Monthly Archives: July 2016

Another Modist Proposal – National Militia

General, Law, Politics

This is not a post calling for any kind of “gun Control”, so get that out of your head right now.  I have come to the conclusion that in the current political environment it is not possible to have a rational and calm discussion on the subject.  Instead I wish to make a proposal that just may help with the problem of ‘open carry’ & also ‘mass shootings’.  Do take note, the only way these two subjects are related is they involve people and guns.

What I want to propose is a revival of the “Embodied Militia of the United States”.  What I am suggesting is that everyone between the ages of 18 and 65 who owns any kind of ‘arms’ such as an assault rifle or used by any of our regular armed forces be required to enroll in the National, Embodied Militia of the United States or the State Militia in which they reside.

That sead Malita must require the following

1) Each member must attend one weekend, 16 hours, training every month.  Such training will include the safe and effective use of the arms which has qualified them for membership is the militia.  This shall be in addition to training and/or activities required by the State or National Government.

2) Each member shall be held responsible, at all times, for the safe use of theirs arms under either the National Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the “Embodied Militia of the United States” or in the case of State Militias any such military laws as seen as necessary and proper by the State.  In cases where the State has no laws then the UCMJ shall be used.

3) At any such time that the Congress feels that a National Selective Service (aka Draft) is needed those members of the National or State militias that met the age, health, and other requirements shall be inducted before any none member person shall be inducted.

All we have to Fear is Fear itself!

General, Politics

TrumpAfter listening to acceptance speeches for almost 50 years, I started way back in 1968, I have to say this is the most frightening speech I’ve ever heard.  That said, Mr. Trump gave one of his best speeches ever.  BUT I have NEVER heard one filled with more hate, fear, vitriol, lies and half truths.

Those who know me know that I usually only compare current political speakers to fascist of the 1930’s except when I’m being very snarky.  Like many students of the politics I have listen to many of the speeches of Hitler, Mussolini, and oddly enough a couple of Franco.  While I don’t speak any of the languages I did get several different translations version while I paid attention to the sound and delivery.  An the speech given tonight had way too much hate and fear. It played to the lowest qualities of the American electorate.  It told us to be afraid, be very afraid, and here is why you should be afraid.  He then, on and off thru the speech, gave us half truths, lies, and damn lies.  I have not heard such a pack of drek since the last time I went to an Amway meeting.

Let me say this clearly, Trump is a master liar.  He mixes half truths, with little lies and then goes on to the bald face lies which he then drives his message home.  Vote for me because I’m the Answer.  I will save you from all of the monsters I’m telling you that are in your closet, and under your bed.  About the only thing he did not throw in was the Zombie  Apocalypse, but he did talk long and hard about the great government conspiracy.

All I can say in response is to remember what one of our greatest and once  upon a time  one of the most hated by conservatives:  “All we have to Fear, is Fear itself”.

Why Conservatives say they are attacked: A Hypotheses

General, Philosophy

For the past couple of weeks I’ve been pondering why so many conservatives I know keep telling me they are always being attacked (political conversations mostly so let’s stick with that).  This has puzzled me because I have a very hard time thinking of any really good examples of liberals/progressives attacking conservatives.  If I accept what I’m being told, that they feel they are being attacked and I do, then why can’t I see it?  Well I’ve come up with a possible hypotheses, it’s not really be nearly rigoureousely worked up to be call a theory.

In a nut shell, conservatives feel attacked because of how the precieve political debate.  Conversely liberals/progressive fail to see that the conservative are feeling attacked because of how they precieve political debate. For the past few years I’ve been studying the Reseach  into political psychology.  Such as the popular work “The Republican Brain” by Chris Mooney.  What has struck me is how some people see debate as a win/loose, right/wrong, ‘zero sum’ game (situation).  The political psychology studies I’ve been reading suggest that this kind of psychology tends to collect in conservative groups.

So what does this mean?  Only that conservators have a higher chance of being people who see debate as something you need to win and if you don’t win you have to have lost.  Most people, when they find themselves in a situation of Wining or Loosing, they will feel like they are being attack.

That’s all for now…..more later as I work this idea up into a theory.

The first test of NRA meme is in

General, Philosophy, Politics

imageThe first major test of the NRA’s mime “A good guy with a gun is the best solution to the mass shootings” is in.  At last week’s mass shooting in Dallas Tx of police can and should be considered the first test of the forgoing meme trotted out by the NRA after mass shootings.  In this case we have so far reported 15 ‘open carry’ supporters at the shooting site.  To date not one of the 15 has been reported to have supported any of the police in the police’s response to the shootings.

While a single sample like this can not be taken as anything but a start it is suggestive that there may be something incorrect with the meme.  First point is that so far not one of the reported “Good Guys with a gun” even attempted to engage the shooter.  In dead most have been reported to have evauated the area with “all do haste” as the unarmed citizens did.  In one well documented instance the the person carrying an assault rifle turned over his gun to a policeman once the shooting started as he did not want to be mistaken as the shooter.  A demonstration of very good common scince.

What conclusion can be drawn from this insedent?  Not much.  We can draw the inference that when untrained people are faced with combat situation, even when we’ll armed, they will not stand.  Instead they will flee.  This phenomenon has been known to both the military and police for many many years.  An is why untrained levies are considered worse than useless by the military.  It may also be why the 2nd amendment starts out talking about a “well regulated militia”, but that is for another post.

The 2nd inference that can be drawn is that when someone who can not be quickly identified as a “Good Guy”, that is someone on your side, it is best to not appear as a threat.  In this case, unarmed, or not in the area in question.  An if you start out armed, get disarmed as quickly as possible to someone who is identified as a “Good Guy”.

“Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

General, Philosophy, Politics

imageOnce more we have two men shot by the Police.  Both of them were carrying fire arms.   The current facts, as known, says one had both the proper license and all the proper paperwork and told the Policeman in question that he was carrying and he was going for his ID before he was shot.  The other, in a state that you do not need any special permits to carry a concealed weapon was shot when someone, I’m not sure if it was a Policeman or not, is supposed to have shouted “He has a GUN.”  So far the only thing these two men have in common was they were both “Black” and male.  So my where is the outrage from the NRA?

These two ‘good guys with guns’ were exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms and they were shot down by the Police.  Where is the righteous indignation of the NRA?  Where are the interviews on FOX News with all of the “open carry” advocates?  Why the stunning silence?  Can it be that the 2nd Ammendment only applies to white men?  “Say it ain’t so, Joe.”

My odd world view: A rant

General, Philosophy, Rants

Recently I’ve been giving some heavy thought to how people look at keeping their word. This was caused by my or ding a new cane when my old one broke.  This was over two month ago and for past month I’ve been talking with the store and getting promises that I’ll have it next week. This got to me thinking about how I look at giving and keep your word.

I’m not talking about the casual saying you’ll do or not do something or is something trivial is true or not.  I’m talking about the big life promises.  The kinds that go into making, and breaking those critical relationships of our lives.

I will be the first to admit I have a very hard nosed view about keeping my word.  More than once in my life it has been pointed out that I will say, “I’ll Try”, “I think (or believe)”, or “We’ll see” instead of “I’ll do it”, or “As good as Done”, or “I know”.  For me it is simple logic.  If I say “I’ll do X.” Then I have to do it, no mater what.  No excuses, no nothing, it gets done no mater what it costs me.  Extrem, yes.  But all me.

One of the things this view has created is my view of people in general.  I know, from long and sad experance that most people don’t have my attitude about keep their word.  When most people say “I’ll do X” they mean “I’ll try to do X but it may not get done and you have no way of knowing just how much effort I’ll give to get it done.”  This has lead me to rarely ask anyone to do anything for me and never ask with out having contengancy plans for when they do not do what they said they would do.  If it is not to important to me I often do nothing, if it is very important I figure out away to do it myself.

In my life I have been surprised by people being shocked, and/or offended that I don’t ‘trust’ them to do what they say they will do.  When I explain that sometime in the past they said they would do something they didn’t do it.  Invariably they say something like “But that wasn’t very important”.  I’ve been told I tended to look a bit dumb struck and say something like “What does that have to do with it?”  It has taken me something like 60 years to figure out what I wasn’t getting.  First most everyone “thinks or beleaves” that their word is important to them when in fact it really isn’t.  They have a very casual view of the importance of keeping their word.  In the words of one of my favorite TV shows when I was in High School: “I’t ain’t no big thing, brother.”

What is truely hilarious  to me is just how offended some folks get when I explain this all to them.  Those who get the most upset seem to be those who truely have the most casual attitude about keep their word.  I wonder how many people I have offended with this little piece.