Category: Do the Right Thing

Posted on

(Pseuo) Legitimizing Slavery

Ted Cruz on Drafting Women Into the Military: “We Ain’t Doing It…”

A military draft is in the new again, with some proposing extending raft “eligibility” to women. While this might seem fair (sauce for the goose, as it were), I demur. A nation that cannot survive with a volunteer military does not deserve to exist.

The draft is government-sponsored slavery. A modern military cannot function properly when staffed with slaves, and a slave military has no place in our Republic. Attempts previous to the 20th Century were struck down on constitutional grounds. Of course, that didn’t stop Mr. Lincoln, any more than the Constitution stopped him from other violations of individual rights.

Things were different when Wilson was putting political opponents in jail, and military slavery was given a wink and a nod for WWI. . . WWII? I have known many men of my dad’s generation. None of them who served _admitted_ to having been drafted, and I knew more than a few of my dad’s friends whom I know volunteered along with him–his whole dance band, for example, enlisted in the Navy en bloc.

I repeat: A nation that cannot survive with a volunteer military does not server to exist. The draft is simply wrong in a democratic republic.

OTOH, those who are unwilling to volunteer in time of war probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote, either. JMO, of course.

Posted on

Now Is the Time for All Good Men to Come to the Aid of Their Country

(And any doofus who objects to my use of the generic term, “men” to refer to “people” as “sexist” can eat my shorts.)

I’ve voted in every election I could get my hands on for the past 46 years, and even worked as a volunteer on a couple of campaigns when I was a young pup, full of piss and vinegar and hope and lofty ideals (though only for one Democrat who was a pretty good guy until he reached his level of greatest opportunity for the corruption of his expressed and demonstrated–to that point–ideals *sigh*). I’ve always tried to stay as plugged into local and state politics as possible, though not to the degree I will admit my Wonder Woman has (she once had a problem with an unresponsive state bureaucrap and lit a fire under the whole office with one speed dial call to our local state rep, a guy she’d done some committee work with. Problem solved by “remote control” in about an hour).

All that to say that I’ve had more than 50 years’ experience (you didn’t think I was twiddling my thumbs as a lad before I had my first chance to cast a ballot, did you? ;-)), trying to decipher politicians’ bullshit, buffoonery, balderdash, pontifications and outright lies. As a result, I’ve only cast two votes for candidates for office that, in hindsight, I truly regret. Oh, I have cast votes for snakes, crooks, dumbasses, inconsistent and self-contradictory weasels, and lesser sons of satan knowing full well what they were, but also knowing they were the lesser of evils on offer. *sigh* Not always, Deo gratis, but often enough to find discouragement with our political process a very nearly constant companion.

That’s pretty much how I view most of the candidates from the local level all the way to the national level, this year so far: snakes, crooks, dumbasses, inconsistent and self-contradictory weasels, and lesser sons of satan. Oh, there are some decent candidates, I’m sure, but do ANY of those “decent candidates” have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to remain decent once in office, or is their decency just a thin crop sown on shallow ground, unable to stand the temptations and pressures of power, however petty or great?

The duty of citizens is to gather all information possible about candidates, weigh concerns and then work for* and vote for the election of those they believe will do the best for the republic in whatever office the candidates of choice are running for.

*”work for” does not necessarily mean working directly for a candidate’s campaign. And, of course, one must balance time and resources and select a candidate (or candidates) one believes to be 1. running for an office that will impact the individual citizen’s priority concerns and 2. that the citizen voter feels he can make the biggest impact for with his time and effort.

Posted on

Prisoner Exchange in the Future?

So, backtracking Sean Penn’s movements during his clandestine meeting with “El Chapo” Guzman, infamous Mexican “drug lord,” led Mexican authorities to finally REcapture Guzman. Again. Now, Mexican law enforcement is investigating/mulling over the criminality of Penn’s acts.

But wait! There’s more!

The U.S. has filed an extradition request with Mexico for Guzman to stand trial for crimes committed in the U.S. And Mexico has already said the request meets the requirements of the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Mexico. Oh, why not? Mexico can’t seem to keep Guzman in prison (he’s escaped, what, three times?). Maybe the U.S. can.

But wait! There’s more!

Remember? Mexico ? investigating Penn’s acts? Imagine a prisoner swap: Guzman for Penn. Mexico trades a murderous head of a drug cartel for Sean Penn (’nuff said). We win that exchange.

As even ESPN Podperson, Dan Szymborski, notes, “Only Sean Penn can interview a murdering drug kingpin and somehow come off looking like the douchebag of the piece.”

Posted on

After the Vigorous Attempts to Upsell, I Ought to Have Expected This

Bait and switch at the vet. Asked in advance what all the charges would be for some procedures. Asked specifically about meds, any additional recommended vaccines, etc. Came time to pay out and it was about 12% more. . . for charges not previously specified and agreed to. Irritating, but not worth hassling about, I suppose. Not a pleased puppy, though. If it were a mechanic, I’d have tried to negotiate a bit and if that didn’t work, I’d probably have burned my bridges and let ’em know they’d lost my future business and that of anyone I could influence. For my Wonder Woman’s cat? *sigh* No. But I will be on the lookout to change vets.

Posted on

Fundamentals: Ethics v. Morality

“The ethical man knows it is not right to cheat on his wife; the moral man will not.”~Ducky Mallard

Parenthetically, I’d say remaining faithful to one’s wife is easier when one loves her and is convinced God has definitely joined one with one’s wife. Nearly four decades with my Wonder Woman has deepened my understanding of her beauty and irreplaceability.

Posted on

Just One More Reason to Deplore the “New Truckers’ Version”

I’ve seen a few citations of John 3:16, as mistranslated by the “New Truckers’ Version” (NIV), in the run-up to Xmas:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I deplore the “New Truckers’ Version” (NIV) in part because of rather gross mistranslation like this. My only gripe with this is that “monogenes” does NOT mean “one and only son” but “only begotten son”. The two are rather profoundly different.

“One and only” is easily impeached by other scriptural passages, even without simply translating “monogenes” correctly. Adam is called a son of God; Israel is called sons of God, Jesus calls peacemakers sons of God; the resurrected, those who have faith in Christ, etc.: all “sons of God” according to scripture. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God: unique, no other like Him.

Yes, I know more and more commonly illiterate folks nowadays might stumble on “begotten,” but that’s just another reason for Xians to be more literate, so we can explain things like the virgin birth, the miracle of the Incarnation.

Or heck, give ’em a dictionary.

Posted on

Yet Another Uncontroversial “Controversy”

Clip vs. Magazine: In personal conversations–either IRW or via social media/forums, etc.–I simply explain the differences when someone misuses “clip” when referring to a magazine. When it’s misused by someone who is or expects to be paid for their writing, I excoriate such morons for not doing their homework. Such misuse in print by people being paid (or expecting to be paid) for their poor work ethic is reprehensible.

For reference, here is one type of clip–there are many–and one type of magazine (in this case, a stripper clip for [likely] a semi-automatic rifle with an internal magazine, and an external magazine for a semi-automatic or select fire rifle):

glossary_clip-vs-magazine_01-300x264

Of course, magazines for pistols and moon clips (and half-moon clips) for revolvers look a bit different to the pics above, but the differences between clips and magazines are so very clear and simple that writers who expect to be paid (or who have accepted pay) for writing articles or books who misuse “clip” to refer to a magazine are disgusting, lazy slugs who disrespect their readers with their poor work ethic.

Ah, I really should have just linked this and let it go, I suppose. *sigh* Lazy, subliterate, disrespectful frauds pretending to be writers wouldn’t care, anyway, and ordinary folks who simply want to know would just click on through and. . . learn.

“Hickock45” does a great job (as always) explaining the terms:

Posted on

The Tueller Principle and the Umpqua Community College Social Darwinism Experiment

NOTE: This is almost all speculative, just wool-gathering.

Having a sidearm on one’s person (CCW or Open Carry) does not necessarily imply competence in self-defense. It may be an indicator of the possibility of competence, but as numerous supposedly capable law enFARCEment ossifers have demonstrated over just the past few years, it’s not dispositive.

Many factors determine self-defense competence: proper practice (in two meanings of “practice” *heh*), attitude, situational awareness, physical limitations–both personal and situational. The one true First Responder in the Umpqua Community College Social Darwinism Experiment was unarmed, save for his own body and mind. Did he throw a chair or desk at the attacker in preparation for his own physical attack? So far, no one has said. Did he even have a knife on his person? Apparently not.

Do note: the general “21-foot rule” on knife attacks would not have directly applied here. It was “clinically-established” in casual experimentation 30-some-odd years ago with a specific set of restricted parameters: trained law enforcement officers with firearm holstered were consistently unable to effectively engage an attacker armed with a (mock) knife before being “stabbed” if the attacker was within 21 (or variously, 22) feet. Simulated wounds received by the officers ranged from debilitating to deadly.

Of course, this demonstration did not just use officers who were supposedly trained in the use of their firearms and regs on the use of deadly force but a trained “attacker” as well. Had the former Army guy who was the real First Responder been trained in responding to an armed attacker, even though unarmed, things might have turned out a little different. Had he thrown one or more objects that could cause real harm to the attacker, things might have been different.

Do note that I greatly admire the courage and determination displayed. But it still, at least partially, came down to proper practice, attitude (OUTSTANDING!), situational awareness (?), and physical limitations–both personal and situational (particularly: he had already been targeted when he decided to act; he apparently didn’t even have a knife on his person).