Guard Dog

What was it about? The only thing everyone argues about anymore... politics. It's a funny thing. Most of the members are well into their later years. We have a handful of Iraq & Afghanistan vets, two Gulf War vets and a handful who have seen action in other places. But the majority are Vietnam & Korean war vets. These fellows have lived for a long time. They have seen the world at it's best and worst and seen Presidents and congresses come and go. You'd think they would recognize certain patterns to history and rather than embrace the political tribalism that is gripping our country (disagree = enemy) they would be able to take a larger view of what's going on. But it turns out you'd be wrong to think that. Oh well. Alcohol and political discussion make a poor soup.

There was a huge argument at the VFW last night. I'm pleased to say I pretty much started the whole thing.

I didn't know THAT was coming. Definitely going to see that.

Last night I finally got to see the 2010 remake of True Grit. I loved it. The 1969 version was the 2nd best movie John Wayne ever made IMO (the Shootist was first). But Jeff Bridges absolutely nailed it. Kim Darby and Glen Campbell were excruciating to watch in the original. Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon were both excellent. The remake included some things that were in the book that did not make it, including the ending which was beautifully melancholic. Great movie. I was sure they were going to screw it up with "modern sensibilities" but that didn't happen at all. If anything it was far mre true to the source material that the original.

I do not pretend to be an expert on French politics but from my reading a lot of French voters felt they had to choose between two terrible candidates. That was a big reason why turnout was low. Well, I can certainly sympathize with them there. There is a lot of that going around.

Corn, corn, corn. Good lord do I have a lot of it. It grew even better than I could have imagined.

Volo is to savage, these ods are not worth it Well... perhaps the fact that I was complimenting him is lost on some here? Maybe he himself? I don't know. There's no 'vs' occurring, unless one thoroughly misunderstood what I wrote.

Val vs Volo, oh man, let me get my popcorn! I've got $50 on the man from Kanada! Any takers? I'll give you 3:1!

Isn't it arguably a bit of both? Unless the racial slurs were not actually based on his race...but if they were, obviously some sort of discrimination between his race and others is being made (which is where the original meaning of the word "discrimination" comes from), which is motivating those specific slurs, right? It's more a term I'd associate with actually depriving someone of something they are entitled to simply because of a trait beyond their control. In other words looks/thoughts not behavior. If it extends the some jerk yelling words the term discrimination begins to lose it's teeth real quick. Like calling apolitical opponent a nazi. There actually is such a thing and it's not a good thing when it's meaning is diluted to extend meaning "everyone who disagrees with me". Sticks an stones and all that.

It occurs to me that we are losing what the real definition of discrimination is. This story hit the news here in the US this past week. A college student was reading their bible in the classroom prior to class. The class instructor felt "threatened" buy it and asked the student to put it away. The student refused to comply so the professor called the campus police and had the student removed from the class. Asking, or even telling the student to put away the bible is not discrimination. That's just being an as---le. Calling the police and having the student removed for reading a book before class IS discrimination because it it were any other book it likely would not have happened. Some (allegedly, stories vary) yelled racial slurs at Manny Machado from the Fenway Park outfield stands this week. That isn't discrimination. That's someone being as as---le. If Fenway Park wouldn't let Manny play there because his skin color, that is discrimination. If a bunch of jerks burn down a mosque that is arson. If the police don't do anything about it it's discrimination. The US has a pretty bad track record of treating it's minority citizens with the love and equity due an American and a fellow human being. It was discrimination to make Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus. It was discrimination to arrest her when she didn't. It was discrimination to not permit minorities to visit some stores, use some public parks and facilities and definitely discrimination to deny them services or employment based on that. And it's also becoming more an more a thing of the past. Not saying it does not still happen but actual discrimination that hurts people physically or economically is rare. Now as---les are as plentiful as mushrooms after a rain. They will piss you off, they will hurt your feelings, but unless they are actually depriving you of the freedom to practice your religion or access and enjoy the public spaces and services your taxes paid for, or not permit you to take advantage or hire services offered to the public they are not discriminating against you. They are just being an as---le.

Socialism: Set of ideologies seeking to build a egalitarian and (thus) free society based on common ownership of the means of production. How is this totalitarian or insane? It's not insane. It's not even necessarily totalitarian (although history provides few examples that were not). What it really IS is impossible. And it would not be free by any description.

Said no one ever!

The thing is in the future, perhaps as soon as 2020, we may have cause to rue their use of the "nuclear option". Folks who enjoy seeing their "team" exercise power and stick to their enemies need to remember one day that power will be in the hands of someone else. The left wingers of this country were loving the way Obama spent eight years usurping power from the Congress, from the States, from thin air. Now all that power and more importantly the precedent to do even more is in the hands of Donald Trump.Politics is cyclical. Right now the Republicans hold all the cards. Withing the next 8 years that might all reverse. In fact it's even likely it will. That is one of the biggest arguments against allowing the government to expand it's power. The Republicans should be cutting down the size and scope so the next Democrat admin and Congress can't do as much damage. Instead they are out Democrating the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh even asked the Vice President yesterday "What is the point of even voting Republican?" He's right. Had I been Trump I'd have sacrificed Goresuch and in his place nominated someone even more unacceptable to the left. Like Janice Rogers Brown as an example. And let them know if they filibuster her the next one will be even worse for them. At some point public pressure will force them to drop the filibuster and the 60 vote cloture rule would still exist. That is thinking strategically.

This is where I remind everyone there were more names on your Presidential ballot than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. yeah, is good to reminds us how 'cause o' electoral college, the fringe party voters in the three swing states o' pennsylvania, michigan and wisconsin, coupled with even a few more democrats actual voting in those states, coulda' made a difference in preventing a trump presidency. HA! Good Fun! Then we'd be discussing a Clinton Administration. It's hard to see how we'd come out ahead on that score. I am definitely no fan of Trump but at least we got a decent Supreme Court Justice out of it. He's not who I would have picked but from a libertarian viewpoint he's pretty good. I would not have been able to say that about any Clinton nominee. I don't think Gary Johnson or Jill Stein had any business being President. But I know the Libertarian and Green Party candidates should be allowed in the debates and have access to the same campaign and ballot access resources ans the elephants and jackasses. The best way to make that happen is by voting for them. Both Clinton and Trump were unacceptable to a lot of people. The greatest failing of the two party choice is the day was coming when they only choices amounted to either being bitten by a snake or stung by a scorpion. The only productive votes that were could be cast were for third party candidates in the hopes they would get enough to open the door in 2020.

This is where I remind everyone there were more names on your Presidential ballot than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Well I had said the protections of the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted as extended to carrying a loaded weapon concealed on your person. He said it had and he WAS right about that one thing at least. Like I said before it is legal to transport a firearm in all 50 states as far as I know (if not every city in those states) but to carry one loaded and concealed on your person takes that up a level and I don't see it being terribly burdensome to follow the permitting process with includes fingerprinting and background checks. Some states do not require them and some do not allow permits at all but no state prohibit ownership and possession in the home or place of business and transportation (with various requirements). So it seems to me if your state does not issue permits and you think they should then the place to make your case is in your state capital building, not the courthouse. As I said before I absolutely believe that a citizen with no criminal history that is willing to be responsible and abide by the laws of their state should be free to arm themselves if they see fit to do so. Step one, if your state requires a permit get one. That is part of being responsible. Now if a permit to own a firearm in the home were required then it runs afoul of the Constitution in my opinion. There is a difference.

Apparently, Trump is under the impression that if Andrew Jackson had been elected President in 1860 (rather than being dead for nearly 17 years) the Civil War would have been avoided. That Jackson (a southern slave owner) would have negotiated a peace. Well, let's see. In Jackson's 8 years neither Kansas or Missouri were organized territories so the big issue of slavery in non-state territories which was a big deal in the 1850's and a factor in the war would have been a non-issue. And the Abolitionists didn't wield a lot of political clout nationally in the 1830's so it's not like he had to do much to appease them. And there was the incident where he allowed the regional post masters to destroy mailings from abolitionist groups. So, nothing I know about Andrew Jackson leads me to believe he would have been interested in negotiating any kind of peace other than the fact that as a Democrat, southerner, and slave owner himself the southern states would not have felt threatened enough by him to secede. Which means two things: The slaves would still be slaves and the can would just be kicked down the road a bit. Do you ever get the feeling every time Trump says something there is a staffer off screen mentally willing him to shut up? This would have been one of those times. http://www.oann.com/trump-questions-why-u-s-civil-war-had-to-happen/

It looks like Val might be right. I did some reading and in 2009 Moore v Madigan the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision by the Federal Court Southern Illinois and found that a blanket refusal to allow legal carry is unconstitutional. No hearing with the SCOTUS was ever sought apparently so that appears to be that. How that will affect what the Court does with Peruta (assuming they even hear the case) remains to be seen. Gromnir or Enoch might correct me on this but it's been my observations the SCOTUS does not want to take cases where the solution is clear. But in this instance one Federal appellate court decided on way and the second another on similar cases. That seems like the kind of thing that will put it to the front of the line.

Well what do you know. Maybe he can do it: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/04/tim-tebow-new-york-mets-minor-league-stats-improving-amazing-video

So it looks like Peruta v California is likely to find itself on the Supreme Court docket next year. This excerpt from the article describes the meat of the issue: This is a little different than the previous two gun control cases. In those the issue was complete prohibition of ownership in the home. In those cases the justices (the good ones at least) remembered what "shall not be infringed" means. This is about the issuance of concealed carry permits which has always been at the pleasure of the State. Even in DC v Heller Scalia reaffirmed the latitude on the part of the government for "reasonable restrictions" in the same paragraph he said prohibition is not reasonable. I have to admit to being somewhat torn by this one. On one hand I am very much in favor of allowing citizens in good standing to carry firearms so long as it is done in compliance with the laws of their state. California's oppressive attitude on this issue does not make a lot of sense to me. But on the other hand I VERY much believe it is up to the citizens, voters, and legislators of California to determine how California conducts it's business. The Federal Government and the citizens of other states should mind their own business IMO. So what it comes down to is does the 2nd Amendment which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." permit carrying arms in public? It has never been interpreted that way before to my knowledge. So for my part I'm going to say no. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US and what it does not specifically cover is reserved for the State (and lower) governments. And California has made it's position of this clear. If you don't like it the remedy should be sought in Sacramento, not on 1st Street in Washington DC. This is an interesting case because folks who are pro-gun rights are also usually pro-states rights and its rare to see those two priorities turned in opposition to each other. One more onion to toss in this stew is the Trump administration is considering a bill to insist on unlimited reciprocity of concealed carry permits in all states. But I'm sure that will mean all states the issue them. I'm actually against this too for the same reasons. Mine is issued in my home state but is honored in every other state in the south except Kentucky. Kentucky has a slightly different standard for issuance. But some states have caliber restrictions and other nuances that differentiate them. Carrying a weapon is a responsibility. It should be incumbent upon the permit holder to research the laws for any state they plan on traveling to. When I was working in Louisville the pistol was under the seat and ammunition locked in the glove compartment. That was the law. Here is the article. This one will be interesting to watch I think. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/25/is-this-the-supreme-courts-next-big-seco

If this doesn't convince you the government is getting out of control I don't know what will: http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/26/after-challenging-red-light-cameras-oreg The quote function does not appear to be working right. So in short a man in Oregon is cited by a red light camera. So he began doing some research on his own into how red light cameras work and found some serious flaws. He asked to present these findings to the State Board and rather than hear him he was fined an additional $500 for basically doing math without the permission of the state.

Nah they are not evil. I've never once heard of them kidnapping a guy on the street and bringing him back and forcing him to play. Folks walk in freely, get screwed over and ask for another.

Had some bad experiences gambling, huh?