Tag Archives: politics

The Political Winds

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that then-Presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke proudly declaimed that Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

Having failed utterly in that campaign, O’Rourke subsequently changed his Web site’s Gun Safety page to read And while it might not be the easy or politically safe thing to say, I strongly believe that we need to reduce the number of AR-15’s and AK-47’s on our streets.

Now O’Rouke has adjusted his Gun Safety page again [emphasis in the original]:

And while it might not be the easy or politically safe thing to say, I don’t believe any civilian should own an AR-15 or AK-47.

He’s not Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke. He’s Robert Francis “Veleta” O’Rourke.

Facts Don’t Matter

Posted on by
Reply

Especially when they contradict settled conclusions drawn beforehand. Here’s Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Georgia’s governorship, Stacey Abrams:

We know that increased turnout has nothing to do with suppression.

And

Suppression is about whether you make it difficult for voters to access the ballot. And in Georgia we know difficulty has been put in place for too many Georgians[.]

Never mind that voter suppression is so strong that not only Republican voter turnout exploded in the just concluded Georgia primaries, so has Democratic voter turnout:

Democratic turnout increased 30% over the last midterm in 2018 [which is pre-Wuhan Virus situation]….

The pre-set conclusion is all that matters.

Rank Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Did these European nations learn nothing from WWII, or are they gone soft in their wealth and safety under our American umbrella? Or do they ignore the fresh lessons the nations of eastern Europe—freed from Russian occupation only a generation ago—would teach them?

Some European Union states have floated the idea of giving President Vladimir Putin an off-ramp that would make it easier for him to justify a de-escalation to his domestic audience in Russia, while a peace plan drawn up by Italy proposed autonomy for Ukraine’s Crimea and Donbas.

Our own Henry Kissinger—who negotiated our preemptive surrender in Vietnam—is an especial embarrassment. Pontificating in Davos, he actually said with a straight face

…”ideally, the dividing line should return to the status quo ante,” suggesting that Ukraine should allow Russia to retain the Crimean Peninsula, which it annexed in 2014, and swaths of the eastern Donbas region seized by Moscow-backed separatists the same year.

And

pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine … but a new war against Russia itself.

That is Kissinger once again practicing his politics of preemptive surrender, ceding to Russia the occupied territories of Ukraine, a Kissingerian ownership based solely on their seizure by Russia at gunpoint.

It’s certainly easy enough for those far away from the fight for national survival, sitting in their air-conditioned offices, blithely to tell that nation to just give up some land and we’ll have peace in our time.

Never mind that giving away any square inch of a nation’s territory is giving away pieces of that nation’s existence. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had the right characterization of Kissinger’s words.

I get the sense that instead of the year 2022, Mr Kissinger has 1938 on his calendar. And that he thought he was addressing an audience not in Davos, but in erstwhile Munich.

One of Zelenskyy’s advisors, Oleksiy Arestovych, was more blunt:

Get lost with suggestions of this sort, that Ukraine should trade some of its territory. Children are dying here, soldiers are stopping shrapnel with their own bodies, and they’re telling us to sacrifice territory. It will never happen.

And from the second link just above:

they are telling us to sacrifice our land? Bite me, f*ckers.

Indeed.

Red Flag Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Some thoughts on necessary criteria for them, particularly as they’re intended to apply to the mentally unstable.

  1. Define “mentally unstable”
  2. Identify which “mentally unstable” are dangerous and which are not
  3. Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” are to be disarmed without disarming—leaving defenseless—those around him
  4. Specify how quickly—including appeals—a court case must be finally decided and the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his weapons back after successfully defending himself
  5. Specify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” will be made financially whole after winning his court case
  6. Specify how an accusation will be separated into a frivolous one and one made in good faith
  7. Specify the sanctions to be brought against the accuser if the “dangerous mentally unstable” wins his court case
  8. Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his reputation and his life back after winning his court case, whether it was brought in good faith or bad

That’s just a start on the idiocy and intrinsically virtue-signaling nature of red flag laws.

Elites are Talking Again

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s in the context of the Wuhan Virus and its latest evolution, and the elites are triggered by

The nearly 300 deaths reported daily are again more concentrated among older people, underscoring hazards for the more vulnerable while the overall population appears less at risk.

With oblivious self-importance, Katelyn Jetelina, Assistant Professor Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (such a long title…), pronounced that

It’s really up to us to determine where in this repertoire of things that can kill us we want to place SARS-CoV-2[.]

No, it most assuredly is not. While medical expertise constitutes an important input into an individual’s decision-making, the actual risks regarding things that can kill us—the Wuhan Virus in the present case—are unique to each individual. The perception of this risk is unique to each individual. The response to be taken in light of the actual or perceived risk from the Virus are unique to each individual.

The determination of where in this repertoire of things that can kill us we want to place [Wuhan Virus] belongs to the individual, not the elites.