96 thoughts on “Open Forum!

  1. What the heck is going on in the United States?

    This is interesting stuff folks!

    Check out what’s happening in the Democratic party these days. The people supporting Sanders anti-establishment revolution are “similar’ish” to the people that supported Trump in 2016 in that both groups are “anti-establishment” – Trump won the anti-establishment fight in the Republican party and has been fighting the left’s extreme establishment ever since, will Sanders win it in the Democratic party?

    Trump used the word “swamp” Sanders uses the word “establishment”; are they basically against the same thing – the underlying bureaucracy?

    Is there a trend?

    Are the majority of adults so fed up with the government bureaucracy that we’re all leaning towards anti-establishment – are we in for a major change in how we govern?

    • Is what we’re seeing in today’s politics the result of a societal ethics dump over the last 20 years or is it a reaction to what has been perceived as a government that has been falling off the edge of ethics and morality for many, many years and is now running amuck?

    • I don’t think the Bernie people hate the bureaucracy per se, they just hate when the bureaucracy plays footsie with the billionaires, corporations, big pharma, etc. I think Bernie people that understand his vision welcome the bureaucracy, because it will be the People’s, and we can finally have a Dictatorship by the Proletariat. (or whatever Marxist-Leninists dream in the fever dreams)

    • What the heck is going on in the United States?

      At the very least you have formulated a good question! And getting the right question(s) formulated is a big part of the battle.

      The next step is clearing away all politically-correct thought-controls so that the questions might be answered, or the attempt made: quite bit harder.

      Is what we’re seeing in today’s politics the result of a societal ethics dump over the last 20 years or is it a reaction to what has been perceived as a government that has been falling off the edge of ethics and morality for many, many years and is now running amuck?

      Who answers, interprets.

      But the question is far too vague, it needs to become more pointed. There are definite causal chains that have led to the present situation, and not the least has been the process of dispossession and displacement I often mention. Did that come about through an ethical failing? Could be, but then I’d have to expand ethics considerably from what you-plural often mean by it (the status quo of the day).

      Are the majority of adults so fed up with the government bureaucracy that we’re all leaning towards anti-establishment – are we in for a major change in how we govern?

      Hmmmm. Another interesting question. I would say that in the present dispensation a strict ‘constitutionalism’ will not save us (but then I have a rather strict definition of *us*). This fact must be seen and internalized. We are in a social crisis, a crisis-of-peoples, and constitutionalism cannot address that.

      The nature of the social crisis has to be seen and faced. Very very hard!

  2. Wonder what kind of offer was made to Pete, Amy, and the others who suddenly were backing old “Hairy Leg” Joe? Swear to God it has to be someone who wants Trump to win again. How the hell can you say anything about Ukraine when Trump will just respond “I was just conducting an investigation of you and your no-good kid, Joe. The Senate found me innocent and you managed not to testify. Looks like you are the guilty one.” If they do this to screw Bernie, they are guaranteeing another four years of Trump.

    • “What’s that, Joe? You say I made some brutish comments about women? Well, I did and I realize I was wrong. You made some very disturbing remarks about children, Joe? What’s worse America… an old-fashioned joke made in private or a man who knowingly said incredibly disturbing things on a live microphone at a public meeting about children?”

      It’s a coronation waiting to happen.

      (The only thing that wouldn’t happen would be Trump admitting he was wrong.)

      • Trump: “Now, I know many of you don’t want to believe that Joe Biden is a pederast. I understand that. Joe seems like your grandpa. But don’t you have to wonder whether he is a little like grandpa in other ways? Don’t you have to think at the least that he is not thinking quite right in order to be able to unabashedly make such disturbing statements? #SenileJoe “

    • Outside Bet Theory: The neoliberals in charge hate Sanders. They are scared of Bloomberg, but they need his money because not enough people are donating to the Democrats. Incredibly, they have amassed such a loathsome field of candidates that a man suffering from dementia is the only one most of the party will vote for. So, they prop him up and appoint a vice-president that the DNC leadership want, but America won’t elect as president. When he gets elected, the doctors proclaim him mentally unfit and the VP becomes President. If Hillary Clinton is named VP, you know this is the plan.

      • Since the left is dead set in pissing off everyone they oppose, why not do something that’s completely unexpected and will drive Republicans and everyone right of my left index finger tip bonkers; make the Democratic ticket Sanders/Clinton. That should make everyone steer their vote towards who’s going to be the Speaker of the House because that’s the one that will likely be President after the Republicans employ the new precedence that the Democrats set for impeachment.

  3. Time-n-again the ethics of respecting people’s last wishes has been discussed here; i.e., I don’t want a funeral and/or an obituary, I want to be cremated rather than embalmed-n-interred, I don’t want a “churchy” service, I don’t want so-n-so invited, etc.

    My brother’s 1st generation Korean wife, who had two grown children from her first marriage, died in late January. One of her last requests was asking my brother to tell her son, posthumously, what a grave disappointment he was to her.

    The son’s an anesthesiologist with an…um..arranged South Korean wife (hand-picked from South Korea by my late SIL) and two darling young sons; not what the casual observer might deem unworthy.

    A sister (I’m blessed with four…) told me my brother told another sister (whom I’ve nicknamed “Sarge,” an appropriate sobriquet which has stood the test of time) of his late wife’s wishes; that sister put an immediate, and in no uncertain terms, kibosh.

    I told the sister with whom I was discussing this that, even taking into account the significance of such a disclosure, noncompliance would be on sketchy ethical ground.

    We all know that no Sicilian can refuse any request on his daughter’s wedding day, but this seems different; what say you’s?

    • Paul…

      Cui Bono? (to what good).

      If she wanted to tell him, she had literally part of a lifetime to do so..

      Our $0.02

      Mike ‘n’ Carolyn (who discussed this over coffee just now and this is our consensus reply)

      • You guys get free refills…?

        ”Cui Bono? (to what good).”

        Those, like the other examples, being one’s final wishes, and it’s my understanding that she’d intimated that on numerous occasions.

        Say I stipulate that my desire is for a final service that pays homage to my hedonistic heathen lifestyle of yore, yet my lovely and long suffering wife (who occupies the ground I worship) decides to nix that in favor of a High Mass?

        • I don’t think last requests should get a pass on ethical scrutiny. They should be honored to the extent they’re honorable. You would not, I’m certain, rob a bank or rape a child at the request of a dying loved one.

          Is it honorable to tell your son he’s a grave disappointment to you? Well, it’s certainly hurtful, to a person to whom you owe a certain filial loyalty, that counts against it. Does truth militate in its favor? Well, it’s a feeling, we can suppose she truly feels that way, but by your description it’s also patently undeserved. There is no blanket rule that says we should always voice our true feelings, no matter how unworthy, and never seek to control our temper, swallow our pride, to conquer fear or any feeling born out of a weakness in our own character. She also seeks to express that hurtful message in a way that spares her both the discomfort of speaking it herself, and any concern about the aftermath or response. My conclusion: This is not an honorable thing that she asks, and it should not be honored.

    • Nothing good and a lot of bad can come of it. It’s also cowardly to wait to tell someone exactly what you think of them when you are beyond the reach of consequences.

      • Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

        FTR, the word cowardly and my late SIL would <b<never collide in the same sentence; one tough broad, she, and unremitting pluck occupied every last fiber of her 4′ 10” being!

        Is it cowardly to cut someone out of a will?

        • It’s cowardly to do it without telling them, particularly if you add some last insult to the will language. It’s also asking for the will to be contested if it’s someone who would otherwise have rights. Tough or not, why wasn’t she brave enough to tell her son she thought he had fallen short while she was still where he could tell her to go take a run and jump?

          • “why wasn’t she brave enough to tell her son she thought he had fallen short while she was still where…”

            I mentioned above: “it’s my understanding that she’d intimated that on numerous occasions.”

            “he could tell her to go take a run and jump”

            My experience with Koreans (I lived with 3, including their Grand Master Father, at a Martial Arts Academy for ~ 14 months, and dated several others) is Korean children wouldn’t do anything remotely resembling that; regardless of the circumstances, it plainly and simply is neither considered appropriate nor is it tolerated.

            BTW; Happy 50th and many more.

            At mine, just shy of 15 years ago and in front of ~ 60 attendees (including clients) my dear wife surprised me with a Walker; and not the Johnny Blue variety…

            • American children would, though. My biggest regret is that my parents and I didn’t quite come to understand Asperger’s Syndrome in time to have both of them reach the point of saying that they were ok with me, understanding the unique challenges I faced, before mom passed away in 2014. Thanks, and this lawyer isn’t ready for that kind of walker yet – unlike a colleague older than yourself who just had to have his leg cut off due to poorly controlled diabetes.

    • I think the request itself is unethical. Your SIL could have said those words to her son at any point during her life, and apparently chose not to do so. Placing the burden of that revelation on another person is selfish, and unethical.

      I can’t imagine asking another person to say something I didn’t have the guts to say. Further, doing so on my deathbed would give the recipient of those words no way to ask way, to explain things that might change my opinion, or tell me to piss off. It’s nothing more than a cruel act that damages the person delivering the message, and the person receiving the message.

        • Intimating isn’t the same, or she wouldn’t have felt the need to ask someone else to say it. Regardless, it’s a crappy thing to do to all parties.

          • ”I can’t imagine asking another person to say something I didn’t have the guts to say.”

            That would be YOUR choice, not hers; and you’re presupposing a great deal regarding a situation about which you know nearly nothing.

            “Intimating isn’t the same”

            Sheesh!! I used the reference “intimated” with an eye toward diplomacy. She made it known in no uncertain terms; that better?

            ”Regardless, it’s a crappy thing to do to all parties.”

            Sez you without walking a mile in her shoes?

            • My assessment is based on the information you provided (same as everyone else that commented).
              I do think it’s an unethical request. based on the limited data you provided. It’s an unreasonable burden for the person asked to relay that information and unfair to the person receiving that information. Your SIL may have been above reproach in life, but this type of death bed request is not above reproach.

            • Paul, why didn’t she think to make a video in which she recited her feelings while looking right into the camera? Bergman has his character do that here. See if you don’t think it is effective!

    • Paul W Schlecht wrote, “One of her last requests was asking my brother to tell her son, posthumously, what a grave disappointment he was to her.”

      There’s a request that I’d never, ever honor and I’d tell her so to her face. If she’s not willing to tell her son, to his face, that he’s a disappointment to her. That responsibility does not fall upon anyone else to perform after she is dead and gone and it’s immoral to ask such a thing. Her message can go to the eternal ever-after with her never to be spoken of again.

      • ”There’s a request that I’d never, ever honor and I’d tell her so to her face.”

        Your choice, not hers.

        My late SIL, whom you’ve met, made this no secret to her son, regularly, prior to her passing on.

        Battling cancer her final 24 months, the last three spent in the hospital heavily medicated, may have had an effect.

      • Yeah, the ultimate mic drop and cowardly to force someone else, in a time of grieving to deliver one last nastygram, The son has no way to apologize, mend his error (whatever it is- hard to fix without detail, We don’t even know the scope of the reason for disappointment. It could be that he stole a candybar at 7) or reconcile hurt feelings. All kids occasionally disappoint parents and using final wishes to make that the capstone of an entire relationship is cruel. If she hinted at it before, it’s just petty.

        And asking someone else to be her hit man for that last spite will do nothing for either the sibling or son in their grieving. It will probably tait their relationship over something the sibling has no understanding of. Why not have a lawyer deliver it? why not set up a yearly disappointment-want-ad? Why not plat a tree and add a plaque to make sure her disappointment stays forever green? Any other way to deliver the message reveals how petty and cruel it is. At best, they will suppress the hurt and laugh at her just being her even beyond the grave. But it hill hurt the son and grandchildren, that this is what she believed at the end.

        There is no upside or benefit to deliver a dead person’s spite.

  4. I was trying to understand yesterday. My best idea was that the “Word of the Day” yesterday was ‘hypocrisy’.

    Reporter: “Now everyone, give all the children a good example of hypocrisy so they understand what it means”.

    Donna Brazille: “How dare anyone accuse the Democratic Party of trying to rig the selection process.”
    Reporter: “You leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton last time in a bid to rig the process. Very good, Donna.”

    Hillary Clinton: “Bernie Sanders wants the rules changed to favor him becoming the nominee. We’ve got rules. We had rules last time, and we have rules this time. I think it is always a good idea to follow the rules. Everybody knew when they got into it.”
    Reporter: “You have spent years complaining that you should have been President because you won the popular vote and the rules needed to be changed. You knew the Electoral College determined the election when you got into it. Very good, Hillary.”

    China: “Italy should be reprimanded for allowing people infected with corona virus to travel to China and spread the disease.”
    Reporter:” Excellent! Good job, everybody. All the children should now know what hypocrisy means.”

  5. How’s this? At what point in a failing election campaign, when it becomes evident to everyone, including that candidate and their inner circle, that the candidate has no chance of succeeding does it become fraud on the supporters to ask for additional campaign donations?

    • About a week or so ago, Bob, Mrs. Marshall informed me she was getting better but was still frustrated with the rate of progress. From which I concluded she’s doing well but expects everything, including recovery from a nasty fall, to move at the pace at which the Marshall household conducts its affairs, i.e., warp speed and 24/7.

  6. Here is a story to blog about.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/la-district-attorneys-husband-points-a-gun-at-black-lives-matter-protestors-on-his-porch/

    The husband of the first black woman to lead the country’s largest local prosecutor’s office pointed a gun and said “I will shoot you” to Black Lives Matter members demonstrating outside the couple’s home before dawn Monday, prompting an apology from his wife on the eve of her primary election.

    In an emotional press conference, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said she and her husband, David, were awakened and frightened by the demonstration that occurred before 6 a.m.. She said he ran downstairs, where she heard him talking to someone, and that when he returned he said there were protesters.

    • Good thing this guy wasn’t a MAGA hat wearin’, terbacky chewin’, Stars-n-Bars bumper sticker emblazoned pick up drivin’ Billy Joe Bob; it’d be on 24/7 continuous reel.

      You hear about the Molson/Coors Brewery shootings a week ago Wednesday in Milwaukee? It enjoyed a relatively brief moment in the limelight before disappearing from the news cycle.

      Wonder why?

      Turns out the shooter, a Black Career Lefty, didn’t fulfill the media’s ardent desire that he represented EVIL White Supremacy most foul.

      Let’s say the latter ad been the case; you think it would’ve been covered less, about the same, or a lot more?

    • The actions of David Lacey was incorrect. These people were not inside his home and they were not an immediate threat. I don’t know what firearm banishing laws are in California but what he did was unneeded and made an uncomfortable situation dangerous; he should have called the police and let them handle it.

      • In the video one of the protesters yelled at the front door “We’re here for the community meeting Jackie Lacey”. The protester is a baldfaced LIAR, there was no scheduled community meeting at Lacey’s home. These “protesters” were intentionally trying to cause a public scene on private property and it appears that the whole thing was concocted for political reasons to smear Jackie Lacey. These so-called “protesters” were in fact trespassing and disturbing the peace, plus this took place before 6am at Jackie Lacey’s home, most municipalities have ordinances against disturbing the peace between around 10pm and 6am; the protesters are uncivil thugs that are breaking multiple laws.

        David Lacey reacted out of anger not fear, he was pissed off, he had his finger physically on the trigger, he’s a damn fool and damn lucky that he didn’t unintentionally shoot someone. Maybe it was a squirt gun but the bore sure looked like a .45 to me. For the record, I’d be really pissed off too but I wouldn’t brandish a firearm and threaten to shoot them in an effort to chase them off my property, I would tell them to leave and call the police.

        Every one of the protesters should have been arrested for disturbing the peace and trespassing and David Lacey should be charged for threatening others.

        I have zero tolerance for what the protesters and David Lacey did.

        • Nah, he should’ve killed them all. People should be afraid to use fear tactics and uninhibited in resisting them. Anything else is over-managed lawlessness. We’re all less safe directly because we treat Lacey like he had to wait patiently for the men besieging his home to strike first.

          • … and he even did!

            I guess he should’ve served refreshments while wearing a lace apron, if he wanted sympathy.

            • I’m not joking, and these laws reek. Anti-Second Amendment types actively do desire people to be helpless in the face of an angry race-mob. Compromising with them gives them undeserved legitimacy.

              Perhaps they’d “argue” that they wouldn’t want to be shot for standing on my front porch. This fatuous equivocation would be treated seriously by idiots and liars alone, either incapable or unwilling in the present context to distinguish between a visitor and a belligerent band descending en masse on a private residence shouting falsehoods. In a fair nation of laws, they’d fear for their lives, and the homeowner’s only fear would be the mob itself, uncompounded by concern with how a conveniently absent functionary would classify his actions.

              Having to walk a thin line in apparent matters of life-and-death is an undue burden. If the law will protect aggressive trespassers while scrutinizing the behaviors of the innocent homeowners (as in England), then it’s only fair to say the social contract is nullified.

              • I know my residential situation is unlike most, but I live miles from town at the end of a quarter-mile driveway. Anyone appearing just outside my house before 6 am had better (1) have flashing blue lights on top of their vehicle or (2) call me first to announce their arrival. Otherwise, one of my firearms is guaranteed to make an appearance with me as I investigate the intrusion. Retiring after forty years in law enforcement, I’m not anxious to exchange gunfire, but it has long been a policy of mine to try and be the best-prepared potential participant if the other party has gunplay in mind. As a mentor once told me, “If there’s guns in the crowd, one had better be yours!” I can’t say I agree with Mr. Lacy’s trigger finger discipline or any threats he made, but being armed is only common sense, at least out here in the country, where the average law enforcement emergency response time would be around ten minutes. A lot of mischief can be perpetrated in ten minutes.

                • JimHodgson wrote, “I can’t say I agree with Mr. Lacy’s trigger finger discipline or any threats he made, but being armed is only common sense”

                  Make no mistake about this; I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Mr. Lacey being armed whether it’s visible or not when opening his door under those circumstances, mine would be on my hip and they would NOT see it unless it was clearly needed. The problem is pointing the firearm at and threatening to shoot the protesters not the physical presence of the firearm.

                  What Mr. Lacy did with his trigger finger was not what I’d call “trigger finger discipline” it was foolish and undisciplined to the point of being a complete bonehead – you NEVER put your finger on the trigger unless you are intending to shoot what the barrel is currently pointing at. I’ve smacked the shit out of privates and cadets in training for stupid undisciplined things like fingers on triggers, that’s a real pet peeve of mine!

                  • Steve, what I should have said was his “poor trigger finger discipline;” as a firearm instructor for over twenty years it is a pet peeve of mine as well and has resulted in grief for numerous trainees over the years, just like carelessly covering others -especially me- with the muzzle of their weapon even when empty. That being said, you might be surprised at the number of times I have had new trainees question the trigger finger rule. I guess they watched too much television. I’m glad that the only firearms classes I now teach are the LEOSA annual qualification classes for retired officers! Much less stressful!

                    • Failure to observe the trigger finger rule drove my infantry vet father crazy. It was one of the three TV and movie tropes involving guns that never failed to get a rise out of him, the other two being people shooting guns into the air and “Mexican stand-offs,” the latter being the most ridiculous.

                      I was going to write about the incident under discussion, but everyone has done a thorough job. Except for the trigger finger issue, I see no ethical problem with greeting a non-police intrusion on the other side of the door with a gun. It means “back off, asshole.” early in our marriage we were awakened at 5 am by someone banging on our front door and shouting. Scared the bejesus out us. If I had a gun then, I would have brought it to the door. As it turned out, the intruder was an old, fat, Altzheimer patient who had escaped from a nearby facility, but she was acting violently….heck, the police were wary of her, and corralled her like she was wild animal. A group of protesters? Easily as menacing. You don’t bang on someone’s door at 5 am unless there’s an emergency or you’re up to no good, and I’m not going to bet my life and the lives of my family on which until I get an explanation. Such a situation is exactly why it makes sense to have a firearm.

                      And it is perfectly reasonable to be ticked off when someone wakes you up like that.

                    • James Hodgson wrote, “I’m glad that the only firearms classes I now teach are the LEOSA annual qualification classes for retired officers! Much less stressful!”

                      May be less stressful but in general the people you’re teaching in LEOSA classes have already been trained in basic firearm safety, it’s just refresher/reinforcement training and specifics for CC, which is very important. What’s equally important and needed is good training opportunities for the general public. I encourage you to make some connections with your local gun shops that have ranges and connections with area ranges and offer your services, free of charge if necessary, to very small groups of newbies and novices, you really can make a difference.

              • Benjamin,
                The laws don’t reek but your stated opinion of those laws is a real problem for you.

                You don’t shoot down and kill a bunch of people on your front porch because you don’t like what they’re doing. You can do whatever your brain tells you to do; but let it be known, there are serious consequences to the actions that you say others should do.

                I’m real curious Benjamin, would you actually do the things you say others should do or are you just posting your Rambo after-thought dreams?

                • I am free to use as little force as I choose, but the law can only legitimately curb my use to a certain degree. My Christian charity reflects a dedication to theological virtue. There is no non-theological reason to favor the safety of a screaming, trespassing mob over yourself and your sleeping wife. If we’re going to set up a theocracy, I say “hoorah, it’s long overdue.” But if we’re not, let the society which rejects divine justice in law settle for natural justice for the sake of making those laws rather than cherry-picking whenever it suits.

                  Furthermore, in the event a violent gang makes it clear to me it intends to do my person harm, I fully intend to prevent it from entering my dwelling by any force at my disposal rather than allowing it to do so for the sake of avoiding inane prosecution. The rules in play prevent the innocent from taking advantage of their own homes’ fortification for the sake of offering a fighting chance to criminals. They fail to achieve not only theological but also natural justice.

                  To argue that a loud mob approaching one’s door at an unseemly hour isn’t an actionable threat gives miscreants the opportunity to remain legally ambiguous right up to the moment of the killing strike. The benefit of safety to the raucous villains isn’t worth tying the hands of the innocent under threat; in fact, it isn’t even worth an empty paper sack.

                  I have opposed this bad legal theology on principle from the start and have not opened myself up to criticism of any delusions I may or may not have. If any such delusion does exist, it isn’t a pillar on which my position rests.

                  If Lacy hadn’t had his finger on his trigger, he would have been at a mortal disadvantage if even just one of the trespassers had a finger on his own. I argue that when confronting a belligerent superior force, one ought to be willing and prepared to start shooting without a moment’s delay. A non-aggressive posture would have been irresponsible. He owes no such group of brigands the benefit of doubts. Let them approach him otherwise if they desire otherwise, and let our motherly coddling of criminals cease.

                  • Benjamin wrote, “To argue that a loud mob approaching one’s door at an unseemly hour isn’t an actionable threat gives miscreants the opportunity to remain legally ambiguous right up to the moment of the killing strike. The benefit of safety to the raucous villains isn’t worth tying the hands of the innocent under threat; in fact, it isn’t even worth an empty paper sack.”

                    You assume that the loud mob is raucous villains and miscreants and they’re there for one purpose, physical violence. You’re arguments seem to be trying to justify the killing of others not because they’re in the process of physically attacking you or your family but because of their words, their presence and your assumptions. What you seem to be arguing in favor of is not only illegal but immoral.

                    Read my comment above to Jim.

                    Based on your written arguments; you might want to seriously think about never opening your front door to confront people that you don’t think belong there, instead take advantage of the fortification of your home, shelter in place, and call the police.

                    • You assume that the loud mob is raucous villains and miscreants and they’re there for one purpose, physical violence.

                      No, I include the possibility and factor it with the possibility of being overwhelmed. A loud mob calling itself a town hall meeting has initiated its interaction with a falsehood, veiling its true intentions. I have no way of knowing whether physical violence is its true intention. By the fact of its greater numbers, reasonably, it has a higher bar to clear to gain “benefit of the doubt”; the “point of no return” in an altercation with a mob doesn’t lie at any point beyond the initiation of violence. It’s a show of force in se. To scrutinize a single man’s nonviolent but… what? rude? scary? response to an apparent threat by a literal mob is madness. In this society, I feel like Gulliver, far from home. Or perhaps Alice in Wonderland. What strange creatures these are, supposing the right hand of friendship is legally owed by a homeowner but not even expected of trespassers.

                    • Benjamin wrote, “No, I include the possibility and factor it with the possibility of being overwhelmed.”

                      I call bull shit Benjamin. It sounds a bit like you’re intentionally being obtuse. You clearly stated that you think Mr. Lacy should have killed them all and you’ve been trying to justify that statement ever since.

                      Benjamin wrote, “To scrutinize a single man’s nonviolent but… what? rude? scary? response to an apparent threat by a literal mob is madness.”

                      I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of any threats coming from the protesters and their physical presence is not a threat to anyone. Thinking that their physical presence is a “threat” is using the same kind of logic that this young lady is using…

                      It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to “speak” and remove all doubt.

                      It’s your choice to either learn from this conversation or keep your fingers in your ears. I’m done conversing with you on this subject.

                    • It’s your choice to either learn from this conversation or keep your fingers in your ears.

                      Yes, that’s the initial presumption of pedagogy I said I suspected of you. I think we understand each other. There’s nothing further to discuss.

                  • Benjamin,
                    It’s time for a critical thinking exercise.

                    What’s your opinion of Michael Drejka’s actions when he shot Markeis McGlockton in the video below? Pay very close attention to the actions of both men after 1:45 in the video when Markeis shoved Michael right up to 1:51 when Michael shot Markeis.

                    In your opinion was the shooting justified or not and what are your arguments to support your yes or no answer?

                    • I don’t yield to your apparent assumption of authority to test me. I chose never to submit myself to academic evaluation again. If you want me to speculate whether the “pusher” was threatening the “pushee” verbally after assaulting him or whether the “pushee” was initiating a carjacking so as to justify a push, I will only disappoint you. Are you hoping to goad me into giving you an answer regarded by some self-defense authority as wrong so you can give an unrelated public reason for disregarding me? I don’t think much of that avenue – very “cancel culture.”

                      I’ve already submitted my reasoning regarding the matter at hand though. You don’t have much to say about that. I suspect your reaction is borne of some desire to craft a pro-second-amendment narrative which you would expect to be successful. I, however, am not a consequentialist. I will say whatever I think is true and disregard the judgments of mobs. Be compelled, or not. I’d rather know what reasons you have for disagreement. My reasons are borne from a desire to be bound by a system which frees the hands of the initially innocent and gives trespassers a bar to clear before their cases will be regarded with any seriousness. The alternative is merely inhuman.

            • Joking about it does cause problems, we actually need to discuss the issues. There are two intertwined issues here. One is that the protesters are intimidating an elected official at her home. They can pretend they weren’t, but they were threatening her and her family. You could say the husband wasn’t scared, but he should have been. Leftist protesters have been going around trying to intimidate officials in California, Nevada, and probably other states all week. Any group over 3 is generally considered lethal force against 1 person. The second issue is that he went outside with a gun and threatened them with it.

              Under the law, both the husband and all the protesters should be punished. However, we know the protesters won’t be punished. In fact, the DA had to apologize to them. That leaves the husband to be punished. If his wife wasn’t the DA, you know that would happen. So, we have a legal system that only protects some people. What do the people who aren’t being protected do? Do they just have to take it, or do they get to take the law into their own hands?

              This is the same situation we had in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Nothing changed until the blacks in the South took the law into their own hands and started to fight back. As a country, we decided that was justified. There is a precedent for this man’s actions to be justified.

              The law needs to be for everyone, but we all know it isn’t. We know the protesters won’t be punished. We know some people are allowed to lie to Congress. We know some people can target people they disagree with and beat them on camera with no consequences. That needs to stop. How do you propose to make it stop? The only proven method has been to fight back. Give us another way.

              • The law, as it stands, (1) demands punishment for both parties and (2) is insufficient given reality.

                I definitely agree with these points.

              • Michael R. wrote, “What do the people who aren’t being protected do? “

                Protected from what, noisy protesters? Sure these people were intentionally being annoying, loud, disturbing the peace, and quite likely trespassing but as far as we know they were not actually threatening to invade the home or threatening to physically attack the occupants. If a person being intentionally annoying in someone’s yard is now considered justifiable grounds for a vigilante killing I think we’ve become morally bankrupt and our society is doomed to sink into utter chaos.

                Michael R. wrote, “Do they just have to take it, or do they get to take the law into their own hands?”, “There is a precedent for this man’s actions to be justified.”

                Trying to justify Mr. Lacey’s actions is a slippery slope into the oblivion of moral bankruptcy.

                I don’t like the tactics of these kinds of protesters either so I completely understand the overall frustration but what you’re doing is advocating for vigilantism. No one is saying that people just have to “take it” but they should NOT take the law into their own hands threaten others or kill others because of their anger. Mr. Lacey did not allow the police to do their job he chose to take the law into his own hands, there was no immediate threat to property or anyone in the home just annoying racket by unethical protesters, instead he acted out of anger.

                Mr. Lacey’s made an angry choice to take action, took the law into his own hands, open his door, and threaten to shoot the protesters when in reality he didn’t “need” to do any of that because there was no imminent threat, all he had to do was to wait for the police to show up and remove the protesters from his property. Mr. Lacey allowed his anger to get the best of him and he made a bad choice.

                The protesters were wrong and Mr. Lacey was wrong; justifying either side of this fiasco is unethical.

                  • Yeah, when I criticize undue scrutiny of people who draw weapons in situations of intimidation in which the “victims” are given more leeway than they reasonably deserve, taking advantage of some benefit of ambiguity written into the terrible laws, this is a great example of the sort of scenarios I had in mind. Indeed, the poor defenseless lambs hadn’t started hitting him (yet) and never stated openly for the camera that they would, so this police officer was drawing his weapon on “peaceful protesters”. The rest confirms that, at least in Portland, the time for vigilantism probably began years ago. There’s no reason to respect any of their laws as laws.

                    Thank you, Michael. You’ve made this point much more effectively than I did.

                  • Michael,
                    Mike Strickland’s confrontation, which I’m very familiar with, and Mr. Lacey’s confrontation are only the same in one aspect, they both pulled their personal firearm and pointed it at others in a threatening manner, beyond that fact these two situations are very, very different. If you think these two confrontations are similar in other way(s) please explain your opinion regarding those similarities.

  7. Two things…

    Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a speech in front of the United States Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

    What awful decisions? This political hack is condemning decisions that haven’t been made yet, basically threatening two United States Supreme Court Justices with acts of retaliation in an effort to try to intimidate them into siding with the pro-abortion hive mind.

    On the same topic…

    During Wednesday’s oral arguments, Justice Kavanaugh asked “Assume all the doctors who currently perform abortions can obtain admitting privileges, could you say that the law still imposes an undue burden, even if there were no effect?”

    Isn’t that consequentialism? Should that be taken into account when it comes to the Constitutionality of the law in question?

    • Steve, doesn’t any restriction placed on an abortion provider amount to an undue burden?

      The entire reason for making abortion legal was to ensure patient safety because back alley abortions were resulting in many deaths and sterilized women from unqualified, unsupervised providers who would not get the victims of their butchery needed medical care.

      • Chris Marschner wrote, “doesn’t any restriction placed on an abortion provider amount to an undue burden?”

        To a pro-abortion activist, of course it is! When dealing with the realities of some kinds of medical procedures, like abortion, no.

        Chris Marschner wrote, “The entire reason for making abortion legal was to ensure patient safety because back alley abortions were resulting in many deaths and sterilized women from unqualified, unsupervised providers who would not get the victims of their butchery needed medical care.”

        That may have been one of the rationalizations that people have used but the Supreme Courts decision was to protect a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction not about the safety issues surrounding abortion procedures. An intended or unintended consequence of the ruling was that abortions did in fact get safer.

        On it’s face; the entire reason for the law that’s currently being presented to the Supreme Court is to insure the safety of the woman getting an abortion in case complications arise during the abortion that cannot be effectively dealt with at the abortion clinic. Of course that’s certainly not what the pro-abortion hyperbole is extrapolating out of the law, the extrapolations may or may not be valid arguments in the eyes of the United States Constitution, that’s what the Supreme Court will decide.

        • Michael Ejercito wrote, “Does this same logic apply to gun control laws?”

          Please explain what “same logic” you’re asking about.

          Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment is actually part of the United States Constitution, abortion is not.

          • Assume all the doctors who currently perform abortions can obtain admitting privileges, could you say that the law still imposes an undue burden, even if there were no effect?”

            If undue buirden is applied to gun control laws, then very many gun control laws should be struck down.

            See here for an example.

            https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/02/voter-id-and-gun-rights-charles-c-w-cooke/

            In which case, perhaps we ought also to take a look at New York City’s gun-permitting process, which not only requires individuals who wish to buy a firearm to go through the apparently devastating process of obtaining an acceptable ID but also to provide separately a proof of residence, a proof of citizenship or permanent residency, and a Social Security card; to pay $431.50 plus the cost of two color photographs; to wait an average of eight months for the application to be processed, and then attend a lengthy in-person interview; and, if the applicant has not lived in the United States for seven years (and many immigrants can become citizens after just three years, remember), to provide a certificate of good conduct from their foreign government. Pray, how does that fit into the mix?

      • On the contrary, the back-alley and coat hanger abortion deaths is bvery nearly a complete fabrication.

        Pre-legalized abortion, exact numbers are a challenge to get, of course. The numbers of thousands of women dying from abortions are guesses from the 1930s – New York and 12 other states that tracked such numbers had reported 115 deaths from abortion, and as that was about 20% of the us, they multiplied the number by 5, then rounded up, then doubled it again to count for unsurveyed rural areas, then once more to account for underreporting, leaving an estimated 8000-10,000 women dying annually.

        Of course, that was before antibiotics. After antibiotics were introduced, mortality rates took another big drop in the 60s, as contraception was made available, which caused both the number of illegal abortions and the resulting deaths to drop.

        In 1972, the year before roe v wade went into effect, guttmacher reports there were 59 deaths countrywide from abortion. They dont like to point out that of those 59, 24 were from legal abortions, which could be had already in a dozen states.

        Pre-roe v wade, 12 states allowed abortion, and most illegal procedures were done by doctors, quietly helping women end their pregnancies in defiance of laws against it. Medical advances had seriously reduced the risk of the procedures already, and roe v wade had nearly no effect on the number of deaths. Anyone who spouts nonsense about coat hangers or thousands of women dying is either mistaken about the facts, or trying to sell you something.

  8. On a somewhat lighter note…and I’ve been pondering this for a while, waiting for the next open forum to ask…

    My wife and I recently drove from central Iowa to Phoenix to visit our son and his family (including our staggeringly beautiful 20-month-old granddaughter). While driving (both there and back), we stopped at several hotels for the night. We tend to be early risers – our alarm goes off at five. And given that most hotels have a modest breakfast that starts at 6:30am, we try to be back on the road shortly after 7am.

    Here’s my question…

    Given that hotel showers, bathroom fans, hair dryers, etc., are all loud enough to be heard in adjacent rooms (to say nothing of walking around, talking, and turning on the TV), is there an appropriate time to start making noise such that we don’t disturb other people?

    Or because it’s a hotel, do I just try not to be excessively noisy and operate as I normally do? Is there a hotel etiquette?

    • Do what you gotta’ do when you gotta’ do it but be prompt and considerate to the extent you can. But if the hotel has no insulation or sound-proofing, that’s on the owner/operator and, to some extent, the other guests. You get what you pay for when it comes to modern day on-the-interstate lodging. I remember years ago (1970s) spending a night in an elegant old hotel in Philadelphia. You know what made it elegant? It was built like an Egyptian tomb and was as quiet as one. Tremendous.

      Great time of year to visit Phoenix, our home town (with a ton of Iowans) since ’81.

      • I agree with OB, During my years as a police training “road warrior,” my travel habits were like yours: early to rise and hit the road. I don’t think anyone at the average hotel expects complete silence at get-up time! Safe travels!

    • Joel Mundt wrote, “is there an appropriate time to start making noise such that we don’t disturb other people? Or because it’s a hotel, do I just try not to be excessively noisy and operate as I normally do?”

      Not everyone in hotels are on the same time schedules so do what you’ve got to do but just be cognizant of your noise level. I expect to routinely hear things things from other rooms but what I don’t expect to hear loud parties and blasting televisions after 10pm and before 6am, I really don’t give a damn if someone wants to watch CNN at 5am but they better not crank it up so they can hear it in the shower.

        • One trip to Phoenix (April 2018), we stayed in Carrizozo, NM – find THAT town on the map. The only hotel in the town (of maybe 500 people) was actually pretty nice – one of those park-in-front-of-your-door hotels. There were a handful of construction workers that stayed in the rooms next to us. Things weren’t too bad until a couple of ladies showed up later in the evening…not sure what that was about. Who am I kidding…we could hear what that was about!

          For an hour or two, it was a bit raucous. Fortunately, they wore out pretty quick. Overall, the hotel was decent, the owners were super nice, and the stop at Pie-o-Neer Pies in Pie Town the next day caused the previous night’s antics to quickly fade into the ether.

          • Been through Pie Town. Nice stretch of road upon which to open a car up. I didn’t stop. You’re a braver man than I.

            • OB,

              We stop at Pie-O-Neer every time we go through Pie Town (though it isn’t open all year). Kathy and her husband are wonderful hosts and the pie is always spectacular…we have eaten there four or five times. The apple-cranberry is out of this world! By the way, do NOT speed through Magdalena on Hwy 60. The Marshall (no relation to Jack) will get you! I found that out too late…to the tune of $54.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.