It's all or none - 6/27/2022

 

Chief Justice Roberts tried to find reasonable, middle ground. But nobody is being reasonable,.

 

This morning's WSJ Article 

 

It's hard to put into words how much the abortion issue's impact on our country is bothering me. This morning, after one of my usual middle of the night trips to the bathroom, I simply couldn't get back to sleep. I kept going over and over and over in my mind how on both sides of the issue, unbudging, absolutist, idealogues are the only voices being heard in the public world of debate. Even in my own world, attempts to find a reasonable position have failed. Choice to term and total prohibition seem to be the only options up for discussion.

In this opinion piece in today's WSJ (by an abortion/choice advocate), Chief Justice Roberts' attempt to find a reasonable, non-extreme, non-absolutist solution is detailed. I could support his idea, easily. The all or none camps on both sides, which I have to say includes some of you reading this today, friends, is a game of win/lose where there will never be an end to the game declared. He describes how the other five conservative leaning justices chose not to decide something based on viability, as they felt it would leave us no better off in terms of settling the debate one way or another than Roe did.

 

The thing that rankles me most in this debate is the premise that as a man I have no right to an opinion on the matter. Hogwash! The only way the argument that men have no say has any validity at all is if we stipulate that all abortions are morally acceptable. Is this not the crux of the entire debate, whether or not abortions are moral or immoral, and therefore to be legal or illegal? Many other immoral acts are illegal. I'll only cite murder as an example. Why is murder illegal? Because society sees it as morally repugnant and unacceptable. Should we state further that all men who murder can only be tried by men and only judged by all-male juries? And women who murder, likewise, only judged by female judges, prosecutors, and juries? As I've said before, and I'll say again: this business that men have no say in the matter is the least compelling argument of all. If all abortions are okay, then maybe. But if I don't accept the proposition that all abortions are morally acceptable, therefore I damned well have a right to express my opinion and to have my vote registered in elections, too.

 

A thought on the flawed position of left extreme, the one not examined in this WSJ piece (presumably because the author is a lefty himself): If you support abortion all the way to term, please put it under the "health of the mother" or "severe birth defects" banner. When you put those type late term abortions under the "choice" umbrella, you include the abortions that alienated me so badly that I supported a ruling striking Roe v. Wade in the first place. Why? Because even if small in number, if you are using choice as the absolute all the way to term, you're advocating birth control abortions of babies no different from healthy happy children we see in our world every single day. Can we not distinguish late term abortion as legal when necessary whereas those earlier in a pregnancy are subject to the "choice" of the mother, or is the absolute choice-to-term position which abandons my support the only way you can abide?

 

Yes, this has gone back to the states. Some states, as they already have, will go too far and make all abortions legal, others will go too far the other way and prohibit all abortions. Perhaps some states will find the kind of reasonable balance Chief Justice Roberts sought and by which I can abide. I really do find myself upset at the whole mess. I don't have better answers, not better answers anyone seems to care to be interested in anyway. I guess I know how the Chief Justice feels.

Politcal Snippets - What Does Matty P Think? - 6/15/2022

 

What does Matty P think?

 

I think Joe Biden is the worst President in US History. Had he governed to anywhere near his own positions that he held for most of his life, I likely wouldn't be of this opinion. But, no. Mr. Biden has allowed he's a terrible President, just terrible.

I saw a piece on Kamala Harris today that was recorded off the Tucker Carlson show last night. He had a Kamala Harris montage on there. I'm not sure she's a dunce, she made it through law school and stuff, but holy crap. She's like a space cowboy. And like Steve Miller said in the Space Cowboy, "Bet you weren't ready for that!" Nope. We are NOT ready for that.

January 6 hearings are a joke and a distraction. The Democrats are imploding in polls and at the polls across the country. November is looking worse for the Democrats than any election ever for a party in the majority in the House and the Senate. November will be brutal. But January 6th is all they've got. Why? Because if they give us more of the same incompetence that has them crashed in the polls it get worse for them, not better. So they're trying to 1) nullify Trump, and 2) change the subject from their own calamitous performance as the majority party.

Lefties: get lost on the woke bullshit. I'm sick and tired of the endless social justice stuff. I'm over it. That don't make me a bigot, a homophobe, or any phobe. It just means I really don't give a shit what color someone is or where they want to have sex and with who. Be a good person, that's all that matters to me. Stop forcing us to acknowledge shit that don't matter. Pride is fine. Now how about a little humility? Seeing a queer dude with boobs twerk in front of kids at a Pride Parade? Not just no. Fuck no. Assholes like that got plenty of pride. What they need is a little shame and humility. Show a little respect.

I don't watch network news. None: zero, zip, nada, not none, not any. I'll make an exception for a flood or a hurricane or an assassination or a war or something. But to hear a bunch of political hacks pretending to be journalists spin current events as per their silly echo chambers? Hell no.

$5.00 a gallon for gas, and pretending the choice in November 2020 had nothing to do with it? Stupidity.

I haven't seen 2000 Mules, but I know enough about it to say that the allegations fall into 3 categories: 1) stuff that has other, logical explanations than the ones D'Sousa brings forward. 2) Stuff that really happened but which the left thinks is perfectly ok but I don't. The ballot harvesting, collecting, etc. 3) Stuff that's dead wrong, mules going box to box to box stuffing them, which lefties know damned well was wrong and not only lie to say it's not wrong, but act like George Costanza on Seinfeld, feigning total perplexity and phony baffling. "Was that wrong? Really? I didn't think that was wrong? Did you? Wow. I can't believe you think someone did something wrong. It's not wrong to us, and it's been debunked, anyway."

I'm glad Roe V Wade is about to be overturned. Be reasonable in pushing for abortion rights, I might support you. Be unreasonable, which you absolutely have been, and fuggedaboutit. I'm out.

I'm glad to see RINOs and Trump impeachment "yes" voters thrown from office by an electorate that is fed up with Mitch and the rest of the establishment GOP scum.

Short and Sweet - on the Jan 6 Prime Time Hearing - 6/10/2022

 

They decided to hold the hearings in prime time.

Here are, in a few short sentences, the reasons I am NOT watching the Jan 6th hearings:

1. They're going to be absolutely biased and one sided. There will be no examination of the grievances of those involved in the riot. Were their concerns overblown? Perhaps. Were their concerns completely unfounded? Absolutely not. Will these hearings include a fair examination of those facts, to show that the election was NOT stolen? Hell no.

2. Adam Schiff is a part of it. Fuck him. Enough said.

3. I have already condemned the protests. January 6th was the wrong day for this. The preceding weekend would have been much better, but doing it when the Electoral College was set to meet was a mistake. It was obvious to me beforehand that nothing good would come from it. My criticism is on the record.

4. You know and I know it's purely a political stunt, intended to damage Trump. Period.

5. I knew there was widespread cheating in the 2020 election, but I haven't watched 2000 Mules, either.

6. I haven't forgotten the riots of the summer of 2020, where the White House and D.C. were threatened by riotous mobs, where police stations were occupied out west and a Federal Courthouse was put under siege by rioters. There are protesters interfering with the Supreme Court simultaneous to these hearings, showing up at their homes, doxxing them, and we just had a thwarted assassination attempt of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. Spare me the selective outrage and indignation.

7. I'm reading a biography of legendary Mets manager and recent Hall of Fame inductee the late, great Gil Hodges. It's time better spent. Much.

"La Te Da" is no way to address violent crime - 6/6/2022

I want any rational person, responding based on logic, not emotion, to explain convincingly to me how gun control measures that are comprised of new restrictions and or prohibitions, given the number of guns present already in the USA, will disarm criminals.

I believe that if the culture of violence from whence the gun violence comes is NOT addressed, further restriction and more prohibition will ONLY or MOSTLY affect law abiders, and will result in making STILL armed, lawless, violent criminals bolder as their odds of being confronted in kind decrease.

 

 

I am not at all discounting these sensationalized "mass killings", but put in perspective will ALL intentionally committed violent gun crime, they aren't even the tip of the iceberg. As I've read about the history of the US west, I've learned that there was similar lawlessness and violence as we see depicted in movies. In places like Dodge City, Tombstone, and Deadwood it became immortalized in our history. But, let there be no doubt, wild west violence was real. While no angels by any stretch, it took equally violent and aggressive men like Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp, etc., to confront and subdue the violent, criminal element.

We are NOT going to mollycoddle and "nice" our way out of this mess we have in 2022. Not in 1,000,000 years we won't. And I get that for 90% or more of you, meeting violence with greater violence seems unconscionable and wrong. Well, I'll tell you what. Stupidity like community policing, defunding the police, social justice sentencing guidelines allowing violent criminals to go free in the interest of gaining brownie points with racially obsessed leftists, simply WILL NOT WORK. The criminals who shoot up Chicago and Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Los Angeles, et al, aren't suddenly going to be nice because some moron of a leftist DA, judge, or jury thinks the violence is excusable because the perpetrator had challenging beginnings and a piss poor upbringing, or was pushed into it due to lack of privilege. Crime is fucking crime. Get the race out of it, from all sides, please.

Yeah, we need to defend schools and hospitals. Yeah, it's tragic that we are at a point where we need to do so. Without Wyatt Earps and Bat Mastersons policing our cities by knocking heads and arresting bad guys, and they ARE some very BAD guys, on a massive scale, and without citizens foregoing all the social and racially charged "la te da" rhetoric in favor of "It's about fucking time", this shit ain't even gonna end.

 

Oh, and while you're listening, how about screening the games, television, movies, and music that's indoctrinating your kids and grandkids to violence while you read this.

Walk and Chew Gum - 5/29/2022

 

We have to do something different.

Immediately after the Uvalde, TX school massacre, I posted that I don't know the answers. I don't. There are multiple problems in our country that contribute to these tragedies. I want to post about guns this morning, but before I do, because some of what I have to say about guns will immediately make some of you point out some or all of these other issues. Some problems which, in my opinion, contribute to this are:

A mental health epidemic.

Anti-depressant and ADHD medications are dispensed like candy to manage kids moods.

Broken homes and fatherless homes.

We don't spank or discipline our kids anymore, not like in days past.

Lack of religious morality.

The morality in our entire culture has been whittled away in favor or individualism and choices.

Law enforcement invariably seems to have known about the killer but they never seem to be able to intercept them before they kill (because we're innocent till proven guilty).

Violence on TV and in movies is glamorized and glorified, it's terrible, and it is a factor.

Video games train kids that more killing is better and desensitizes them to killing.

Social media, especially the anonymously posted stuff, dehumanizes everyone in the eyes of some people.

Lastly (this list may not be comprehensive, but this is last on this list), people who IN NO WAY should have access to guns have it. This is where I'm going.

Republicans are always protecting our right, guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, to bear arms. An editorial I read by Peggy Noonan in yesterday's Wall Street Journal struck a nerve with me. I didn't think she was all right, and I won't dissect her piece here. I will post a link to it in a comment. What struck me was how (my own words here) Republicans need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, protect my right to bear arms, including my AR-15. The right to bear arms isn't for hunting. It isn't for home defense with small caliber stuff. It's to preclude or deter the next tyrannical government, foreign or domestic, from trampling U.S. citizens other rights like the British did to the colonists. That's what the right to bear arms is for. Self defense, target shooting, and hunting are great, and our 2A right protects those activities, too. But, let there be no doubt, they are NOT the reason it's in the Constitution.

So it's great that the NRA and the GOP protect that right. Democrats think they have a solution. Their solution is to limit or revoke our right to bear arms, a right that our Constitution clearly and specifically explains comes from the creator, not the government, and which the Constitution specifically prohibits our government from infringing. It's noteworthy that in colonial times, wealthy colonists had not just cannons, but some had their own warships, with cannons aplenty. Cannons were the most powerful weapons on Earth at the time. I'm not advocating we all have our own stashes of weapons of mass destruction. Democrats are wrong on this issue, but Republicans are, too.

We've let this debate become a left vs. right, prohibit vs. allow, guns vs. no guns, Republicans vs. Democrats issue. I've already said Democrats are wrong about 2A. I've already said that I do not have the answers. All that being true, kids like the Uvalde Texas mass-murderer, child murderer, evil scumbag shouldn't have guns. Democrats have kept Republicans on the defensive about the guns issue, and Republicans are cast as a one song, nightclub act, singing "guns, guns, guns, guns, guns" till closing time in response.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can. Despite the worn out all or none battle lines (no pun intended) that have been drawn, Republicans need to lead the way to not just protecting our 2A rights, but to prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. I don't know what the answer to that is. We, myself included, have been so myopically focused on protecting our own sacred right to bear arms, that we enable people who simply ought not have that right access to them.

What is the answer? I don't know. I really don't. Like many millions of Americans, I know my guns are innocent and that I won't use them like these evil, deranged, wackos are using them far to often. Any Republican who dares say we have a problem and tries to do ANYTHING is immediately attacked as a traitor and a RINO. Democrats don't accept the founders' rationale for 2A in the first place, and they've successfully painted the GOP into a corner where they're fighting to protect 2A rights but doing next to nothing to prevent the next one. Or the next one. Or the next one.

We can walk and chew gum. We can find an answer IF we look for it. All or none, guns or no guns is NOT an answer and never will be. What we can't do is what we always do, stay in our left and right trenches and behind our well fortified battle lines. Why can't we? Because this keeps happening. Period. Like I said, I don't know. I don't. But Democrats don't have the answer, and neither do Republicans. They both act like they do, and many of us are fully aligned with one or the other of the two, but these keep happening.

One last thought: don't bring up abortion or Chicago murders or other side issues. Don't shift the conversation. That happens again and again, every damned time. The questions are these: How can we keep guns out of the hands of homicidal maniacs. How do we protect schoolkids and innocents from the next one of these? These killers shouldn't have guns. I am not a killer. Figure it out. We can walk and chew gum at the same damned time.

I'm pissed off.

No Sacred Cows - 5/26/2022

Every one of these horrific mass shootings should be investigated much in the same manner as the NTSB conducts an aircraft accident investigation.

The investigation should be accomplished by professionals, and all the relevant parties to the episode should be party to it: police, community, school officials, government (local, state, federal), etc.

There can be NO sacred cows. All factors should be examined completely and under a very powerful microscope. Yes, guns, the location’s defensive or lack of defensive capabilities, mental health, medications, family, community, the justice system, the killer’s entertainment, social media, video gaming habits, on and on an on. All on the table and ALL contributory factors included with a primary and secondary causal factor identified, as well as recommendations to help avert the next tragedy. 

What we do instead is cherry pick issues based on politics. Would politics play a role in the investigation I’m advocating? Surely it would. But by ensuring ALL parties are represented, all factors examined, no sacred cows, hopefully something better can be achieved. We seem to be inclined to argue about one issue, you all know what it is. And that argument may have some validity as a causal factor. But by limiting it to one issue, there are a lot that are not being looked at. Why? Because they’re sacred cows, issues that it might or would be politically incorrect to dare to speak of. The sacred cow business has to end. We need to look at all the issues from 360°, ground level and 50,000’ views.

These tragedies hurt my heart. The unproductive arguing over a single issue after they happen helps nothing. That one issue can’t be a sacred cow, either. There either are sacred cows or there aren’t.

Destroying the Economy to Save the Planet - 5/23/2022-2

 

Not so fast, lefty.

These idiots are knowingly crashing the economy. They lie and give excuses, but we know they're against the fossil fuel industry, hate big (profitable business), and are totally out of touch with suburban and rural Joe Six-Pack' everywhere. This is a big squeeze to push us into electric cars. Well, I've been giving it some thought. I'm not philosophically or emotionally opposed to an electric vehicle, but it's got to work for me. Newsflash: it don't.

Range - No electric vehicle I can find has sufficient range to satisfy my driving needs. I drive to Louisville from south Florida and back 3, 4, 5 times per year. It's 972 miles, one way. That's 3 stops to charge, minimum, assuming I don't spend 2-3 hours stuck in traffic south of Atlanta, north of Chattanooga, or near Nashville.

Range, cont'd - My driving WILL include trips to the mountain west. Anyone who follows my page sees the pictures I post. For a variety of reasons, we're not embarking on epic western journeys at this very moment, but they WILL happen. There are gas stations everywhere, and in 10-15 minutes we can gas and go. How the hell do I traverse Montana, Wyoming, or Utah 200 or less miles at a time.

Towing - I like to do my fishing. YANKY 72, me and Dale's little jonboat, is light, but it's a tow. Towing has a lot of impact on range. I'm not sure I want to take an electric SUV into the Wildlife Management Area for a day of fishing.

4WD/AWD - A lot of the roads where I go fishing are unpaved. I like 4WD for pulling the boat out of a backwater. 4WD will drive UP cost and drive DOWN range.

Home Charging - I wouldn't be adverse to installing a 240 V charger in our garage to charge a vehicle here at Florida House. It would cost a few bucks, but it would speed up the process. But what would I do at Kentucky Condo? We have no garage there. There are no provisions for electricity there at all. For trips to Kentucky condo, it would mean enduring the inconvenience of NEVER charging at night and having to go someplace for hours every time it needs a charge.

Cost - I can afford and electric vehicle. But they are more than their gas or diesel counterparts. I don't know how much it costs to use a charger, or what the electric bill would be at home for charging vs. filling up the tank. Since an electric vehicle won't meet many of my transportation needs, it seems to me the only real option is to make the electric vehicle a third vehicle that Caroline and I can use for local driving here. It does seem as though most, not quite all but most of our local driving could be done in an electric car. But to justify the cost as an extra vehicle is a stretch.

So please, would somebody tell the idiots that while some, like myself, are open to an electric vehicle at some point, that there are too many insurmountable factors against getting one at this time? Punishing me at the gas pump and every single other place that I spend money because electric vehicles doesn't work for me isn't JUST stupid. These bastards are destroying the economy in a delusional attempt to save the planet. It's selfish and hostile.