brandon.plank[dot]com

It seems like only yesterday we were listening to the daily rantings from Bill O’Reilly about how ‘the liberals have a war on Christmas‘.

Well, it seems Bill’s dreams have come true; Walmart and the rest of the American retail market has decided that 2009 is the year that Christmas came back. On November 1, Walmart and many other retailers started to run holiday ads and shortly after, the Christmas ads came on TV and in print.

This week’s Walmart ad:

So it would seem that Bill and the Christians of America can rejoice; the evil Liberal media have relinquished their power and ‘allowed’ Christmas back on TV. Yet, I don’t recall seeing any specials from Bill rejoicing in the newly shifted focus of marketing. I wonder if it’s because Bill and his followers are gracious winners… or if it’s because people never really gave a shit to begin with?

This country is a melting pot and although we have Puritanical roots and a Christian majority, it is respectful for marketers and others to embrace all the holidays of the season. Regardless of the roots of the Liberal PC movement that makes people feel they need to recognize all faiths, all those faiths are an important part of our past and future; it’s only fair we show them all respect.

You know, Jon Stewart made this quote when Bill and others went on their rampage and I think it still rings true:

“Does anyone know…does the Christian persecution complex have an expiration date? Because…uh…you’ve all been in charge pretty much since…uh…what was that guys name…Constantine. He converted in, what was it, 312 A.D. I’m just saying, enjoy your success.”

We all know we live in a Christian majority… all I’m saying is that we don’t need Christmas shoved down our throats; we have enough of your Jesus fish and crosses to remind us.

Copyright protected by Digiprove © 2010 Brandon Plank

Measure to Expand Gun Rights Falls Short in Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?_r=1&hp

The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states.
A group comprising mostly Republicans, along with some influential Democrats, had tried to attach the gun amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, a must-pass piece of legislation. But the provision got only 58 votes, two short of the 6o votes needed for passage under Senate rules.

Read more

In recent months, there has been a surge in the amount of ‘pirate’ attacks off the Somalian coast and the Horn of Africa, but we saw a change in the attitude towards the resolution of those attacks on Sunday.

Navy SEALs used sniper fire to take out 3 people holding the captain of a U.S. flagged cargo ship, which has, as you can expect, led to some mouthy reply by those that are associated with the pirates.

“From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages). (U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy.” – Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press.

Of course, don’t expect these threats to be taken too seriously by the US military; these ships are out of Somali coastal jurisdiction, so feel free to try to take on a US Naval ship, I’m sure they be happy to use you as target practice.

But this rescue and the recent French rescue, where 2 pirates were killed and 3 were taken into custody and back to France for trial show a shift in the way these types of ransom demands are being met/handled. Up until now, the pirates did as they pleased, because there was no threat or concern of death/capture, because many companies/countries would rather pay the ransom and face higher shipping insurance, than to use military operations to extract hostages.

Frankly, I see the liaise-faire attitude towards these pirates to be non-productive and I think it’s high time shipping carriers address them in a different way.

What if these large cargo ships were to hire a team of 5-20 armed, trained mercenaries to guard their ship for voyages by the Horn of Africa? We’ve found in recent months that these ships are simply taken over and commandeered, but what if there was a group of highly-trained killers to take out any threats to the boat?
If we take Blackwater’s services for Iraq, for example, if we give a generous $1,000 per staff, per day cost, a staff of 10 is going to be $10,000 a day; this may, however, be discounted, so the cost could be less. If a voyage is 2 weeks, you’re looking at $140,000 for a voyage.
Now, I can’t find specific numbers, but if we assume that rates for shippers have increased $100,000 a year for insurance because of these claims they have to file, the cost-effectiveness of the armed staff is already evident.

The problem with the insurance claim route is that all customers of these shippers are affected by the higher insurance rates and these rates affect all shipments, all year long. Now, if you as a shipper go the mercenary route, you have a one-time cost that is route and even voyage specific; it can be applied to only those who use the service, rather than affecting all of your customers.

Frankly, I don’t see how this isn’t a win-win for the shipper. They can potentially save their shipments and keep costs down, except for those shipping to higher ‘danger’ routes. This is the same technique used in other shipping methods, so why haven’t more companies jumped on this idea?
I suppose time will tell, but I hope to see more armed vessels and more vessels taking a stand, rather than allowing the continued pay out of millions to undeserving pirates.

SOURCE

Copyright protected by Digiprove © 2010 Brandon Plank

This is a great day for those, like me, who think that the bans these states are doing on same-sex marriage is a travesty, since they don’t offer any equivalent, like civil unions.

The Iowa Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that a 1998 state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection guarantees. Today’s decision is the first to open the door for legal same-sex marriage in a Midwestern state.

The lawsuit was filed by twelve Polk County, Iowa residents who make up six same-sex couples. In its unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court declared that “[Polk] County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” and concluded that therefore “the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.”

The New York Times reports that today’s action by Iowa’s top court is monumental not just for what took place, but where: “While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest — where no states had permitted same-sex marriage — was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.”

This is especially huge, because it’s in the Midwest; a traditionally modest state and frankly the LAST place I’d expect to see a ban overturned! Now, that’s not to say that another attempt at banning won’t be brought before the voters in the future, but caselaw has shown us that anyone who gets married between now and that time won’t have to worry about their marriages being annulled, thanks to ban on ex post facto laws.

*UPDATE*
Well, it didn’t take long for the true colors of a Republican asshat in Iowa to come out.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) reacted with fury to the Court’s decision, calling the ruling “unconstitutional” and denigrating the “activist judges” who decided it. He called for an constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and pressed for immediate action to prevent Iowa from becoming a “Mecca” for gay couples:

Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.

It seems that the Christian right in this country won’t be happy until everyone is repressed, except for Christians. I can’t wait until the day comes when one of these morons isn’t happy with a state supreme court decision and requests certiorari from the US Supreme Court; they will, of course, rule any such law/act to be unconstitutional and then the law of the land will reflect as such. For a country that claims to be ‘free’ and embrace all people, there certainly are a bunch of racist, sexist and homophobic assholes running the show.

Source:
FINDLAW
THINK PROGRESS

Copyright protected by Digiprove © 2010 Brandon Plank

I saw a news story today that, I have to say, scares me and angers me all at once.

“In the consensual living model, father doesn’t know best. Neither does mom. Instead, parents and children are equal partners in family life, according to the principles laid out at consensual-living.com.
Founded in 2006 by a group of families in North Carolina, consensual living is gaining ground in alternative parenting communities and online, including a Yahoo group with about 900 members.”

“When parents put themselves in the role as authorities, they may believe they are doing it ‘for the child’s good,’ ” writes one of the movement’s co-founders, Anna Brown, “but they could be missing an opportunity to have more connected relationships with their children.”

OK, so those of us that grew up in the 80s remember the belts and wooden spoons when we were bad. Now, we see that parents are called ‘abusers’ when they even spank or swat their kid on the ass; they’re instead expected to use ‘time out’ and try to talk to their kids like an adult.

Doesn’t anyone else notice that the rampant defiance that children have today was NOT apparent in the 80s when parents asserted themselves as authorities? No, that must be a wacky coincidence, right?

Now, I’m not condoning abuse of children, but I do believe that parents are the authority and need to assert themselves as the alphas, the leaders. The role of the parent is to teach, steer from ‘wrong’ and to protect; sometimes teaching means you have to punish and you can’t punish someone if you’re trying to be an equal to them because only those in authority can punish!
I see children like puppies and I’m the daddy dog. You have to assert yourself with the puppies and when they do something you have to bark at them to ingrain that the action was wrong; sometimes, you have to use physical punishment to get the point across. But you also have to show them love and affection; this shows them that you care about them and grows the bonds between you stronger. If you show the puppies structure and authority, they will do as told and conform to laws and rules; if you don’t they will do as they please.
This movement seeks to take away the hierarchal structure from parenting, so you’re all equal; now that’s fine and dandy for Teletubbies and Dora The Explorer, but in the real world, there IS structure, there IS hierarchy and there ARE leaders. This movement does nothing but make it harder for the children to find congruency later in life, as they try to adapt to societal norms and practices.

If you look at their core values, it’s clear they are trying to keep the politicially correct, pansy path this planet has gone even deeper:

CORE PRINCIPLES
• Everyone’s wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age.
• Children can be trusted to know their own minds and bodies.
• Punishments and rewards are tools of manipulation, unneeded when family members work as a team.
• There is a creative solution that works for everyone.
• Each family member has a positive intent and desires harmony.
• When all are secure that their needs will be met, they will branch out and help others meet their needs.
TECHINQUES
• In a conflict, identify the underlying needs – usually there are several ways they can be met.
• Pay attention to the underlying needs in someone who is hungry, angry, lonely or tired (HALT). Sometimes addressing biological needs helps get everyone back on track.
• Otherwise, explore underlying needs through validation (“You’re feeling sad that we’re about to leave the toy store, aren’t you?”) and clarification (“What I hear you saying is that you want more time to look at the marbles, right?”).
• Once others feel heard, revert to “I” statements to express your own needs (“I want to head home so there’s enough time to make dinner before everyone gets really hungry”).
• Think outside the box with other family members, including children, to come up with a solution for each situation.

We as a society need to stop pussifying ourselves and we need to get back to the approach that parents control, protect and teach children; if we don’t you can be assured to see more of these wild, hellion children show up in the world. You are a parent and your child is your child, NOT your equal; you love them and you care for them, but ultimately YOU are responsible for their upbringing… do you really want to raise a child that doesn’t understand or respect authority?

Source

Copyright protected by Digiprove © 2010 Brandon Plank