"President Donald J. Trump is going to abandon our friends and leave them to be killed in the streets by a vastly superior force."
Translation: President Donald J. Trump is withdrawing US troops from Syria, where we have been providing military support to only one side in a domestic dispute that has been going on for centuries. This makes him "Orange Man Bad".
OTOH, we are bound by NATO treaty - a treaty approved by the Senate and signed into law - to support the other side in that same domestic dispute. Turkey became a NATO member in 1952, long before its most recent fall (dive?) into Islamic authoritarianism. But we are sworn by treaty to defend it - not attack it.
So, according to the Democrats and the MSM, we're abandoning our friends, the Kurds - with whom we have no written agreement - to support a "frenemy" named Turkey - with whom we have a senate-ratified treaty.
If we want to discuss Orange Man Bad's actions toward (against?) the Kurds, let's step back a bit and see what happened in the recent past in Bashar Assad's Syria. Let's remember that Assad dropped poison gas on his own population while President Obama was in office. President Obama publicly announced that the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" and that using those weapons would result in some kind of punishment. But, to appease Russia and thus work toward the JCPOA (aka the Iranian "deal"), President Obama took no action against Syria. He also took no action to help the Kurds.
To break an untenable and quickly failing stalemate, President Trump sent American troops into Syria to go after ISIS strongholds. After destroying those strongholds and taking thousands of prisoners, he announced that the US would be withdrawing troops from Syria and that the Kurds - some of whom had fought alongside American troops - would be taking charge of the prisoners (some of whom were also Kurds). We would leave some military advisers in place, but would withdraw most American troops from the area.
Now, the same politicians who demanded that we not get involved in Syria, but supported the "boots on the ground" to attack ISIS, are demanding that we stay involved in Syria. Their excuse? "We are abandoning our friends."
Um, no. We aren't "abandoning friends" - we are leaving a perpetual war zone.
President Trump asked, rhetorically, whether we should be involved in a perpetual war "until the end of time". He was completely correct to ask that question. The Middle East was rife with internecine battles for centuries, long before Israel was created, and it will continue to be a war zone as long as Sunni and Shiite Muslims are at each other's throats (as they have been for centuries). The presence of US troops won't stop this: in fact, US troops have become targets and have been killed all over the Middle East because they seen as interventionists and not peacemakers.
We - the United States - may be the most powerful free nation in history, but we - the United States - cannot be the world's policeman. In truth, that's the job of the United Nations, which does have an armed force (the "white helmets" and "blue helmets"). If the general consensus of the United Nations is that these wars should end, then the United Nations should be the organization to enforce the peace.
But it is time for the United States to withdraw from active-fire zones where centuries-old hatred still results in firefights - sometimes between different members of the same family.
Withdraw from Syria first.
Then withdraw from Afghanistan.
Then withdraw from other Middle Eastern countries where Americans are seen as viable targets.
We should maintain a presence there in case American forces are needed, but it should be in non-combat operations in a frenemy country, such as Kuwait.
But until it is abundantly clear that we have an overriding national interest in being the world's policeman, and until the expenses of those operations are defrayed by the rest of the world, it makes sense for the US to reevaluate whether it makes sense to spend American money - and spill American blood - in an area of the world where "perpetual wars" are the way of life.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Monday, September 30, 2019
"A Republic... if you can keep it."
Recently, Hillary Clinton has been complaining - once again - about losing the 2016 election. She has been making various claims that her candidacy was sabotaged, or that people didn't pay attention to the evils of her primary opponent, or that she won the "popular vote" and would be President if it wasn't for that nasty Electoral College.
Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but none of those assumptions hold true - for one simple reason:
The United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
There are various memes about a Democracy being "two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner" or "the majority voting on what to take away from the minority". Aside for the ironic nature of those memes, the basic truth is that a Democracy can enable a majority to act in a tyrannical manner against the minority. A Republic can't.
The Founders were wise enough to know that a pure Democracy would be a failure if implemented in an environment where each of the original 13 Colonies had its own customs, economies, and products. They knew that forcing some of the Colonies to submit to the demands of other Colonies was a recipe for an inter-Colonial war (which actually happened in the mid-1800s, but that discussion is for another time).
Instead, The Founders designed a "federalism" system of government (remember, we are a "federation of States"). Each State would provide its own State-level governing structure. The citizens of each State would elect Representatives to their State-level government. The citizens of each State would also elect Representatives to the central Federal government as well.
The intention was to allow each State to implement laws that it felt were good for its citizens, and that the Federal Representatives would implement laws that all of the States could agree on. The laws of each State would only affect the citizens of each State, but the laws passed by the Federal government would have supremacy over the actions of every State.
Since this is a Republic, how could a Federal chief executive be elected in such a way that the majority could not completely overwhelm the minority, and where the minority could defeat a tyrannical majority?
The Electoral College was the solution. Here, "electors" from each state, based on the number of Representatives and Senators to that state, would elect the President. In this form, a state with a huge population would be no more powerful than many smaller states bound together.
This idea works because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of Federal laws- but has no power over State laws. He is also empowered to enact or veto Federal bills - a "check" on the power of the Legislature.
The President is not empowered to change State law, nor is he empowered to change Federal law. Hence, the electors from each State must cooperate to determine who "runs" the Federal government. The Founders solved that problem by using the same rules as the rest of government: the members of the Electoral College, each representing their own State, elect their own Representative - the "President of the United States".
It's actually a very clever system and one where no individual, group of individuals, or outside agency - such as Russia - can shift an election one way or the other.
We are a Republic, and the Electoral College enforced the same rules of the Republic
Now, Ms. Clinton wishes to eliminate the intent of the Founders by changing the most important aspect of the Federal government from a Republic to a Democracy.
This is the lip of the slippery slope. If we begin to change the Constitution - the "rules" for the United States - we could destroy the United States.
Ms. Clinton is not happy that she lost the election. I suppose that's only natural. But changing the Constitution because you aren't happy that you lost an election?
Perhaps, Ms. Clinton, you were unable to convince citizens of several states to vote for you instead of your opponent. Perhaps you counted too much on States that supported your candidacy and not enough on states that were "unsure". Perhaps you depended too much on "status quo" politics when your opposing candidate played according to different - but entirely legal - rules.
In any event, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the tearing down the current form of government because you depended too much on the "popular vote" and not enough on the Electoral College.
One last thing: if there was "interference" in the 2016 election, that interference would have had to be so extensive and so widespread that it would be obvious to a blind person. It wouldn't be hidden from view and only seen through cracks and crevices by only those who make improbable connections between unrelated events.
You legitimately lost the election because there were sufficient States, and thus Electoral College members, who declined to support you. And as I have explained, it had nothing to do with the "popular vote".
Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but none of those assumptions hold true - for one simple reason:
The United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
There are various memes about a Democracy being "two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner" or "the majority voting on what to take away from the minority". Aside for the ironic nature of those memes, the basic truth is that a Democracy can enable a majority to act in a tyrannical manner against the minority. A Republic can't.
The Founders were wise enough to know that a pure Democracy would be a failure if implemented in an environment where each of the original 13 Colonies had its own customs, economies, and products. They knew that forcing some of the Colonies to submit to the demands of other Colonies was a recipe for an inter-Colonial war (which actually happened in the mid-1800s, but that discussion is for another time).
Instead, The Founders designed a "federalism" system of government (remember, we are a "federation of States"). Each State would provide its own State-level governing structure. The citizens of each State would elect Representatives to their State-level government. The citizens of each State would also elect Representatives to the central Federal government as well.
The intention was to allow each State to implement laws that it felt were good for its citizens, and that the Federal Representatives would implement laws that all of the States could agree on. The laws of each State would only affect the citizens of each State, but the laws passed by the Federal government would have supremacy over the actions of every State.
Since this is a Republic, how could a Federal chief executive be elected in such a way that the majority could not completely overwhelm the minority, and where the minority could defeat a tyrannical majority?
The Electoral College was the solution. Here, "electors" from each state, based on the number of Representatives and Senators to that state, would elect the President. In this form, a state with a huge population would be no more powerful than many smaller states bound together.
This idea works because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of Federal laws- but has no power over State laws. He is also empowered to enact or veto Federal bills - a "check" on the power of the Legislature.
The President is not empowered to change State law, nor is he empowered to change Federal law. Hence, the electors from each State must cooperate to determine who "runs" the Federal government. The Founders solved that problem by using the same rules as the rest of government: the members of the Electoral College, each representing their own State, elect their own Representative - the "President of the United States".
It's actually a very clever system and one where no individual, group of individuals, or outside agency - such as Russia - can shift an election one way or the other.
We are a Republic, and the Electoral College enforced the same rules of the Republic
Now, Ms. Clinton wishes to eliminate the intent of the Founders by changing the most important aspect of the Federal government from a Republic to a Democracy.
This is the lip of the slippery slope. If we begin to change the Constitution - the "rules" for the United States - we could destroy the United States.
Ms. Clinton is not happy that she lost the election. I suppose that's only natural. But changing the Constitution because you aren't happy that you lost an election?
Perhaps, Ms. Clinton, you were unable to convince citizens of several states to vote for you instead of your opponent. Perhaps you counted too much on States that supported your candidacy and not enough on states that were "unsure". Perhaps you depended too much on "status quo" politics when your opposing candidate played according to different - but entirely legal - rules.
In any event, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the tearing down the current form of government because you depended too much on the "popular vote" and not enough on the Electoral College.
One last thing: if there was "interference" in the 2016 election, that interference would have had to be so extensive and so widespread that it would be obvious to a blind person. It wouldn't be hidden from view and only seen through cracks and crevices by only those who make improbable connections between unrelated events.
You legitimately lost the election because there were sufficient States, and thus Electoral College members, who declined to support you. And as I have explained, it had nothing to do with the "popular vote".
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
18 Years Later
My second cousin worked in the Woolworth building, a block north and a block east of Two World Trade Center - which is across the street from where one of the towers stood (the "north" tower). He was on the subway on his way to work when the train suddenly stopped and an announcement was made that there was an explosion at the World Trade center. It was election day and he had just voted in the primary, otherwise he would have been in his building - which suffered some damage when the towers fell.
My daughter was mad at me the previous week: "You're so unfair!" I hadn't allowed her to take a bus to NYC to meet with some of the faculty members of Boston's School of the Museum of Fine Arts. They were scheduled to have a "meet and greet" brunch on September 11, 2001 ...
... in the Top of the World restaurant at the World Trade Center.
She's not mad at me any more.
For me, 9/11/2001 is a day with mixed emotions. Anger and sadness that so many were killed or hurt, and thankfulness that my family remained safe.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a target. A previous attempt to bring them down 10 years earlier using a car bomb wasn't successful, although it did destroy much of one of the underground parking lots.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a symbol of America's financial and economic strength, and that there were those in the world who hated us and them for what they represented.
Clinton treated multiple terrorist attacks as criminal acts, not as terrorist attacks. Because of this, investigations were relegated to the local authorities instead of federal agencies. Without calling these multiple attacks "terrorism", no agency or authority was tasked with "connecting the dots".
Post-9/11 recriminations ran rife with attacks against President Bush for not preventing the attack, even though the information about "airplanes being used as weapons to attack American targets" was so nonspecific that it was useless. Questions were asked why President Clinton did not "take out Bin Laden" previously. Accusations flew back and forth about emergency services being unable to communicate effectively. Some in Congress blamed the Bush administration for "not connecting the dots" when the previous Clinton administration had not demonstrated the need to do so - and hadn't "connected the dots" either.
Some even ridiculed President Bush for not angrily racing out of a classroom during the attack. He had been reading a book to kindergarten children.Would frightening the children have solved a thing? The attack had already taken place, every plane in flight was ordered to land at the closest airport after the report of Flight 93 being hijacked, and Vice President Cheney was ready to give orders to Air Force fighters to shoot down any plane refusing to land.
18 years have passed.
In my opinion, we haven't learned a thing. The proof is our failure to take actions to protect our nation since 9/11 and the proof that America is no longer protected by "ocean borders on either side".
We haven't strengthened our power transmission systems against EMP or other attack.
We haven't fully secured our southern and northern borders to prevent incursions (look at the statistics - some illegal entrants are from the Middle East).
We haven't significantly improved our methods to inspect goods received by container vessels at our multiple ports (marginal improvements, yes - but too many items still make it through the border).
We haven't reassessed our foreign policy to determine where the US military should be involved and where the US shouldn't even get involved.
These are only a few of the "open holes" in our nation's security. Forums already exist where the question of national security are being legitimately discussed and where possible answers are being proposed.
For decades, we have paid attention to issues that some believe are necessary to demonstrate "who we are". In many of the "who we are" arguments, some have argued against a strong military capable of defending America because "who we are" should not include using the military. Ever. At. All. Even when necessary. Some have even argued that we shouldn't defend America because this nation doesn't deserve to exist.
Maybe Washington is keeping itself occupied with nonsense issues because the big issues - the ones that need to be solved to actually protect America - are SO big and SO hard to solve that both sides are afraid to take the first move... and be accused by the other side of being "provocative".
9/11 both tore this nation apart and brought it together. We were one nation for a short time - but only for a short time. And then politicians on both sides of the aisle decided that "playing games" was more important than defending the nation.
Are we back where we were on 9/10/2001?
My daughter was mad at me the previous week: "You're so unfair!" I hadn't allowed her to take a bus to NYC to meet with some of the faculty members of Boston's School of the Museum of Fine Arts. They were scheduled to have a "meet and greet" brunch on September 11, 2001 ...
... in the Top of the World restaurant at the World Trade Center.
She's not mad at me any more.
For me, 9/11/2001 is a day with mixed emotions. Anger and sadness that so many were killed or hurt, and thankfulness that my family remained safe.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a target. A previous attempt to bring them down 10 years earlier using a car bomb wasn't successful, although it did destroy much of one of the underground parking lots.
Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a symbol of America's financial and economic strength, and that there were those in the world who hated us and them for what they represented.
Clinton treated multiple terrorist attacks as criminal acts, not as terrorist attacks. Because of this, investigations were relegated to the local authorities instead of federal agencies. Without calling these multiple attacks "terrorism", no agency or authority was tasked with "connecting the dots".
Post-9/11 recriminations ran rife with attacks against President Bush for not preventing the attack, even though the information about "airplanes being used as weapons to attack American targets" was so nonspecific that it was useless. Questions were asked why President Clinton did not "take out Bin Laden" previously. Accusations flew back and forth about emergency services being unable to communicate effectively. Some in Congress blamed the Bush administration for "not connecting the dots" when the previous Clinton administration had not demonstrated the need to do so - and hadn't "connected the dots" either.
Some even ridiculed President Bush for not angrily racing out of a classroom during the attack. He had been reading a book to kindergarten children.Would frightening the children have solved a thing? The attack had already taken place, every plane in flight was ordered to land at the closest airport after the report of Flight 93 being hijacked, and Vice President Cheney was ready to give orders to Air Force fighters to shoot down any plane refusing to land.
18 years have passed.
In my opinion, we haven't learned a thing. The proof is our failure to take actions to protect our nation since 9/11 and the proof that America is no longer protected by "ocean borders on either side".
We haven't strengthened our power transmission systems against EMP or other attack.
We haven't fully secured our southern and northern borders to prevent incursions (look at the statistics - some illegal entrants are from the Middle East).
We haven't significantly improved our methods to inspect goods received by container vessels at our multiple ports (marginal improvements, yes - but too many items still make it through the border).
We haven't reassessed our foreign policy to determine where the US military should be involved and where the US shouldn't even get involved.
These are only a few of the "open holes" in our nation's security. Forums already exist where the question of national security are being legitimately discussed and where possible answers are being proposed.
For decades, we have paid attention to issues that some believe are necessary to demonstrate "who we are". In many of the "who we are" arguments, some have argued against a strong military capable of defending America because "who we are" should not include using the military. Ever. At. All. Even when necessary. Some have even argued that we shouldn't defend America because this nation doesn't deserve to exist.
Maybe Washington is keeping itself occupied with nonsense issues because the big issues - the ones that need to be solved to actually protect America - are SO big and SO hard to solve that both sides are afraid to take the first move... and be accused by the other side of being "provocative".
9/11 both tore this nation apart and brought it together. We were one nation for a short time - but only for a short time. And then politicians on both sides of the aisle decided that "playing games" was more important than defending the nation.
Are we back where we were on 9/10/2001?
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
No point of no return
The comment du jour is that, as far as climate change is concerned, we’ve passed the point of no return.
The term “point of no return” is defined – in navigational terms – as the point along a route where the distance forward to the destination is now shorter than the distance back to the point of departure. The point where you might as well keep going 'cuz - as the saying goes - "there's no going back".
If we’ve reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then we’re reached the point where we can no longer return the Earth to a pristine “not affected by humankind” climate.
Taking this one step further, if we have reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then there is nothing we can do. Nothing. At. All. We’re screwed. Incapable of doing anything to fix it. Humans are on their way to extinction, along with all of the other animal life on the planet.
The analogy is like being in a plane that has lost all power and is going to crash and nothing anyone can do will stop it. This leaves you with a choice: you can spend your last moments screaming your head off in terror, or you can calmly reach for the drinks tray and get a serious load on. Either way, it’s over and you know it. Die with dignity? Gimme a break.
If the environment has really passed the “point of no return”, then any attempt to clean shit up is useless. Ya might as well stop worrying and get a gas-sucking big V8. Or heat your home to 78 degrees in the middle of winter with your pellet stove. Or get a camper and empty your black water tank all over the highway. Remember: it’s over – and there’s nothing you can do about it.
In the 1959 film “On The Beach”, a US submarine arrives in post-apocalyptic Australia. Nuclear fallout is wiping out human life around the earth and there’s no hope for a future (yeah, a really depressing film). Some people give their whole families – including their children – suicide pills. Others spend days in prayer in front of churches, hoping against hope for a miracle that will never come. Others just sit and stare at the clouds in deep depression.
But a few hardy souls decide to do the stuff they’ve always wanted to do - but never did. One of the protagonists enters a last car race with his rarely-used perfect-condition collectible speedster. His reasoning? “Why not!” It’s over. Might as well enjoy your last moments on earth.
If we’ve reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then it’s over. Might as well enjoy our last moments on earth. Why not? If there’s nothing we can do about it, why not do whatever we want to do?
Unless, of course, the climate “point of no return” actually doesn’t exist, and the entire idea of a climate “point of no return” is entirely false and only exists in the mad fantasies of fear-crazed control freaks. And if the well-publicized climate “point of no return” doesn’t really exist and it’s all just a scare tactic, what else are those fear-crazed control freaks lying about?
Oh, the guy in the car race… wins. As if it really matters anyway: who’s ever gonna see the trophy?
The term “point of no return” is defined – in navigational terms – as the point along a route where the distance forward to the destination is now shorter than the distance back to the point of departure. The point where you might as well keep going 'cuz - as the saying goes - "there's no going back".
If we’ve reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then we’re reached the point where we can no longer return the Earth to a pristine “not affected by humankind” climate.
Taking this one step further, if we have reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then there is nothing we can do. Nothing. At. All. We’re screwed. Incapable of doing anything to fix it. Humans are on their way to extinction, along with all of the other animal life on the planet.
The analogy is like being in a plane that has lost all power and is going to crash and nothing anyone can do will stop it. This leaves you with a choice: you can spend your last moments screaming your head off in terror, or you can calmly reach for the drinks tray and get a serious load on. Either way, it’s over and you know it. Die with dignity? Gimme a break.
If the environment has really passed the “point of no return”, then any attempt to clean shit up is useless. Ya might as well stop worrying and get a gas-sucking big V8. Or heat your home to 78 degrees in the middle of winter with your pellet stove. Or get a camper and empty your black water tank all over the highway. Remember: it’s over – and there’s nothing you can do about it.
In the 1959 film “On The Beach”, a US submarine arrives in post-apocalyptic Australia. Nuclear fallout is wiping out human life around the earth and there’s no hope for a future (yeah, a really depressing film). Some people give their whole families – including their children – suicide pills. Others spend days in prayer in front of churches, hoping against hope for a miracle that will never come. Others just sit and stare at the clouds in deep depression.
But a few hardy souls decide to do the stuff they’ve always wanted to do - but never did. One of the protagonists enters a last car race with his rarely-used perfect-condition collectible speedster. His reasoning? “Why not!” It’s over. Might as well enjoy your last moments on earth.
If we’ve reached the “point of no return” climate-wise, then it’s over. Might as well enjoy our last moments on earth. Why not? If there’s nothing we can do about it, why not do whatever we want to do?
Unless, of course, the climate “point of no return” actually doesn’t exist, and the entire idea of a climate “point of no return” is entirely false and only exists in the mad fantasies of fear-crazed control freaks. And if the well-publicized climate “point of no return” doesn’t really exist and it’s all just a scare tactic, what else are those fear-crazed control freaks lying about?
Oh, the guy in the car race… wins. As if it really matters anyway: who’s ever gonna see the trophy?
Monday, August 12, 2019
Government protection
There are some who feel that the government can - and should - keep them safe and secure. That by passing a few "well-intentioned" laws, the government can provide a high level of security for the general public. A level of security only achievable through laws mandating government restrictions on the rights of The People. Or as was noted by an old guy with a wig: surrendering liberty for safety.
Let's examine this for a moment.
If the government can’t keep you safe when you’re in a prison cell, then the government can’t keep anyone safe anywhere.
That’s the lesson from this past weekend's report about the death of a notable prisoner in a NY prison.
But this isn't about this prisoner, or that prisoner, or any other prisoner. Nor is it about someone in a car, or a homemaker, or kids in school.
This is about demands that the government should "keep us safe".
There will be a demand for an investigation to find out why the prison cameras didn’t work or were pointed in the wrong direction. And there will be a demand for answers and accountability from prison administrators, accusations and cross-accusations of fault, and a call for newer and stricter prison regulations.
Of course, there will be the inevitable “We need to know what went wrong so we can take action to prevent it from ever happening again.” Yeah. Right. We've heard that tune before. As the saying goes, “Pull the other one.”
And yet, this person, someone whose testimony may have implicated other powerful individuals in criminal acts, and someone who was well known to authorities and the public at large, is dead. In what should be one of the safest places in the country: a prison. Yes, there are deaths in prisons every day, but this wasn’t a street criminal, drug dealer, or an ordinary thug. And it didn’t happen in “the yard” or where multiple convicts can group together.
It happened in his cell.
Let's examine this for a moment, but in the context of the latest demands for disarming the general public (and that's what those thinly-veiled demands are meant to do). If the government can’t keep someone safe inside a gun-free zone where body searches are performed to check for any weapons, which is inside a building with locked doors to prevent both entry and exit, and which is inside a gated facility patrolled by armed guards both outside and inside, then the government can’t keep anyone safe anywhere.
If the government turned its back on someone it was supposed to protect and keep alive, and that person somehow ended up dead - and without explanation - it means that the government isn’t competent to keep anyone safe. Isn't the old complaint by conspiracy theorists, "who watches the watchers?"
And that’s the entire point: when we trust the government to do something we should do for ourselves, and when allow the the government to restrict our the ability to act on our own behalf, and when we trust the government to do what it is supposed to do, the worst can – and sometimes does – happen.
And that is a problem that no "well-intentioned laws" can solve.
Let's examine this for a moment.
If the government can’t keep you safe when you’re in a prison cell, then the government can’t keep anyone safe anywhere.
That’s the lesson from this past weekend's report about the death of a notable prisoner in a NY prison.
But this isn't about this prisoner, or that prisoner, or any other prisoner. Nor is it about someone in a car, or a homemaker, or kids in school.
This is about demands that the government should "keep us safe".
There will be a demand for an investigation to find out why the prison cameras didn’t work or were pointed in the wrong direction. And there will be a demand for answers and accountability from prison administrators, accusations and cross-accusations of fault, and a call for newer and stricter prison regulations.
Of course, there will be the inevitable “We need to know what went wrong so we can take action to prevent it from ever happening again.” Yeah. Right. We've heard that tune before. As the saying goes, “Pull the other one.”
And yet, this person, someone whose testimony may have implicated other powerful individuals in criminal acts, and someone who was well known to authorities and the public at large, is dead. In what should be one of the safest places in the country: a prison. Yes, there are deaths in prisons every day, but this wasn’t a street criminal, drug dealer, or an ordinary thug. And it didn’t happen in “the yard” or where multiple convicts can group together.
It happened in his cell.
Let's examine this for a moment, but in the context of the latest demands for disarming the general public (and that's what those thinly-veiled demands are meant to do). If the government can’t keep someone safe inside a gun-free zone where body searches are performed to check for any weapons, which is inside a building with locked doors to prevent both entry and exit, and which is inside a gated facility patrolled by armed guards both outside and inside, then the government can’t keep anyone safe anywhere.
If the government turned its back on someone it was supposed to protect and keep alive, and that person somehow ended up dead - and without explanation - it means that the government isn’t competent to keep anyone safe. Isn't the old complaint by conspiracy theorists, "who watches the watchers?"
And that’s the entire point: when we trust the government to do something we should do for ourselves, and when allow the the government to restrict our the ability to act on our own behalf, and when we trust the government to do what it is supposed to do, the worst can – and sometimes does – happen.
And that is a problem that no "well-intentioned laws" can solve.
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
Achieving a reasonable gun control compromise
As has been said before by many folks, there is no such thing as a reasonable gun control compromise. Here's a repost in full from LawDog illustrating what "compromise" really means to anti-gun advocates.
Before we begin, here's the link to the original so you know that I didn't write this and I'm giving full credit to the original author: https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
Now the full unchanged, unedited, unadulterated, unmodified, original text so you can read it without having to go chasing around to find a way to read it:
==
Before we begin, here's the link to the original so you know that I didn't write this and I'm giving full credit to the original author: https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
Now the full unchanged, unedited, unadulterated, unmodified, original text so you can read it without having to go chasing around to find a way to read it:
==
FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2013
A repost
"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"
-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961
Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.
Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".
One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:
I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.
Allow me to illustrate:
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...
... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.
In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.
Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?
In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.
In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.
Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?
The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?
I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.
For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.
I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".
I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.
LawDog
-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961
Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.
Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".
One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:
I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.
Allow me to illustrate:
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...
... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.
In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.
Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?
In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.
In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.
Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?
The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?
I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.
For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.
I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".
I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.
LawDog
Monday, August 5, 2019
A painful truth
The news hit the nation hard this past weekend.
Two more mass-shootings. Dozens killed and wounded. Families and communities torn apart by violence. And once again, the nation mourns senseless violence.
It's early Monday morning right now, so there's only a limited amount of information available. But it is beginning to look like both of the shooters left trails behind them. The San Jose shooter claims he was “radicalized” long before Trump, which would mean “during Obama’s presidency”. The Dayton shooter was suspended from school twice for making threats, and the kids in school knew he could be dangerous.
Once again, the signs were there and nobody in authority did anything.
Once again, the claim is the “easy availability of assault weapons”.
Once again, the leftists are blaming Trump for “stoking racism”.
It’ll eventually come out that both of these shooters were known but weren’t on a “watch list”. Psychologists will say that that, before the violence, they were “just kids expressing the normal anger that kids express”. Authorities will claim their “hands were tied”. Others will say that they "knew the kid was trouble" but kept to themselves. And once again, there will be recriminations based in the fantasy that "if we had better gun laws, these shootings wouldn't happen".
The usual calls for gun control have already gone out: more demands for laws that wouldn’t have prevented these tragedies from occurring, more calls for anti-Constitutional restrictions on 2A, more demands for the elimination of legal gun ownership. All in the false belief that a new law - any law - would prevent more events like this.
But nobody will call for additional restrictions and “watch lists” for people who have exhibited signs of serious antisocial activity. Nobody will make the connection between the unpunished violence of AntiFA and the acceptance of violence as a means of protest. Nobody will propose that HIPAA rules be modified to allow truly psychotic individuals (such as Adam Lanza) or those being treated by anti-psychotic drugs to be added to background check lists.
(Yes, there is a legitimate fear that nonviolent individuals with mild mental diseases (such as Downs syndrome individuals or elderly nonviolent Alzheimers patients) will be added to the rolls of those who may not possess firearms. The question of "prior restraint" immediately comes to mind. But this is a false equivalence: those who are taking anti-psychotic drugs are doing so for a reason.
No, I don't want to get into a long harangue about mental disease here. This isn't a comment on mental illness. It's a comment on how these two shooters were probably "known" to authorities for reasons we have yet to be told.)
AOC recently said that “marginalized communities may have no choice but to riot” (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/455553-ocasio-cortez-says-marginalized-communities-have-no-choice-but-to-riot) and nobody in the MSM held her accountable for enthusiastically endorsing and supporting the use of violence as a political tool. But they all point to Trump and blame him for "stoking racism".
This wave of violence was predictable. It began a long time ago but was endorsed during Obama’s tenure when the DOJ refused to prosecute Black Panthers for shutting down a polling station. Obama’s negative comments about the Cambridge police (who were doing their jobs when they saw someone trying to break into a home and who wouldn't produce an ID proving he lived there) pushed the “racism” narrative full-force into the mainstream. It was the Obama DOJ that initiated a breakdown in law enforcement with its restrictions that prevented police departments from doing their jobs, especially where anyone claimed that a single bad officer meant the entire force was racist.
These two shootings were predictable. These two shootings were probably preventable as well. Neither of these two shootings was due to Trump, or to conservatives, or the NRA. The only persons responsible for these two shootings were the shooters themselves.
However, instead of examining the recent restrictions on law enforcement and the warning events that led up to these shootings, Democrats will blame Trump.
Don't get me wrong: Trump isn't blameless. His rhetoric about illegal immigrants and "shithole countries" was unfortunate and should never have been uttered by the President of the United States.
But Trump isn't responsible for hamstringing police departments and calling them racist (for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-systemic-racism-in-baltimores-police-force/2016/08/10/86ce448a-5f3f-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.27fbfc749918). Trump isn't responsible for releasing thousands of violent criminals and illegal aliens from prisons (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ice-releases-19-723-criminal-illegals-208-convicted-of-murder-900-of-sex-crimes).
Trump isn't the problem. He may be part of the problem. But then, so are liberal Democrats and their public pronouncements about how evil America is, and their refusal to "look in the mirror" to see who has been pushing anti-societal policies that both justify and endorse anti-societal actions.
As the Bard of Avon wrote, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..."
Two more mass-shootings. Dozens killed and wounded. Families and communities torn apart by violence. And once again, the nation mourns senseless violence.
It's early Monday morning right now, so there's only a limited amount of information available. But it is beginning to look like both of the shooters left trails behind them. The San Jose shooter claims he was “radicalized” long before Trump, which would mean “during Obama’s presidency”. The Dayton shooter was suspended from school twice for making threats, and the kids in school knew he could be dangerous.
Once again, the signs were there and nobody in authority did anything.
Once again, the claim is the “easy availability of assault weapons”.
Once again, the leftists are blaming Trump for “stoking racism”.
It’ll eventually come out that both of these shooters were known but weren’t on a “watch list”. Psychologists will say that that, before the violence, they were “just kids expressing the normal anger that kids express”. Authorities will claim their “hands were tied”. Others will say that they "knew the kid was trouble" but kept to themselves. And once again, there will be recriminations based in the fantasy that "if we had better gun laws, these shootings wouldn't happen".
The usual calls for gun control have already gone out: more demands for laws that wouldn’t have prevented these tragedies from occurring, more calls for anti-Constitutional restrictions on 2A, more demands for the elimination of legal gun ownership. All in the false belief that a new law - any law - would prevent more events like this.
But nobody will call for additional restrictions and “watch lists” for people who have exhibited signs of serious antisocial activity. Nobody will make the connection between the unpunished violence of AntiFA and the acceptance of violence as a means of protest. Nobody will propose that HIPAA rules be modified to allow truly psychotic individuals (such as Adam Lanza) or those being treated by anti-psychotic drugs to be added to background check lists.
(Yes, there is a legitimate fear that nonviolent individuals with mild mental diseases (such as Downs syndrome individuals or elderly nonviolent Alzheimers patients) will be added to the rolls of those who may not possess firearms. The question of "prior restraint" immediately comes to mind. But this is a false equivalence: those who are taking anti-psychotic drugs are doing so for a reason.
No, I don't want to get into a long harangue about mental disease here. This isn't a comment on mental illness. It's a comment on how these two shooters were probably "known" to authorities for reasons we have yet to be told.)
AOC recently said that “marginalized communities may have no choice but to riot” (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/455553-ocasio-cortez-says-marginalized-communities-have-no-choice-but-to-riot) and nobody in the MSM held her accountable for enthusiastically endorsing and supporting the use of violence as a political tool. But they all point to Trump and blame him for "stoking racism".
This wave of violence was predictable. It began a long time ago but was endorsed during Obama’s tenure when the DOJ refused to prosecute Black Panthers for shutting down a polling station. Obama’s negative comments about the Cambridge police (who were doing their jobs when they saw someone trying to break into a home and who wouldn't produce an ID proving he lived there) pushed the “racism” narrative full-force into the mainstream. It was the Obama DOJ that initiated a breakdown in law enforcement with its restrictions that prevented police departments from doing their jobs, especially where anyone claimed that a single bad officer meant the entire force was racist.
These two shootings were predictable. These two shootings were probably preventable as well. Neither of these two shootings was due to Trump, or to conservatives, or the NRA. The only persons responsible for these two shootings were the shooters themselves.
However, instead of examining the recent restrictions on law enforcement and the warning events that led up to these shootings, Democrats will blame Trump.
Don't get me wrong: Trump isn't blameless. His rhetoric about illegal immigrants and "shithole countries" was unfortunate and should never have been uttered by the President of the United States.
But Trump isn't responsible for hamstringing police departments and calling them racist (for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-systemic-racism-in-baltimores-police-force/2016/08/10/86ce448a-5f3f-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.27fbfc749918). Trump isn't responsible for releasing thousands of violent criminals and illegal aliens from prisons (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ice-releases-19-723-criminal-illegals-208-convicted-of-murder-900-of-sex-crimes).
Trump isn't the problem. He may be part of the problem. But then, so are liberal Democrats and their public pronouncements about how evil America is, and their refusal to "look in the mirror" to see who has been pushing anti-societal policies that both justify and endorse anti-societal actions.
As the Bard of Avon wrote, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..."
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Sticks and stones
When I was young, my parents taught me an old rhyme: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Yes, there are variations on this, but I was taught "break" and "hurt". The lesson I learned was to ignore what people say but pay close attention to what they do.
There's a reason they taught me this rhyme. It was because I was a target for the unreasoning hatred of others - not because of what I did but because of who and what I am.
I am about to reveal something about my past that very few people know. It is something I have been ashamed of for most of my life, and something I had no control over. But it has given me direction in my life and is a constant reminder of that rhyme.
When I was 6 years old and the only child, we moved from Brooklyn to a small town in northern NJ (for now, I won't name the town). Why my father chose that town has always been a mystery to me. The predominant religion in that town was Dutch Reformed, and most of the churches were closely aligned with other churches in South Africa. There were a couple of other churches, but nothing outside mainstream Christianity. The town had no "people of color" (I really hate that phrase, but it's appropriate here). We moved in, and I almost immediately began feeling the pressure of prejudice and hatred.
I am a Jew.
It didn't take me long to discover that I was the only Jewish child in the entire school system. We were the only Jewish family in town.
The taunting began immediately and continued from 2nd grade all the way thru graduation from High School. By that time there were 3 Jewish children in the school system: me, my younger brother (who was born the year we moved into town), and a boy from a second Jewish family (who moved out of town only a couple of years later).
Taunting. Teasing. "Christ killer." "Jew-boy". And I'm going to put this into print even though it will offend some folks, because it was what I was called: "White n-gger".
My lunches were stolen, I was physically intimidated and knocked to the ground many times. The teachers made a point of calling on me when they knew I didn't have the answer, just so they could embarrass me in front of the rest of the class and be friends with the other students and their parents (how many times did I hear "Good one, Miss whatever" when the bell rang, accompanied by laughter - including from the teacher).
I took up clarinet. During annual blind auditions for the school band, I always won either 1st or 2nd chair in the school's Wind Symphony. I took up the saxophone. During annual blind auditions for the jazz band, I always won 1st chair alto sax. One day, the band teacher handed me an oboe - and, after a moment of adjusting my embouchure (how you place your lips) around the double-reed, I played a scale and a short exercise. The band teacher was pleased - he was the only one, tho.
The other members of the band weren't pleased or congratulatory at my ability to play almost any reed instrument handed to me. They were angry and jealous - and it only made my time worse. Instead of band practice being a place I could be with peer musicians, it became a place where I drew even more attention as "that [expletive] Jew boy".
Why am I telling you this story?
Because I grew up knowing that words are meaningless unless followed up by action. Words can be ignored. The people who speak angry words usually don't follow up those words with actions. And when it's only one or two jerks calling someone a horrible epithet, the situation will end when either the jerks or the target walk away from each other.
Now to the heart of the matter:
What I was subjected to was - and this is the exactly correct word - racism. The insults, mistreatment, threats, and school hallway knock-downs ("Oh, sorry, Jew-boy") were almost exactly what black children were experiencing during the 60's when busing was considered a "workable remedy" to the SCOTUS Brown decision. Intentional mistreatment, being knocked against lockers or knocked down on the floor, being physically attacked for no reason - and all because you are different.
I know what racism feels like. I was a target during my entire 2-K schooling (which is why I have never attended a high school reunion, for obvious reasons). I spent my preteen and teen years in a town where I had no friends and where I was hated for no good reason at all - other than the simple fact that I was different.
What's my point?
Those who scream "!!1!RACISM!!11!!" at everything they don't like to hear should calm down and recognize the difference between actual racism and boorish/rude words. Yes, there are verbal tropes that are highly offensive, and "send them back" (which isn't what Trump tweeted) does reflect back to at least one trope. But think on this: in 1854, Lincoln said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation) Does this make Lincoln a racist?
The "Jim Crow" laws were passed to enforce discriminatory actions against blacks, even by those who didn't want to do it. This was actual institutionalized racism. When the laws were repealed, some continued to discriminate against blacks. Yes, those actions classify as racism. But those were actions - not words.
Jews also felt race-based discrimination as well. The film "Gentleman's Agreement", starring Gregory Peck, relates how Jews were treated by "polite society" just because they were Jews
The days of institutionally-enforced racism are over. There are no laws that permit institutional discrimination based on race, religion, or gender, and plenty of laws that forbid such discrimination (let's leave discussions over cakes for another day).
These are only words. Racism is in the action, not the words. Words can be opposed by more words. If you think someone's words are wrong, respond with better words. Escalating the situation by using ever increasing threats doesn't ease tensions. It aggravates and increases them. Telling your opponent that you intend to be a perpetual thorn in their side (viz. Omar and "the squad") doesn't work - and almost always makes things worse. A stupid response to a stupid statement makes both orators look stupid.
But the thing to remember is that these are all words. Words are not violence.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
There's a reason they taught me this rhyme. It was because I was a target for the unreasoning hatred of others - not because of what I did but because of who and what I am.
I am about to reveal something about my past that very few people know. It is something I have been ashamed of for most of my life, and something I had no control over. But it has given me direction in my life and is a constant reminder of that rhyme.
When I was 6 years old and the only child, we moved from Brooklyn to a small town in northern NJ (for now, I won't name the town). Why my father chose that town has always been a mystery to me. The predominant religion in that town was Dutch Reformed, and most of the churches were closely aligned with other churches in South Africa. There were a couple of other churches, but nothing outside mainstream Christianity. The town had no "people of color" (I really hate that phrase, but it's appropriate here). We moved in, and I almost immediately began feeling the pressure of prejudice and hatred.
I am a Jew.
It didn't take me long to discover that I was the only Jewish child in the entire school system. We were the only Jewish family in town.
The taunting began immediately and continued from 2nd grade all the way thru graduation from High School. By that time there were 3 Jewish children in the school system: me, my younger brother (who was born the year we moved into town), and a boy from a second Jewish family (who moved out of town only a couple of years later).
Taunting. Teasing. "Christ killer." "Jew-boy". And I'm going to put this into print even though it will offend some folks, because it was what I was called: "White n-gger".
My lunches were stolen, I was physically intimidated and knocked to the ground many times. The teachers made a point of calling on me when they knew I didn't have the answer, just so they could embarrass me in front of the rest of the class and be friends with the other students and their parents (how many times did I hear "Good one, Miss whatever" when the bell rang, accompanied by laughter - including from the teacher).
I took up clarinet. During annual blind auditions for the school band, I always won either 1st or 2nd chair in the school's Wind Symphony. I took up the saxophone. During annual blind auditions for the jazz band, I always won 1st chair alto sax. One day, the band teacher handed me an oboe - and, after a moment of adjusting my embouchure (how you place your lips) around the double-reed, I played a scale and a short exercise. The band teacher was pleased - he was the only one, tho.
The other members of the band weren't pleased or congratulatory at my ability to play almost any reed instrument handed to me. They were angry and jealous - and it only made my time worse. Instead of band practice being a place I could be with peer musicians, it became a place where I drew even more attention as "that [expletive] Jew boy".
Why am I telling you this story?
Because I grew up knowing that words are meaningless unless followed up by action. Words can be ignored. The people who speak angry words usually don't follow up those words with actions. And when it's only one or two jerks calling someone a horrible epithet, the situation will end when either the jerks or the target walk away from each other.
Now to the heart of the matter:
What I was subjected to was - and this is the exactly correct word - racism. The insults, mistreatment, threats, and school hallway knock-downs ("Oh, sorry, Jew-boy") were almost exactly what black children were experiencing during the 60's when busing was considered a "workable remedy" to the SCOTUS Brown decision. Intentional mistreatment, being knocked against lockers or knocked down on the floor, being physically attacked for no reason - and all because you are different.
I know what racism feels like. I was a target during my entire 2-K schooling (which is why I have never attended a high school reunion, for obvious reasons). I spent my preteen and teen years in a town where I had no friends and where I was hated for no good reason at all - other than the simple fact that I was different.
What's my point?
Those who scream "!!1!RACISM!!11!!" at everything they don't like to hear should calm down and recognize the difference between actual racism and boorish/rude words. Yes, there are verbal tropes that are highly offensive, and "send them back" (which isn't what Trump tweeted) does reflect back to at least one trope. But think on this: in 1854, Lincoln said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation) Does this make Lincoln a racist?
The "Jim Crow" laws were passed to enforce discriminatory actions against blacks, even by those who didn't want to do it. This was actual institutionalized racism. When the laws were repealed, some continued to discriminate against blacks. Yes, those actions classify as racism. But those were actions - not words.
Jews also felt race-based discrimination as well. The film "Gentleman's Agreement", starring Gregory Peck, relates how Jews were treated by "polite society" just because they were Jews
The days of institutionally-enforced racism are over. There are no laws that permit institutional discrimination based on race, religion, or gender, and plenty of laws that forbid such discrimination (let's leave discussions over cakes for another day).
These are only words. Racism is in the action, not the words. Words can be opposed by more words. If you think someone's words are wrong, respond with better words. Escalating the situation by using ever increasing threats doesn't ease tensions. It aggravates and increases them. Telling your opponent that you intend to be a perpetual thorn in their side (viz. Omar and "the squad") doesn't work - and almost always makes things worse. A stupid response to a stupid statement makes both orators look stupid.
But the thing to remember is that these are all words. Words are not violence.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
Friday, July 12, 2019
Facebook - Today's "vast wasteland"
How many of us have the driver of a car loaded with family, and noticed the impenetrable curtain of silence drop as soon as the car starts moving? It happens to me almost every time I get in the car. My loving wife sits in the front passenger seat, takes out her Android phone, opens Facebook, and begins sweeping her finger up and down... up and down... up and down... seemingly looking for something, and spending her time watching videos or looking for videos to watch.
How many of us sit behind the wheel in silence, knowing that anything we say is either ignored or unheard, and knowing that we have been reduced to servants, invisible unless we are needed? When we stop the car after having arrived at the destination, how many of us notice that conversations resume as if they had never stopped?
Happens to me all the time. But today, when she finished watching a video that was accompanied with sound effects and turned to me to tell me what she just watched, I interrupted her with, "I don't care. I don't want to know."
She and I are both in our mid-60s. Her response was to sulk like a 12-year old who had just been told that she couldn't watch her favorite TV show, or talk on the phone for hours with a friend. Or watch Facebook videos for hours. Or that her BFF (in this case, "husband") was completely uninterested in a Facebook video.
Horrors!
Here's my take on it: Facebook has mutated from a social media platform to a platform that infantilizes adults, turning them into mindless juveniles and prompting obnoxious behavior. Like spoiled children, they immediately become angered - as if their toy had been taken away from them.
Childish. Selfish.
She and I used to have long conversations in the car on all kinds of subjects. Her job and her interactions with clients. My job and my interactions with co-workers. Our children and how well they're doing. Friends. Family. Sports. Weather. We laughed together, We expressed our frustrations to each other.
We shared our time together.
Now I sit in silence in the driver's seat. No more conversations. Just the drone of puerile videos that someone thought was funny and posted for others to watch.
Until today, I had to suffer the indignity being ignored in favor of a video that I neither watched nor cared about, nor will watch later, nor will ever care about. Instead of being able to socialize with a human, I was disregarded as unnecessary and unwanted.
This seeming obsession with Facebook has turned an entire generation - actually, multiple generations - of once-thinking adults into churlish children.
Newton Minow, appointed as a commissioner to the FCC by JFK, remarked at a National Association of Broadcasters meeting as to the usefulness - or uselessness - of television. From the Wikipedia page:
We have only replaced one "vast wasteland" with another. Only now, that "vast wateland" is no longer captive to that screen in the living room.
It follows us into our cars as well.
How many of us sit behind the wheel in silence, knowing that anything we say is either ignored or unheard, and knowing that we have been reduced to servants, invisible unless we are needed? When we stop the car after having arrived at the destination, how many of us notice that conversations resume as if they had never stopped?
Happens to me all the time. But today, when she finished watching a video that was accompanied with sound effects and turned to me to tell me what she just watched, I interrupted her with, "I don't care. I don't want to know."
She and I are both in our mid-60s. Her response was to sulk like a 12-year old who had just been told that she couldn't watch her favorite TV show, or talk on the phone for hours with a friend. Or watch Facebook videos for hours. Or that her BFF (in this case, "husband") was completely uninterested in a Facebook video.
Horrors!
Here's my take on it: Facebook has mutated from a social media platform to a platform that infantilizes adults, turning them into mindless juveniles and prompting obnoxious behavior. Like spoiled children, they immediately become angered - as if their toy had been taken away from them.
Childish. Selfish.
She and I used to have long conversations in the car on all kinds of subjects. Her job and her interactions with clients. My job and my interactions with co-workers. Our children and how well they're doing. Friends. Family. Sports. Weather. We laughed together, We expressed our frustrations to each other.
We shared our time together.
Now I sit in silence in the driver's seat. No more conversations. Just the drone of puerile videos that someone thought was funny and posted for others to watch.
Until today, I had to suffer the indignity being ignored in favor of a video that I neither watched nor cared about, nor will watch later, nor will ever care about. Instead of being able to socialize with a human, I was disregarded as unnecessary and unwanted.
This seeming obsession with Facebook has turned an entire generation - actually, multiple generations - of once-thinking adults into churlish children.
Newton Minow, appointed as a commissioner to the FCC by JFK, remarked at a National Association of Broadcasters meeting as to the usefulness - or uselessness - of television. From the Wikipedia page:
"When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there for a day without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland."
Newton N. Minow, "Television and the Public Interest", address to the National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1961Today, television as a "public interest" is quickly fading into obscurity. Instead, people spend more and more time on the Internet and less in front of a wall-mounted screen. What Mr. Minow said in 1961 about television is equally as true about the Internet, and especially Facebook, today.
We have only replaced one "vast wasteland" with another. Only now, that "vast wateland" is no longer captive to that screen in the living room.
It follows us into our cars as well.
Monday, May 27, 2019
EU Unraveling
At long last, the EU is dying. And I'm not sorry one bit.
The EU was, from the start, impossible. It was based on the idea that a central commission would set a common economic and immigration policy for each country, with each country relinquishing the majority of its self-determination in favor of the whole. The central EU commission would ensure that "maker" countries would provide the largest amount of funding and control, and the "taker" countries would accede to the decisions made on their behalf.
Sound familiar?
Ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Ok, let me make it simple: the implementation of the EU was based on ... socialism.
France, England, and Italy have held elections and the "nationalists" have won by a fairly wide margin. The "nationalists" want their countries to regain a large piece of their autonomy - especially over both economic and immigration controls.
Yes, cross-border trade makes sense, and the reduction of cross-border tariffs makes sense as well. But the open-borders policies in France, Germany, and England have resulted in "no-go" zones: regions where localities have instituted their own laws, and where police either cannot go... or are afraid to go.
Quite naturally, the governments in these countries have forbidden press coverage of these violations of their own sovereignty for fear that they would be held to account for the crimes being committed against their own citizens by "refugees" from the Middle East (predominantly Syria). But the internet neither hides nor forgets - and stories of crimes and violence are leaking out to the free world.
The recent elections were no surprise to anyone watching what was really happening inside the EU and who have been reading the reports leaking thru "the iron curtain" (intentional reference) of government censorship of the press. The only surprise is how long the EU "commissioners" managed to keep their fingers in the legislative "dike" to keep it from collapsing - and that collapse has now begun. These elections were only the leading indicator of what's to come: BREXIT, FREXIT, ITEXIT, and several other "exits" from the EU.
Now, I don't think we're seeing a precursor to war or armed revolution... unless the immigrant "refugees" in the "no-go" zones refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the country in which they live. In that case, we could see some serious conflicts that can no longer be hidden by the MSM in the US.
Yes. Hidden by the MSM. In the US. Because the EU is an artificially created socialist construct. And the MSM enthusiastically supports Democrats. And Democrats enthusiastically support the same kinds of socialist constructs here in the US.
Imagine what would happen if, instead of showing us how "socialism works" in some EU countries (and we see only those countries with a small and culturally-secure population), the MSM showed the US how socialism is destroying some EU countries from within. How would the Democrats be able to say "We should be more like Sweden!!" if the truth about immigrant violence in Sweden was accurately reported?
The EU is collapsing. Politically, this sucks for the EU.
Politically, it is a huge warning to America.
Now the question is whether Americans will do what's needed to protect American democracy against the encroaching horrors of socialism, or whether they will accept and adopt a political system that has failed every time it has been tried.
The EU was, from the start, impossible. It was based on the idea that a central commission would set a common economic and immigration policy for each country, with each country relinquishing the majority of its self-determination in favor of the whole. The central EU commission would ensure that "maker" countries would provide the largest amount of funding and control, and the "taker" countries would accede to the decisions made on their behalf.
Sound familiar?
Ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Ok, let me make it simple: the implementation of the EU was based on ... socialism.
France, England, and Italy have held elections and the "nationalists" have won by a fairly wide margin. The "nationalists" want their countries to regain a large piece of their autonomy - especially over both economic and immigration controls.
Yes, cross-border trade makes sense, and the reduction of cross-border tariffs makes sense as well. But the open-borders policies in France, Germany, and England have resulted in "no-go" zones: regions where localities have instituted their own laws, and where police either cannot go... or are afraid to go.
Quite naturally, the governments in these countries have forbidden press coverage of these violations of their own sovereignty for fear that they would be held to account for the crimes being committed against their own citizens by "refugees" from the Middle East (predominantly Syria). But the internet neither hides nor forgets - and stories of crimes and violence are leaking out to the free world.
The recent elections were no surprise to anyone watching what was really happening inside the EU and who have been reading the reports leaking thru "the iron curtain" (intentional reference) of government censorship of the press. The only surprise is how long the EU "commissioners" managed to keep their fingers in the legislative "dike" to keep it from collapsing - and that collapse has now begun. These elections were only the leading indicator of what's to come: BREXIT, FREXIT, ITEXIT, and several other "exits" from the EU.
Now, I don't think we're seeing a precursor to war or armed revolution... unless the immigrant "refugees" in the "no-go" zones refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the country in which they live. In that case, we could see some serious conflicts that can no longer be hidden by the MSM in the US.
Yes. Hidden by the MSM. In the US. Because the EU is an artificially created socialist construct. And the MSM enthusiastically supports Democrats. And Democrats enthusiastically support the same kinds of socialist constructs here in the US.
Imagine what would happen if, instead of showing us how "socialism works" in some EU countries (and we see only those countries with a small and culturally-secure population), the MSM showed the US how socialism is destroying some EU countries from within. How would the Democrats be able to say "We should be more like Sweden!!" if the truth about immigrant violence in Sweden was accurately reported?
The EU is collapsing. Politically, this sucks for the EU.
Politically, it is a huge warning to America.
Now the question is whether Americans will do what's needed to protect American democracy against the encroaching horrors of socialism, or whether they will accept and adopt a political system that has failed every time it has been tried.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Counting the heads that count
Today, Tuesday 4/23/2019, could change the face of politics in the United States - and no, that's not an exaggeration.
Today, arguments take place in front of the SCOTUS to determine whether the Census - specifically, the short form - should contain a question with earthshaking importance:
"Are you a US citizen?"
The current Constitutional guidance is as follows:
The Legislative branch passes laws and the Executive branch executes them.
Unless the law is extremely explicit about how it is to be executed (most of the time, the law's enforcement mechanism is "the Secretary shall determine"), the Executive enforces the law using its own judgment. If Congress is dissatisfied with how the Executive enforces a law, the remedy is for Congress to rewrite the offending sections of that law. Or, to wait for a different Chief Executive to be elected who will appoint a different Secretary who will then change the rules accordingly.
Today's legal arguments at the SCOTUS aren't over the citizenship question per se, but over the "tactics" used by Wilber Ross (SecCommerce) to insert the question into the Census' "short form" - and whether the question should even appear on the "short form". Did Ross "lie" about his reasons for wanting the question on the short form? Does it matter whether he lied if, as he claims, he has legal authority to design the Census form? If the decision does not violate Constitutional principles (it doesn't) and does not violate existing law (it doesn't), why is it wrong?
The heart of any law is its intent. What is the intent of the Census? Is it to just to count the full number of people in the US? If the Census is used to determine apportionment of seats in the House, then shouldn't the census reflect the number of eligible voters in a district - and not just the number of residents? After all, isn't it the America citizens who elect their representatives - or are we going to allow non-citizens to vote too?
What was Ross's intent? Was it, as some claim, racist to not count non-citizens in the Census? If some people of a specific race are American citizens and are counted, and some people of the same race are not American citizens and are not counted, where is the racism? The Census is published in multiple languages specifically to encourage participation, even by American citizens who cannot speak English. The goal is to be as inclusive as possible - but for American citizens, not foreign nationals (if you're not an American citizen, you are a foreign national by definition).
Let's look at the law, shall we? The regulations regarding the Census are found in 13 U.S. Code. Subchapter 1 Section 4 makes it clear that the "Secretary ... may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties..." And Section 5 reads, in its entirety, "The Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title."
Hence, the content of the Census - including the determination of the questions themselves - is a plenary power of the Secretary of Commerce. Unless Ross directly violates the law, his decision is legal, enforceable, and inarguable.
Now let's examine a possible scenario that is directly affected by the results of the Census:
If one district in a large state contains a huge proportion of non-citizens and another district a different state contains a very small proportion of non-citizens, and if both districts contain an equivalent number of eligible citizen voters, why should the larger district be granted more representatives in the US House of Representatives than the smaller district? Aren't the number of eligible citizen voters the same?
One of the goals of the plaintiffs suing against the Census' citizenship question appears to be to allow "undocumented aliens" to be counted. This is tantamount to granting permission for "undocumented aliens" to continue to live in the US without fear of expulsion. This is both wrong and extremely unfair to the aliens who followed the procedures to legally come to the US, receive documentation, and take part in American society.
Moreover, since undocumented non-citizens don't legally file federal taxes (very few do) but receive federally-funded services (very many do), doesn't this mean that the smaller district's eligible voter base citizens might be paying higher taxes to support the larger district's non-voting and possibly-illegal non-citizen population? How is that fair??
My guess is that the government will prevail on the census citizenship question. The Constitution requires a census (Article 1 Section II), but is silent about the contents except for "as established by law". The law already exists in 13 U.S. Code. The only way to deny a citizenship question would be to pass a law modifying 13 U.S. Code to change the plenary powers of the Secretary - which would certainly be vetoed by Trump.
Ross may have gone about this the wrong way, but his intent was clear: to ensure that the enumeration counted only those who qualify for "taxation with representation" - American citizens.
Any other arguments, e.g. "undocumented aliens will hide in the shadows" or "we need to encourage participation in law enforcement activities" is a red herring and has nothing to do with the purpose of the census: enumeration to determine political representation.
Today, arguments take place in front of the SCOTUS to determine whether the Census - specifically, the short form - should contain a question with earthshaking importance:
"Are you a US citizen?"
The current Constitutional guidance is as follows:
The Legislative branch passes laws and the Executive branch executes them.
Unless the law is extremely explicit about how it is to be executed (most of the time, the law's enforcement mechanism is "the Secretary shall determine"), the Executive enforces the law using its own judgment. If Congress is dissatisfied with how the Executive enforces a law, the remedy is for Congress to rewrite the offending sections of that law. Or, to wait for a different Chief Executive to be elected who will appoint a different Secretary who will then change the rules accordingly.
Today's legal arguments at the SCOTUS aren't over the citizenship question per se, but over the "tactics" used by Wilber Ross (SecCommerce) to insert the question into the Census' "short form" - and whether the question should even appear on the "short form". Did Ross "lie" about his reasons for wanting the question on the short form? Does it matter whether he lied if, as he claims, he has legal authority to design the Census form? If the decision does not violate Constitutional principles (it doesn't) and does not violate existing law (it doesn't), why is it wrong?
The heart of any law is its intent. What is the intent of the Census? Is it to just to count the full number of people in the US? If the Census is used to determine apportionment of seats in the House, then shouldn't the census reflect the number of eligible voters in a district - and not just the number of residents? After all, isn't it the America citizens who elect their representatives - or are we going to allow non-citizens to vote too?
What was Ross's intent? Was it, as some claim, racist to not count non-citizens in the Census? If some people of a specific race are American citizens and are counted, and some people of the same race are not American citizens and are not counted, where is the racism? The Census is published in multiple languages specifically to encourage participation, even by American citizens who cannot speak English. The goal is to be as inclusive as possible - but for American citizens, not foreign nationals (if you're not an American citizen, you are a foreign national by definition).
Let's look at the law, shall we? The regulations regarding the Census are found in 13 U.S. Code. Subchapter 1 Section 4 makes it clear that the "Secretary ... may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties..." And Section 5 reads, in its entirety, "The Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title."
Hence, the content of the Census - including the determination of the questions themselves - is a plenary power of the Secretary of Commerce. Unless Ross directly violates the law, his decision is legal, enforceable, and inarguable.
Now let's examine a possible scenario that is directly affected by the results of the Census:
If one district in a large state contains a huge proportion of non-citizens and another district a different state contains a very small proportion of non-citizens, and if both districts contain an equivalent number of eligible citizen voters, why should the larger district be granted more representatives in the US House of Representatives than the smaller district? Aren't the number of eligible citizen voters the same?
One of the goals of the plaintiffs suing against the Census' citizenship question appears to be to allow "undocumented aliens" to be counted. This is tantamount to granting permission for "undocumented aliens" to continue to live in the US without fear of expulsion. This is both wrong and extremely unfair to the aliens who followed the procedures to legally come to the US, receive documentation, and take part in American society.
Moreover, since undocumented non-citizens don't legally file federal taxes (very few do) but receive federally-funded services (very many do), doesn't this mean that the smaller district's eligible voter base citizens might be paying higher taxes to support the larger district's non-voting and possibly-illegal non-citizen population? How is that fair??
My guess is that the government will prevail on the census citizenship question. The Constitution requires a census (Article 1 Section II), but is silent about the contents except for "as established by law". The law already exists in 13 U.S. Code. The only way to deny a citizenship question would be to pass a law modifying 13 U.S. Code to change the plenary powers of the Secretary - which would certainly be vetoed by Trump.
Ross may have gone about this the wrong way, but his intent was clear: to ensure that the enumeration counted only those who qualify for "taxation with representation" - American citizens.
Any other arguments, e.g. "undocumented aliens will hide in the shadows" or "we need to encourage participation in law enforcement activities" is a red herring and has nothing to do with the purpose of the census: enumeration to determine political representation.
Friday, April 19, 2019
The dog ate my homework - honest!
"Ok, so here's what happened. I swear it's the truth!
We both knew for several months that my grade would depend on a book report being written by a very good friend of mine, someone who I have known and trusted for years. Someone I had invited to my parties and socialized with, and who I believed was always on my side. Heck, you knew him too and had approved of him as an honest guy.
Yes, it sounded strange for me to depend on someone else for my homework, especially when I used to do all of my homework myself. But this time was different because I already knew everything I needed to know about the book -- or at least I thought I did. No, I never read it, but I was absolutely sure of its author's other books, so I knew what the story line would be. And since I knew that my friend was on my side, I knew what he'd say about it.
And, because of our past relationship, you never felt it was necessary to ask anyone else about this. You depended on me - mainly because I had never given you any obvious reason to not believe me.
I told you what the progress was on the report every day, even though my friend never really told me how it was going. I even kept you informed on some of the exact content that I thought would be in the report. Heck, I even told you what my friend would be discussing in it! I was absolutely certain that I knew how the book report would turn out.
Well, this is what happened. My friend lied to me! He told me that he was doing a book report on the book we had chosen, but he changed his mind about how he was going to review the book and wrote a completely different book report instead! I had no idea that he had changed his mind! I thought he was my friend! I thought I could depend on him!
Don't get mad at me! I wasn't responsible for this letdown! It was that asshole who I thought was my friend. In fact, when the book report was summarized, the guy who gave the summary completely betrayed me!
What a jerk! I hate him! It's his fault that I was wrong! It's his fault that the review came out differently than I planned! I thought I could trust him!
I got an F! Blame him, not me! I should still get an A because I knew what the report should have said! In fact, my friend is wrong! I'm sure I can dig into his report and find the truth!"
"Well, kid, that's what comes from getting participation trophies for attendance rather than learning how to actually play the game. Don't blame your friend for your own failure. He's the one who did the work. Maybe he really does understand the book better than you do.
By the way, that kid you hate? The one you always make fun of? The one on the other side of town? The other one who depended on your friend's book report? He didn't make any assumptions about the book, its author, or its content. He didn't guess about the content of the report, but he did do a lot of his own background research... and got an A."
We both knew for several months that my grade would depend on a book report being written by a very good friend of mine, someone who I have known and trusted for years. Someone I had invited to my parties and socialized with, and who I believed was always on my side. Heck, you knew him too and had approved of him as an honest guy.
Yes, it sounded strange for me to depend on someone else for my homework, especially when I used to do all of my homework myself. But this time was different because I already knew everything I needed to know about the book -- or at least I thought I did. No, I never read it, but I was absolutely sure of its author's other books, so I knew what the story line would be. And since I knew that my friend was on my side, I knew what he'd say about it.
And, because of our past relationship, you never felt it was necessary to ask anyone else about this. You depended on me - mainly because I had never given you any obvious reason to not believe me.
I told you what the progress was on the report every day, even though my friend never really told me how it was going. I even kept you informed on some of the exact content that I thought would be in the report. Heck, I even told you what my friend would be discussing in it! I was absolutely certain that I knew how the book report would turn out.
Well, this is what happened. My friend lied to me! He told me that he was doing a book report on the book we had chosen, but he changed his mind about how he was going to review the book and wrote a completely different book report instead! I had no idea that he had changed his mind! I thought he was my friend! I thought I could depend on him!
Don't get mad at me! I wasn't responsible for this letdown! It was that asshole who I thought was my friend. In fact, when the book report was summarized, the guy who gave the summary completely betrayed me!
What a jerk! I hate him! It's his fault that I was wrong! It's his fault that the review came out differently than I planned! I thought I could trust him!
I got an F! Blame him, not me! I should still get an A because I knew what the report should have said! In fact, my friend is wrong! I'm sure I can dig into his report and find the truth!"
"Well, kid, that's what comes from getting participation trophies for attendance rather than learning how to actually play the game. Don't blame your friend for your own failure. He's the one who did the work. Maybe he really does understand the book better than you do.
By the way, that kid you hate? The one you always make fun of? The one on the other side of town? The other one who depended on your friend's book report? He didn't make any assumptions about the book, its author, or its content. He didn't guess about the content of the report, but he did do a lot of his own background research... and got an A."
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Voluntarily Self-Destructive Behavior
I try to be even-handed when looking at the nonsense from both political parties, because they are really just 2 sides of the same coin. And, just like a modern penny, it's all glitz on the outside and worthless dross on the inside.
But this is just too good to pass up, so I had to comment on it.
The Democrats hate Trump so much that they've left hypocrisy behind and are heading toward complete insanity. I mean, seriously: when you become so confused that you don't know what you stand for any more, it's probably time for a little self-reflection. Ok, a lot of self-reflection.
Instead, all I see from Democrats is self-indulgence.
As an example, let's look at the #METOO issue (I briefly explore other hashtag-issues later in this essay). Even though a huge number of Holly starlets prostituted themselves for stardom and claim they "regret" what they did (easy to say, now that they're successful), there is validity to being offended by the offer.
But that was then.
Along comes Joe "wandering hands" Biden as a possible 2020 candidate to run against Trump, and Democrats are quick to abandon #METOO to give their favorite VP a pass - for groping women. The excuse is that he's "affectionate", although some women have said that they would have preferred he wasn't that affectionate.
Um....?????? So, it's ok for an old white male Democrat to grope women? Who knew?!?! I need to register as a Democrat so I can be more "affectionate" with women I don't know, sniff hair, put hands on shoulders (and lower), and get a pass on it! Sheesh. Once upon a time, we called guys these guys "perverts". Now, we ignore their perversions if they have the right political ideology.
Let's get honest here. Joe doesn't "touch". He gropes. When the Vice President of the United States is standing behind a woman with his hand on her shoulder (or lower - and there's photographic and video documentation), she's not going to make a public scene. He's the VEEP, after all. She may say something later, but not then and there. And she may be too embarrassed to say anything at all - ever.
The unfortunate truth is that women sometimes feel they did something wrong when they were assaulted by "roaming hands". Sometimes it takes them years to be able to talk about it with someone other than a close friend. And sometimes they do say something - but long past the time when Mr. Law could prosecute the offense.
Note to women: report this behavior immediately. Thank you.
It's one thing to shake a woman's hand in public. And it's almost ok to shake a woman's hand while touching her upper arm in greeting - as long as you don't maintain physical contact for an uncomfortably long time. But groping a woman while standing behind her?
I thought that was verboten in the #METOO era. Apparently not... if you're a "beloved Democrat".
#BLACKLIVESMATTER was killed by Smollett's attempt to start a race war, and buried by Kim Foxx when she dismissed all charges and sealed the case files. The Mayor and Chief of Police of Chicago are furious at the lack of accountability and the failure to prosecute, and much of the nation - including most of the major papers - are being very, er, ungracious towards the entire situation. "Chicago justice", indeed.
So, we learned that only Hollywood black lives matter -- and not the lives of other Chicago blacks who are killed by the hundreds in Chicago.
Note to Chicago's judges: if you stopped releasing these killers on bail and kept them in jail until their trials, your crime rate might actually go down.
#BELIEVEALLWOMEN was also killed by the Democrat 2020 candidates for President when they, almost to a person, looked for reasons to disbelieve Biden's accusers. But then, he's just "Uncle Joe", and the accusers had "other reasons" to make claims against Biden.
If I had an "Uncle Joe" who molested anyone I knew, I'd be the first to let him know, in no-uncertain terms, to keep his damned hands to himself.
So:
Thank you, Democrats, for openly and unreservedly demonstrating what many of us have been calling your deep-seated hypocrisy on almost every important social issue that you started yourselves. I've listed some of them here, but there are many, many more.
Some of us knew that your indignation was nothing but hubris, and your recent behavior has proved it far more effectively than we had hoped.
Heck, we don't need to use the "if it was a Republican" watchword any more: the 2020 candidates have done a great job of tearing each other down. Even Obama warned this group of "candidates" to be wary of turning into a "circular firing squad" and destroying any remaining hopes to win the White House in 2020.
A behavior is either right or wrong. Don't give me this "based on the circumstances" nonsense, or "yeah, but it's his style" crap - or the "but he's a Democrat" excuse. Either it's allowed or it isn't. Either the rules are the same for everyone, or toss out the rule book.
BTW, wasn't it the Democrats who ridiculed Pence for his refusal to be alone with a woman he doesn't know? Interesting that he lives the #METOO standard -- but he's a Republican, so it doesn't count.
But this is just too good to pass up, so I had to comment on it.
The Democrats hate Trump so much that they've left hypocrisy behind and are heading toward complete insanity. I mean, seriously: when you become so confused that you don't know what you stand for any more, it's probably time for a little self-reflection. Ok, a lot of self-reflection.
Instead, all I see from Democrats is self-indulgence.
As an example, let's look at the #METOO issue (I briefly explore other hashtag-issues later in this essay). Even though a huge number of Holly starlets prostituted themselves for stardom and claim they "regret" what they did (easy to say, now that they're successful), there is validity to being offended by the offer.
But that was then.
Along comes Joe "wandering hands" Biden as a possible 2020 candidate to run against Trump, and Democrats are quick to abandon #METOO to give their favorite VP a pass - for groping women. The excuse is that he's "affectionate", although some women have said that they would have preferred he wasn't that affectionate.
Um....?????? So, it's ok for an old white male Democrat to grope women? Who knew?!?! I need to register as a Democrat so I can be more "affectionate" with women I don't know, sniff hair, put hands on shoulders (and lower), and get a pass on it! Sheesh. Once upon a time, we called guys these guys "perverts". Now, we ignore their perversions if they have the right political ideology.
Let's get honest here. Joe doesn't "touch". He gropes. When the Vice President of the United States is standing behind a woman with his hand on her shoulder (or lower - and there's photographic and video documentation), she's not going to make a public scene. He's the VEEP, after all. She may say something later, but not then and there. And she may be too embarrassed to say anything at all - ever.
The unfortunate truth is that women sometimes feel they did something wrong when they were assaulted by "roaming hands". Sometimes it takes them years to be able to talk about it with someone other than a close friend. And sometimes they do say something - but long past the time when Mr. Law could prosecute the offense.
Note to women: report this behavior immediately. Thank you.
It's one thing to shake a woman's hand in public. And it's almost ok to shake a woman's hand while touching her upper arm in greeting - as long as you don't maintain physical contact for an uncomfortably long time. But groping a woman while standing behind her?
I thought that was verboten in the #METOO era. Apparently not... if you're a "beloved Democrat".
#BLACKLIVESMATTER was killed by Smollett's attempt to start a race war, and buried by Kim Foxx when she dismissed all charges and sealed the case files. The Mayor and Chief of Police of Chicago are furious at the lack of accountability and the failure to prosecute, and much of the nation - including most of the major papers - are being very, er, ungracious towards the entire situation. "Chicago justice", indeed.
So, we learned that only Hollywood black lives matter -- and not the lives of other Chicago blacks who are killed by the hundreds in Chicago.
Note to Chicago's judges: if you stopped releasing these killers on bail and kept them in jail until their trials, your crime rate might actually go down.
#BELIEVEALLWOMEN was also killed by the Democrat 2020 candidates for President when they, almost to a person, looked for reasons to disbelieve Biden's accusers. But then, he's just "Uncle Joe", and the accusers had "other reasons" to make claims against Biden.
If I had an "Uncle Joe" who molested anyone I knew, I'd be the first to let him know, in no-uncertain terms, to keep his damned hands to himself.
So:
Thank you, Democrats, for openly and unreservedly demonstrating what many of us have been calling your deep-seated hypocrisy on almost every important social issue that you started yourselves. I've listed some of them here, but there are many, many more.
Some of us knew that your indignation was nothing but hubris, and your recent behavior has proved it far more effectively than we had hoped.
Heck, we don't need to use the "if it was a Republican" watchword any more: the 2020 candidates have done a great job of tearing each other down. Even Obama warned this group of "candidates" to be wary of turning into a "circular firing squad" and destroying any remaining hopes to win the White House in 2020.
A behavior is either right or wrong. Don't give me this "based on the circumstances" nonsense, or "yeah, but it's his style" crap - or the "but he's a Democrat" excuse. Either it's allowed or it isn't. Either the rules are the same for everyone, or toss out the rule book.
BTW, wasn't it the Democrats who ridiculed Pence for his refusal to be alone with a woman he doesn't know? Interesting that he lives the #METOO standard -- but he's a Republican, so it doesn't count.
Saturday, January 5, 2019
The TSA is unnecessary.
The partial shutdown has revealed a giant secret: the TSA is mostly unnecessary and unneeded.
From the San Francisco Airport web page: "Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO."
SF uses a private company to perform security screening. They operate independently, but according to DHS rules.
Maybe it's time to return airport security to the people most capable of doing it: the local airports themselves. And maybe the airlines should take more responsibility for passenger screening.
We keep hearing about TSA "screeners" and how they either fail to do their jobs or use "random checks" to verify whether that is a colostomy bag or a liquid explosive (really!), or doing a full body search on an infant traveling to Orlando with family (really!). Those are the least of the offenses. And because those TSA "inspectors" are government employees, they can neither be sued nor disciplined for their offenses.
Putting security in the hands of private companies would force more sensible security handling. Why? The private employees would be held to a "don't screw up because we'll fire you" standard.
And the private security company will have the freedom to experiment with more advanced and efficient screening measures such as "passenger profiling", something the government can't do because a federal judge will (and has in the past) prevent it.
Lastly, it would mean a reduction in the federal workforce accompanied by a reduction in expenditures at DHS. That's a win-win in anyone's book.
From the San Francisco Airport web page: "Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO."
SF uses a private company to perform security screening. They operate independently, but according to DHS rules.
Maybe it's time to return airport security to the people most capable of doing it: the local airports themselves. And maybe the airlines should take more responsibility for passenger screening.
We keep hearing about TSA "screeners" and how they either fail to do their jobs or use "random checks" to verify whether that is a colostomy bag or a liquid explosive (really!), or doing a full body search on an infant traveling to Orlando with family (really!). Those are the least of the offenses. And because those TSA "inspectors" are government employees, they can neither be sued nor disciplined for their offenses.
Putting security in the hands of private companies would force more sensible security handling. Why? The private employees would be held to a "don't screw up because we'll fire you" standard.
And the private security company will have the freedom to experiment with more advanced and efficient screening measures such as "passenger profiling", something the government can't do because a federal judge will (and has in the past) prevent it.
Lastly, it would mean a reduction in the federal workforce accompanied by a reduction in expenditures at DHS. That's a win-win in anyone's book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)