Sunday, February 25, 2018

School Safety Ideas

A friend shared the info below over on FB.  I don't know the guy who posted this from Adam, but it seems pretty spot on to me.  This is just one part of figuring out how to not only work toward minimizing the chance of future mass murders on campus, but also some very good steps to take to improve our culture.
Arguing about guns is getting tiresome. The same impossible-to-implement gun control ideas are trotted out after every shooting with a fixation on the scary objects.
Few of you on my friends list know I dedicated years of my life right after college to a program born out of Columbine that's the most effective at reducing school shooting tragedies and that I've traveled the country visit to middle schools and high schools in 30+ states speaking and doing work to make schools safer. I am an expert on this school safety topic and also somewhat of an expert on guns as they're a big part of my life from also working in the hunting/outdoor industry for years and being a CCW holder, and well-trained gun owner and dedicated sportsman and shooter.
And I am friends with the top experts doing the best work in schools to make them safer, several of which were at the White House this week.
If anyone wants to talk actual solutions to make our children safer and school shootings less frequent, here's my suggestions on things that will actually work:
School Safety Ideas Nobody Wants to Talk About 
  1. Fatherlessness needs to be addressed. Kids need dads- most shooters don't have an involved dad. Can we connect boys without fathers to father-figure mentors? This is also a theme in the inner-city, less-publicized, yet more-frequent gun crimes in minority communities.
  2. Adults need to be held accountable. The Parkland shooting last week is 'Exhibit A' on that. Dozens of adults at the school, local law enforcement agencies, and even the FBI knew about this kid and what he said he was going to do. Another adult, the SRO on duty, could have stopped it while it was happening but never went in. How many adults around this situation will be charged with crimes like negligence or manslaughter for their blatant failures? My guess is zero. How many will lose their jobs? My guess is zero. Nobody does anything because you risk nothing by doing nothing and get in trouble if you take a proactive approach and try to do address things before the blood is spilled. This is up and down our education and law enforcement systems.
  3. Boys need safe environments to fight and let out their physical aggression. Young men involved in physically violent sports like football, wrestling, karate, etc. typically do not become mass murderers. I feel like our present culture is trying to take the fight out of our boys, but it's still hard-wired into them. Where no healthy outlets for this natural aggression exist, unhealthy ones will take their place. We need to stop shaming our boys and applying negative labels to boys that have a strong urge to fight. We need to guide and encourage them to find a healthy outlet, not tell them they're broken or bad.
  4. The role of pharmaceutical drugs in mass shootings needs to be thoroughly investigated. It's too common of a theme to be ignored as a potential factor. Too many of our kids are getting drugged up instead of getting the care they really need. Right on the labels of these mood-altering drugs are side effects like "Hallucinations- loss of contact with reality." and "Suicidal thoughts." Yet we don't immediately ask about the prescriptions these kids are on, instead focusing on what kind of gun they used.
  5. Training kids to huddle together as stationary targets on the ground, HAS TO STOP. It's stupid and getting our kids killed in greater numbers during these events. If they can't get in a secured room separated from the shooter, they need to run or fight, period. Get out the window or tackle the shooter etc are all way better things to teach. There are great programs to better train our kids on how to react to this threat.
  6. Empower and encourage teachers and school administrators to have a plan, have the support of the district, and secure their classrooms the way they're comfortable with. Too many wonderful teachers with hearts of lions for protecting their kids are fearful bringing up their desires to their bosses whom will point to policy and liability concerns over common-sense solutions the teacher needs and wants. Teachers, if you don't get the support you need, do what you need to do anyways quietly. Damn the system. Keep our kids safe. There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer here, but all kinds of things could help like: ways to block/harden doors, weapons (gun or non-gun) to have a fighting chance if a shooter makes it through the door, and additional escape options like rope ladders for 2nd story windows teachers can deploy, etc. We can't have a cop everywhere and even if we do, there's no guarantee they won't be taking their sweet time outside like the Parkland SRO did while your class is in the crosshairs. Teachers are right there and the first line of defense and they need to think about it and take it seriously and not get in trouble if they do.
  7. Finally, and most importantly, we need to improve the culture of our nation and our schools.  We need to value human life highly. We need love. We need kindness. We need compassion. We need to look for the kids that are becoming isolated and need help and go help them. We need more than just anger at what's wrong, we need to celebrate the good stories and champions of kindness. Kids that care for one another don't kill each other. We need to touch the hearts of kids and train them up in morality and virtue- not just pack their heads full of information. This is exactly what we focused on when I worked for Rachel's Challenge, one of the top anti-violence programs in the country, and we saw tons of lives saved by changing the culture of schools from the inside out. (would-be-shooters with kill lists turning themselves in, gang members laying down their colors, suicides planned for that night canceled, etc.) Invite them to your school as a great way to start this cultural transformation.

Motivation Monday


Saturday, February 24, 2018

Repealing the 2nd Amendment

I thought that would get your attention.  One of the finest people I've ever known was a Priest at our parish when we joined the church about 20 years ago.  He is wise, smart, pragmatic, and tough.  All characteristics I admire greatly.  He subsequently moved on to other places and has recently retired in Arizona.  The interesting thing about him is that he was born and raised in New York, became a lawyer and practiced there for several years before turning to the Priesthood.  So his perspective on life is a bit different from your average clergy.

He has continued to keep in touch with several of us and forwards sermons and writings occasionally that might of interest.  I got one today and its a doozy!  I'm going to copy it in it's entirety below.  So depending on where you sit, either your head will explode if you're among those who will give up your guns when "they are pried from your cold, dead hands" or you will nod smugly and offer sanctimonious agreement if you are a progressive who wonders naively why "we can't all just get along".  Or you might be like a lot of people, me included, who are frustrated and sickened by the spate of mass murders that our country has suffered in the last several years.  You might have never considered this as even a remote possibility but are at your wits end and know something needs to be done.  You might look at our leaders of all stripes and realize that the vast majority don't have the fortitude or vision to accomplish anything substantive to change the dynamic. Or you might just be at the point of saying, enough is enough.

Let me say up front that I don't subscribe to this solution.  And I think that if it had a remote chance of happening, it's a long way off and would require some specific circumstances to see the light of day.  More on that later.  But I do think of the three solutions he offers, the second one has merit.  As a long time Constitutionalist I have always believed in our inalienable rights guaranteed by that precious document.  The right to keep and bear arms seems as fundamental as free speech or freedom of religion.  And we don't repeal any of the amendments, especially ones in the Bill of Rights, lightly.  It's a very, very steep hill to climb.  But I wonder.  Like other things that we've seen evolve, are we at a tipping point?

Over the last ten days I've seen the unending opinions and debates in the news and on social media.  The thing that strikes me is that everyone, literally everyone, seems to have the definitive right solution.  Whether it's ban guns, fix the mental health system, arm teachers, harden schools, or whatever, most commentators are hard and fast regarding the right solution.  There doesn't seem to be much intelligent or pragmatic discussion.  It's all emotion.  Whataboutism runs rampant.  Memes rule the day.  And I think that's true to some extent in legislative bodies and executive mansions in Washington DC and state capitals around the country.  Maybe it's because it's too soon and too raw, but I don't think so.  I think we've become a polarized country invested in our own opinions with not much ability to achieve consensus.

Now don't get me wrong.  I've got plenty of opinions.  If you've read this blog at all you're well aware of that.  Sometimes to a fault.  But I like to think I'm at least willing to listen.  I don't see much of that these days.  My fundamental opinion on this whole issue is that it's a complex problem and will require complex solutions.  What occurs with guns is only a part of the solution set.  But to get to a solution set, people have to be able to talk.  That seems to be a rare commodity these days.

In reality I don't see any way that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is in the cards.  Anytime soon that is.  However, there are a couple of things that could swing the pendulum in the other direction.  If the carnage continues, more and more people are going to reach a point in which the demand for action will outweigh the concern for gun rights.  If you read the essay below, you'll see a rationale that is compelling for someone looking to end the senseless loss of life.  And as we see with every generation, attitudes shift.  Not to stereotype too much and there are always exceptions, but the young people I see these days below the millenial generation have a way different attitude about so many things that have been a given for my entire life.  That's not bad...it's just the way it is.  The influencers, the technology, the shinking world, the relationships they experience, the world that they see is different.  And I don't think accepting mass murders as one of the costs of living in the USA may not be something they are willing to tolerate.

What do I get from this latest mass murder event and the public's reaction?  One thing is that the 2nd Amendment is coming under fire like never before.  If our leaders and our population had the ability to discuss and compromise, perhaps we could come up with some solutions to restrict availability of the most dangerous weapons out there, develop a better tracking and registration system, and have minimal impact on a right that so many see as fundamental.  But I just don't see any ability to do that.

So I end with where I began.  If your head is exploding, don't say I didn't warn you.  If you think you're smugly right in wanting to ban guns, be careful what you're asking for.  You might think that the reaction of some of your fellow Americans regarding possessing a weapon as protection from tyranny is far-fetched.  There are plenty of examples where it's not.

What to Do about the Second Amendment?
The list of school shootings in the United States is sad, tragic and heartbreaking. Among the most noteworthy in recent years:
February 14, 2018 – Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida – 17 dead.
January 23, 2018 – Marshall City High School, Marshall County, Kentucky – 2 dead.
December 7, 2017 – Aztec High School, Aztec, New Mexico – 3 dead.
November 14, 2017 – The elementary school at Rancho Tehanna Reserve, California – 6 dead.
September 13, 2017 – Freeman High School, Rockford, Washington – 1 dead.
April 10, 2017 – North Park Elementary School, San Bernardino, CA – 3 dead.
December 14, 2012 – Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut – 28 dead.
There are many more school shootings where no one died, but whose victims suffered excruciating wounds and lifelong physical and emotional scars. And, of course, I have not mentioned the many horrific shootings that took place in locales other than schools: the October 1, 2017 Las Vegas shooting with 58 dead, the June 12, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting with 49 dead, the December 2, 2015 San Bernardino, California Regional Center shooting with 14 dead, the April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech shooting with 32 dead, the July 18, 1984 San Ysidro, California McDonald’s massacre with 21 dead, or the August 1, 1966 University of Texas tower shooting with 14 dead. And, of course, there are many more.
And then, there is the daily gun violence on the streets of cities like Chicago and Baltimore, or the thousands of people each year who use a gun to commit suicide. In 2013, for example, there were 33,636 deaths due to firearms – 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, and 505 deaths due to accident or negligence in the discharging of a firearm. The numbers are mindboggling.
The Debate on the Meaning of the Second Amendment
So why does a country as innovative, creative and vital as the United States tolerate such rampant gun violence? What is it about the United States that sanctions firearms to an extent that no other civilized nation in the world would allow? While there are no doubt many answers to these questions, the principle culprit, I suggest, is the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution. 
The wording of the Second Amendment is innocuous enough. It simply states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Oddly enough, there were no Second Amendment Supreme Court cases before the first part of the 20th century. The first major Supreme Court case was United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which answered the question whether the Second Amendment restricts the government’s ability to regulate the private possession of firearms. The answer of the Court: No! The Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Acts of 1934, allowed a ban on machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. Certain types of deadly weapons, the Court ruled, could be restricted and even banned by the government.
With Miller, the United States should have been able to enact reasonable gun control legislation to insure the safety and protection of the public. After all, if machine guns could be banned, then why not any assault or rapid-fire weapons? 
However, since Miller there has been an alternative interpretation that maintains the Second Amendment protection of an individual right to a firearm is inherent in the concept of ordered liberty. No organization has been more staunchly unyielding in pushing this interpretation of the Second Amendment upon the nation than the National Rifle Association.  
Every time there is a shooting of innocents, whether of school children or adults, the National Rifle Association proclaims, “Don’t you dare take away our Second Amendment right to possess the firearm of our choice! We have a right to our guns!” For the NRA, the right to possess a firearm is a fundamental right, as fundamental as any in the Constitution. 
The argument of the NRA is that the Framers of the Second Amendment intended for every citizen to have the right to own guns, free from interference by the federal government. Any attempt to pass gun control laws limiting the right to own and possess firearms would have been seen by the Framers as violating the Amendment. This essentially libertarian argument insists that to keep and bear arms is akin to the First Amendment right to free speech – a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy, the infringement of which is tyrannical. 
On the United States Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas is the most vociferous advocate for this position, beginning with his concurring opinion in Prinz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938 (1997).
To understand the logic of the NRA and gun proponents such as Justice Thomas, consider the case of Silvester v. Becerra (February 20, 2018) in which the Supreme Court denied certiorari (refused to hear the case) of a challenge to a California law that imposed a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases. In his dissent of the refusal to hear the case, Justice Thomas argued that the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” in the Supreme Court, and that had another right been so “cavalierly” treated, the Court would have undoubtedly intervened. “If this case involved one of the court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari,” Thomas said. “I suspect that four members of this court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding a state’s purported interest in creating a ‘cooling off’ period.” 
Notice that Justice Thomas equates the right to an abortion with the right to possess a firearm. For gun advocates, there is no difference. Any restriction on the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm demands the strictest scrutiny by the Court, just as in First Amendment cases.
So which position is historically and legally correct? Is it the position of Miller and subsequent advocates for reasonable gun control to promote and protect the public safety, or the position of the NRA and Justice
The Legal and Historical Background to the Second Amendment
No argument for a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment has been more persuasive or well-reasoned than that given by Professor David Yassky of Brooklyn Law School whose article, “The Second Amendment: Structure, History, and Constitutional Change” 99 Michigan Law Review 588 (2000) makes the case that the Civil War and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution made the Second Amendment obsolete.
Let me briefly summarize Professor Yassky’s article. For any who would like to read the entire article, go to google scholar, type in the author and article, and then download a PDF version. 
To understand the Second Amendment, one must first understand the separation of powers that is at the heart of our constitutional form of government. Just as the Constitution mandated three separate but equal branches of government to insure a system of checks and balances, so the Framers wanted to insure that the federal government was not so powerful that it could usurp the power of the states through military intervention. If, for example, the federal government required a standing army, then the way to check the power of that army would be by state militias.
The right to keep and bear arms was crucial to the Framers of the Constitution. But not for the reasons we may think today. The Framers envisioned state militias as a supplement (and a check) to a federal standing army. They believed that such an army posed a threat of both tyranny and military adventurism. They wanted to avoid both. 
The threat of tyranny was the fear that a federal army under the President as Commander in Chief could threaten or usurp the power of the states. The fear of military adventurism was that a President with or without the support of Congress could plunge the nation into military actions around the world. To prevent both tyranny and adventurism, state militias composed of citizen soldiers would act as a counterbalance to any Federal army. Militias could supplement or reinforce the Federal army in case of foreign threat, but also act as a check on any federal intervention that threatened states jurisdiction.    
At the time that the Constitution was written, the nation was bitterly divided over the role and even the existence of a Federal army. One anti-Federalist pamphlet stated, “A standing army…may be the most fatal instrument to public liberties.” Those who did not want the Federal government to have an army argued that it would be expensive to maintain, tempt our leaders to go to war, and threaten the legitimate jurisdiction of the states. 
Against this view was George Washington who wrote that state militias composed of untrained civilians would not insure the safety and security of the nation against foreign enemies. “To place any dependence upon Militias is assuredly, as resting upon a broken staff.” In Washington’s judgment, military preparedness required a standing army. 
The solution as written in the Second Amendment was to have state militias as both alternative and counterweight to a national army. The militias would be under the Governors of the states and the national army under the President as Commander in Chief.   
The Second Amendment is thus primarily about the allocation of military power. Should the federal government have an army or should it rely on state militias? Clearly, some kind of federal army was needed – full-time professional military soldiers – but it was to be complemented, and even checked, by state militias composed of part-time citizen soldiers. 
When Patrick Henry, the Governor of Virginia and a strong supporter of states’ rights said, “The great object is, that every man be armed,” he did not mean this as a matter of individual liberty but in defense of the states against any federal threat or intrusion to their jurisdictions. His was the view that disbursed rather than centralized authority was most consistent with a government of checks and balances. 
In the end, democracy wanted a militia but national security demanded an army. The Second Amendment was designed to alleviate state concerns about an all-powerful federal government intruding on the rights of the states by having state militias complement a federal army. In this scenario, it was presumed that every citizen was a soldier who would fight in the state militia if summoned and called by the Governor of the state.   
However, this balance between federal and state power enshrined in the Second Amendment proved problematic. During the War of 1812, several governors refused to mobilize their state militias in support of the war against the British. Already there was tension between federal and state control of the military.
During the Civil War, the Second Amendment proved completely counterproductive to its original purpose. When the southern states seceded from the Union, the Governors of the secessionist states mobilized their state militias to fight against the federal army in what became a bloody Civil War that resulted in over 600,000 dead. As the war progressed with thousands dying on the battlefield and in field hospitals from their wounds, President Lincoln required more troops to serve in the army. Unable to recruit sufficient volunteers, Congress passed the Conscription Act of 1863 that initiated the first federal military draft. The federal army would now come from draftees and not state militias. In fact, there was now no need for state militias since the federal government assumed the responsibility of mobilizing its citizens for war. 
The 14th Amendment legitimized conscription because it affirmed that a “citizen” was a citizen of the United States and not of any particular state. The idea of having a firearm so one could be part of a state militia no longer made any sense – in fact, the Second Amendment itself was now made obsolete. Whatever the legitimate purpose in having a Second Amendment was now bypassed by the 14th Amendment in which all citizens were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 
The Future of the Second Amendment
Throughout the period from 1787 to 1866, the debate on the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the right of an individual to possess a firearm. The purpose was to maintain state militias as a supplement or complement to the federal army. That purpose collapsed during the Civil War with the Conscription Act of 1863 and the subsequent legitimizing of the draft with the 14th Amendment. 
Interestingly, there was never any court challenge to the federal draft until World War I. In the Selected Draft Law Cases 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court affirmed that the 14th Amendment legitimized conscription. Along with United States v. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court completely gutted the Second Amendment into oblivion. 
And yet, the Second Amendment refused to die. Through a revisionist historical interpretation and the influence of the NRA, proponents now argue that the deadlier the firearm is, the more likely it is to be constitutionally protected. An AR-15, for example, may be a terrifying weapon that can inflict enormous damage and cost many lives, but they claim that banning such a weapon would infringe upon a protected Second Amendment right. 
I have argued, as did Professor Yassky, that there is no such right intended in the Second Amendment.  The Amendment was a matter of states’ rights, not individual autonomy. There is no “ordered liberty” to possess a firearm, only the common good to come to the defense of one’s state and country.   
Professor Yassky acknowledges (even before the mass shootings in the 21st century) that most of us reading the Second Amendment as support for a libertarian view of firearms would find the Founders’ view hopelessly anachronistic, and the modern tendency to regulate and even ban certain types of firearms intuitively correct. 
There is something inherently repulsive and deeply threatening about allowing almost any type of firearms to be possessed by almost any type of individuals with only a minimal if any background check. 
Three Alternatives
So how do we deal with the proliferation of guns in our society today? One answer, according to the NRA, is to respond to gun violence with more guns – in the hands of teachers, school guards and every law-abiding citizen in the United States. You meet the threat of guns with more guns – that’s the logic of the NRA and its supporters – and that logic is killing America.
If we apply the logic of the NRA to our schools, then each school would be transformed into a prison. Students and teachers would pass through metal detectors and armed guards would patrol the hallways on the look-out for would-be shooters who somehow managed to sneak on campus. Teachers with concealed hand guns would be prepared to “take down” any culprit. In a shoot-out, perhaps some innocent people would be shot and even killed in the crossfire, but that is the price to be paid for living in a gun culture – and the collateral damage that comes with it.   
This is a horrific scenario and it is startling that even some of our political leaders seem to be accepting of it. 
Another response is to work for reasonable gun control legislation that regulates the purchase and possession of firearms, and restricts the type of firearms that are allowed to be possessed by any civilian. Progress in this area is uneven and faces enormous resistance from diehard gun advocates, but perhaps recent tragedies have shocked the consciences of enough Americans to take meaningful action to restrict gun use and ban certain types of firearms. 
On November 27, 2017, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear challenges to gun restrictions in Florida and Maryland. The Court left in place decisions upholding an assault-weapons ban in Maryland and an open-carry ban in Florida. 
In the Maryland case of Kolbe v. Hogan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals left in place a ban on semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines. The Court stated that states could ban any weapon that is “most commonly used in military service.” 
In Norman v. Florida, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a state law that banned carrying guns that are not concealed. Dale Lee Norman challenged the law after he was arrested for walking on a sidewalk with a holstered handgun. Sadly, the case did nothing to prevent the recent school massacre in Parkland, Florida. And, in any case, it is hard to know which is worse – having a concealed weapon or one in open-carry.  
A third alternative – one that I espouse – is the outright repeal of the Second Amendment. Yes, I know the difficulty of repealing an Amendment to the Constitution, but it can be done because it has been done before when Congress and the States repealed Prohibition. The 18th Amendment in 1919 was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933 with one sentence: “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.” That same language could be used to repeal the Second Amendment. 
Once the Second Amendment is repealed, the ownership and possession of a firearm would go from being a “right” to a “privilege” – much like driving a car is not a right but a privilege. To drive a car, a person must meet the proper qualifications: pass written and road tests, have a background check, and be of the required age without any medical condition that would prevent one from driving. 
So, why not have the same procedure with a firearm? Why not license people to have a firearm just as we license people to drive cars? Just as you would need a specialized license to operate a commercial vehicle, so one would need a specialized license for certain types of firearms. And just as certain types of vehicles are not permitted to be driven by civilians – tanks, for example – so certain types of firearms – assault and rapid-fire weapons – would not be permitted for civilian use.  Cars can kill people, which is why we license and regulate drivers and vehicles. Shouldn’t we do the same with firearms? 
I believe the time has come in America to repeal the Second Amendment and treat owning a firearm as we would driving a car – moving from “right” to “privilege” and restricting the type of firearms that can be appropriately used in civilian life. This makes eminent sense, but with firearms good sense doesn’t always seem to matter. 

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Dogs Are Cool!

But while the dog is relaxing and having some fun, make no mistake...the damn cat is plotting his revenge!


Friday, February 16, 2018

The Shooting

I'm weary.  It happens too much.  I'm not going to write much because so many others have.  So many think there are easy solutions.  When something like this happens the so-called experts come out of the woodwork.  Ban guns!  Fund more mental health care!  Get rid of "assault rifles".  Open more institutions.  The NRA is responsible.  Ban high capacity magazines.  Parents have failed their children and are not fulfilling their parental responsibilities.  Trumps fault.  Obama's fault.  Bush's fault.  Ban bump stops.  Get rid of concealed carry.  That creates a violent society.  Baby boomers have created a lax society so what do you expect? Teachers are given no respect.  Violent TV and movies have created a violent society.  Death means nothing to some of these kids.  Ban violent TV.  Kids are allowed to run free.  Prosecute parents for the sins of the children.  Ban violent video games.  Ban video games.  Social media is at fault.  Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and all the others have fomented the problem.  Ban them all.  Anyone can buy a gun.  Ban gun stores.  Ban gun shows.  Create a gun turn in program.  Ban handguns.  Tobacco is the country's biggest killer.  Ban that.  Mental illness is a national tragedy.  If you see something, say something.  If you don't, it's your fault.  Climate change is going to kill millions so we need to focus more on that.  It's Congress' fault.  Those lowlife's can't do anything.  Vote them all out.  Enact term limits.  It's the FBI's fault.  They know who the nuts are and won't do anything.  Give more power and money to localities to attack the problem.  Toughen the requirements to buy a gun, even though they are already tough.  Create a national gun registry, even though there already is one.  Abortion kills far more people than guns, so don't talk about guns until you talk about abortion.  Same with drunk driving.  Put our energies into stopping people from driving while drunk.  Turn to God for solutions.  Forget appealing to God.  Seek logical solutions.  This doesn't happen in other countries.  Become like Australia, Norway, Singapore, Japan, etc, etc, etc.  Arm teachers.  Put an armed guard in every school.  Lock down every school.  Give teachers concealed carry ability.  Schools need to be free and open.  Put up signs creating a "gun-free zone".  Have a memorial service and send "thoughts and prayers".  Deluge the site with flowers and candles to show we care.  Have politicians offer condolences.  Blah, blah, blah.

Meanwhile, 17 families in Florida will never be the same.  17 young lives snuffed out.  I can't even imagine.  And the kids, teachers, first responders, government representatives, and really everyone in Parkland, FL will never be the same.  And that's true for Columbine, Sandy Hook, Sutherland, and so many others.

It's a difficult subject to even discuss because of two things.  Passion and misinformation.  The statistics are powerful, convincing and mindboggling on both sides.  The memes resonate.  Each side doesn't even want to listen to the other.  After the loss of life, and especially young life, people want to "do something".  But read or listen to people discussing this issue.  There are very few in the middle.  Most 2nd Amendment zealots won't even discuss further controls.  They say we've already gone too far.  And their arguments have some validity.  There are very few gun ban advocates who will even discuss a compromise.  They want them all gone.   But frequently many of those people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to guns.  There's a pretty good article on this issue here.  And once again, it's from a position of passion, from caring, from pain.  And their arguments have some validity.    

So we seem to remain in a weird sort of purgatory where nothing gets done and we are doomed to suffer these horrible incidents over and over and over...  And not only is it a national tragedy, but it's a national embarrassment.  

So what do we do?  I wish I knew...  

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Friday Funnies

No Friday Funnies this week.  Somehow I'm not in the laughing mood.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Let's Have a Parade!

President Trump is just radioactive for some folks.  He cannot say anything without raising the ire of a certain segment of the population.  It's really pretty sad and is getting very tiresome.  It seems that almost every day there is something else that causes a certain segment of the population to go apoplectic.  As I've previously written, He wasn’t my guy but he’s now my President.  I get that some are opposed to him.  And that's as it should be.  But the blind resistance that results in paralysis is  just not good for any of us.   One of the latest things is that in the last week he has made the comment that he'd like to have a military parade.  This idea has met with resistance from many quarters.  The usual suspects are mightily against it, but some who you wouldn't expect to raise objections are doing just that.


Here's the back story (at least how I see it).  Trump went to military school as a young man.  He credits that experience for instilling a lot of traits that he has carried through his life.  Discipline, a certain dedication to a regimen (he doesn't drink or smoke), an appreciation for order, an appreciation for the military, and an admiration for people who step up to the call.  Since becoming President there can be no denying his admiration for the military.  He has been to bases and ships and has had interactions with all kinds of military people.  He has picked for a Secretary of Defense someone who is widely admired in the military.  Last summer he felt honored to be invited to France to witness their Bastille Day parade, which is a glorious site. As the military units march down the Champs D'Elysee to the Arc de Triomphe there is a majesty to it.  The feeling of pride is unmistakable.  There are similar parades in the UK but they are more situational.  The Queen's Jubilee or a Royal Marriage can bring out the best in them.  For my money, the Brits are the best at pomp and ceremony, but the French do it pretty well also.  And there are others.
The point is, military parades are pretty recognized as providing the populations with a chance to admire and thank their military men and women who have stepped up to service, give the military a real sense of pride, show the population what their tax dollars are going toward, and show the world what we can bring to the fight, both from a hardware and personnel perspective.




So I think Trump thought, let's have a parade.  After all, we haven't had one since 1991 after Desert Storm.  The country has been at war for 17 years and the military has done a great job in keeping us safe.  Or at least the very small portion of the population that has served has done that.  So let's acknowledge that.

But...as we see with almost everything that Trump tries to do, the first reaction is for the resistance to resist.  They don't want us to look like a Communist country that routinely parades their hardware in military parades while their people starve.  Of course, many of these same people support Bernie Sanders who would take us down the road to Communism.  Or they think it would be too expensive citing all kinds of stats on how much it would cost.  Of course, these stats might as well be pulled out of the air because this kind of thing could be measured in all sorts of ways.  Or they say let's spend the money on our homeless vets citing the need for housing for them.  Of course, in the course of their everyday comings and goings, they don't give a shit about homeless vets.  And never will.  And they don't or won't see that in an economy of trillions of dollars if we wanted to solve the homeless vets problem, we'd do it.  We'd elect people who would fix it.  And they'd never acknowledge that under Trump the VA has improved tremendously.  Or if they do acknowledge it, they'd say that Obama really started it.  So there are a ton of people who oppose it just to oppose it because Trump wants to do it and that's just the way it is.

The surprising thing to me is all the retired and active military folks I see opposing it.  I assume they've been a part of parades in their lives.  Is it a hassle?  Generally.  But it also (at least for me) sparks a real pride.  Pride in country.  Pride in service.  Pride in fellow shipmates.  Etc.  So I don't see the big reason to not do it.  Oh, I understand that we probably shouldn't have a big emphasis on rolling tanks and missiles and other bit hardware down Pennsylvania Avenue.  That's not us.  But a good old fashioned parade of people and bands and some cool equipment accompanied by an impressive flyover would, at least for me, be great.  I think it should be coupled with some significant holiday and the logical ones are July 4, Memorial Day or Veteran's Day.  I think any of those would work.

Secretary Mattis has said that they are sending over some options for the WH to consider.  I trust Mattis to provide options that are reasonable and would be impressive.  I hope my fellow citizens will take a breath, realize a couple things.  Rather than ascribe the worst possible motive to the President's idea to have a military parade, see it for what it is.  An attempt to thank those in uniform, to acknowledge their sacrifice and our indebtedness to them, and a hope that it might bring people together and result in a renewed pride in the country.  Quit counting all the things wrong with it and see the things right with it.  Give up looking for all the little reasons why it's a bad idea when in reality they just don't like Trump and it was his idea.  Stop being a cynic.  The best definition of a cynic I've heard is that it's someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.  We have way too many cynics these days throwing up roadblocks and denigrating everything that someone that they don't agree with proposes.  A popular watchword these days is diversity and I'm all for it.  But I'm more for unity.  We can be hugely diverse, but if we're not unified we're doomed.  Because that's what makes us who we are.  

Dueling Memos

Last week I had a post about the memo that the Republican's authored and came out of the House Intelligence Committee.  In a nutshell, it succinctly told the story of the Democrats funding some opposition research from a shady character who made a lot of stuff up, the FBI got ahold of it and then used it as a part of the justification for spying on a member of the Trump campaign.  That member is a U.S. Citizen.  Pretty shoddy.  You can read more as well as the memo here.  

So inevitably the Dems launched their own memo.  When the Republican memo surfaced, every Dem voted against releasing it.  But here every Republican voted to release it.  Of course, that fact got glossed over by our stellar, inquisitive journalist corps.  So they followed procedure and sent it up the White House for release.  And in what is probably the least surprising thing in history, the WH sent it back and said to take out some stuff, and redact some stuff, and change a few things.  In case you have any doubt, this was hugely predictable.  What was also hugely predictable is that the Dems are now crying hypocrisy.  It really is sort of beyond belief that they can be so stupid.  I mean, that was obviously their intention all along.  So their memo hasn't been released.  But you can take this to the bank.  It will not be of substance.  I'm not sure what they'll say but there are two undeniable facts.  The Republican memo uncovers serious wrongdoing by the Dems and Hillary's campaign that can't be explained away.  Secondly, there is no reasonable excuse that will make this outrageous behavior okay.  Simple as that.


Motivation Monday

This is one of the best things I've seen in a long time.  It's all simple, but very powerful.  The last two items say it all...


Thursday, February 8, 2018

Friday Funnies

I think I've seen this weather report more than once this Winter...


Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Guys Will Get This...



Dating

It's been quite a while, but from what I remember...yeah.

Cool Pic



Dogs are Cool!

And good buddies!

Cats

If you've been reading, you know I'm a dog person.  A dog might knock a drink on the floor with his tail.  But a cat?  Yeah, this is totally a cat.


Nailed It



Good Advice

Saw this over on FB.  Makes a lot of sense.  Sometimes it would be nice if he'd just ignore the jerks.


Labs

We've had a Lab in the house for decades.  Wonderful dogs.  But they all have some common traits.  They are gluttons for fun.  They will run until they drop.  They are hugely loyal.  And if there is food, any kind of food, anywhere near them...it's gone.


Learning Early

Pay attention and you'll see it.  Another one I'll probably get in trouble for...


Coincidence?

Seems to be a bit much for a coincidence.  I know, I know.  I'm a shameful asshole who is making fun of single Moms, disfunctional families, and the breakdown of society.  Okay.  Whatever.  It's still sorta funny.


















Friday, February 2, 2018

The Memo

Those who pay attention to this kind of stuff have been waiting with baited breath for "the memo" to be released to the general public.  Well, today they got their wish.  It was pretty interesting and for some, it was a bombshell.  Of course, the Dems call it a nothing burger.  Like everything else these days, it is political theater.

For those not paying attention, here's the Reader's Digest version of what happened.  In 2016 the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign paid a company called GPS Fusion to produce opposition research on the Trump campaign.  Part of that research was a "dossier" authored by a Brit named Christopher Steele.  Steele seems like a sleaze bag and there is no doubt that he was strongly anti-Trump.  So he made up a bunch of stuff that portrayed Trump in the worst light. And I mean the worst light.  One of the things (among others) he claimed was that Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to piss on beds that Obama slept in.  Nice, huh?  Only trouble is, it was all bullshit.  Anyway, meanwhile there was the low level, unpaid Trump advisor (and it is questionable how close he really was to the campaign) named Carter Page who supposedly had some Russian connections.  So here's what the FBI and the DOJ did.  They used this opposition research dossier to go to the FISA Court (this is the super secret court that issues warrants for wire-tapping) and got a warrant to tap Page's phone.  And since this warrant needs to be renewed every 90 days, they didn't just do it once.  They did it multiple times.  And several very high-level FBI and DOJ people signed off on this.  You've heard all the names.  Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, etc.  They are all implicated.

If you've not read the memo and are interested, here it is:
January 18, 2018
To: HPSCI Majority Members
From: HPSCI Majority Staff
Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Purpose
This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
Investigation Update
On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.
The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §,1805(d)(l)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.
Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard—particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.
1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.
2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.
a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.
b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.
3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.
4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.
Now, you might say what's the big deal?  No harm, no foul.  Trump was elected anyway.  The thing is that we have this document that guides every thing we do in this country called the Constitution.  We believe in government by, of and for the people.  Of course we want to uphold the law, but we generally don't countenance spying on American Citizens.  And we especially are against that kind of thing going on as a result of politics.  That goes on in many, many countries around the world that don't believe in rights of their citizens.  Not here.  That the FBI and DOJ would use opposition research funded and produced for a political party to spy on members of the political opposition is quite simply appalling.  And it should result in not only some major firings, but criminal prosecution.  Simple as that.

I don't know where we're going from here.  One side says they have more damning info.  I hope that's not the case because it's already pretty terrible.  And unsavory.  And I don't want to believe that the FBI and DOJ would do further terrible things.  The other side is in the deny and blame mode.  But no matter how much they deny and blame, at some point most people who are interested are going to see what's gone on and the reality will be easy to see.   Laws were broken.  The Constitution was trampled.  High level FBI and DOJ people should be ashamed.

People talk about the resistance.  They go around blithely throwing around accusations about the worst things they've heard from this or that media source without ever getting substantiation.  Hashtags are very popular to indicate outrage or support.  #resistence is the word of the day.  They protest, they utter unbelievably foul accusations, they repeat obscenities about the other side as if they are carved in stone and there is no question as to accuracy, and they seem willing to go to radical lengths to undermine and even harm their political opponents.  And yet...the rhetoric on the other side doesn't seem to match the vitriol.

I remember very clearly when Obama was elected.  He wasn't my guy but I was willing to give him a chance because he was the President.  I think most people were.  It didn't take very long for him to show his true colors.  He was quite simply an incompetent, inexperienced, naive, divisive, horrible President.  It had nothing to do with race.  It had to do with him as a person.  And there were a ton of people who believed and still believe that.  There is no doubt that we were much worse off after his 8 years in office.    But we didn't resort to violence.   We didn't trample on the Constitution.  We didn't resist things that might have been good for the country just because he was for it.  We didn't think of our little world instead of the country as a whole.  But that's what's happening.  I just hope they wake up.  We can all move forward together.  Or there will be some dark days ahead.

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Friday Funnies

A little golf humor...

While golfing, I took a quick turn to avoid hitting a chuck hole and accidentally overturned my golf cart.

A very beautiful and attractive young lady, who lived right there on the edge of the golf course, heard the noise, came running out of her villa and shouted, "Are you okay?"

As I looked up I noticed she was wearing only a silky see through bath robe which was partially open, revealing what appeared to be a VERY nice figure.

"I'm okay I think," I replied as I pulled myself out from under the twisted cart.

She said, "Please follow me to my villa so I can clean and bandage that nasty scrape on your head, then you can rest a while, and I'll help you upright the cart later.”

"That's mighty nice of you," I answered, “but I don't think my wife will like me doing that!”

"Oh, come on now," she insisted. "We need to see if you have any more scrapes and treat them if so".  Well, after all, she was really pretty, and very, very persuasive.

Being sort of shaken and weak, I finally agreed, but repeated, "I'm sure my wife won't like this."

We walked to her place and after a couple of Scotch and waters and the bandaging, I thanked her and said, "I feel a lot better now, but I know my wife is going to be really upset, so I'd better go now."

"Don't be silly!" she said with a smile, letting her robe fall even more open "Stay for a while. She won't know anything, and by the way, where is she?"

I replied, "Still under the cart, I guess."