Sunday, October 30, 2016

The Haunted History of Halloween

Four years ago, this corner of the Northeast got hit with a freak snowstorm. It measured maybe a foot and half, which would normally be quite a substantial storm in it's own right. But since most of the leaves were still on the trees, they got weighted down more than usual, and many of them simply could not stand up to the storm. There were downed trees everywhere, which meant downed telephone poles and wires, as well. The roads were a mess, and many people lost quite a bit of power. I saw it, and unfortunately, had to drive through it, too. It was one of the worst storms that I've seen and had to endure, as a result. That came two days before Halloween, which was surprisingly early for such a snow storm.

But it was nothing compared to what happened last year, also two days before Halloween. That was when Hurricane Sandy hit. Tragedy was everywhere. People died, others lost everything. Life seemed to come to a stop for a short while. And almost nobody noticed when Halloween was officially cancelled. Hardly anyone was surprised, for that matter.

As the date neared on this year's calendar, people were half expecting something else. Some other disaster. But this year, we were spared.

So, I will take my son trick or treating later today. But it seems that this is a dying tradition.

When I was young, kids used to look forward to this holiday for a very long time! We talked about what we wanted to be this Halloween, and we loved getting all dressed up. We looked forward to trick or treating, and feeling the weight of our bags begin to increase. It was well earned, we felt!

For whatever the reason, this tradition of trick or treating for Halloween seems to be going out the window. It used to be a strong tradition that all the kids engaged in, and it would go on to the late hours. There were tons of kids, and running out of candy was a serious worry.

Now, we are lucky if we have more kids than fingers on both hands. It has grown scarce, and it seems to be the case everywhere you go, with everyone you ask.

Apparently, trick or treating is on it's way out, even though getting costumes and dressing up is hotter than ever, and a more profitable business than ever before! I heard somewhere that Halloween is only behind Christmas as the holiday that people tend to spend the most money on.

So, I thought it would be appropriate to do a blog on the history of this holiday, since I did not get a chance to do it (although I planned to) last year.

Here's a little something about the night before Halloween. In my area, we used to call it "Goosey Night", although I understand it is more often referred to as "Devil's Night" or "Mischief Night". This is when local punks throw eggs at cars and homes, or do their best to coat cars, homes, and trees with toilet paper, among other practical jokes. This, like trick or treating, seems to be dying off in recent years. Either that, or I am really not noticing these things anymore.

"It's a Jersey thing: N.J. may be the only state to call tonight 'mischief night'" by Alex Napoliello/NJ.com, published on October 30, 2013:


A PBS link to the history of specific, Halloween-themed foods can be found by clicking on this link:



One page that I found fascinating, with specifics on the background history of certain popular Halloween traditions, can be found by clicking on the following link:




The following page, "Halloween History", can be viewed at: http://www.halloweenhistory.org/

Halloween is a holiday celebrated on the night of October 31.  The word Halloween is a shortening of All Hallows' Evening also known as Hallowe'en or All Hallows' Eve.

Traditional activities include trick-or-treating, bonfires, costume parties, visiting "haunted houses" and carving jack-o-lanterns. Irish and Scottish immigrants carried versions of the tradition to North America in the nineteenth century. Other western countries embraced the holiday in the late twentieth    century including Ireland, the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom as well as of Australia and New Zealand.


Halloween has its origins in the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain (pronounced "sah-win").
The festival of Samhain is a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture. Samhain was a time used by the ancient pagans to take stock of supplies and prepare for winter. The ancient Gaels believed that on October 31, the boundaries between the worlds of the living and the dead overlapped and the deceased would come back to life and cause havoc such as sickness or damaged crops.

The festival would frequently involve bonfires. It is believed that the fires attracted insects to the area which attracted bats to the area. These are additional attributes of the history of Halloween.

Masks and costumes were worn in an attempt to mimic the evil spirits or appease them.

Trick-or-treating, is an activity for children on or around Halloween in which they proceed from house to house in costumes, asking for treats such as confectionery with the question, "Trick or treat?" The "trick" part of "trick or treat" is a threat to play a trick on the homeowner or his property if no treat is given. Trick-or-treating is one of the main traditions of Halloween. It has become socially expected that if one lives in a neighborhood with children one should purchase treats in preparation for trick-or-treaters.

The history of Halloween has evolved.  The activity is popular in the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and due to increased American cultural influence in recent years, imported through exposure to US television and other media, trick-or-treating has started to occur among children in many parts of Europe, and in the Saudi Aramco camps of Dhahran, Akaria compounds and Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia. The most significant growth and resistance is in the United Kingdom, where the police have threatened to prosecute parents who allow their children to carry out the "trick" element. In continental Europe, where the commerce-driven importation of Halloween is seen with more skepticism, numerous destructive or illegal "tricks" and police warnings have further raised suspicion about this game and Halloween in general.
In Ohio, Iowa, and Massachusetts, the night designated for Trick-or-treating is often referred to as Beggars Night.

Part of the history of Halloween  is Halloween costumes. The practice of dressing up in costumes and begging door to door for treats on holidays goes back to the Middle Ages, and includes Christmas wassailing. Trick-or-treating resembles the late medieval practice of "souling," when poor folk would    go door to door on Hallowmas (November 1), receiving food in return for prayers for the dead on All Souls Day (November 2). It originated in Ireland and Britain, although similar practices for the souls of the dead were found as far south as Italy. Shakespeare mentions the practice in his comedy The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1593), when Speed accuses his master of "puling [whimpering, whining], like a beggar at Hallowmas."

Yet there is no evidence that souling was ever practiced in America, and trick-or-treating may have developed in America independent of any Irish or British antecedent. There is little primary Halloween history documentation of masking or costuming on Halloween in Ireland, the UK, or America before 1900. The earliest known reference to ritual begging on Halloween in English speaking North America occurs in 1911, when a newspaper in Kingston, Ontario, near the border of upstate New York, reported that it was normal for the smaller children to go street guising (see below) on Halloween between 6 and 7 p.m., visiting shops and neighbors to be rewarded with nuts and candies for their rhymes and songs. Another isolated reference appears, place unknown, in 1915, with a third reference in Chicago in 1920. The thousands of Halloween postcards produced between the turn of the 20th century and the 1920s commonly show children but do not depict trick-or-treating. Ruth Edna Kelley, in her 1919 history of the holiday, The Book of Hallowe'en, makes no mention of such a custom in the chapter "Hallowe'en in America." It does not seem to have become a widespread practice until the 1930s, with the earliest known uses in print of the term "trick or treat" appearing in 1934, and the first use in a national publication occurring in 1939. Thus, although a quarter million Scots-Irish immigrated to America between 1717 and 1770, the Irish Potato Famine brought almost a million immigrants in 1845-1849, and British and Irish immigration to America peaked in the 1880s, ritualized begging on Halloween was virtually unknown in America until generations later.

Trick-or-treating spread from the western United States eastward, stalled by sugar rationing that began in April 1942 during World War II and did not end until June 1947.


Early national attention to trick-or-treating was given in October 1947 issues of the children's magazines Jack and Jill and Children's Activities, and by Halloween episodes of the network radio programs The Baby Snooks Show in 1946 and The Jack Benny Show and The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet in 1948. The custom had become firmly established in popular culture by 1952, when Walt Disney portrayed it in the cartoon Trick or Treat, Ozzie and Harriet were besieged by trick-or-treaters on an episode of their television show, and UNICEF first conducted a national campaign for children to raise funds for the charity while trick-or-treating.

Trick-or-treating on the prairie. Although some popular histories of Halloween have characterized trick-or-treating as an adult invention to re-channel Halloween activities away from vandalism, nothing in the historical record supports this theory. To the contrary, adults, as reported in newspapers from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s, typically saw it as a form of extortion, with reactions ranging from bemused indulgence to anger. Likewise, as portrayed on radio shows, children would have to explain what trick-or-treating was to puzzled adults, and not the other way around. Sometimes even the children protested: for Halloween 1948, members of the Madison Square Boys Club in New York City carried a parade banner that read "American Boys Don't Beg."

Honoring Diwali


Today, it is Diwali in India. Not many people know much about this holiday here in the West, perhaps particularly in the United States. However, it certainly seemed worth posting about the Hindu holiday known as Diwali, which is a celebration of the triumph of light over darkness, and of enlightenment over ignorance.

Like Channukah for Jews, Diwali is a festival of lights for Hindus. Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, is honored, as are the legends of Rama and Sita.

In celebration, people will decorate their homes and public spaces with lights and color, and fireworks normally are set off at night for the celebrations.

I was personally unfamiliar with this tradition, but found the following link useful and informative. Hopefully, if you are also unfamiliar, you might find this link useful, too:


Diwali 2015: The festival of lights, in pictures:

Halloween Has a Haunted History (GLV Article)

I recently wrote another article for the Guardian Liberty Voice. This one continues my tradition of exploring the history of certain holidays.

This time, obviously, the focus was on Halloween, which I think is appropriate for this time of the year.

Here is the link, and I do hope that you take a look! If not, the text of the article nonetheless can be found below:



Halloween Has a Haunted History:

http://guardianlv.com/2015/10/halloween-has-a-haunted-history-video/



Halloween has grown as a major holiday so fast that it is downright spooky. It is the second biggest holiday for decorations, trailing only Christmas, and ne fourth of the candy sold in the United States os for Halloween. With Americans this year expected to spend fully $6.9 billion on the holiday, Halloween has become big business. The average American will spend up to $75 to celebrate the holiday, which for many will include decoration, costumes, parties, and giving candy away to children tracking through their neighborhoods while trick or treating.
It may surprise people to find out that many of these traditions that people have long associated with Halloween are not nearly as old as popularly believed, although the roots of the holiday stretch back to ancient times. What eventually would become our modern Halloween is over two thousand years old, tracing back to a couple of festivals - Sahmain and All Saints Day.
The Celtic festival of Sahmain came before Christianity. Literally translated from Gaelic, Samhain which was the term for the end of the summer. Back then, Celts lived in Ireland, Britain, and northwestern France, and this festival was widely celebrated. They would collect their earnings from farming, and would bring their animals in for the cold season to come. However, this time of the changing of the seasons was also popularly believed to possess supernatural powers. It was held on November 1, although it was believed that the night before Sahmain was a night when the world of the living and the world of the dead mixed. People would leave food and wine outside of their homes in hopes of preventing ghosts from coming in. Also, when people ventured out on such nights, they would wear masks in order to resemble ghosts.
In the eight century, Christians eliminated Sahmain and replaced it with All Saints Day, which was moved from mid-May to November by order of Pope Gregory III. This was done in an effort to eradicate the  pagan roots of this popular autumn festival. Despite this, All Saints Day, which was also known as All Hallows Mass and Hallowmas, never was fully divorced from the former autumn festival that it was meant to replace, and the evening before, which fell on the last day of October, came to be known as All Hallows' Eve. In time, people began a new tradition to scare away evil spirits, as they burned candles and carving turnips (the predecessor of the modern tradition of carving pumpkins).
The tradition of children and adults disguising themselves on All Hallow's Eve to ward off evil spirits also continued. Many would beg for food or coins during the All Souls' Day parade in England. Some families would give them pastries known as "soul cakes" and the beggars, in turn, were asked to pray for the deceased loved ones of the family giving the cakes. This may have been the origins of the modern "trick or treat" tradition that has become common on Halloween.
Ironically, despite Halloween having at least partial roots from the Christian tradition, the relationship between Halloween and Christians has often been complicated. October 31 happens to have been the day that Martin Luther essentially started the protestant Reformation in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517, when he nailed his 95 Theses to a door. Most of the early Christians groups that came to America , greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation and included the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers, and Baptists, rejected this holiday as pagan. Still, that ultimately did not prevent Halloween from traveling to American shores.
Halloween is a holiday that has changed greatly over the course of time. Late in the late nineteen century, many women believed that they could find out the identity of their future husbands through various means. Some of these methods involved hazelnuts, mirrors, apples, and yarn. Sometimes, a ring would be buried in food, in hopes that the one who discovered it would be moved to find real love. Also, the winner of apple bobbing competitions tended to be highly regarded as top prospects, as this was seen as a good sign. These traditions, however, generally faded over time.
It also used to have more in common with April Fool's Day, than with what most people today would consider typical of Halloween. Pranks were very common and quite popular, and some of the most popular pranks included throwing eggs at houses, opening up the gates of a farm, and making outhouses fall over. However, these tricks began to spiral out of control and become problematic, and so the focus began to emphasize the more innocent and less harmful traditions of candy and dressing up in costumes.
By Charles Bordeau
Sources:
Bustle.com: Why Do We Celebrate Halloween? 6 Facts About This Spooky Holiday's History
The Newnan Times-Herald: The history of Halloween
The Lincolnshire Echo: What is Halloween and why do we celebrate it?
Business.com: $6.9 Billion in Consumer Spending this Halloween is Spooky
NRF: The long and Short of America’s Consumer Holidays
Image courtesy of Nick Taylor's Flickr page: Pumpkin carving - Creative Commons License
Youtube video History of Halloween (The History Channel) courtesy of  Marco Gomez

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Hillary Relying Al Gore To Appeal to Millennials on Climate Change

You know, it is looking increasingly like Hillary is going to win. There was a time when I would have dreamed of Democrats winning the White House for three straight terms, since I had seen the Republicans do exactly that in the 1980's.

Yet, my enthusiasm has been tempered considerably by the reality of this situation. About the only good thing that came from the Trump-Clinton race this year is the knowledge that one of them will be going away for good. The bad news is that one of them will get the highest office in the land. The most enthusiasm that I can muster about Hillary likely winning it is that she is probably - probably - not quite as bad as Trump. Still, I say that with some reservations, knowing full well that she has connections, that she promised to go to war once she became president, that she has intimate defense contractor ties that should disqualify her from being president, and that, being a Clinton, she seems to be a pathological liar. It's just their thing.

We really could have used somebody with integrity. For a while there, it looked like we might have that, too. But Bernie Sanders had too much going against him - most especially the Democratic party establishment. Had Sanders won (which I think he would have done against the weak candidate now officially cast as the Democratic nominee without the interference of certain people in positions of power who obviously used their influence to affect the results), then we might have finally had a leader in the White House with an ounce of integrity, and who would have put country before themselves and their political ambitions.

Instead, we have Hillary. Many people are excited about this "change," and feel that this is a sign of progress. With a woman being in charge, surely the country is moving forward in a positive direction, no?

Well, not really. After all, Hillary Clinton is going to push forward the corporate agenda that has been increasingly dominant within the American political landscape for decades now. She is not an agent of change, but an agent of the stale political pragmatism that makes lofty sounding speeches advertising enormous accomplishments, even while the actual feel is one of not much going on. This was very much in evidence throughout the Bill Clinton years when, according to him, the economy of the nation was incredibly strong, when he managed to pay off 60% of the national debt, when there were sweeping laws that greatly strengthened environmental standards in the country. That was their version of "forcing the spring." 

A closer look, however, will show that the 60% of the national debt that he boasted of was actually paid off by taking out temporary loans, which is to say that the country, in a very real sense, owed exactly as much as it had before. Just smoke and mirrors. Same with his environmental record, where a huge chunk of the most impressive legislation came in the final three days of his eight years in office, knowing full well that his successor would waste no time doing away with these measures. It was a political gimmick, to make it seem like the Clinton administration did far more than it did, and then being able to make George W. Bush into the bad guy when he did away with these "new" environmental regulations. Oh, and let us not forget the prison reform, which helped to create the "for profit" political system that has seen this country now with more prisoners than any other country in the world. 

It is a tired and old political game, and people have grown sick of this kind of falsehood posing as legitimate leadership. I think that people had grown sick and tired of it particularly after the feeling of being scammed by the sham invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, while being fed the standard lines of fighting for Iraqi freedom, while corporations exploited the oil profits there instead. Also, perhaps even more than the Iraq invasion, people grew very skeptical about the system, political and economic alike, following the near collapse of the economy and the "Great Recession" that followed. CEO's and elite board members went right back to the same practices that had come so close to bankrupting the country in the first place.

And so, right now, Hillary supporters are all giddy about the prospects of a woman being elected president. I see popular videos of celebrities reprimanding people who express skepticism towards Hillary Clinton, with one even going so far as to dismiss concerns about her trustworthiness as "ridiculous."

However, I look at all of the campaign promises that candidate Bill Clinton made, and how far too often, President Bill Clinton did not come through on them. I see the role that he and then First Lady Hillary Clinton played in things like healthcare reform, on paying off the national debt, the environment, establishing the modern for profit prison system, and on generally empowering (rather than fighting) the elitist pro-corporation takeover, and then I look at Hillary Clinton herself since she left the White House (after claiming to be broke once they left it), and her waffling on issues, her support of the Iraq invasion, or the PATRIOT Act, of the bailout, of getting paid a ton of money by the healthcare big leaguers that she used to fight, and how she is getting piles of money from "too big to fail" Wall Street firms, and I worry. Nor do I think it wrong to worry, regardless of how many celebrities reprimand me for doing so. After all, to my mind's eye, this is not a game, where you pick your party or candidate, and ride that horse come what may. This is the running of a country we are talking about here, and we are supposedly electing the best and most qualified public servant to run that country. Both of the major party candidates have big question marks on their record, and it is our job, as informed citizens who vote, to hold their feet to the fire. It worries me that so many of her supporters seem keen on giving her a pass very quickly and easily, as if the only role that they need to play regarding their country is to get her elected, to finally say that they have a woman president, and then let her alone to her agenda, which has always seemed shady to me.

Maybe I am wrong, but my opinion is that she, like Trump, should be scrutinized severely for these failures (as I see them, anyway), so that she feels more pressure from the citizens that she is supposed to represent and act in the name of, rather than going with the convenient political flow, and/or growing far too cozy with moneyed interests.

Let us remember that Hillary Clinton, if she is to be the leader of the land, is supposed to be brave, and not scared to take sides on an issue. She hesitated for a long time before coming out against TPP - the same TPP that she helped to write, and which she did once suggest was the "gold standard" of trade deals. Let us remember that she is in favor of fracking, even as she qualifies it as only the responsible type of fracking, and that she has not taken a position on the Native American protests against the pipeline in Standing Rock. People let her get away with it, time and time again, that kind of waffling, or sitting on the fence. That is why I worry.

Because the first President Clinton was known for making lofty speeches making certain accomplishments that were semi-impressive at best sound instead like the "gold standard" of what we should be doing, and where this country should be headed to. Yet, at the end, the question that we always ask of presidents is not an easy one, that being are we better off now then when they took office in the first place (be it four years ago or eight years).

Right now, the country has recovered somewhat from the disastrous Bush years. Yet, many people live on unlivable wages, many are losing their benefits, or do not have adequate benefits. The country is getting cleaner, but not fast enough, and Hillary waffles on this issue. The country has Obamacare, but there are criticisms from both left and right about Obamacare. There are many, many questions and uncertainties facing the nation, and it seems a good question to me whether we should simply hand over the reins to yet another member of the old political ruling class - one who takes tons of money from those corporate elites who seem to have undue influence over too much of the government.

Hillary Clinton makes me worry about the direction that the country seems to be heading in, but nowhere near as much as the people who never seem to question her judgement or her actions, and who moreover go to such lengths to criticize people like me when we do question. Yes, that troubles me more than anything that the Clintons or Bushes are saying or doing these days. 




Clinton Using Al Gore To Attract Millennials On Climate Change Issue October 6, 2016

Friday, October 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton Win Would Mean Pro Corporate Agenda Will Be Aggressively Pursued

You know, it is looking increasingly like Hillary is going to win. There was a time when I would have dreamed of Democrats winning the White House for three straight terms, since I had seen the Republicans do exactly that in the 1980's.

Yet, my enthusiasm has been tempered considerably by the reality of this situation. About the only good thing that came from the Trump-Clinton race this year is the knowledge that one of them will be going away for good. The bad news is that one of them will get the highest office in the land. The most enthusiasm that I can muster about Hillary likely winning it is that she is probably - probably - not quite as bad as Trump. Still, I say that with some reservations, knowing full well that she has connections, that she promised to go to war once she became president, that she has intimate defense contractor ties that should disqualify her from being president, and that, being a Clinton, she seems to be a pathological liar. It's just their thing.

We really could have used somebody with integrity. For a while there, it looked like we might have that, too. But Bernie Sanders had too much going against him - most especially the Democratic party establishment. Had Sanders won (which I think he would have done against the weak candidate now officially cast as the Democratic nominee without the interference of certain people in positions of power who obviously used their influence to affect the results), then we might have finally had a leader in the White House with an ounce of integrity, and who would have put country before themselves and their political ambitions.

Instead, we have Hillary. Many people are excited about this "change," and feel that this is a sign of progress. With a woman being in charge, surely the country is moving forward in a positive direction, no?

Well, not really. After all, Hillary Clinton is going to push forward the corporate agenda that has been increasingly dominant within the American political landscape for decades now. She is not an agent of change, but an agent of the stale political pragmatism that makes lofty sounding speeches advertising enormous accomplishments, even while the actual feel is one of not much going on. This was very much in evidence throughout the Bill Clinton years when, according to him, the economy of the nation was incredibly strong, when he managed to pay off 60% of the national debt, when there were sweeping laws that greatly strengthened environmental standards in the country. That was their version of "forcing the spring." 

A closer look, however, will show that the 60% of the national debt that he boasted of was actually paid off by taking out temporary loans, which is to say that the country, in a very real sense, owed exactly as much as it had before. Just smoke and mirrors. Same with his environmental record, where a huge chunk of the most impressive legislation came in the final three days of his eight years in office, knowing full well that his successor would waste no time doing away with these measures. It was a political gimmick, to make it seem like the Clinton administration did far more than it did, and then being able to make George W. Bush into the bad guy when he did away with these "new" environmental regulations. Oh, and let us not forget the prison reform, which helped to create the "for profit" political system that has seen this country now with more prisoners than any other country in the world. 



It is a tired and old political game, and people have grown sick of this kind of falsehood posing as legitimate leadership. I think that people had grown sick and tired of it particularly after the feeling of being scammed by the sham invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, while being fed the standard lines of fighting for Iraqi freedom, while corporations exploited the oil profits there instead. Also, perhaps even more than the Iraq invasion, people grew very skeptical about the system, political and economic alike, following the near collapse of the economy and the "Great Recession" that followed. CEO's and elite board members went right back to the same practices that had come so close to bankrupting the country in the first place. 

If there were any further proof required of just how tired people are of the same old same old political gimmicks, then this election was it. Bernie Sanders had a good chance of beating the heavily favored and more established Hillary Clinton. And now, despite all of the idiotic and offensive things that he has said and done, Donald Trump still has not been fully put away by Hillary Clinton. He insults Mexicans, Muslims, women, blacks, veterans, and so on and so forth. He comes across in such an exaggerated manner, making ridiculous assertions like he would be the greatest job creating president ever, and is the fittest man ever to run for president, and he knows ISIS better than anyone else (including military leaders), that he loves war, and that he is the least racist person that you have ever met, that it has made a mockery of this race.

Yet, he actually has more of a chance than most of the media gives him credit for. As impossible as it might seem, a Donald Trump presidency is not actually out of the question.

So, how is this happening? 

Well, it seems clear that people are fed up with overly scripted and calculated plliticians seeking to mold their answers and their images to appeal to as many people as possible. With Donald Trump, there is none of that. This, in turn, likely is seen as a refreshing change for many people, because Trump usually cannot keep his mouth closed before inserting his foot in it. Sure, he has misspoken, but a lot of people feel that this is more "real" than anything that Hillary Clinton has ever offered. 

And let's face it: on that score, Trump supporters are right. 

Incredibly, it is not the only issue that they are right about, either. They are lambasting her on being corrupt, much like Trump himself calls her "Crooked Hillary" and warns of inevitable election fraud. The thing is, Hillary and the Democrats already did cheat. They made absolutely sure that she would be the Democratic nominee no matter what, even as the tide of support for Bernie Sanders seemed to be rising higher and higher, and could possibly have washed her political ambitions away in a truly fair and square election. But she asked for help, and she got it. The Democratic elites stupidly did everything within their power to make sure that she would win, and they got their wish. There were some highly questionable and at least borderline illegal practices which they engaged in which greatly contributed to their victory.

Somehow, the media remained mysteriously silent on all of this. No major stories on how certain states and cities opened up inquiries of voting irregularities. When the whole scandal broke out about how Democratic party insiders had not remained neutral, but had actively assisted Clinton and undermined the democratic process in so doing, it was a flavor of the moment story for a couple of days at most, and then went away quickly and neatly. 

All of this reeks badly of corruption, of her being essentially the chosen one to receive the coronation by the powers that be. It was hard not to notice. Bernie Sanders sure noticed. So did Republicans. So did the rest of the world, and everyone is holding it against her. The only one who are not are those who actively support her, who conveniently turned a blind eye to some pretty blatant examples of corruption. That would be the Democrats who helped her, and who currently support her unconditionally. And apparently, it would include the media, who went right along with her by continually dismissing Bernie Sanders as not viable, and who focus almost exclusively on every idiotic thing that Trump does, but hardly ever seriously criticize Hillary Clinton. 

Naturally, there was going to be a backlash to all of this. And this time, unlike some of the criticisms by Tea Party extremists and some of the ridiculous beliefs of Trump supporters, the critics of Clinton have something there. Again, the only ones who do not see it are the most staunch supporters of Hillary. 

People have grown tired of the overly polished politicians with the ready made answers carefully crafted by a team of experts, with messages that become so diluted, that they wind up not meaning anything. That is what the Clintons are. Has there ever been an American family so immediately associated with all of the worst elements of politics these days? Even the Bushes have something else - oil. But the Clintons? What would they be, and where would they work, if not for politics? It is rare when one family embodies so much of what is wrong with America, especially when posing as what is right about America.

Sure enough, Americans have grown tired of the Clintons and Bushes, tired of the political dynasties. Even more than this, though, I think that people have grown tired of politicians with perfect hair and the perfect image and the perfect words to appeal to as many people as humanly possible. They want someone who at least understand their pains, their fears, their sense that something has gone terribly wrong with their country. They want someone more real, with fewer "experts"and bosses telling them what to do, with an absence of an extensive history of sucking up to and being bought by the powerful interests that have taken over and eroded democracy as we know it.

That is where we are right now, and it has been going on for quite some time now. It probably started with the excessive cynicism of Americans regarding the political process, and I would single out Reagan's message of vilifying everything that has anything to do with government as inherently evil, as the problem. He capitalized on the growing skepticism that Americans rightly felt about government, and authority figures in general, following the Kennedy Assassination and the Warren Commission Report, the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and numerous other things that were divisive and/or went wrong in the 1960's and 1970's, and manipulated all of that to pose as an anti-Big Government crusader, when really what he represented was that very threat of increased big government control. The government grew, rather than shrank, during his tenure, and the military industrial complex grew disproportionately powerful and influential. Corporations were increasingly placed in powerful and privileges positions.

Ever since then, the military industrial complex and major corporations have grown ever more powerful. Politicians looked at Reagan;s example, cracking jokes and getting away with scandals, with a more than willing American populace willingly believing whatever Reagan said to get away with scandals and, yes, crimes, and this has become the very model which prominent politicians, particularly presidents, have followed ever since. President Obama, allegedly a Democrat, holds up President Reagan as his example of what a successful president was and, presumably, models his own presidency on the Reagan White House.

Slowly but surely, these politicians served the interests of their corporate masters. They perfected the art of packaging an agenda that sounded like it was protecting economic freedom and restricting big government but that, in fact, ran against the best interests of the American people. After all, government is answerable to the people that elects it, while corporations are not. And it is corporate control that has become the danger now.

It is a vicious cycle, and one that we cannot break. The modern day Democrats are what Republicans used to be, and the Clintons are the perfect example of this. I remember feel quite depressed back in the 1990's, when President Bill Clinton was referred to by some as "republican light." If anything, it seems to me that Hillary Clinton, who within the last year reminded us that her politics are rooted in conservatism, and who once proudly considered herself a "Goldwater girl," is even more conservative than her husband, and equally as untrustworthy. As for the Republicans, they are off the charts at this point politically, but seem to be flirting with an outright fascist kind of mindset. Never has this been so clear as with Donald Trump.

The choice for the American voters in this election seems to come down to either the continued slow strangulation of democratic values in the country, and the erosion of real liberty and opportunity for the vast majority, or a quick leap away from democracy and towards a more transparent dictatorship with Trump.

Some choice.

We are told that one of these two will have to win, and surely, one of them will be elected as the next president. The only good news, supposedly, is that the loser will finally go away, crawl back under the rock from which he or she came to begin with.

Maybe. But to me, it is clear that the real loser for this coming election will be the American people, although truth be told, they have only themselves to blame for allowing such mediocrity to prosper to the degree that it has, and to dominate American politics for going on decades now.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

NFL 2016-17 Season Week 8 Picks

Okay, so, we have no more undefeated teams, only one winless team remaining, and thus far, every time that one team seems on the verge of taking a division by the throat, something happens to prevent that. Look at Atlanta the last couple of weeks, or Seattle and Minnesota last weekend. 

This weekend, two teams, the New England Patriots and the Dallas Cowboys, have the unique opportunity to win big divisional games that would, in effect, put them in very solid position to win the division. In both cases, wins would give them a three-game lead over their next closest rival, and as we reach the midseason point, they might find themselves in position to race for home field advantage or, failing that, a playoff bye.

In other contests, some teams are fighting to stay in the picture. That includes the game in London this coming weekend, as well as the game between the Packers and Falcons, where suspicious looking losses recently by both the Packers and Falcons have many people scratching their heads and wondering if these teams are anywhere near as good as the hype. Plus, the Cardinals try to get past the muffed field goals that prevented them from winning (and losing), as they try to get back to their winning ways, and hope to avenge last January's loss in the NFC Championship Game at Carolina in the process.

Some intriguing stuff for this coming weekend in the NFL. Let's take a closer look:


(Thursday Night) Jacksonville at Tennessee - Jacksonville seems to have reached that point in the season where a quick series of losses takes them out of the playoff run. The Titans, in the meantime, look surprisingly good, although they are probably not quite ready to make a real playoff run yet. Still, barring a letdown or an upset, Tennessee should be able to power their way past Jax to move to a winning record as mid-season approaches. My pick: Tennessee


(London) Washington at Cincinnati - Washington lost a heart-breaker last weekend in Detroit, while the Bengals recovered from some recent disappointing losses to crush Cleveland. The Bengals are technically the hosts, although this is more likely neutral territory for both teams. Still, I like the Bengals to continue their recovery with a win to stay in the AFC North race. My pick: Cincinnati


Seattle at New Orleans - The Seahawks and Cardinals did not exactly play the most inspired ball last weekend, although from Seattle's perspective, the tie was closer to a half of a win than a half of a loss. They still enjoy a comfortable lead in the NFC West, and still have not lost now in well over a month, and are playing extremely well. As for New Orleans, they suffered a tough loss last week, and will likely suffer another one in this contest. My pick: Seattle


Detroit at Houston - The Lions look hot, and are brimming with confidence. The Texans are not, and never seem capable of beating quality teams when they have to. Yes, the Texans are at home, but most likely, that will not be enough against a Detroit squad that seems to believe, and seems to be running on all cylinders at the moment. I like the Lions to win, and to start to emerge as possibly the second best team in the NFC North. My pick: Detroit


Kansas City at Indianapolis - The Chiefs are a tough team, capable of some huge wins when they need it. And with the Broncos and the Raiders setting the pace in the AFC West, KC needs this one! The Colts are a vulnerable team, never seemingly playing up to their capabilities. That is what they would need to have a chance at beating the Chiefs, and I just don't see them doing it. KC should be able to wear them down, and put them away in the second half. My pick: Kansas City


Arizona at Carolina - A rematch of the NFC Championship Game earlier this year. Carolina blasted past the Cardinals back then, but that was then, and this is now. The Panthers have struggled and mysteriously, they have played as awful this season as they played awesome last season. Sooner or later, they will win again. But the Cardinals, with the revenge factor on their side, have been playing quite well the last few weeks. look for that to continue, and for the Cardinals to continue to do what they do well, and exact a measure of revenge this weekend, adding to Carolina's growing list of woes. My pick: Arizona


NY Jets at Cleveland - A lot is going right with Believeland these days, but the Browns are the one exception. They are the one curse that still seems to be very much intact these days, thank you very much. Right now, the Browns have remained the sole remaining winless team for several weeks, and they are getting pretty desperate to change that. However, the Jets have been playing better lately, after having struggled mightily themselves for a long stretch of the season. They want to build on their success last week, and honestly, it's tough to imagine that they will fail to do so in Cleveland. My pick; NY Jets


New England at Buffalo - The Patriots visit the only team that has managed to beat them this season, and this time, they have Brady. It will be a tough, bruising game, and I would not be surprised if there are some injuries after this one. The Bills were red hot before suffering a loss at Miami, although they remain a tough team, especially at home. Still, New England seems to have recovered fully from that shut out loss to the Bills, and are playing lights out. If they continue to play as well as they are capable of, they should win. My pick: New England


Oakland at Tampa Bay - Neither of these teams has qualified for the playoffs since they met in Super Bowl XXXVII. Yet, they both are making what appears to be serious runs towards the playoffs this season - especially the Raiders! Tampa Bay is improving, but Oakland appears to have arrived at a good place, where they are back among the ranks of serious playoff contenders. Look for them to get this road win as well, to stay in good position in the tough AFC West. My pick: Oakland


San Diego at Denver - The Chargers seemed to take heart of the big win against Denver that they enjoyed a couple of weeks ago, and if they can keep winning, that may be the turning point that saved a season that was spiraling out of control. A victory in Atlanta had to boost their confidence mightily, although going to Denver is always a tough challenge. The Broncos have that suffocating defense, home field, and the revenge factor all on their side, and San Diego would have to pull off their biggest upset yet to win this one. My pick: Denver


Green Bay at Atlanta - The Packers are the visiting team, and they are not playing anywhere near the level that most people expected them to play at to this point. The Falcons, after a tremendously hot start, have cooled off these last few weeks. Still, they are at home, and they should be able to win this particular game against the suddenly struggling Pack. My pick: Atlanta


(Sunday Night) Philadelphia at Dallas - The Eagles beat the Vikings last weekend to stop the bleeding of their two game losing streak. But now, they have to go down to Big D to take on a well rested Cowboys team that is brimming with confidence. This is a golden opportunity for the 'Boys, as a win would put them two games up on everybody else in the division, with a tie-breaker to boot over Philly and Washington (although my Giants beat them!). The Eagles, meanwhile, have the chance to close the margin and get back to a share of the lead in the division with a win. The Cowboys, however, have a strong offensive line, and young, emerging talent at quarterback and unning back, not to mention the talent that they have elsewhere. All a bit too much for the visiting Eagles, I suspect. My pick: Dallas


(Monday Night) Minnesota at Chicago - The Bears have home field advantage, but that is about the only advantage that they will have going into this game. Minnesota has a tough defense and everything to fight for. Plus, they want to get back to winning, after suffering their first, and so far only, defeat last week at Philadelphia. Look for them to jump ahead early, and essentially sit on their lead rather than to beat down the overmatched Bears. My pick: Minnesota

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Josh Brown Controversy Continues to Cast Shadow on NFL

Once again, the NFL is faced with yet another story of a player with several domestic abuse charges who was barely punished for his unacceptable behavior.

This time, it was Josh Brown, the placekicker of the New York Giants (my favorite team).

He had a history of domestic violence charges, with several violent incidents already reported. Apparently, the NFL had access to that kind of information and, once again, seemed to more or less shrug it off.

The Giants may or may not have known, although it does seem that they were aware that he had some history, but, according to them, not the extent of it. For their part, Giants players initially said that they stood by their teammate, until the extent of this whole thing began to be revealed. Then, they claimed not to have known, which is actually probably the truth.

Still, all in all, this is yet another controversy with a physically abusive man who, up until this story broke only a few days ago, had served only a one game suspension. Ben Roethlisberger initially was going to get a six game suspension after a second instance where a woman essentially accused him of rape, and these allegations were serious. To draw a comparison, Tom Brady, who is accused of playing a role in deflating footballs, served a four game suspension.

This is starting to be a very ugly trend in the NFL, with the whole Ray Rice thing not all that long ago still staining the league and it's legacy, or what passes as one. Yes, it was not all that long ago, but it seemed at the time to be a black eye on the face of the NFL, particularly for Commissioner Roger Goodell.

What this story shows, however, is that the NFL really has not learned any lessons, has not really gotten serious about clamping down on domestic abuse. Brown should have been suspended indefinitely without delay, right away. He should no longer be able to don any NFL uniform, and there should be absolutely no doubt left that this kind of behavior will cost a player everything. After all, Ray Rice has not been back on a football field ever since the story and, perhaps even more damning, the video of him punching his wife was released and produced a public outcry. Only then did the NFL act, and in the mind's of almost everyone, this response was far too little, and much too late.

There is likely no video this time around, yet the NFL will surely receive yet more criticism, and will have it's credibility questioned and under the microscope for a long, long time. And frankly, deservedly so.

Maybe, for that matter, it is time for Roger Goodell, or whoever seems to continuously wave these stories off until they become public outrages, to step down. Clearly, something is going wrong right now with the league that simply cannot be overlooked. This is the second time that the NFL has faced very serious scrutiny regarding it's mishandling of a domestic abuse, and if it hopes to avoid a third such instance, someone may very well need to take a fall. This simply cannot be allowed to happen again, period.