I teach about veterans and military culture and have done talks on those subjects. I have worked in the VA system and on funded projects aimed at preventing veteran suicides. I have worked with non-profit organizations supporting our warriors, especially SOF. Of course, I am a veteran. I work in a world where that is unusual and the warrior spirit of commitment and sacrifice are alien to most. Their idea of sacrifice is getting up at 9 to be in class. They need safe zones to hide from evil words, while warriors face bullets and bombs.
I do not take advantage of the day's offerings of free or reduced price stuff. To be honest, I consider all of that lip service, feel good balm for those critics who sit at home and pontificate - taking one day a year and increasing your customer flow by offering 10% off of food, drink, or products on which you make an 80% profit. Also I was fortunate to spend 10 years of serving in times of relative peace - I wrote the blank check that would have been paid to my nation if necessary, but was fortunate never to have that nation cash it.
The "thank you" gestures are probably noble and more sincere than my cynical mind makes them out to be, but if you want to help, then do so year-round and make it substantial enough to make a difference. In my work, I see too many veterans who are left to fend for themselves. No glitzy ads, no official statements to the generic and nameless veterans. Do something to affect individuals.
This is not to say I am not appreciative of the sentiments of friends, family, and the many veteran friends that I have. I am thankful for all of them. But partly that is because they know me, I know them, these are personal sentiments, sentiments I know are heartfelt. They are not a University president, making some blanket statement with a fake smile, spouting platitudes and who is likely more interested in the material rewards it will bring her than in the topic of the email. You have to know the individuals, hear their stories, see the nature of their tribe, their honor to really make the sentiment mean something. Thankfully for our veterans, they are a cohesive group and just as their major motivation to survive is to be sure the warrior to their right and left survives, when they come back to fight the battle for reintegration, they are once more ready to give all for their fellows. But the rest of us need to follow suit - and not just one day out of 365 give a nod and a grin and handshake and a quick "Thank you for your service".
And let's be sure we understand that this is not just a warrior's sacrifice, but the sacrifice of the family as well. While we honor our veterans we have to remember their families, who also serve in so many ways. Many now suffer the absence of loved ones and all continue to deal with the effects of the commitment and sacrifice that was made.
Not a day for politics, so I will leave that there.
Well - except to say that I served under two presidents many decades ago - neither were my favorite. To be honest I never thought of them but of my job and the soldiers with whom I trained and worked - or who, as I rose in rank and responsibility, I was charged to train so that they might survive when our time came.
I know many who are now serving or recently served and have no love for the administration under which they have served or are serving. Let us remember that, while we have people in the streets, smashing windows, attacking others and burning flags, these warriors fought and some have died defending the ideals of that flag. Not the president of the day, but the ideals of the nation. While some cry and say they are "afraid" of what is to come, consider the fear that those warriors have faced when they have seen death; that of their opponents, their friends or even the prospect of their own.
We have to hope that some number of brave souls will continue to see the ideals of this nation as worth fighting and dying for and not turn to selfish motivations such as taking a knee when they are called.
Out.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Rising from the ashes
It’s been a while – been out wandering the wasteland – “I’ve been to the mountaintop and seen the other side – it was more mountains” - watching the comings and goings in the lead-up to this week’s election.
In the aftermath, some commentary is needed:
1. I have tried, really tried, worked very hard to keep my mouth shut and the grin from my face ever since I woke up early Tuesday morning and heard what I thought was either a joke or an SNL skit – that Trump had one the presidency. Shocking!
Not that I am happy he won – Lord knows there are so many people who would make better candidates and presidents. The grin is simply because HRC lost – and from hearing the lamentations of those who supported her inevitable reign. Seeing her clear amazement and depression at it is amusing. Her smug and elitist entitlement to the presidency and her supporters’ entitlement to the president they wanted has given away to depression. The elitist attitudes that accompanied every twitter and FB post now give way now to the childish stomping of feet and gnashing of teeth. No, in the best of all possible worlds, I would not wish for a Trump presidency – the notion is almost surreal and startling – but in a world where we are have to choices, I find the prospect no more catastrophic than an HRC presidency would have been and, frankly, likely much more hospitable to the rights I hold dear. So I grin and giggle inside for seeing the smugness turn to tantrum, not because I am overjoyed with Trump, but at seeing our future queen defeated.
2. Lots of talk of invisible voters; some say that the polls were wrong because many people feared being honest about their intentions. Some say not. I have seen interviews with Trump voters who acknowledged fear at being open about the candidate of their choosing, concerned about reprisal. The ongoing reaction of the liberals to their disappointment substantiates this fear –it is still a good idea to stay under the radar. I will admit, as one who works in academia, that my own voting intentions – indeed, my own voting choice – is not something I talked or will talk about with my colleagues. It is one reason, as I noted above, that I only grin on the inside.
Perhaps the “unity and diversity” crowd should ponder this when considering what went wrong; if our society has gotten to the point where one needs to be afraid of announcing their preference (after all, we had been told that those who preferred “not HRC” were deplorable, racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes and fascists) perhaps that is how you ended up with a reality show host as president. People feel anger at being cast in such light simply because they disagree with the progressive master plan and vision of the world. They do not see themselves as evil because they disagree with the notion that immigration should be uncontrolled, that only black lives matter and no black criminal should ever be harmed. They do not see themselves as evil because they believe that freedom of speech is central to our nation and the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is constitutionally guaranteed and sacrosanct. Such anger is what drove this outcome.
Progressives can either double-down on this persecutory gambit – as their temper tantrum suggests they will – or can re-evaluate the strategy of demonization as a road to political power. Quite frankly, people are tired of being told what they can think or say, which of their unalienable rights they can exercise. And, as I noted, given the environment in which I work, I am qualified to speak on this. Within these walls is an elite core of people who know best what everyone else – the unintelligent and unwashed masses – should do. Anyone who would speak against that world order is anathema.
3. Speaking of the RKBA, I would make a personal suggestion. It will not come as surprise to any of you have read anything I have written. Many people out there have liberal leanings – I have noted before that I voted for Kerry, and Obama twice – but also enjoy the RKBA. There are many rights I support and have always supported, not because I like them nor because they benefit me in any direct way, but because I believe in individual rights and not being told what to do within the limits of the rule of law. If you do not want to lose those people from your movement, I suggest you find a way to moderate your approach to limiting that RKBA. If I cannot have my firearms to protect myself and my family – even my nation – then I will not support your right to your abortion. “Choice” is important – and being anti-gun is being anti-choice. No choice for me, no choice for you.
HRC may have felt she needed to bash 2A believers – make us “deplorables” – to shore up her base. That was probably not true, but if it is what democrats and liberals wanted to hear from her, then her loss is partially on you. She lost votes by using this as a weapon. In fact, your current president lost votes for HRC by taking the approach he has taken to this issue, suborning crime while wanting to restrict law-abiding rights. But again, elitists and cry-babies know best what the rest of us should be allowed to do. BTW, if Bernie had been nominated and stuck to his moderate support for the RKBA (and not been forced to toe some anti-gun line), I suspect he would have won this handily. That’s on all of you and your party leadership for anointing HRC the future queen. Another place where you can carry the blame for Tuesday’s results.
4. Related to the above – hypocrisy! (Gesundheit!). When HRC and her supporters knew she would win, they were smug, they decried the potential for failure to accept the results and resistance to her plans, they – liberal media - went out to interview and ridicule “militias” that were planning for the great repression and revolution to follow her ascendance to the throne. They just knew that all the “crazies” out there were going to lose it and there was much handwringing over such a reaction. HRC even ended her run-up to her inevitable coronation by calling for unity among everyone – this after calling people deplorable.
But, alas, dreams do not always come true and she lost. Now, the shoe be on the other foot, and who is not accepting the outcome? Now we see the progressive versions of “militias” on the streets (I see no reason not to define liberal hate groups engaged in thuggish behavior as militias). It is so easy to be smug and point fingers when you know you will win. But it was also apparently easy to over-estimate ones’ power, to assume the mantle of leadership one had yet to be granted. Can you tell I am grinning?
5. Visited Huffpost today; a couple of interesting observations:
a. Can you say “hissy fit”?
b. They say that the Russians have admitted that there was contact – they played a role in wikileaks. Of course what this means is “We only believe the Russians when they agree with our conspiracies”. That and “We can’t believe this is happening!”
c. They also make a big deal about anti-choice legislation. I will only reiterate, as a believer in rights, that choice is not just about abortion.
In the aftermath, some commentary is needed:
1. I have tried, really tried, worked very hard to keep my mouth shut and the grin from my face ever since I woke up early Tuesday morning and heard what I thought was either a joke or an SNL skit – that Trump had one the presidency. Shocking!
Not that I am happy he won – Lord knows there are so many people who would make better candidates and presidents. The grin is simply because HRC lost – and from hearing the lamentations of those who supported her inevitable reign. Seeing her clear amazement and depression at it is amusing. Her smug and elitist entitlement to the presidency and her supporters’ entitlement to the president they wanted has given away to depression. The elitist attitudes that accompanied every twitter and FB post now give way now to the childish stomping of feet and gnashing of teeth. No, in the best of all possible worlds, I would not wish for a Trump presidency – the notion is almost surreal and startling – but in a world where we are have to choices, I find the prospect no more catastrophic than an HRC presidency would have been and, frankly, likely much more hospitable to the rights I hold dear. So I grin and giggle inside for seeing the smugness turn to tantrum, not because I am overjoyed with Trump, but at seeing our future queen defeated.
2. Lots of talk of invisible voters; some say that the polls were wrong because many people feared being honest about their intentions. Some say not. I have seen interviews with Trump voters who acknowledged fear at being open about the candidate of their choosing, concerned about reprisal. The ongoing reaction of the liberals to their disappointment substantiates this fear –it is still a good idea to stay under the radar. I will admit, as one who works in academia, that my own voting intentions – indeed, my own voting choice – is not something I talked or will talk about with my colleagues. It is one reason, as I noted above, that I only grin on the inside.
Perhaps the “unity and diversity” crowd should ponder this when considering what went wrong; if our society has gotten to the point where one needs to be afraid of announcing their preference (after all, we had been told that those who preferred “not HRC” were deplorable, racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes and fascists) perhaps that is how you ended up with a reality show host as president. People feel anger at being cast in such light simply because they disagree with the progressive master plan and vision of the world. They do not see themselves as evil because they disagree with the notion that immigration should be uncontrolled, that only black lives matter and no black criminal should ever be harmed. They do not see themselves as evil because they believe that freedom of speech is central to our nation and the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is constitutionally guaranteed and sacrosanct. Such anger is what drove this outcome.
Progressives can either double-down on this persecutory gambit – as their temper tantrum suggests they will – or can re-evaluate the strategy of demonization as a road to political power. Quite frankly, people are tired of being told what they can think or say, which of their unalienable rights they can exercise. And, as I noted, given the environment in which I work, I am qualified to speak on this. Within these walls is an elite core of people who know best what everyone else – the unintelligent and unwashed masses – should do. Anyone who would speak against that world order is anathema.
3. Speaking of the RKBA, I would make a personal suggestion. It will not come as surprise to any of you have read anything I have written. Many people out there have liberal leanings – I have noted before that I voted for Kerry, and Obama twice – but also enjoy the RKBA. There are many rights I support and have always supported, not because I like them nor because they benefit me in any direct way, but because I believe in individual rights and not being told what to do within the limits of the rule of law. If you do not want to lose those people from your movement, I suggest you find a way to moderate your approach to limiting that RKBA. If I cannot have my firearms to protect myself and my family – even my nation – then I will not support your right to your abortion. “Choice” is important – and being anti-gun is being anti-choice. No choice for me, no choice for you.
HRC may have felt she needed to bash 2A believers – make us “deplorables” – to shore up her base. That was probably not true, but if it is what democrats and liberals wanted to hear from her, then her loss is partially on you. She lost votes by using this as a weapon. In fact, your current president lost votes for HRC by taking the approach he has taken to this issue, suborning crime while wanting to restrict law-abiding rights. But again, elitists and cry-babies know best what the rest of us should be allowed to do. BTW, if Bernie had been nominated and stuck to his moderate support for the RKBA (and not been forced to toe some anti-gun line), I suspect he would have won this handily. That’s on all of you and your party leadership for anointing HRC the future queen. Another place where you can carry the blame for Tuesday’s results.
4. Related to the above – hypocrisy! (Gesundheit!). When HRC and her supporters knew she would win, they were smug, they decried the potential for failure to accept the results and resistance to her plans, they – liberal media - went out to interview and ridicule “militias” that were planning for the great repression and revolution to follow her ascendance to the throne. They just knew that all the “crazies” out there were going to lose it and there was much handwringing over such a reaction. HRC even ended her run-up to her inevitable coronation by calling for unity among everyone – this after calling people deplorable.
But, alas, dreams do not always come true and she lost. Now, the shoe be on the other foot, and who is not accepting the outcome? Now we see the progressive versions of “militias” on the streets (I see no reason not to define liberal hate groups engaged in thuggish behavior as militias). It is so easy to be smug and point fingers when you know you will win. But it was also apparently easy to over-estimate ones’ power, to assume the mantle of leadership one had yet to be granted. Can you tell I am grinning?
5. Visited Huffpost today; a couple of interesting observations:
a. Can you say “hissy fit”?
b. They say that the Russians have admitted that there was contact – they played a role in wikileaks. Of course what this means is “We only believe the Russians when they agree with our conspiracies”. That and “We can’t believe this is happening!”
c. They also make a big deal about anti-choice legislation. I will only reiterate, as a believer in rights, that choice is not just about abortion.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Funny how that works!
So, in response to a heckler at a campaign stop, one who yelled that "Bill is a rapist" and held a sign that asserted that as well as "Hillary is a criminal", HRC gets all pissy and "holier-than-thou with:
“I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and the anger of people who support Donald Trump.”
Oh, yes - HRC is the candidate of inclusion - if you are her supporter.
For the rest, she is fine with dark, divisive and angry - kind of like:
For the rest, she is fine with dark, divisive and angry - kind of like:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'. Right?. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it."
Problem is, Hillary, your husband is a rapist and you and he are criminals. You have been far too long in the public eye to deny this and it is not dark, divisive, dangerous or angry to state that fact. What you are sick and tired of is hearing that people have figured this out and do not want to give you a pass on it.
Remember: the anger did not start with Trump. The anger is partly the result of people like you with long histories in public life, raping and pillaging. Trump is a convenient vessel. Perhaps it is his entrepreneurial instinct and his salesmanship that lead him to recognize that this anger exists and to capitalize on it. But is does not emanate from him, it is simply reflected by him.
So while you cry about it, remember you were trying your best to be dark, divisive, and angry. Problem is, those you think are deplorable are proud to be considered so by an elitist immoral criminal who thinks she deserves respect. I suspect the King of England felt this way about those upstart Americans as well.
Remember: the anger did not start with Trump. The anger is partly the result of people like you with long histories in public life, raping and pillaging. Trump is a convenient vessel. Perhaps it is his entrepreneurial instinct and his salesmanship that lead him to recognize that this anger exists and to capitalize on it. But is does not emanate from him, it is simply reflected by him.
So while you cry about it, remember you were trying your best to be dark, divisive, and angry. Problem is, those you think are deplorable are proud to be considered so by an elitist immoral criminal who thinks she deserves respect. I suspect the King of England felt this way about those upstart Americans as well.
Friday, September 30, 2016
An important video
I am sure most who are making accusations against LEOs in recent shootings - often without concern for evidence that fails to confirm their firmly held beliefs - will not watch nor accept the following video. It is a shame, because not only does it explain how these things can happen, but it could save lives by showing people what not to do in certain situations.
Lots of posters and commentators on other websites will suggest that police should know that a person is innocent and that they mean no harm. These are people with no training or experience.
What they are really saying is that an LEO's life is less-important than others' and they should allow themselves to be shot first before engaging a potentially subject. If you wait for conclusive evidence, in the form of a pistol being fired at you, you have waited too long. Part of this is an inherent bias; against LE, against guns, in favor of criminals. The other part of it is ignorance of the law in relation to deadly force.
Words to those who do not wish to be shot in potentially violent encounters with LEOs: Don't act like you are going to shoot them!
Lots of posters and commentators on other websites will suggest that police should know that a person is innocent and that they mean no harm. These are people with no training or experience.
What they are really saying is that an LEO's life is less-important than others' and they should allow themselves to be shot first before engaging a potentially subject. If you wait for conclusive evidence, in the form of a pistol being fired at you, you have waited too long. Part of this is an inherent bias; against LE, against guns, in favor of criminals. The other part of it is ignorance of the law in relation to deadly force.
Words to those who do not wish to be shot in potentially violent encounters with LEOs: Don't act like you are going to shoot them!
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Long time coming
Yep - 3 busy months later and some time to randomly wander through some recent events.
1. When are people going to realize that what we are seeing between law enforcement and the black community is not a race issue - it is a culture issue? As with most individual characteristics, we can certainly see that there are as many differences within racial groups as there are between them. Note that many of the officers who have fired on resisting and reportedly-armed civilians are themselves, black men whose lives also matter.
All the body cameras, helicopter videos, and facts in the world will not stop this trend because it is not a matter of accurate information or logic - it is about emotion. But emotion starts with a certain set of beliefs, it is a violation of one's expectations, whether those expectations are realistic or not, One of the beliefs that underlies this cultural problem is that people think it is their right to react to perceived slights with threats of violence. Of course, that expectation is exacerbated by consistent messages that confirm it. There really has yet to be a case of this phenomenon that has not involved a suspect actively and often violently resisting arrest - whether the arrest or detention were justified or not. This reflects a belief that "You do not have the right to arrest or detain me!". If you react this way, if you point a gun at an LEO (or even an armed civilian), then you should expect to be shot at, if not hit. This culture of bravado, of disrespect, is what has bred this situation.
You can see this culture in many of the interviews with survivors of the unfortunate dead. You can see this culture in many of the "demonstrators" who are not demonstrating at all, but rioting and looting in disregard for their fellow citizens. You can even see models for this culture in the increase in unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in the NFL and in those players who find that the best way to protest is to show disrespect. No understanding that the flag is not a symbol of a perfect nation, but the ideals to which a nation must aspire. No thought that they become part of the problem.
Of course, as long as some people, including lilly-white rich, elitists progressives like Hillary, continue to focus the attention on the race and not the behavior, this is not likely to change. Such a sleight of hand simply creates more problems. Let's be brutally honest; the approach that Hillary and others take simply assumes a disability in the black community. It assumes a level of incapability. Many on that community find it insulting, while others, of that entitlement culture, see it as a reason for further misdeeds.
2. Reading HuffPost (why do I torture myself?) today and saw all the lamenting over Glenn Reynolds' tweet suggesting people "run down" protesters blocking highways. Oh the lamentation and rending of clothing!
One brave soul supporting the potential need to do so brings up Reginald Denny, which I think is a appropriate example. Given the choice - do I stop, respect people who do not respect me and mine, who will consider me guilty based on MY race, end up with bottles hitting my car, my doors smashed in, windows broken and potentially having my family dragged out of the car and beaten severely or killed vs. using the biggest deadly weapon I have (my car) to defend us, there is not much guesswork involved. The consideration paid by Mr. Denny to the rioters he could have run over was paid back, ten-fold in bricks to the head. Of course, some cling to the fact that he was saved by some residents - but he was nearly killed by others and would not have needed saving and suffered a head injury had he not acted humanely to those who would kill him. I am sorry I find no great honor in what he did and suffered for it. I guess we each have to decide which of those ends works best for us. Me? Don't block my car and threaten me.
Looking further in the comments, I thought it was interesting that one whiner noted that "Two wrongs don't make a right" in response to the idea of running them down. Fortunately, a more adult reply reminded this person that blocking the peaceful transit of cars on a highway in response to an alleged unnecessary police shooting was already practicing that second wrong. Perhaps this liberal could wag her finger at others for a change. I doubt it because they are all working overtime to justify the bad behavior.
This is simply the next step in process defined above; the "Go ahead, I dare you. I'm in your face. So, do something about it!" It is the same attitude that has been getting people killed when approached by LEOs; "You have no right to detain me. Go ahead, I dare you. Yes, I'm in your face and armed. Do something about it!" It is that culture on parade, a culture that, rather than be condemned as part of the problem, is being excused as a rational response.
Progressives, including Obama and Hillary, have come to see the world in social movement terms. They see all disruptive behavior as justified due to perceived oppression. Radical Islamist terrorism is not condemnable, it is justified in response to oppression and thus the answer is not swift repercussions, but love and understanding. Thus rioting, gang violence, and so one are not crimes to be dealt with, but are justifiable actions from a disabled people.
1. When are people going to realize that what we are seeing between law enforcement and the black community is not a race issue - it is a culture issue? As with most individual characteristics, we can certainly see that there are as many differences within racial groups as there are between them. Note that many of the officers who have fired on resisting and reportedly-armed civilians are themselves, black men whose lives also matter.
All the body cameras, helicopter videos, and facts in the world will not stop this trend because it is not a matter of accurate information or logic - it is about emotion. But emotion starts with a certain set of beliefs, it is a violation of one's expectations, whether those expectations are realistic or not, One of the beliefs that underlies this cultural problem is that people think it is their right to react to perceived slights with threats of violence. Of course, that expectation is exacerbated by consistent messages that confirm it. There really has yet to be a case of this phenomenon that has not involved a suspect actively and often violently resisting arrest - whether the arrest or detention were justified or not. This reflects a belief that "You do not have the right to arrest or detain me!". If you react this way, if you point a gun at an LEO (or even an armed civilian), then you should expect to be shot at, if not hit. This culture of bravado, of disrespect, is what has bred this situation.
You can see this culture in many of the interviews with survivors of the unfortunate dead. You can see this culture in many of the "demonstrators" who are not demonstrating at all, but rioting and looting in disregard for their fellow citizens. You can even see models for this culture in the increase in unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in the NFL and in those players who find that the best way to protest is to show disrespect. No understanding that the flag is not a symbol of a perfect nation, but the ideals to which a nation must aspire. No thought that they become part of the problem.
Of course, as long as some people, including lilly-white rich, elitists progressives like Hillary, continue to focus the attention on the race and not the behavior, this is not likely to change. Such a sleight of hand simply creates more problems. Let's be brutally honest; the approach that Hillary and others take simply assumes a disability in the black community. It assumes a level of incapability. Many on that community find it insulting, while others, of that entitlement culture, see it as a reason for further misdeeds.
2. Reading HuffPost (why do I torture myself?) today and saw all the lamenting over Glenn Reynolds' tweet suggesting people "run down" protesters blocking highways. Oh the lamentation and rending of clothing!
One brave soul supporting the potential need to do so brings up Reginald Denny, which I think is a appropriate example. Given the choice - do I stop, respect people who do not respect me and mine, who will consider me guilty based on MY race, end up with bottles hitting my car, my doors smashed in, windows broken and potentially having my family dragged out of the car and beaten severely or killed vs. using the biggest deadly weapon I have (my car) to defend us, there is not much guesswork involved. The consideration paid by Mr. Denny to the rioters he could have run over was paid back, ten-fold in bricks to the head. Of course, some cling to the fact that he was saved by some residents - but he was nearly killed by others and would not have needed saving and suffered a head injury had he not acted humanely to those who would kill him. I am sorry I find no great honor in what he did and suffered for it. I guess we each have to decide which of those ends works best for us. Me? Don't block my car and threaten me.
Looking further in the comments, I thought it was interesting that one whiner noted that "Two wrongs don't make a right" in response to the idea of running them down. Fortunately, a more adult reply reminded this person that blocking the peaceful transit of cars on a highway in response to an alleged unnecessary police shooting was already practicing that second wrong. Perhaps this liberal could wag her finger at others for a change. I doubt it because they are all working overtime to justify the bad behavior.
This is simply the next step in process defined above; the "Go ahead, I dare you. I'm in your face. So, do something about it!" It is the same attitude that has been getting people killed when approached by LEOs; "You have no right to detain me. Go ahead, I dare you. Yes, I'm in your face and armed. Do something about it!" It is that culture on parade, a culture that, rather than be condemned as part of the problem, is being excused as a rational response.
Progressives, including Obama and Hillary, have come to see the world in social movement terms. They see all disruptive behavior as justified due to perceived oppression. Radical Islamist terrorism is not condemnable, it is justified in response to oppression and thus the answer is not swift repercussions, but love and understanding. Thus rioting, gang violence, and so one are not crimes to be dealt with, but are justifiable actions from a disabled people.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Can you f'n believe this?
1. Why is this called "gun violence"? The apparent fact that a large number of people who live in Chicago cannot go for any length of time without killing each other is not the fault of guns. It is sheer folly and foolishness to make this a gun issue, to essentially give up on the possible redemption of people from such depraved behavior and blame the tools they use.
Let's take a couple of examples:
1. "Selton Ellis, 30, was standing near the front counter of a gas station near 72nd Street and South Chicago Avenue at 4:27 a.m. when a male entered and shot him multiple times in the torso, authorities said. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he was pronounced dead at 5:18 a.m. He lived in the 7300 block of South Greenwood Avenue".
Two possibilities here; this was a random act by a depraved individual who was going to kill, no matter what or Mr. Ellis is involved in some shady business and this was someones way of solving a dispute. In either case, it is not the gun that made this happen; it is simply a convenient target.
2. "Saturday evening, a 20-year-old man was gunned down in the Southwest Side Gage Park neighborhood. Trayvon Wilson was washing his car about 7:15 p.m. in an alley near his home in the 5800 block of South Maplewood when someone walked up to him and fired shots, authorities said. Wilson, who lived on the same block as the shooting, suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the back and was taken to Stroger Hospital, where he died at 8:41 p.m".
Carbon copy of the above - this was either someone out to kill another person for the sheer experience of it or was a deliberate killing over some form of criminal commerce. In either case, to call this "gun violence" rather than simply violence is an agenda-driven interpretation.
I could go on, but all of the examples would say the same thing. Such killing is tragic. But what is worse is that those who blame it on guns are saying that some people are simply irredeemable and evil or too immature and uncivilized to live around firearms, to have rights. Rather than address the situation, they are, in essence, saying "We can't let these children have guns."
Let's take a couple of examples:
1. "Selton Ellis, 30, was standing near the front counter of a gas station near 72nd Street and South Chicago Avenue at 4:27 a.m. when a male entered and shot him multiple times in the torso, authorities said. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he was pronounced dead at 5:18 a.m. He lived in the 7300 block of South Greenwood Avenue".
Two possibilities here; this was a random act by a depraved individual who was going to kill, no matter what or Mr. Ellis is involved in some shady business and this was someones way of solving a dispute. In either case, it is not the gun that made this happen; it is simply a convenient target.
2. "Saturday evening, a 20-year-old man was gunned down in the Southwest Side Gage Park neighborhood. Trayvon Wilson was washing his car about 7:15 p.m. in an alley near his home in the 5800 block of South Maplewood when someone walked up to him and fired shots, authorities said. Wilson, who lived on the same block as the shooting, suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the back and was taken to Stroger Hospital, where he died at 8:41 p.m".
Carbon copy of the above - this was either someone out to kill another person for the sheer experience of it or was a deliberate killing over some form of criminal commerce. In either case, to call this "gun violence" rather than simply violence is an agenda-driven interpretation.
I could go on, but all of the examples would say the same thing. Such killing is tragic. But what is worse is that those who blame it on guns are saying that some people are simply irredeemable and evil or too immature and uncivilized to live around firearms, to have rights. Rather than address the situation, they are, in essence, saying "We can't let these children have guns."
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Today's "Can you f'n believe this?"
Not sure this will go everyday- but periodically want to share some of the "WTF" moments I have. Misery loves company.
1. Loretta Lynch(a):
"Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love."
Where to begin?
- She really thinks that the way to combat people who want to kill you and have shown their willingness to do so in most gruesome ways is give them a group hug? You turn the other cheek, I'll cover you.
- Okay, maybe she means that those under siege should hug each other. If that's her idea, then I await the day when she and Wayne LaPierre have a big hug, when she hugs all the folks her boss and his sock puppets routinely call homophobes, islamophobes, racists, domestic terrorists, gun nuts, "clingers to God and guns" and the like. Can she just be honest this once: For her to talk this way is just absurd since she is part of an administration that has presided over and facilitated the great division of American society. From "Clinging to God and guns..." to "Police acted stupidly" to "If I had a son..." and so on, the idea solidarity beyond their own bases (or what they think is their own base) is truly the furthest thing from this administration's mind and this faux "love stuff" routine clearly refers only to its constituents.
So much for "common humanity".
Loretta Lynch(b): Yes, she's been on a roll today - Susan Rice better watch out.
"I'm not going to go into the detail of the process behind it. Our review was not to further spread the propaganda, but once it became a distraction, we released the whole transcript."
By now it is well known that earlier in the week DOJ released a transcript of the killer's calls during the Orlando killings - a transcript that was much censored and redacted. After a great deal of outrage that they could somehow take it upon themselves to decide what we should be allowed to see (especially given that the redaction was so ham-handed and it did not take a rocket scientists to fill in the blanks), a decision was made to release the full transcript. The quote above was her response when asked who had made the initial decision to redact the original.
It has been well-documented over several years that there has been a determined effort guided form the top to purge policy, intelligence, and training documents of any references to Islamic terrorism and its inherent vocabulary (e.g., jihad, sharia). It does not take much to recognize that same tactic in this inept attempt. The buck stops at the top. If the person who did it is not publicly admonished and fired then we know where it came from.
Goes back to the point above. Lots of love for some, lots of hate for others.
2. Charlie Rangel: The Clown Prince of Harlem. COuld likely get re-elected even if frozen body parts were found in his freezer.
“Well law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun,” Rangel responded. “You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”
“But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol,” she pointed out.
Rangel laughed at that. “Well that’s a little different,” he chuckled. “I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.”
- Not seeing much about this revelation in the major "news" outlets. News ;<)? Shocking - but I guess they don't want anyone to see that, yes, there are those who want to "come for your guns". Not good for Hillary's narrative or all those who think gun owners are paranoid.
- It is so refreshing for a liberal democrat to finally say this out loud and even more so for an interviewer to have finally asked one of these hypocrites this question. It always boils down to this. As one might expect from Rangel, given his limited intelligence and vast ego, he actually answered this honestly, reflecting what the democrat/liberal political class thinks of the rest of us.
- They are important enough to require protection, provided by the very people that they consider too menial to "deserve" it. We are left to call 911 and wait for the "response time" to pass.
Not likely Charlie.
3. Democrat sit-in:
Let them sit, stand, cry, whine, have their tantrum. That's how you deal with out-of-control children when they misbehave in public places. Don't argue or try to reason, don't give them the attention they desire, simply walk away and let them hold their breath and stomp their feet. When they realize no one is coming to save them, no one cares, they will catch up with you later.
Acting childish does not prove they are right, it proves they are immature. And given the issue over which they are having their tantrum, is simply takes us back to points 1 and 2.
4. More democrat sit-in or the end of it - such sacrifice. I hope none of them developed PTSD.
From the pardon my redundancy department, but some people never listen. These are the bills on which they are demanding votes:
- Bar those on a no-fly list from buying firearms: Now, let's just ponder this for a minute. Raise your hand if you were alive and listening during GWB's 8 years. Do you remember how aghast all of us - these people, too - were that the government might be surveying and keeping lists of people they considered threats - lists that were not open to the public. Now, fast-forward to today and her they all sit, whining for using secret government lists that no one has access to and no one can easily get off of to curtail basic rights. Take that in - really think about what they are saying. they have not values - the new America in which we live is lead by valueless people. Surveillance and black-lists are not bad unless it is your opponents who use them. If your party's president wants to create lists of undesirables without any due process, no big deal.
- Requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and online: How many times do you people need to be told? I have bought many firearms at gun shows and have never bought one without a background check. There is no "gun show loophole". Private sellers can meet anywhere to conduct business. I have bought firearms from online vendors - and never without them being routed through FFLs for background checks. Again, making a deal through email and then meeting is a private sale, not an "internet loophole". You spend too much time sitting on your brains.
So - can you f/n believe this?
1. Loretta Lynch(a):
"Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love."
Where to begin?
- She really thinks that the way to combat people who want to kill you and have shown their willingness to do so in most gruesome ways is give them a group hug? You turn the other cheek, I'll cover you.
- Okay, maybe she means that those under siege should hug each other. If that's her idea, then I await the day when she and Wayne LaPierre have a big hug, when she hugs all the folks her boss and his sock puppets routinely call homophobes, islamophobes, racists, domestic terrorists, gun nuts, "clingers to God and guns" and the like. Can she just be honest this once: For her to talk this way is just absurd since she is part of an administration that has presided over and facilitated the great division of American society. From "Clinging to God and guns..." to "Police acted stupidly" to "If I had a son..." and so on, the idea solidarity beyond their own bases (or what they think is their own base) is truly the furthest thing from this administration's mind and this faux "love stuff" routine clearly refers only to its constituents.
So much for "common humanity".
Loretta Lynch(b): Yes, she's been on a roll today - Susan Rice better watch out.
"I'm not going to go into the detail of the process behind it. Our review was not to further spread the propaganda, but once it became a distraction, we released the whole transcript."
By now it is well known that earlier in the week DOJ released a transcript of the killer's calls during the Orlando killings - a transcript that was much censored and redacted. After a great deal of outrage that they could somehow take it upon themselves to decide what we should be allowed to see (especially given that the redaction was so ham-handed and it did not take a rocket scientists to fill in the blanks), a decision was made to release the full transcript. The quote above was her response when asked who had made the initial decision to redact the original.
It has been well-documented over several years that there has been a determined effort guided form the top to purge policy, intelligence, and training documents of any references to Islamic terrorism and its inherent vocabulary (e.g., jihad, sharia). It does not take much to recognize that same tactic in this inept attempt. The buck stops at the top. If the person who did it is not publicly admonished and fired then we know where it came from.
Goes back to the point above. Lots of love for some, lots of hate for others.
2. Charlie Rangel: The Clown Prince of Harlem. COuld likely get re-elected even if frozen body parts were found in his freezer.
“Well law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun,” Rangel responded. “You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”
“But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol,” she pointed out.
Rangel laughed at that. “Well that’s a little different,” he chuckled. “I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.”
- It is so refreshing for a liberal democrat to finally say this out loud and even more so for an interviewer to have finally asked one of these hypocrites this question. It always boils down to this. As one might expect from Rangel, given his limited intelligence and vast ego, he actually answered this honestly, reflecting what the democrat/liberal political class thinks of the rest of us.
- They are important enough to require protection, provided by the very people that they consider too menial to "deserve" it. We are left to call 911 and wait for the "response time" to pass.
Not likely Charlie.
3. Democrat sit-in:
Let them sit, stand, cry, whine, have their tantrum. That's how you deal with out-of-control children when they misbehave in public places. Don't argue or try to reason, don't give them the attention they desire, simply walk away and let them hold their breath and stomp their feet. When they realize no one is coming to save them, no one cares, they will catch up with you later.
Acting childish does not prove they are right, it proves they are immature. And given the issue over which they are having their tantrum, is simply takes us back to points 1 and 2.
4. More democrat sit-in or the end of it - such sacrifice. I hope none of them developed PTSD.
From the pardon my redundancy department, but some people never listen. These are the bills on which they are demanding votes:
- Bar those on a no-fly list from buying firearms: Now, let's just ponder this for a minute. Raise your hand if you were alive and listening during GWB's 8 years. Do you remember how aghast all of us - these people, too - were that the government might be surveying and keeping lists of people they considered threats - lists that were not open to the public. Now, fast-forward to today and her they all sit, whining for using secret government lists that no one has access to and no one can easily get off of to curtail basic rights. Take that in - really think about what they are saying. they have not values - the new America in which we live is lead by valueless people. Surveillance and black-lists are not bad unless it is your opponents who use them. If your party's president wants to create lists of undesirables without any due process, no big deal.
- Requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and online: How many times do you people need to be told? I have bought many firearms at gun shows and have never bought one without a background check. There is no "gun show loophole". Private sellers can meet anywhere to conduct business. I have bought firearms from online vendors - and never without them being routed through FFLs for background checks. Again, making a deal through email and then meeting is a private sale, not an "internet loophole". You spend too much time sitting on your brains.
So - can you f/n believe this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)