The more I think about it, I think I'm flogging a dead horse with this global government thing. The idea arose from the ashes of World War II, but it seems to have died out with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The theory was that, if everybody lived under one flag, there wouldn't be any more wars. The counter theory was that, if everybody lived under one flag, there would be no place to go when you wanted to vote with your feet. People seem to be voting with their feet more now than ever before, and the biggest threat to world peace is not coming from national or international governments, it's coming from tribes, gangs, and cults. I guess I was paranoid about the EU because it reminded me of the UN, but even the UN seems to have turned out to be a paper tiger. It is my understanding that the EU is an attempt to organize Europe into something resembling a federal republic. The Russians have a competing organization called the Eurasian Union. That's why they are mad at the Ukraine, because they want them to join the Eurasian Union, and the Ukraine wants to join the European Union. I don't think there's a danger of these two EUs merging together anytime soon. I know that some Europeans are concerned about giving up any of their national sovereignty, but so were some Americans back in the day.
I really believe that one of the biggest mistakes our Founding Fathers made was not providing a peaceful, orderly procedure for states to secede from the union. They didn't have to fight a war to join the union, why should they have to fight a war to leave it? I haven't been keeping up with the Libertarians for over a decade now, so I don't know if they have changed their position on this secession thing. I agree that you can't have people jumping in and out of a union at the drop of a hat, but the Brexit thing is supposed to take at least two years to play out, and I would hardly call that a drop of a hat. I don't know how long the Velvet Revolution in the former Czechoslovakia took, but they seem to have parted amicably and, last I heard, they were still getting along with each other. What's wrong with something like that?
I don't think I'm against free trade. It has caused some dislocations in the US economy, but we've had dislocations before free trade was ever invented. The thing about the economy is that there are so many variables simultaneously at play that it's hard to pin the blame on any one thing when there is any kind of turbulence. It's like I said about the bailouts of the last decade. They told us that, if we didn't have the bailouts, the economy would go to hell, so we had the bailouts and the economy went to hell anyway. There is no way of knowing if the bailouts made things better or worse, or what would have happened if there had been no bailouts. Too bad real life isn't like a video game where, if you crash and burn, you can just reset the game and start over, trying a different tactic this time. In real life, everything you do is piled on top of everything else you have done, and everything everybody else has done, and there are no do overs.
Immigration built this country and made it what it is today, but what has it done for us lately? Our predecessors took the land way from the Indians, which wasn't right, but we're here now. How would turning the country over to the Mexicans and Muslims compensate the Indians for their loss? Another thing is that immigration was encouraged in the past to provide cheap labor. What is the point of bringing more people into the country at the same time the jobs are moving out of the country? I hear that Red China is still looking for cheap help. Why not send the immigrants over there?
When you say that 80% of Americans live in urban areas, you must mean the suburbs, because the core cities have been steadily losing population for decades. It's not that people are moving to the cities, it's that the cities are sprawling out into the countryside. I don't know what to do about that because people have to live somewhere, and I certainly don't want them crowding me out of my swamp. I was just kidding about the walls, but I still think it might be a good idea for states to be able to detach troublesome neighborhoods. Kicking people off their land is not considered cool nowadays, so we would have to give up the land along with the people. It would be a win-win, they wouldn't have to put up with us anymore, and we wouldn't have to put up with them. We could still be friends, like The Czech Republic and Slovakia, but we wouldn't tell them what to do and they wouldn't tell us what to do, What's wrong with that?
Thursday, June 30, 2016
global gummint
Isn't global free trade the heart of globalization? What else do you
mean when you speak of globalization? Well what does anybody mean when
they speak of globalization? We hear it thrown around a lot, generally
in a pejorative manner, so that it seems like what it means to Joe
Sixpack is all this stuff going on lately that he doesn't like. Well
nobody likes this stuff going on lately that they don't like.
You may have your own definition of globalization, but until you lay it out here i am going to the wiki.
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people, and the dissemination of knowledge.[9]
I think nobody likes the International Monetary Fund, it sounds like the guys who are repossessing your house because you forgot one itty bitty payment but let's roll with it.
1)Trade and transactions, to me this means free trade and no tariffs, like my apple and oranges example of a previous post. Certainly I am for that.
2)Capital and investment movements, this sounds like that scene in Network where Howard Beale is told that there is no USA or USSR or UK, there are only multinational corporations. I guess I don't like this too much, but it's money, what do you do about the movement of money? It's like that law that Old Dog claims is the only one he obeys, the law of gravity. There is nothing much to be done about it.
3)Migration and movement of people. I'm sure that this is the part that Beagles hates, and I am somewhat loose on it. Let's leave that one up for debate.
4)Dissemination of knowledge. Who can be against that? That's the way that The Institute enlightens its broad panoply of followers.
Okay global government does not appear to be on this list. I'll admit to ignorance here as to in what way was Brussels a global (or even Euro) government. I'll leave it to Beagles, or perhaps that up and comer, Old Dog, to explain this.
If anybody can secede anytime they want I don't see how you can have any kind of government at all? Don't libertarians believe that the government should have an army to defend itself? How can you do that if you don't even know who you are since any state, city, freehold, or local nut can secede at the drop of a hat?
Most of the people in the US live in what you consider big cities. You are not the we, I am the we. If there is any expulsion to be done we (me) will be expelling you.
Well that was a fine mess, we start out calmly discussing an event in a faraway land and the next thing you know we are building walls between us and each of us claims to be the expeller.
I will await Beagles' definition of globalization, and in what way the Sprouts were some kind of government.
You may have your own definition of globalization, but until you lay it out here i am going to the wiki.
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people, and the dissemination of knowledge.[9]
I think nobody likes the International Monetary Fund, it sounds like the guys who are repossessing your house because you forgot one itty bitty payment but let's roll with it.
1)Trade and transactions, to me this means free trade and no tariffs, like my apple and oranges example of a previous post. Certainly I am for that.
2)Capital and investment movements, this sounds like that scene in Network where Howard Beale is told that there is no USA or USSR or UK, there are only multinational corporations. I guess I don't like this too much, but it's money, what do you do about the movement of money? It's like that law that Old Dog claims is the only one he obeys, the law of gravity. There is nothing much to be done about it.
3)Migration and movement of people. I'm sure that this is the part that Beagles hates, and I am somewhat loose on it. Let's leave that one up for debate.
4)Dissemination of knowledge. Who can be against that? That's the way that The Institute enlightens its broad panoply of followers.
Okay global government does not appear to be on this list. I'll admit to ignorance here as to in what way was Brussels a global (or even Euro) government. I'll leave it to Beagles, or perhaps that up and comer, Old Dog, to explain this.
If anybody can secede anytime they want I don't see how you can have any kind of government at all? Don't libertarians believe that the government should have an army to defend itself? How can you do that if you don't even know who you are since any state, city, freehold, or local nut can secede at the drop of a hat?
Most of the people in the US live in what you consider big cities. You are not the we, I am the we. If there is any expulsion to be done we (me) will be expelling you.
Well that was a fine mess, we start out calmly discussing an event in a faraway land and the next thing you know we are building walls between us and each of us claims to be the expeller.
I will await Beagles' definition of globalization, and in what way the Sprouts were some kind of government.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Welcome Old Dog
We have been trying unsuccessfully to recruit more participants to the Beaglesonian Institute for years, so this is certainly not an intrusion. Welcome aboard Old Dog! It seems that the comment section is a little hard to follow on this site so, if Old Dog continues to participate, we might consider making him a co-author so he can post regular blogs like we do.
Free trade is certainly on the Libertarian agenda, but global government is not, and the EU seems to be a little of both. Well, not exactly global government, more like the kind of national government our Founding Fathers founded when they persuaded 13 sovereign states to unify into a federal system. I don't know what they would think if they could see how their project has evolved into what we have today. The EU seems to have improved on our model in that they have provided a way for member states to secede without fighting a civil war. On the other hand, their secession process has not been tested until now, and it's pretty complicated, so it remains to be seen if it will work better than our Civil War did.
Last I heard, the Libertarians believed that anybody should be able to secede from anybody else. States should be able to secede from the union, counties should be able to secede from states, townships should be able to secede from counties, and individuals should be able to secede from townships. While I kind of agree with that on general principles, I'm not sure how it would work out in real life if it were ever to be implemented, which is not likely to happen anyway. A better system would be the plan I have advanced a couple of times on the internet. Instead of secession, we should have expulsion, we get to kick out the people we don't like and still remain the United States of America. We could start with California because they are going to break off and sink into the sea anyway. With the other states it's more complicated because we don't need to get rid of any whole state, just some of the big cities. Maybe each state should expel their own problem cities. Many of them are ungovernable and nobody goes there anymore anyway. We could have kick outs instead of bail outs, and use the money we save to build a wall around each city. You know, that might work for Europe too. Instead of the good countries seceding from the EU, they could just kick all the problem countries out.
I wish I could claim credit for this idea, but it originated with the legendary Czech philosopher Jara Cimrman a good hundred years ago. He called his plan "The Fragmentation of Europe." Cimrman believed that the problem with Europe was that many of the countries were too big and were always trying to get bigger at their neighbors' expense. He said that, if all those countries were reduced to the size of his native Bohemia, they would be too weak to pick on each other and Europe would be at peace. Of course nobody listened to him, and look what happened: two world wars, a cold war, and now this Brexit thing.
Immigration is a whole nother topic. It's too late for me to get into it tonight, maybe tomorrow.
Free trade is certainly on the Libertarian agenda, but global government is not, and the EU seems to be a little of both. Well, not exactly global government, more like the kind of national government our Founding Fathers founded when they persuaded 13 sovereign states to unify into a federal system. I don't know what they would think if they could see how their project has evolved into what we have today. The EU seems to have improved on our model in that they have provided a way for member states to secede without fighting a civil war. On the other hand, their secession process has not been tested until now, and it's pretty complicated, so it remains to be seen if it will work better than our Civil War did.
Last I heard, the Libertarians believed that anybody should be able to secede from anybody else. States should be able to secede from the union, counties should be able to secede from states, townships should be able to secede from counties, and individuals should be able to secede from townships. While I kind of agree with that on general principles, I'm not sure how it would work out in real life if it were ever to be implemented, which is not likely to happen anyway. A better system would be the plan I have advanced a couple of times on the internet. Instead of secession, we should have expulsion, we get to kick out the people we don't like and still remain the United States of America. We could start with California because they are going to break off and sink into the sea anyway. With the other states it's more complicated because we don't need to get rid of any whole state, just some of the big cities. Maybe each state should expel their own problem cities. Many of them are ungovernable and nobody goes there anymore anyway. We could have kick outs instead of bail outs, and use the money we save to build a wall around each city. You know, that might work for Europe too. Instead of the good countries seceding from the EU, they could just kick all the problem countries out.
I wish I could claim credit for this idea, but it originated with the legendary Czech philosopher Jara Cimrman a good hundred years ago. He called his plan "The Fragmentation of Europe." Cimrman believed that the problem with Europe was that many of the countries were too big and were always trying to get bigger at their neighbors' expense. He said that, if all those countries were reduced to the size of his native Bohemia, they would be too weak to pick on each other and Europe would be at peace. Of course nobody listened to him, and look what happened: two world wars, a cold war, and now this Brexit thing.
Immigration is a whole nother topic. It's too late for me to get into it tonight, maybe tomorrow.
Old Dog sez
Recently you may have noticed that I have been speaking a bit of the guy on the next bar stool. I have also been urging him to get involved in the good work of The Institute in bringing enlightenment and reasonableness to the masses. Apparently I have had some success because he has just posted a couple comments. Because of vagaries of blogpost they are a bit difficult to read in the current format I am copying and pasting them into this post.
Let me say this about that. The first post is in response to Beagles' post on Brexit. I saw this guy on CNN, that goofy looking guy with the wired grin and heavy Brit accent and he said it wouldn't be repealed, and having that accent and all he must know what he was talking about, but I dunno such a slow moving process, it seems like there is ample time for cooler heads to cool it. And mostly it was older people who voted to exit, and some of them will die in the next couple years. On the other.hand the younger people who voted against it will become older in the next couple years.
Divine rule of Brussels?
If you want to be that way about it I guess hitting your target is not such a good idea for gun control if you are hitting the wrong target.
The other post is on my post about the ice cream party. I guess I have to agree with Old Dog and the classic libertarians.
Old DogJune 29, 2016 at 7:46 AM
I apologize for the intrusion, as this may be the first comment *ever* to this blog. A while back Uncle Ken asked me if I could write, and mentioned the Institute and how it was an ongoing correspondence between childhood friends... Tried to catch up, reading all the entries from the beginning but the task was too daunting; decided then if I went back a few months I would be caught up, for all practical purposes, like jumping into a flowing river.
Anyhow. Brexit isn't a done deal, and I don't think it will be finalized. But! It *is* a wake-up call to the EU, and many issues will finally be addressed, chiefly immigration and the divine rule from Brussels. Maybe.
If this comment makes it through the filters there is more to be said, about many things. Gun control? I think good gun control means hitting your target.
Anyhow. Brexit isn't a done deal, and I don't think it will be finalized. But! It *is* a wake-up call to the EU, and many issues will finally be addressed, chiefly immigration and the divine rule from Brussels. Maybe.
If this comment makes it through the filters there is more to be said, about many things. Gun control? I think good gun control means hitting your target.
"Globalization" is a hot-button word, but I don't understand what the big deal is. Open trade and freedom of movement should not be bad things.
Let me say this about that. The first post is in response to Beagles' post on Brexit. I saw this guy on CNN, that goofy looking guy with the wired grin and heavy Brit accent and he said it wouldn't be repealed, and having that accent and all he must know what he was talking about, but I dunno such a slow moving process, it seems like there is ample time for cooler heads to cool it. And mostly it was older people who voted to exit, and some of them will die in the next couple years. On the other.hand the younger people who voted against it will become older in the next couple years.
Divine rule of Brussels?
If you want to be that way about it I guess hitting your target is not such a good idea for gun control if you are hitting the wrong target.
The other post is on my post about the ice cream party. I guess I have to agree with Old Dog and the classic libertarians.
the boys of ice cream oppose free trade
I meant to ask you last time, how would you feel if Montana or
California decided to leave the union? How about Michigan? I guess you
would feel pretty good about that, and Cheboygan even better, and as
for Beaglesonia it is already a freehold. If Beagles erects a tariff on
bringing beer into the freehold, too bad for the beer vendors of
Cheboygan. Luckily for you though you get to collect the tariff.
I am trying to look for some general principle behind Brexit which makes you favor it because otherwise what do you care what England does? As a matter of fact I suspect that you are not a big fan of England who used to rule roughshod over your very people who rose up and tossed them out on their red britches so that the United States did not become the hellhole that Canada is.
Oh wait, not your people, or not all your people, some of your people were living in Bohemia, which was probably at the time under the heel of the Hapsburgs in the late, hardly lamented, Austro Hungarian Empire. The Bohunks had to suffer being rolled over by the Krauts and then the Russkies to get free of that and then those ungrateful Slovaks didn't like the Bohunks rolling over them.
But your people weren't there then, they were part of the swarm when the US was being overrun by undesirable aliens. Too bad the Know Nothing party didn't win that election then so that the citizens of that day could have protected themselves from becoming a minority in their own country, which of course they had taken from the Indians who i suppose had taken it from the wooly mammoths.
Well you know me, I am a one worlder, whereas you would be happiest if everybody in the world had their own little Hell's Half Acre and peered over the ridge through the sites of Old Betsy at all those other people peering over their ridges at people who didn't go along with their agenda and wanted to take them over.
Brussels doesn't run the EU anymore than DC rules the US. They put their capital in Belgium the same way we put our capital outside of any state. They send their people there the same as we send our senators and reps.
If those Irish people you were speaking to didn't like the Sprouts ask them how they felt about the English. Ask the Scottish how they feel about the English. They decided by ten percent not to secede from England, but that was before the English decided to secede from the EU which the Scottish liked. If they held another referendum today the Scots might vote differently. As a matter of fact the referendum to secede from the EU was only by four percentage points. If they held it a month earlier or a month later, or if the weather had been different on election day, the results might have been different.
What a strange thing to decide a national policy on a one time referendum. If we did things like that in the US we would be changing presidents every other year or so.
So in summary I believe you are in favor of it on the principle that every man is an island, and you don't like immigration, even if it is happening somewhere else.
And I think we are on different sides of the libertarian thing on free trade. I generally favor it because you know it is a smoother economic engine. Isn't it better to buy cheap Florida oranges than spindly oranges grown in Michigan, and wouldn't the Floridians prefer crisp Michigan apples to whatever pest ridden apples they grow in Florida? And wouldn't Floridian and Michigander farmers rather sell their product throughout the country than just in their own state?
My ilk is generally against free trade because they don't trust the deals made, they think we are always getting the short end of the trade stick. As a matter of fact isn't that what Americans in general think of every deal that America makes? Poor Uncle Sugar, hornswaggled by bunch of greasy foreigners everytime he sits down open-handed and all friendly-like to make a deal. Hard to believe isn't it?
So anyway I'm with the Libs on free trade, though the current 'Tarians! seem to think that the principle of every man is an island trumps (no pun intended) that, and it seems that you think likewise. So who is the Libertarian (not to be confused with 'Tarians!) now?
I am trying to look for some general principle behind Brexit which makes you favor it because otherwise what do you care what England does? As a matter of fact I suspect that you are not a big fan of England who used to rule roughshod over your very people who rose up and tossed them out on their red britches so that the United States did not become the hellhole that Canada is.
Oh wait, not your people, or not all your people, some of your people were living in Bohemia, which was probably at the time under the heel of the Hapsburgs in the late, hardly lamented, Austro Hungarian Empire. The Bohunks had to suffer being rolled over by the Krauts and then the Russkies to get free of that and then those ungrateful Slovaks didn't like the Bohunks rolling over them.
But your people weren't there then, they were part of the swarm when the US was being overrun by undesirable aliens. Too bad the Know Nothing party didn't win that election then so that the citizens of that day could have protected themselves from becoming a minority in their own country, which of course they had taken from the Indians who i suppose had taken it from the wooly mammoths.
Well you know me, I am a one worlder, whereas you would be happiest if everybody in the world had their own little Hell's Half Acre and peered over the ridge through the sites of Old Betsy at all those other people peering over their ridges at people who didn't go along with their agenda and wanted to take them over.
Brussels doesn't run the EU anymore than DC rules the US. They put their capital in Belgium the same way we put our capital outside of any state. They send their people there the same as we send our senators and reps.
If those Irish people you were speaking to didn't like the Sprouts ask them how they felt about the English. Ask the Scottish how they feel about the English. They decided by ten percent not to secede from England, but that was before the English decided to secede from the EU which the Scottish liked. If they held another referendum today the Scots might vote differently. As a matter of fact the referendum to secede from the EU was only by four percentage points. If they held it a month earlier or a month later, or if the weather had been different on election day, the results might have been different.
What a strange thing to decide a national policy on a one time referendum. If we did things like that in the US we would be changing presidents every other year or so.
So in summary I believe you are in favor of it on the principle that every man is an island, and you don't like immigration, even if it is happening somewhere else.
And I think we are on different sides of the libertarian thing on free trade. I generally favor it because you know it is a smoother economic engine. Isn't it better to buy cheap Florida oranges than spindly oranges grown in Michigan, and wouldn't the Floridians prefer crisp Michigan apples to whatever pest ridden apples they grow in Florida? And wouldn't Floridian and Michigander farmers rather sell their product throughout the country than just in their own state?
My ilk is generally against free trade because they don't trust the deals made, they think we are always getting the short end of the trade stick. As a matter of fact isn't that what Americans in general think of every deal that America makes? Poor Uncle Sugar, hornswaggled by bunch of greasy foreigners everytime he sits down open-handed and all friendly-like to make a deal. Hard to believe isn't it?
So anyway I'm with the Libs on free trade, though the current 'Tarians! seem to think that the principle of every man is an island trumps (no pun intended) that, and it seems that you think likewise. So who is the Libertarian (not to be confused with 'Tarians!) now?
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Why Not Brexit?
I don't know how the Democrats in Illinois do it but, when I joined the Cheboygan County Republicans back in '76, I wasn't on any payroll. Indeed, they charged me 20 bucks to join for one year. It started out when I ran unopposed for precinct delegate. I didn't know what a precinct delegate did, but I ran to help Reagan in the primary. When I got to the meeting, the chairman asked if I wanted to join the party, and I did. Then I found out that everybody else in the room was also a Reagan fan, but none of us could vote for him at the national convention because he didn't win in our county. I also found out that, if I ever wanted to be a precinct delegate again, I didn't need to get my name on the ballot. Since I was the only Republican Party member in my precinct, all I needed to do was show up at the meeting and ask for the job, which explains why I ran unopposed.
I guess I'm in favor of Brexit because it's a crack in the wall of globalism. I don't know why Trump and other Republicans are in favor of it, I thought they were all big fans of the global economy. The EU started out decades ago as free trade agreement called the European Common Market, and has since developed into a sort of United States of Europe. I didn't realize how far it had gone until one of my internet contacts in Ireland said something about Brussels telling them what to do. "Brussels?" said I, and she explained how Brussels was the capitol of the EU and had pretty well taken over the Irish government. She had mixed feelings about it. The EU had been pumping money into Ireland for years, which had helped their economy, but now some Irish people were upset about those "bastards in Brussels" telling them what to do. Not long after that, the EU started cropping up in the news because Greece, Spain, and Italy were going bankrupt and wanted the richer EU countries like Germany to bail them out. I don't know what happened in Italy and Spain but, last I heard, Greece and Germany were still arguing about it.
From what I have read over the years, the UK is one of the richer countries that is expected to bail out the poorer countries whenever they get into trouble, and the Brits are getting tired of doing that. Then there's the immigration thing. Apparently once an immigrant, legally or not, gets into one EU country, none of the other EU countries can keep them out of theirs. Europe is currently being over run with swarms of immigrants from the Mideast. Even before that started, some people have been saying for a long time that the British are in imminent danger of becoming a minority in their own country. Since the US is currently being over run by undesirable aliens, I can sympathize with the Brits trying to take their country back. Too bad the process is going to take several years to play out. By then it may be too late, for us as well as the Brits.
I guess I'm in favor of Brexit because it's a crack in the wall of globalism. I don't know why Trump and other Republicans are in favor of it, I thought they were all big fans of the global economy. The EU started out decades ago as free trade agreement called the European Common Market, and has since developed into a sort of United States of Europe. I didn't realize how far it had gone until one of my internet contacts in Ireland said something about Brussels telling them what to do. "Brussels?" said I, and she explained how Brussels was the capitol of the EU and had pretty well taken over the Irish government. She had mixed feelings about it. The EU had been pumping money into Ireland for years, which had helped their economy, but now some Irish people were upset about those "bastards in Brussels" telling them what to do. Not long after that, the EU started cropping up in the news because Greece, Spain, and Italy were going bankrupt and wanted the richer EU countries like Germany to bail them out. I don't know what happened in Italy and Spain but, last I heard, Greece and Germany were still arguing about it.
From what I have read over the years, the UK is one of the richer countries that is expected to bail out the poorer countries whenever they get into trouble, and the Brits are getting tired of doing that. Then there's the immigration thing. Apparently once an immigrant, legally or not, gets into one EU country, none of the other EU countries can keep them out of theirs. Europe is currently being over run with swarms of immigrants from the Mideast. Even before that started, some people have been saying for a long time that the British are in imminent danger of becoming a minority in their own country. Since the US is currently being over run by undesirable aliens, I can sympathize with the Brits trying to take their country back. Too bad the process is going to take several years to play out. By then it may be too late, for us as well as the Brits.
why brexit?
Even though I am on the right side of logic, it's pretty clear to me
that nothing is to be done about controlling guns in the lifetime of
either of us, so it's just a couple of old men flapping their gums.
And I suppose that if you are on the payroll of the Democratic party that you are a member of it in a way that a voter and volunteer and donor is not.
So I see that now you stand shoulder to shoulder with Trump, the 'Tarians!, and a good part of the Republican party on Brexit. Why? What's it to you?
I write the posts as a letter and then copy and paste them into the Beaglesonian, but then the line breaks come out screwy and I have to edit them. Last time I did it once and it didn't seem to take so I did it again, and that's how that second copy must have appeared, likewise the time before. I never noticed either double copy. Thank you for tidying up.
This is kind of a short letter so I am including an excerpt from a letter I was writing this morning.
Bernie is becoming a pain in the ass. Well you know it is a fine feeling to be standing out there and speaking your mind and having the people go wild. Myself I don't know, I've never experienced anything like that. I think I would be ecstatic, also scared shitless, probably both. Some politicians it's why they are in politics and the governing in between is just downtime.
Trump is probably having the time of his life, the reason he will never 'cool it' as he has been urged by cooler heads. You know he always knew he was the smartest person in the world and now the citizens of the most powerful nation in the world are affirming it.
Bill of course loved campaigning. Hours after his events he was still shaking hands with whoever hadn't left. Hilary, you know she hates it. Well I don't hold that against her, but that phony laugh does grate on me.
And here's something that disturbs me a little. The Mitt Romney reps have nowhere to go. They can't stand Trump and the rest of the party is held by guys like Cruz who can't stand him. But you know Hilary, despite her words, is pretty cozy with Wall Street, and she has her hawkish side, and even now they are supporting her a little, if just with that Never Trump thing. Which is fine, anything to beat the beast. But what if afterwards. they take over the dems, or the big girl's presidency at any rate? I don't see it happening right now, but it is something I worry about.
I still have not encountered a Trumpist. All I see of them is on tv and they don't seem to have any depth beyond a few slogans. I would love to sit down next to one at the Ten Cat and have a discussion over a few pale ales just to see if there is anybody inside their skull.
And I suppose that if you are on the payroll of the Democratic party that you are a member of it in a way that a voter and volunteer and donor is not.
So I see that now you stand shoulder to shoulder with Trump, the 'Tarians!, and a good part of the Republican party on Brexit. Why? What's it to you?
I write the posts as a letter and then copy and paste them into the Beaglesonian, but then the line breaks come out screwy and I have to edit them. Last time I did it once and it didn't seem to take so I did it again, and that's how that second copy must have appeared, likewise the time before. I never noticed either double copy. Thank you for tidying up.
This is kind of a short letter so I am including an excerpt from a letter I was writing this morning.
Bernie is becoming a pain in the ass. Well you know it is a fine feeling to be standing out there and speaking your mind and having the people go wild. Myself I don't know, I've never experienced anything like that. I think I would be ecstatic, also scared shitless, probably both. Some politicians it's why they are in politics and the governing in between is just downtime.
Trump is probably having the time of his life, the reason he will never 'cool it' as he has been urged by cooler heads. You know he always knew he was the smartest person in the world and now the citizens of the most powerful nation in the world are affirming it.
Bill of course loved campaigning. Hours after his events he was still shaking hands with whoever hadn't left. Hilary, you know she hates it. Well I don't hold that against her, but that phony laugh does grate on me.
And here's something that disturbs me a little. The Mitt Romney reps have nowhere to go. They can't stand Trump and the rest of the party is held by guys like Cruz who can't stand him. But you know Hilary, despite her words, is pretty cozy with Wall Street, and she has her hawkish side, and even now they are supporting her a little, if just with that Never Trump thing. Which is fine, anything to beat the beast. But what if afterwards. they take over the dems, or the big girl's presidency at any rate? I don't see it happening right now, but it is something I worry about.
I still have not encountered a Trumpist. All I see of them is on tv and they don't seem to have any depth beyond a few slogans. I would love to sit down next to one at the Ten Cat and have a discussion over a few pale ales just to see if there is anybody inside their skull.
Monday, June 27, 2016
And You Call Yourself a Cowboy?
Just kidding, guns aren't for everybody, but some people like them, and those who have them intend to keep them.
So you admit that there is such a thing as being a member of a political party? Of course that's not for everybody either, it all depends if you want to participate in party politics or not.
When I first heard bout this Brexit thing, I thought, "Good for them!" Then I found out that it's not a done deal by any means. The referendum is a non binding resolution that must be ratified by Parliament. Then they have to negotiate with the EU people for about two years before anything material happens. By then the news media and the stock market will have forgotten about it, and the event, if it happens at all, will be barely noticed. Another tempest in a teapot! Meanwhile, Scotland wants to stay in the EU, even if they have to leave the UK to do it. It wasn't so long ago that Scotland voted on a referendum to leave the UK and it didn't pass, so now they're calling for a do over.
Your last post was a double so I took the liberty of deleting the one marked "draft". The last time that happened, I waited for you to do it and you never did.
So you admit that there is such a thing as being a member of a political party? Of course that's not for everybody either, it all depends if you want to participate in party politics or not.
When I first heard bout this Brexit thing, I thought, "Good for them!" Then I found out that it's not a done deal by any means. The referendum is a non binding resolution that must be ratified by Parliament. Then they have to negotiate with the EU people for about two years before anything material happens. By then the news media and the stock market will have forgotten about it, and the event, if it happens at all, will be barely noticed. Another tempest in a teapot! Meanwhile, Scotland wants to stay in the EU, even if they have to leave the UK to do it. It wasn't so long ago that Scotland voted on a referendum to leave the UK and it didn't pass, so now they're calling for a do over.
Your last post was a double so I took the liberty of deleting the one marked "draft". The last time that happened, I waited for you to do it and you never did.
danger in the city
While I was away from Chicago from 1963 to 1987 I read the Chicago
papers when I could get them, and they were always full of, murders.
When I did move back I admit to being leery and thinking I would only
stay a few years and make some money and move to a different part of the
country that I hadn't seen before, that is if I got out of the city
alive. When I bought my condo in the downtown tower I knew that I would
never leave here alive, but that was because I would never want to
leave, not that I would get shot.
As a good liberal (I don't mind using the word, but if I were to choose to run for election of something I would deny it and call myself a progressive) I feel bad about the daily murders in our poverty stricken neighborhoods, but walking around downtown and in most neighborhoods, I feel perfectly safe. Well not perfectly safe, you never know when a meteor is going to come crashing into your cranium.
The Old Dog was saying Friday night that he thought maybe you needed a gun in rural areas to protect yourself because the police were far away, further, he speculated, there was probably more crime in rural areas because well, it is all stretched out, miles and miles, as they used to like to say in Texas, of miles and miles. Fortunately neither of us owns a Sooper Dooper phone, so we continued the argument into the night, though subjects were changed frequently. Anyway this morning I looked it up, and the bigger the city, the more per capita crime. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-in-crime-rate-in-rural-and-urban-areas.
There is a movie from our youth where grasshoppers eat radioactive tomatoes from an experiment at the University of Illinois and grow to giant size and start heading north because the first thing you want to do when you grow to giant size is topple tall buildings. The military has a solution, but as the science fella says in the trailer, "You can't drop an atom bomb, on Chicago."
So I don't worry about atom bombs or, truth be told, those meteors. Terrorist attacks likewise. I find it hard to believe that people actually fear for their individual lives because of terrorism, though from reading the papers I see that there are some, just as I see that there are Trumpists though I know hardly a one.
I mean what are the odds? I am far more likely to get run over by a car speeding down Wacker Drive, and you more likely to go off the road in that rickety truck of yours, and those cigs that we sneak are far more likely to do us in than any Koran quoting dingbat.
A gun isn't going to protect either of us from death by traffic or a lump in our lungs, and most likely it isn't going to protect you from another gun either. If somebody is going to shoot you, they aren't likely going to growl "Draw," before they shoot. That time I got mugged, I guess ideally I could have whirled on my attackers and brandished my big iron, and they would have scattered and my wallet would have remained in my pocket.
On the other hand they may have all pulled out their big irons, and I would have been hopelessly outgunned, there were three of them. Or they could have rushed me and taken the gun and used it on me. Or maybe I could have killed one or two of them, but geez, that would be robbing me of my sleep for the rest of my life.
I know that you don't read the papers much so maybe you never heard that George Will has stopped being a Republican. He went wherever he had to go and changed his registration from Republican to Unaffiliated, What a drama queen. He could have just not voted for Trump even if he was a registered Republican. As I have said a number of times I don't see the relevance of whether somebody is really officially a real Republican or merely somebody who votes Republican in every election. You speak of those party rosters, but come election day those rosters don't mean squat, the only numbers that count are the numbers from the ballot box.
Reading those papers that you don't get around to reading, the big girl is leading in every recent poll, but surprisingly for me, by only like 5 or 10 percentage points. But I did see one poll lately where head to head she beats Trump by 10, but when they include the greens and the 'Tarians! she is leading only by 1, with the greens taking 6 and the 'Tarians! 10. I suspect that 6 for the greens comes from pouting Bernie Babies who I expect to come around before election day, and the 10 for the 'Tarians! is coming from the ilk of George Will and yourself and is relatively pretty solid.
And speaking of the 'Tarians! they don't seem to have gained much traction from that CNN town hall. I did see lately that they have come out in favor of Brexit, under the principle that each country must be free to follow its own destiny, which to me is pure crap, because it's not like every country is wandering around in some forest, they are all living in the same house, and what they do effects all the other countries so our destinies are all intertwined.
As a good liberal (I don't mind using the word, but if I were to choose to run for election of something I would deny it and call myself a progressive) I feel bad about the daily murders in our poverty stricken neighborhoods, but walking around downtown and in most neighborhoods, I feel perfectly safe. Well not perfectly safe, you never know when a meteor is going to come crashing into your cranium.
The Old Dog was saying Friday night that he thought maybe you needed a gun in rural areas to protect yourself because the police were far away, further, he speculated, there was probably more crime in rural areas because well, it is all stretched out, miles and miles, as they used to like to say in Texas, of miles and miles. Fortunately neither of us owns a Sooper Dooper phone, so we continued the argument into the night, though subjects were changed frequently. Anyway this morning I looked it up, and the bigger the city, the more per capita crime. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-in-crime-rate-in-rural-and-urban-areas.
There is a movie from our youth where grasshoppers eat radioactive tomatoes from an experiment at the University of Illinois and grow to giant size and start heading north because the first thing you want to do when you grow to giant size is topple tall buildings. The military has a solution, but as the science fella says in the trailer, "You can't drop an atom bomb, on Chicago."
So I don't worry about atom bombs or, truth be told, those meteors. Terrorist attacks likewise. I find it hard to believe that people actually fear for their individual lives because of terrorism, though from reading the papers I see that there are some, just as I see that there are Trumpists though I know hardly a one.
I mean what are the odds? I am far more likely to get run over by a car speeding down Wacker Drive, and you more likely to go off the road in that rickety truck of yours, and those cigs that we sneak are far more likely to do us in than any Koran quoting dingbat.
A gun isn't going to protect either of us from death by traffic or a lump in our lungs, and most likely it isn't going to protect you from another gun either. If somebody is going to shoot you, they aren't likely going to growl "Draw," before they shoot. That time I got mugged, I guess ideally I could have whirled on my attackers and brandished my big iron, and they would have scattered and my wallet would have remained in my pocket.
On the other hand they may have all pulled out their big irons, and I would have been hopelessly outgunned, there were three of them. Or they could have rushed me and taken the gun and used it on me. Or maybe I could have killed one or two of them, but geez, that would be robbing me of my sleep for the rest of my life.
I know that you don't read the papers much so maybe you never heard that George Will has stopped being a Republican. He went wherever he had to go and changed his registration from Republican to Unaffiliated, What a drama queen. He could have just not voted for Trump even if he was a registered Republican. As I have said a number of times I don't see the relevance of whether somebody is really officially a real Republican or merely somebody who votes Republican in every election. You speak of those party rosters, but come election day those rosters don't mean squat, the only numbers that count are the numbers from the ballot box.
Reading those papers that you don't get around to reading, the big girl is leading in every recent poll, but surprisingly for me, by only like 5 or 10 percentage points. But I did see one poll lately where head to head she beats Trump by 10, but when they include the greens and the 'Tarians! she is leading only by 1, with the greens taking 6 and the 'Tarians! 10. I suspect that 6 for the greens comes from pouting Bernie Babies who I expect to come around before election day, and the 10 for the 'Tarians! is coming from the ilk of George Will and yourself and is relatively pretty solid.
And speaking of the 'Tarians! they don't seem to have gained much traction from that CNN town hall. I did see lately that they have come out in favor of Brexit, under the principle that each country must be free to follow its own destiny, which to me is pure crap, because it's not like every country is wandering around in some forest, they are all living in the same house, and what they do effects all the other countries so our destinies are all intertwined.
Friday, June 24, 2016
One Round Would Get You All
When I was in the army, we had two modes of operation in the field, tactical and administrative. When we were in the tactical mode, we were supposed to stay at least five meters apart from each other. Human nature being what it is, we would sometimes drift closer together if we weren't paying attention. When that happened, the sergeant would shout, "Spread out, one round would get you all!" I don't know how you can feel safe living where you live. Chicago was considered to be a prime nuclear target back in the day. Nobody seems to worry about that anymore, now they worry about a terrorist attack, but the same principal applies. Any time people are clustered together in large groups, they are a prime target. Maybe having a gun wouldn't save you, but at least you would go down fighting like Davy Crockett at the Alamo. Better that than kissing up to the bad guys, which probably wouldn't work anyway.
I've been thinking about this party membership thing, and it seems there are two kinds of party members. The term "card carrying members" doesn't work because it appears that the Democrats don't issue cards. They do, however, have a list of names, and I'm sure the Republicans do too, the cards are just something they give out to make their members feel important. So let's call these guys "enrolled members". If your name is on the list you are an enrolled member, if your name is not on the list you are not an enrolled member. Enrolled members don't seem to have any function in the party except to donate money. That's why the parties keep their lists, so they know who to periodically ask for more money. The more I think of it, that's the kind of member I was with the Libertarian Party back in the day.
The other kind of party member attends meetings and conventions, votes on party issues and party officials, and may have the opportunity of becoming a party official himself some day. Let's call these guys "active members". According to the Cook County Democratic Party by-laws, the ward or township committee persons are active members because they get to vote on stuff. The only thing the enrolled members get to vote on is who is going to be their committee person. When you were a committee person back in the day, you must have been an active member, assuming that your county's rules were the same as Cook County's rules are now. If, as you have said, they only let you do "grunt work", it was probably because you didn't go to the meetings and rub elbows with the higher ups.
So, in answer to "What is the difference?", there isn't much difference between being an enrolled member and a non member, but there is substantial difference between being an active member and a non member. I am still puzzled by your statement, "or if such a procedure even exists". Are you still saying that there is no such thing as joining a political party? If that's the case, where do all those delegates and party officials come from? Who will be attending the national conventions this summer? Do they just open the doors and let anybody come in off the street?
The way it seems to work in Michigan, at least with the Libertarians and Republicans, is if you want to become an active member, you go to one of the meetings in your county and join the county party organization. The county organization is affiliated with the state organization which, in turn is affiliated with the national organization, but I think you have to join at the county level. That's what I did with the Republicans back in '76, but I couldn't do it with the Libertarians because there was no Cheboygan County Libertarian Party. If I could have recruited a few other people, I suppose we could have started our own Cheboygan County chapter. I seem to remember that I was a member of the Cheboygan County chapter of the American Independent Party back in '72. I think there were four of us, and we were recruited by a Mrs. Hall, who we had met at a John Birch Society meeting. Our local Birch chapter didn't last long, and our county party chapter didn't last much longer. Two of our members moved out of the county, and Mrs. Hall said she was getting too busy to handle the party chairmanship anymore, and suggested that I take it over. So it came to pass that, with the departure of Mrs. Hall, I became a party of one, and voted unanimously to discontinue the meetings.
I've been thinking about this party membership thing, and it seems there are two kinds of party members. The term "card carrying members" doesn't work because it appears that the Democrats don't issue cards. They do, however, have a list of names, and I'm sure the Republicans do too, the cards are just something they give out to make their members feel important. So let's call these guys "enrolled members". If your name is on the list you are an enrolled member, if your name is not on the list you are not an enrolled member. Enrolled members don't seem to have any function in the party except to donate money. That's why the parties keep their lists, so they know who to periodically ask for more money. The more I think of it, that's the kind of member I was with the Libertarian Party back in the day.
The other kind of party member attends meetings and conventions, votes on party issues and party officials, and may have the opportunity of becoming a party official himself some day. Let's call these guys "active members". According to the Cook County Democratic Party by-laws, the ward or township committee persons are active members because they get to vote on stuff. The only thing the enrolled members get to vote on is who is going to be their committee person. When you were a committee person back in the day, you must have been an active member, assuming that your county's rules were the same as Cook County's rules are now. If, as you have said, they only let you do "grunt work", it was probably because you didn't go to the meetings and rub elbows with the higher ups.
So, in answer to "What is the difference?", there isn't much difference between being an enrolled member and a non member, but there is substantial difference between being an active member and a non member. I am still puzzled by your statement, "or if such a procedure even exists". Are you still saying that there is no such thing as joining a political party? If that's the case, where do all those delegates and party officials come from? Who will be attending the national conventions this summer? Do they just open the doors and let anybody come in off the street?
The way it seems to work in Michigan, at least with the Libertarians and Republicans, is if you want to become an active member, you go to one of the meetings in your county and join the county party organization. The county organization is affiliated with the state organization which, in turn is affiliated with the national organization, but I think you have to join at the county level. That's what I did with the Republicans back in '76, but I couldn't do it with the Libertarians because there was no Cheboygan County Libertarian Party. If I could have recruited a few other people, I suppose we could have started our own Cheboygan County chapter. I seem to remember that I was a member of the Cheboygan County chapter of the American Independent Party back in '72. I think there were four of us, and we were recruited by a Mrs. Hall, who we had met at a John Birch Society meeting. Our local Birch chapter didn't last long, and our county party chapter didn't last much longer. Two of our members moved out of the county, and Mrs. Hall said she was getting too busy to handle the party chairmanship anymore, and suggested that I take it over. So it came to pass that, with the departure of Mrs. Hall, I became a party of one, and voted unanimously to discontinue the meetings.
As Utah goes, so goes the nation
As for the semi automatic, plenty of people, like yourself, hunt
perfectly well without a semi automatic weapon, if it makes the
operation more of a sport why then they should welcome it since they
claim to be sportsmen. As for target shooting there are plenty of other
guns they could shoot with, and as a matter of fact I hear that many of
these places stock fully automatic weapons, but i think they stay at
the shooting range, the same could go for the semi automatics. As for
protection, if you need a semi automatic weapon to protect yourself,
maybe you are not living your life right, maybe you shouldn't piss off
all those people who are gunning for you so that you need a semi
automatic to outgun them. And you know, it's just plain chickenshit. A
lot of people, like me, live out their lives without ever owning a gun
and we don't feel afraid.
So I find your arguments weak, but they are arguments, you have addressed my point. It doesn't matter in the short range because nothing is about to happen as far as getting rid of those chickenshit, though deadly, weapons.
I continue to fail to see what difference it makes whether somebody does or doesn't go through some formal procedure, or if such a procedure even exists, but I admire your industrious internet research.
The 'Tarians! may siphon off enough votes to sink Trump, although I think if there were no 'Tarian! party the Dump Trumpers would find another place to throw away their votes. Didn't you vote for McGovern because you didn't like Nixon? Strangely I don't see any of the Bernie people going to the green party.
It's one thing for a third party to siphon off enough votes to deny a rep or a dem victory, but it's a whole other thing for the third party to win a state. I think the last person to do that was your man George Wallace, but that was really a regional thing. Anymore the reps who now own the south are closely aligned to the voters there and it's hard to see anything like Wallace or the Dixiecrats arising south of the Mason Dixon line.
Let alone Utah. Utah? Utah is a solid red state. I reckon you would have to go back at least fifty years to find a time when they didn't vote Republican. But these 'Utah' theorists who have looked at polls and past voting records and now know exactly how each state is going to go must have some powerful mojo because I don't know of anybody else who knows exactly how that is going to go.
So I don't know of any indications that Utah won't be in the republican party, and even if it did vote for, well I guess Ben and Jerry, I don't see where its 6 votes out of a total of 538 nationwide, are going to throw the election into the house.
Yes indeed it is all Trump all the time. I find myself going through the newspaper with all the things going on in the country and the world and thinking oh yes very nice, but what did Trump say last night? Having that houseguest in the middle of the week, I missed Ben and Jerry's CNN town hall. So far I don't see where they have made much of a splash.
Oh here it is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/doomsday-savior-how-paul-ryan_b_9474788.html I googled theory of Utah sending the election into the electoral college
So I find your arguments weak, but they are arguments, you have addressed my point. It doesn't matter in the short range because nothing is about to happen as far as getting rid of those chickenshit, though deadly, weapons.
I continue to fail to see what difference it makes whether somebody does or doesn't go through some formal procedure, or if such a procedure even exists, but I admire your industrious internet research.
The 'Tarians! may siphon off enough votes to sink Trump, although I think if there were no 'Tarian! party the Dump Trumpers would find another place to throw away their votes. Didn't you vote for McGovern because you didn't like Nixon? Strangely I don't see any of the Bernie people going to the green party.
It's one thing for a third party to siphon off enough votes to deny a rep or a dem victory, but it's a whole other thing for the third party to win a state. I think the last person to do that was your man George Wallace, but that was really a regional thing. Anymore the reps who now own the south are closely aligned to the voters there and it's hard to see anything like Wallace or the Dixiecrats arising south of the Mason Dixon line.
Let alone Utah. Utah? Utah is a solid red state. I reckon you would have to go back at least fifty years to find a time when they didn't vote Republican. But these 'Utah' theorists who have looked at polls and past voting records and now know exactly how each state is going to go must have some powerful mojo because I don't know of anybody else who knows exactly how that is going to go.
So I don't know of any indications that Utah won't be in the republican party, and even if it did vote for, well I guess Ben and Jerry, I don't see where its 6 votes out of a total of 538 nationwide, are going to throw the election into the house.
Yes indeed it is all Trump all the time. I find myself going through the newspaper with all the things going on in the country and the world and thinking oh yes very nice, but what did Trump say last night? Having that houseguest in the middle of the week, I missed Ben and Jerry's CNN town hall. So far I don't see where they have made much of a splash.
Oh here it is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/doomsday-savior-how-paul-ryan_b_9474788.html I googled theory of Utah sending the election into the electoral college
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
We're Both Right
It seems that the Cook County Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Michigan operate under different rules. Your guys do not issue membership cards or pay dues, but my guys do. All you have to do to join your party is request that your name be added to their list of members, but first you have to do something to materially support the party. It was not made clear if all applicants are accepted or not, but I suspect not because of the other conditions mentioned. I got your information from http://cookcountydems.com where I was able to download a copy of your by-laws. I will try to copy and paste the part about membership, but first I want to try to paste a copy of the Michigan Republican's membership card, since I already have it on my clipboard. Under the card was a membership form, which I will not try to copy since it's just stuff like name, address, etc. It didn't say anything about dues, but they require a "donation" with a $10.00 minimum.
vision, programs, and policies of the Cook County Democratic Party.
ARTICLE II: Membership
Section 1. A member of the Cook County Democratic Party shall be any person registered to vote
within Cook County, Illinois who volunteers, contributes to, supports, advances the interests of, or
participates in the actitivities of the Party and who requests to be added to the membership list and who
further demonstrates the suitable attributes of character, judgment, and commitment to the principles,
vision, programs, and policies of the Cook County Democratic Party.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
All Trump All the Time
Sorry I didn't answer your question about semi autos, but you didn't ask it like a question, you stated it like an assertion. I didn't figure there was any use arguing about it because your mind was already made up. Of course semi autos don't have any use in your civilian life and, truth be known, I'm not crazy about them myself, but lots of people have made use of them in their own civilian lives for hunting, target shooting, and protection. Of course most of the people who buy a gun for protection will never have to use it, but it makes them feel more secure just having it around. It's like taking a jacket or raincoat to a picnic, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
I got those numbers about the political parties from Wiki. Look up "Democratic Party (United States)" and "Republican Party (United States)". I thought the membership numbers were too high myself, but I used to think the percentage of Native American Indians in Michigan was a lot higher than Wiki reported. I thought the fact that they have members at all tended to confirm my assertion about the subject, but I need to find more evidence to prove it conclusively. Most of the information on Wiki was about the national parties, so I need to look into the state parties and maybe the county parties. When I joined the Republicans back in '76, it was at a meeting of the Cheboygan County party.
The two major parties don't need to spin off any third parties, there are several third parties out there already that can siphon off votes from both sides. Your ilk can vote for the Green Party, and my ilk can vote for the Libertarians. There are some others that may or may not be on the ballot in all states, but those two are the major minor parties.
I seem to remember reading about that Utah thing in our local paper, but I might have seen it on the Bloomberg Channel. I go there a couple times a day to check the stock market numbers, and sometimes I hang around for a few minutes to see what they're talking about. I don't stay long because it's been the same thing over and over again lately, "Trump, Trump, Trump". Today the opinion page in our local paper featured two different syndicated columnists and a political, cartoon. All three were about Trump, and they took up the whole page. I don't remember that ever happening before, but maybe it's going to be the new normal.
Anyway, the theory is that it's going to be a close race, maybe not so much with the popular vote, but with the electoral vote, which is the only one that matters. They looked at some polls and past voting records, so they know exactly how each state is going to vote, except for Utah which, for some reason, is the wild card in the deck. If a third party were to take Utah, then neither Trump nor Hillary would have a majority of the electoral votes, so the race would be decided by the House of Representatives as per the Constitution. They would be required to pick one of the top three contenders, and each state gets one vote, no matter how many representatives they have. Seeing as there are 50 states, it could possibly come out as a tie vote between two of the top three candidates. I don't think the Constitution says what would happen in that eventuality. I'll have to look that up one of these days.
I got those numbers about the political parties from Wiki. Look up "Democratic Party (United States)" and "Republican Party (United States)". I thought the membership numbers were too high myself, but I used to think the percentage of Native American Indians in Michigan was a lot higher than Wiki reported. I thought the fact that they have members at all tended to confirm my assertion about the subject, but I need to find more evidence to prove it conclusively. Most of the information on Wiki was about the national parties, so I need to look into the state parties and maybe the county parties. When I joined the Republicans back in '76, it was at a meeting of the Cheboygan County party.
The two major parties don't need to spin off any third parties, there are several third parties out there already that can siphon off votes from both sides. Your ilk can vote for the Green Party, and my ilk can vote for the Libertarians. There are some others that may or may not be on the ballot in all states, but those two are the major minor parties.
I seem to remember reading about that Utah thing in our local paper, but I might have seen it on the Bloomberg Channel. I go there a couple times a day to check the stock market numbers, and sometimes I hang around for a few minutes to see what they're talking about. I don't stay long because it's been the same thing over and over again lately, "Trump, Trump, Trump". Today the opinion page in our local paper featured two different syndicated columnists and a political, cartoon. All three were about Trump, and they took up the whole page. I don't remember that ever happening before, but maybe it's going to be the new normal.
Anyway, the theory is that it's going to be a close race, maybe not so much with the popular vote, but with the electoral vote, which is the only one that matters. They looked at some polls and past voting records, so they know exactly how each state is going to vote, except for Utah which, for some reason, is the wild card in the deck. If a third party were to take Utah, then neither Trump nor Hillary would have a majority of the electoral votes, so the race would be decided by the House of Representatives as per the Constitution. They would be required to pick one of the top three contenders, and each state gets one vote, no matter how many representatives they have. Seeing as there are 50 states, it could possibly come out as a tie vote between two of the top three candidates. I don't think the Constitution says what would happen in that eventuality. I'll have to look that up one of these days.
Utah? Utah?
Gun control is, as you have correctly deduced, the issue that makes
screaming maniacs, out of us two reasonable people discussing things
reasonably. Screaming maniacs might be too extreme, maybe i should just
say we become a wee bit intemperate and our discussion less than
decorous.
It's all your fault of course. I laid out my position clearly, two, perhaps three, times, even bolded it the last time, but you never addressed the first proposition about semi automatics having no use in civilian life. You merely ran into the bramble bush of ambiguous and contradictory definitions where anything is possible.
There were four niggling gun control measures brought up and defeated in the senate. I didn't look up the details because what difference does it make, none of them were ever going to pass. Sometimes both our ilks bring up measures that they know have no chance of passing, just so they can say they voted for such and such a position which their scalawag opponent opposed come election time. I guess that fools some of the people some of the time which sometimes is enough.
Since we don't know where the dems and reps get their membership numbers from, because somebody has failed to do due diligence on the google machine, why are we even talking about them? Well then I did due diligence googling 'how do you define membership in the democratic party' and 'how do you become a member of the democratic party' and came up with nada, except that you register to vote and vote in the dem primary and maybe you could donate some cash. Which is the definition I have been going by and if you can make up another that would make you happier go ahead. So I guess I do dispute your last sentence in the first paragraph.
What are your numbers on this majority in the majority of legislative bodies, and where did you get the numbers? I think I have heard something along these lines, but I don't think we are talking vast majorities here. But here is a place where big money does have influence, since nobody knows candidates that well, and we have seen the Kochs and their ilks move into states and invest heavily in ads for conservative candidates so that notably North Carolina, a purple state has a state legislature that is blood red. Not to mention gerrymandering which is something that you can do when you control the state legislature come census time. Not that the dems don't do it too, but the reps have had and used more opportunities.
Why do you think the reps can't come up with any good candidates? Look at the debate lineups for the last two primaries, they had like two dozen candidates, and the first time they picked probably the best candidate, but then most of them hated him and the second time they picked clearly the worst candidate and most of them hate him too. Right now it's not evident that they hate him that much, but once his numbers drop further, they will hate him more.
No third parties, too complicated too late, too clearly suicidal for the party that births them. Some Berns will come to their senses and vote for the big girl, some won't. History says that most will. We shall see. Have you noticed that even the most prominent dump Trumpers are refusing to run on the dump Trump ticket? It will never happen. Some reps (like our Sen Kirk) will come out against Trump feebly but their dem opponents will tie them to Trump and when they try to untie themselves they will alienate a good part of the republican electorate, so they are in bad shape.
I think there is no basis in fact about a third party taking a state the size of Utah and throwing the election into the house of reps. I am not going to even bother to refute it, but I would like to know where you read that.
My houseguest is coming in today and I won't be back until maybe Friday.
It's all your fault of course. I laid out my position clearly, two, perhaps three, times, even bolded it the last time, but you never addressed the first proposition about semi automatics having no use in civilian life. You merely ran into the bramble bush of ambiguous and contradictory definitions where anything is possible.
There were four niggling gun control measures brought up and defeated in the senate. I didn't look up the details because what difference does it make, none of them were ever going to pass. Sometimes both our ilks bring up measures that they know have no chance of passing, just so they can say they voted for such and such a position which their scalawag opponent opposed come election time. I guess that fools some of the people some of the time which sometimes is enough.
Since we don't know where the dems and reps get their membership numbers from, because somebody has failed to do due diligence on the google machine, why are we even talking about them? Well then I did due diligence googling 'how do you define membership in the democratic party' and 'how do you become a member of the democratic party' and came up with nada, except that you register to vote and vote in the dem primary and maybe you could donate some cash. Which is the definition I have been going by and if you can make up another that would make you happier go ahead. So I guess I do dispute your last sentence in the first paragraph.
What are your numbers on this majority in the majority of legislative bodies, and where did you get the numbers? I think I have heard something along these lines, but I don't think we are talking vast majorities here. But here is a place where big money does have influence, since nobody knows candidates that well, and we have seen the Kochs and their ilks move into states and invest heavily in ads for conservative candidates so that notably North Carolina, a purple state has a state legislature that is blood red. Not to mention gerrymandering which is something that you can do when you control the state legislature come census time. Not that the dems don't do it too, but the reps have had and used more opportunities.
Why do you think the reps can't come up with any good candidates? Look at the debate lineups for the last two primaries, they had like two dozen candidates, and the first time they picked probably the best candidate, but then most of them hated him and the second time they picked clearly the worst candidate and most of them hate him too. Right now it's not evident that they hate him that much, but once his numbers drop further, they will hate him more.
No third parties, too complicated too late, too clearly suicidal for the party that births them. Some Berns will come to their senses and vote for the big girl, some won't. History says that most will. We shall see. Have you noticed that even the most prominent dump Trumpers are refusing to run on the dump Trump ticket? It will never happen. Some reps (like our Sen Kirk) will come out against Trump feebly but their dem opponents will tie them to Trump and when they try to untie themselves they will alienate a good part of the republican electorate, so they are in bad shape.
I think there is no basis in fact about a third party taking a state the size of Utah and throwing the election into the house of reps. I am not going to even bother to refute it, but I would like to know where you read that.
My houseguest is coming in today and I won't be back until maybe Friday.
Monday, June 20, 2016
That's It Then
Funny how we can talk about so many subjects reasonably, but not this one. Well you have one vote and I have one vote, and it seems we are destined to cancel each other out for eternity. I will never vote for an anti gun candidate, and you will never vote for a pro gun candidate. So be it.
I thought that 43 million number was a bit high too, so I looked up the Republican Party, and they only have 30 million members. Put them together, along with the third parties, and it would seem that about 20% of the U.S. population is a card carrying member of a political party, which I find hard to believe. I once read somewhere that only 10% of the population of the former Soviet Union were card carrying Communists. I had some distant relatives in the former Czechoslovakia. I never met them, but my parents did when they went over there back in the '70s, and a few of them came over and visited my parents in Palos Park after that. One of these guys was a card carrier himself, and he said that a lot of people joined the party just because it looked good on their resume. In certain fields of work, you could only rise so far on the totem pole without being a party member, and being accepted into the party was considered to be an honor. Be that as it may, I still have not proven that the Democrats and the Republicans issue membership cards, but I think I have established that they do have members, and that just voting for a party does not necessarily make you a member. Do you dispute that?
Another thing I stumbled on while looking up about the memberships was that the Republicans have, in addition to their majority in both houses of Congress, a majority of the state governorships, and the majority of state legislative bodies have a Republican majority. This seems odd, considering that the Democrats have way more party members and seem destined to occupy the White House for at least another four years. My hypothetical wife hypothesized that the reason is the Republicans can't seem to come up with any good presidential candidates lately, and she may be right about that.
I haven't heard much about the Bernie fans lately. Do you think they will support Hillary, or are they likely to jump ship and make a third party run? I understand that the Dump Trump people are still beating the bushes for somebody to make a third party run against Trump. I read somewhere that all it would take to derail the whole election and send it to the House of Representatives would be for a third party to take one state the size of Utah. No third party has taken a whole state since George Wallace took five of them in '68 but, like I said, anything is possible in this goofy election.
I thought that 43 million number was a bit high too, so I looked up the Republican Party, and they only have 30 million members. Put them together, along with the third parties, and it would seem that about 20% of the U.S. population is a card carrying member of a political party, which I find hard to believe. I once read somewhere that only 10% of the population of the former Soviet Union were card carrying Communists. I had some distant relatives in the former Czechoslovakia. I never met them, but my parents did when they went over there back in the '70s, and a few of them came over and visited my parents in Palos Park after that. One of these guys was a card carrier himself, and he said that a lot of people joined the party just because it looked good on their resume. In certain fields of work, you could only rise so far on the totem pole without being a party member, and being accepted into the party was considered to be an honor. Be that as it may, I still have not proven that the Democrats and the Republicans issue membership cards, but I think I have established that they do have members, and that just voting for a party does not necessarily make you a member. Do you dispute that?
Another thing I stumbled on while looking up about the memberships was that the Republicans have, in addition to their majority in both houses of Congress, a majority of the state governorships, and the majority of state legislative bodies have a Republican majority. This seems odd, considering that the Democrats have way more party members and seem destined to occupy the White House for at least another four years. My hypothetical wife hypothesized that the reason is the Republicans can't seem to come up with any good presidential candidates lately, and she may be right about that.
I haven't heard much about the Bernie fans lately. Do you think they will support Hillary, or are they likely to jump ship and make a third party run? I understand that the Dump Trump people are still beating the bushes for somebody to make a third party run against Trump. I read somewhere that all it would take to derail the whole election and send it to the House of Representatives would be for a third party to take one state the size of Utah. No third party has taken a whole state since George Wallace took five of them in '68 but, like I said, anything is possible in this goofy election.
sporting shmorting, tactical shmactical
This is what I was giving up with my Great Compromise, the semi automatic tactical rifles that are sold on the civilian market.
This is the quote I was working from. I guess I failed to notice that you had slyly slipped in the term tactical, because you had, as your ilk is inclined, taken a seemingly clear cut issue and led it into the swamp of makes and models. So (sigh) what is the difference between a sporting and a tactical weapon? Off to the google machine and there are pagefuls of various and differing definitions each one preceded by how it is complicated and how definitions vary.
So what, does one rifle have a picture of Babe Ruth on it, and the other has a picture of General MacArthur? Anyway it's a distinction without a difference. Your offer to allow banning of one kind of semi automatic weapon as long as another kind of semi automatic weapon continues to be legal, is not half a bowl, it is no bowl at all.
I have to keep repeating my assertion because it keeps getting buried in your obfuscation. Semi automatic weapons have no real function in civilian life. Every now and then a bunch of people get shot with them. We ought to ban them.
The guy on the next barstool, the Old Dog, is not that different politically than me, but also like me, he likes to argue. He was saying that it was difficult to convert a semi automatic to an automatic. I'm pretty sure you said it was a piece of cake. He also said something about the barrel overheating if you do the convert or something. It is all machs nicht as far as I am concerned. All I have to say on the matter is in the preceding paragraph.
There is some kind of silly gun control thing going on right now. I believe the thrust is to ban selling to suspected terrorists. The gun people are all in a bunch over the word suspected. How can you deprive a person a deadly weapon just from suspicion? Of course they have no qualms about keeping a person in Guantanamo for the rest of their life because they are under suspicion. Anyway it will never happen, and you gun nuts will be happy to note that even speaking of gun control keeps the cash registers jingling at the gun store.
And again I fail to see the difference between being an official and a non official Democrat. The Old Dog was mumbling about regular democratic organizations, but beyond the name there was nothing more to say.
I don't know what that 43 million number means. That's one in eight Americans, hardly likely that that many are dues paying card carrying Democrats. It seems a little low for how many people vote democrat since we generally get half of the vote of 3 billion people. Maybe it has something to do with who registered in those states that have registration, maybe how many chose the democratic ballot in the primaries. Maybe the latter, since most people don't vote in primaries that number sounds credible.
Not a player? I guess I don't wear the official blue hat with the kicking donkey inside the big letter D. But I do vote and that is like taking an at bat. And I have given time and money, and a couple times I have even marched with the dems in the Champaign Urbana Fourth of July parade. I think I am part of the team, if you don't think i am. well fine.
This is the quote I was working from. I guess I failed to notice that you had slyly slipped in the term tactical, because you had, as your ilk is inclined, taken a seemingly clear cut issue and led it into the swamp of makes and models. So (sigh) what is the difference between a sporting and a tactical weapon? Off to the google machine and there are pagefuls of various and differing definitions each one preceded by how it is complicated and how definitions vary.
So what, does one rifle have a picture of Babe Ruth on it, and the other has a picture of General MacArthur? Anyway it's a distinction without a difference. Your offer to allow banning of one kind of semi automatic weapon as long as another kind of semi automatic weapon continues to be legal, is not half a bowl, it is no bowl at all.
I have to keep repeating my assertion because it keeps getting buried in your obfuscation. Semi automatic weapons have no real function in civilian life. Every now and then a bunch of people get shot with them. We ought to ban them.
The guy on the next barstool, the Old Dog, is not that different politically than me, but also like me, he likes to argue. He was saying that it was difficult to convert a semi automatic to an automatic. I'm pretty sure you said it was a piece of cake. He also said something about the barrel overheating if you do the convert or something. It is all machs nicht as far as I am concerned. All I have to say on the matter is in the preceding paragraph.
There is some kind of silly gun control thing going on right now. I believe the thrust is to ban selling to suspected terrorists. The gun people are all in a bunch over the word suspected. How can you deprive a person a deadly weapon just from suspicion? Of course they have no qualms about keeping a person in Guantanamo for the rest of their life because they are under suspicion. Anyway it will never happen, and you gun nuts will be happy to note that even speaking of gun control keeps the cash registers jingling at the gun store.
And again I fail to see the difference between being an official and a non official Democrat. The Old Dog was mumbling about regular democratic organizations, but beyond the name there was nothing more to say.
I don't know what that 43 million number means. That's one in eight Americans, hardly likely that that many are dues paying card carrying Democrats. It seems a little low for how many people vote democrat since we generally get half of the vote of 3 billion people. Maybe it has something to do with who registered in those states that have registration, maybe how many chose the democratic ballot in the primaries. Maybe the latter, since most people don't vote in primaries that number sounds credible.
Not a player? I guess I don't wear the official blue hat with the kicking donkey inside the big letter D. But I do vote and that is like taking an at bat. And I have given time and money, and a couple times I have even marched with the dems in the Champaign Urbana Fourth of July parade. I think I am part of the team, if you don't think i am. well fine.
Friday, June 17, 2016
I Am Not Trying to Confuse You
You are already confused, and I am trying to un-confuse you. Not about everything, just about guns and political parties. I can understand your confusion about guns because you don't have a background in that subject, but I don't understand how someone who is way more politically astute than I am can not know the difference between being a member and not being a member of a political party.
Let's do the guns first. One of the reasons my ilk is so hostile to your ilk when it comes to guns is that my ilk has the impression that your ilk doesn't know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of, and yet they are trying to tell us what to do with our guns. You might have better luck if you became conversant with some of the terminology so you could speak to us in our native tongues. Then again, maybe not, some of my ilk is pretty much set in their ways.
There are two kinds of automatic firearms, fully automatic and semi automatic. A fully automatic gun will keep shooting as long as you hold the trigger back, while a semi automatic gun will only fire one shot until you release the trigger and pull it again, at which point it will fire one more shot. Fully automatic guns have been prohibited to civilians for a long time, so you're flogging a dead horse on that one. There are lots of semi automatics on the civilian market, but they may be divided into two categories, traditional sporting arms and tactical arms, which are military type guns that have the fully automatic part locked out. Because these guns can easily be converted to fully automatic, there have been efforts made over the years to ban them from the civilian market. They actually were banned for awhile, but that law was allowed to expire, and your ilk has been trying to reinstate it ever since.
The compromise that I offered was I would accept a ban on the tactical guns if you would agree to leave the sporting arms alone. Your counter offer was to ban all repeating firearms, both automatic and manually operated. This is like, you ask for a bowl of soup, I offer you a half bowl, and then you demand two bowls. So "No soup for you!"
Registering as a Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with party membership. We don't do that in Michigan, and I don't think you guys do it in your state either. I think the reason some states do it is to prevent "crossover votes". This is when a Democrat votes for a Republican candidate, or a Republican votes for a Democratic candidate, not because they like him, but because they think their guy would have a better chance running against him than his primary opponent. This is what happened when George Wallace won the Michigan Democratic primary back in '72. For a long time after that, Michigan Democrats didn't participate in the primaries and picked their candidates in party caucuses, like some other states do.
Michigan Democrats resumed participating in the presidential primaries at some point, but I don't remember when. For a long time after that primary ballots listed both parties on a single sheet, and the instructions said you could only vote for one party or the other. If you switched back and forth, your ballot was invalid. Now there are two separate ballots, and they ask you which one you want. They don't make a big production out of it. You check one box or the other on your ballot application, and that's the one they give you. Last time the guy head of me in line forgot to check the box, and the clerk quietly pointed that out to him. The only way I could have known which ballot he chose would have been if I looked right over his shoulder when he checked the box which, of course, I didn't do. My mother told me the way they used to do it in Chicago was to shout your name out loud and ask you which ballot you wanted. My mother used to shout "Republican!" right back at them. She was a strong willed woman, not easily intimidated. I want to be just like her when I grow up.
I have been trying to find out how you would go about joining the Democratic Party if you so desired. So far I have found out from Wiki that they had 43.1 million members as of 2012, but it didn't say how you would go about becoming one of them. I went to their official web site, Democrats.org and couldn't find out there either. My guess is that you would join at the local level and your group would be affiliated with the state party, which would in turn be affiliated with the national party. In answer to your question, "What's the difference?": It's like the difference between sports fans and sports players. Sports fans support the team, while sports players are the team.
Let's do the guns first. One of the reasons my ilk is so hostile to your ilk when it comes to guns is that my ilk has the impression that your ilk doesn't know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of, and yet they are trying to tell us what to do with our guns. You might have better luck if you became conversant with some of the terminology so you could speak to us in our native tongues. Then again, maybe not, some of my ilk is pretty much set in their ways.
There are two kinds of automatic firearms, fully automatic and semi automatic. A fully automatic gun will keep shooting as long as you hold the trigger back, while a semi automatic gun will only fire one shot until you release the trigger and pull it again, at which point it will fire one more shot. Fully automatic guns have been prohibited to civilians for a long time, so you're flogging a dead horse on that one. There are lots of semi automatics on the civilian market, but they may be divided into two categories, traditional sporting arms and tactical arms, which are military type guns that have the fully automatic part locked out. Because these guns can easily be converted to fully automatic, there have been efforts made over the years to ban them from the civilian market. They actually were banned for awhile, but that law was allowed to expire, and your ilk has been trying to reinstate it ever since.
The compromise that I offered was I would accept a ban on the tactical guns if you would agree to leave the sporting arms alone. Your counter offer was to ban all repeating firearms, both automatic and manually operated. This is like, you ask for a bowl of soup, I offer you a half bowl, and then you demand two bowls. So "No soup for you!"
Registering as a Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with party membership. We don't do that in Michigan, and I don't think you guys do it in your state either. I think the reason some states do it is to prevent "crossover votes". This is when a Democrat votes for a Republican candidate, or a Republican votes for a Democratic candidate, not because they like him, but because they think their guy would have a better chance running against him than his primary opponent. This is what happened when George Wallace won the Michigan Democratic primary back in '72. For a long time after that, Michigan Democrats didn't participate in the primaries and picked their candidates in party caucuses, like some other states do.
Michigan Democrats resumed participating in the presidential primaries at some point, but I don't remember when. For a long time after that primary ballots listed both parties on a single sheet, and the instructions said you could only vote for one party or the other. If you switched back and forth, your ballot was invalid. Now there are two separate ballots, and they ask you which one you want. They don't make a big production out of it. You check one box or the other on your ballot application, and that's the one they give you. Last time the guy head of me in line forgot to check the box, and the clerk quietly pointed that out to him. The only way I could have known which ballot he chose would have been if I looked right over his shoulder when he checked the box which, of course, I didn't do. My mother told me the way they used to do it in Chicago was to shout your name out loud and ask you which ballot you wanted. My mother used to shout "Republican!" right back at them. She was a strong willed woman, not easily intimidated. I want to be just like her when I grow up.
I have been trying to find out how you would go about joining the Democratic Party if you so desired. So far I have found out from Wiki that they had 43.1 million members as of 2012, but it didn't say how you would go about becoming one of them. I went to their official web site, Democrats.org and couldn't find out there either. My guess is that you would join at the local level and your group would be affiliated with the state party, which would in turn be affiliated with the national party. In answer to your question, "What's the difference?": It's like the difference between sports fans and sports players. Sports fans support the team, while sports players are the team.
Gary and John, modern day drifters
Yes, I was talking about the cowboy image, myth is perhaps a better
word, but not so much myth in the sense of untrue but myth in the sense
of legendary. The real job was kind of a crap job and those who had
any kind of skills took other jobs.
But they did ride horses, and they wore those cool hats, and they carried their guns outside their pants for all the honest world to see. If they shot each other more often than effete easterners I don't know, but they got picked up by the dime novels, and maybe because we didn't have any mounted knights in our history we gobbled up their legend.
Lyndon Johnson was not a cowboy but he came from cattle ranchers who had lost their ranch. Ronnie Reagan loved to ride horses and sometimes he posed as a cowboy, but he was an actor after all. W had a ranch, and he claimed to love riding fences, and maybe he was dumb enough to be a cowboy.
Willie Nelson was strictly the mythic cowboy (a modern day drifter, though I don't think he has drifted much), and none of those guys who sang about cowboys (Those outlaws, Willie and Waylon and the boys) were cowboys. And the modern day guys who sing pop and call it country and are never without their hats, none of them were cowboys either.
I still don't get your idea that there is a definite line between like an official democrat and a guy who just votes for them every time. But I got a letter from a friend yesterday and she spoke of her son who didn't get to vote in the California primary because he registered as an independent. Then I went to the google machine and discovered that in some states when you registered to vote you registered by party or independent, and then I get the impression that if you registered as an independent and wanted to vote in the rep or dem primary the next time around you had to change your registration.
How peculiar. I don't think I registered as any particular party when I first registered, but then i was in a hurry because my Stanley Steamer was double parked, and what's that phrase you use all the time (I reckon because you don't remember that you used it before) about a certain amount of memory loss?
Anyway ever since then when I walk into the polling place on primary day they ask me if I want a rep or dem ballot like they have never seen me before. I do know from my McGovern days, that when I do, there is a Democratic poll watcher taking note of that and I end up on a list the dems have of their guys. Not sure what they do with that list, but maybe that makes me a registered, or what you like to call a card-carrying Democrat.
Most likely the big girl will kill, but you never know what is going to happen in an election, and we dems have been proclaiming Trumps downfall every week since he began running and we have been wrong every time, so we are a wee bit nervous. But this is the Party of Principle and Ice Cream's big chance. I think most people are unaware of the whole agenda of the 'Tarians! because all we have seen on the national stage are reps pretending to be Libs, but only espousing only the right-wing side of the ideology, so that the image of Libs has been republicans putting on airs.
I'm not that fond of the big girl, but it always surprises me how much she is hated, but it is a fact, and Trump is hated even more. I don't think they will be much more than a flash in the pan, but I think this is the 'Tarians! big chance. I haven't seen much of Gary or John, but they don't look very charismatic. Maybe if they wore cowboy hats, and hey, it wouldn't hurt if they carried two ice cream cones, one chocolate the other strawberry, screw the vanilla, in each holster.
It's my opinion that you gun nuts spin out these names, assault, tactical, sooper dooper death machine, to confuse me and my fellow gun control nuts, so I am not going to play that game. My impression on your Grand Compromise was that you were willing to give up the automatic, but not the semi automatic (my chief complaint being it's easy conversion), and that's the offer I called a non-starter. But a certain amount of memory loss etc, and if your offer is the semi automatic, why then I accept. Done deal. Shake hands Podner.
And it's not a problem with me at all if the prices on these weapons subsequently soar. The higher the price, the less likely they are to fall into the hands of low-lifes. It's really not the owning of these sooper dooper death machines that bothers me, it's the shooting of them.
Happy weekend. Next week I'll have a visitor here in the tower so I probably won't be posting Tuesday through Thursday.
But they did ride horses, and they wore those cool hats, and they carried their guns outside their pants for all the honest world to see. If they shot each other more often than effete easterners I don't know, but they got picked up by the dime novels, and maybe because we didn't have any mounted knights in our history we gobbled up their legend.
Lyndon Johnson was not a cowboy but he came from cattle ranchers who had lost their ranch. Ronnie Reagan loved to ride horses and sometimes he posed as a cowboy, but he was an actor after all. W had a ranch, and he claimed to love riding fences, and maybe he was dumb enough to be a cowboy.
Willie Nelson was strictly the mythic cowboy (a modern day drifter, though I don't think he has drifted much), and none of those guys who sang about cowboys (Those outlaws, Willie and Waylon and the boys) were cowboys. And the modern day guys who sing pop and call it country and are never without their hats, none of them were cowboys either.
I still don't get your idea that there is a definite line between like an official democrat and a guy who just votes for them every time. But I got a letter from a friend yesterday and she spoke of her son who didn't get to vote in the California primary because he registered as an independent. Then I went to the google machine and discovered that in some states when you registered to vote you registered by party or independent, and then I get the impression that if you registered as an independent and wanted to vote in the rep or dem primary the next time around you had to change your registration.
How peculiar. I don't think I registered as any particular party when I first registered, but then i was in a hurry because my Stanley Steamer was double parked, and what's that phrase you use all the time (I reckon because you don't remember that you used it before) about a certain amount of memory loss?
Anyway ever since then when I walk into the polling place on primary day they ask me if I want a rep or dem ballot like they have never seen me before. I do know from my McGovern days, that when I do, there is a Democratic poll watcher taking note of that and I end up on a list the dems have of their guys. Not sure what they do with that list, but maybe that makes me a registered, or what you like to call a card-carrying Democrat.
Most likely the big girl will kill, but you never know what is going to happen in an election, and we dems have been proclaiming Trumps downfall every week since he began running and we have been wrong every time, so we are a wee bit nervous. But this is the Party of Principle and Ice Cream's big chance. I think most people are unaware of the whole agenda of the 'Tarians! because all we have seen on the national stage are reps pretending to be Libs, but only espousing only the right-wing side of the ideology, so that the image of Libs has been republicans putting on airs.
I'm not that fond of the big girl, but it always surprises me how much she is hated, but it is a fact, and Trump is hated even more. I don't think they will be much more than a flash in the pan, but I think this is the 'Tarians! big chance. I haven't seen much of Gary or John, but they don't look very charismatic. Maybe if they wore cowboy hats, and hey, it wouldn't hurt if they carried two ice cream cones, one chocolate the other strawberry, screw the vanilla, in each holster.
It's my opinion that you gun nuts spin out these names, assault, tactical, sooper dooper death machine, to confuse me and my fellow gun control nuts, so I am not going to play that game. My impression on your Grand Compromise was that you were willing to give up the automatic, but not the semi automatic (my chief complaint being it's easy conversion), and that's the offer I called a non-starter. But a certain amount of memory loss etc, and if your offer is the semi automatic, why then I accept. Done deal. Shake hands Podner.
And it's not a problem with me at all if the prices on these weapons subsequently soar. The higher the price, the less likely they are to fall into the hands of low-lifes. It's really not the owning of these sooper dooper death machines that bothers me, it's the shooting of them.
Happy weekend. Next week I'll have a visitor here in the tower so I probably won't be posting Tuesday through Thursday.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Image and Substance
What I think you are talking about is the cowboy image, but sometimes it's hard to distinguish between image and substance. I believe that song you quoted was sung by Willie Nelson, a professional entertainer who rode the cowboy image to fame and fortune. I don't know if Willie ever was a cowboy in real life, but he might have been. I understand that Roy Rogers owned an actual cattle ranch, so he might have been a cowboy in both image and substance although, technically, owning a cattle ranch would have made him a cattleman, while the guys who worked for him would have been the real cowboys.
I borrowed the term "card carrying party member" from the old Red Scare days, when it was used to distinguish an actual member of the Communist Party from the sympathizers and fellow travelers. I think that's what you are with the Democrats, a fellow traveler. Of course you can call yourself a Democrat if you are a Democrat at heart, but that's not the same thing as being a card carrying party member. I used to be a card carrying Libertarian, and now I'm not, but that doesn't mean I can't vote for them. Ron and Rand Paul are Libertarians at heart, but they run as Republicans because they want a snowballs' chance in Hell of getting elected. They may or may not hold cards from either or both parties, but they are certainly Libertarians at heart.
I don't know why there is so much drama associated with this election, everybody knows that Hillary is going to win. The best the Reps can hope for is to hold on to their majority in at least one house of Congress or, failing that, regaining it in two years when people get tired of Hillary just like they got tired of Obama. I'm surprised they are even mentioning the Libertarians in the polls, it must be part of the plan to add more drama to the show.
I was polled once you know, back in my card carrying days. I think it was a real poll too because they didn't ask me for money. This nice lady called me on the phone and asked me if I was planning to vote Democrat or Republican. When I told her I was voting Libertarian she said that wasn't one of the options on the form she was using. She said the only three options were "Democrat, Republican, and Undecided". "Nevertheless", said I, "I'm still voting Libertarian". After some hesitation, she said that she was putting me down for "Undecided". "Put me down for anything you want," said I, "But I'm still voting Libertarian". "Okay", said she, "And have a nice day."
I had another look at your machine gun definition and, you're right, it is plenty specific enough for our purposes. Like I said, though, such guns are already illegal for civilians to possess. What you are after is the assault rifles, although my ilk prefers to call them "tactical rifles". This is what I was giving up with my Great Compromise, the semi automatic tactical rifles that are sold on the civilian market. I believe your man Obama was making an effort at the time to get those guns banned, and I said I could go along with it if I could be sure that was all they were going to ban. Since then those guns have become so popular that I'm sure everybody who wants one already has one, so go ahead and ban them if you want. Of course you won't be able to do much about the used market. Indeed, if they stop selling new ones, the market value of the ones already out there will go through the roof. It has happened before when a company stopped making a popular model in favor of a cheaper version.
From what I have seen in my magazines, the definition of "tactical" is evolving as we speak. I saw an ad the other day for a "tactical rifle" that looked like an old fashioned bolt action to me. A closer look revealed that the gun had a bipod attached to it. This might improve the gun's accuracy, but it wouldn't make it shoot any faster. It looks like you can attach any kind of gizmo to an ordinary rifle and sell it as "tactical" these days.
I borrowed the term "card carrying party member" from the old Red Scare days, when it was used to distinguish an actual member of the Communist Party from the sympathizers and fellow travelers. I think that's what you are with the Democrats, a fellow traveler. Of course you can call yourself a Democrat if you are a Democrat at heart, but that's not the same thing as being a card carrying party member. I used to be a card carrying Libertarian, and now I'm not, but that doesn't mean I can't vote for them. Ron and Rand Paul are Libertarians at heart, but they run as Republicans because they want a snowballs' chance in Hell of getting elected. They may or may not hold cards from either or both parties, but they are certainly Libertarians at heart.
I don't know why there is so much drama associated with this election, everybody knows that Hillary is going to win. The best the Reps can hope for is to hold on to their majority in at least one house of Congress or, failing that, regaining it in two years when people get tired of Hillary just like they got tired of Obama. I'm surprised they are even mentioning the Libertarians in the polls, it must be part of the plan to add more drama to the show.
I was polled once you know, back in my card carrying days. I think it was a real poll too because they didn't ask me for money. This nice lady called me on the phone and asked me if I was planning to vote Democrat or Republican. When I told her I was voting Libertarian she said that wasn't one of the options on the form she was using. She said the only three options were "Democrat, Republican, and Undecided". "Nevertheless", said I, "I'm still voting Libertarian". After some hesitation, she said that she was putting me down for "Undecided". "Put me down for anything you want," said I, "But I'm still voting Libertarian". "Okay", said she, "And have a nice day."
I had another look at your machine gun definition and, you're right, it is plenty specific enough for our purposes. Like I said, though, such guns are already illegal for civilians to possess. What you are after is the assault rifles, although my ilk prefers to call them "tactical rifles". This is what I was giving up with my Great Compromise, the semi automatic tactical rifles that are sold on the civilian market. I believe your man Obama was making an effort at the time to get those guns banned, and I said I could go along with it if I could be sure that was all they were going to ban. Since then those guns have become so popular that I'm sure everybody who wants one already has one, so go ahead and ban them if you want. Of course you won't be able to do much about the used market. Indeed, if they stop selling new ones, the market value of the ones already out there will go through the roof. It has happened before when a company stopped making a popular model in favor of a cheaper version.
From what I have seen in my magazines, the definition of "tactical" is evolving as we speak. I saw an ad the other day for a "tactical rifle" that looked like an old fashioned bolt action to me. A closer look revealed that the gun had a bipod attached to it. This might improve the gun's accuracy, but it wouldn't make it shoot any faster. It looks like you can attach any kind of gizmo to an ordinary rifle and sell it as "tactical" these days.
Sadly in search of, but one step in back of, themselves and their slow movin' dreams
I grew up a-dreamin' of bein' a cowboy
And lovin' the cowboy ways
Pursuin' the life of my high ridin' heroes
I burned up my childhood days
And lovin' the cowboy ways
Pursuin' the life of my high ridin' heroes
I burned up my childhood days
I learned all the rules of a modern day drifter
Don't you hold on to nothin' too long
Just take what you need from the ladies, then leave them
With the words of a sad country song
Don't you hold on to nothin' too long
Just take what you need from the ladies, then leave them
With the words of a sad country song
My heroes have always been cowboys
And they still are, it seems
Sadly, in search of, but one step in back of
Themselves and their slow movin' dreams
And they still are, it seems
Sadly, in search of, but one step in back of
Themselves and their slow movin' dreams
Cowboys are special with their own brand of misery
From being alone too long
You could die from the cold, in the arms of a nightmare
Knowin' well that your best days are gone
From being alone too long
You could die from the cold, in the arms of a nightmare
Knowin' well that your best days are gone
Pickin' up hookers instead of my pen
I let the words of my youth fade away
Old worn-out saddles, and old worn-out memories
But no one and no place to stay
I let the words of my youth fade away
Old worn-out saddles, and old worn-out memories
But no one and no place to stay
Now there's a cowboy. It has nothing to do with cattle. It has everything to do with leaning against a fence with a cig dangling from your mouth and a squint in your eyes trying to impress some hot but not very bright babe, and the hat of course.
Same with the dems, except we didn't have hats. We should have had hats. I've always thought one of the things that has stood the Roman Catholics well over the last almost two thousand years is their panoply of hats.
But even without the hat, and the dues, and that stinking card, I was then, and am now, and probably in the proud words of our methodist forebears I shall be one till I die, till grim old death comes a'knocking on my door, I'll be a Democrat till I die. And if there is any hot but not too bright babe within earshot, I am also cowboy.
The last time we had this discussion there was a whole bramble bush of different terms for shooting irons, and I can see where previous efforts at sensible gun control had floundered on the reef of all those definitions, and I wanted to avoid that by having a simpler definition. Let's just toss out the term machine gun and go with the previously quoted definition.
1.
an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.
As you can see your previous 'compromise' was a non-starter, since you weren't giving anything up it was not a compromise at all. Let me repeat the thrust of my argument.
Such weapons have no practical use except for maniacs at the shooting gallery (and to show how tolerant I am i would allow these weapons to be stocked at the shooting gallery, but not taken away), and overthrowing the gummint, which is illegal anyway. Further, in the hands of madmen, which there will always be, they have killed a scad of people who would not have died if the shooter was less potently armed. Therefore away with them all. But not with Old Betsy and her ilk of course.
But i am merely honing my argument. These are just thought experiments, nothing will happen. I see where a movement to refuse permits to suspected terrorists never got past the talking points.
So I see where Gary and John and the 'Tarians! are polling at twelve percent and they will be appearing on a CNN town hall, I think Wednesday night. If they can get fifteen percent they will be in the debates, and very likely will get their own ice cream.
This was a little worrisome to me, since I view Trump vs the big girl as a lead pipe cinch, but I noticed in the poll that the big girl beat Trump by even more when the 'Tarians! were in the mix. And the way i see it, the 'Tarians! will have to attack Trump to get traction, and of course Trump will attack anybody, and I think the big girl will just stand at her podium with a smug smile thinking My my my how you boys carry on.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Memberships and Machine Guns
Wearing a cowboy hat does not necessarily make you a cowboy, assuming that by "cowboy" you mean a real cowboy who works on a cattle ranch. Of course there are other definitions of "cowboy", as in: "That guy drives like a cowboy." Truth be known, real cowboys, on average, probably don't drive their cars any more recklessly than the general population, but it's a figure of speech. Similarly, you can call yourself a Democrat because you vote for Democratic candidates, other people may call you a Democrat because you support the Democratic agenda, but you're not a real Democrat unless you formally join the Democratic Party. They may or may not issue you a card, they may or may not charge you dues, but there must be some way they distinguish members from non members.
Okay, forget about the cards and the dues. Every organization has some kind of leadership, officers or directors or something like that. If you are a member, you are entitled to vote for these guys. You may have to attend a meeting, or they may send you a proxy form in the mail but, one way or another, you can vote for the leadership when they have a periodic election if you want to. So, were you or were you not a member of the Democratic Party back in the day?
I don't know if political parties commonly expel members, but most organizations have a process for doing that. They may not do it very often, or at all, but they have some kind of procedure on paper by which they can expel a member.
We have discussed machine guns before, but a certain amount of memory loss is normal at our age, so let's review: The definition that you quoted is true as far as it goes, but it could be a little more specific. A machine gun is a fully automatic weapon, which means the gun will continue to fire repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger back. A semi automatic firearm will only fire once each time you pull the trigger. Anybody who knows how can easily convert a semi automatic into a fully automatic but, as soon as he does, he is now in possession of a machine gun, which is already illegal.
Certain military rifles have a selector switch by which the gunner can change from the semi automatic mode into the fully automatic mode and back again. These models, when sold to civilians, come without the selector switch and are locked into the semi automatic mode. To convert them to fully automatic, it is necessary to take the gun apart and tamper with the trigger mechanism which, as I said, is not hard to do if you know how. Most of the semi automatics that have been on the civilian market for upwards of a century can be converted to fully automatic the same way, but they were not designed to fire like that and would quickly jam up if a person tried it.
When we last had his discussion, I indicated a willingness to accept a ban on the modern military type of gun that is frequently called an assault rifle, if the law was specific to that type of gun and did not include the semi autos that were designed for the civilian market. You then declared the intention of banning all types of repeating firearms and restricting us law abiding citizens to single shots. This is what happens when you try to compromise with a liberal, which is why I and my ilk are reluctant to do it anymore.
the party of Ice Cream
I think you can be a member of a party without having a card or
paying dues, and as i have said that has been my experience with the
dems. And consider this: have you ever heard of anybody being tossed
out of either party? And you know that people in office can switch
parties at the drop of a hat. Speaking of hats, being a member of a
party is a lot like being a cowboy, if you wear the hat you can be a
cowboy too.
I didn't say that you were a member of the NRA. Looking back through the last post I come across the phrase NRA-penned blather. By that I meant that the NRA is a big propaganda machine and they spout a lot of talking points which are taken up by gun nuts, so that all you guys tend to use the same arguments over and over, whether they parse logically or not.
Speaking of the NRA they seem to run a tighter ship, card and dueswise. than either political party or I daresay, because I love to say it, the 'Tarians! A recent poll had the big girl at fifty, Trump at forty, and the 'Tarians! at 10, but other than that I have heard precious little of Gary and John. You know I almost said Ben and Jerry, and speaking of which isn't that a suspicious coincidence? I suppose being the Party of Principle could get you some votes, but clearly being the party of Ice Cream will get you way more.
I don't think cult of personality is the phrase you really want, that is more like Trump or the latest Kim, maybe more like Trump because Kim, his people may truly love him, but they are not really given a choice, whereas Trump, nobody is forced to like him, they just do. Anyway I think what you don't like is where if you had more hotshot friends you can get away with stuff that people who have fewer loser friends. What, ROTC never asked you to do anything illegal? Was there some organization at Gage Park that was urging illegality? Maybe in the chess club they would look the other way if you castled even if you had already moved your king, but that was as illegal as we ever got.
The reason my ilk wants to make AR-15s illegal is not so that guys like Mateen will have a crisis of conscience obtaining them, but to make them hard to obtain. He may still get one anyway, but it will be harder. That is all we are hoping to obtain, to make it harder for guys like Mateen to get guns like the AR-15.
And speaking of AR-15s, I am just using it as an example of the definition of the machine gun I got from google above.
I didn't say there was no way for mental health professionals to identify future killers, I just said that they miss a lot. Maybe we pay them for catching the ones that they do.
I believe crimes are frequently solved by finding a gun and tracing it back to its owner. I believe I read that in the newspapers often, but then I read more newspapers than you do.
I didn't say that you were a member of the NRA. Looking back through the last post I come across the phrase NRA-penned blather. By that I meant that the NRA is a big propaganda machine and they spout a lot of talking points which are taken up by gun nuts, so that all you guys tend to use the same arguments over and over, whether they parse logically or not.
Speaking of the NRA they seem to run a tighter ship, card and dueswise. than either political party or I daresay, because I love to say it, the 'Tarians! A recent poll had the big girl at fifty, Trump at forty, and the 'Tarians! at 10, but other than that I have heard precious little of Gary and John. You know I almost said Ben and Jerry, and speaking of which isn't that a suspicious coincidence? I suppose being the Party of Principle could get you some votes, but clearly being the party of Ice Cream will get you way more.
I don't think cult of personality is the phrase you really want, that is more like Trump or the latest Kim, maybe more like Trump because Kim, his people may truly love him, but they are not really given a choice, whereas Trump, nobody is forced to like him, they just do. Anyway I think what you don't like is where if you had more hotshot friends you can get away with stuff that people who have fewer loser friends. What, ROTC never asked you to do anything illegal? Was there some organization at Gage Park that was urging illegality? Maybe in the chess club they would look the other way if you castled even if you had already moved your king, but that was as illegal as we ever got.
noun
- 1.an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.
The reason my ilk wants to make AR-15s illegal is not so that guys like Mateen will have a crisis of conscience obtaining them, but to make them hard to obtain. He may still get one anyway, but it will be harder. That is all we are hoping to obtain, to make it harder for guys like Mateen to get guns like the AR-15.
And speaking of AR-15s, I am just using it as an example of the definition of the machine gun I got from google above.
I didn't say there was no way for mental health professionals to identify future killers, I just said that they miss a lot. Maybe we pay them for catching the ones that they do.
I believe crimes are frequently solved by finding a gun and tracing it back to its owner. I believe I read that in the newspapers often, but then I read more newspapers than you do.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Of Cards and Guns
The reason I keep talking about cards is that you have claimed that the Republican and Democratic parties do not collect dues or issue membership cards, and I find that hard to believe. What about all those delegates who will be attending the national conventions, aren't they party members? When I joined the Republican Party back in '74, I don't remember if they issued me a membership card, but I do remember paying dues for one year, I believe it was $20, which was a lot of money back in those days. When I went to the state convention, I must have had some kind of ID to gain admittance, but I don't remember if it was a badge or what. Of course the policies could have changed since '74, but I doubt that they stopped accepting memberships. How could any national organization function without making a distinction between members and non-members?
Speaking of memberships, I thought I made this clear before: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association. My father was a member, and I read the magazine they sent him every month. When I tried to join myself, they told me I had to be at least 21 years old. When I did turn 21 I figured that, since they didn't want me when I wanted them, I don't want them now, and I never did join.
I don't think I realized before my army days that a lot of this country is run by the cult of the personality instead of the rule of law. Well there was that blue jean incident with the Sawyer Student Council, but I thought they were doing it wrong, and I still do. After all, I had learned about the rule of law in that same school! I don't remember having a problem with the way they ran the ROTC at Gage Park, they never asked me to do anything illegal.
Speaking of illegal, it has been illegal for civilians to possess machine guns in this country since before we were born so, if that nut job in Florida used a machine gun, he must have obtained it illegally. Shooting 50 people in a bar is also illegal, and he didn't have a problem breaking that law either. How would the passage of one more law have prevented the incident?
There has always been some shooting going on in this country, but I don't remember there being so many of these mass shootings where the perpetrator turns the gun on himself at the end. Of course not all of these mass murderers are Muslims, but they're all nuts because only crazy people commit suicide. We have discussed this before, and you said that there is no way for mental health professionals to identify somebody like this before they do anything crazy. Then what are we paying them for?
You may be right that no concealed carry permit holder has ever prevented one of these mass shootings by being in the right place at the right time, at least I have not heard of one. On the other hand, the paper work we do when we buy a gun from a licensed dealer registers the make, model and serial number of that gun in our name. The alleged intent of that law was that, if a gun was found near a crime scene, they could trace the gun to its last owner of record. Has any of that information ever been used to actually solve a crime? Maybe it has, but I have not heard of that either.
Speaking of memberships, I thought I made this clear before: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association. My father was a member, and I read the magazine they sent him every month. When I tried to join myself, they told me I had to be at least 21 years old. When I did turn 21 I figured that, since they didn't want me when I wanted them, I don't want them now, and I never did join.
I don't think I realized before my army days that a lot of this country is run by the cult of the personality instead of the rule of law. Well there was that blue jean incident with the Sawyer Student Council, but I thought they were doing it wrong, and I still do. After all, I had learned about the rule of law in that same school! I don't remember having a problem with the way they ran the ROTC at Gage Park, they never asked me to do anything illegal.
Speaking of illegal, it has been illegal for civilians to possess machine guns in this country since before we were born so, if that nut job in Florida used a machine gun, he must have obtained it illegally. Shooting 50 people in a bar is also illegal, and he didn't have a problem breaking that law either. How would the passage of one more law have prevented the incident?
There has always been some shooting going on in this country, but I don't remember there being so many of these mass shootings where the perpetrator turns the gun on himself at the end. Of course not all of these mass murderers are Muslims, but they're all nuts because only crazy people commit suicide. We have discussed this before, and you said that there is no way for mental health professionals to identify somebody like this before they do anything crazy. Then what are we paying them for?
You may be right that no concealed carry permit holder has ever prevented one of these mass shootings by being in the right place at the right time, at least I have not heard of one. On the other hand, the paper work we do when we buy a gun from a licensed dealer registers the make, model and serial number of that gun in our name. The alleged intent of that law was that, if a gun was found near a crime scene, they could trace the gun to its last owner of record. Has any of that information ever been used to actually solve a crime? Maybe it has, but I have not heard of that either.
townships and mass killings
Chicago contains several townships because it has eaten five or six
other towns in the course of its development. I don't know what it is with
you and cards. You realize that anybody, even back in the day before
computers, could print up a card. What would be the occasion when you
would present this card where it would make any difference? Now that
you mention it when I worked for the state I had an ID card, but that
was just so that I could get in the building. And as a substitute
teacher I also had an ID card which was how I punched in at the
beginning of my day and out at the end of my day.
So why did you expect the army to rule by the rule of law, when you knew that nothing else did? Did ROTC run by the rule of law?
Okay you gun nuts, you now have concealed carry everywhere. I believe Florida was a leader in that movement, and yet when has a law-abiding citizen prevented a mass shooting? Your answer of course is that we need still more guns out there, but then that is what you believe anyway about anything. Economic slowdown, more guns. Global warning, more guns. I guess eventually in your ideal world we would all be so heavily armed that we wouldn't be able to move and then that would be the end of these shootings,
I'll go back to my usual talking points. If he didn't have that machine gun he wouldn't have shot as many people. There is really no reason to have a machine gun. We should stop selling machine guns.
I don't see where you can logically assail either of those two points, but I know there is some NRA penned blather that you can spout, kind of like a squid does that ink thing.
And it doesn't matter because nothing beyond a few ineffectual pleas will happen. Hunting is popular in the swing states and hunters seem to love all manner of guns, so I don't see the big girl talking much about it. So I don't think you need to fret about parting with Old Betsy, though I am sure you will.
Then there are all these other things about the shooting. Trump is claiming that Obama is complicit, because he is a muslim remember? Cruz and his ilk are blaming immigration, even though the shooter is not an immigrant,and they are blaming Obama because he is not pounding ISIL hard enough even though if you ask them what they would do that Obama isn't doing they have nothing to say.
The gays are claiming it is all about anti-gay stuff, though one wonders if it had been in a McDonalds if it would have been anti- hamburger stuff. Uh oh, and then it was Latin night, so maybe it is anti Hispanic.
And just now it is being revealed that they guy used to hang out at the club, and he was kind of mean and flaky, and you know it is just one of those things, these guys crop up regularly. it will happen again and again, and all this talk about mass killings as being recent, i think it has always happened.
So I guess I didn't have that much to say about it. I just didn't want to talk about townships because, you know, not as exciting as the current mass shooting.
So why did you expect the army to rule by the rule of law, when you knew that nothing else did? Did ROTC run by the rule of law?
Okay you gun nuts, you now have concealed carry everywhere. I believe Florida was a leader in that movement, and yet when has a law-abiding citizen prevented a mass shooting? Your answer of course is that we need still more guns out there, but then that is what you believe anyway about anything. Economic slowdown, more guns. Global warning, more guns. I guess eventually in your ideal world we would all be so heavily armed that we wouldn't be able to move and then that would be the end of these shootings,
I'll go back to my usual talking points. If he didn't have that machine gun he wouldn't have shot as many people. There is really no reason to have a machine gun. We should stop selling machine guns.
I don't see where you can logically assail either of those two points, but I know there is some NRA penned blather that you can spout, kind of like a squid does that ink thing.
And it doesn't matter because nothing beyond a few ineffectual pleas will happen. Hunting is popular in the swing states and hunters seem to love all manner of guns, so I don't see the big girl talking much about it. So I don't think you need to fret about parting with Old Betsy, though I am sure you will.
Then there are all these other things about the shooting. Trump is claiming that Obama is complicit, because he is a muslim remember? Cruz and his ilk are blaming immigration, even though the shooter is not an immigrant,and they are blaming Obama because he is not pounding ISIL hard enough even though if you ask them what they would do that Obama isn't doing they have nothing to say.
The gays are claiming it is all about anti-gay stuff, though one wonders if it had been in a McDonalds if it would have been anti- hamburger stuff. Uh oh, and then it was Latin night, so maybe it is anti Hispanic.
And just now it is being revealed that they guy used to hang out at the club, and he was kind of mean and flaky, and you know it is just one of those things, these guys crop up regularly. it will happen again and again, and all this talk about mass killings as being recent, i think it has always happened.
So I guess I didn't have that much to say about it. I just didn't want to talk about townships because, you know, not as exciting as the current mass shooting.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Townships and Other Stuff
I don't think that cities are usually divided into townships. Cheboygan County only contains one city, and it is about the size of a township, so I think a township is where you live when you don't live in the city limits. I read somewhere that some states have abolished their township governments, but nobody in Michigan seems interested in doing that. The idea of townships originated when they first surveyed the land. Each township was supposed to be 36 square miles, a square that was six miles to the side. Each square mile is called a section and contains 640 acres more or less. The reason for the "more or less" is that the surveyors' maps are flat, but the Earth is not, so they have to shave a little off of some parcels to get them to fit into the plan. These are called "fractional 40s", and there is at least one in each section. When the townships started filling up with settlers, they didn't always organize themselves along the surveyed township lines because things like rivers and lakes got in the way, so the political townships are not always congruent with the surveyed townships. The political townships have names, but the surveyed townships have numbers instead.
Each township has a supervisor, a clerk, a treasurer, a constable, and several trustees. This group is called the township board and meets once a month to discuss township business. The meetings are open to the public, but nobody goes there unless they have some concern they want the board to address. A few or our townships have their own zoning codes, but most of them let the county handle that. Each township is responsible for their own fire protection. If a township is too sparsely populated to support a fire department, they contract with another township to provide that service. All the township fire departments cooperate with each other and will respond to fires in support of another township if needed. The townships are also responsible for garbage disposal, but they don't pick it up for you. They used to have open pit dumps where people could bring their garbage, but now they have dumpsters that are hauled away by a private contractor when they are full. Many people contract with these same companies to pick up their garbage in front of their house, but the dumpster option remains open for people who don't want to do that.
It sounds like you were working for the Democratic Party rather than your city or township. If that's true, I'm surprised that they didn't require you to be a card carrying member. If you were working for a government agency, it seems you would need some kind of ID card but, like I said, maybe they do it differently in Illinois.
The marines are kind of like the army on steroids. If I didn't like the army, I don't think I would have liked the marines any better. My problem was not that the army wasn't military enough, it was that it operated by the rule of men instead of the rule of law. Of course there was the rule of law on paper but, in practice, it was all about the cult of the personality. Later in life I discovered that much of the rest of the world is like that too, and I didn't approve of that either.
Another mass shooting! I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to get desensitized to that stuff. Maybe it's the new normal. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure that it's not disarming the general population. If anything we need more gun toting citizens out there to take these lunatics out when they start shooting up the place.
Each township has a supervisor, a clerk, a treasurer, a constable, and several trustees. This group is called the township board and meets once a month to discuss township business. The meetings are open to the public, but nobody goes there unless they have some concern they want the board to address. A few or our townships have their own zoning codes, but most of them let the county handle that. Each township is responsible for their own fire protection. If a township is too sparsely populated to support a fire department, they contract with another township to provide that service. All the township fire departments cooperate with each other and will respond to fires in support of another township if needed. The townships are also responsible for garbage disposal, but they don't pick it up for you. They used to have open pit dumps where people could bring their garbage, but now they have dumpsters that are hauled away by a private contractor when they are full. Many people contract with these same companies to pick up their garbage in front of their house, but the dumpster option remains open for people who don't want to do that.
It sounds like you were working for the Democratic Party rather than your city or township. If that's true, I'm surprised that they didn't require you to be a card carrying member. If you were working for a government agency, it seems you would need some kind of ID card but, like I said, maybe they do it differently in Illinois.
The marines are kind of like the army on steroids. If I didn't like the army, I don't think I would have liked the marines any better. My problem was not that the army wasn't military enough, it was that it operated by the rule of men instead of the rule of law. Of course there was the rule of law on paper but, in practice, it was all about the cult of the personality. Later in life I discovered that much of the rest of the world is like that too, and I didn't approve of that either.
Another mass shooting! I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to get desensitized to that stuff. Maybe it's the new normal. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure that it's not disarming the general population. If anything we need more gun toting citizens out there to take these lunatics out when they start shooting up the place.
playing the committeeman card
In Illinois every ward has an alderman and is composed of many
precincts. Every precinct has a Democratic or Republican committeeman,
and I reckon when the 'Tarians! make a big showing this year there may
well be a 'Tarian! committeeman as well. I am hazy about townships. I
believe there are several within the city and some burbs may be
contained within a single township. I don't think anybody knows what
township they are in and it never is mentioned in the news. We have
districts, like park and school and whatever, and their borders don't
seem to be congruent with each other or with any other township or wards
or whatever.
I've heard that Illinois has more governing bodies than any other state, which does not make for good gummint, which we usually don't get. Around election time there is talk of doing something about it, but doing something about it means eliminating political positions so after the election none of the pols talk about it until the next election.
As the democratic committeeman I answered to the dems but I was elected in a general election and i guess if you were a popular guy you could become a committeeman even if the party was against you. I never got a card. I don't understand what I would have done with a card. Do you think I could have presented it at the tavern for a free beer?
My mistake about thinking you were a member of the tea party, as I often tell people. when I am not speaking my mind tends to wander, and I guess that extends to reading and writing. i do remember you declaring that you were fond of them, but maybe I am wrong in that too. I'm pretty sure that I never thought you were a member of any Trump organization.
Bernie is still running even though he can't possibly win. He has gone from being a charming madcap uncle to being a pain in the ass. There are still a lot of Berns who say they will never vote for th big girl, and if you spend much time on fb there is a postings war about it.
So Friday night I was talking about you to the guy on the next barstool, who I am going to call the Old Dog, because that's what it said on the card he handed me. Over many beers and many topics I have somehow introduced him to reading some of our posts, and the discussion was your experience with our armed forces.
What i told him was that you were in ROTC in high school and were a big fan of the army, but then when you got into it, you didn't like it so much because it was full of goofballs, and nobody seemed very committed to military ideals. Well then, said the Old Dog, downing a Jagermeister and washing it down with a gulp of Guinness, why didn't he get into the Marines? Well I didn't know, why didn't you?
Another mass shooting over the weekend. Do we blame guns or do we blame ISIS? It's been awhile since we argued guns. Oh I don't know, it seems like we could have the gun argument in our sleep. Let's see how we feel about it in the morning.
I've heard that Illinois has more governing bodies than any other state, which does not make for good gummint, which we usually don't get. Around election time there is talk of doing something about it, but doing something about it means eliminating political positions so after the election none of the pols talk about it until the next election.
As the democratic committeeman I answered to the dems but I was elected in a general election and i guess if you were a popular guy you could become a committeeman even if the party was against you. I never got a card. I don't understand what I would have done with a card. Do you think I could have presented it at the tavern for a free beer?
My mistake about thinking you were a member of the tea party, as I often tell people. when I am not speaking my mind tends to wander, and I guess that extends to reading and writing. i do remember you declaring that you were fond of them, but maybe I am wrong in that too. I'm pretty sure that I never thought you were a member of any Trump organization.
Bernie is still running even though he can't possibly win. He has gone from being a charming madcap uncle to being a pain in the ass. There are still a lot of Berns who say they will never vote for th big girl, and if you spend much time on fb there is a postings war about it.
So Friday night I was talking about you to the guy on the next barstool, who I am going to call the Old Dog, because that's what it said on the card he handed me. Over many beers and many topics I have somehow introduced him to reading some of our posts, and the discussion was your experience with our armed forces.
What i told him was that you were in ROTC in high school and were a big fan of the army, but then when you got into it, you didn't like it so much because it was full of goofballs, and nobody seemed very committed to military ideals. Well then, said the Old Dog, downing a Jagermeister and washing it down with a gulp of Guinness, why didn't he get into the Marines? Well I didn't know, why didn't you?
Another mass shooting over the weekend. Do we blame guns or do we blame ISIS? It's been awhile since we argued guns. Oh I don't know, it seems like we could have the gun argument in our sleep. Let's see how we feel about it in the morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)