Taking Ownership

"Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."

Not one commentator that I have heard or read has been willing to acknowledge Trayvon Martin's share of the responsibility for his death.  I think it is a shame that he was killed.  I think Zimmerman is a dope.  But engaging in a fistfight with someone you don't know in the dark and rain is dumb.  My interpretation of events is that Martin probably threw the first punch and probably was the only one to land any punches.  There wasn't a mark on him except for a mark on his knuckle, probably the consequence of punching Zimmerman. 

I have a good friend who spent more time than he should have in bars and in fights.  He warns against the practice because he said, "You never know what the other guy is carrying."  Initiating or engaging in fighting with grown men is risky.  Period.  When you do dumb things you can get bad results.

Liberal commentators have focused on the dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to get out of his truck.  I agree.  I wish he had stayed in his truck.  But getting out of his truck and following Martin did not give Martin the right to punch him out.  Getting out of the truck did not start a fight.  The first punch started the fight.  Martin had plenty of time to get home.  His father was 100 yards away.  His  girl friend told him to run.  He decided not to do so.

When liberal commentators absolve Martin of all responsibility they perpetuate the "victimology" of blacks.  Take ownership.  Recognize your share of the problem.  My same friend told me, "A problem well stated is half solved."  Denying a problem solves nothing.

Hags

So the Filibuster Survives (Kinda)

I have been consistently opposed to the Filibuster rule for 30+ years. I thought the anti-democratic rule that our founders never contemplated would have died by now, but it remains in place in a terminally weakened state. Harry Reid will have all of the executive appointments approved by the Senate after two Labor Relations Board candidates are replaced by (Big-Labor approved) replacement candidates. I was disappointed that we didn't see the "nuclear option" imposed.

There will soon be judicial appointments that Mitch McConnell is expected to oppose. If more than one is Filibustered, I expect that we will be right back against the nuclear option. Perhaps, Reid's brush back pitch will have worked and the GOP will wisely provide the few votes necessary to avoid such a conflict. I do not believe this Senate will tolerate further obstruction this term. It's over until January of 2015, at which point I do not believe the GOP will need to Filibuster. They will have the votes to block things the democratic way - control of the body.

Does anyone believe that a GOP-controlled Senate will brook a meaningful Filibuster with a Republican president in office? The majority now has the ability and temperament to go nuclear. Any future Filibusters concerning appointments will need to truly be extraordinary. In fact, legislative Filibusters will not last long the next time that the Senate, the House and the White House are held by the same party. It simply will not be tolerated. I think that is good news for all of us.

Django and the Zman

So I recently saw Django-the one where Jamie Foxx got to kill all the while people-and thought....Wow, they were very mean to black people in that era (duh), but the point was...it would not occur to me now that another human in our society would be treated so badly.  Our society is pretty color blind, most of the current "issues" are manifested by a small, vocal, portion of the population angry about a smaller segment of the population who still harbor dumb ideas.  These dumb people don't represent me and I am not responsible for them.

In the civil rights era, true injustice was addressed.  Its been almost 50 years.  As our President said, some act like nothing has changed. 

Does it not occur to the pseudo oppressed that they are being used?  Used as always for money and power?


Then there is the Zman and Trayvon.  That lesion is nothing about race and more about forgotten responsibilities.  Like acting like a responsible person, presenting yourself well, like the proverbial (as Mothers say) wearing clean underwear.

Trayvon had previously acted like a punk (gangsta), proudly I think...did he learn the life lesions of walk away from trouble, treat others (especially your elders) with respect, watch you language?...Do you think Trayvon knew these things?  Do you think a society where the a young man who acted like a gangsta would be corrected, counseled and told to shape up, would be a society where many break in's occurred and resulted in the need for neighborhood watchmen?  Do you think a man like Trayvon can be told to shape up?  What would be the response?  Positive or accusatory?

This was not about race, its about...

And no I was not there, I don't know if Zman was the bad guy, but consider the following from IBD:


The bias of Nelson, Florida Circuit Court judge and a lifelong Democrat, in favor of the prosecution and its efforts to railroad Zimmerman as a racist murderer has been palpable throughout the case. Her actions, which have actively aided the state, could poison jurors and factor into future litigation.
Her shameful rulings and behavior, therefore, are worth cataloging, and include:
• Suppressing exculpatory evidence recovered from the (double-password-protected) cell phone of Trayvon Martin that reveal deleted texts of the 17-year-old bragging about street-fighting with friends and relatives and photos showing him brandishing guns, gangsta-style. This evidence supports Zimmerman's claim he feared Martin and shot in self-defense.
• Disallowing Martin's criminal background, including arrests by Miami-Dade school district police for drugs, theft, graffiti and other delinquent behavior. (Martin, in fact, had been suspended from school the week he jumped Zimmerman inside his gated townhouse complex, after police found stolen jewelry and burglary tools inside his backpack.)

I DID NOT SEE IT THEREFORE IT DID NOT HAPPEN?

What's happened to our Jury system in America? Yes it's the best in the world, I'm sick of hearing that when I see Casey Anthony, Robert Blake,  walking around and don't let me get started on OJ of course!
 Now we have "just stay in the car" Zimmerman free. What is the matter with juries now, you need eye witness's now to convict people, well that is not available people.

 Casey Anthony's baby found blocks from her house, Robert Blake's wife dead in his car, while he went back to restaurant.
 Juries found these people not guilty? I don't get it!, Juries are supposed to solve mystries thats what they do, if it was clear cut we wouldn't go to trial.

 Zimmerman is told to stay in his car, he doesn't, a 17 year old kid walking home is scared a fight breaks out, who cares who started it, you can't point the gun at the kid and tell him to stop, no you shoot him in the chest, and six ladies say well I don't know who was guilty? Really!
Who do you think killed Casey Anthony's baby, Robert Blakes wife ? Travon Martin?

 Juries now watch too much TV crap and think if I don't have the smoking gun, then I can't convict.

As John Guy so eloquently said in his closing remarks " What is that? That's not anything? Is that nothing? Is that where we are now?' Yes!  John that is where we are in America now we don't want to be involved, we don't want to take responsibility, we don't want to judge other people?
 It is sad when a kid walking home in the dark is followed, and shot to death, and nothing happens!

A REPUBLICAN THATS GET IT RIGHT

Last week Republicans were gleeful when the White House announced delays in Obamacare. Even as a Republican, I did not share in the enthusiasm of my colleagues.
Obamacare is a good start and we Republicans need to embrace it. Why are we so ridiculously shortsighted? Universal health care is a good thing and it will be popular; it is always popular. Even when is it over budget and poorly implemented, as it is in many countries, it remains popular.
Why are we blind to this fact? I cannot comprehend our idiocy.
Republicans have lost the battle to stop Obamacare and must admit it. A few weeks ago the House passed a bill to repeal part or all of Obamacare for the 37th time. We are in denial.
Scott Brown couldn't stop it. The Supreme Court didn't stop it. Even Mitt Romney -- ironically, the originally architect of the plan structure -- couldn't stop it. The law will be enacted. Rather than continuing to fight a losing battle, Republicans must begin to embrace Obamacare and mold it in a way that will be more effective for the people of America.
In the past, Democrats routinely underestimated the strength of the American health care system; they overemphasized its deficiencies and constantly focused on those who were not covered. Republicans have done the exact opposite, proclaiming that our health care system is the "best system in the world."
The truth: America's health care system is good, but it certainly isn't perfect. For those who are covered, the vast majority of citizens, it does an excellent job of providing care on par with the best countries of the world. But for those who have minimal coverage or none at all, it is a nightmare.
But the uninsured are not the only problem. The insurance and billing system is nearly impossible to navigate, and causes significant unintended harm to those who don't understand it. Additionally, costs are considerably higher than in any other nation. Part of this is due to the fact that doctors are financially rewarded for ordering too many tests and hospitals are financially rewarded for admitting too many patients.
Obamacare misses the mark in so many ways. It does not lower costs -- in fact it costs a lot more in the long run. It does not sufficiently take on fraud, or abuse, or a system that rewards excessive and useless care. And it limits our freedom to make decisions about our own healthcare. But it gets coverage up, and that is very important to the voting population.
Fellow Republicans, mark my words: Obamacare will be popular. As such, we should begin to call it the Affordable Care Act and embrace it immediately, so Obama doesn't get all the credit.
Unlike Democrats, I don't believe health care to be a "right," but I do think it is the right thing to do. President Obama got to universal his way, now let's work to fix it our way. Keep it private, keep costs low, and regulate it smartly so it works!

Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown Getting it Done!

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown is drawing praise and glowing reviews from the national media for his deft political maneuvering in closing a $25 billion budget deficit and restoring some of California's financial luster after years of recession.
The state's credit rating is on the rebound, schools are expecting an infusion of money this fall, and the budget for the new fiscal year even includes a modest rainy day fund after years of deficits forced billions of dollars in program cuts.

“When Republicans recently charged the President with promoting 'class warfare,' he answered it was 'just math.' But it's more than math. It's a matter of morality.

Republicans have posed the deepest moral question of any society: whether we're all in it together. Their answer is we're not.

President Obama should proclaim, loudly and clearly, we are.”
― Robert B. Reich

Jim has it wrong again!

Jim, as usual we are on opposite sides. Judge Scalia does not understand the basic principle of the United States Constitution, let me repeat that a Supreme Court Justice does not understand the basic principle of the Constitution EQUALITY for all.
 It is sad and appalling that a man like Scalia would not stand up for the equality of all Americans Gay and straight. My gosh a happy gay person is a threat to whose freedom, am I missing something Jim. You see Scalia votes for the right of people to not have rights. Scalia is the one who paved the way for corporations to to provide unlimited money toward elections without having to disclose anything. Scalia's defense of corporations like General Electric and Koch Industries who by the way he went and sho guns at their exclusive hunting camp, but he did not exclusive himself like Kagen did. Scalia's stupid statement "it's one thin for a society to elect change ; it is another for a court of law to impose change" Wow!  Under his thinking then women would still not get the vote! Scalia and Thomas are an embarrassment.

 Jim as far as my Roman Catholic Church my faith is not in the Pope or his male minions, but in the belief of the truest line from Peter to now and it simply has it wrong on gays, and divorced, and male priests only.

 But I have faith in this: When you arrive at the pearly gates, the question won't be did you keep the commandments?
 The question will be "Did you feed the hungry? Did you clothe the naked? Did you love your neighbor no matter their religion ( yes that's Muslims too) Did you give without expecting a return? 

Gay Marriage?

Thoughts?


Good?  Bad?   




My preliminary.....It is about bias, prejudice...financial bias.


To my knowledge....Gay's can enjoy the same rights as others, by legal maneuvers...designating  a POA, Wills, etc.  It is just more expensive...and therefore discriminatory.  Now they can be miserable like the rest of us!   Rod Stewart: "I'm not getting married again, I'm just going to find a woman I don't like and buy her a house".


Seems to me that a party who believes in freedom...mine...should believe in the right to be (especially legally) with who they wish. 

NOW ON THE OTHER HAND!...religious ideas (me not religious) are also due their rights...they may recognize their belief and should not be compelled to comply.

Course...I'm just one voice.   Don't reply to me...reply to the blog.


Terry!  Hope life is great!  You liberal dolt!  How you gonna reconcile your religion with your President?   I know...life if full of choices.   Wait!...that is a baby!  Sorry...that won't work either.

expanding equality of opportunity increases inequality because some people are simply better able than others to exploit opportunities. And "assortive mating” — likes marrying likes — concentrates class advantages, further expanding inequality. As Muller said, “formal schooling itself plays a relatively minor role in creating or perpetuating achievement gaps” that originate “in the different levels of human capital children possess when they enter school.”

Worst Socialist Ever

The Best President Since Eisenhower

Not just doubling S&P - he has cut his inherited deficit in half, and our economy is growing faster than our peers in Europe. America is again the best investment in the western world. Objectively speaking, along with Clinton, Obama is the best president since Eisenhower... Cut n' paste: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/business/economy/sp-has-more-than-doubled-under-obama.html?hp

So....

I would encourage those few souls who still visit this blog to start spreading the word.  Thing are going to get interesting and we need to ....BLOG!


Lot's of our Presidents troubles are stuff..just...stuff, but after what the Liberals, HE and the press have done before to the sane folks who want...Liberty...OK with me!


IRS...yes one can argue that this is just incompetence but...the folks who were the opposition?   The ones who contributed who were audited (who were written about a long time ago in the WSJ)?

It is beyond pale, and...impeachable  

Libya....yes they screwed up...that happens (course it happens in a major war-please refer to "outrage" over armored vehicles during the Iraq conflict).  But I can be truly said that they massaged the message for politics...citizens can make their own judgment...they won't like it.

Fox News!  Who the hell thought we would be discussing Fox News!   Can't steal their Emails..just can't.




First of all...after 5 years...I hate him....he has fostered class resentment, over spent, and most importantly...cursed the successful and INCREASED THE unsuccessful. What a damning indictment.



But...after the election I went quiet, I quit listening because the right pretended like nothing happened, like they did not lose...they did....their ideas (freedom) was not wrong, but their message was...I'm still not ready to forgive the 1) guy defending rape   2) abdicating  the environment to those who will make it worse  3) allowing those who preach class warfare to win

Our country seems to go through periods of Populism...this may scare it away for a while

President Obama has raised the national debt by nearly $6.2 trillion, the equivalent of $78,385 per family of four. It is true that projected deficits recently have been reduced. April tax filings increased 28% from 2012, but much of this was thanks to a one-time rush at the end of 2012 to report income before rates rose in January. The second largest reduction in the deficit came from Fannie Mae FNMA +11.04%taking a one-time accounting adjustment.

Which side the new Pope?

Fertilization: the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.

This is basic reproductive biology. The assertion that life begins at fertilization is a tautology.  Might as well be objecting to a legislative finding that A is A or 2+2=4.

So why find the declaration so discomfiting? Because abortion would be easier to justify if one were ignorant of basic reproductive biology. If one imagines gestation as a process in which an inanimate lump of matter, or a part of the mother's body, or a parasite (which by definition is an organism of a different species) grows for months before spontaneously generating an independent identity, then it is hard to formulate a moral objection to abortion prior to the moment at which spontaneous generation occurs.

Abortion is morally fraught because we know that's not how it works. The moment human sperm meets human egg, a new human organism comes into existence. To acknowledge that basic truth is not to resolve the abortion debate, merely to assure that it is based on scientific fact. The rest of the debate is about values and practical questions: At what developmental point between zygote and adult does a human being acquire rights, especially the right not to be killed? If that point is before birth, how does one weigh the mother's competing rights claims? (Or the father's, for that matter, though our current legal regime grants him none even if he is married to the mother.) Apart from morality, what are the real-world consequences of regulating abortion in particular ways, or of not doing so?

If your goal is to maximize sexual freedom, then it's expedient to answer the abortion question in the most permissive way possible.  But when your position depends on denying a tautology, you may find it a difficult one to defend.