the last several days, his staff released a story that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. It’s bad enough when an elected official drops off the grid without telling anyone, but the story gets worse. Now, Governor Sanford has returned, and is saying that he really was in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Yes, Buenos Aires, as in out of the country. He told South Carolina newspaper "The State" that he had considered hiking the Appalachian Trail after his state's busy legislative season ended but instead decided differently, the newspaper quoting him as saying, "I wanted to do something exotic. It's a great city."

I don’t begrudge anyone a much-needed vacation, but there is a huge glaring issue here – who was running the state when Governor Sanford was missing in action? And does anyone else but me think it’s odd that he wouldn’t tell anyone – especially his own wife – where he was going?

Something sure smells fishy here. When someone just drops out of their job and leaves the country without telling anyone, I can only think that the person is either mentally unbalanced, or he was having one heck of a “party” and maybe doing things that aren't legal or would be frowned upon by his constituents.

Put it simply, Governor Sanford abandoned his job. Anyone who has ever worked a real job knows that if you don’t show up for work for 2-3 days and don't explain your absence, this usually means that you will get fired. In the case of Governor Sanford, my opinion is the State of South Carolina should move to have him removed from office as quickly as they can by whatever legal means that they can.


Update 6/24/09 – Now the Governor admits he went to Argentina as he was having an affair. Don’t worry Governor, we won’t cry for you.

Here is a link to the full story on South Carolina’s (probably soon to be ex) Governor Sanford from CNN.



All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Analog to Digital TV Transition: One Step Forward, One Step Back

I’ve got cable TV, so I wasn’t worried about the recent conversion from analog to digital television signals. But to experience the transition for myself, I picked up a new antenna – for UHF, VHF, HD, and digital signals. I also wanted the antenna as a backup in case the cable went out. And it does go out, usually at the times when you want it the most.

Imagine my dismay, however, when I hooked up the antenna over a month ago and got only a few channels, some with signals that seemed to break up a lot, or disappear altogether. Don’t worry I was told - the Cleveland stations weren’t all broadcasting at the time, and some who were broadcasting before the switch may not have been at full power. So, I waited for the day of the transition and rescanned my TV for digital channels several times, getting FEWER over the air channels than I got before the changeover, some local channels never appearing at all.

Our local Fox channel, WJW, was running a spot yesterday on the 5:00 PM newscast where they went to a viewer’s house who wasn’t able to get the Fox station at all, and the reporter showed the man that if he stood up and held his rabbit ears high, the signal came in much better. Of course, he said, a person should not have to do that. He got the man another set of rabbit ear antennas and seemed to be able to pull in Fox 8 a little better.

I also have read that outdoor antennas can get much better reception. Well, pardon me, but we got rid of our massive outdoor antenna years ago, when the ice age ended – I mean - when we got cable and there were newfangled things called satellite dishes out there. Another pat answer that people are handing out is just to re-scan your TV. Well, I’ve done that sometimes more than once a day just to see what I get, and the number of stations change every time. These digital signals should not be that inconsistent.

Imagine my surprise that in 2009, people have gone back to having to put “rabbit ears” on their TVs and put huge antennas on their roofs. I have a nice flat antenna that is supposed to work indoors and pull signals from every direction, yet now I find out that some stations are broadcasting in a weaker VHF signal that doesn’t transmit as well, regardless of how good my antenna is. What is even worse is that with old analog signals, at least you could get part of a signal – it may have looked snowy - but with digital, if there is too much signal loss, you get nothing at all. We can put a man on the moon, we can send phone calls via cell towers and we have wireless Internet, why is a television signal such a problem? Did I mention that this is 2009?

I can’t imagine how crazy I would be right now if I didn’t have cable. I feel sorry for the people – and there are many in this area – which still can’t get the same channels they used to be able to get over the air from the analog signals. Right now, Cleveland’s Fox affiliate, WJW, and the CBS affiliate, WOIO, have almost completely dropped off from many viewers’ television sets. (In the case of WOIO and their local newscasts, some see this as a benefit.) These two stations are broadcasting in the lower power VHF signal, by the way.

My gripe is really with the fact that in trying to deliver something better, it seems that we have now gone back to the old days where you had to have your antenna “just right” in order to see television. The FCC should have done a better job with the stations to make sure that their signals really did reach the intended viewing area. The government delayed the transition to make sure all the viewers had time to be ready, but possibly they should have used that time to make sure the stations were ready and that the signals actually could be received by people.

As this is hurricane season for the country’s east coast residents, I hope that signal problems can be resolved so those that don’t have cable, or must get their television via a portable, battery powered TV, can still get important weather and evacuation information.

So my experiment with the digital transition was that it happened, but it has some problems in some area that the local stations and the FCC must address quickly. There is no reason why, in this age of advanced technology, that there can’t be a better answer to this problem than bigger rabbit ears.


Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

The Pros and Cons of Tasers

The media and talk shows are all abuzz about the video of a 72-year-old woman being tasered at a traffic stop last month. The tease to the news story focuses on the woman’s age, and the fact that she’s somebody great-grandmother. Local officials recently ruled that the tasing of Kathryn Winkfein was appropriate.

When I first heard the story, I wondered why anyone would taser a 72-year-old man OR woman at a traffic stop. But, after watching the dash cam video of the incident (below), I have to admit that the woman was acting pretty mouthy and seems to be using her age as an excuse. She also appeared to walk closer to the traffic, despite the officer’s repeated instructions to move back.

Were there any other options besides tasing that the officer could have taken? Maybe. If he decided to place her under arrest for resisting, he could have cuffed her and moved her to his car. Still, if she had her mind made up that she wanted to get back into her car and physically fought him, if she made another move towards traffic, she could have gotten herself, and the officer, hit by a car. It was a tough call, and while one would think the police officer could have somehow physically restrained her, it is possible that tasing was the easiest way for him to render her unable to physically resist.

The pros to tasers is that they are sometime better than using physical force, and always better than using a gun, to restrain or disable someone who has become out of control. While I have no desire to have any family member of mile tased, I would rather the police take that option than using severe physical force that could cause harm. I would be very upset too if my 79 year old mother was treated that way, but I would also be upset and concerned if I saw my mother behave the same way this woman had behaved toward the officer. (Just for the record, if my mother behaved this way, it would not be normal for her, which is why I would be concerned.)

The cons to tasers is that they can be an easy out for the police. This office was clearly bigger and more powerful than this 72-year-old woman, and I don’t see why he couldn’t have just cuffed her and led her to his car. In addition, a 72-year-old person’s heart or nervous system may not react too well to the shock of a taser. In fact, unless a police officer knows the medical condition in advance of the person they are going to taser, they run the risk that their action could cause the person serious physical harm. And what if the woman’s unruly behavior was due to a medical condition? The officer can’t always know if the person is acting out because they have a medical problem, or if the person is just being a jerk. My thinking is the officer needs to engage their brains before they engage that taser – presuming they have time to think, that is.

In this case, the taser didn’t appear to cause her any major harm. His intent appeared to be to get her out of the line of traffic, and to keep her from possibly fleeing in her car. Her repeated invoking of her age was a clear attempt on her part to use her age as an excuse for her infraction. Sorry, but if you’re age is that much of a problem that it causes you to speed to the point you are stopped by the police, maybe you shouldn’t be on the road.

While tasers aren’t the answer in all cases, in this one, it was likely the best choice.

Video – 72 Year Old Woman Tased

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.