Latest Event Updates
Whenever we hear things like “you can’t be too careful” or from Obama when he tweeted “if there’s one life we can save-we’ve got an obligation to try”, our immediate reaction is to consider those to be noble sentiments. That was his logic – or fear mongering – that he’s been using to convince us the time is always right for more gun control directives. So he literally means if he can take an action to save one life, he will. He’s also shown that it doesn’t matter if it over steps his authority to do so. Although he’s not likely to admit he’s exceeding his limited authority to encroach upon our rights, to him it’s more of a duty.
“if there’s one life we can save-we’ve got an obligation to try” – Barack Obama
Now let’s think about actions that could be taken to save lives. Each day we take personal risks at home, on the road, at work and in our leisure activities. You almost can’t avoid the opportunity for death particularly if you bring your level of concern down to the one in 300 million possibility. That’s Obama’s target, one life saved out of a population of 300 million. Imagine the activities that present a hazard with that slim probability. We’re guessing that using a toothbrush incorrectly probably has that level of risk, let alone all the other voluntary risks we take everyday including driving a car, walking or running for exercise, not walking or running for exercise, stepping into a bathtub, and even the act of eating is hazardous. Perhaps the government should require personal food chewers so we don’t risk choking. After all, almost 3000 people die each year from airway obstruction while eating. And don’t get us started on the dangers of popcorn! Food chewers would simultaneously help save us from ourselves and get people back to work. Not to mention our resulting loss of appetite and an immediate cure for obesity. And if we refuse that government assistance, then we can just be fined, um…, taxed.
Now consider that the recent rash of Obama actions on gun control would have had no impact on the mass shootings we’ve recently experienced, and that was a primary motivating factor in this latest wave of directives. In spite of that, he’s managed to fire up the fear and sell his snake oil for whatever ails you as long as he gets added control on your Second Amendment rights. All in the name of protecting us from ourselves. Personally we’d rather see a cure for a bloated government. Hands off our guns….and popcorn.
How do you spell hypocrisy? With a “C” as in Clinton or a “D” as in Democrat?
It turns out that Darwin was wrong. All along we thought that natural selection was a good thing. Out with the thought that survival of the fittest meant carrying on positive traits as a way of improving future generations’ ability to survive in their environment. Now, according to the New York Times, marrying someone with common interests, particularly if those interests include higher education and better incomes, tends to “propagate inequality across the generations.” Tyler Cowen’s little piece titled “The Marriage of Power Couples Reinforce Income Inequality” from the December 24, 2015, edition of the Times sets us straight and can be found here:
According to Tyler, economic costs are incurred by our society when people are determined “to do everything possible to advance the interests of their children.” When you’re a society that celebrates traits that could be considered the opposite of ambitious, energetic, industrious, and aspiring, we suppose it’s not surprising that there’s an expectation of guilt if we dare strive to be as independent and successful as possible. So all of you who haven’t found that perfect someone yet, don’t widen the income inequality gap any further. Truly embrace the opposites-attract reasoning and find that special person who doesn’t share your same drive for success. You may really dislike your life if you follow this doctrine, but you’ll rid yourself of that speck of guilt that otherwise may try to cling to your conscience if you “marry up.”
Another Christmas has come and gone and in spite of the best efforts of many to denigrate its spirit, it appears to have survived. We had those refusing to say Merry Christmas, banning nonsecular holiday decorations, and purging all references to Christ from primary school “holiday” programs, but on the morning of 12/25/15 families across the country woke up to a Christmas tree and gave thanks for their simple blessings as they ate their Christmas meal, Christians and non-Christians alike. In fact, according to a Pew Research Center survey, Christmas represents a nation-wide event celebrated by 92 percent of the population.
We hope you all had a very Merry Christmas.
We’re living in strange times.
At the top of our list of should-be concerns are a nuclear ambitious Iran, a nuclear capable North Korea, a leading presidential contender who’s being investigated by the FBI, 18 trillion dollars in debt, more Americans on food stamps than ever before, terrorism on the rise, family values disintegrating, abortion as a contraceptive, half of all pregnancies being unwanted, and that’s just to name a few. You’d think though that we have such deep seeded insecurities that our focus can go no further than those things that have the potential to make us feel bad, probe at our inner vulnerabilities and encourage government dependence. Why else would we be hyper focused on such things as micro-aggression, hurt speech, gluten, GMO’s, safe spaces, and the assurance that we’re certain to have a wide assortment of bathrooms to satisfy any gender bending abstraction. A big clue to our transformation is our newly acquired ineptitude when it comes to figuring out what bathroom to use.
Sadly we’re losing those in our society who were part of the “greatest generation.” To add insult to their sacrifices, it’s being replaced by the “helpless generation.”
There are those who’s nose goes straight up in the air, their arms immediately cross over their chests followed by a heavy sigh of acrimonious air exhaled if anyone dares to criticize the Islamic faith, After all, even the President wagged his finger at us to say that Christians are no better. Look no further than the crusades. To that bunch of hooey we say get a grip on reality and start loosening up on your PC condition. Too bad you can’t go back hundreds of years and try to fix that crusade problem. In the mean time, can we focus on why we’re more likely to today to be beheaded than we were a decade ago?
Courtesy of the Washington Post on Sunday December 13, 2015, we now have a “clear” picture of how bad the gun violence is in this country. “50 years of mass shootings in the U.S.” screams the headline followed by an info-graphic that captures all of the well known tragic gun related shootings that we recall vividly or perhaps with just a hint of remembrance if you’re old enough. But there are missing pieces to this carefully constructed puzzle. In the fine print the Washington Post notes that this info-graphic:
“does not include gang killings, shootings that began as other crimes such as robberies, and killings that involved only the shooter’s family.”
That seems like a wide swath of omitted data and makes the reader question the motives of such cherry picking journalism. We’ll leave it up to you to determine why those tragic categories of violence shouldn’t be considered “mass shootings.”
Feel free to comment below.