Continuing the Conversation - Part 2

     If money in politics is the problem that leads to school shootings, then I suggest following the money.
     There are many who are blaming the NRA funding of political campaigns, but that is not justified for the following reason.  The NRA does fund political campaigns, but at a much, much lower rate than other organizations such as the labor unions, education unions, and others.
     From 1990-2016 federal election cycles, the NRA contributed a total of $23 million to individual candidates for federal offices.  During the very same period, the AFL/CIO contributed $65 million, including $19 million in 2016 alone.  So the largest group of labor unions gave nearly as much in a single cycle as the NRA did in 15 cycles.  But the NEA (Nation Education Association, or teachers union) contributed a whopping $124.3 million during the 1990-2016 cycles.
     That means teachers unions sent more than 5 times as much to campaigns as did the NRA.

Source:  Open Secrets

Starting a Real Conversation

     In the days since the mass killing in Parkland, FL. I have not been surprised at the divisive nature of what I hear from people, read on social media, or listen to on the news.  That is because the USA is currently a most divided country in terms of politics.  I blogged about this before a few times if you care to go back and take a look.  But blaming this on President Trump, the NRA, the GOP, or mental health boogeymen is scapegoating at best and dishonest at worst.  There are many reasons for all these shootings, but the blame lies with the shooters alone.
     Many thoughts are being expressed about guns, gun control, rights and fear.  And justly so.  What is divisive is the qualifiers added that if you disagree with the expressed you must be a horrible person for some reason or another.  If you think certain types of weapons should be banned, you are coming for all guns.  Or, if you want to hang onto your guns, you must be guilty of murder.
     Other sentiments you hear since last Wednesday are: 1. Congress must do something, or 2. thoughts and prayers do nothing to stop this, or 3. Politicians do nothing because they accept money from the NRA.  Let me take these on.
     Congress must do something.  What?  What is 'something'?  We must only do something it has a chance of succeeding without violating constitutional rights such as those protected by the 2nd and 4th amendments.  To say politicians have blood on their hands is not only wrong, it is not helpful.  To say they have not done enough is perhaps correct, but the solution is not an easy one.
    Thoughts and prayers do nothing to stop this.  I am one of many, many people who pray, especially when people are hurting or at risk.  We have faith in prayer and believe prayer does help.  None of us are suggesting prayer is the solution to bad people committing bad acts.  There is always room for more prayer in society, and to make light of prayer's usefulness is an insult to prayerful people.
     In order to start a real conversation about school shootings, or mass shootings anywhere, I have a few suggestions:

1. Schools are soft targets in that they offer little or no defense against someone intent on doing evil.  We must spend the price of hardening our schools at least as much we do places of business, sports arenas and many other places large numbers of people congregate.  We managed to harden jet cockpits against terrorists following 9-11.  Surely we can harden school room doors.
2. We should hire armed guards to work in the schools.  There are many former and retired military and police who would be willing to supplement their pensions or find additional income by a worthy cause such as protecting our future.  These people come with weapons experience, tactical training, and have service to country in their DNA.
3. We should enact legislation that mandates certain people report possible violent behavior by anyone at risk of committing violence against society.  We have many examples of people shooting up a school or shopping mall that had warning signs seen by parents, teachers, fellow students, doctors, co-workers and counselors.  If these signs were reported in the same manner as possible sex abuse is already, perhaps some of these events could have been prevented.  Mandated reporting will mean that law enforcement, and other appropriate professionals, could go to a judge and get restraining orders against an individual purchasing a gun.  Such mandated reports would be cataloged in the same database where gun background checks are conducted.

     Here are three suggestions I believe would make a difference.  Feel free to add to or improve upon these.  Then suggest them to your representatives in state and federal government.  If we want to have a real conversation, this is how we should start.

Polarization of America

    Many people notice and comment on the polarization of our country.  It is real and it is everywhere, but it is not all people.  I believe it started with the Bush v Gore lawsuit over the Florida recount in the 2000 election.  It may have started sooner for some, but it became a national phenomenon after the hanging chads.
    Last night the Senate voted to pass the new tax cuts bill which has been debated for weeks if not longer.  House Minority Leader Pelosi called the bill "Armageddon".  Really?  End of the world?  Kill all humans?  And that brings me to the real problem with polarization.
    It seems to me that liberals, progressives and democrats (not all) cannot argue their political points of view logically, and resort to insults and name calling.  I've mentioned this in earlier blog entries, but here are a few examples.
 - If you disagree with abortion, then you hate women.
 - If you disagree with tax cuts, you hate the poor.
 - If you disagree with allowing transgenders into the opposite sex locker room, you hate the LGBTQ community.
 - If you think we should build a wall, you hate Mexicans specifically, and immigrants in general.
 - If you think we should vet Muslim refugees before allowing them into the country, you hate Muslims.
    I could go on, but I think you get my point.  Once one side of the debate goes into this 'you're a hater mode', the debate ends without any real resolution.  As I see it, the political left does not want to actually debate issues thoroughly, but rather wants to rule as they see fit without debate.  For there is no quicker method to ending debate than resorting to name calling and insults.  For how can anyone argue that they don’t actually hate any of those groups above, or countless others?
    I ask my friends on the left to consider this, and try to refrain from this dialogue killing action.

Protests or Riots?

   Ever since the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO, there have been many protests which have turned into, or have been coopted, into riots.  Violence begot damaged or destroyed property, injuries, deaths, but very few arrests.  Few arrests due to police standing by watching in many cases.  Standing by in some cases because they were ordered to do so.
   Regardless of what events led to the protests, riots are and should be illegal.  Protests are protected free speech, but riots are an assault on civility and civilians.
   Not only did authorities not stop the riots, but the media refused to call them what they were.  Instead they referred to rioters as activists.
   A few groups have been born during this period.  The Black Lives Matter movement is a response to police shootings of unarmed black men, but has also led to the killing of police officers by BLM supporters.  The Antifa (short for anti fascist) group is much more violent, often piggy-backing on other groups protests to turn them violent.  The Antifa folks are actually anarchists.
   Antifa has been successful is stopping others, mainly conservatives, from speaking on college campuses, most famously Cal Berkeley.  They threaten the college with protests, which evolve into burning, looting, rock throwing, and general rioting.
   The BLM movement concerns itself with all things deemed racist, which now includes anything on display related to the Confederacy, including the flag and statues and monuments.  Many of these people think  it appropriate to remove all these things since they are "offensive to blacks", who generations ago suffered under the slavery of the confederates.  Apparently, any reminder of slavery is to be removed.
   One wonders what they will want to remove after all flags and monuments are torn down.  Books?  Historic places such as Gettysburg?, Antietam?  How about the historic homes of founding fathers like Monticello or Mt. Vernon?
   The time has arrived when we should say enough is enough.  The police need to become actively involved in preventing protests from turning into riots, and arresting any and all rioters.  The media needs to accurately report on what activity is taking place and by whom, using the accurate descriptors for those events and people.  And citizens need to educate themselves about history, current events, and understand who is doing what to whom.

It Has Been a While

I have not posted to this blog in quite some time.  In November 2016 I was given early retirement, and closely following that my wife's mother passed away after a battle with lung cancer.  The holidays were busy, the things got crazy in 2017.
In January I slipped and fell hitting my head on a cement floor.  Several weeks later my wife and I decided to move to Louisville, and purchased a condominium that is under construction.  We then sold our home in Newport, and moved into temporary housing while construction is completed.
In March I developed stroke like symptoms resulting from my fall, and over the next 60 days I underwent two craniotomies for bleeding on the brain, a couple weeks of therapy, and home recovery.
During these 8 months I had no desire or time to write on my blog.  Today I decided to resume blogging.

Democrats Made This Stuff Up

    It is often said, "You can't make this stuff up".  In this election year it is heard more frequently than ever as it pertains to the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  There are many reasons why voters may not vote for either candidate in particular, or for any of them in general.  Mrs. Clinton, however, has the most reasons by far, and they are of her own doing.
    Mrs Clinton is a notorious liar.  She has been a proven liar in matters involving the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2011, and concerning her use of a private email server.
    She has also be involved in many scandals going back to her days as a young attorney, wife of a governor, First Lady of the USA, Secretary of State, and now, nominee for President.  If elected, given her propensity for lying, the lengthy list of scandals would surely continue to grow.
    All of the email related lies and scandal could have been avoided if she had simply followed the law and used a government provided and supported email server.  But even using the private server, she could have avoided this if she had complied with FOIA requests and subpoenas by turning over the server and contents.  Why would you not do those things?   We'll find out what was being hidden from view eventually.  And by the surprising lengths she went to in order to avoid exposure, it is more likely than not criminal in nature, and also likely to place national security at risk.
    I include Democrats in this brew for the following reasons.
    First, the Department of Justice, with AG Loretta Lynch in control, has provided at least an appearance of impropriety, by meeting with former President Clinton, husband of the candidate under investigation at the time.  That meeting at an airport in Arizona raised suspicion since it came shortly before FBI Director Comey presented his case at a press conference.  During the presser he basically indicted Mrs. Clinton for several violations of national security law, then said he would not recommend indictment.  That was a total miscarriage of justice.
    Second, now that another stash of an estimated 650,000 email messages have been found on the personal computer of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, AG Lynch refuses to allow the FBI to read through those and determine if they present any legal problems for the previously closed investigation concerning Mrs. Clinton's email issues.
    Third, many Democrat operatives and politicians are now making the news show circuit to explain away Mrs. Clinton's problems with email in a not so transparent way.  When the FBI Directory told us he would not recommend indictment after providing multiple reasons to indict, these Democrats praised the director and claimed he exonerated her.  Now they are accusing the same director of a political hit job on her.  You can't have it both ways.
    Fourth, the way Democrats join ranks to protect their candidate is especially troubling.  It creates a closed minded, group think, go along to get along, mentality.  It makes one wonder if they all really believe what they are saying, or are they that much afraid to be different and stand on principle.
    While Donald Trump is a flawed candidate personally, he does not present the kind of risk that having Hillary Clinton as our president would.  Neither candidate is especially highly thought of,  but only one carries the scandalous baggage that could truly be harmful to the country.
    You can't make this stuff up.  Can't say that anymore.

Without Evidence

The Left and the Masses: Part I, Part II, Part III
    Dr. Thomas Sowell, PhD. Economics, wrote a series of columns explaining that those on the left claim to have great compassion for the poor and downtrodden, have implemented policies and programs to deal with that, but fail to deliver.  A good summary quote from those columns would be as follows:
"The political left in general has been able to claim that they have more compassion for the less     fortunate, and to depict their opponents as lacking in compassion for others. For none of these assertions have they felt a need to offer hard evidence."
    The left is quick to claim their good intentions as justification fro all sorts of government intervention into our daily lives, but those polices simply fail to deliver on those intentions.  And if you dispute the need for or benefits of such policies and programs, then you are a hater.