Total Pageviews

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

We don’t want no stinking compromise

I can count on one hand, the times I've come away from a spirited debate , where I've said, “by golly you're right" and neither has my opponent. I think that's pretty common with online debates because it's mostly about a point and counterpoint with not much in- between. Sometimes it's all about gotcha.The on line debates mimic the "You didn't build that" or "what's in those tax returns,"nonsense.

In my last blog, I should have saved myself a lot of time by simply stating that, we could deal a severe blow to those who want to commit a tragedy like the one in Aurora, Colorado by reinstating the 1994 assault weapon ban. It's very simple logic, if you can't get your hands on it; it lessens the odds on it happening again. The idea of a ban is at the heart of the issue; after 911 when we all submitted to tighter security measures. I would like to think that we would've complied regardless of who was president. A couple of failed bombers forced us to endure more intrusive searches, a longer wait time at airports, and we accepted that some liquids would be denied. We did all this without much fanfare but if a homegrown terrorist commits mass murder with a semiautomatic assault weapon; the gun advocates will ban together to give us their reason on why it's a foolish idea to ban those weapons. They know that the politicians don't have the backbone to step up to the NRA. Therein lies the difference. It's not about the second amendment, the intent of the founders because it's already been proven that we will sacrifice a little freedom, if we think, it'll make us safer. My argument was in the first sentence of this paragraph, and my opponents will go through circles and semi circles in trying to make others think that there're willing to compromise. Truth is, they are scared that the country might want to take their guns away, if they don't take a stance every single time.

I read Jessica Puente's well researched blog asking the question "Why we asked what should happen to the survivors of the Goliad County wreck." Most of the responses were predictable. I understand the journalistic argument. Jessica was trying to make, but it will not penetrate because people had their mind made up before the accident ever happened. Some were trying to humanize the situation and others would have none of it. I've been watching the forum since I left, and I found that articles and blogs were not getting a lot of comments. The minute the subject turned the illegal immigrants; a lot of people came out of the woodwork, and others came out to defend the victims. The America that I grew up in, no matter what state our economy was in, would treat victims of any tragedy despite the circumstances. I trust that our authorities will do the right thing when the survivors recover. There are no laws that say if a person enters this country illegally and gets badly injured, that they will be allowed to remain until after they recover. It's a little premature and out of most people hands but not their mouths, on what will happen to them when they recover. I sincerely doubt that those people posting the hateful comments have read one line of Jessica's article because they are not interested in reading something that is contrary to what they firmly believe.I may be wrong, but I don't think those posters represent the Victoria I grew up in. They're like the Tea Party, small in numbers, but they make a lot of noise.

We could live if those two issues I mentioned remained on the back burner for now but our planet is getting hotter, yet were are not serious enough to try to do anything about it.

Greenland Ice Melt, Measured By NASA Satellites, Reaches Unprecedented Level

Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said, "society will be able to adapt." Huh? You tell that to the farmers who see their crops being ruined by the heat.

We are also discovering just how corrupt Wall Street is, but we have one major party that wants to repeal Dodd-Frank. My favorite is the latest CBO report on the Affordable Health Care Act. "They concluded that with the June United States Supreme Court decision, the law by 2022 would insure three million fewer people resulting in a lower cost of the law by $84 billion, and that a planned repeal by Republicans would add a net $109 billion to the federal budget deficit by 2022." That doesn't matter to the partisan Republicans who still want to repeal Obama Care.

I like to think that I’m a reasonable man, let’s start small by insisting that Speaker Boehner kick Representative Michele Bachmann off the House Intelligence Committee or at least change the name of the committee. Here is another one of her latest stupid remarks.


dale said...

Good thought on part 1. Part 2... when our President, elected officials and bureaucrats turn in their vehicles, walk and turn off the electricity...then the rest of us will too. (That will happen when Congress changes their retirement plan to social security. Maybe that will happen when Greenland turns Green?) LOL

Mike said...

dale said "when our President, elected officials and bureaucrats turn in their vehicles, walk and turn off the electricity...then the rest of us will too. ...I don't know who the "rest of us" you are representing but climate change measures will be curbing green house emissions from the petrochemical industry and coal-fired plants to name a couple not about turning off some electricity and walking...That's the child like ploy the right wing used to dismiss Al Gore.

Well the other day you lectured me about church teaching; it’s only fitting that "turnabout is fair play."..Now that's a lol.

The Catholic Church hierarchy, beginning with the Pope more than two decades ago, has framed climate change as a moral issue involving ‘the future of God’s creation’ and one best viewed through four principles guiding Catholics’ worldview.

On January 1, 1990, Pope John Paul II delivered his World Day of Peace message to Catholics around the world, and for that year’s address he lamented a “widespread destruction of the environment.” World peace, he warned, was threatened not only by arms, conflict, and injustice, but by “a lack of due respect for nature.”

Edith Ann said...

I want to talk about the terrible accident last Sunday at Berclair. I had to stop reading the comments everywhere because it became disturbing to continue.

I am so proud of Fr. Stan (I just love that man, no matter what!) for stepping up and holding the prayer service for the victims and the survivors.

What I think folks tend to forget when they are all righteously up in arms over illegal immigration is the amount of desparation and then determination these folks have to even attempt to make a trip like this. How great their desire for something better than the have in their home must be for them to risk life and limb for what they believe to be a better life.

Do we not brag constantly on how great America is? The land of the free and the home of the brave! Why wouldn't they want to be here?

I think most Americans that express an opinion on this topic, be it on social media, newspaper forums or what have you, have never felt they were in a situation that required then to literally risk it all.

I don't know if respect is the word I would use, but I know I certainly have an appreciation for their actions. I hope and pray every day that I never feel as desperate as these folks must have felt to attempt this.

Sad, sad week.

Mike said...

Great post EA,you do get around... I had no idea you knew Rev. Stan DeBoe.

Rev. Stan DeBoe presided over my grandson's St.Joe graduation mass this year,telling the young graduates to go out and do good for your fellow human beings. He backed up those words with his recent act of kindness.

Tophat said...

I have no fear of "guns being taken away". I only have factual reasons for knowing the ban is useless.
Guns, boats, airplane, couple of houses, land, etc. all left my possession a few years ago, as I downsized my holdings in preparation for retirement. As such, I have no dog in the hunt.

Certainly it is your blog, you may state whatever you desire. The point it may not be factual really doesn't enter in the scheme of free lance writing.

I won't waste any future blog comments on this point. Since it was me involved, I desired to debunk the incorrect statements.

Good Day-

Mike said...

Hello Tophat

This is the second time you have basically called me a liar which is your prerogative but I know I didn't target your opinions. I really don't know what getting rid of your personal possession has to do with the topic.

I have constantly said that I am a consumer of news, to a fault some might say, but I don't lie and if I am presenting untruths, it's because I was mislead. I will be more than happy to apologize for leading someone astray. I've been wrong in the past....This is just a sample of what I've heard on the news:

"These types of incidents make some gun owners afraid government will enforce extra gun laws and prevent the sales of certain weapons and ammunition.

“Anytime something like this happens the anti-gun people start talking (and) that makes the pro-gun people think they need to buy something to make up for it,” Sturm said.

I posted this story a couple of days ago.

"Gun sales often fluctuate based on news events, especially whenever people think the passage of more restrictive gun laws is imminent. Sales spiked following the election of President Barack Obama, when weapons enthusiasts expressed fear that the Democrat might curtail gun rights. FBI figures also show background checks for handgun sales jumped in Arizona following the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.

By David Horsey
July 26, 2012, 5:00 a.m.

In the days following the Aurora theater massacre, gun sales in Colorado shot through the roof. But all the arms and ammo moving across gun shop counters are not being purchased in anticipation of another anonymous misfit springing out of nowhere with guns blazing. Instead, people are stocking their home armories to get ahead of new gun control laws that might restrict access to firearms.,0,7997741.story

The other day you said "The NRA does not have the power to instruct legislators. If an individual is on the terror watch, we would be the first to say NO! This sounds like a myth dreamed up by someone."

I posted " Even most Americans don’t know that Congress has, in recent years, refused to consider laws that would ban the sale of assault weapons capable of firing 100 bullets without reloading, and declined to allow the attorney general to restrict people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons."

If I am going to target an individual then I'll give them the courtesy of naming them as I am going to do after this post.

Since the shooting, I've watched and heard ~ 15 hours of opinion, stats, and actual reporting of the incident, so there was no reason for me to put a greater emphasis on your postings.

When I'm writing a blog I usually summarize what I have learned and what I think to be true. If it think the subject is complicated or might be controversial. I usually provide links and enclose quotation marks at the start and end of the author's words."

..Sometime ago,I stated that now that I am not writing VA blogs,I won't provide as many links because I think the readers of this blog were up to speed or they wouldn't be reading a political blog. I also believed that they certainly had the ability to fact check.

Freelance writing scheme? I don't fancy myself as anything other than a lowly poster with an opinion...

.BTW A freelance writer is:

1. A person who sells services to employers without a long-term commitment to any of them.
2. An uncommitted independent, as in politics or social life.
3. A medieval mercenary.

I don't fit those categories ...:-)

Mike said...

Oh I wish and I could answer the likes of Carole Luster and John Perilloux. My comments would go in the unverified section where the intended targets wouldn't read them. They are absolutely wrong but that doesn't matter to them; facts just get in a way of their real message.

I heard something last night that fits them to a tee.... They're using a "word salad" approach... They just type in all the hateful words they can think of and then hit .

Tophat said...

My point is simply that I have no firearms; they were moved along with other assets. I had no other motive for discarding them; I did not have a motive to keep them. Sorry, I poorly stated that. As such I have no fear of government taking them. I was trying to relate the firearm collection was a hobby (like the plane, boat, land). I have no particular like/ dislike for any particular firearm.
Today's blog referred to yesterday's. I was the only one that disagreed with yesterday's.
If it appeared that I called you a liar, kindly accept my most sincere apology. Mike, I do not think that whatsoever. My point was simply that I did not fit into what that paragraph stated. I am sadden that the message was construed adversely.
I intended "free-lance" as an individual that is free of any obligation; an apparently poor choice of words.
Very poor composition on my part-

Edith Ann said...

Absolutely Mike! All those 'law abiding' citizens, clinging to their weapons stockpiling weapons because they are completely certain they will never be able to buy another gun, or a bullet ever again! They think the requirements are going to tighten up and make it difficult. (if they are truly law-abiding, this shouldn't be a problem, right?) This has been the pattern after every event of this sort. You would think after several of these event, these dingleberries would learn their fears are unfounded.

Oh, deliver me from the fear-mongering freaks!

dale said...

Yew. Glad I don't get Mike that mad at my opinions/facts.

To clear the air. In the last blog I state something about laws and folks not obeying the existing laws. For immigration I noted the folks in that accident. For guns laws I noted the Colorado incident. For the record... I was not making light of something bad which happened to others. They were mere examples of persons not respecting the laws already on the books. And, law enforcement unable to to enforce those two particular violations.

Back to the blog and Mikes neo-lecture. You really need to put more effort into your attempts to lecture me. That link was merely a point of information which I must now read deeper and meditate this evening in the prayer room. Let me think about that. You may have me there, I must contemplate the USCCB and double check the Bishops' full congregational release. (Even for the "faithful" there is too much for us to know and integrate into our humble lives. Thank you for bringing it to light.)

To "our political leaders". Do you find it not a bit hypocritical they press for change among the masses , but in their own hearts and lives they remain hardened (Fast jets, big automobiles, large entourage) to their old habits? Or quoting... "and the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them". We expect our leaders to say what is good for us, but in their own lives we allow them continue to be hypocrites?

Mike said...


I've been saying for years that short posts between opponents can be taken out of context. Perhaps I used the word "liar" out of context but that's what " not being factual" means to me. You put two and two together and thought I was talking about your post but I was just writing about what I had heard in general 18 months after Tucson and since the shooting in Colorado.

I take you at your word that you don't fear the government taking you weapons away but according to the media; that's not necessary true for those 2000 people that applied for a gun permit after the Colorado and the Arizona incident. That's the general point I was trying to make.

I am an individual free of obligations but the truth is not one of those. I have my pride and I think it should be embarrassing to post something other than the person's personal opinion, that's not correct or cannot be verified.

The apology is not necessary for a misunderstanding but I appreciate the spirit in which it was given.


Mike said...

EA, you deal with more people than I do,so the odds are you see the results of the fear-mongering freaks.... I see them on TV and that's enough.

EA,I leave it you to interpret this finding by David Frum,Conservative speech writer for President Bush, who just wrote a column for CNN "Only one-fifth of young Americans own a gun; one-third of over-50 Americans do. Republicans are twice as likely to own a gun as Democrats. Maybe not so coincidentally, Republicans are more likely to watch the scariest news channel of them all: Fox. Whites are twice as likely to own a gun as nonwhites -- and it may also not be a coincidence that gun purchases have suddenly spiked since November 2008.

Mike said...


Dr. dale, your online analysis is completely wrong; I'm not angry at all. Every now and then I have to do a little housekeeping...:-)

Allow me to quote, MSNBC’s Lawrence O'Donnell from last night..." Just because someone runs a red light; it's no reason to remove that red light. There's also an old saying “laws are meant to be broken" but that doesn't mean we don't try our very best to enforce that those laws. Most laws are not etched in stone, so that means that legislators can go back and improve them or get rid of them.

I am an imperfect man, dale, it would be hypocritical of me to lecture anyone (even though I jokingly called it that) it was more of a tit -for- tat...:-)

Unfortunately the political leaders are not pressing for change this time around. Their pocketbooks are being filled from those who like the status quo.

Little old me, is the one standing on my soapbox yelling" people, our earth is getting hotter" let's do something. It's only July and cities across our nation have experienced 44,000 record heat days. It's too expensive you say! What's the cost to repair the roads that buckled from the heat, high food prices, and rolling blackouts?

I'm certainly not looking for Washington to solve the problem especially the 112th Congress. The evidence is right in front of us but you can't expect solutions from the Republican Party because they don’t think we have a problem. I never thought I would live long enough to see a whole political party become climate change deniers overnight.

dale said...

Well Mike? Yes or No?

To "our political leaders". Do you find it not a bit hypocritical they press for change among the masses, but in their own hearts and lives they remain hardened (Fast jets, big automobiles, large entourage) to their old habits?

Hypocritical: yes or no?

Mike said...


To "our political leaders". Do you find it not a bit hypocritical they press for change among the masses, but in their own hearts and lives they remain hardened (Fast jets, big automobiles, large entourage) to their old habits?

Hypocritical: yes or no?..NO No NO

I've answered that..If they were pressing for change then I would somewhat agree but fast jets,the limousine that's outfitted to protect the president, along with a necessary personnel is not part of the problem. It's more of a nitpicking irritant that satisfies those that don't want to comply... We can't say the problem only exists in Washington; that's childish.

Let me say this one more time, the president United States and the 535 members of Congress are not addressing climate change, therefore they're not asking the people of the United States to do anything.

The United States government is taking some steps:

"So far, scientists have been hard at work to maximize solar energy output by sticking photovoltaic materials in everything they can, or by pulling in sunlight from space. Scientists from the US Naval Research Laboratory’s Electronics Science and Technology Division, on the other hand, are devising an underwater solar energy plant.

The idea might seem scientifically backwards considering how much of the sun’s radiation is already reflected, diffused, and absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere. Filtering sunlight through sea water would diffuse even more of the energy...but that’s all part of the plan.

The Navy scientists have created new solar panels made of high-quality gallium indium phosphide (GaInP) cells, as opposed to previous aquatic attempts that utilized crystalline, and more recently, amorphous silicon solar cells. These GaInP cells are specifically designed to absorb energy from the blue-green portion of the visible light spectrum that sits at wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers.

I think they could take more steps because they employ the most vehicles. They could slowly start replacing their worn out vehicles when hybrids are convert them to natural gas. I believe once government employees started using hybrids or electric cars, they would like them and start to use them in their civilian life and encourage others.

I hope that answers your question unless you are trying to put me in a box where you think I will be forced to give you the answer that you want..:-)

The answer is NO!

Mike said...

In Tom Friedman's book “Hot, Flat and Crowed" he told a story of a Marine Corps general in Iraq who requested solar panels to power his bases. Asked why, he explained that he wanted to win his region by "out-greening al Qaeda." Instead of trucking in gas from Kuwait at $20 a gallon — money that fuels oppressive petro-dictatorships — in convoys that are vulnerable to roadside bombs, why not beat the insurgents by taking away their targets and their funding?

Another story from the book had Tom Friedman talking to Chinese diplomats about their polluting cold fired plants. One of the Chinese diplomats told Tom, that we polluted for years so we never lead a stand on. He said it was their turn... Not to be outdone, Mr. Friedman said" you're exactly right, you go ahead and spend all your money on non green energy but our green energy innovators will develop the energy source the world is craving for and you will pay dearly for it... Today, American solar panel makers say the Chinese are saturating the U.S. market with imported products -- ultimately killing U.S. manufacturing job... We used to lead in this industry but we sold the technology to Germany and now they are the world's leaders in solar panels.

dale said...

No is the answer.

Did I say anything at all about the President? No. I said leaders.

If you look at a family unit, you will find someone is in charge. Same thing with a country/state/county/community. IE When the kids are told not to smoke, and the mom does, where is the moral high ground? The kids sit back, smirk and they go ahead and smoke.

And you noted "childish". Perhaps you should review "human nature". Unless a gun (haha) is placed to the head, moral highground will normally win out, economic incentives do not hurt either. So go ahead, support your Gov Rick Perry as he continues his jetting around Texas in his 15 person aircraft. Suck up that av fuel and don't forget his entourage of 12 folks. Then lets talk about the "green message" he is sending.

I accept your "no" as absolute for the moral high ground our leaders have no need to occupy. Back to my reading of the USCCB letter on global warming and the poor. Absolutes are good. But they seem to leave no wiggle room. :-)

Mike said...


I understand the old analogies of leading by example....but I would listen to a fat doctor telling me how to lose weight and as parents I know I told my children not to do things that I did as a child. I understand what you mean because we used to say the same thing when a supervisor was promoted and then told not to do what he used to do.

In summary, yes if the parents didn't do what they're telling their kids not to do; it might be more helpful... My step-dad smoked like a factory but I took a puff one time in the military, coughed and decided on my own that it wasn't for me..He also drank but never lectured me about it...

Again, Governor Perry does not think climate change is a problem, nor is he encouraging us to stop using gasoline; quite the opposite I suspect. Now, he may or not be wasting taxpayer money but that’s a different subject.

I‘ve heard the same arguments when Al Gore was warning us about global warming but I never cared what he said because I know how to get the information I need.
You’re right, it’s just human nature but not everyone reacts the same way.

It doesn’t matter if you believe in climate change but I think our country as a whole needs to start paying attention to it…I bet the subject won’t come up in the presidential debates but I think it should.

Anonymous said...

Nice post. I went through the post I found it very informative and useful. Thanks for sharing.