In The Lone Ranger and the Lost City of Gold, the Lone Ranger ("John Reid") and Tonto are after a gang, the Hooded Raiders, whose leader wears a red hood:
As part of future canon, it is established that the Green Hornet ("Britt Reid") is the son of the Lone Ranger's nephew, Dan Reid Jr. [The Green Hornet radio series (October 22, 1936; November 11, 1947)] - all characters having been created by writer Fran Striker. Green Hornet would later appear in the 1960s Batman series, thus establishing that all three (Batman, Green Hornet and Lone Ranger) exist in the same universe:
As everyone knows (duh), Batman's archvillian is the Joker...who, at one point depending on continuity, went by Red Hood and was leader of the Red Hood gang. [Detective Comics #168 (1951); Batman: The Killing Joke (1988); Batman #0 (2012)]:
Thus, by all logical probability, it's all connected...the Hooded Raiders are the original Red Hood gang, and two lone masked crusaders have stood against their various incarnations throughout the ages! Hi-yo Silver...away to the Batcave!
©2015 Steve Sagarra
The 2016 presidential election is still over a year away. Yet, the campaign has been in full swing for months, with rampant infighting happening in both parties to weed out candidates. Leading this charge are the known candidates - Donald Trump for the Republicans and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. If you have never heard of either of these people, please crawl back under your rock and do not vote next year. Yes, I just disenfranchised all rock-dwelling citizens. This is not a hit piece to bash Hillary Clinton though. With her various scandals, she is doing enough damage to her campaign and should be vetted more for prison than the presidency. (Okay, I lied about not bashing her.)
More to the point, Trump is the current leading candidate - both on the left and the right - because of what he is saying on the campaign trail to disgruntled and weary voters. Are the concerns he raises about the various issues facing the country legitimate, and is he being honest in his statements addressing them? On the former, yes; on the latter, only time would tell. The problem is that we have been through all of this before seven years ago, when candidate Barack Obama said what disgruntled voters, awash in Bush backlash, wanted to hear. Without vetting him or his statements, disgruntled and weary voters swept him into office on the promise of “hope and change”; seven years later, many of those same disgruntled and weary voters - again, both on the left and the right - yet again are still searching for it. Although Trump for the most part is a known commodity - unlike Obama in 2008 - the question is do voters want to follow that path again?
Why are voters disgruntled and weary, though? Has the utopia promised by Obama not come to fruition? Quite the opposite, in fact. Oh sure, we now have affordable universal health care (that is not affordable, universal or about health care), same-sex marriage across the nation (which has done nothing to ease debate or presumption) and have rid ourselves of the national scourge that is the Confederate flag (which has only galvanized its supporters). Unfortunately, we also have had over these past seven years a dismal economic outlook that still has not rebounded to pre-recession levels, a weakened global presence that cannot even maintain our unsecured borders and deadly enemies at the gates that threaten our very existence. Meantime, President Obama spends his days touting a climate change, gun control and income inequality agenda as he jets off to his next partisan-celebrity fundraiser or taxpayer-funded vacation while bashing the skeptical law-abiding who support free-market policies.
Why should voters be disgruntled and weary about such a failure of (divisive) leadership?
So while voters should pay attention to Trump, they likewise should be cautious. After all, voters have been down this road before of being told what they want to hear, and we have already seen where that path can lead with the current (worst-)administration(-ever). Voters need to be more skeptical and discerning, making certain not to turn a blind eye yet again to a more suitable and resonate candidate perhaps overshadowed by the bloviating and rhetorical nonsense. Otherwise, like Rome before the invading barbarian hordes, we will witness the continuing downward spiral of this exceptional nation put in motion by false hope and damaging change from an unknown and unvetted president unfit to hold the office.
©2015 Steve Sagarra
Screw the voice of the people, right?!! I mean, who do they think they are wanting a say in how public money gets used!!! Well, we (theoretically) do elect people who, as part of their job, are supposed to speak for citizens on the spending of public money. And on certain things, we as taxpayers do have a general consensus on what we are willing to accept or not, and (again theoretically) “voice” that every election. I know, I sound like an idealist that our system really works like that but maybe it is because we have let too much apathy seep in and accept it. I do not know.
Judge Says No Vote Needed To Use Public Money For New NFL Stadium (KMOX Radio)
In the particular instance of funding a new football stadium in downtown St. Louis, there is the city ordinance for a public vote on the matter that a lone judge has decided to ignore. And so, millions of taxpayer money that could be used elsewhere will go into a shiny new sports stadium right across the street from the "obsolete" one for a bunch of whiny millionaires. Yes, it will create jobs, boost the economy, etc...but where does it end??? And then there will be the angrily wondrous uproar when the city asks for other bond and tax increases due to budget concerns because they cannot cover emergency services, trash services, transportation, etc...but we will have a shiny new stadium that the people did not get to vote on!!! And while I am sure the vote probably would pass, it is the principle of the matter.
Oh look, there it is. That did not take long...
St. Louis Voters To Decide Fate of $180 Million Bond Issue On Tuesday (STLToday.com)
Not sure how spending $400 million of taxpayer money on a new stadium that could be used to address a city that is broke, and getting worse - while also currently asking for a $180 million bond from increased property taxes (which will be perpetual, not one-time) to do that very thing - will reverse that trend if the current stadium obviously has not had that affect. Undoubtedly, despite the same rhetoric from 20 years ago, any revenue generation for the city from the new stadium again will go toward paying off the bonds - just like with the current stadium, which is still being paid off - and not get funneled into the fire department, public schools or anything else. Frankly, I would rather just see taxpayer money going directly toward those services rather than toward some millionaire's ego who cannot fund his own stadium.
Perhaps I am just too much a fiscal-minded curmudgeon sick and tired of taxpayer waste on the ever-expanding cost funding the unneeded, unwanted and uneconomical given the price tag. But yes, let us subsidize shiny new sports stadiums, act on the political junk science that is “climate change”, spend on ill-conceived illegal immigrant programs rather than simply investing in securing the border, etc, with taxpayer money while our emergency services, infrastructure, schools, etc, crumble! So by all means, fund all of the things...and all of you get off my lawn!
©2015 Steve Sagarra
