Don't you have anything better to do than to read this blog?

Donald Trump in the White House: The New Abnormal

2016-11-14T20:34:00.000-05:00

I belong to that very large group of people who, on the morning of November 9th, woke up stunned, angry, sad and profoundly embarrassed at the thought that Donald Trump will be the President of the United States for the next four years. The realization that this man, this “leader of the free world”, will now wield a great deal of power in ways which I (and many others) find abhorrent - to order mass deportations, to repeal of the Affordable Care Act (without any replacement), to withdraw from treaties such as the Paris Climate Agreement and NATO, to repeal TPP and the Iran nuclear deal (these are but a few examples on a very long list), is a terrifying thought.

A friend suggested that this is probably how a great many Americans who were against having a black man be President, felt when Barack Obama was elected. No, it’s not. It would be if we had an entire race of people called Trumpites whose main distinguishing features were ridiculous hair and short fingers. Then I would agree. Then, I would freely admit that I am a racist because I would be angry at the thought of any Trumpite becoming President. It would be a blanket hatred, based solely on physical attributes, nothing else.

No, my anger is specific to this particular person. I was not swayed by the “biased media”. I don’t feel the way I do because someone else said or wrote that this man is unsuited for the job. I’m angry because of what Donald Trump himself said, of what he did up till now, and what he is yet to do. I do not blame anyone else for my dislike and distrust of Trump. I own it.

Intelligence and wisdom facilitate comprehension, understanding, and empathy. In the past year and a half, I have seen no evidence that Donald Trump has the capacity for such intelligence. There are two schools of thought regarding Trump - one says that he is all those things he has said and shown himself to be -a racist, a misogynist, a bigot and much more. In short, a dumbass who doesn’t read any books (except perhaps his own), who gets his information from the Internet, who has no interest in social issues of any kind, who does not care for anyone other than himself. The other claims that yes,Trump has misbehaved in the past, but now he is older and wiser . Now, he knows better. As proof, they offer the argument that only he was smart enough to see the anger among working class Americans, to see that it was massive and widespread and that if he harnessed that discontent, it would propel him straight to the White House.

Fair enough. This is exactly what happened. He tapped the resentment Americans felt at jobs lost, at a government which wasn't listening to its people, at the unfairness of income inequality, at the inability of the working class to get ahead so they can make a better life for themselves and their children. But he also made a conscious choice to go much, much further. Using poisonous rhetoric, spiteful derision, mockery, and lies, he appealed to the basest of human instincts adding unnecessary fuel to an already existing fire, fuel purposely designed to bring racism, bigotry, and a blanket hatred of anyone “other” back to being admissible in our vocabulary and in our behavior. The new “abnormal”.

For years, for decades, we worked to stamp out destructive attitudes and prejudices in the hope that eventually, one day, they would be bred entirely out of existence. We were trying to get there. Slowly, very slowly, but we seemed to be on our way. When that hateful monster did, periodically, rear its ugly head, we showed disdain and disgust, at least publicly. The backlash, if nothing else, maintained appearances, a crucial first step to recovery. Apologies made were often called nothing more than political correctness, but if that political correctness was deemed acceptable, it was because of our belief that, at least, we were making some sort of an effort to be better. Baby steps yes, but given time, we would surely improve.

Now, all that could be gone. Trump has opened Pandora’s box, letting racism, bigotry, misogyny, and hatred out, to be professed and practiced in the open and unapologetically. The genie is out of the bottle and whichever school of thought you subscribe to, either way, the conclusion is the same. If Trump is a bigot, racist, misogynist, and dumbass, who didn’t bother (or was not intellectually capable enough) to think about the consequences of his actions, then clearly he is too ignorant to be President. If he is now older and wiser and no longer a bigot, misogynist, and racist, who only said all those vile things to win the election, then he is, at the very least, a liar who conned and deceived millions of people and used their anger and pain for his own personal gain. Again, unfit to be President.

Whom did we elect? Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? The guy tweeted said that “professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!” or the guy who, the next morning reversed himself with “love the fact that small groups of protesters have passion for our great country." Who the hell is he? We have no idea who will occupy the White House for the next four years. None at all. We know little of his policies (since he constantly contradicts himself), nothing about his beliefs, nothing about his business interests and the potential conflicts these business interests may produce. If he is faced with a choice of doing what is right for America at the risk of losing some of his investments overseas, which way will he decide? This is a man whose idea of a Chinese wall is to have his family run his business! What do you think he will do? What does a self-absorbed egotist whose social conscience is non-existent, inevitably do in situations where it’s them or me? This will happen and when it does, he will break the law, he will use his Trumpland reality to justify his actions and will sell this country out.

And lastly, what of the rest of the world? What of their future? If we don’t care, then we should. Whether we like it or not, what happens beyond our borders matters just as much as what will transpire here at home. The Russian interference in our election process, the contacts between the Trump campaign and highly placed members of the Russian government are not coincidental, nor are they without consequence. Donald Trump wants to “make America great again”. Terrific, but Vladimir Putin wants the same thing, except substitute the word “America” for “Russia”. This planet is a finite place and if we don’t destroy it in the not so distant future by denying climate change, sooner, rather than later, these two competing powers will clash. And then what? Agree to disagree? With Trump’s and Putin’s egos, not likely!

On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the Electoral College will vote to officially elect the next President of the United States. They are the ones who ultimately decide. Will the popular vote prevail? Likely not. Should it? Yes, for America and for the sake of the whole world, it should.

A. J. Aston

Il Presidente Trump

2016-10-21T12:45:00.001-04:00

In 1851, Joseph Marie de Maistre, a French philosopher and politician said: “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite” which translates to “Every nation has the government it deserves”. This may have been true in the 19th century, but in the global village we now live in, elections within powerful countries affect lives far beyond the borders of those countries. Nowhere is this more applicable than in the United States. If this country is stupid enough to elect Donald Trump as their President, then we will be made to bear the consequences. To be sure, the very, very least of our punishment will be fours years of supreme embarrassment and severe chagrin.

But what of the rest of the world? Without the ability to participate in our electoral process, the lives of millions of people around the world will, nonetheless, be effected by the choice only American citizens will make on November 8th, and surely not for the better. The extreme turmoil blanketing many parts of the Middle East, the expansionist ambitions of Vladimir Putin, economic problems in several South American countries, the tide of refugees everywhere, the effects of global warming on the entire planet - all of these (and many other) issues will have to be resolved one way or the other. It will require an expertise which Hillary Clinton possesses and which Donald Trump is entirely devoid of. Political intelligence, diplomacy, years of experience and, above all, an absolute self-control, are paramount. At the risk of stating the not so obvious, the United States and Russia are already at war. The proxy through which this war is being waged, Syria, is but a thin veil which is very threadbare. One wrong move and the confrontation between two nuclear superpowers will become direct. And then what? Trump and Putin will settle our differences over a shot of vodka? Hardly.

Both Trump and Putin are predators in their own revolting way, but compared to Putin, Trump is a rank amateur and Putin knows it. He is more than well aware that what happens on November 8th will go a long way to supporting his dream of a global "Russian village" if only Americans would elect the "right" candidate. That's why Putin is siding with Donald Trump. Putin is not stupid - he realizes that his chances at manipulating Hillary Clinton are all but nonexistent. By contrast, Putin will run rings around the Donald. Blindfolded. It is no coincidence that Russia is interfering in our current elections and not, say, four or eight years ago. Putin looks at Trump and knows a patsy when he sees one. Never has the opportunity to infiltrate the United States been greater. He’ll just march right in through the White House. Forget sending spies to steal information, forget hacking the NSA, the CIA or any other letters of the alphabet - been there, done that. Now he’ll be invited in, red carpet and all. An afternoon of flattery and compliments, perhaps a gift of a solid gold bust of il Presidente Trump (Trump’s foundation already paid for his huge portrait) and the United States is Putin’s oyster. If ever there was a reason NOT to vote for Donald Trump, this has got to be it.

A. J. Aston

Vengeance

2016-10-08T11:49:00.001-04:00

It's not that we thought this presidential campaign could not drop to any new lows anymore, what with Trump insisting on "being himself", but this latest incident is not a drop, it's a plummet. What we are all witnessing is a giant (blond) vulture ripping his feathers out and pecking himself to death!!

Personally, I feel sorry for the Donald. Yes, I think this latest fiasco proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his Icarus flight is being (finally!)ended by none other than a conspiracy by the microphones of this world. Somewhere in his past, he must have either insulted these sensitive electronic creatures, or perhaps refused to produce them, (even in China), thereby denying life to millions of baby microphones, prompting the species to work in unison to exact revenge on the author of their mass microphoneside. They plotted for years and years, creating damaging statement after statement, making sure it was recorded, and then biding their time until their treachery could come to light.

The first salvo of their attack was fired by the microphone at the debate. It suppressed his voice and crackled, garbled his words or cut out altogether, issuing, instead, comments which made Trump appear ignorant, arrogant and downright stupid. Donald never said half the things we heard - it was the microphone speaking in his place! With that perpetual pout, who could tell the difference?

The second step in this Machiavellian frame-up revealed itself last night as the Donald was heard slagging off women and claiming, among other things (ugh!) that, as a "star", he can do "anything". I am sure the Donald never said those terrible things, being the fine upstanding, and moral human being that I know him to be. Please note that I am speaking to you from within the Trump universe where reality is very, very different from yours. On this Trump planet, the "golden boy" (as we affectionately call him) can do no wrong, and his being made to apologize baffles us almost as much as it does him.

In the coming days, more recordings will be aired, until such time as the media (liberal and otherwise) will simply run out of words. They will stare silently at the cameras, the mouths locked in a collective gape, preventing any speech at all. If the past is anything to go by, then these (or any future)revelations will not force Trump to voluntarily step down as the Republican nominee/Frankenstein monster they themselves created. After all, the Donald knows better and no one can tell him what to do. He will not allow his own interests to be compromised, the “brilliant” businessman (in his own mind) that he is. He will never agree to be replaced by Pence, thereby providing refuge to all those miserable voters who, at present, plan to stay home or, dare I say it?, vote for Hillary. No, in his universe, walking away is unthinkable, ”unthinking” being the main operative word where the Donald is concerned. Trump will stay to the bitter end, his carcass animated only by all the hot air his putrefaction will continue to produce.

On a final note, I should like to offer my sincere and heartfelt apology to all the vultures of this world. I spoke in haste, and I’m sorry if it offended any vulture out there. To me, this is nothing more than a distraction which, after all, happened over ten minutes ago! Implying that the Donald is one of their kind was perhaps, maybe, vulturist and very unfair. I shall try to be a better woman tomorrow. Believe me, there is no one, nobody on this earth who has more respect for vultures than I do! I'd just like to add that I heard Bill Clinton say much worse things about vultures when we played golf together, and I know for a fact that Hillary has a hat made out of vulture feathers! it’s hidden in her closet, something we will hear much more about in the coming days when Putin e-mails photos of her wearing it to Wikileaks! He promised me!

A.J. Aston

A Little Bit of Knowledge can be a Dangerous Thing….

2013-09-15T11:00:00.000-04:00

If I have been silent for a long time, it is because I have been busy spinning my wheels. I got nowhere, but it took all this time to get there. You see, I decided prosecute my patent application before the United States Patent Office on a pro se basis, my less than stellar legal team consisting of me, myself and I. Why, you may ask, would I do such a thing? Simple. Lack of means.

The whole process started some time ago when I, using my still existing resources, hired a patent attorney (i.e. paid a retainer) and had him file an application for a provisional patent with the USPTO. The application described a lighting system I put together and built into my handbag, allowing me to easily find what I was looking for, forever ending the blind shuffle I was heretofore forced to make inside the bag’s black, cavernous interior, to retrieve something I wanted.

I was granted a provisional patent. You may not be impressed but, to me, this was a validation of my work, the (provisional) patent proof of my ideas gravitas, allowing me to legally say that my invention was “patent-pending”! Wow!

Emboldened by the victory, I instructed my lawyer to file for a non-provisional patent (and paid for the pleasure), convinced that my application would sail through unimpeded.

The examination process (of my application) began in earnest, the submission landing on the desk of an Examiner whose job it was, first and foremost, to review all existing patents, confirming that no one had had my brilliant idea before me. The Examiner also had to review the application itself to ensure that it was written in the correct format and in accordance with the multitude of MPEP requirements addressing the issue of how a submission should be made, down to the size of the margins on the documents in question. Patent applications have been known to be refused, not because the invention was not patentable, but because the submission did not comply with requirements, much as many worthy manuscripts never reached the reading public, turned down by agents and publishers simply because the query letter or synopsis were not written in the right font or with the right spacing.

For those of you unfamiliar with the MPEP, it is the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure, or the Bible of the USPTO. Thousands of pages long, the number of rules it contains is counted as being “too many to count”.

Events could have gone several ways. The Examiner could have approved my submission in it’s entirety and granted a patent. To the astonishment of the naive, ergo delusional me, he didn’t. Instead, he rejected the whole application for one reason or another, sending something called an Office Action, in which he told the “Applicant”, as I would be known from now on, in effect “In your dreams!”. Applicant had three months to respond.

Applicant went back to her lawyer and authorized him (and paid some more) to respond to the Office Action. He did. The Examiner rejected the response. Applicant’s lawyer rebutted (upon receipt of payment). Again. The Examiner rejected. Again.

At this point Applicant ran out of money. No cash, no lawyer. Faced with two choices of either walking away and letting the enormous investment she had already made go down the toilet, or carry on the battle on her own, Applicant chose to do the latter and hunkered down, having less than three months to absorb all the relevant wisdom. She purchased a book entitled “Patent it Yourself” written by patent attorney David Pressman. The book shed considerable light on the chaos that is the patent process, leading Applicant to think that she could overcome the considerable odds against succeeding.

Since Applicant was now prosecuting the application pro se, the Examiner was obliged to lend her some limited assistance. He could not advise her on content of her Response to his Office Action, but only on how the content should be presented. Why? Because the process is adversarial - Applicant vs. the United States Patent Office. Her against Them.

The Applicant was told by the Examiner about the MPEP, (something she had no clue even existed) and was directed to study the most relevant of chapters. The Applicant did as she was told. She also re-read, this time oh so carefully, the original application her lawyer had made on her behalf. It had several problems. Not only was it inaccurate in describing her invention, it also did not mention some key structural features at all. To the lawyer’s defense, he did, at the time, sent her draft copies of what he proposed to submit to the USPTO and she had duly read what he wrote but, when she tried to correct the fallacies and omissions in the application, her lawyer advised her that should she insist on making the changes she wanted, well, that would be a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, and better not open that Pandora’s box, ‘cause that would trigger a whole new set of rejections from the Examiner. Better not go there. She acquiesced.

What she didn’t know was that, once an application is made, it is carved in stone (by little men who work in the basement of the USPTO, toiling away all day long, tiny hammers and chisels in hand.) What her lawyer did not warn her about, was that any subsequent responses made in defense of the patent application, cannot go beyond the bounds of what was originally filed, not even by a comma. Any change could be considered by the USPTO as being what they call “new matter”, in which case a whole different application would have to be made in order for this “new matter” to be admissible. For a fee, wouldn’t you know.

Applicant realized that:

a) she had less three months to respond to the Office Action; less than three months to read and understand the MPEP, what with it being written in legalese, precluding average mortals from comprehending it’s contents;

b) review and understand all rejections heretofore made by the USPTO against her application;

c) re-write her application to comply with whatever format problems the application contained;

d) overcome any existing patents the Examiner brought up to argue that her invention was worth squat;

- and do all of the above while not stepping out of the confines of her originally submitted application, i.e. not using any definitions and arguments or bringing up any features of her invention not originally mentioned. Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Undaunted, Applicant forged on. She made some preliminary arguments to the Examiner on an “unofficial” basis just to see what the response would be, to test the waters, if you will. These were immediately disqualified, the Examiner giving her a multitude of counter-arguments, sighting chapter and verse of the MPEP in all it’s might, for added effect.

Realizing that she was in the maze with no apparent exit, Applicant asked the Examiner if, in his view, there was any avenue open to her at all, careful not to ask what that avenue was, but only if it even existed. Had the Examiner then told her that she was flogging a dead horse, she would likely have retreated from the battle, licked her already sustained wounds and, curled in a fetal position, cried herself to sleep.

Instead, the Examiner said that there was something “valuable” about Applicant’s invention, which she took to mean that the patent she coveted lay waiting for her somewhere, probably at the end of the rainbow. All she had to do was find it.

Over the coming weeks Applicant wrote many, many e-mails to the Examiner, asking about this or that, presenting ideas and concepts and arguments, all in the hopes of identifying the location of the rainbow which she would then trace to it’s end. Applicant also told the Examiner that, if she was having trouble identifying that something “valuable” about her invention the Examiner alluded to, it was because she was not an electrical engineer by profession and had little knowledge on the subject beyond what it took to come up with her invention. The Examiner expressed surprise at this revelation and gave the Applicant to understand that, in light of it, he assessed her chances of successfully prosecuting her patent application about as likely as pigs taking flight, in words not nearly as cliché.

He continued to answer every one of her e-mails, using mostly legalese as he had done to date, but now breaking into English long enough to explain that Applicant was nowhere near the rainbow, much less the end of it, employing a tone which implied that Applicant’s temerity to think that she had any business applying for a patent in the first place, was trying his patience.

Applicant stubbornly refused to retreat from battle, instead sending off her “official” Response to Office Action. She is currently waiting for a reply.

All jest aside, I do not understand why the process of getting a patent must necessarily be adversarial. Arguably, the Patent Office must do their due diligence in reviewing patent applications to prevent multiple parties receiving a patent for the same idea. Having said that, I see no reason for rules which say that an Examiner cannot assist an applicant in obtaining a patent in cases where he sees something which is indeed patentable about the invention. By “patentable” I mean something un-obvious, utilitarian and, above all, novel - the three requirements of patentability for any invention.

In a criminal court of law, the relationship between the prosecuting and defending attorneys is adversarial but there is life and liberty at stake - the prosecutor wants to make sure that the guilty party gets punished, while the defense endeavors to ensure that the innocent party does not go to jail for something they did not do. The adversity stems from the fact that the “party” in question is one and the same.

In the case of the USPTO there is no adversity per se if there is no duplication of an existing invention. Why not then assist an applicant in the bid for a patent, instead of doing it’s utmost to prevent that from happening? New ideas are a huge driving force in any economy and one of the main goals of the United States Patent Office should be their promotion and support, not suppression, in this Applicant’s humble opinion….

A.J. Aston

Say What?

2013-05-30T16:45:00.000-04:00

Every morning I watch the news on CNN and find myself repeatedly confronted with the realization that, compared to the reporters working for this news organization, my verbal skills leave a great deal to be desired. They use words and expressions I’ve never even heard of before, and pronounce proper names and certain terms in ways which I can only describe as uh, novel. Here are a few examples of what I mean:

Commenting on the Jodi Arias trial, a reporter speculated whether Ms. Arias will make a statement during the sentencing part of her trial and then added, “We’ll have to see whether that statement detriments her or not.” I had no idea the noun ‘detriment’ could become a verb.

Ashleigh Banfield, reporting on the same trial, said that “it will remain to be seen if she (Ms. Arias) will get the death penalty for her murder.” I didn’t know Jodi Arias was dead, but now that she is (I heard it on CNN!) I have a question - if the jury decides on the death penalty, will Jodi be resurrected first, or will they skip that part, and pronounce sentence on the corpse?

Banfield then commented that “Arias will have to appeal to the jury as to whether she should be spared the death penalty”, and that “daily, this story confronts us with yet another right angle.” I should appeal to her as to whether ‘left angles’ will leave me equally speechless.

Commenting on another trial in which the judge downgraded the jury’s unanimous guilty verdict from murder, to voluntary manslaughter, Banfield condensed the testimony of the defendant to “he said the house guest threatened to kill him, so he had to kill him right back.” Yes, indeed.

She went on to add that “the judge downwardly departed from what the jury decided.” I think I might do well to ‘downwardly depart’ from listening to Banfield in the future.

Chris Cuomo, another CNN star, reported on a story from Dagestan, calling it “Dagostan”, thereby clearing up the long-standing mystery as to where all Dagos come from.

A hung jury in the penalty phase of the Jodi Arias’ trial, prompted Nancy Grace, a regular ‘expert’ contributor to CNN in the field of law, to say that she was surprised at this result given, she explained, that the jury was selected through “voir dire” (oral questioning of potential jurors during the jury selection process), pronouncing this “voy dire”, as in ‘Savoy’ and ‘dire circumstances’. ‘Voying’ Nancy Grace is most definitely ‘dire’ to the welfare of correct pronunciation, and not just when it comes to legal terms.

During a congressional hearing on the misbehavior of the IRS, congressman Louie Gohmert complained about the “aspersions made on his asparagus.” Amusing, yes, surprising, no. For many politicians, particularly of late, English appears not to be their native language. That the same can be said of CNN reporters and some of their regular ‘expert’ contributors, working for an organization which touts itself as the leader in news reporting, is unacceptable. In a parody of a news broadcast their constant verbal blunders would be something to laugh at, but as part of the real thing, they are just laughable.

It should also be noted that, whereas individuals outside of CNN, asked to provide commentary to a news story, are entitled to voice their opinions, news reporters, charged with informing the public of events, do not have that prerogative. Their only job is to report the facts and pose questions to, or soliciting input from, others, all the while keeping their own bias to themselves. The definition of the verb ‘report’, (from whence the noun ‘reporter’ comes from), is “to relate details of (an event or incident); to recount or describe (something)”.

One of the basics of Journalism 101 is that a news story should answer the five W’s and one H, i.e. who, what, where, when, why and how. Period. No more, no less. That concept continues to elude CNN’s John Berman, whose ‘reporting’ is invariably peppered with adjectives such as ‘incredible’, ‘shocking’, ‘horrific’, ‘unbelievable’, ‘staggering’, and the like. Most often, according to Mr. Berman, the story is ‘simply amazing’.

When speaking of the devastation in Oklahoma, for example, a reporter is well justified to describe the damage as ‘wide-spread’, ‘extensive’, or even ‘complete’. Saying that it is ‘heart-breaking’, ‘alarming’ or ‘astonishing’ is not news reporting, it is news commentary. All well and good except that, for many CNN journalists, the line between the two has entirely disappeared, with the result that we, the audience, cannot avoid learning of the day’s events through the prism of these journalists’ bias, one which, unfortunately, has become a permanent part of ‘reporting’ at CNN.

A Rotten Apple

2013-05-16T16:29:00.001-04:00

After the bi-partisan legislation, the Manchin-Toomey Bill, which called for expanded background checks on gun sales via the Internet and at gun shows, was defeated in the Senate last month, I published a post here called “Adding Tremendous Insult to Horrendous Injury”. In it, I listed the names of all senators who voted against the bill, whether Republican or Democrat. One of those names was Kelly Ayotte, Republican senator from New Hampshire. Despite the fact that eighty percent of all New Hampshire voters were (and still are) for expanded background checks and even though among the states’ conservative Republicans, the number stands at fifty six percent, still, Senator Ayotte voted ‘NO’.

When confronted by angry and frustrated voters at several town hall meetings and asked why she voted against the bill, Senator Ayotte offered several explanations, none of which answered the question. Seeing that the controversy would not go away, Ayotte decided to change strategies. She went from trying to explain her ‘NO’ vote, to lying about it and claiming that she actually voted ‘YES’. The about face was made possible with the help of the NRA, who paid for a $25,000 ad, showing documents meant as proof that Ayotte voted in favor of expanded background checks! How did they do that? Simple. Ayotte’s ‘YES’ vote, referred to in the ad, was not for the Manchin-Toomey Bill! It was a vote for an alternative gun control bill, written by the NRA, and sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) and Ted Cruz (R - TX); a bill widely seen as actually undermining the background check system. Needless to say, this key fact was entirely omitted from the ad.

Kelly Ayotte is the epitome of a corrupt politician whose conduct on Capitol Hill, makes a mockery out of our democratic system. Rather than representing the will of her constituency, Ayotte votes in accordance with the wishes of those who bought and paid for her vote, the NRA.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Senator Ayotte is now being supported by Senator Marco Rubio (R - FL), a potential GOP candidate for the presidency in 2016 who, by the way, also voted ‘NO’ on the Manchin-Toomey bill, despite ninety-one percent of his constituency being in favor of it. His Reclaim America PAC paid for an ad which says:

“Safety. Security. Family. No one understands these things like a mom, and no one works harder for them than this one. A former prosecutor, Kelly Ayotte knows how to reduce gun violence. Ayotte voted to fix background checks, strengthen mental health screenings and more resources to prosecute criminals using guns.”

The ad goes on to say:

“Washington might not like it, but you can count on it. Kelly Ayotte stands for our values, not theirs.”

Since (as the ad claims) Ayotte does not stand for the values in Washington, and as her vote did not reflect the values of the vast majority of her constituents who are in support expanded background checks, whose values then are the “our values” the ad is referring to? Keeping in mind that Senator Ayotte has an ‘A’ rating from the NRA, is it so far fetched to say that it is their values she stands for?

If the reported six-figure price tag for the ad is anything to go by, Senator Rubio must evidently now stand for them too, but his commitment to the NRA wasn’t always quite so complete. in 2012, Rubio’s house failed to pass legislation permitting employees to bring guns to work. This transgression prompted an NRA lobbyist, Marion Hammer to complain that, "He talked the talk, but he didn't walk the walk.", and likely, is the reason that Rubio’s rating by the NRA is currently at only a ‘B+’ level.

His (expensive) support of the embattled Kelly Ayotte looks to be one of the steps on his path to NRA redemption and the coveted ‘A’. Another is not returning $50,000 in contributions from the NRA to retire his campaign debt, despite wide spread calls for him to do so, in light of Wayne LaPierre’s controversial op-ed, in which he (LaPierre) singled out Latinos as the main reason why border-state "good Americans" need semi-automatic weapons, and claimed that "Latin American drug gangs" have "invaded" U.S. cities and turned Phoenix into "one of the kidnapping capitals of the world."

Not satisfied in having just senators and congressmen in their pocket, the NRA has, perhaps, set it’s sights on higher ground. Marco Rubio may be just the one to spearhead those ambitions. Since presidential elections are three years away, the senator has plenty of time to prove his worthiness and become “the chosen one”, rewarded with enough NRA money pouring into his campaign coffers to make even him salivate. If nothing else, his dry mouth won’t be a problem anymore.

As for the rest of us - if the NRA’s plans do come to pass, the alternate United States I wrote about, may not be not so ‘alternate’, after all.

A.J. Aston

Article first published as A Rotten Apple on Blogcritics.

CONSTITUTION 2.0

2013-05-10T07:34:00.000-04:00

As mentioned in the first article in this series, we, in the United States^(alt) realized that if the Constitution was to remain the basis for our laws, we needed to revise it, removing antiquated terminology, and ridding it of ambiguities which caused only divisions in our society. What follows is the text of Constitution ^2.0.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1.

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of The Senate.

Section 2

Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed.

Section 3

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of one Senator from each Domain, chosen by the Electorate thereof, for six Years; one Delegate from each Commonwealth, one Ambassador from the District of Columbia and New York each; each Senator, Delegate and Ambassador shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators, Delegates and Ambassadors of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, including appointment as Head of State, Writs of Election to replace said Senator, Delegate or Ambassador shall be issued in his Domain in a timely manner.

No person shall be a Senator, Delegate or Ambassador who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that Domain for which he shall be chosen.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President, when the current Senate President shall be appointed to exercise the Office of Head of State of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the Head of State of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor and Trust under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (Basis for Purification Day.)

Section 4

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators, shall be prescribed in each Domain by the Legislature thereof; but the Senate may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.

The Senate shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5

The Senate shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as the Senate may provide.

The Senate may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

The Senate shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

The Session of the Senate, shall not adjourn for more than three days without the Consent of the Head of State and designated members of the Supreme Court, nor to any other Place than that in which the Senate shall be sitting.

Section 6

The Senators, Delegates and Ambassadors shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, including Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same, or at any other time; except for any Speech or Debate in the Senate, for which they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator, Delegate or Ambassador shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of the Senate during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the Senate; but the Head of State, the Cabinet and members of the Supreme Court may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the Head of State of the United States; If he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to the Senate whence it originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of the Senate shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of the Senate shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of the Senate. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Senate by their lawfully scheduled Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote by the Senate (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the Head of State of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two thirds of the Senate, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8

The Senate shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several Domains, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To change the Currency to any form including virtual, regulate the Value of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Currency and Securities of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings

and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years unless approved by the Senate;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To provide and maintain an Air Force;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land , air and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the National Guard or Military to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the National Guard or Military, and for governing such as may be deployed in the Service of the United States, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the National Guard or Military, according to the discipline prescribed by the Senate; (Basis for the repeal of the Second Amendment)

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular Domains, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the Seat of the Government of the United

States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the Domain in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the Domains now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Senate prior to the Year one thousand six hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any Domain.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one Domain over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one Domain, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Senate, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State, or special interest group, foreign or domestic, including funding, direct or indirect of any kind for the direct or indirect benefit of said Person.

Section 10

No Domain shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; issue Currency; make any Thing a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No Domain shall, without the Consent of the Senate, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any Domain on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Senate.

No Domain shall, without the Consent of the Senate, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, Airplanes or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another Domain, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 2.

Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a Head of State of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of one Year, and be elected, as follows:

By rotation, each Head of State selected in alphabetical order by Domain names. No special privilege, consideration or power will be accorded to the Domain whose Senator is the current Head of State. Moreover, the Powers and Privileges accorded the Head of State will, for the duration of his Term as Head of State, supersede the Powers and Privileges accorded him as Senator. As Head of State, said Senator cannot vote; therefore, the Electorate of the Domain represented by said Senator, will elect a Senator pro tem, to carry out the duties of said Senator for the duration of his Term as Head of State.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of Head of State; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States and holds the Office of Senator.

In Case of the Removal of the Head of State from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve to the President of the Senate, and members of the Supreme Court may by Law, in an open and public ballot, provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the Head of State and President of the Senate, declaring what Officer shall then act as Head of State, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a Head of State shall be designated.

The Head of State shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of Head of State of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2

The Head of State shall be Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy and Air Force of the United States, and of the National Guard, in Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors to foreign posts, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Senate may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the Head of State alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The Head of State shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End

of their next Session.

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Senate Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene the Senate; he shall receive Ambassadors to foreign posts and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4

The Head of State, President of the Senate and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3.

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Senate may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors to foreign posts, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more Domains; between a Domain and Citizens of another Domain; between Citizens of different Domains; between Citizens of the same Domain claiming Lands under Grants of different Domains, and between a Domain, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors to foreign posts, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a Domain shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Senate shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the Domain where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any Domain, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Senate may by Law have directed.

Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 4.

Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each Domain to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other Domain. And the Senate may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2

The Citizens of each Domain shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several Domains.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another Domain, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the Domain from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the Domain having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one Domain, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section 3

New Domains may be admitted by the Senate into this Union; but no new Domains shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other Domain; nor any Domain be formed by the Junction of two or more Domains, or parts of Domains, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the Domains concerned as well as of the Senate.

The Senate shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular Domain.

Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every Domain in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Senate, or of the Executive (when the Senate cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article 5.

The Senate, whenever two thirds shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several Domains, shall call a Referendum for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several Domains, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Senate; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand six hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no Domain, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 6.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every Domain shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any Domain to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several Domain Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several Domains, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution exclusively; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust, under the United States.

Article 7.

The Ratification of the Conventions of thirty-five Domains, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Amendment 1

The Senate shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances. Equally, the Senate shall not propose or make law, the basis of which is derived from any religious scripture or religious teachings, unless said basis can also be found in civil law.

Amendment 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Repealed via Amendment 28)

Amendment 3

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land, air or naval forces, or in the National Guard, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense

to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the Domain and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Domains, are reserved to the Domains respectively, and their Electorate.

Amendment 11

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another Domain, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Amendment 12

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; (Repealed via Amendment 29)

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then

the Vice-President shall act as President. as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. (Repealed via Amendment 29)

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. (Repealed via Amendment 29)

Amendment 13

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

The Senate shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 14

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the Domain wherein they reside. No Domain shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Domain deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

No person shall be a Senator or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any Domain, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of the Senate, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any Domain legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any Domain, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Section 3.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any Domain shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, as all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 4.

The Senate shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment 15

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any Domain on account of race.

Section 2.

The Senate shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 16

The Senate shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several Domains, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment 17

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of one Senator from each Domain, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any Domain in the Senate, the executive authority of such Domain shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any Domain may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment 18

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to

the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. (Repealed via Amendment 21)

Section 2.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. (Repealed via Amendment 21)

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the

submission hereof to the States by the Congress. (Repealed via Amendment 21)

Amendment 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, color, creed, gender or sexual orientation. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 20

Section 1.

The terms of the Head of State and President of the Senate shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.

The Senate shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the Head of State, the Head of State elect shall have died, the President of the Senate shall become Head of State. If a Head of State shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the Head of State elect shall have failed to qualify, then the next President of the Senate by rotation shall be Head of State; and designated members of the Supreme Court may by law provide for the case wherein neither a Head of State elect nor a President of the Senate elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as Head of State, in the established manner by which one who is to act is selected, and such person shall act accordingly.

Section 4.

The Senate may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate designates, as per rotation, a Head of State and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate will choose a President of the Senate, by vote as prescribed by law.

Section 5.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several Domains within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment 21

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several Domains, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the Domains by the Senate.

Amendment 22

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the Head of State more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Head of State, or acted as Head of State, for more than six months of a term to which some other person was elected Head of State shall be elected to the office of the Head of State more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Head of State, when this Article was proposed by the Senate, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Head of State, or acting as Head of State, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of Head of State or acting as Head of State during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.

Amendment 23

Section 1.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Senate may direct.

Section 2.

The Senate shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 24

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be

denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. (Repealed via Amendment 30)

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. (Repealed via Amendment 30)

Amendment 25

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the Head of State from office or of his death or resignation, the President of the Senate shall become Head of State.

Section 2.

Whenever the Head of State transmits to the President of the Senate his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the President of the Senate as Acting Head of State.

Section 3.

Whenever designated members of the Supreme Court and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as the Senate may by law provide, transmit to the President of the Senate their written declaration that the Head of State is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the President of the Senate shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting

Head of State.

Thereafter, when the Head of State transmits to the President of the Senate his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the designated members of the Supreme Court and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as the Senate may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President of the Senate their written declaration that the Head of State is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon the Senate shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Senate is not in session, within twenty one days after it is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of The Senate that the Head of State is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the President of the Senate shall continue to discharge the same as Acting Head of State; otherwise, the Head of State shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment 26

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any Domain on account of age.

Section 2.

The Senate shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 27

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators shall take effect, until an election of said Senators shall have intervened.

Amendment 28

Section 1.

The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Amendment 29

Section 1.

The twelfth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Amendment 30

Section 1.

The twenty fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

UNITED STATES(alt) - PART IV - Tourism

2013-05-08T16:40:00.002-04:00

Anastasia here again, this time to tell you all about U.S.^(alt)and the industry concerned with:

Tourism

Before Purification Day, one of the areas of commerce to greatly benefit from the absence of restrictions on gun ownership was tourism. Revenues went up sharply, due in large part, to a new concept called ‘gun junkets’. In contrast to the well-know sex junkets where “one went, one came and one left”, (at worst with communicable diseases), gun junkets meant “one came, one shot and one left”. In many cases, unfortunately, it was “one came, one got shot, one left” - often feet first.

Gun junkets were largely populated by individuals who had “issues” they could do nothing about back home because, “back home” it was either practically impossible to get a gun at all, or guns could be had only after extensive background checks, as local authorities felt that it was paramount to the safety of their citizens to make sure that prospective gun owners had no criminal record or didn’t have serious mental problems. Not us! We didn’t care. It didn’t matter if you spent more time behind bars than not, or if you were certifiable. We believed in equal gun ownership and total discretion for all. Underage, unstable or plain crazy - it was nobody’s business but your own when it came to firearms. Murder was still illegal in U.S.^(alt), but we now had a slew of exceptions or loopholes, any one of which could readily be used to crawl out from under the weight of the justice system. It didn’t take long for the “Stand your ground” law to be followed by the “It wasn’t me, it was the gun” defense. Then came the “I think, therefore I shoot” concept, titled the “Malevolent Perception” law, permitting you to shoot anyone you thought meant you harm. You didn’t have to be right, you just had to suspect it.

The net effect was that the U.S.^(alt) prison population dropped, now consisting mostly of drug dealers, thieves, counterfeiters, illegal aliens, rapists and other various and sundry riffraff. If you ended up convicted for murder, you could shoot your lawyer, and then use the “Malevolent Perception” defense, as in - you thought he meant to get you convicted.

An offshoot of the dramatic increase in visitors arriving via gun junkets from far and wide, was an initial boom in the area of health care, but that quickly turned into a problem. Emergency Room admissions went through the roof. All medical facilities everywhere were stretched to the limit. The wait to get treatment extended from a few hours to days, causing some victims to bleed out. Public outrage was growing.

The NRA^(alt) initially blamed the problem on the shortcomings of the hospital industry, and heavily criticized the administration. The castigating rhetoric could only do so much; soon it was clear that something drastic was called for. To that end, construction companies were invited by the NRA^(alt) to submit bids for a massive project to build first aid stations along all the roads in the entire country and in the many cities, suburbs, towns and villages which dotted the U.S.^(alt) landscape. Without any guarantee of success, bidders showered the decision makers at the NRA^(alt) with monetary ‘incentives’ to improve their chances of landing the plum contract.

With price being the only deciding factor, the choice was made from hundred of offers, and since the winner selected was a foreign company, it’s identity somehow leaked out to top management at the AFL-CIO^(alt). All hell broke loose; containment measures had to be instituted and fast. Heads of the NRA^(alt) invited the bosses at the AFL-CIO^(alt) to meet in a secret location. The subsequent discussion was heated and voices rose as tempers flared. Things spiraled out of control to the point where teamster fists went flying and their weapons were drawn. Moments before lethal gunfire erupted, which would have resulted in the most quintessential instance, bar none, of poetic justice to ever take place, order was restored. Out of sheer spite and pure principle, a right hook to the glass jaw of an NRA^(alt) honcho, was landed with the meaty fist of an AFL-CIO^(alt) member of corresponding rank. The NRA^(alt) man went down and was un-present for most of the subsequent negotiations, coming to just in time to approve the worked out deal by way of shaking hands. The upshot (sic!) of the agreement was that the AFL-CIO^(alt) would have zero objection to the bid being awarded to a non-U.S^(alt) company, in exchange for the NRA^(alt) handing over a number of suitcases full of financial remuneration in small denominations (previously ill-gotten from all the bidders) , and signing over the services of three congressmen and a senator, fully loaded with all congressional privileges and powers, up to and including their vote, now remote-controlled for expediency purposes.

The Bangladeshi Erection Services, vLLC (Very Limited Liability Company), began breaking ground immediately after planeloads of their own workers and families, landed on U.S.^(alt) soil. Work was carried out in three shifts around the clock, Monday through Sunday, at the minimum of minimum wages, women and children at half price. The rate paid was a fortune compared to earnings back home which is why none of the workers protested when kicking back twenty percent of their wages to crew bosses, as payment for being selected for the job in the first place.

When the momentous deal was announced to the public and the NRA^(alt) was asked about safety issues, a spokesman for the company assured the public that, since these first aid stations would be single story, the danger of collapse was “probably minimal”.

Some time before completion, nurses, surgeons, surgical assistants and administrative staff were hired to man the new facilities which were designed to appear and function much like a chain of fast food drive-ins. Patrons pulled up to a speaker to give their “order” i.e. explain how many bullets had to be removed and from where, whereupon they were directed to one of nine bays, where expert medical personnel removed the offending shrapnel and stitched the victim up. If the injured party was so far gone that nothing would stop the inevitable, they were taken straight to bay Nr. 10, or “the end zone” which, for the sake of convenience, was connected directly to a funeral home. The burial industry, hardly ever affected by recession anyway, now saw it’s bottom lines soar to unheard of heights.

Though the first aid stations were successful as complete, one-stop, full-service, “resolution centers” for the ever growing problem of gun violence, public disapproval rates for the NRA^(alt) climbed because the damage done could not be undone. Lives were needlessly lost, never to be resurrected and lived, all in the service of an agenda which, cloaked in self-righteousness and the 2nd Amendment, did more to undermine the morality of U.S.^(alt) society as a whole, than almost any other single cause since slavery.

After Purification Day and once gun related injuries dropped to levels managed comfortably by hospital E.R.s, most first aid stations were closed, leaving active only those in areas where medical treatment was not readily available otherwise. Some became centers for public assistance, helping the thousands of gun violence victims and their families to deal with the aftermath of their terrible experiences. Others became re-training and job placement centers for those employees of the now defunct first aid centers, who needed help finding work. The rest were taken over by the Robin Hood Foundation^(alt) which converted the facilities into kindergartens staffed with dedicated teachers who taught children from the earliest age to respect themselves and others, to communicate with one another, to understand emotions and to deal with conflict in a non-violent way, hopefully putting an end to generations of people, who were quite willing to sacrifice someone else’s life, to ensure that their rights, even those they would never avail themselves of, would not be threatened or taken away.

Needless to say, gun junkets became a concept whose time, mercifully, came to an end and, to date, the structural integrity of the ex-first aid centers has remained, thankfully, intact.

Next time, well talk about commerce. For now, reporting to you live from U.S.^(alt), this has been,

A.J. Aston

Article first published as An Alternate Reality United States, Part IV: Tourism on Blogcritics.

UNITED STATES(alt) - Part III - Fashion

2013-05-05T22:58:00.000-04:00

For those of you who do not as yet know me, my name is Anastasia and I am reporting to you live from U.S.(alt). In the third part of my series (see Part I and Part II here), I will explore the subject of:

Fashion

It has been said that fashion is but a reflection of a culture and of it’s evolution (or devolution) in a given society, and a translation into fabric of what designers perceive as the wants, needs and tastes of the public they serve.

To understand how the fashion trends in the U.S.(alt) of today came about, we have to go back to yesteryear, to the times before Purification Day. As you may recall, in those days, special interest groups were virtually running Congress(alt). One of the most ‘successful’ of these groups was the NRA(alt), which not only made it a point to block any legislation to control gun violence, they pushed through (read: financed) the enactment of new laws which effectively overrode or repealed any and all restrictions on gun ownership, making it possible for anyone, at any age, to buy as many weapons as they wanted. The motto, “The only one who can stop a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun”, was replaced with, “The only good man, is a man with a gun”, implying that anyone who didn’t own a gun was likely up to no good. In fact, owning a gun was touted as proof of goodwill towards one’s fellow man. In churches, that part of the mass which previously called for shaking hands, was changed; parishioners now clinked guns instead, crossing muzzles like swords. There were a few unfortunate incidences of heads being accidentally blown off, as one or the other of the ‘clinkers’ forgot to put the safety on and, caught up in their fervor of showing amity, squeezed the trigger just a wee bit too much.

Guns became available for purchase everywhere, even in drug stores, which stocked these, conveniently, right next to shelves with bandages, gauze, wound disinfectants, antibiotics and, of course, something very potent to kill the pain, allowing survivors of gunshot wounds to trip and smile through their subsequent ordeal. The NRA(alt), by this time on a roll and virtually unstoppable, made an unholy alliance with a little known pharmaceutical company, whose already less than stellar reputation, was further beleaguered by a Justice Department(alt) investigation into their questionable business practices and inhumane treatment of laboratory animals. In return for a cut of profits from drug sales, the NRA(alt) first had the J.D.(alt) investigation quashed, and then managed to declassify the said pharmaceutical company’s powerful pain killer, aptly called ‘Blaid’ (short for Bullet-Aid), so that it no longer required a prescription for purchase but instead, could be sold over the counter.

The design of semi-automatic assault rifles, particularly popular among citizens hell-bent on visibly demonstrating their goodness, was improved, allowing users to upgrade these to ‘full automatic’ by the simple flip of a switch. This, of course, increased the weapon’s rate of fire or RPM (rounds per minute) so naturally, large capacity magazines had to be made even larger. Unfortunately, material cooling remained a problem. Many hospital E.R.’s reported a marked increase in incidences of ‘trigger finger burn’ due to rifles overheating. Overheating also caused a phenomenon called ‘cook-off’ where ammunition was discharged from a rifle unintentionally. In instances where this resulted in someone being wounded or killed, the alleged shooters used the, “It wasn’t me, it was the gun” defense, invariably availing themselves of free legal services provided by the NRA(alt).

A well-know company, already one of the leading retailers of weapons in the country, opened a new chain of stores called Walguns(alt). To the charge that owners of this behemoth of a company were enriching themselves at the expense of public safety, and therefore had the blood of victims on their hands, a spokesman for the family countered with the well-worn mantra that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and that was that.

What does all of this have to do with fashion? You may well ask. The answer is that, finding ourselves in this gun-infested environment, camouflage clothing of all kinds became all the rage, as it was a combination fashion statement and life-saving necessity when going out into the open. As an example, let us look at what was ‘de rigueur’ to wear when grocery shopping. If one managed to get to a supermarket without running into someone armed with a lethal weapon and a bad case of road rage, one was well advised to wear clothing which permitted one to blend in with the background in case bullets started flying as, unfortunately, they often did. For this reason, clothes designed for comestibles shopping occasions, were made of fabrics imprinted with various horizontal patterns which replicated the appearance of shelves of foodstuffs. With any luck, one could press one’s back against actual shelves in the supermarket, hopefully diminishing one’s visibility.

It didn’t take long for the majority of retail business of all kinds, to have a dedicated section of clothing, depicting their particular interiors, right by the store’s entrance, for the possibly life-saving benefit of their patrons. As wardrobes now reflected one’s shopping habits, they were also a very visible testimonial to one’s financial wherewithal (if not very flattering to the figure). Some people who did not have the means to shop in high end stores or boutiques, bought the camouflage clothing of those places anyway, and then took their lives into their own hands wearing these to establishments they customarily frequented, ergo could afford, prompting the expression “Il faut souffrir pour être belle” (“You have to suffer to be beautiful”) to take on a whole new meaning.

After Purification Day, we enacted extremely strict gun control laws. Mandatory instruction in use and annual re-qualification, was ordered for all those who possessed a gun, since there was more than ample evidence suggesting that a large percentage of owners had little or no shooting skills at all, many finding hitting a billboard at point blank range, problematic.

Constitution^2.0 did not now include the Second Amendment since the British(alt) swore up and down, on everything that is holy, that they had no intention of colonizing us ever again, and neither our immediate neighbors nor anybody else, for that matter, showed any inclinations pointing in that direction. In light of that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, was a safeguard which, clearly, became academic.

Not surprisingly, there was little opposition to these changes because all of us, including even the most ardent gun enthusiasts, had had enough of senseless killing, of mass murders, of children shooting each other by accident, of disputes being resolved with the business end of a gun, of injury and death by “wrong time, wrong place”, of not a single day going by without yet another news story involving guns and death.

The fashion industry, reacting, as always, to cultural changes and to our wants, needs and tastes, now designs clothing made of the most colorful fabrics possible, replacing years of drab, the only purpose of which, was to help blend us into the woodwork. To describe an outfit as “garish” is to give it high praise indeed; to call it “camouflage” is to denigrate it in the worst way possible. Evening wear, which heretofore involved covering up from head to foot to decrease one’s visibility to the max, is back in styles revealing, and made of fabrics downright neon.

These days we want to be seen, and in technicolor! The key word in the fashion of today is visibility, celebrating the return of sanity and of safety and of the idea that the most important right any of us have, before all else, is the right to live!

Next time, the subject will be tourism. Till then, this has been,

A. J. Aston

Reporting to you live from the United States(alt)

Article first published as An Alternate Reality United States, Part III: Fashion on Blogcritics.

UNITED STATES(alt) - Part II - The Economy

2013-05-04T12:32:00.002-04:00

Hello again! Anastasia here, coming to you live from the heart of the United States(alt). As I promised in my last report, today’s topic of discussions is:

The Economy

Our economy, after we eradicated our budget deficit in it’s entirety, has been very healthy for some years. There are many reasons for this, none the least of which is the fact that we phased out of the almighty greenback and adopted virtual currency. We now only use Bitcoin(alt), saving ourselves the expense of printing banknotes, minting coins and policing all of it against counterfeiters. As Bitcoin(alt) required no central regulating agency to either issue or transfer the currency, the banking industry argued most vociferously against the move. The Departments of Finance and Treasury(alt) which jointly proposed this legislation, fought quite a battle with banking special interest groups by launching media campaigns, all to sway public sentiment their way. Needless to say, the bankers lost. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency was charged with overseeing all Bitcoin(alt) transactions after all twenty one million coins Bitcoins(alt) had been successfully mined.

The banking industry wasn’t made entirely redundant. After all, the rest of the world still used physical currency and we still had to meet our international obligations as we had before. Banks were still needed to handle loans and mortgages as well as convert international currency receivables into Bitcoins(alt), but savings and checking accounts were eliminated since we had no use for these anymore. Same went for credit cards. Household debt dropped as people learned to live within their means. The crime rate went down as there was no physical cash to be stolen from anywhere. Early on there were a few incidents of hackers getting into individual accounts and illegally transferring deposits out but we increased safety measures and this ceased to be a problem. It took us a while to give up the feeling of security we derived from having cold hard (physical) cash but, with time, our phones took over the role of our wallets and now we look at it as having one less thing to carry around.

Another move we made was to assemble a committee of bankers, economists, lawyers and other specialists with the mandate to structure a means by which corporations which heretofore had vast amounts of assets overseas could repatriate those assets back to the U.S.(alt). After many months of haggling, the committee arrived at a solution (grudgingly) accepted to both sides. It was all very complicated and technical; the resulting procedure took several years to implement. Bottom line, the corporations had little choice as leaving their assets where they were risked rendering them worthless. Any effort to diminish those assets by diverting them elsewhere was met with penalties which made that particular exercise very counterproductive.

The U.S.(alt) became awash with cash. This rather fortuitously coincided with advances in medicine in general and geriatric medicine in particular, which resulted in life spans rising to the point where attaining the age of one hundred ceased to be an exceptional event. With life expectancy so much extended, and the overall health of the population, both mental and physical so much improved, middle age was considered as starting around the age of sixty, so we raised the official retirement age to eighty. With people working longer, our tax revenues increased dramatically as did contributions to Social Security(alt).

The influx of repatriated cash plus a consumer base which remained productive for so much longer, translated into an increase in overall disposable income, fueling demand on the market to provide more goods, resulting in expansion of production facilities to supply the same, the new factories and businesses generating new jobs, causing the unemployment rate to drop to somewhere around three percent and staying there. Business net revenues have been rising steadily year after year.

So much for our economy. There are many more things I could tell you - like the fact that, for a time, converting all coin operated machines was quite a profitable little business or that little children, too young to have phones, have the same piggybanks we all had in the old days, but now they contain plastic Bitcoins(alt), given to them by parents and relatives for whatever reason. Once they reach cell phone age, these coins usually get converted into usable currency although we have heard of a few instances where kids got shafted, but that’s another story.

Next time, and for a change of pace, I’ll tell you all about fashion. Till then, this has been,

A. J. Aston

Reporting to you live from the United States(alt)

Article first published as An Alternate Reality United States, Part II: The Economy on Blogcritics.

UNITED STATES (alt) - Part I - Politics

2013-05-01T11:53:00.000-04:00

Hello, my name is Anastasia and I’m coming to you live from the heart of the United States(alt), a country much like yours, but located in a reality alternate to the one you are currently in.

U.S.(alt) is very similar to your U.S., at least at first glance. Our official language is English. Geographically, our land is identical in size and topography to yours. Our cities, our towns, our names - everything looks the same as it does where you are but, underneath the surface, there are quite a few fundamental differences; differences which, you will be pleased to know, did not cause any disruptions in the fabric of the universe since the laws of nature permit deviations between realities. I will use the (alt) designation whenever referring to places here (since they go by the same name as in your U.S.), to avoid any possible confusion on your part. Let us start with:

Politics

First of all, we now have a system of government which we call a “domain direct democracy”. The change came about some years ago when we realized (finally!) that the Constitution(alt) could no longer be taken word for word as the basis for our laws since the document was written too many years ago to be applicable in the present. Not only did it contain too much antiquated terminology which had no reference to our modern day society, it was filled with far too many ambiguities which caused only disputes and divisions among our citizens. Keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence(alt) was signed in 1676, and the Constitution(alt) became law in 1687, one hundred years earlier than yours did, respectively. Our new version of the document is called The Constitution^2.0

In accordance with Constitution^2.0, we are governed by senators, one from each domain, or what you call state. There are three delegates from each of the commonwealths (Puerto Rico(alt), Hawaii(alt) and Alaska(alt) and two ambassadors, one from the District of Columbia(alt) and the other from New York(alt) which declared itself to be a neutral zone domain (rather like Switzerland). Unlike senators, delegates and ambassadors are not eligible to become acting Head of State, (in a rotation which takes place annually) nor can they vote on cabinet appointments e.g. Secretary of State, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, etc. We are no longer a two-party system. We have no parties at all as we learned from the past that, left to their own devices, neither the Democrats(alt) nor Republicans(alt) held true to their party principles. Instead, they became entities onto themselves and used their differences to do nothing while calling it gridlock, a euphemism for “We don’t give a rat’s ass!”

Each senator, delegate or ambassador is elected by a majority vote in his or her domain or commonwealth to represent the wishes of their constituency. Those wishes are now evidenced by referendums in which the people can make their voice heard on individual issues which, at any given time, concern our nation as a whole.

Our politicians no longer have any special exemptions or immunities, nor are they allowed to pass laws which would grant them even the smallest form of preferential treatment. For years Capitol Hill(alt) was populated by men and women who entirely lost sight of why they were elected, instead using their time in office to do little more than enrich themselves. For example - a news program called Sixty Minutes(alt), did a story on members of congressional committees who while making policy affecting certain industries purchased or sold stock of companies in those industries, depending on the impact they knew their policies would make, and they did all this before these policies became public knowledge, their actions constituting nothing less than insider trading, a felony punishable by law for the rest of us. Voter outcry after the program aired forced legislation to stop these activities in the form of what we called the S.T.O.C.K. Act(alt), an acronym for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge. Some months later when the furor died down and the public spotlight moved elsewhere, Congress(alt) very quickly and on the sly, repealed large portions of the legislation, effectively returning things to “business and usual”. This was only one, on a much too long list of instances, in which our politicians created, for themselves, legal ways to circumvent the law of our land.

Like you, we have our special interest groups but their lobbying activities are centered entirely around swaying public sentiment, as influencing the senators, delegates and ambassadors is no longer effectual in any way. They can act in an advisory capacity, assisting our elected officials in understanding the intricacies of a particular issue, but that’s the extent of their activities on Capitol Hill(alt). In the old days, when our system of government was the same as yours, our special interest groups became so powerful, they largely dictated how our country was run (as yours appear to do now). It all began innocently enough. With a myriad of explanations none of us could understand, (probably because they either made little sense or successfully obfuscated their true purpose) politicians structured laws so that political donations and campaign funding by wealthy lobby groups became perfectly legal. With almost all restrictions lifted or easily circumvented, money flowed like manna from heaven, and buying legislation became a widely accepted, if less than transparent, practice. By financing the political careers of elected officials, often from day one, these special interest groups controlled how politicians voted, effectively shutting the electorate out of the whole process. The result was that, over the years, we metamorphosed into a “theoretical” democracy, one which failed abominably in practice.

The changeover wasn’t easy; we had to create the new system in secret. We couldn’t take the risk that the politicians in office would find out what was going on, and write legislation blocking it’s implementation. At snails’ pace is how these people normally did things (if at all) but, when it came to their own interests, they could move with lightning speed. For example, when forced budget cuts resulted in layoffs of air traffic controllers which in turned caused massive delays at airports, Congress(alt) did nothing, not until it dawned on them that they were very soon going on vacation themselves and if they didn’t do something and fast, they would get caught up in the mess they themselves created. Not accustomed to working constructively, never mind at break-neck speed, they scribbled parts of the legislation by hand and submitted it as is for signature! It was almost comical, except that none of us were laughing, too outraged at how openly self-serving they were while publicly touting their ability to set bi-partisan differences aside for the good of the people!

Is it any wonder that, before we did anything else, we instituted a provision which allowed for all existing members of Congress(alt) to be immediately suspended from duty, pending legal action akin to impeachment proceedings. After all was said and done, only a few people were exonerated; the rest were found guilty of abusing their office and unceremoniously fired. New elections were immediately called. Purification Day, as it became known, has been observed annually ever since, to celebrate how far Capitol Hill(alt) has come from those dark days of indolence and corruption.

Any policy changes which do not lend themselves to being decided via the referendum process, are discussed and formulated by a committee comprised of selected members of academia, the corporate and legal community, as well as specialists in the particular field of concern, drafted to act as advisors for the duration. No congressional member is allowed to sit on these committees. The resulting proposal is then presented to Congress(alt) which duly votes on it’s adoption.

Another difference between you and us is that we practice a separation of Church and State which is absolute. So much so, that even such seemingly innocent words as “In God We Trust” are never used. We substituted these with “In the Greater Good We Trust”. No terminology to do with any religion is permitted in conjunction with any governmental activity. No law can be passed, no argument made, no policy or legislation enacted which has even the remotest basis in any scripture. We function strictly within the confines of secular law.

So there you are. These are the basics of how our political system functions. It no longer contains the many pitfalls which your system continues to be plagued with, and which only serve to fuel the ever increasing disconnect between Capitol Hill and the electorate.

Next time, we’ll discuss the economy.

Till then, this has been,

A. J. Aston

Reporting to you live from the United States(alt)

Article first published as An Alternate Reality United States, Part I: Politics on Blogcritics.

The Only One Who Can Stop a Bad Man with a Cigarette, is a Good Man with a Cigarette

2013-04-23T11:37:00.001-04:00

My precioussss.....

Hi, my name is Wynona LaJacques and it's great to be here today, among so many friends, and I appreciate your warm welcome. As you might imagine, I don't get invited to many parties in this town. That's okay. I came to New York City one day last year, but I didn't come here to be popular. I came here to stand for what I believe is true and to smoke a cigarette while I was at it.

The political elites didn’t like it. In fact, their latest assault on the rights of all us smokers came on Monday when this city’s officials announced that they will be putting through a measure banning the sale of cigarettes to anyone under the age of twenty one. Already hobbled by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s dictatorial edicts banning smoking in restaurants and bars, lately expanding to parks, beaches, plazas and other public places, my liberties will now be even further curtailed??

Granted, smoking has, on occasion, harmed a couple of people, here and there and granted, I’ve been over the age of twenty one for a few months now, but that’s not the point!! It’s the principle of the, ah, thing!

Mr. Bloomberg’s efforts are supported by the liberal media who can keep hating on me, but I'm still standing, unapologetic and unflinching in defense of my individual freedom. They can call me crazy (I’m not, my mother had me tested!) and whatever else they want, but I still stand in the ranks of smokers and will not back down -- not now, not ever.

The Declaration of Independence is not just words on parchment. It’s not some frivolous suggestion from our Founding Fathers to be interpreted by whim. It lies at the heart of what this country was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers knew that without The Declaration of Independence, all of our pursuits of happiness and ill health could be in jeopardy.

Our individual liberty is the very essence of America. It is what makes America unique. If you aren’t free to smoke — when the government of New York puts its thumb on that freedom — then you aren’t free at all.

But they insult, denigrate and call me crazy (I’m not, ask my mother!) for holding fast to that belief. In their distorted view of the world, they are smarter than I am. They are special and more worthy than I am. They know better than I do and if I dare disagree, they scorn me, demonize me and try to shut me up. I will not be demonized, I will not be silent. (My mother tried that too, God rest her soul!)

It’s time for a sane look at the insanity that has consumed all too much of the media and the political class in this town. They wag a condemning finger at me. They call ME crazy (I’m not, I told you! My MOTHER had me TESTED!) but no one — no other organization in the world — has spent more money, over more decades, to keep my lungs filled with smoke. I have trained myself in smoking safety, cigarette law enforcement, I’ve trained to be a woman smoker, to teach other smokers about cigarettes, educate other smokers about smoking out prey in the woods, and have turned my head from many a child when blowing smoke.

While cigarette smoking is still out there, my smoke related illnesses are at an all-time low. Every year, I have made plans to teach millions of law abiding people how to use, store and kill themselves with cigarettes (but I just haven’t gotten around to that yet.)

I have smoked with (a few of) America’s military and law enforcement officers since cigarettes and me have been around.

And they call me crazy? (My mother... Oh, never mind!) They say I’m the problem? In December, I advocated nothing more than surrounding our schoolchildren with the same level of cigarette smoke as I enjoy in my home and watching sports on TV — smoke, not vapor!

The vast majority of American smokers agree and favor a trained, smoking police or security officer puffing away in every school. In a survey of all 50 states, nearly a very high percent of teachers and administrators said they had a cigarette at one time or another and teaching little children all about the benefits of owning and using cigarettes would make their lives safer.

There isn’t a mom or a dad anywhere who wouldn’t feel better seeing a police car with smoke billowing out of it’s windows in the parking lot when they drop their kids off at school.

But the powerful elites, who will always have their own cigars and cigarettes, called my proposal absurd.

You know what’s really absurd? Not teaching our children at school how to smoke.

Thousands of our schools today remain as vulnerable as ever to the evil intentions of a mad health fanatic. While the Department of Smoker’s Welfare offers this from its website:

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or your cigarette, you might consider trying to fan the smoke away with whatever means are available,” a narrator says, while the video shows an office worker pulling an e-cigarette out of a drawer.

E-cigarette? That’s their answer?

A.J. Aston

Article first published as The Only One who Can Stop a Bad Man with a Cigarette, is a Good Man with a Cigarette on Blogcritics.

Adding Tremendous Insult to Horrendous Injury

2013-04-21T14:55:00.003-04:00

As most of you know by now, the Manchin-Toomey Amendment to the S.649, Firearms Bill was defeated. A filibuster by the Republicans forced a 60 vote requirement for the bill to pass and the count fell six votes short. In a situation in which 86% of Americans want expanded background checks, (according to a CNN/ORC International poll released last week), you would thing that a more or less equal percentage of the senators would vote in favor of an amendment which calls for just that. In a country where elected officials do their job and carry out the wishes of their constituency, you would be right but, judging by this vote, the United States is not that country. No, in this country, for many politicians, their only agenda is to get into office again. I don’t use the term “re-elected” because it seems to have little meaning anymore. We think we “elect” our representatives but all we do, is choose the person best able to convince us of their sincerity and dedication to our cause. Once in Washington, their sincerity and dedication goes to the highest bidder, selling the only thing they have to offer - their vote. There is no other way to look at this. This particular amendment was not an attempt to correct a “potentially” problematic situation. It was not a theoretical or pre-emptive fix. No, this amendment came on the heels of a terrible tragedy but even an appeal from the grieving parents of the children killed in Newtown, did nothing to budge the senators loyalty to the NRA and their money.

It’s not enough to give a vote count. It is important to know the names of those who sold out. They are:

Lamar Alexander Tennessee (R)

Kelly Ayotte New Hampshire (R)

John Barrasso Wyoming (R)

Max Baucus Montana (D)

Mark Begich Alaska (D)

Roy Blunt Missouri (R)

John Boozman Arkansas (R)

Richard Burr North Carolina (R)

Saxby Chambliss Georgia (R)

Dan Coats Indiana (R)

Tom Coburn Oklahoma (R)

Thad Cochran Mississippi (R)

Bob Corker Tennessee (R)

John Cornyn Texas (R)

Michael Dean Crapo Idaho (R)

Ted Cruz Texas (R)

Mike Enzi Wyoming (R)

Deb Fischer Nebraska (R)

Jeff Flake Arizona (R)

Lindsey Graham South Carolina (R)

Chuck Grassley Iowa (R)

Orrin Hatch Utah (R)

Heidi Heitkamp North Dakota (D)

Dea Heller Nevada (R)

John Hoeven North Dakota (R)

Jim Inhofe Oklahoma (R)

John Hardy Isakson Georgia (R)

Mike Johanns Nebraska (R)

Ron Johnson Wisconsin (R)

Mike Lee Utah (R)

Mitch McConnell Kentucky (R)

Jerry Moran Kansas (R)

Lisa Murkowski Alaska (R)

Rand Paul Kentucky (R)

Rob Portman Ohio (R)

Mark Pryor Arkansas (D)

Harry Reid Nevada (D)**

James Risch Idaho (R)

Pat Roberts Kansas (R)

Marco Rubio Florida (R)

Tim Scott South Carolina (R)

Jefferson Sessions Alabama (R)

Richard Shelby Alabama (R)

John Thune South Dakota (R)

David Vitter Louisiana (R)

Roger Wicker Mississippi (R)

** Note that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, cast a "no" vote only to secure the ability to bring the measure up again.

Four Republicans joined most Democrats in supporting the compromise, voting in line with the wishes of their constituency and heeding the urgently obvious moral imperative They did their job as it should be done and must be acknowledged here. They are:

Susan Collins Maine (R)

Mark Kirk Illinois (R)

John McCain Arizona (R)

Pat Toomey Pennsylvania (R)

Conversly, three Democrats were the worst sell-outs of them all, betraying their party, their President, and worst of all, all those who voted for them. In essence, they gave us the finger when they voted “No”. They are:

Max Baucus Montana (D)

Mark Begich Alaska (D)

Mark Pryor Arkansas (D)

President Obama called it a "pretty shameful day for Washington" and wondered, "Who are we here to represent?" An excellent question to which we, unfortunately, now have a clear answer: the NRA!

In this morning’s Opinion Pages of the New York Times, Gabrielle Giffords, in article entitled “A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip”, writes of those who voted against the measure:

“They will try to hide their decision behind grand talk, behind willfully false accounts of what the bill might have done — trust me, I know how politicians talk when they want to distract you — but their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest. I say misplaced, because to preserve their dignity and their legacy, they should have heeded the voices of their constituents. They should have honored the legacy of the thousands of victims of gun violence and their families, who have begged for action, not because it would bring their loved ones back, but so that others might be spared their agony.”

No one could have said it any better!

In the meantime, the NRA promised political retribution against supporters of tougher gun laws, calling the expanded background checks a first step toward a national gun registry and government confiscation of firearms. As President Obama put it, “The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. It came down to politics.” These days, it seems, “politics” equals a betrayal of public trust.

Senator Harry Reid warned Republicans that the strong majority of Americans who support expanded background checks won't forget votes against the Manchin-Toomey compromise. "The American people ... have a long, long memory," he said. Yes, we most certainly do……

A. J. Aston

Article first published as Adding Tremendous Insult to Horrendous Injury on Blogcritics.

The Antics of Capitol Hill

2013-04-20T12:56:00.000-04:00

Ladies and gentlemen, if I may have your attention!

Thank you.

We have all come together this evening to honor the next recipients of the “Polysemous Politician” award or, as we affectionately call it, the Pee-Pee!

As you know, throughout the year, our committee painstakingly monitors the activities of people in public service on the federal, state or local level, whether Democrat or Republican, to find the person or people who, in our humble opinion, make a notable, shall we say, impression on the political landscape of these here United States. We do this by reviewing all legislative proposals, without regard as to whether such legislation eventually becomes adopted or not. What we look for are actions which can be termed as nothing short of staggering. We seek those special someones who, by the very nature of what they say and do, astonish us, makes us speechless in incredulity and agog in wonder! Please note (and I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of what I am about to say), that our choice is NOT an endorsement of the views politicians we choose espouse. The committee prides itself in keeping it’s personal opinions out of the selection process.

The competition is always fierce. Indeed, our elected officials have been, as usual, very active, filing proposals on a variety of subjects such as gun control, abortion, labor unions and emigration, to name a few. Our current recipients - the proposed legislation which attracted out attention was initially sponsored by two people - chose to focus on a subject which, by all accounts, required no legislation. Until they made their voice heard, there was no pressing issue which needed resolving. There was no outcry from their constituency nor from the public in general. As with so much of the activity on the Hill, carried out in concert with large (and very wealthy) special interests groups, likely their actions served a specific agenda but, in a litigious society such as ours, it would be foolhardy for us to speculate, out loud, just how 'tangible' the goal of said agenda might be.

Before we bring out our winners, let us give you the title of the proposed legislation:

S. 462: United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013

113th Congress, 2013–2015. Text as of Mar 05, 2013 (Introduced).

To enhance the strategic partnership between the United States and Israel.

This bill and the significance of it’s provisions are best summarized by Mike Coogan, legislative coordinator, U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation. Our the committee found section 9 of this bill particularly interesting as it would, as Glen Greenwald of The Guardian wrote, “uniquely exempt Israel from long-standing requirements imposed on all other nations.”

Mr. Greenwald goes on to say:

“More amazingly, the only purpose of this exemption from these US senators would be to allow Israel to discriminate against the citizens of the country these senators are supposed to represent.”

Need we say more?

Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, I give you,

Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California

and

Roy Blunt, Republican from Missouri.

Our winners have given new meaning to the idea that U.S. politicians should, first and foremost, represent the interests of U.S. citizens! Congratulations!

A. J. Aston

Article first published as Absurdity on Capitol Hill on Blogcritics.

From Outside In

2013-04-18T20:12:00.001-04:00

The stuff votes are made of.....

While the two sides of the isle cannot even agree on what the root cause of gun violence in this country is, the Europeans, hearing reports of yet another mass shooting in the U.S., scratch their heads and wonder what the hell is our problem.

The answer is that the devil, as they say, is in the details, and what the Europeans don’t hear about is a not so small detail called the NRA. Though it is neither a governmental institution, nor is it run by elected officials, yet, when it comes to the subject of firearms, the NRA has had more than 230 legislative victories in the past ten years and on the state level alone, never mind federal. Why is that? Judging by the likes of Wayne LaPierre, they are neither intelligent, nor very persuasive in their arguments which are often as outlandish as they are misleading or downright untrue. Is it that Mr. LaPierre is just so incredibly charming? Hardly. Even among his staunchest supporters, I doubt “charm” is anywhere among the words which spring to their minds in connection with ol’ Wayne.

So what other reason is there? Well, let us answer that question with another. If the NRA was an organization with limited or no financial resources, would they have been able to push as many laws through as they have? Not bloody likely. So then, it must all comes down to money. Lots and lots of money being funneled to where it can do the most good for the NRA’s cause. But wait a minute! Money being paid to buy legislation? Isn’t that what we call “corruption” when it happens somewhere else? No, you say, here it’s not corruption because it’s done legally. Aha, legally…..do you mean because, there just happen to be so many loopholes built into the laws that this money can flow unimpeded or questioned? Remind me, who was it who wrote those loopholes in, in the first place? Who added all those caveats here and there for manna to rain from “benefactors” such as the NRA or, say, Americans for Tax Reform, another “poor” organization, this time working to further the cause of the financially challenged!

Now, I admit, maybe it’s not exactly non-sequential, used bills, stuffed into briefcases, changing hands in secret locations, maybe cash goes through several permutations and transformations before it benefits it’s intended target but hey, doesn’t a rose by any other name, still smell as sweet? All expenses paid trips, campaign funding, a favor here, a discount there? They all had to start at some point as Jacksons, Grants and Franklins before being converted into something else, no? Ah, hang on! I seem to recall that this sort of thing is called….now, don’t tell me, it’ll come to me any minute….oh yes, money laundering! Well, well….No, you say? It’s not money laundering because the money used was not proceeds from an illegal enterprise? Oh, O.K., then. How about we just call it something like, I don’t know, “cash disguising” or “currency dress-up”? Does that sound better?

We are most vociferous when pointing our self-righteous finger of indignation, shouting our claim for all to hear that it it our duty to teach our moral values to all those countries rampant with corruption, that it is our responsibility to stamp out money laundering by drug cartels and mobs, that we as the most law-abiding nation in the world must set an example, we must be the shinning beacon of light when it comes to honesty and integrity. Really?

A. J. Aston

Article first published as From Outside In on Blogcritics.

Testimony of an Egg

2013-04-06T12:21:00.000-04:00

My name is Ovum. I, uh….

How is that spelled?

Oh-Vee-You-Em, Your Honor.

Thank you. What brings you before us today?

I have been unjustly accused of wrong-doing.

Please explain.

Well, Your Honor, it all started when my sister and I were given permission to go out. We were floating down a narrow alley, just minding our own business, when an army of these beings - I cannot describe them any other way - came charging at us out of nowhere. Soon, we were surrounded. One of these guys just wouldn’t leave me alone. He kept on hitting on me. I tried to ignore him (I didn’t want any trouble) but he was really persistent, kept pushing and pushing at me! Before I knew it, he managed to burrow his way inside me. I…..,

What did he look like?

Um, difficult to say. They all looked alike. They were kind of rotund and, oh yes, I remember they were all wearing the same funny outfits or costumes. Made them look like they had tails, you see. Maybe they belonged to a club or were in the chorus of a play or something, I have no idea. That’s all I remember. It was dark out, I couldn’t see very well.

Wasn’t your assailant close enough to identify?

Well, yes he was, but I can’t really describe him, Your Honor, because he came at me from behind and every time I turned around, he just just stayed right back there…..So anyway, since I couldn’t get him out from under my skin again, well, you know, if you can’t beat them, might as well join them, right?

Do not be flippant!

Yes, Your Honor, I apologize. Let me rephrase. We both wanted to make the best of an awkward situation so we discussed the problem and then decided that the only solution was to combine forces and merge. We, uh, I became a zygote. Then one day a strange thing happened. My eyes were closed at the time so I can’t say exactly what went on but, when I opened them again, there were two of us. We were an exact replica of one another. At first, I thought I was seeing things….,

Had you been drinking?

No, Your Honor, I was not, I swear. Anyway, from then on, every so often, the same thing would happen again. Suddenly, there was four of us, then we were eight, then sixteen, then thirty two; we were multiplying faster and faster. Since we were all identical and got along famously, we decided to keep going, make something of ourselves, you know?

Please continue.

Oh, right! Well, anyway, now I was a full-fledged embryo, taking my orders from the mother ship. I’d like to note here that there was absolutely no discussion! I was never asked for my thoughts and opinions regarding the project! I had to do what I was told and to the letter. Mine was not to reason why, mine was but to do or….well, die. Material was periodically sent down to make whatever conversions and adjustments to our structure. I used everything I was given, Your Honor! Every last drop. I didn’t pilfer or skimp or steal so if anyone had a problem with the end result, they should have addressed it to the mother ship, not to me! I did my part and….

Get to the point!

I was just going to do that, Your Honor. The whole project from conception to completion, took nine months. It was a lot of work but, well, as the fetus in question, I think I was well worth it! One day I was told that all systems were go. It was time for the birthday.

What do you mean birthday? What birthday?

All projects such as mine end in a birthday, Your Honor! That’s just the nature of what happens to ova like me. Anyway, when I found out that I would be born somewhere in the United States, I was so happy! You should have seen me! I was kicking up a storm! I was going to be a U.S. citizen the second I hit open air! I would have all these rights and privileges even before my brain fired it’s first synapse!

Such as?

In a nutshell, Your Honor, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Please elaborate.

Well, (once I was old enough, of course) I would be able to vote, I could live anywhere I felt like it, go to school and study whatever I wanted (or not), choose any profession which suited me, practice any religion, fall in love with whoever captivated my heart, get married, start a family, whatever. There was nothing that I, as a law-abiding U.S. citizen, would not be not free to do.

So what’s the problem?

The problem, Your Honor, is that even though I was built exactly as the mother ship instructed and even though I never, ever so much as J-walked, still I was told that, although I had full citizenship rights when I was born, my sexual orientation somehow automatically revoked of some of these rights.

Which rights were these?

I was told I had no right to legally marry the person I loved. This meant that federal benefits available to married couples would be denied to me and my partner.

What was the reason given for this?

They said that since the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and same-sex couple do not conform to that definition, we are, therefore, prohibited from entering into this institution and consequently, cannot enjoy it’s benefits under the law.

Please summarize your complaint.

Using my sexual orientation as reason for denying my rights is nothing short of saying that there is something ‘wrong’ with me and, as if that wasn’t bad enough, it’s adding absurdity to insult, by implying that I am somehow responsible for it! How any of us arrive in this world, what our gender is, what skin, hair or eye color we have, what our sexual orientation is, what traits we do or do not possess - is not of our choosing! Denying rights to anyone just because they were born one way and not another is discriminatory, not to mention patently unfair! It is ludicrous to hold anyone accountable for how they were genetically programmed just as it would be absurd to hold the mother ship accountable for doing the programming in the first place! I seek redress and justice!

Thank you for your testimony. We will now adjourn to discuss this issue and render our verdict.

Sometime later……

We, this Court, find that, since the Constitution and English common law are the foundation for laws governing the United States, then any new laws or amendments enacted should have their legal basis exclusively in one or the other of these two entities. Since biblical principles are neither part of the Constitution nor English Law, then any laws or amendments to the Constitution based on said biblical principles are, ipso facto, illegal.

Further, under the 1st Amendment, the government is prohibited from imposing its religious beliefs on the citizenry by the enactment of laws which would serve that very purpose. Such enactments were viewed by our Founding Fathers as directly infringing on the rights of citizens to practice their own religious beliefs. That neither the Bible, nor God, nor the Creator nor any other Deity are mentioned in the Constitution, was not an oversight on the part of our Founding Fathers. They specifically chose not to do so as they strongly believed in the separation of church and state.

In light of the above, the disallowing same sex marriage is contrary to the spirit of the 1st Amendment. Further and most alarmingly, it flies in the face of the very authority of the Constitution! The United States is a secular society and, as such, is governed by laws based on secular, not religious tenets, the main principles being fairness and equality.

We, this Court, find that, just as the government, on any level, be it federal, state or local, cannot deny the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens for reasons of gender, religious belief, ethnicity, race, creed or color, so too, denying such rights based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional and therefore, illegal.

We are adjourned!

A. J. Aston

An Assumption Really Can Make an Ass Out of…..

2013-02-04T12:58:00.003-05:00

This adage was oh, so true last night, when Super Bowl XLVII collided with my ignorance.

As I’m sure you all know, each sport has it’s own specific terminology. To those who are uninitiated, commentary to the game’s events not only does not help, it confuses things even further. For example, to someone unfamiliar with soccer, being told that a player is “off-sides” or that he was given a “free kick” would mean about as much as “line of scrimmage” or “double reverse” or “fourth down conversion” meant to me, i.e. bupkus.

Understandably therefore, the Super Bowl was not what I was planning to watch, unable as I would have been, to follow what the hell was going on. Having said that, I confess that I did, at one point, switch to the game, but only to see how good the commercials were and to watch the much publicized half-time show. Once that was over I went back to watching Downton Abbey which I found infinitely more interesting.

At eleven pm I again switched to CBS to find out who won the game. Since I have no idea how long a traditional football game lasts, the fact that it was still on was not, to my mind, noteworthy one way or another. The score was now San Francisco 29, Baltimore 34 (or something like that). The commentators blathered on about “conversions”and “time-outs” and something called a “power outage” which I assumed was just another American football euphemism - this one coined to describe what players often experience after having, in a short period of time, exerted more than the usual amount of energy on the field in an effort to gain points and close a large (and perhaps humiliating) gap in the score (which San Francisco had indeed done).

It wasn’t till the next morning that I found out that the lights went out for thirty four minutes during the second half of the game…..

Sometimes an ass is just a farm animal….or me watching football.

A.J. Aston

Breaking News! Ship of Fools Crashes into Twitter Dock! Legions Blacklisted!

2013-01-18T13:13:00.001-05:00

Yesterday evening at 7:03p.m. EVT (Eastern Virtual Time), the captain of the Ship of Fools, Pequod Hornblower, shed three, albeit very large, tears when he admitted that he was tweeting while steering the ship into the harbor. Focusing all of his efforts on making sure his messages exactly conformed to Twitter format and did not exceed the character limit, he took his eyes off the ship’s course and ‘accidentally’ eliminated 15,726 Twitter followers in the process.

The victims of this unfortunate mishap were going about their usual monkey chain building business when the giant ship appeared at Twitter’s harbor entrance. Realizing that a large contingent of possible followees were close at hand and could be had, the social media devotees flocked to the dock, preparing to greet the new arrivals by tweeting ‘follow’ invitations to the passengers on board.

An eye witness described the scene:

“Everyone was waving and cheering as the huge ship floated towards them, happy at the prospect of having so many new ‘friends’! Much too late they realized that the ship was not slowing down at all and, before they knew it, the bow of the ship rose up before then like a tsunami wave and then crashed into their ‘unfollow’ buttons, kicking one and all out of Twitter. It was a sad, sad day!”

It is estimated that the captain’s astonishing incompetence on the job had detrimental effects on twenty seven million, four hundred forty two Twitter residents, sixteen thousand, eighty one Twitter dogs, several thousands Twitter cats and a gerbil, not to mention the crew of the ship who, immediately following the incident, were so outraged, they tried to hang the man from the nearest yardarm. Twitter police had to be called in to disperse the murderous mob. After cooling down, the group filed charges against their less than superior officer, alleging he was a f***ing idiot.

A spokesman for the cruise line company, operator of the ship, in a rare, by-partisan joint press conference with Twitter government officials, assured the victims and their families that a full and transparent investigation of the incident will be launched immediately after the two sides agree on who the members of the investigating committee shall be. When asked how long the selection process will take, the spokesman said:

“We will do our utmost to reach consensus as soon as possible although, given the current political atmosphere, we suggest you don’t hold your breath.”

To the question regarding the restoration of the ‘unfollowed’ to their rightful place among the Twitter population, the spokesman indicated that resurrection on such a massive scale would not be possible at this time. Sorry.

Lawyers from all over the world are now flocking to Twitter, anxious to sign up as many of the victims of this unfortunate event as they can, in an effort to launch a massive class action suits against everybody and their mother.

Stay tuned for further details of this ridiculous story as it unfolds… Or not.

Reporting to you live at the scene (we consider reporting dead highly unprofessional), this is,

A.J. Aston

for ABC News

(Aston Broadcasting Company)

An Infamy Shared...

2012-12-17T10:11:00.000-05:00

By her own account, Nancy Lanza was the mother of a disturbed boy, a painfully shy misfit, an odd piece in the puzzle that is our society. Did she help him to overcome this? Did she make every effort to support him in his efforts to find a place for himself among us? To teach him that ‘different’ is really just another word for ‘special’ or ‘exceptional’? That he too was somebody who counted? Did she honestly believe that taking such a boy out of school, isolating him even more, and introducing him to guns and rifles was a reasonable or logical alternative? A viable means of socialization? Or was it just another activity a mother and her emotionally unstable son could share? We may never know what she was thinking. We may even find out that she did try to get Adam help, did do her utmost to teach him how to cope but there is no denying that, by putting a gun in his hand, Nancy took the grenade that was Adam and pulled out the pin. He could do nothing other than explode and explode he did.

There are probably a great many grenades among us and, too often, we don’t even know it. But Nancy knew! She knew damn well! I do not excuse or defend Adam, but it must be acknowledged that it was likely his mother’s actions which were instrumental in flipping the switch. She aimed the lightning bolt directly at her son and breathed another kind of soul into him. Carnage ensued. So who is to blame for it? The monster or Dr. Frankenstein? Or both?

There are those who advocate that we should have more, not less guns, that arming ourselves to the teeth is the way to go. Nancy did just that. She armed herself with the result that Adam, who heretofore had done nothing remotely violent in his life, was handed the ideal tools to become one of the most infamous criminals we have ever known.

A.J. Aston

Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill Blah, Blah, Bullshit!

2012-12-14T21:03:00.000-05:00

True, guns don’t kill people. Angry, deranged, disturbed, people do. People with a grudge, people with something to prove, people wanting notoriety, people with an agenda. But all those madmen (of the 43 mass shootings in this country in the last twenty or so years, only one was committed by a woman) would not have had the capacity to be as deadly if they had been unable to get their hands on guns and rifles and AK-47’s.

In light of what has happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, all other issues, concerns and arguments, everything which, till today, has occupied and/or divided us, pales into insignificance by comparison. It is why I have removed the petition on higher taxes for the rich from my blog. I can’t see that it matters, not just now. I was, for a brief moment, tempted to replace it with one calling for stricter control of firearms, but this is not the time. This is the time to think of the twenty children and six adults who lost their lives to bullets, shot out of guns in the hands of a person who should have never, ever had access to them in the first place!

My heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims, their friends and colleagues, to the residents of Newtown, and indeed, to this nation.

A.J. Aston

To The Pledge or to The People?

2012-12-05T18:05:00.000-05:00

Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that in these here United States of America, politicians owed their jobs to the electorate, namely all of us, not just some of us. In return for such employment, said politicians are charged with the duty of carrying the voices of the people to Washington, there to speak on our behalf, rich and poor alike.

For months now, the debate has raged on the subject of the effective tax rate the super rich pay in comparison to the rest of us lesser mortals. The President and Democrats are for leveling out the playing field, while the Republicans and John Boehner are against.

The most compelling reason for a tax hike on the wealthiest among us is, to my mind, a very basic one and that is the issue of equity. Present tax rates are just not fair!

An argument against, and spoken least often about, is one which I find quite baffling, not to say highly questionable. It is, (insert ominous music here) The Pledge. You know, the one which was signed by ALL but 16 of the incoming Republican members of the House of Representatives and ALL but 12 of the Republicans currently in Congress? Signed at the behest of Grover Norquist of the ‘(Not all) Americans for Tax Reform’? The one where the signatories promise never, ever, ever to raise taxes, particularly not on the top one percent of earners in this country? The pledge which Grover maintains is as solemn, if not more so, than, say, wedding vows? (Actually, he may be right on that score, judging by some of the scandals coming out of Washington, but I digress….)

Yeah, that’s it, that’s the one! Keeping in mind that some of these pledges, as you may know, were signed as long as twenty years ago, or a fifth of a century, a generation, a bloody long time ago, I feel compelled to ask:

How did the people who signed this pledge THEN, know what the people who elect them into office might want TODAY?

Before you answer this question, let me remind you of the oath which all members of Congress must say, out loud, for all to hear, right hand over left heart:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

I don’t know about you but I don’t see anything in there about supporting and defending the pledge to Grover Norquist above and before the Constitution, that little, not insignificant piece of paper which is the framework of this country, the principals on which all else was and is built, the basic premise of all government and it’s elected members, you know, the ones elected by the People, for the People? It don’t say nothin’ ‘bout no Grover….

So, then, ah, who are these Republicans really working for ‘cause damned if I know….

I think they need to be reminded, I think they need to hear from their actual employers, from us! One way to do that is to sign the petition, the one at the top there, in the upper right hand corner of this blog? Yeah, that’s the one!

Please sign, won’t you?

Thank you muchly!

A. J. Aston

Denial Ain’t Just a River in Egypt…

2012-11-27T10:15:00.000-05:00

I wrote that line! You are all my witnesses in case anybody asks, right? It’s a fact! You just read it, on MY blog, in black and white! Can’t denial that!

I’m sure a few people out there will go around saying that I wasn’t the first one to do so, but my answer to them is, ‘Get a life!’ I mean, really! Why make such a fuss?

O.K., O.K.! Fine! So it was Mark Twain who wrote the line before me but hey, that was sooo long ago…..

Speaking of denial - I hate Phillip Roth! There, I said it! Yes, I did and I do. Any writer slash hoping to get published and become an author type person person, should detest Phillip Roth! Why? I’ll tell you why!

At the suggestion of a friend who shall remain nameless to protect her identity (Rosie, I know you meant well but you know what they say about the road to Hell and all that…), I spent the last few days reading ‘American Pastoral’ (that’s why I was gone for so long, by the way!) and oh, how I wish I hadn’t! It really unnerved me! There is something seriously not right about that book! There are forces at work here and I, for one, am very suspicious! Very suspicious indeed! Any reasonable person would be, I say.

The way I see it, we all write with the same English language. There is no common English and then a deluxe version - it’s all one and the same set of expressions all of us use every day. Yes, I admit, there were a few words in Mr. Roth’s book I had to look up, but that was just to make sure he wasn’t making something up just to make his prose sound more clever. I did my research, I checked my facts, I’m not just spewing off the top of my head, willy nilly, I know whereof I speak!

Nobody can convince me that this man just took all the same words I have used many a time in my writing, that all he did was put them in a a particular order and hey, presto! he produces a literary classic that just blows you away! I just refuse to believe that. It’s not possible, not without something else, something nobody sees. Nobody except me that is. Can’t pull the wool over my eyes! No sir! Uh-uh!

I have a theory. It has to do with hypnotism. I think that Mr. Roth figured out how to arrange certain letters or words (I’m not sure which yet, but I’m working on it!) in such an order that when the reader is exposed to this combination, over and over again, they fall under a spell which tell them ‘You will love this book! You will love this book! You will think it’s one of the best you have ever, ever read and you will feel compelled to tell everyone that….’ Oh my God! See? See, what did I tell you! It’s working on me too, even though I know what’s going on!! This is worse than I thought!

And another thing - ‘American Pastoral’ is an insidious plot to get rid of the competition! Damn it, it has to be! There is no other way to look at it! After reading the book, a writer, even as self-respecting as I, will hear the words “Don’t quit your day job! Don’t quit your day job!” just screaming in their heads! It’s horrible! I’ve been on pain killers ever since I finished and that was two days ago! Oh, the migraine! I cannot face the facts, I just CAN’T! Yet, the truth of the matter is undeniable and that is:

Mr. Phillip Roth could get a frontal lobotomy

and he’d still write better than I ever could!

I think I’ll put my coloring paper and crayons away and go do something else….

A.J. Aston

A. J. phone Him...

2012-11-21T19:44:00.000-05:00

I called God. Picked up the phone and dialed G - O - D. Numerically, it’s 4 - 6 - 3. (Depending on where you are, you may have to dial a ‘1’ first.)

The call was answered on the second ring which really, I mean REALLY, freaked me out! To be perfectly honest (as opposed to my usual kinda honest), I didn’t expect Him to pick up.

A voice boomed, “ALMIGHTY.”

(Tip: Always remember, when calling Him, to keep the receiver a little distance away from you. My eardrum was almost blown out, except that I dropped the handset right when He answered.)

“Oh, uh,--” I suddenly didn’t know what to say next. Identifying myself seemed so, well…. superfluous somehow, given that He knows everything anyway! It might have come across as, I don’t know, insulting maybe? On the other hand, not saying my name seemed rather rude.

“I hope,--”, I was going to say that I hoped I wasn’t catching him at a bad time, He might have been in the middle of dinner or something. (I had no idea what time zone, in which universe, He was in when I called). Then again, if it had been a bad time, He wouldn’t have answered the phone! Duh!

“I, uh,--” I was at a loss for words. There were so many things I wanted Him to do for me, so many things which needed fixing, but I have manners, you know? It seemed appropriate to first say something like ‘How are you?’ or better still, “How art Thou?’ Ask about the family, show interest. On second thought, that didn’t seem right either! He’s God, after all. There is no ‘how’ in his, ah, situation, is there? He just ‘is’. Period. Same probably goes for Jesus.

“Can I ask,--” I blurted, “I, uh, wanted to request,--” Shit! What do I mention first? It seemed selfish to start off with my problems when there were so many global ‘issues’ which desperately needed His intervention! So many people suffering….

It’s one thing when I talk to Him in my head. Then it’s, ‘Oh come on! God! Not another rejection slip!! I mean, really?!’ Or when I’m driving - ‘God, please, please, don’t let my transmission die! Not here, not fu…, uh, not now!' I ask for all kinds of things and I bargain, ‘the Lotto jackpot this Saturday is looking quite biggish! What say, You give me the numbers and I’ll spread the gravy around?’, as if that might tip the scales in my favor. Sometimes, it’s just a general ‘Give me a break already!!’ Like that….

But this, this was different! We were actually talking, on the phone! Communicating! Forth and back! An honest to God (pardon!) two-way conversation! Lucky I didn’t use Skype. That would have been beyond embarrassing! I looked such a mess! Oh, I forgot! He could see me….

What to say? Think! Think! Can’t keep Him waiting! My mouth was so dry that my lips stuck to my teeth. I said something like “Sorry to bother you!”, although it came out sounding more like "Sowwy doo bover oo!", and then I put the receiver down, ever so gently. I couldn’t handle talking with the Almighty! Not directly, not like that. It was just too much!

From now on, I’m sticking to the ‘conventional’ thinking to Him, same as before. Much easier and much cheaper, I mean, there’s long distance and then there’s LONG DISTANCE ^nth! My phone bill will be delivered by truck this month….

Hope He wasn’t offended that I hung up on Him. Otherwise, there’ll be hell to pay….

Happy Thanksgiving!

A.J. Aston

Homage to a Brilliant Book

2012-11-20T10:05:00.000-05:00

Overcoming my reluctance, I finally went to see a book matchmaker because, well, though I had been with a lot of good reads lately, I was looking for the Book Perfect! You know, that special ONE? The one that comes along only once in a while, and when it does, it just knocks your reading glasses off? The one that makes you laugh out loud, shed a tear (but in a good way), gives you advice and support when you need it, is honest and straightforward, doesn’t try to sell you bullshit? I know, I know, It was a lot to ask, but I had my dreams….

The matchmaker was a pleasant-looking lady of middle age, average height, and a weight which placed her rather closer to the upper end of the, ah, ‘full-figured’ category. She was the kind of woman who wore sensible shoes, support hose, tweed skirts topped by twin sets, short hair sprayed into immobility, minimal jewelry, no make-up and the requisite bifocals on a beaded, extra-long chain, to make allowances for the ample bosom beyond which these glasses had to hang when not perched on the end of her nose.

She had a no-nonsense way about her, getting right to the heart of the matter, just after we greeted one another and exchanged the very briefest of pleasantries while sitting down. Handing me a multi-page questionnaire and a blue regulation pen, she said she would return in fifteen minutes and promptly left the room.

A quarter of an hour later, on the dot, she marched back in and, looking at me with expectant eyes, sat down behind her desk. Her hand shot out in my direction, eager to grasp the pages which would tell her what she needed to know to create her matchmaking magic.

I confess, I was skeptical. How could I not be when the questions I was asked to respond to had nothing to do with my reading preferences or history? They weren’t in any way personal in nature, they wanted to know nothing specific! General to the point of innocuous, I can’t now remember a single one of them.

The matchmaker went to work. For half an hour I watched in silence while she tapped the keys of her computer, feverishly feeding my replies into a secret program she was rumored to have written herself. Finally, with triumph, she pressed the last “Enter”, removed he bifocals which duly came to rest suspended just below her frontal overhang, looked at me with eyes crinkled in mirth and a smile on her lips, winked, then leaned back in her chair and sighed with satisfaction.

“Rupert will tell us everything we need to know!”, she said.

“Rupert?” I had no idea who she was talking about.

“My program, of course!” She stroked the side of her computer lovingly. “I named it Rupert!“

“Oh.”

Soon, Rupert, in his algorithmic wisdom, sent his answers to the printer standing nearby. I expected to see a single name emerge - the title of my quintessential read. Instead, the printer hummed for several lines, paused, then printed some more on another page, paused again, printed one line on the third sheet and, finally, fell silent.

The matchmaker explained, “This first page--,” she waved it at me, “-- shows you profile - what you look for in a book, what you want from it, the attributes it must posses.” Rather than handing the information to me, she replaced the dangling bifocals back on her nose and began to read:

“First - the choices you make are indeed intellectual (as they should be) but also somewhat emotional and always filled with hope. Hope that the prospective book and you are compatible, that it will speak in a language you’ll respect and therefore enjoy. You want it to be well written or else you feel compelled to walk away and soon.

Second - your reading must lead to your learning. Learning of other times, people, places, situations, other thoughts, wisdoms and opinions, other mistakes and other solutions. It has to bring you closer to answering the questions you have or, perhaps, to recognizing the questions you failed to ask. You have to relate to the story, see yourself in it, somewhere, somehow. In a word, you have to ‘feel’ it.

Third - You like a book to have takeout, to hand you, if you will, a doggie bag at the end, after the last page, one filled with food for further thought.

If your ‘ideal’ book doesn’t do all that, you are not satiated, you’re left disappointed and wanting.” She looked up at me. “For you, it’s rather like eating rice crackers - a lot of chewing for nothing!” She giggled at the analogy which was of her own making. Rupert did not have the wherewithal for such frivolity.

I was astonished. The profile was spot on but how did Rupert know all that? The questionnaire asked about nothing in particular yet there they were - all my edification desires in a nutshell!

My thoughts were interrupted by the voice of the matchmaker who continued reading:

“This next page lists book types you are not attracted to. It is rather general, just to give some idea of what you shy away from:

Biographies - You prefer to hold on to your illusions (however off the mark they may be) and know the famous people you like or admire largely through the body of their work. Rather like the fans of Joan Crawford, you don’t want to feel the emotions “Mommy Dearest” must have unleashed. As for autobiographies, Rupert says I should not even mention these!” She looked quizzically at me.

I nodded.

She went on, “Young Adult - You read “Bonjour Tristesse” but that’s about it.

Science Fiction - “Neuromancer” was your first foray into the genre. Talk about jumping in at the deep end!” She laughed. “You nearly drowned in that one and have been leery of this particular pool ever since.

Stories of redemption, prodigal offspring seeing the light and returning to the embrace of their loved ones, love conquers all, uplifting and/or moving, sickly sweet - Not for you.

Romance - Their Freude causes you Schaden.

Horror - Their Schaden gives you no Freude.”

Dumbfounded, all I could do was stare in amazement!

“Finally,--” the matchmaker said, ‘-- we come to your perfect, ideal match!”

I expected a drumroll.

There was silence.

Without another word, she handed me the last page. The single line read:

“On writing” by Stephen King

A.J. Aston

Back on Board….

2012-11-18T15:27:00.000-05:00

After my bout of reading sickness, brought on by the gift shop-dispensed trip packet, I crawled back from the railing to the lounge chair and, pulling the blanket up to my chin, I lay down and closed my eyes. Time to review. I recalled all the instances when my virtual travels took me to the places this ship was going to visit, locations where I stuck around long enough to get a place of my own. I had addresses in almost all the ports - Website, Facebook, Blog and even Twitter. YouTube was the only areal where I stayed in a hotel, as I was only ever there as a visitor. Problem is, all my residences were either very small (since I hardly stayed there) or terribly out of date and in need of a complete rebuild.

I thought back to my first foray into Blog and how, being relatively new to this huge glogosphere...ah, sorry...Freudian typo….I mean blogosphere, I kept on checking the stats of my blog several times a day, pleased to see that the number of ‘views’ to my site was climbing with turtle-like jet speed.

Wanting to improve my ‘visibility’, I decided to find out what I needed to do so that my blog would land squarely in the middle of the virtual equivalent of Grand Central Station. I made my inquiries at the Google information booth which spat out, as usual, masses of instructions. Unfortunately, I found them less than helpful, as the overwhelming majority were written in Compish (for an explanation of the term, see my post entitled “It weren’t the waves what made me wretch...”) insidiously masquerading as English. Here is a good example:

“If you are using a PHP based CMS like WordPress, Drupal, or Joomla you might benefit from installing something like APC (Alternative PHP Cache) on your web-server that can help to speed up the actual PHP processing behind the scenes.”

“Oh sure of course! Why didn’t I think of that? I’ll just go and do this, this ‘whatsit’ right away but--”, I said sheepishly to no one in particular, “-- can I just ask a couple of questions first?”

No one replied in the affirmative.

“Thank you,” I acknowledged and went on, “So, ah, what are PHP, CMS and APC when they’re at home and, since I was blissfully unaware that I even had a web-server, how the hell am I supposed to know where the damned thing is? Forgive my ignorance but, really!? I am a writer for God’s sake, not a specialist in whatever field it would take to understand the above *&#%@ ‘tip’ in the first place!”, I rambled, red-faced.

No one said, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!”

“Supercilious little bastard,” I thought to myself and then said, in the politest tone I could muster, “I’d love to, believe me, but--”, I suddenly felt the need to explain, “-- the publishing masters have told me, in no uncertain terms and six ways to Sunday, that I must not only be in the kitchen, I have to become something of a celebrity chef, if I want to be viewed as ‘the publishable sort’. So, knowing little more than how to boil water, I bravely decided to venture forth, starting, evidently(!), at the bottom of a learning curve whose arc, I fear, is probably so high up, I’ll need oxygen tanks to breathe up there.” I giggled nervously.

No one was not amused.

Undaunted, I continued, “Then there is the problem of my getting hopelessly lost. Most of the ‘how to’ articles have links so that terms which are deemed as needing further elucidation for the reader, if clicked, take one to yet another article explaining what the particular term means. Since I am entirely, as you know, clue-devoid, I am forced to click on everything (except ‘you’, ‘and’, ‘the’ and ‘for’), thereby detouring myself to another article which is just as incomprehensible as the first, but just as full of links on which I duly click, and so on and so forth….well, you get the picture. Having been made to digress so many times, I am soon at a loss to remember where I came from and, more importantly, what made me so delusional as to think that I might finally arrive on a page which is written in just plain English so that I can just maybe, have a snowballs’ chance in hell of understanding all the Compish I was made to wade through to get there! Oh dear, --”, I finished breathlessly, ‘if you had trouble following this sentence, think of how I feel!”

No one didn’t give a damn.

“Bite me!” I said disgusted, and walked away, as ignorant as ever.

Giving up my quest for the Holy Grail of Comprehension, I went back to the stats of my blog to see which one of my articles generated the most interest. Surprise, surprise! The “Why is sex so damned, uh, funny?” post took the top raking spot, outnumbering the next highest contender by 2 to 1! Not only that, it got there almost overnight! Clearly, it appeared that any text with the word SEX in it, anywhere and for any reason, attracted all those filthy-minded web crawlers, whose lecherous appetites could sniff out bawdy context from miles away.

This led me to the general conclusion that as long as my blog contained ample fodder for all those search bots to gorge on, it’ll do gangbusters!

“Yeah--”, I heard no one cackling behind me, “--as long as it also contains, among other things, meta tags, keywords, robots.txt.files, back links and site maps!”

Huh? Oh, f#*&%@ off!

A.J. Aston