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

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)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2015/04/28/puffedup-leftist-tyranny-punishes-dissenters-n1991139/page/2  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.

Obama-Logic, Not Good

Could you imagine what would happen to the democrat party if people just used their brains instead of allowing their emotions to get the better of them at every turn?

Just today Barak the Magnificent signed an executive order regarding “equal” pay for women. He made it easier for women to sue their company for perceived gaps in pay based on gender and made it illegal for companies to fire workers for making salaries of coworkers public (I know that is not what was written but that is what will happen).

And of course he had to turn it political, threatening Republicans by saying “This is about Republicans seemingly opposing any efforts to even the playing field for working families.” See how he did that? Made it seem like we hate everything about people who have to work for a living. And it plays right to the emotions of people who for whatever reason choose not to think things through.

First of all it should be obvious that we Republicans don’t hate working folks. Good Grief, most of us ARE working folks. By Obama-logic only rich white people could ever possibly vote Republican. And the low information, emotion-driven voter buys into to this Obama-logic. All these people need to do is stop and think for less than 5 minutes to see how this logic really doesn’t make any sense.  How is it possible for Republicans to ever win an election if we are nothing but rich white people? Aren’t those the people who populate the 1% Occupy Whatever were going all kinds of nuts over a couple years back? If we are only 1% how on earth could we ever win an election?

 I have been a life-long Republican and have worked all my life. I have never been and probably will never be rich from a monetary perspective. But for some reason, because I vote Republican, I must be some sort of rich dude.

Secondly, if these folks would ever take a few minutes and use real logic instead of Obama-logic, they would see this whole discussion about the supposed gender gap in pay is nothing more than tricky use of statistics and smoke and mirrors.

I currently work in a well paying blue-collar field of which there are very few women. In my area of “expertise” there is only one woman out of more than 500 people. And interestingly enough she is paid the same as all of us guys, as long as she works the same about as us guys. I don’t know her very well so I can’t say whether she does or doesn’t. But she has the same opportunity as the rest of us. In other fields within the company (in my region) I can count on one had the number of females I have seen.

 

Before working on the railroad, I drove a truck. And while driving a truck doesn’t pay as well as railroading, it isn’t terrible, especially if you are willing to put in the time and the miles. Again, the number of female truck drivers is low. While more women drive trucks than work on the railroad, it certainly doesn’t reflect society at large (roughly 50/50 split). And women are paid the same. There isn’t a “males mileage pay” table and a “females mileage pay” table. A woman that puts in 1,500 miles a week is going to earn the same as a male.

 

Finally, before the above endeavors I was in the military (27+years). Decent pay, excellent benefits (especially for young families), good promotion opportunities. There are more women in the military than truck drivers or railroaders, but again, it doesn’t come close to reflecting society at large. Pay in the military is strictly based on your rank and your time in the service, NOTHING else.

 

The one common factor in all of these examples, other than decent pay and lack of female contributors, is education requirements. Other than a high school education, these jobs don’t require more to get your foot in the door. Fields that typically attract female employees such as retail and food service don’t come close those areas mentioned above.

 

Of course there is going to be a pay gap. If men go towards the jobs mentioned above (as well as longshoremen, other transportation jobs, construction, etc.) and women head towards retail and food service there is going to be a pay gap.

 

See how I used logic, not Obama-logic.

Gay Agenda VS. Religious Freedom

Most of you know that I currently work for a class one railroad. Because of this I spend some time in hotels during my travels. This afternoon I was watching the leading sports programming network. During the afternoon they have a series of shows that are opinion oriented. On each of these shows the Arizona law concerning the battle between religious freedom and "gay rights" was a topic of discussion because Arizona is scheduled to host the Super Bowl next year. To a person each of the hosts and their guests felt that the NFL should remove the Super Bowl if Arizona governor doesn't veto this bill. What I found most interesting about how each show presented the topic. Other than one host who briefly mentioned religion not one person mentioned this bill was designed to protect those who feel gay marriage goes firmly against their religious convictions. One show framed the discussion in a way that for someone who was low information made it seem like any business could discriminate for any reason.  I know reporters and the media have firmly planted themselves in th  leftist camp, but this was ridiculous. It seems the there is no low the left won't stoop to for the furtherance of their cause.

Please excuse the scrappy post. I'm doing this on my Kindle and can't even see what I'm typing.