Thursday, February 15, 2018

How Does This Happen?

Today 17 kids were killed in a mass shooting in Florida. Most of the people killed haven't even been identified and the political rhetoric heated up, as it always does in these horribly tragic moments.

Invariably, calls for more restrictive gun ownership rules could be heard. Those calls ran the gamut from tighter background checks to outright ban on gun ownership. Also, those on this side of the argument tend to believe (or SAY they believe) there is a straight line connection from freedom of gun ownership to events such as Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, and Florida. To those who support the 2nd Amendment these ideas are nothing less than infringing on constitutional guaranteed rights.

Also invariably, those who support gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment push back against those ideas and suggestions. To nearly all on this side, the Constitution is the final day on this matter. There is no equivocation. To those who support tighter rules or even outright bans, this push back and philosophy is completely heartless.

The arguments for and against, in each givers eyes, are valid. Especially in times of such grave tragedy.

The solutions are perplexing and not easily attainable.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Some Thoughts on Dirty Politics

Recently a Facebook friend posted a link to a Rolling Stone (How the GOP Rigs Elections) article about the dirty politics being played by the Republican party in Wisconsin (his beloved home state) with respect to district gerrymandering, so-called dark money, and voter ID laws.

We exchanged a couple of views of opinion on the matter. But the Facebook platform isn't the best in which to respond fully. So I decided to make a more detailed response on my blog. I put the link in the comment so my friend could come a read it, and so can you, my loyal nine followers.

My original response is as follows:
--Gerrymandering is not the sole providence of Republicans. You should see how the districts are drawn in Oregon and Washington, democrat strongholds. There are a couple of districts in the suburbs of Portland that actually jump neighborhoods only to start up again a few blocks later.

And here is his response after he asked if I had read the article:

"I agree gerrymandering happens on both ends of the spectrum, GOP has been downright unlawful in their drawing. “During the 2012 elections, Democratic House candidates won 1.4 million more votes nationally than Republicans, but the GOP won 33 more seats.” And, if it were going the other way— I’d be just as up in arms. This is an argument of democracy not of partisan values. Votes should count and if you dig deep into that 538 stuff they’ll talk about packing and stacking votes.

I know it can never be perfect, even with algorithms it doesn’t evenly split. But, the majority of districts can get back to competitive elections and that my friend, along with the reduction of campaign finance and the increase ability to vote will increase the amounts of OUR freedoms."
(I highlighted one point he made as I will get back to a little further down the blog post)

He also included a link to a very interesting site (The Gerrymander Project) that discusses gerrymandering in a very balanced way. I did have a little issue viewing each video. My solution was to refresh the page prior to watching the next video.

So without further ado, here is my post:

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Some Statistics to Compare

With apologies to the Motor City Madman I am posting this in its entirety. I ran across this article by Ted Nugent a few years back and have had it sitting in my blog stuff folder so I could excerpt from it for my own post. But it says nearly everything that I wanted to say. If I could find the link I would have just posted it and had my dear readers head off that direction. But since I can’t, I’ll just repost.

Mr. Nugent, if you ever happen across my tiny little corner of the blogosphere and see this and wish it removed just let me know.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

An Exchange With A Snowflake

The other day a friend of mine on Facebook posted his displeasure with PDT decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords. As you  might gather, I fully agree with this decision. This accord was nothing more than a movement of wealth from rich nations (Like the USA) to poor nations (mostly Africa). Interestingly, it wasn't my friend who decided to exchange thoughts with me, but rather his wife. I have known my friends for 10+ years, he was a junior officer I highly respected during my final few years in the service. But I never had the pleasure of meeting his wife other than just a brief meet and greet several years ago.  So I am going to post the exchange in order of posting. I would like your feedback in how I handled the situation.

This first is the original post. It was a response to a news article that my friend posted notifying that PDT has decided to pull the USA from the Paris Climate Accords.

Friend: Oh no!!!! No no no!!!!!!! Damn it!

ME: I'm glad we're done with this scam. Even reasonable folks who believe in hot/wet/cold/dry should view this agreement with disdain. It was nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth from the USA to other countries. Our financial contributions to the agreement far outstripped our "contribution" to global cooling/warming/climate change. The world will wring their hands over us "backing out". But not because the world will end, but because the greedy little jerks aren't gonna get our money.

Not the wife: I couldn't disagree more.

My Friends Wife (MFW): Is this guy serious?? We come in at 17% only 2nd to China at 20% and followed by India, the next highest at only 4%!! WE ARE THE PROBLEM!!! OF COURSE WE SHOULD PAY MORE!! My god I just can't even understand why any American wouldn't agree with joining forces with other countries to try and limit our negative effects of OUR GREED on the planet. You think it is THEIR greed?? Excuse me while I go apologize to my children for the absolute mess we as a nation are leaving them. (if you don't like the simple break down that Wiki provides, feel free to go to the main site for the Paris agreement- I just figure this one has it condensed)

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Notre Dame Snowflakes

Maybe my fellow Facebook travelers and blog readers have seen or heard about the few dozen students who walked out of the Notre Dame graduation ceremony last week as VP Mike Pence was about to deliver the commencement address. Just thought I'd drop a few lines of my thoughts.

One of the Facebook groups I follow is called the deplorables. Someone was able to capture a post some leftist apologist posted on their feed. Below is what she wrote:

You might not be a snowflake (disagree completely) or sheeple (sheep are dumb) but you certainly are inconsiderate jerks. You went out of your way to ruin a once in a lifetime event for over 3,000 of your fellow students. Not to mention the several thousand parents who have gone deeply into debt paying for their child's education. If you are truly for the people maybe you should have thought about these folks before you went on your little tantrum and decided to make yourselves the center of attention. You made it all about you instead of sharing this momentous occasion with your classmates.

You will be remembered, but not with fondness. That should have been obvious to you when you were booed with gusto as you departed.

I'm not one of those who think Notre Dame should deny you your diploma. A moment of utter stupidity shouldn't mar the rest of your life. Heck, your mommy and daddy do eventually want their $200,000 back. I think you'll be in for a surprise when the time comes for your search for jobs. Not that your degree in early 18th century French literature was going to get you very much.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Why Trump

Sorry about the background. I typed this up in Word and the pasted. Not sure how to get rid of the white background.

The other day a friend of mine who I would consider liberal posted on Facebook a challenge to her conservative friends. Rather than post a lengthy comment on her post I decided to make it a blog post. I am going to attempt to address each of her points in the blog post. I have tried address all of her points, but might have missed one or two. Her Facebook post is in italics

To my conservative friends...
You are all being tested. You claim to belong to a party of morals and values, and many of you profess your faith in a merciful God. The leader of your party is spitting in the face of nearly everything you believe.
You might agree with parts of his platform (if you can call his one line policy proposals a platform), but do you see your morals and values reflected in him?

Good Grief, you are spending too much time watching MSNBC and reading Slate. LOL.

Do you believe that he wants to make America great again? Please look at what he has brought out in the people of this country. Racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia are running rampant out in the open. What about these values makes America great exactly? He wants to take this country back to a time when women were relegated to the kitchen, people of color were not allowed anywhere near white people and were publicly lynched, and LGBTQ people were killed for who they are. That doesn't say great to me.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Dems, Why Do You Continue to Support Clinton?

The picture I posted on Facebook says it all. I've said it before; There isn't a policy of hers that I could ever support, that should be clear. But I just don't understand how a very large segment of our country could actually support her running for president. Do you not care about the rule of law? Do you not care about how this takes this country down a path where we will no longer be the beacon. We will be no different than those banana republics across the world. She doesn't have an honest bone in her body. Can you dems not see that, or is what is stated below true? You could care less that she is dishonest? I'm not asking you to support my candidate instead. I'm asking you to find someone, um, better.
Corruption and dishonesty have dogged her almost since the beginning of her time in government. Kicked off the Watergate committee for an utter lack of ethics by people from her own party, Whitewater, money made in cattle futures, Travelgate, and the list goes on. About the only time she didn't have scandal swirling around her was during her time in the Senate. But then again, she was inconsequential as the junior Senator from NY so not many paid her any mind.
Most of my friends here on Facebook are former military and each and everyone of you know the penalty for mishandling classified material, intentional or not. At best, a dishonable discharge, at worst, a long prison term. Gen (ret) Petraeus was forced to resign his position at the CIA over what were essentially his classified schedules.
There was a time when a dem candidate could be someone you could be proud of. I'm not taking about supporting them during an election, but in the aftermath, once the choice has been made. Very few people have real issues over whether or not Truman, Kennedy or even LBJ were Presidential. We can quibble over policy decisions, but I don't think any serious minded person on either side of the aisle would say the aforementioned individuals were not people of honor. When poll after poll shows that even those who identify as democrat don't believe she is an honest person that really should say something.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Four Kinds of Amnesty

Over the years there has been a long struggle to deal with 12 million plus illegal aliens. Back in 1986 Reagan made his biggest mistake of his Presidency. He granted amnesty to a couple million illegals with the promise of enforcing border security. That border security did not happen and now we are deal with millions more.

In this attached article there are four basic methods of dealing with this issue.

For those of you who followed this blog over the years probably know where I stand. For those who are unsure, option #3 is where I stand.

One the one end of the spectrum is amnesty with no questions asked and no pre-conditions. This where most progressives are at and apparently many business owners as evidenced by the Chamber of Commerce stance on Rubio' s gang of eight amnesty plan from a few years back.

On the other end is the round em up and ship em back. I know there are some out there who will not agree with me on this but I really don't think the Trump stance is doable. The logistics behind rounding up 12-20 million illegals would be daunting at best. And I know some of my progressive friends won't believe it but I do have some compassion. I think the human toll would be more than we might be prepared to pay.

That compassion and that they ARE here illegally causes me to bend towards option #3.

I think this option will cause self deportation. If the jobs aren't there they just won't stay.

I have heard the argument that the illegals do the jobs we won't do. I say BS to that. Growing up in the late 1970's I worked at many of the jobs now dominated by illegals. At 14 I picked strawberries and other summer fruits. Over the next few years I bused tables, cleaned up at construction sites, pulled weeds and mowed lawns, and washed dishes. With teenage unemployment over 20% and twice as high in some segments there wouldn't be a shortage of available employees. If businesses have trouble getting these teenagers to take these jobs, then they will HAVE to offer higher wages. No government intervention necessary. And we have to stop Molly-coodling these kids. No, washing dishes or pulling weeds is not below your station in life.

Building the "wall" is imperative. We must have border security. This might cause liberal heads to explode but folks from other countries do not have a right to come here without following the law. And to turn the tables a little, if these illegals voted conservative liberals would be demanding deportation and the wall. And before you liberals say that is the only reason most conservatives want the wall is because most illegals vote democrat I remind you the Chamber of Commerce supported the gang of eight amnesty bill. The Chamber of Commerce is a very conservative group.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Post Debate Thoughts

Didn't get to watch the debate live this time around, only able to catch several highlights so the synopsis will not be as through as the previous.

From all reports Carly knocked it out of the park. She had specifics, was well spoken, and did her best to steer clear of Trump. I will have to say that she needs to stop saying "I started out as a secretary..." It getting a little worn out. But I do like her. In any other state than California, she could have beaten Boxer. But then again, only California would have voted FOR Boxer.

Trump continues to defy logic. I completely understand why he has the attraction that he does. He is speaking for the MULTIPLE millions who have no voice, or who are being ignored by the elites in DC. This country voted the Republicans the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 (not to mention the huge shift in state level governments) and still not a damn thing is being done. He is the voice. Maybe it's not terribly artistic in delivery, but it still resonates. But his performance last night is probably his nadir. But I said that the last time. I really do have my troubles with him. We sent somebody who was "cool" to the White House 7 years ago and look how well that has turned out.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Progressives and "1984"

Way back when, a professor suggested we read the book "1984". He said this is what America would look like under Reagan and Republican government. His intention was to later debate the finer points of the book, compare thought processes, and to embarrass those of us who lean conservative.  I read the book. It was an extremely interesting book, although I could not for the life of me see why he felt Reagan was going to usher an era outlined in Orwell's book. If there was any sort of "danger" from Reagan it was Christian in nature. Reagan most certainly felt we were beginning to lose our moral compass. But he also knew that legislating morality was not possible. Nothing in Orwell's book mentioned religion, at least not in the form most of us understand it. Although the later debate was decidedly one-sided (I got smoked. 20 years my senior, he had the advantage), I think I did OK for someone who had barely cracked 20.

In the book, you were not allowed to have a divergent thought from the official (government) party line. The press was no longer the "forth estate", separate from the government. The press only reported what the government wanted them to report. Religion in the form we know it today was outlawed, you were to worship the state. If you stepped outside the lines determined by an all seeing, all knowing government, you were destroyed, financially, personally, and publically. A very small number of people were in charge and determined what the official policy was and how to merit punishment.  How close are we to that today?

In just the past couple of years, people have been destroyed for having a thought or action that a very limited number of people have determined are not worthy of respect. If you don't believe in global warming/cooling/climate change you are investigated and ostracized. If you try to point out that there has been absolutely no change in temperatures in more than 15 years or that nearly all the baseline data was fraudulent, you called heartless and want children to drink dirty water and breathe dirty air. If you don't support same sex marriage due to heart felt religious views you will have your business destroyed and in some cases, your life ruined.

Just this week, the state of Oregon has decided to utterly ruin the lives of a family.  The same sex marriage crowd and those in government who kow-tow to them weren't happy that a family business was closed. Nope, these people must be ground into the ground for all to see. The government of Oregon has decided to fine this couple $135,000.00 for not having the proper thoughts. The business isn't being fined (it doesn't exists), but the family will be expected to pay for this out of their personal funds. Anyone out there NOT think this was a message to all of those out there who don't support same sex marriage the same thing WILL happen to you. You will be destroyed if you do not follow the "proper" thought as determined by a small number of people. As an aside: Whatever happened to the philosophy of live and let live that supporters of same sex marriage said was all they wanted?
And I'm so tired of being called a racist because I think President Obama is a lousy President. I thought Carter sucked too, but no one ever accused me of hating southerners, or naval officers, or peanut farmers, or people from Georgia.

Do you notice a trend here? Although I'm fairly certain it was not Orwell's intention, he certainly does a great job of describing today's progressive.