32 thoughts on “Friday Open Forum: Let’s Go For Two In A Row!

  1. Saw a story stating that the Dems are currently clearing the decks for a Michelle Obama run for president as the Oprah candidate. I think an Obama Restoration must look pretty attractive to the Dems, similar to how a Clinton Restoration looked in 2016. Michelle could be the titular president while Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod could run things and Barack could play basketball in the White House gym again. They’ve certainly gained lots of experience in running an administration headed by a sock puppet, so trotting Michelle around would be easy for them. They’re clearly trying to take Joe out of the running. But there’s no Dem politician who’s the likely fill-in. Is this Michelle for President (I’m with Her! 2.0) what’s going on? Anyone?

    • I have heard speculation that a Newsome/Obama ticket would be unstoppable in 2024. I am not sure. Will Newsome play well outside of the coasts? I suspect middle America would not be overjoyed. Additionally, I don’t think Michelle Obama is all that popular, either.


      • Agreed, John. None of which would stop the Dems from shoving M. Obama or Newsome down our throats. It worked with Biden, didn’t it? (Where have you gone Harry Reid?)

    • Wishful thinking. Michelle Obama has never held a public office of any kind nor has she led any type of organization or business that would lead anyone to believe in her leadership abilities. She’s less qualified than Kamala Harris and that’s saying something.

      It’s a pipe dream. I would like to think American voters are more savvy than that.

      But I’ve been wrong before.

      • All true, but it would allow Barack back in the White House for another eight years. I just saw a current photo of him the other day. Jeeze, he’s still young!

  2. On January 26, I was reminded that the date was the anniversary of Audie Murphy’s heroic actions at the Colmar Pocket, France in 1945, for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor. I recalled that I had not seen the Murphy biopic “To Hell and Back” in a number of years, prompting me to search for a showing available on television. I found it unavailable from my hundreds of satellite TV channels or any of the streaming services to which I subscribe or for which I can see listings. Prime Video has the film listed but “currently unavailable.” I find this baffling. “To Hell and Back” was Universal’s top-grossing film from 1955 until the release of “Jaws” in 1975. I might understand if this was some obscure, low budget B movie, but there are a heck of a lot of awful movies available for that criteria to apply. I guess I’m getting jaded because my first reaction was, “Well, it’s only the true story one of America’s most highly decorated WWII heroes, actually (reluctantly) portraying himself in the movie, a much-admired actor, and he is a heterosexual white guy, so I guess he’s been chucked down the memory hole.” I ordered the DVD version before that disappears as well. If this isn’t “censorship by omission,” it will do until the real thing gets here.

    • … “Well, it’s only the true story one of America’s most highly decorated WWII heroes, actually (reluctantly) portraying himself in the movie, a much-admired actor, and he is a heterosexual white guy, so I guess he’s been chucked down the memory hole.” …

      Funnily enough, although practically all of that is accurate, that film still/I> distorted some things in true Hollywood fashion, and even though Hollywood had Audie Murphy right there to consult if it had wanted. Hollywood sanitised too much, and made some of his genuine heroics look either quaint or mere moral luck, while omitting other stuff that would have given enough context to bring more out of what it told. Hollywood managed to tell a not-quite-true story anyway.

      • Yes, there are significant differences between the book and what is portrayed in the movie. Hollywood seldom bases a movie on a book -even an autobiography- and gets it right.

    • Everything about Audie Murphy makes me sad, including the fact that he was such a mediocre actor and added so many lousy Westerns to the canon. Worst of all is Audie’s tiny marker at Arlington near the tomb of the Unknown Soldier, so small they couldn’t fit all of his honors on it. It made my father angry every time he saw it, which was at least every year, when he made sure to stop by Audie’s final resting place to pay his respects.

      Talk about cultural literacy: how many Americans under the age of sixty know his name? Now I’m sad again…

      • When I was about ten, a relative gave me a book about a number Medal of Honor recipients throughout the World Wars and Korea, including Audie Murphy. I read and reread this book many times throughout my teen years, along with several others I bought on the subject as I got older. I have always been inspired by their tales of selfless courage and devotion. I am a staunch supporter of and regular visitor to the Charles H. Coolidge National Medal of Honor Heritage Center in Chatanooga, which preserves and retells the histories of these heroes. They all deserve more remembrance than a tiny tombstone. The Heritage Center board made a formal proposal to the Department of Defense a couple of years ago that any military bases being renamed should be named for MOH recipients, a policy I could certainly endorse.

    • WW2 movie classics will fade into memory because the modern WW2 blast-fests which probably more accurately capture the gritty brutality of the war also capture people’s attention more as well.

  3. Here was an interesting comment that I found on Quora.


    We should have empathy for the young man who has to work late nights in the ghetto to support his family.

    I mean, I can understand why such a man would want to be able to buy a gun from a gang member in a back alley, no questions asked.

    I can understand why he would not want to have cops force him down on the sidewalk at gunpoint, just to search him.

    I can understand why he wouldn’t want cops to break down the door of his home and barge in to search for contraband, all based on a hunch.

    I can understand why he would not want to talk to the cops if questioned about something.

    I do understand why people want civil rights.

    The problem is, those who would rob this young man, those who would gun down his son for wearing the wrong colors on the wrong street corner, those who would sexually abuse his daughter, also have these civil rights.

    These civil rights keep cops from using harsh, brutal policing tactics needed to keep people safe.

    Compunding this problem is that a political parrty is pandering to a bunch of whiny activists who complain about mass incarceration and school-to-prison pipelines and police brutality and systemic racism and “Hands Up, Dion’t Shoot”- in ither words, complaining about the police actually doing their jobs.

    Someone even called police officwers murderers for shootingh someone dead as that someone was stabbing them!

    Stony Brook Professor Under Fire For Denouncing Officers Who Shot Suspect …Who Was Stabbing Them

    Defaming cops is subversive speech that should be outlawed, and there’s an entire political party pandering to these anarchists!

    These civil rights are the reason there are so many parking lot shootings and school shootings and drive-by shootings in the ghetto, just like you described. They restrain the police from searching people and punishing people and stuff.

    Without civil rights, there would be no ghettoes.

    I understand the viewpoint of those who want to keeop their civil rights.

    But in the end, those who sacrifice safety for the illusion of freedom will neither be safe nor free.

  4. Lots of ethics questions here:
    Why are the balls of different size to begin with? (Not really an ethics question, but a cause for puzzlement.)
    Who is responsible for the error (assuming there was one)? Whoever it is, passing responsibility to the players is irresponsible at best.
    The Duke coach claims the officials noticed the mistake and switched to the correct ball at halftime. The ACC says that “following a thorough and objective review process, there was no evidence found to support the claim.” There is no possible conclusion other than that someone is lying. The coach? The officials? The conference?

  5. Is there some reason why we aren’t shooting down that Chinese balloon that’s floating over our country? Is there a bioweapon inside of it? Some kind of explosive device?

    Just wondering why our government isn’t doing something about it.

    • I understand the president perked up and showed momentary interest in the matter when he at first thought someone was offering to give him a balloon.

      • The CCP says it’s a weather balloon. I’m going to assume at some point it will gradually deflate and descend so its contents can be assessed?

    • I can think of a few reasons:

      1. It’s not a large metal aircraft, so getting a target lock on it could be more difficult than it would appear.
      2. Fuel up and sending out aircraft, which will then spend ordnance (see #1), to destroy the thing costs money.
      3. It might be worth the effort and expense if the balloon gets close enough to gather any dangerous intel, but apparently it hasn’t yet.
      4. It’s not really a balloon (cue X-Files theme).

    • It appears that the Fifth Circuit has taken notice of the SCOTUS decision in Bruen. About a month ago, the court ruled for the plaintiff in a case that overturned Trump’s “bump stock” ban; the court ruled that a “bump stock” did not meet the definition of a “machine gun.” This most recent decision applies to people who are under a DV civil restraining order and NOT to those who have actually been convicted of domestic violence. The statute in question only applies while such restraining orders are in effect (in most states they expire after a year) while the ban on firearms ownership for those convicted is for life. The onus is on the states to prosecute these “violence against an intimate partner” cases speedily and vigorously and get a conviction on the record.

      • Regarding banning those convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms.

        Why stop there?

        Why not also do the following:

        * forbid them from practicing law or medicine
        * forbid them from any sort of intimate contact or relationship
        * require them to wear a distinctive badge on their left sleeve when out in public

        • I’m not defending the practice of curtailing the constitutional rights of convicted misdemeanants, but it is in more line with traditional consequences the states have long imposed on convicted criminals. The imposition of sanctions due to a civil restraining order is clearly beyond the pale of what the founders intended.

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 )

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.