It was good. Not earth-shaking, not life-changing... but very good.
I speak, of course, of Mitt's speech. Very good. Probably the best he's given in the last two years. Certainly, the best of this campaign (to date).
Some of it was very touching, and much of it was very inspiring... but if I had to point to one thing that I think will ring out in the days, months... and dare I say, years?... to come, it was when he said:
"The America we all know has been a story of many becoming one. United to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest the economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness.
Everywhere I go there are monuments for those who have given their lives for America. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation, or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag, fighting for a single purpose. They've pledge allegiance to the United States of America. That America, that united America can unleash an economy that will put Americans back to work, that will once again lead the world with innovation and productivity, and will restore every father and mother's confidence that their children's future is brighter even than the past. That American, that united America will preserve a military that's so strong no nation will ever dare to test it. That America, that united America will uphold the rights that were endowed by our creator and codified in our Constitution. That united America will care for the poor and sick, will honor and respect the elderly and will give a helping hand to those in need. That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children. "
If he made a sale as a candidate for President, it was with that line. At least for me.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Romney has to step up...
I hope Mitt's speech is as good or better than Ryan's... cause Ryan's was damn good.
Some fluff, some party-line pandering... neither of which Paul Ryan is very good at delivering. Some hyperbole and exaggeration... neither of which I think were needed. Otherwise, a solid speech that really seemed to wake the crowd up at times.
I think his strongest points were at the end of his speech. Without coming out and listing the differences, he showed that he and Mitt were from different backgrounds, faiths and even generations, but that they were "hand-in-hand" in all that mattered politically. I'm not all that sure that is true, but it is enough to be said, I guess. He is the VP candidate, after all... his agenda isn't the one that really matters.
He brought up the salient points that I felt really needed to be touched on:
Success in business does NOT mean Romney is a bad man, or did bad things. Obama is NOT a poor man, either... and Obama didn't give half as much of his wealth to charity that Romney did over the last four years, even as a percentage of income. Dollar for dollar, even Ryan gave away more money than Obama did.
Romney got to where he is today with honesty and integrity, and he is making his run for the White House without the aid and support of people who are either avowed socialists/communists (who are antithetical to the very premise that is America), racists, or terrorist sympathizers and supporters.
Choosing to vote for Obama is choosing to vote for the "status quo"... and there aren't many people in this country that can want to see more of that. A sluggish, almost stagnant rate of economic growth; disastrous foreign affairs; nearly unlimited debt potential with no means of escape... other than higher taxes across the board. I especially liked the point he made that increased cost to business and manufacturing ONLY increases the cost to the consumer, so when corporate taxes go up, so do costs. End result: less for the tax payer to keep in his pocket and spend as he wishes.
If creating an environment in the small-business community of America could mean adding ONE MORE employee to every company that has a total staff of between 5 and 50 employees, then the unemployment problem in this country disappears entirely. It doesn't get any easier than that... but since most of the OWNERS of companies that size make between $250,000 and $1,000,000 a year, and will have to pay 30% MORE in taxes and carry a higher corporate tax rate as well, this is unlikely to happen in Obama's next term.
Some fluff, some party-line pandering... neither of which Paul Ryan is very good at delivering. Some hyperbole and exaggeration... neither of which I think were needed. Otherwise, a solid speech that really seemed to wake the crowd up at times.
I think his strongest points were at the end of his speech. Without coming out and listing the differences, he showed that he and Mitt were from different backgrounds, faiths and even generations, but that they were "hand-in-hand" in all that mattered politically. I'm not all that sure that is true, but it is enough to be said, I guess. He is the VP candidate, after all... his agenda isn't the one that really matters.
He brought up the salient points that I felt really needed to be touched on:
Success in business does NOT mean Romney is a bad man, or did bad things. Obama is NOT a poor man, either... and Obama didn't give half as much of his wealth to charity that Romney did over the last four years, even as a percentage of income. Dollar for dollar, even Ryan gave away more money than Obama did.
Romney got to where he is today with honesty and integrity, and he is making his run for the White House without the aid and support of people who are either avowed socialists/communists (who are antithetical to the very premise that is America), racists, or terrorist sympathizers and supporters.
Choosing to vote for Obama is choosing to vote for the "status quo"... and there aren't many people in this country that can want to see more of that. A sluggish, almost stagnant rate of economic growth; disastrous foreign affairs; nearly unlimited debt potential with no means of escape... other than higher taxes across the board. I especially liked the point he made that increased cost to business and manufacturing ONLY increases the cost to the consumer, so when corporate taxes go up, so do costs. End result: less for the tax payer to keep in his pocket and spend as he wishes.
If creating an environment in the small-business community of America could mean adding ONE MORE employee to every company that has a total staff of between 5 and 50 employees, then the unemployment problem in this country disappears entirely. It doesn't get any easier than that... but since most of the OWNERS of companies that size make between $250,000 and $1,000,000 a year, and will have to pay 30% MORE in taxes and carry a higher corporate tax rate as well, this is unlikely to happen in Obama's next term.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
I haven't forgotten, you know...
Aug 29, 2005... Aug 29, 2012
As much as I am experiencing the PTSD triggers of watching Isaac barrel down on the Gulf Coast in almost the same path and on the same date as Katrina, I can't imagine what that must be like for the ones still in MS.
By all I've read and seen (and Mike Reader and the Sun Herald have been all over my 'puter since the weekend), the worst is past and the damage should seem pretty light compared to 2005. Outages seem pretty spread out, and the timeline for power restoration for those few hundred homes seems to be measured in hours rather than days.
Still, the worst must be knowing that you'll be back to work in as little as a single shift... I'd want at least a two-day break. That's just me, though.
As much as I am experiencing the PTSD triggers of watching Isaac barrel down on the Gulf Coast in almost the same path and on the same date as Katrina, I can't imagine what that must be like for the ones still in MS.
By all I've read and seen (and Mike Reader and the Sun Herald have been all over my 'puter since the weekend), the worst is past and the damage should seem pretty light compared to 2005. Outages seem pretty spread out, and the timeline for power restoration for those few hundred homes seems to be measured in hours rather than days.
Still, the worst must be knowing that you'll be back to work in as little as a single shift... I'd want at least a two-day break. That's just me, though.
Conventio-con-expo-fest-o-rama...
My thoughts....
I haven't had much time to follow the RNC at Tampa... and I know the MS contingent of the Bund probably hasn't either, what with all the Isaac preparations... but I've watched a little, and I wanted to say this.
When I first saw Ann Romney's speech, I thought she was laying on the "Mitt Praise" just a little thick... but she made one stellar point without ever coming out and saying it: Mitt holds a set of personal principles that do not allow him to indulge in self-aggrandizement the way President did from 2007 to today. For good or bad, he simply isn't the sort of man that seems capable of "tooting his own horn" in an effort to get the masses to accept him for what he purports to be.
Between his autobiography and his numerous television appearances where he explains (ad nauseum) his personal views and accomplishments and the paths that have led him there (all of which seem rather incongruent to me), we have a pretty detailed image of just who Obama is and why he does what he does. Without Ann's speech, we wouldn't have that for Mitt Romney. Now, do I think that Mitt has a solid, first-hand understanding of what it means to not be able to make his mortgage payment every month? Or not have enough in his accounts to get food AND school supplies the week before the kids go back? No, I don't. The man's father was wealthy by anyone's standards long before Mitt was old enough to understand bounced checks... and he was wealthy all his life. But does that really matter? Not at all. I don't believe he has to have experienced poverty to know it sucks... and very, very few Americans suffer from real poverty, anyway. Even the poorest Americans have cell phones, computer access, food stamps and public assistance to keep food on tables and roofs over heads.
I certainly don't feel Obama has any more of a "handle" on my situation as a lower-middle-class wage earner in America because of his disjointed stories of his stepfather, Lolo, and the adventures they had in Indonesia from '67 to '71. No, even as a Democrat, I can't say I feel any "closer" to Obama through what I know of his early life and accomplishments than a do any other politician in America.
So, now that the "background" of Mitt has been delivered, the last days of the convention need to focus on the "message" that the ticket will be taking to the street: HERE are the solutions to the problems facing America, and HERE are the means by which Romney/Ryan will achieve those solutions once elected.
I haven't had much time to follow the RNC at Tampa... and I know the MS contingent of the Bund probably hasn't either, what with all the Isaac preparations... but I've watched a little, and I wanted to say this.
When I first saw Ann Romney's speech, I thought she was laying on the "Mitt Praise" just a little thick... but she made one stellar point without ever coming out and saying it: Mitt holds a set of personal principles that do not allow him to indulge in self-aggrandizement the way President did from 2007 to today. For good or bad, he simply isn't the sort of man that seems capable of "tooting his own horn" in an effort to get the masses to accept him for what he purports to be.
Between his autobiography and his numerous television appearances where he explains (ad nauseum) his personal views and accomplishments and the paths that have led him there (all of which seem rather incongruent to me), we have a pretty detailed image of just who Obama is and why he does what he does. Without Ann's speech, we wouldn't have that for Mitt Romney. Now, do I think that Mitt has a solid, first-hand understanding of what it means to not be able to make his mortgage payment every month? Or not have enough in his accounts to get food AND school supplies the week before the kids go back? No, I don't. The man's father was wealthy by anyone's standards long before Mitt was old enough to understand bounced checks... and he was wealthy all his life. But does that really matter? Not at all. I don't believe he has to have experienced poverty to know it sucks... and very, very few Americans suffer from real poverty, anyway. Even the poorest Americans have cell phones, computer access, food stamps and public assistance to keep food on tables and roofs over heads.
I certainly don't feel Obama has any more of a "handle" on my situation as a lower-middle-class wage earner in America because of his disjointed stories of his stepfather, Lolo, and the adventures they had in Indonesia from '67 to '71. No, even as a Democrat, I can't say I feel any "closer" to Obama through what I know of his early life and accomplishments than a do any other politician in America.
So, now that the "background" of Mitt has been delivered, the last days of the convention need to focus on the "message" that the ticket will be taking to the street: HERE are the solutions to the problems facing America, and HERE are the means by which Romney/Ryan will achieve those solutions once elected.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sweet, a new fight!
F.Ryan writes:
Really? Please tell me this was just unfortunate sentence structure in an otherwise defensible rant:
"FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?"
Setting aside whether or not the GOP's unwillingness to even touch Social Security (et al) constitutes "following FDR's example," the gist of this paragraph communicates, as I read it, the opinion that the dynamic duo's "statist" domestic agenda both won WWII & ushered in economic "boom" times. Please tell me I've misinterpreted or you miswrote.
Really? Please tell me this was just unfortunate sentence structure in an otherwise defensible rant:
"FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?"
Setting aside whether or not the GOP's unwillingness to even touch Social Security (et al) constitutes "following FDR's example," the gist of this paragraph communicates, as I read it, the opinion that the dynamic duo's "statist" domestic agenda both won WWII & ushered in economic "boom" times. Please tell me I've misinterpreted or you miswrote.
Man, this is like old times... me pouring my heart out to the blog-o-sphere and you completely misunderstanding everything I write. Good times, good times...
I've said that I'm done trying to explain my position on New Deal (and all it encompasses) with you. I'm only stating the obvious here: FDR and Truman were "statists" (according to the Levin/Limbaugh/Ryan definition of the term), and while they were in office, we won a world war, won back all that was lost in the Korean conflict and enjoyed the largest "boom" period in modern history. Every President EXCEPT Reagan has followed the New Deal paradigm almost to the letter, especially the last two.
What more "statist" policy could there be than consumer rationing? Our entire economy, and every facet of our society that was effected by it, was geared around priorities and agendas set by the Federal government from Jan of 1942 until late into 1948, as the last of the Marshall Plan funds poured into Europe... and both the country and the Constitution not only survived, but thrived. Surely, you don't feel that we WON WWII in spite of the "total war" effort, as you do the Great Depression and New Deal? Is the rationale now that we'd have won the war faster had there been no rationing? No confiscation of resources? No eminent domain seizures? Surely not...
My comments, and specifically my "question", were rhetorical in nature. Big Government doesn't equal dismantled Constitution... otherwise we'd have fallen apart numerous times in our history, beginning with the Civil War.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
I'll say this much...
If this isn't the most important election in the last 100 years, then it is certainly the most entertaining one we've had since I started watching them.
The hyperbole is so outrageous on both sides of the card that it almost makes the whole thing look ridiculous. One side is promising that another four years of the current leadership will "destroy" America as we know it, while the other keeps making the claim that a change in leadership will "return" America to some imaginary Dark Age of the 1980s, when blacks were "in chains" and had no opportunity to make their lot better and the poor were used exclusively for the footstools of the super-rich.
Just look at the headlines... forget the articles, just the headlines... and see the verbiage employed to catch the attention of the public. An article I read this morning headlined the "Top 10 Biggest Lies" Paul Ryan has made since his pick as running mate to Romney. #5 on that list is the LIE that one of Ryan's favorite bands is "Rage Against the Machine", which is a LIE because Ryan is part of the machine they are raging against. Seriously? Where is the logic in that? Another article I read this morning said that at no point in our nation's history have we faced an "ideological crisis" the likes of the one we now find ourselves in, with a Progressive President systematically dismantling the country and leading it into a socialist model that puts government first and foremost in every respect. Really? This is the greatest ideological crisis in our history? The "slave vs free" ideologies didn't take the nation into a four year civil war that destroyed 40% of the nation's infrastructure and killed or wounded more than one million Americans? Progressives like FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?
I hear Glenn Beck and Mark Levin "promise" that the USA will not survive another four years of Obama, should he win in November, and I recall back to the days when the same was promised of the Clinton Administration as Bob Dole tried to rest the reigns from the "liberal elitists" running the show. I hear Arriana Huffington compare Paul Ryan to the Nazi regime in 1933, as she quotes Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
As I see it, the truth is nowhere near either of those extremes. Liberals in 1994 "promised" that the Pay-As-You-Go" Act would take 25 years to end deficit spending, and it took less than five. They said it would bankrupt the government and increase poverty and unemployment, and it did neither. No matter how BIG the debt load is right now (and it is at its biggest, ever), most of that debt is "imaginary" at best. We only owe the debt if we spend the money over the course of the next 13 years, so reducing spending in the next four years will dramatically reduce what is "owed" long-term.
I also don't see Obama "destroying" America. His vision for the nation is not mine, and I disagree with almost every portion of his political platform... but he is NOT re-writing or dismantling the Constitution any more than Bush did, or Johnson did, or Wilson did, or Lincoln did, or Jefferson did, or Washington did. He is pushing an agenda for the country that he feels will work... and if it doesn't, then he'll be voted out of office and probably take the Senate majority with him.
Paul Ryan does not oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest, he opposes the use of Federal funds to pay for those procedures. Yes, he is pro-life to the core, and I am sure that he DOES, morally, oppose abortion of any kind... but he can't refuse someone the "right" to choose simply because he disagrees with the choice, as long as the choice is legal. In that sense, he and I are on the EXACT same page.
Obama has stated that he will not enforce in-place laws and regulations concerning illegal immigration and the detention and deportation of said illegals, and I feel this is wrong. However, he is not doing something that has never been done before, is he? Disregarding established laws is a habit that many Presidents have taken up, going all the way back to Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act and following all the way up to George W. Bush (who also didn't enforce established immigration policy). This list of Presidents includes some GOP favorites, with Ronald Reagan topping the list.
The blame lies with us, though... not the campaigns or the press. We, the voting public, have become so immune to the hyperbole and exaggeration that it is simply accepted... even expected. If we really cared, we wouldn't allow it. We'd demand answers, not fluff. We'd ask questions about policy and agendas that mattered, not what music is on a candidate's iPod.
Sad, isn't it?
The hyperbole is so outrageous on both sides of the card that it almost makes the whole thing look ridiculous. One side is promising that another four years of the current leadership will "destroy" America as we know it, while the other keeps making the claim that a change in leadership will "return" America to some imaginary Dark Age of the 1980s, when blacks were "in chains" and had no opportunity to make their lot better and the poor were used exclusively for the footstools of the super-rich.
Just look at the headlines... forget the articles, just the headlines... and see the verbiage employed to catch the attention of the public. An article I read this morning headlined the "Top 10 Biggest Lies" Paul Ryan has made since his pick as running mate to Romney. #5 on that list is the LIE that one of Ryan's favorite bands is "Rage Against the Machine", which is a LIE because Ryan is part of the machine they are raging against. Seriously? Where is the logic in that? Another article I read this morning said that at no point in our nation's history have we faced an "ideological crisis" the likes of the one we now find ourselves in, with a Progressive President systematically dismantling the country and leading it into a socialist model that puts government first and foremost in every respect. Really? This is the greatest ideological crisis in our history? The "slave vs free" ideologies didn't take the nation into a four year civil war that destroyed 40% of the nation's infrastructure and killed or wounded more than one million Americans? Progressives like FDR and Truman didn't utilize "statist" agendas and policies to win a world war and the Korean conflict, while watching the nation "boom" through one of its most expansive economic periods ever... so much so that every President for the next four decades followed their example?
I hear Glenn Beck and Mark Levin "promise" that the USA will not survive another four years of Obama, should he win in November, and I recall back to the days when the same was promised of the Clinton Administration as Bob Dole tried to rest the reigns from the "liberal elitists" running the show. I hear Arriana Huffington compare Paul Ryan to the Nazi regime in 1933, as she quotes Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
As I see it, the truth is nowhere near either of those extremes. Liberals in 1994 "promised" that the Pay-As-You-Go" Act would take 25 years to end deficit spending, and it took less than five. They said it would bankrupt the government and increase poverty and unemployment, and it did neither. No matter how BIG the debt load is right now (and it is at its biggest, ever), most of that debt is "imaginary" at best. We only owe the debt if we spend the money over the course of the next 13 years, so reducing spending in the next four years will dramatically reduce what is "owed" long-term.
I also don't see Obama "destroying" America. His vision for the nation is not mine, and I disagree with almost every portion of his political platform... but he is NOT re-writing or dismantling the Constitution any more than Bush did, or Johnson did, or Wilson did, or Lincoln did, or Jefferson did, or Washington did. He is pushing an agenda for the country that he feels will work... and if it doesn't, then he'll be voted out of office and probably take the Senate majority with him.
Paul Ryan does not oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest, he opposes the use of Federal funds to pay for those procedures. Yes, he is pro-life to the core, and I am sure that he DOES, morally, oppose abortion of any kind... but he can't refuse someone the "right" to choose simply because he disagrees with the choice, as long as the choice is legal. In that sense, he and I are on the EXACT same page.
Obama has stated that he will not enforce in-place laws and regulations concerning illegal immigration and the detention and deportation of said illegals, and I feel this is wrong. However, he is not doing something that has never been done before, is he? Disregarding established laws is a habit that many Presidents have taken up, going all the way back to Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act and following all the way up to George W. Bush (who also didn't enforce established immigration policy). This list of Presidents includes some GOP favorites, with Ronald Reagan topping the list.
The blame lies with us, though... not the campaigns or the press. We, the voting public, have become so immune to the hyperbole and exaggeration that it is simply accepted... even expected. If we really cared, we wouldn't allow it. We'd demand answers, not fluff. We'd ask questions about policy and agendas that mattered, not what music is on a candidate's iPod.
Sad, isn't it?
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
What about principles?
Driving home from work last night, I was listening to the last half hour of the Levin show on the radio. He had the Chairman of the RNC on as his guest (don't recall his name), and when I dialed in the radio, the discussion was about Todd Akin.
The Chairman seemed adamant that the RNC and the Republican Party's national body distance itself ("divorce itself" was the term he used) from anything to do with Akin... for obvious reasons. His ignorant statement about a woman's ability to "shut down" conception at will, coupled with the outrageous statement that there are acceptable forms of rape (those that aren't "legitimate" seemingly) have brought a firestorm of heat from the press and public quarters in a race that is already very, very heated.
Levin seemed utterly ready to dedicate himself to voting for Akin, or anyone else sporting a GOP label, as long as it means we win the needed majorities in the House and maintain and extend the Senate majority, as well as gaining the White House.
I don't think Akin is going to win his race... not after the gaff. Let's assume I'm right, for just a minute.
Is Levin right? Do we continue to feed money, time and effort into a campaign that might very well be lost from the start... just to ensure the widest possible margin of victory across the national landscape?
Or is the Chairman right? Is putting national funds and efforts behind the Akin race simply throwing good money away?
I'm going with the Chairman on this one. The GOP is in a pinch... but it can't hope to win anything substantial if the standards set by the national GOP platform aren't met by the candidates running, and Akin did NOTHING to make me think he understands those standards or is willing to apply them to his personal or campaign performance.
In short, the GOP determined that "an abortion is an abortion" and that all life is sacred and worth protecting, period. That means they are NOT trying to qualify when life is sacred and when it isn't. Why then should we compromise conservative principles by saying that some "rapes" are legitimate and others are not? Do we, as conservatives, not rail against the Dems and libs when they try to qualify terms and actions like "terrorist" versus "extremist"? Do we not hate the fact that they live to "qualify" the means by which wealth, property and prosperity are measured and meted out according to their (the liberals) agendas, rather than the agendas of the individuals?
Akin stepped on his proverbial member, and should answer accordingly. We hold the Democrats accountable for their gaffs and ignorant rants, do we not? Akin should expect no better treatment from his own party than that.
The Chairman seemed adamant that the RNC and the Republican Party's national body distance itself ("divorce itself" was the term he used) from anything to do with Akin... for obvious reasons. His ignorant statement about a woman's ability to "shut down" conception at will, coupled with the outrageous statement that there are acceptable forms of rape (those that aren't "legitimate" seemingly) have brought a firestorm of heat from the press and public quarters in a race that is already very, very heated.
Levin seemed utterly ready to dedicate himself to voting for Akin, or anyone else sporting a GOP label, as long as it means we win the needed majorities in the House and maintain and extend the Senate majority, as well as gaining the White House.
I don't think Akin is going to win his race... not after the gaff. Let's assume I'm right, for just a minute.
Is Levin right? Do we continue to feed money, time and effort into a campaign that might very well be lost from the start... just to ensure the widest possible margin of victory across the national landscape?
Or is the Chairman right? Is putting national funds and efforts behind the Akin race simply throwing good money away?
I'm going with the Chairman on this one. The GOP is in a pinch... but it can't hope to win anything substantial if the standards set by the national GOP platform aren't met by the candidates running, and Akin did NOTHING to make me think he understands those standards or is willing to apply them to his personal or campaign performance.
In short, the GOP determined that "an abortion is an abortion" and that all life is sacred and worth protecting, period. That means they are NOT trying to qualify when life is sacred and when it isn't. Why then should we compromise conservative principles by saying that some "rapes" are legitimate and others are not? Do we, as conservatives, not rail against the Dems and libs when they try to qualify terms and actions like "terrorist" versus "extremist"? Do we not hate the fact that they live to "qualify" the means by which wealth, property and prosperity are measured and meted out according to their (the liberals) agendas, rather than the agendas of the individuals?
Akin stepped on his proverbial member, and should answer accordingly. We hold the Democrats accountable for their gaffs and ignorant rants, do we not? Akin should expect no better treatment from his own party than that.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Truly a must-read article...
READ this Fortune article.
It's scary... I know. Anything CNN puts their name on tends to give me pause. But this Fortune article really does a fantastic job of bringing the missing aspects of REAL debate in this election to light. It's long, but its worth it.
More later... promised Jambo I'd work the FF sheets today before we go car shopping.
It's scary... I know. Anything CNN puts their name on tends to give me pause. But this Fortune article really does a fantastic job of bringing the missing aspects of REAL debate in this election to light. It's long, but its worth it.
More later... promised Jambo I'd work the FF sheets today before we go car shopping.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
What if?
Now that there are two established tickets for the 2012 race, and now that we are coming into the final preparations for the two national conventions, what are the chances that we see the DNC "draft" a new VP candidate for the '12 race?
Obama is the incumbent. He is defending the "high ground", to use a rather tired analogy, and thus, the advantage is his. However, not even the most ardent Democrat can argue that this is not going to be a cake-walk race. The President and his team will do ANYTHING to avoid answering direct questions concerning issues facing the country, because they know they can't answer them adequately.
Obama is looking across the "battlefield" (another tired analogy, I know) and sees the Ryan pick as adding a popular, principled and (most importantly) very eloquent and well-spoken Number Two to the GOP team. He looks to his camp and sees... Biden.
The gaffe in VA yesterday is simply the latest in a long line of idiotic things that Biden has managed to pull off since Jan of 2009. Prior to that, he had a HUGE list of idiotic things, but those where accomplished when he was simply a senior Senator... now he is the Vice President of the United States, and ALWAYS in the lime light. Each and every stupid thing said will haunt the campaign until it is over... and surely Obama and the team must know they can't afford that.
The names I've heard mentioned the most (since the VA "chains" gaffe) is Hillary, of course... but she might not accept it to keep her White House dreams alive. Christine Gregoire (sp?) of Washington is on the list, since her term is up in 2013 and she'd bring executive experience. So would Gov. Swietzer (sp?) of Montana, also out of office in 2013.
Is this a possibility? Would the DNC discount the idea because it would make the Dems look "divided"?
Obama is the incumbent. He is defending the "high ground", to use a rather tired analogy, and thus, the advantage is his. However, not even the most ardent Democrat can argue that this is not going to be a cake-walk race. The President and his team will do ANYTHING to avoid answering direct questions concerning issues facing the country, because they know they can't answer them adequately.
Obama is looking across the "battlefield" (another tired analogy, I know) and sees the Ryan pick as adding a popular, principled and (most importantly) very eloquent and well-spoken Number Two to the GOP team. He looks to his camp and sees... Biden.
The gaffe in VA yesterday is simply the latest in a long line of idiotic things that Biden has managed to pull off since Jan of 2009. Prior to that, he had a HUGE list of idiotic things, but those where accomplished when he was simply a senior Senator... now he is the Vice President of the United States, and ALWAYS in the lime light. Each and every stupid thing said will haunt the campaign until it is over... and surely Obama and the team must know they can't afford that.
The names I've heard mentioned the most (since the VA "chains" gaffe) is Hillary, of course... but she might not accept it to keep her White House dreams alive. Christine Gregoire (sp?) of Washington is on the list, since her term is up in 2013 and she'd bring executive experience. So would Gov. Swietzer (sp?) of Montana, also out of office in 2013.
Is this a possibility? Would the DNC discount the idea because it would make the Dems look "divided"?
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Romney-Ryan
It was a good pick, I think.
I'm still no fan of Romney, mind you. The guy will say or do anything to get what he wants, and has shown me little of the "principled" foundation that we here at the Bund all seem to long for in a candidate. His time as Governor of Mass. shows exactly what I mean.
Still, the ticket got a lot stronger with the pick of Paul Ryan as VP candidate. He is going to appeal to many who might otherwise look at Romney with some disdain, an "old money" politician with lots of markers hanging over his head should he win.
Now that the pick is made, I think the ticket needs to do what the McCain-Palin ticket didn't: put the two side-by-side and start working the trails. It MUST be seen as a joint effort, and that the two are working towards the same goal... and (I can't stress this enough) that goal CANNOT simply be getting rid of Obama. It MUST be the return of government to a more conservative, "smaller" model in as short a time as possible.
There is an outside chance that the GOP could win back majorities in both Houses, and the White House in November. If that happens, then the first two years of the Romney Administration MUST do what Bush/Lott/Hastert did not do... and that is emulate (if not outright copy) the Reagan paradigm of cutting spending, reducing the size and scope of government and lowering taxes. Things like foreign policy, the ongoing War on Terror, support of allies like Israel... all that is secondary to showing the American voting public that the model of government needs to change DOMESTICALLY before any real efforts can be made in our extended policies abroad. I might even add that a page could be taken from the Clinton/Gore playbook by re-selling the "Pay As You Go" plan for Congress... Newt and Co. got a LOT of miles out of that act, and (by extension) put Clinton into his second term.
No more promises of a "balanced budget" beyond long term discussions... it will not (indeed, I wonder if it is even possible at all) happen in the next four years of ANY Administration. Cut spending, reduce the size of bloated government agendas, and eliminate as much of the "new Government" as we have seen since 2008... and I think you will have the chance to show America just what really DOES work, versus the empty promises of the liberal left.
I'm still no fan of Romney, mind you. The guy will say or do anything to get what he wants, and has shown me little of the "principled" foundation that we here at the Bund all seem to long for in a candidate. His time as Governor of Mass. shows exactly what I mean.
Still, the ticket got a lot stronger with the pick of Paul Ryan as VP candidate. He is going to appeal to many who might otherwise look at Romney with some disdain, an "old money" politician with lots of markers hanging over his head should he win.
Now that the pick is made, I think the ticket needs to do what the McCain-Palin ticket didn't: put the two side-by-side and start working the trails. It MUST be seen as a joint effort, and that the two are working towards the same goal... and (I can't stress this enough) that goal CANNOT simply be getting rid of Obama. It MUST be the return of government to a more conservative, "smaller" model in as short a time as possible.
There is an outside chance that the GOP could win back majorities in both Houses, and the White House in November. If that happens, then the first two years of the Romney Administration MUST do what Bush/Lott/Hastert did not do... and that is emulate (if not outright copy) the Reagan paradigm of cutting spending, reducing the size and scope of government and lowering taxes. Things like foreign policy, the ongoing War on Terror, support of allies like Israel... all that is secondary to showing the American voting public that the model of government needs to change DOMESTICALLY before any real efforts can be made in our extended policies abroad. I might even add that a page could be taken from the Clinton/Gore playbook by re-selling the "Pay As You Go" plan for Congress... Newt and Co. got a LOT of miles out of that act, and (by extension) put Clinton into his second term.
No more promises of a "balanced budget" beyond long term discussions... it will not (indeed, I wonder if it is even possible at all) happen in the next four years of ANY Administration. Cut spending, reduce the size of bloated government agendas, and eliminate as much of the "new Government" as we have seen since 2008... and I think you will have the chance to show America just what really DOES work, versus the empty promises of the liberal left.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Verum ops...
Funny thing about Latin... the older it is, the more like English it is.
Ryan's "ops verum" would read "power, but..." because the verum is read as a conjunction when following the predicate, but is an adverb when preceding it. So, "true power" is "verum ops", just like in English.
However, the reason for my post is NOT to start a grammatical argument over the verbage used from a dead language in post titles...
Jake woke up REALLY early this morning... 5:00 AM in fact, and there simply is no sleeping when Jake is awake, so I had extra time to run through the news this morning. While looking at the very cool images from the Mars mission, I found a series of pics from the Library of Congress dating back to the early 40's, all in perfect color and clarity (true Kodachrome images, in fact). There were more than 60 of them, and they were images of life in America, un-staged and candid.
Looking at the images brought the thought that it doesn't look ANY different then than it does now. Nearly 75 years later, and homes, buildings, factories, fairs and businesses look no different now than they do in the photos. What is different is the manner in which life was conducted... and that really got me thinking.
Ryan and I have fought and fought about the era collectively known as the Great Depression. The fight usually stems from what ended it, rather than what started it. Without starting the fight again, I will say this:
New Deal changed one thing that is undeniable in the world of "small business" here in America... and that is it brought about the age of "zoning". Prior to 1933, businesses run from a home were treated no different than businesses run from separate facilities. Plumbing businesses were run out of homes, where the "shop" was located on the front or first floor of the building, and the "plumber" lived upstairs or in the back with his family. These were the businesses that failed over and over again during the protracted period of the "Great Depression" and I am willing to admit that there is no denying that New Deal zoning laws, enacted at a Federal level to separate personal property from business property (for the assessing of value and usage in government subsidies), did keep small business from recovering at a reasonable rate after the crash. It is difficult to find any other common factor that explains the failure of so many family businesses in such a short time frame. It wasn't Federal lending practices, or tax policies, or a disparity in distribution of Federal grants and funds (for better or worse)... so what else could it be?
Those images show small business working... but the vast majority didn't, and I think it is because of the added cost associated with maintaining and paying for additional space/buildings.
I wish I could link the images... but I can't find the site now. If you find them, they are fascinating.
Ryan's "ops verum" would read "power, but..." because the verum is read as a conjunction when following the predicate, but is an adverb when preceding it. So, "true power" is "verum ops", just like in English.
However, the reason for my post is NOT to start a grammatical argument over the verbage used from a dead language in post titles...
Jake woke up REALLY early this morning... 5:00 AM in fact, and there simply is no sleeping when Jake is awake, so I had extra time to run through the news this morning. While looking at the very cool images from the Mars mission, I found a series of pics from the Library of Congress dating back to the early 40's, all in perfect color and clarity (true Kodachrome images, in fact). There were more than 60 of them, and they were images of life in America, un-staged and candid.
Looking at the images brought the thought that it doesn't look ANY different then than it does now. Nearly 75 years later, and homes, buildings, factories, fairs and businesses look no different now than they do in the photos. What is different is the manner in which life was conducted... and that really got me thinking.
Ryan and I have fought and fought about the era collectively known as the Great Depression. The fight usually stems from what ended it, rather than what started it. Without starting the fight again, I will say this:
New Deal changed one thing that is undeniable in the world of "small business" here in America... and that is it brought about the age of "zoning". Prior to 1933, businesses run from a home were treated no different than businesses run from separate facilities. Plumbing businesses were run out of homes, where the "shop" was located on the front or first floor of the building, and the "plumber" lived upstairs or in the back with his family. These were the businesses that failed over and over again during the protracted period of the "Great Depression" and I am willing to admit that there is no denying that New Deal zoning laws, enacted at a Federal level to separate personal property from business property (for the assessing of value and usage in government subsidies), did keep small business from recovering at a reasonable rate after the crash. It is difficult to find any other common factor that explains the failure of so many family businesses in such a short time frame. It wasn't Federal lending practices, or tax policies, or a disparity in distribution of Federal grants and funds (for better or worse)... so what else could it be?
Those images show small business working... but the vast majority didn't, and I think it is because of the added cost associated with maintaining and paying for additional space/buildings.
I wish I could link the images... but I can't find the site now. If you find them, they are fascinating.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Dicere est non, mi amice
I admit, some jobs in the "fix-'er-upper" area of habitation are simply too big to take on... but as you said, you aren't your average "fix-'er-upper" either. Are you sure you aren't passing on a good thing? You'd know better than I, but I wanted to ask. Help is out there, and you have always struck me as a quick study. Should the opportunity present itself for you to apply the same effort in learning how to do the jobs needed around the domicile as you do your daily "make up" and hair-style ritual, coupled with your narcissistic obsession with your physique... I'd think you could rebuild the lost city of Atlantis in just short of one summer, let alone a little three bedroom cabin in the Mississippi backwoods.
Still... I'm sure you're excited about going back to the Coast. Working on a house is tough work, and no one knows that better than I.
Still... I'm sure you're excited about going back to the Coast. Working on a house is tough work, and no one knows that better than I.
No Mas
Well... it happened. The last straw. The final act. The Rubicon crossed. After all the efforts at mostly cosmetic upgrades to "Chateau Apocalypse" here at deep station 4 in the wooded zombie refuge, we discovered the entire structure is laden with black mold. Walls and floors. Add to this the recent detection of a semi-regular gas smell that coincides with a slight drop in the propane tank's meter (which gets no usage during summer). The little lady and I have simply decided this place is beyond our pay grade to repair. That and I have this silly little aversion to inhaling toxic floating fungus until I'm consumed in a fiery death ball of fury. Silly, I know. The result is simple - we're moving up our time frame. The graduate degree I want is exclusively offered at the Gulf Park Campus of USM (on the Coast). We had planned to move there in roughly 18 mos after I wrapped up my undergrad at the main campus in Hatteisburg. We're going now. As in by the end of August "now."
Jambo, this is where you can help a bit, if you don't mind. I have the money to get a place, but I need real bang for my buck. I don't know what your schedule is, but we're driving down Friday after the kids get out of school. We'll be there through Sunday afternoon-ish, at an aunt's house. However, I've made it clear I intend on - assuming you're off - heading to your place either Friday or Saturday night to crack a few back. I'm simply hoping by luck of the schedule that you're off and don't already have plans.
The "help" I refer to is any lead, any contact, or even grabbing a coast apartment guide from the gas station would be much appreciated (anything from Ocean Springs to Bay St. Louis). Even if this weekend's no good for you, anything you (or your better half) know of in terms of a good deal on a house or apartment rental would be welcomed. I'll go down to the main house and ring you tomorrow, make sure you have my yahoo email and a good phone number for me.
Now you may be asking yourself, "why not just text/call tonight, rather than post this on a public forum?" All I can say is, there are no phones in the Apocalypse.
Jambo, this is where you can help a bit, if you don't mind. I have the money to get a place, but I need real bang for my buck. I don't know what your schedule is, but we're driving down Friday after the kids get out of school. We'll be there through Sunday afternoon-ish, at an aunt's house. However, I've made it clear I intend on - assuming you're off - heading to your place either Friday or Saturday night to crack a few back. I'm simply hoping by luck of the schedule that you're off and don't already have plans.
The "help" I refer to is any lead, any contact, or even grabbing a coast apartment guide from the gas station would be much appreciated (anything from Ocean Springs to Bay St. Louis). Even if this weekend's no good for you, anything you (or your better half) know of in terms of a good deal on a house or apartment rental would be welcomed. I'll go down to the main house and ring you tomorrow, make sure you have my yahoo email and a good phone number for me.
Now you may be asking yourself, "why not just text/call tonight, rather than post this on a public forum?" All I can say is, there are no phones in the Apocalypse.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
A must see...
Within the Netflix instant view documentary choices is a bone-chilling series you simply MUST see. It is the single best documentary series I have ever viewed (so of course it was done by the Brits). It's 6 episodes entitled: Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State. Each episode is about 48 minutes. It's detail, from the use of CGI to recreate camps brick by brick from Nazi blueprints, to the reenactment actors (speaking fluent German at all times), to the personal life's of the commandants, to how the Germans dealt with the practical obstacles involved with killing then disposing of millions of corpses within each of the camps is a body of record that any man, woman, and I'd say child of appropriate maturity, needs to watch.
Whew... that was hard.
Well, today we just returned home from eight days of vacation. Liz, myself and the three kids... no one else.
It almost killed me.
It was about the best vacation we've ever had. We went to a small cabin right on the shores of Lake Ontario in the quaint little NY town of Oswego. It was simply too much money and not enough time to go all the way home to WI and the shores of Lake Superior, so we compromised on a much closer Great Lake, hoping the return would pay off.
It did, let me tell you. A great little place, right on the water... just enough room for the five of us... close enough to town to make frequent trips more convenient but far enough away to keep the hustle and bustle of the city far, far away.
We had Liz's NY family over for a cook out on Sunday (last), went to the Syracuse Zoo on Monday, the MOST (Museum of Science and Technology) on Wednesday, Fort Ontario on Thursday, and Liz's sister and kids over (again) on Friday. Plenty of family time, not too hectic a schedule, very relaxing, and must cheaper than driving 2,400 miles over the course of four days in a pickup truck. Only three hours away, with traffic.
I'm not kidding though... DAMN I'm tired.
More later...
It almost killed me.
It was about the best vacation we've ever had. We went to a small cabin right on the shores of Lake Ontario in the quaint little NY town of Oswego. It was simply too much money and not enough time to go all the way home to WI and the shores of Lake Superior, so we compromised on a much closer Great Lake, hoping the return would pay off.
It did, let me tell you. A great little place, right on the water... just enough room for the five of us... close enough to town to make frequent trips more convenient but far enough away to keep the hustle and bustle of the city far, far away.
We had Liz's NY family over for a cook out on Sunday (last), went to the Syracuse Zoo on Monday, the MOST (Museum of Science and Technology) on Wednesday, Fort Ontario on Thursday, and Liz's sister and kids over (again) on Friday. Plenty of family time, not too hectic a schedule, very relaxing, and must cheaper than driving 2,400 miles over the course of four days in a pickup truck. Only three hours away, with traffic.
I'm not kidding though... DAMN I'm tired.
More later...
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Chicken sandwiches and Walter Mondale
43 galons of paint later ...
well, maybe not 43, but damn near close.
First, kudos to Titus for trying to keep this thing (our site, the brothers bund) going despite my needed absence as of late, and Jambo's almost sociopathic objection to posting (although he reads everything, as he's assured me in the past). By the way Jambo, yes I will be heading to the coast at some point in the not so distant future. My ex-wife and current "girlfriend" (I'll explain that one when I figure it out, and off the public record) has an aunt down there she also intends on visiting, so plan on my bunking over one night. I'll call days in advance to shore up dates, you needn't worry.
Before I get to the "news" of the day, something that shouldn't be news to anyone - I am NOT a handyman. I am a man. I am handy with certain facts, figures, the occasion historical recitation, and arguments regarding anything under the sun, but put anything more complicated than a paint brush in my hand and you'll see me sweat like an insurgent on the wrong end of a SEAL sniper rifle. If you don't already know - my mother has given me (and my family) usage, for free, of a 3 bedroom, 2 bath cabin like domicile on her property... deep, DEEP in the woods for as long as it takes me to get a graduate level degree. However, as gracious as that is, it comes with a slight catch - the entire place must be renovated from the walls, to the floors, to the kitchen sink (literally). I've inherited a post-apocalyptic shelter (Zombie, nuclear, take your pick). The problem is, people in my life keep forgetting they're talking to ME, F.Ryan. See, I drive a pick-up truck. I own a dog, I lift weights, I wear a ball cap with a bent bill, and so it is assumed I can lay flooring and cut molding (or is it lay molding and cut flooring?) with the best of my brothers, of which I have FIVE, all of whom could build a house from scratch with little more than a hammer and some Elmer's Glue! They're very helpful, they get me started, give me some pointers, remind me to do this and that, but the problem is I need someone to get me started, come in at the middle, and rescue me at the finish. One of the windows needed a window sill... around the entire window. My step-dad came up, cut and put in place this sill out of some 2x4's. He then told me I could use a router to design the wood of the sill to match the other window's design. Oh yeah, my router. It's right next to my freisenberg above the doohiggy in my non existent shed of imaginary tools. Boys, we all have our strengths, and right now I need a Hail Mary (or other poem of your choice) for about every can of paint stacked in the living room. An apartment lease is looking more attractive by the day.
This theater shooting ... it defies rationale. I had a detailed discussion with my sons (and a brother or two as I watched them sodder (sp?) something I needed for wi-fi use). I start with the basics - blaming the gun for these deaths is like blaming the fork for obesity. I add that laws, by definition, affect only those willing to abide by them. And for those inclined to blame the 2nd Amendment based on loose rationale, let me ask you a simple timeline question - the 2nd has been around for what, 221 years? Yet these style shootings (from Columbine to Batman) have cropped up only in the last 30 or so years. During those 30 years the gun laws have become MORE restrictive, not less. Can you say the same about movies? About the glorification of senseless violence in movies? I don't blame batman, don't get me wrong. But if the Left wants to open up this can of worms regarding causality, I'd say the discerning investigator would find Hollywood's coarsening of our culture a much more useful time line for measuring violent crime in our society, than say the .357 I keep near my bed.
And what's worse, this trend (until recent court victories) towards more restrictive gun laws, take away the single best defense against this sort of tragedy. No law is ever taking away all the nut-jobs. Nor all the .22's out there. The single best defense against a maniac committing mass murder in a public place is other, sane citizens, in that public place intervening with their own weapon - PERIOD! That is your only chance. Just today another scare in another Batman movie theater occurred. A man jumped up from his seat and started running through the aisles screaming, "It's happening! It's happening!" He was quickly wrestled to the ground by three other moviegoers and subdued until the police arrived. It turned out he had no weapon, but in a dark theater how would these three guys know that? The same happened at the New York, New York casino in Vegas a couple years ago. Guy pulled a gun, started firing, and two cops on vacation from Florida, both packing personal heat for personal safety, drew their weapons and subdued this nut - nobody was killed. Consider the most famous act of citizen intervention in our life time - Flight 93. The list goes on and on. We can't put a cop in every theater, on every plane, at every casino. Our only chance is regular guys with what I think is a common American sense of duty to their fellow man, stepping in and doing what's needed, what is right. And the ONLY thing more restrictive gun laws do is limit that regular guy's ability to help.
One other bit in the news today - Obama and Chick-File (did I spell that right?). It turns out that Dan Gracy, the CEO of this family owned chain (which closes on Sundays nationwide, at every chain, in accordance to their Baptist beliefs) said in an interview recently that he opposes any changes in the definition of marriage. It's one man, one woman, period. Well that set off a firestorm of Leftist mayors, like Rham Emanuel of Chicago (formerly Obama's chief of staff), screaming that they intend on running "hate chicken" out of their cities (I mean, do these guys ever listen to themselves - hate chicken?). Today, in response, millions of consumers whom support the chicken sandwich king's stance lined up and purchased a combo meal to show their solidarity. Lines looped around the street, twice, at some drive thru's. It took 90 minutes in Texas to get an order of waffle fries. This does not boad well for the president. I think this is an indication of the election now 97 days away. Those that oppose the PoTUS, and his ideology, are itching, chomping at the bit as it were to get involved. But they're not screaming about hate, boycotts or making public statements... they're showing up. They're voting with their feet. I think we're talking landslide ... the waffle fry sees all.
well, maybe not 43, but damn near close.
First, kudos to Titus for trying to keep this thing (our site, the brothers bund) going despite my needed absence as of late, and Jambo's almost sociopathic objection to posting (although he reads everything, as he's assured me in the past). By the way Jambo, yes I will be heading to the coast at some point in the not so distant future. My ex-wife and current "girlfriend" (I'll explain that one when I figure it out, and off the public record) has an aunt down there she also intends on visiting, so plan on my bunking over one night. I'll call days in advance to shore up dates, you needn't worry.
Before I get to the "news" of the day, something that shouldn't be news to anyone - I am NOT a handyman. I am a man. I am handy with certain facts, figures, the occasion historical recitation, and arguments regarding anything under the sun, but put anything more complicated than a paint brush in my hand and you'll see me sweat like an insurgent on the wrong end of a SEAL sniper rifle. If you don't already know - my mother has given me (and my family) usage, for free, of a 3 bedroom, 2 bath cabin like domicile on her property... deep, DEEP in the woods for as long as it takes me to get a graduate level degree. However, as gracious as that is, it comes with a slight catch - the entire place must be renovated from the walls, to the floors, to the kitchen sink (literally). I've inherited a post-apocalyptic shelter (Zombie, nuclear, take your pick). The problem is, people in my life keep forgetting they're talking to ME, F.Ryan. See, I drive a pick-up truck. I own a dog, I lift weights, I wear a ball cap with a bent bill, and so it is assumed I can lay flooring and cut molding (or is it lay molding and cut flooring?) with the best of my brothers, of which I have FIVE, all of whom could build a house from scratch with little more than a hammer and some Elmer's Glue! They're very helpful, they get me started, give me some pointers, remind me to do this and that, but the problem is I need someone to get me started, come in at the middle, and rescue me at the finish. One of the windows needed a window sill... around the entire window. My step-dad came up, cut and put in place this sill out of some 2x4's. He then told me I could use a router to design the wood of the sill to match the other window's design. Oh yeah, my router. It's right next to my freisenberg above the doohiggy in my non existent shed of imaginary tools. Boys, we all have our strengths, and right now I need a Hail Mary (or other poem of your choice) for about every can of paint stacked in the living room. An apartment lease is looking more attractive by the day.
This theater shooting ... it defies rationale. I had a detailed discussion with my sons (and a brother or two as I watched them sodder (sp?) something I needed for wi-fi use). I start with the basics - blaming the gun for these deaths is like blaming the fork for obesity. I add that laws, by definition, affect only those willing to abide by them. And for those inclined to blame the 2nd Amendment based on loose rationale, let me ask you a simple timeline question - the 2nd has been around for what, 221 years? Yet these style shootings (from Columbine to Batman) have cropped up only in the last 30 or so years. During those 30 years the gun laws have become MORE restrictive, not less. Can you say the same about movies? About the glorification of senseless violence in movies? I don't blame batman, don't get me wrong. But if the Left wants to open up this can of worms regarding causality, I'd say the discerning investigator would find Hollywood's coarsening of our culture a much more useful time line for measuring violent crime in our society, than say the .357 I keep near my bed.
And what's worse, this trend (until recent court victories) towards more restrictive gun laws, take away the single best defense against this sort of tragedy. No law is ever taking away all the nut-jobs. Nor all the .22's out there. The single best defense against a maniac committing mass murder in a public place is other, sane citizens, in that public place intervening with their own weapon - PERIOD! That is your only chance. Just today another scare in another Batman movie theater occurred. A man jumped up from his seat and started running through the aisles screaming, "It's happening! It's happening!" He was quickly wrestled to the ground by three other moviegoers and subdued until the police arrived. It turned out he had no weapon, but in a dark theater how would these three guys know that? The same happened at the New York, New York casino in Vegas a couple years ago. Guy pulled a gun, started firing, and two cops on vacation from Florida, both packing personal heat for personal safety, drew their weapons and subdued this nut - nobody was killed. Consider the most famous act of citizen intervention in our life time - Flight 93. The list goes on and on. We can't put a cop in every theater, on every plane, at every casino. Our only chance is regular guys with what I think is a common American sense of duty to their fellow man, stepping in and doing what's needed, what is right. And the ONLY thing more restrictive gun laws do is limit that regular guy's ability to help.
One other bit in the news today - Obama and Chick-File (did I spell that right?). It turns out that Dan Gracy, the CEO of this family owned chain (which closes on Sundays nationwide, at every chain, in accordance to their Baptist beliefs) said in an interview recently that he opposes any changes in the definition of marriage. It's one man, one woman, period. Well that set off a firestorm of Leftist mayors, like Rham Emanuel of Chicago (formerly Obama's chief of staff), screaming that they intend on running "hate chicken" out of their cities (I mean, do these guys ever listen to themselves - hate chicken?). Today, in response, millions of consumers whom support the chicken sandwich king's stance lined up and purchased a combo meal to show their solidarity. Lines looped around the street, twice, at some drive thru's. It took 90 minutes in Texas to get an order of waffle fries. This does not boad well for the president. I think this is an indication of the election now 97 days away. Those that oppose the PoTUS, and his ideology, are itching, chomping at the bit as it were to get involved. But they're not screaming about hate, boycotts or making public statements... they're showing up. They're voting with their feet. I think we're talking landslide ... the waffle fry sees all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
