Monday, December 14, 2015

White stuff

Started snowing yesterday, still coming down lightly.

Just shoveled 8" off the walk, did a store run, now to settle down and binge watch something. Suggestions welcome. 

Friday, December 11, 2015

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Why the surprise and dismay?

So he opened his mouth again. It's not coming as a surprise to anyone, or at least it shouldn't.

I don't even have to write his name, do I......nope.

What does surprise me somewhat, is how some blogs are expressing surprise or concern, as though this was the first time he's said something that should make most people shudder.

Our GOP candidates (the other ones) after carefully avoiding saying anything negative about him for weeks and months are finally issuing rebukes.

So if you haven't turned on a tv, radio or a computer-like device in the last 48 hours, here's the deal:
He said he thinks the US should refuse entry into the country to any Muslim, including US citizens who are returning to the US.

Yeah, repugnant, and about as far away from what I understand to be American Values as one can go. However, it's not unlike him to say something like this, not at all. He's said all manner of insulting things about Asians, African Americanscs, women, you name them, he's probably insulted them.

Now suddenly this is one toke over the line??

Let me remind you what some blogs have said about him in the past:

"Will this be The Donald's true, lasting legacy...his willingness to say things out loud that would leave other weak-kneed politicians issuing serial apologies? Would that really be such a bad thing?"

Another refers to him as "refreshing"

Well, he's being willing to say things that should make most cringe, so I guess that's refreshing.

Why back away from him now?  He's being as un-PC as one can be, that's what you like, right?

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Saturday Second Thoughts

A comment from the now well-known NY Times front page editorial post. The first one done since the '20's, I believe. It goes to the heart of what I think the debate is about, and the arguments postured by the nra and it's minions.

"I own about a half dozen guns. All long guns, shotguns mostly. All for hunting, which I have done for 40 years. The gun lobby's position is intellectually dishonest. There are 3 main arguments they make: (1) Constitutional. Setting aside the legal debate (I am a lawyer) this is a red herring. The gun lobby would not support amending the Constitution to allow more restrictive laws, so arguing about the intent of the second amendment is irrelevant. (2) Policy. The gun lobby holds that laws restricting gun access do not work because the criminals obtain them illegally. This is is undoubtedly true. However, even if it could be unequivically demonstrated that certain restrictive guns laws do work, the gun lobby would still not support the restriction. Clearly, then, this too is a red herring. (3) The cost of freedom. This is the real argument, the heart and soul of it all. That is, in a free society, there are certain costs to certain freedoms. It is essential and foundational to our national spirit and way of life to be as free from governmental intrusion and restriction as possible. Ok, fair enough. Let's have that debate. Let's look honestly and directly into that sun and say, yes, the children of Sandy Hook are the cost of this particular freedom as conceived by the gun lobby and its adherents. I'm not willing to pay that cost."

Says it all, doesn't it? If we are just going to let this one slide, as some blogs say is inevitable, then let's out and say it. Let's be up front to those who follow and will someday read our words and make their judgment. Let's say it to them, let's say it to the families of the children at Sandy Hook, and all the other schools, malls, wherever this happens. Let's say "Sorry, your kids are just the price we pay. Thanks for bearing that price, bad luck for you."