Electoral College vs Popular Vote, part duex

EC2The first part centered on the pros and cons of the Electoral College. This time we will center on the Popular Vote issues, pro/con.

Advantage: Aligns with Democratic Principles
The United States has a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy: Citizens elect representatives rather than voting on each bill. However, many people believe that a direct popular election is more democratic and fair than the Electoral College. After all, the Electoral College makes it possible that a candidate who wins the majority of the votes could still lose the election. This is a situation that has caused controversy in the election years of of 1800, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016 when the elected president won the Electoral College and the presidency but did not win the popular vote

Advantage: Represents citizens equally
A direct popular election also ensures that citizens’ votes have equal weight. The electoral college leads to a heavy emphasis on swing states and also typically over-represents citizens in rural states. In 2004, for example, candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry campaigned heavily in states such as Nevada while ignoring political issues in New York, a state that Kerry was sure to win, according to the University of the Pacific. In the 2016 election, “swing states” that might vote Republican or Democrat like Wisconsin were targets of candidates Donald J. Trump and Hillary R. Clinton. The official 2016 election results from the Electoral College gave Donald J. Trump the victory with 306 electoral votes v. Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. However, in the popular vote, Trump only received 62,984,825 votes against Hillary Clinton’s 65,853,516 popular votes.
Advantage: Encourages Voter Turnout
Some critics argue that more people would vote in a direct popular election, according to the University of the Pacific. Under the Electoral College system, voters in states that are overwhelmingly in support of one candidate might feel like their vote is unimportant. In contrast, in a direct popular election, each vote matters equally. In the 2016 election, only 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. On average, studies show that falls in line with historical averages showing around 60 percent of eligible voters casting a vote in presidential election years.
Disadvantage: Allows Regional Candidates
In a direct popular election, a candidate could theoretically win without having broad support throughout the country. For example, if a candidate was very popular in New York City, Los Angeles and other large cities, she might not need to earn votes from other areas of the country. Electing a president who did not have broad regional support could lead to a fractured and less cohesive country, according to the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.

Disadvantage: Creates Logistical Challenges
In a direct popular election, a candidate could theoretically win without having broad support throughout the country. For example, if a candidate was very popular in New York City, Los Angeles and other large cities, she/he might not need to earn votes from other areas of the country. Electing a president who did not have broad regional support could lead to a fractured and less cohesive country, according to the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.

Disadvantage: Polarizes the Political System
The electoral college encourages a two-party system and rewards candidates who have broad appeal. A direct popular election would make it more possible for third-party candidates to succeed and would also encourage political parties to become more radical and extreme. Although many supporters of the electoral college argue that a two-party political system is more stable, some critics counter that having more than two parties would give Americans more choice.

So, There ya have it….a breakdown of the Electoral College vs the Popular Vote. The research was done from a conservative standpoint and a liberal stand point. Part three with be the Colonel’s stand point…and, I might add, the correct stand point. But you have to wait for part three.

Comments

  1. 😎

    • That’s not even close to the reason for the high cost higher education. Of course, I get the point, and I get that your cartoons are almost always just naked partisan attacks, but this one is especially bullshit.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        How could paying such exorbitant prices for “teaching” not have an affect on the cost of education???

        I realize the true reason is the factor that allows such a charge to be made, but you act like the inflated costs don’t affect costs.

        Let alone address the hypocrisy of those like Warren who love to toss this football around every election cycle.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Mathius isn’t projected to splash down in the Sea of Japan for several more hours.

          But if he were here, he would probably note that, of course, teacher salaries are a factor, but that few teachers command that kind of salary – a quick google search says the average is at Harvard is half of hers for full professors whereas associate professors (at Stanford) make 130k which, frankly, is not outrageous. It’s almost certainly far less than even that at lesser schools. At my alma mater, a professor makes about 90k. Warren was (almost certainly) given this much money so that Harvard could brag about having her on the faculty by way of enhancing their reputation. Put another way, it’s better to think of “Professor Warren” (excuse me while I vomit) as an advertising expense rather than a teaching expense.

          Bigger factors are the facilities, the smaller class sizes (thus MORE professors), the amenities, etc. And, of course, the availability of student debt.

          Of course, the biggest factor is supply and demand. College is so expensive because… they can get away with charging so much. Don’t like it? Don’t pay. Prices will come down.

          The real question is why no one has upended the model yet. I’m sure there’s a market for “no frills” degrees which are academically as rigorous as any 4-year without being a predatory scam like so many for-profit schools and without the absurdly expensive campus and fancy housing and sports stadiums, etc.

          Let alone address the hypocrisy of those like Warren who love to toss this football around every election cycle.

          Again, if Mathius were here, he’d probably be perfectly happy to hit her with the bus for this one.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            On what is a “reasonable” wage for a professor…… that being “teacher”.

            Spousal Unit Leader spent 35 years in service of our Govt. Only in the last three years of this service did her wages hit the 130 K mark. To get that she was put in charge of several federal programs covering the States of Oregon, Washington and Alaska, supervising dozens of employees and working directly with dozens of State Governor’s and other staff.

            And the college teacher gets their money for teaching a couple classes a day, or week. They supervise nobody, except their co-ed understudies, and have little responsibility outside their teaching duties. I know, some actually do research. Well, they set up the research and then use the SLAVE under grad and grad students to do the work.

            Now do not get me wrong. I am not one to make the very kind of comparisons I just did as the VALUE of any job is job specific. BUT, when the term “reasonable” is used I can’t help but think of all those lefties in the world that howl about “fair”.

            • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              On what is a “reasonable” wage for a professor…… that being “teacher”.

              Whatever the market will bear.

              It is, of course, a spread with the most qualified / the most sought after able to demand higher wages from more illustrious institutions whereas the lesser teachers will receive lesser wages.

              I would expect the 0.1% elite of teachers to teach at places like Harvard and command 6-figure salaries. And I would expect the wages to drop quickly once you leave the elite / prestigious schools with money to burn, followed by a long tail at the low-end where supply of competent professors is such that the paredo indifference curves equalize with non-academia.

              In Korea, where some teachers can be a kind of minor celebrity, it is not unheard of for a teacher to command a 10 digit salary KRW, which is a over a million USD.

              Spousal Unit Leader [….] And the college teacher gets their money for teaching a couple classes a day, or week

              You seem suppose a kind of value judgement that this work is “harder” and therefore “deserves” a higher wage (my words, not yours).

              I’ll tell you, “construction worker in Mexico City” works ten times as “hard” as Mathius, who sits in his chair in an air conditioned office and argues with strangers on the internet for orders of magnitude more money.

              Now do not get me wrong. I am not one to make the very kind of comparisons I just did as the VALUE of any job is job specific. BUT, when the term “reasonable” is used I can’t help but think of all those lefties in the world that howl about “fair”.

              I’m not sure who is talking about “reasonable” other than you here.. but I’ll just repeat that “reasonable” is whatever the free market says it is.

              Elizabeth Warren’s 400k salary for teaching one class is perfectly reasonable because Harvard wanted to pay it and she wanted to accept it.

              That she’s a hypocrite for doing so is a whole different matter.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        How did the tuition at Manhattan College go from $ 1,000 per year ’64-’65 to $ 40,000 last year (commuter student)?

        I believe in most categories (except electrronics) we are running at about 1,200% inflation since then but college is way beyond that.

        Could the 300% increase in administration staff while going from a 4,000 to 3,000 student school have something to do with it?

  2. A direct popular election would […] also encourage political parties to become more radical and extreme

    Objection!

    Support this assertion or eat it.

  3. Although many supporters of the electoral college argue that a two-party political system is more stable, some critics counter that having more than two parties would give Americans more choice.

    We need that “more choice” BADLY… stable or not, the current duopoly blows.

    Give a moderate liberatarian party a chance? Give the greenies a voice? Whatever happened to the VDLG party (there’s a way back referent for ya!)?

    As long as the current system holds, everyone but the Big Two is shut out.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I agree we need a multi party system with all represented in Congress.

      Then we would not have to worry about Congress ever passing a law to impose more upon us, ever, ever, ever. Bwahahahahahahahaha

  4. A person born on 9/11 is now old enough to vote.

  5. Using the direct popular vote method, in a 3-way race, the candidate with 33 1/3% + 1 wins. In the current system, the most likely result of this kind of election would be to throw the election into the House. Bill Clinton did not get over 50% of the vote in either election hence was a minority candidate.

    Third party candidates often split the vote of the more popular candidate ensuring a minority president.

  6. I will offer my assumptions (with references) in part three…..but the most interesting part of doing research and trying to apply it…..one thing really stood out. I did not research the really weird sites but I read almost everything and watched numerous u tubes and researched numerous c span arguments…and the Dems and Repubs are not that far off from each other. I noticed that the arguments for popular vote are centered on power…..from both sides. None of the arguments centered on……what is right…..and what bothered me the most was this idea that is popular with the Mathius crowd is that all the framework that was set up in the beginning was intended to be “living documents” all designed to change with the times……I will write more on this, but, even your hard corps Dems do not believe this….both parties want to “tweak” things to keep their party in power……………..from my research, it clearly showed that neither the Dems nor the Repubs have country at heart. And that is sad.

    The other thing that showed up was the use of “fuzzy math” and supports my statement of figures do not lie, but liars can figure. The cherry picking and use of “fuzzy math” to support one side or the other was extreme and a lot about this 3/5 vote was just plain stupid.

    • Humor intended: Democrat votes should only count as 3/5ths due to the inevitable illegal voting by illegal aliens in sanctuary cities and states. In the end, it would work out as 1 vote for each legal voting Democrat. 😀

  7. According to Trump’s tweet, he invited Taliban leaders and the president of Afghanistan to meet with him at Camp David last Sunday (a few days before 9/11).

    Now, I don’t actually have a problem with this, though I know it will make many heads explode on “my side.” If he thinks he can get them to sit down and talk and make progress (“a deal”), then I’m all for it.

    That said, I think I need to point out how much Obama got blasted for trying to meet with Kim Jong Un without pre-conditions.. I would give a kidney to have seen the conservative response if Obama had tried to invite the Taliban onto American soil to hold a meeting at Camp David. I think the level of hypocrisy here is staggering.

    And, yes, the left is making hay of the invite, so they’re hypocrites, too.

    • I’m pretty sure that the negotiations have been stopped due to Taliban violence. Last I heard anyway.

    • Trump cancelled the theoretical meeting after a Taliban attack that killed 12 people, including a US soldier.

      https://thehill.com/policy/defense/policy-strategy/460670-gop-lawmaker-on-trump-taliban-meeting-i-dont-know-how-that

      Trump tweeted. “What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?”

      …..

      ….

      …..

      What kind of people would kill so many in order to strengthen their bargaining positions?

      …..

      …..

      What kind of people? What kind of people?? THE TALIBAN!

    • I totally agree, Mathius, and said this just yesterday to my hubby…how if it had been Obama who had invited the Taliban to Camp David the right would have been going ballistic.

      I didn’t like it AT ALL.

      Murf

      • Just A Citizen says:

        murf

        What you say is probably true. BUT………. it was the left who kept reminding us that the TALIBAN did not attack us on 9/11 and that we “illegally” waged a war against them instead of the real enemy. So while hypocrisy flows freely in D.C. and politics, I think it is the D’s and left who have more egg on their face over this one.

        I will also add, since Mathius raised it, this was not a visit without conditions or prep. as he was alluding to when comparing to Mr. Obama’s stated desire to meet with Kim. The Admin has been working on this for over a year.

        Now with that said, the WORLD should come together to agree the Taliban need to go the way of the dinosaurs. Problem is, where do you stop? The ISIS and similar factions would have to be next, for consistency sake.

  8. ::approaches the Longhorn Colonel cautiously from behind.. knife and fork raised:: Little did Mathius know that approaching Longhorn Colonel from behind was not the thing to do. Being well versed in the use of chemical warfare, the Colonel Longhorn waited until just the right time and fired off an eye burning, nostril flaring non projectile AOC “Flatulence Bomb.” It was brutal. No one knows where Mathius went, but when the air cleared there was nothing left in the radial burst zone. The grass was scortched, the leaves on the trees were in a helpless pile on the ground…. the branches bare. Even the indestructible fire ants moved away from the blast zone. The normal pesky flies that inhabit bovine areas were no where to be found.

    Upon closer examination of the contaminated site, wearing proper chem protective gear, there were two lumps of metal that once appeared to be a knife and fork. To this day, I understand that chemical alarms are still going off downwind 300 miles away. But like the days of past….and with the rememberance of Where is Waldo……Mathius has disappeared.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Aye, and good riddance to the blaggard!

      Tracked a fast-mover from Laguna Madre up through the upper atmosphere, I did… I was wondering what it might be. Not quite escape velocity, though. I expect a splashdown in the Sea of Japan. survival is unlikely.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Apparently our young city fella doesn’t know that cattle kick like hell.

  9. Canine Weapon says:

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    The article quotes someone who concluded that the Electoral College led to the two party system. The EC has existed from day one. The “TWO” party system does not evolve form many, many, many years after. I would submit that you can tell when the parties became the norm by looking to when the VP seat started going to the same party, instead of the second place finisher.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Furthermore, the EC ONLY deals with election of President and Vice President. When the EC was created the Framers and Founders viewed the office of POTUS as being relatively weak. They did not want a King and were focused on keeping that from happening and keeping the Senate from becoming the POTUS’s de facto Supervisor. At one point they were afraid the Senate had to much power and POTUS would have to run the Govt. per the Senate’s wishes, including being appointed to the office.

    I submit that Parties came alive, truly alive, due to the desire to hold majorities in Congress. While Jefferson was considered the founder of the first party, that party’s focus was not on getting Jefferson elected per se but getting seats in the House and Senate.

    You also have to look at not just Federal but State laws governing political organizations and conduct of elections. Each State is different in some respects. That is where the issue of monopoly Parties lies and where it could be broken. But that of course would require people to participate in the system and DEMAND change.

    For those that think change impossible, I remind you of the Conservative Republican wave of 1994 and the Tea Party wave of 2009. These two caused the arrival of Term Limits in many State governments. Their effort to impose limits on Federal elections failed in court, because only Congress can set those limits.

  12. Just A Citizen says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      I should have added:

      It is deja vu’ all over again!!!

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Consider this your reminder to buy and hold physical gold.

        The collapse of the dollar is coming. Whether this week or a decade from now, this how shit-show is going down.

        Trump, Obama, Jimmy Freakin’ Carter.. it makes no difference. The end is nigh.

        • Ahoy!!!! ‘ave ye checked yer hold lately…..ye may ‘ave some doubloons missin’. I heard thar was some sort o’ sneaky fellow that resides in New York or Jersey or somewhere up thar….says t’ keep gold handy. Better kee p an eye out in case his re-entry be successful. ‘ave ye notified th’ proper authorities in th’ Sea o’ Japan?

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            ‘ave ye notified th’ proper authorities in th’ Sea o’ Japan?

            “Proper authorities”…?

            ::dangerously raised eyebrow::

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Wathed Arthur Goolsbee last night explaining to Kal Pen how the gold miners in S. America and Russia create INFLATION by increasing the supply of Gold.

          He admitted that value is based on nothing but trust, then launched into its all about STABLE Govts. I think you understand what the underlying hints were about. NOT real economics. And of course as long as we remain “global” in our approach we will be fine.

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            In the next decade or two, we will begin mining asteroids. A single moderately sized metallic asteroid may contain more gold than the human race has ever mined. Simply dropping the mined gold “down the well” would result in rendering gold nearly worthless (as, obviously, its value is derived almost entirely from its scarcity).

            HOWEVER, because the people doing the mining are capitalists, they will only drop a small fraction of what they find in order to keep prices artificially high (think DeBeers on steroids). Eventually, though, others will join them, and it will be a race to the bottom.

            All “precious metals” will be worth about the same as aluminum within 40 years. As the dollar will also be worthless, expect a resurgence in the cryptocurrencies around that time.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              DPM

              Couple of decades? Sorry, not even close. You ignored DEMAND in your equation.

              As one guy in the Penn documentary said, humans all over the world, separated from each other, decided GOLD was the standard of value/wealth. Given the populations in some areas the supply was not all that limited…..think S. America and volume of gold found already in manufactured state by the Spanish.

              We do not know the actual reasons but I think it has more to do with weight and durability. And it just looks so damn shiny when cleaned up.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                I will say, there is absolutely nothing which…. gleams… the way gold does. You can get comparable heft from other metals.. but the gleam…

                There is – absolutely – something… visceral.. about it.

              • Also…the first sentence of an abstract of an article in Nature: International Journal of Science, entitled Why Gold is the Noblest of All Metals:

                THE unique role that gold plays in society is to a large extent related to the fact that it is the most noble of all metals: it is the least reactive metal towards atoms or molecules at the interface with a gas or a liquid.

                Murf

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    I see Biden is pushing an “optional” govt. health insurance program but not medicare for all.

    Medicare is a Govt. provided health insurance program. So if Mr. Biden thinks such a thing should be optional then apply it to Medicare. And give me back all the money I paid into that garbage insurance plan. Just like the Govt. controlled mandatory retirement plan called Social Security.

    I cannot believe how many people fall for this garbage. Just how long do you think it would remain “optional”?? I’ll tell you. About 4 years……….. until the next election and after many people have it and the govt. is bleeding money out its ears paying for it.

    The ACA was a disaster. But it was what it was because the Keynesian economists who built it (Goolsbee) understood it would be a drain unless “everyone” was “forced” to pay into the pool.

  14. ::Splash::

    ::Oof::

  15. I’m not sure who is talking about “reasonable” other than you here.. but I’ll just repeat that “reasonable” is whatever the free market says it is.

    Elizabeth Warren’s 400k salary for teaching one class is perfectly reasonable because
    Harvard wanted to pay it and she wanted to accept it.

    I wonder……..so, in this line of thinking of what is reasonable or what the market provides…yet you want minimum wages and adhere to some subjective reasoning for living wage. You want to force companies and/or government to provide certain things and not let the market dictate…..interesting.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      yet you want minimum wages and adhere to some subjective reasoning for living wage. You want to force companies and/or government to provide certain things and not let the market dictate

      Easy there, longhorn..

      I think, maybe, you need to go back and double-check who wrote that post you’re quoting…

  16. U.S.—In a recent survey of the top issue for likely voters, there was a clear winner, scoring as the number one concern for 78% of respondents: the Alabama Sharpie thing.

    “Trump said something about Alabama getting hit with a hurricane and then there was a Sharpie line on a map. We need to know more about this,” said Rodney Norton, an electrician, expressing the concerns of most citizens.
    The Alabama Sharpie thing is now in its second week of news coverage, and many now expect it to be the main issue on Election Day 2020, dwarfing any concerns about the economy or immigration. It’s shaping the Democratic presidential primary; now when a candidate starts talking about side issues like climate change, audience members will yell out, “What about Alabama?” and “What’s with the Sharpie?”
    Trump recently tweeted a doctored video of a cat playing with a laser pointer against the Alabama Sharpie map, seeming to make light of the issue that has gripped the nation. This has only steeled the resolve of the media to get to the bottom of the whole thing about Alabama and a Sharpie. CNN is currently trying to find the owners of the cat that was in the video and is planning to dox them as soon as they find them, just to be on the safe side.

  17. U.S.—Mayor Pete Buttigieg has come under fire after claiming that life only begins when you register as a Democrat.

    “Many conservative ‘Christians’ have bought into this lie that life begins at conception,” Buttigieg said during a radio interview. “This flies in the face of basic biology, which teaches us that life begins when you register as a Democrat.”
    Buttigieg went on to say that women can kill their children all the way up until the point when they choose to register as a Democrat since they are not humans up until that “miraculous moment.”
    “There’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with that first vote you cast,” he went on. “Even that is something that we can interpret differently from those dumb, backward Christians who insist on a literal, biological definition of life. But most sensible Americans can get on board with the idea of, ‘I might draw the line at voting for a far-left candidate, you might draw the line at the point when that first registration card is sent in.'”
    “The important thing is that we arbitrarily declare when a person becomes a person,” he added.
    Buttigieg also made the claim that a person still continues to be a living, breathing person and a valued member of the Democratic party long after they die.

  18. U.S.—A new app lets your spouse control the car with voice commands from the passenger seat.

    Whenever your spouse says things like, “Why don’t you take Fifth, it’s a lot faster?” or “This way’s a lot slower than my way,” the car will instantly respond to their commands.
    “There was a ton of demand for this app,” said Backseat Driver CEO Matthew Kyle. “Spouses everywhere love making passive-aggressive suggestions the entire time their husband or wife is driving around town. But despite their constant comments on your driving, the car doesn’t respond to their helpful suggestions and advice. Well, no longer. Now their comments are just as effective as if they themselves were in the driver seat.”
    Specific voice commands programmed into the app include the following:
    “You’re driving too fast” – immediately makes the car slow to a crawl
    “You’re driving too slow” – causes the car to go as fast as physically possible
    “Take this other street, it’s a shortcut only I know about” – makes the car take their strange route that’s almost definitely not any faster
    “Everyone knows parking’s a lot better around back” – makes the car skip all the perfectly good parking and drive around to their secret parking
    “MERGE, HONEY! MERGE!” – merges even if that means you slam into a semi truck
    In early beta testing, the app received rave reviews from spouses in the passenger seat and horrid reviews from spouses in the driver seat.

    • My wife is the worst at this!

      She grips the oh-shit handle like she’s going to die. No speed is ever right. And, no matter what, I’m always “too close to the curb” – if I listened to her, I’d be halfway into oncoming traffic. When there’s any sort of obstacle up ahead, even if it’s a half mile out, she sits bolt upright, starts pounding the dashboard and shouting “car! Car! CAR!!! CAAARRRR!!!!

      I’m also terrible with directions, so I simply put on the GPS and do as I’m told. But she is incapable of just going with it. Sure, maybe it’s not the perfect route. But it’ll get me there. But she has to micro-manage the route. And she’ll give directions waaay too late. I’ll be going 70 in the left hand lane and she’ll tell me to get off the exit in a 1/4 mile, expecting me to slam on the brakes and cross four lanes of traffic.

      Lastly, she’s a second-guesser. So I always hear it if I pick the wrong lane or get stuck behind an accident or whatever.

      She’s the WORST passenger. The. Worst. Well, except for her parents who are just as bad. She does not like it when I tell her “you’re acting like your mother.” 🙂

      Anyway, I solved this issue some years back. I simply pulled over, walked around to the passenger side and traded places. I have driven my wife maybe a half-dozen times since.

      As a passenger I sit there and shut up and let the driver drive. I offer zero feedback, zero opinions. I have no theories on where to find a spot or where to park. I do not know the best route. I might as well be a sack of potatoes.

      Not sure why I ever cared to be the driver in the first place.. now I have a chauffeur.

      It’s much better this way.

      • Canine Weapon says:

        I tell her “you’re acting like your mother.”

      • Sack of potatoes… Lol…but you put up such a (lame) good fight on SUFA.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Wife was and is an excellent driver but when she was hit head on while standing still by a drag racer in 1994 she changed and became a serious critic of MY driving. I drive and when anything happens, somebody coming too close, passing us at 40MPH above the speed limit she grips the armrests and does the shhhhh suck in breathing through her teeth.

      • I might as well be a sack of potatoes. What kind?

      • Not sure why I ever cared to be the driver in the first place.. now I have a chauffeur.

        Note to DPM: Per your request, I forwarded this to Mrs Mathius…..

      • You only believe your wife is the worse because you haven’t met my husband. He’s always in a hurry, we could be taking a drive just to take a drive and all I hear is, pass that car, change lanes, turn already, or why are you going so slow.

        • I grew up in the traffic of Southern California. My driving style can best be summarized as “zen.”

          • I think the word is Kamikazee……………………

            • Naw.. I’ll speed when the opportunity presents. Otherwise, I’ll just crank the radio up and settle in.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Ya’ll Texicans got no right to criticize other driving. A state full of NASCAR wannabes.

              • Look, JAC, as you know,,,,and found out driving to the airport…….we know two speeds……Stop and full blast. Hell, we have 70 mph speeds on inner city freeways….

                It gets worse with ice…….we do drive fast, I will give you that. Drive out west or go around Austin on the by pass…..posted speed limits are 80 and in some areas 85.

                “I feel the need for speed.”

                and, JAC, we do not criticize fast driving…just SLOW driving.

              • Part of the issue is that Texas is so freakin’ big that if you didn’t drive like bats out of hell, you’d never get out of your own driveways.

  19. > Supreme Court allows administration to deny asylum applications to immigrants who pass through a third country without applying for asylum before reaching US; rule stands while legal challenges wind through courts (More)

    Supreme Court Justice Mathius would concur with this ruling, but do so with a pissy attitude.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      MATHIUS

      Why?The decision did not deal with the underlying legal issues. Only overreach of a District Judge and the 9th Circuit.

      • (Disclaimer: I have not delved too deeply into this particular case, so I reserve the right to reverse my ruling if I have a factual misunderstanding of the details)

        It is well within the President’s purview to set policy regarding asylum.

        So long as he does not do so in a manner which violates established law (including, especially, the Constitution), it is his job to do.

        While CITIZEN Mathius might call this a dick move, JUSTICE Mathius cannot base his rulings on whether he likes the policy.

        Trump simply asserted via this policy that, essentially, you have to try to see asylum in any country you reach before reaching America… if you have the ability to flee your bad situation into another country and seek asylum there, but don’t, then you are choosing to come to America. It’s no longer about fleeing harm, but about coming here. This is not asylum, this is immigration.

        Though, again, I might think he’s an asshole, if I understand the argument implicit in this policy, then he is an asshole who happens to be entirely correct.

        Even if he he were wrong, it won’t matter to JUSTICE Mathius. JUSTICE Mathius is not a politician in a robe. He is only concerned about what is and is not permissible. Questions of “lawful, but awful” are none of his business. So JUSTICE Mathius asks only: has the President breached the boundary conditions of his power in issuing this policy, and since the answer is no (again, to the best of my current understanding), then I have to let him do it.

        Doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it.

        Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, saying the court’s action will “upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.”

        JUSTICE Mathius would kindly ask Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor to stop deciding outcomes first and working backward to get the rulings they want.

        “upending longstanding” is not a legal basis for crap. We had a “longstanding” practice of slavery – should we have kept that? Or do “longstanding” traditions only carry weight when convenient?

        The Mexican government has pushed back against the so-called safe-third-country agreement, which would force it to absorb asylum seekers from Guatemala.

        I believe the technical term for this is: Tough Shit.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          ROTFLMAO

          • Though, again, I dislike the policy, I’m unclear why we need an “agreement” from Mexico or anyone else on this?

            If they’re here illegally, and they crossed over from Mexico, it seems perfectly reasonable that we should have the right to walk them back to the border and give a firm shove back into Mexico. If Mexico doesn’t want them there, then Mexico could walk them back to the previous border and shove them over it as well. This could be repeated as needed.

            Why do we need international approval for this? If Mexico doesn’t want them getting stuck in Mexico, Mexico can seal its Southern border. I’d be willing to bet that Trump would be perfectly happy to help Build That Wall™.

  20. Well-known oilman and hedge fund chief T. Boone Pickens passed away yesterday at his Dallas home at the age of 91. Pickens died from natural causes but had been in deteriorating health since a series of strokes in 2017. Known as the “Oracle of Oil”, his success began as a wildcatter – or drilling exploratory wells in areas not known to be oil fields – with $2,500 cash and $100,000 in loans. He developed a reputation as a corporate raider in the 1980s, a skill which he partially attributed to lessons learned when he aggressively expanded his paper route as a young boy. Despite a life in the oil industry, Pickens became a strong supporter of natural gas as an alternative to gasoline, eventually pumping $100M into a campaign for US energy independence that included renewable energy.

    So long, cowboy..

  21. Here’s a great visualization of the world’s problem with plastic: https://graphics.reuters.com/ENVIRONMENT-PLASTIC/0100B275155/index.html

    • New York…good place for them. If anyone can figure out what to do with them, a New Yorker can. You can ship them down here…..we incinerate them with natural gas and power our grids with the refuse. Works great.

      Remember, Texas has its own power grid….so, when the US goes dark…..the bright spot will be….T E X A S………….and then we sell our power at enormous and hugely inappropriate prices and buy more pickup trucks and SUV’s.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Never did see the logic behind this . Grew up in a glass bottle generation where you paid a two cent deposit and funded Saturday morning movies out of the proceeds from returning them. When plastic disposable water bottles arrived I was astonished! water fountains always worked for me and being a New Yorker, still think it is the best water around. Carry your own damned reusable bottles! we used to bring canteens on hikes and overtnighters then refill at a local spring or pump. Now the kids bring their Poland Spring crap! “OOOOH-GROSS, Mr. Trynosky, do you mean we have to drink water from the ground?” American environmental education at its best!

      If you have to have one use, make it aluminium, valuable and easily reprocessed! We used to collect them in scouting. Crush, wait for a few hundred pounds then take them to the junk yard!

      • Yup… the plastic / disposable bottle was a huge marketing success.. we’re heading back toward the resuables… but the bigger issue that even plastic bottles is plastic packaging.. that stuff is absurd!

        I seem to recall hearing that there’s a law in the EU which penalizes excessive packaging.. maybe a bit “big government,” but not the worst law (depending on implementation). The EU also passed the law requiring most consumer electronics to charge via standardized chargers (Apple balked and has to pay an enormous annual fine). It cut down massively on electronic waste. Again, “big government,” but not the worst thing in the world.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Yes I always balked at the fifty thousand different sized “ports” all doing the same thing but requiring a seperate adapter/charger.

          Again, never forget the innate Dad wisdom. He would stand there and marvel at an Auto parts catalogue, then turn and say.

          “Kenny, ya know, a radiator cap or a gas cap all do the same thing so how come there are 5,567 types of each?”

          Later, being an early convert to the Dodge Minivan, I woudl buy locking gas caps (have a collection) which would not fit one model year to the next!

          • Yes I always balked at the fifty thousand different sized “ports” all doing the same thing but requiring a seperate adapter/charger.

            Yup.

            I used to have drawers (plural) full of adapters and single-purpose cables. These days, not nearly so much. It much better this way.

            I had to update the wi-fi on an office scanner today. It has a plug which is two standard plugs (USB-A and USB-B)… but they’re right next to each other in a way such that you can’t plug in two plugs… you need to use their specific combined plug. So I have to keep this special single-purpose plug around to once a year for just this one and only machine. Why???

            Yes I always balked at the fifty thousand different sized “ports” all doing the same thing but requiring a seperate adapter/charger.

            I also have this problem with public chargers for my car. They need to settle on a single standard (Tesla’s f’ing this up!) because I can sometimes charge and sometimes not, and there’s never any way to know until I’ve parked. It’s stupid and it’s inefficient.

            “Kenny, ya know, a radiator cap or a gas cap all do the same thing so how come there are 5,567 types of each?”

            So they can charge you more.

            “Kenny, ya know, a radiator cap or a gas cap all do the same thing so how come there are 5,567 types of each?”

            This always drives me nuts with screws. There must be thousands of ’em, and 99% do the same thing.

            • Maybe this is just a false memory, but now that most of my chargers are the same, it sure seems like I have to replace them a lot more often.

              • Buy higher quality cables / chargers.

                The cheapo’s on Amazon only cost a couple bucks, but they’re Chinese garbage. Pay $20 and it’ll last forever (or until your cat chews it up). In particular, look for stress relief at the joint between the plug and the cable so it doesn’t get damaged when you bend it.

                Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Native-Union-Belt-Cable-Ultra-Strong/dp/B076HV69D9

                On that, you can also pay an extra $4 for a 4 year warranty.. it might be annoying to use, but you’d get a new cord if this one stops working which sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Amazon doesn’t make it easy, but when push comes to shove, I’ve found that they will stand behind the warranties.

                Also, when unplugging, don’t “pull by the cord”.. grab the cap/plug and unplug that way.. pulling from the cord can damage the connections if they’re not high quality.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Lack of history again. It was not some marketing ploy. Increased use of plastic came about due to:

          1.. Gas shortages and perception of having reached peak oil.
          2. Concerns over air pollution, gas consumption.
          3. Food safety relative to preservation.

          The first two led to increasing emphasis of bottles and some packaging. LIGHTER loads reduced gas consumption in trucks, trains and planes.

          The last one increased use of packaging where paper was susceptible to allowing pathogens or insects into stuff. Like weavels in your cereal.

          PS No matter how innocuous you think govt laws on this stuff are, they are all just as bad as any other law. They all lead to unintended outcomes. Like islands of plastic floating in the ocean.

          That reminds me of one other reason plastic was going to save the planet. It wouldn’t decompose like the other “toxic” stuff we were using.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      In many ways a distraction and another way for the states to get money. Do not see anybody offering to parcel out even burial expenses for those who died and wonder just what will go into the “general fund” as opposed to treatment and LE programs. Where did the “tobacco settlement” monies wind up?

      Then there is fentynal. Just who is going after the Chinese in court! Hah!

    • What I have never understood about all these cases, if all these drugs, products have to go through the very expensive and extensive process of being approved for sell. Why or
      how can they be considered lying or responsible for future problems?

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        A good question. If you as a patient know you can become addicted, then, whose problem is it? I remember going through these discussions with friends back in the last century! We were talking about heroin and I kept hearing….”i can control it”. These are known as “famous last words”.

        I still think they care much more about the money they will get than the addiction or addict. Nobody in their right mind thinks that offering cannabis for casual sale is a good idea but the TAXES, yes, the TAXES are the driving force. You even see that when they discuss Colorado. The reports all start out, “Colorado has earned umpteen million dollars in revenue”.

        Of course I could make a “moral” case out of producing enough OXY in one year to provide 400 pills for every man, woman and child in the State of West Virginia, couldn’t I? But then agian, Morality, how outmoded, how passe, how very obsolete almost quaint.

        • Nobody in their right mind thinks that offering cannabis for casual sale is a good idea

          … I do …

          Oh.. you said “in their right mind.” Fair enough.

        • ”i can control it”. These are known as “famous last words”.

          I remember seeing once… yea, here it is…

          Poor Kiwi…

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Thanks, I appreciate that and have passed it on….as of two weeks back I now know six people personally who have lost children to heroin or other opiods in the past few years. I do fear for my grandchildren if we do not finally have a real goddam war on this .

            • There is one simple fact that kept me off drugs when I was a younger man, back when I was stupid enough to risk using addictive substances. It wasn’t fear of addiction, or heath risks, or legal risks, or problems of access. It was something even more basic: Drugs are freakin’ expensive.

              And I didn’t want to risk getting addicted to something that would eat all of my money.

              I’ve never even smoked a cigarette.

            • as of two weeks back I now know six people personally who have lost children to heroin or other opiods in the past few years

              I’m sorry to hear that.

              My kids are only 4 and 7… but I wonder when the “right” time will be to talk to them about this kind of thing… how to drill it into their skulls the dangers of that first use…

              God, having kids feels like a constant game of Russian Roulette, and it’s only a matter of time before something gets you.

              • Yep! Another lesson to learn before it’s too late…Never, ever talk smack about other’s kids…like “little Jimmy Smith is a loser for dropping out of school, or for doing drugs, or for B&E”…because you never know what your own child has up their sleeve.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Bunch of power seeking AG’s piling on. No honor, more corruption.

      Eliminate opioids. Then sit back and watch patients scream for more effective pain killers. How come the Doctors aren’t liable. The drug company didn’t subscribe the medications.

      • This overwhelming attack, does come off as more mob mentality than justice.

      • I’d argue the prescribing doctors were, at best, criminally negligent.

        If they were taking kickbacks from the drug company, and over prescribing, they should be shot out of a cannon.

        I used morphine after a foot surgery when I was younger and that was goooooood shit. Mathius looooooooves morphine. Which is why Mathius will never again touch the stuff. Because Mathius knows that if Mathius uses it too much, Mathius will not easily be able to stop. This kind of thing is no joke.

        ————–

        Then again, I am of two minds, as I so often am.

        Is it not MY life to with with as I will? Am I not free to destroy and addict my body as I wish? Is not another person selling me something I want a free-market exchange? Who is anyone else to get in between a private interaction between two consenting adults?

        I think the resolution to this conflict lies in that last point. Two… consenting adults.

        If I am addicted to the point that the chemical is in running my brain, am I able to “consent”? Perhaps not. I cannot consent when drunk. I cannot consent when high. Why? Because I my brain isn’t functioning within healthy parameters. If addiction is running the show, then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to make the case that I cannot consent to purchase or consume more drugs.

        Given this, the interaction between a prescribing doctor or a pharmacy and an addicted patient is more akin to a person giving poison to a mentally disabled person. Even if we ignore the “burden of care” or the “Hippocratic oath,” it’s still a question of an interaction which requires consent wherein consent is not (cannot be) given. Thus it is immoral.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Which brings us back to the doctors as the real culprit.

          Side note: One of the ACA provisions was REQUIRING Doctors to get electronic record keeping up to speed and linking into national data bases. The supposed purpose was the cost savings from Docs having full information. Which would include not over prescribing certain drugs. Wonder what ever happened to that? Cause my Docs did the conversion and now spend more time typing and entering data when with me than talking or listening. My insurance is paying them to enter data, not provide health care.

  22. And for those who care…..and even for those who do not….Just got back from my stress test…Yes, The Colonel does have a heart.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Yeah, so did the Grinch….two sizes too small!

    • And the results were ? Good

      • Thank you V H……yes, at 70 yrs, they wanted the heart rate at 130…..I went to 150 before the legs starting reminding me they were not 20 years old any longer. The doctor was pleased….see you in a year, he says……..so, sorry folks….I am here to stay awhile longer.

        BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA……………..and since Mathius has now introduced Colonel Longhorn*****…I now have an alter ego online…(not to be confused with all the others offline)

        *****Once we had a short class on the difference between a cow, bull, and steer. (But I am sure that it is Canine Weapons fault or at least Mathius will blame canine weapon as soon as he recovers from re-entry burns and what looked like a belly flop splash down.)

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    IDEA

    Create authority to pass 100% of Welfare dollars to Not of Profit companies. Eliminate all Federal Agencies linked to Welfare programs over a 3 year period. Sunset the Federal Program funding after 10 years. Tell NGO’s they have that long to get established and secure their lines of funding. No more Tax Money after 10 years.

    Then let it run at least another 10 years before evaluating effectiveness.

    WELFARE is charity and in a truly free society it should not be owned and operated by a Govt., which nothing but a monopoly of FORCE.

  24. Just A Citizen says:
  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Here in Sandpoint Library, hate laptop keyboard, reading the August/September issue of The Progressive. Unknown to me the alt-right white nationalist/white supremacist neo-nazies have taken over the Republican party. Even more shocking was finding out I am one of them.

    White nationalist…………. if you are white and you believe in National sovereignty instead of Global One World Govt. you are a “white nationalist” and thus defacto RACIST WHITE SUPREMACIST.

    I find it mind boggling how the “progressives” who wrote these articles think and believe. Or do they? Wonder how much is really about selling print and advertisements.

  26. Just A Citizen says:
    • I dont take much stock in the Hills political news, they rarely get it right. The polls are useless anyway, as we know now. Read the comment sections, Liberal Lunacy at its best mixed in with some fake Conservatives.

  27. Words politicians should never use (but I do like the transparency), TAKE and FORCE.

    Bye Beto, your NEVER going to be President.

    Biden stands by Barak! Go Biden Go.

    Just saw some highlights, watched NFL instead (much better choice of boredom).

    OH, Beto knows nothing about guns or the bullets they use. Embarrassment to Texas?

    • No sir, Beto is not a Texan…..he is a transplant.

      And, he just killed himself from any other office……after the rant on stage about, I am going to take your Ar15s and your AK47s and any other assault style weapon…….

      In an interview back stage after the debates, a reporter asked him how he was going to take AK47s from people when they do not have AK47s, his response was, “you know I am talking about the style of weapon, the ones that look like them”……he paused and then pointed to a protester outside…a young man wearing a “come and take it” T shirt, emblazoned with a picture of an AR15 on it……Beto then says, ” I will take the T shirts too”…………………Now, I understand how emotional he is about trying to get elected but, as suspected, this simply points out the position of some of the Democrats……He wants to obviously suppress free speech….the wearing of T shirts…..taking them and shutting up any protest to his or their position.

      I did not watch the debates at all because I already know the position of the candidates…I am trying to figure out which one to vote for when the primaries come to Texas……Which one do I want to see run against Trump….(One of the neat things about Texas, you can vote in any primary you wish before the Presidential election…..so most Republicans vote in the Democratic primaries….which is fun because it really skews the statistics……Republicans turn out in droves to vote in the Democratic primaries and the news media gets ecstatic about the turnout on the Democratic side in Texas…….and then scratch their heads when the actual election takes place…..they do not seem to realize that the pumped up numbers are Republicans voting in the Democratic Primary….It was fun to go vote for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders…..and then vote Republican in the election.

      Anyway…..Beto is cooked…..he will not even win a dog catcher election in Texas.

  28. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-dutch-court-doctor-landmark-euthanasia.html

    Opinions, I’m still thinking about it. I’m not looking at this on the basis of, is euthanasia right or wrong. Just the legal implications based on this case and any future cases where it is legal. In this case, I think he was guilty. I don’t know that he would be in all cases.

    • This kind of thing, to me, as it so often does, boils down to a question of consent.

      Or, rather, competency to consent.

      I look at this like someone saying “I’m going to get drunk tonight – whatever you do, don’t let me call my ex.” (“I’m going to be incompetent soon, no matter what I say then, honor this instruction”). Then he gets drunk and tries to call his ex, but his friends won’t let him.

      Did his friends do the wrong thing? Isn’t it HIS phone, and HIS right to call whoever he wants? He changed his mind, no?

      No, his friends were right. Not only because Tiffani, his ex, is a toxic bitch who sucked the life out of him and was only using him for his money, but because he bound himself before getting drunk, establishing a contract of sorts, and was unable to amend the contract he’d formed once he was no longer “of sound mind.” That is, he was no longer competent to consent to amend his contract.

      It’s WHY he bound himself upfront – because he knew (or suspected) that his incompetent self might try to do something his competent self didn’t want.

      Now, this is, of course, an imperfect analogy. For starters, it’s faaar more serious. Additionally, of course, inebriation is different than dementia.

      But the GIST is there.

      It is your life to decide for, but you can only make major binding decisions when you are competent to do so. Sure, you can buy a cheeseburger drunk, but you can’t sign a contract to buy a house. Technically, you shouldn’t be able to do the former either, but it’s minor, so we let it slide. But big things, things with real impacts, these require you to consent. And consent requires competence.

      If you, in contemplation of dementia, make a binding decision on your future self, and your future self is incompetent, then the future self can’t change the contract. The former decision must stand.

      The particulars, of course, make the whole thing messy, and it can vary wildly with the specific circumstances. And how much dementia qualifies as “incompetent to consent”?
      But it seems to me that, generally speaking, honoring the request of the person when their brain was functioning is the morally right thing to do. The person with a non-functioning brain is not competent to make their own medical decisions.

      ———

      PS: My grandfather died a decade before his body did. Parkinson’s turned his brain into a sludge of non-functioning goop, leaving behind a body with nobody home. A husk that looked like my grandfather, but wasn’t. It was a drain on everyone and everything, not just emotionally, but financially, too. His care consumed my grandmother’s life’s savings. Then it consumed tens of thousands (or even more) of my father’s money.

      If I ever suffer from severe dementia, my instructions (and my wife knows this) are to kill me. Don’t spend money on caring for a body that isn’t “me.” Don’t “visit” me for years out of a sense of obligation, or for the sake of the person I was. Just take me out back, put me down, and move on with your life. I do NOT want to be a burden like that on my family. I hope no one ignores my wishes – even if, in my dementia, I “change my mind.”

      Even if I’m begging and denying it in a spasm of incompetent blather, if my brain is gone, feed me to the wood chipper.

      • “The 74-year-old woman had renewed her living will about a year before she died, writing that she wanted to be euthanized “whenever I think the time is right.” Later, the patient said several times in response to being asked if she wanted to die: “But not just now, it’s not so bad yet!” according to a report from the Dutch regional euthanasia review committee. ”

        The above bothers me, I’m not seeing clear consent here. Especially since the woman had to be held down. I do acknowledge that dementia patients will fight you over many common things like taking a bath.

        • Given these particulars, I’d probably agree with you.

          My general thinking stands, but again, given what you’re saying, it doesn’t sound right.

  29. Canine Weapon says:

  30. I see you are back on line, Sir Mathius, how was your trip?

    Also, and you need to sit down for this………..are you sitting down? Ok…grab hold of your desk or arm rests……ready? Take a deep breath…you will need it……ready?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    I saw a person eating a churros………………like a corn dog…….with mustard. Shall I kill him now?

    • By the way, the lad was from Michigan and just moved here. Ok, fine, a transplant…I get it but crapola, mustard? There are some cultural things that we expect someone to get used to here…..and mustard on Churros……it has to be sacriligious. Just has to be.

      • … And… and you didn’t just kill them where they stood..?

        I don’t understand…?

        • Naw…….I was at a Ranger baseball game…..he sat across the aisle from me….and while eating a churros with mustard might be considered justifiable homicide, in todays world of snowflakes and political correctness, I might have gotten into trouble……well, maybe not. I was in front of my grand children and…………..no, that is just an excuse.

          I have no excuse, sir

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Euthanasia is MURDER……… pure and simple.

    Turning off LIFE support is NOT euthanasia. It is restoring normal processes.

    Just because someone is slipping into dementia does not negate the act of murder. Deliberate killing of an innocent person by another person. CONTRACTS???? Pshaw!!

    If you cannot contract to kill another then how can you contract to kill someone with dementia?

    • I see you are talking in the context of right and wrong, and I agree with you.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        That is how I think we should address this and many other issues. Far to often we create silly rationalizations in order to justify some gray zone. Not based on concretes but on our wishes and hopes.

        For example, deliberately killing an innocent person is murder. Has been for centuries. Now consider a supposed society where deliberately killing an innocent person is NOT murder. That each killing is justified on the basis of some arbitrary criteria, like the greater good, or………………… to appease the Gods. Not hard to imagine since such societies existed in history. We called the BARBARIC for a reason.

        As for those who wish to go before they are complete mushrooms, like Mathius, they need to take care of their own business. If Mathius enlists his wife’s help then he owes it to her to not get her caught up in murder charges.

        On a more spiritual and philosophical plane…………… I have wondered if experiencing the death experience is not part of living. To cheat it is to cheat the life experience as well. I also wonder if it affects our ability to transcend this world, and thus the ancient texts prohibiting suicide. I know, way out there stuff.

        Personal question: Have you seen the movie “Overcomer” yet?

        • For example, deliberately killing an innocent person is murder. Has been for centuries. Now consider a supposed society where deliberately killing an innocent person is NOT murder.

          Let’s willfully ignore the single most vital aspect of euthanasia which is consent.

          Let’s willfully ignore the fact the DIFFERENCE between murder and euthanasia is whether the person dying has asked the other party to do the killing.

          As for those who wish to go before they are complete mushrooms, like Mathius, they need to take care of their own business.

          Screw that. I want to be taken out when I’m too far gone. Not while I still have the mental faculties to do it myself. I need a third party to pull the trigger at that point.

          Ideally, I would like all my useful organs harvested first (while my body is still alive) as this results in the greatest chance of successful implantation in the recipient(s). Use me as a facility for spare parts until they’re needed/matched, then pull the plug on the waste parts you can’t use.

          I can’t do that myself. So I have the RIGHT to ask another person to help me do it.

          And YOU have no right to get in the middle of that.

          If Mathius enlists his wife’s help then he owes it to her to not get her caught up in murder charges.

          Oooooorrrrrr…….

          Or you all can butt the hell out of it and then she won’t face any murder charges anyway.

          On a more spiritual and philosophical plane……………

          You are, of course, free to wonder.

          What you are not free to do is use ideas of spirituality as a justification for deciding for me what I can and cannot do with my body.

          You cannot use YOUR nebulous and unsupported and unsupportable spiritual beliefs to override MY rights.

          On a more spiritual and philosophical plane……………

          On a more spiritual and philosophical plane, I believe that when my brain dies, the game is over for me. That things fade to black and that’s the end of the show.

          There are no credits, no curtain calls, no second chance, no great hereafter, no reincarnation, no pearly gates, and no lakes of brimstone.

          I believe that this one, short, precious life is all I get. And, by god, it is MY right to end it on MY terms. Not yours.

          Personal question: Have you seen the movie “Overcomer” yet?

          No.. should I?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            You? No. I am guessing you would just make fun of the story cause it is all about God and Jesus Christ in the lives of people who have FAITH.

            • I don’t really go out of my way to ridicule faith.

              Obviously, I am not a subscriber, but if it’s just between you and your faith.. whatever.

              It’s when you (the Royal You) start using your faith as grounds for interfering with my life that things start to become problematic.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                So if my reason for interfering in your life is arbitrary, or based on something other than religion it is OK?????

                Perhaps you constantly claiming that religion can not be a basis is an incomplete argument and focuses on religion a little to much.

              • So if my reason for interfering in your life is arbitrary, or based on something other than religion it is OK?????

                Arbitrary: No.

                Base on something other: Depends on the “something other.” As you know, I have a soft-spot for “greater good” arguments…

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            “There are no credits, no curtain calls, no second chance, no great hereafter, no reincarnation, no pearly gates, and no lakes of brimstone.”

            Dancing pattern of organic energy.

            • Dancing pattern of organic energy.

              Indeed.

              Dancing pattern of organic energy.

              “Whatever else it may be, at the level of chemistry life is curiously mundane:
              carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, a little calcium, a dash of sulfur, a light dusting of
              other very ordinary elements-nothing you wouldn’t find in any ordinary drugstore-and that’s
              ah you need. The only thing special about the atoms that make you is that they make you.”

              -Bill Bryson
              A Short History of Nearly Everything (worth the read)

    • Euthanasia is MURDER……… pure and simple.

      Absolute bullshit.

      This would presume that I don’t have dominion over my own body or the authority to self terminate or the authority to have someone else assist me.

      Just because someone is slipping into dementia does not negate the act of murder.

      It absolutely does… if – IF – that person has previously established this to be their wish.

      Deliberate killing of an innocent person by another person.

      It’s not about guilt or innocence. It’s about the fact that it’s MY RIGHT to do what I will with my body. And if -I- want to terminate MY body, then that’s my right to do.

      If I want to confer my rights onto another person, or ask them to assist to assist me in exercising my rights, that’s absolutely OK.

      My body is MINE.

      CONTRACTS???? Pshaw!!

      Yes. Contracts.

      Agreements.

      Consent.

      And lack thereof.

      If you cannot contract to kill another then how can you contract to kill someone with dementia?

      Because I don’t have the right to kill that other person. But I do have the right to kill MYSELF. And since I have that right, I can contract with another person to exercise my right on my behalf.

      Asking this is like saying “if you cannot sell someone else’s house without the owners’ permission, how can you contract with a realtor to sell your own house?”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You have the authority to terminate yourself. You have the authority to ask for a contract agreement but NOBODY has the authority to take you up on the deal.

        Take your pure Bull Shit and spread it in your garden where it will do more good.

        • You have the authority to ask for a contract agreement but NOBODY has the authority to take you up on the deal.

          Why the hell not?

          Why am I free to confer my rights onto others, allow them exercise of my rights on my behalf… I can do this for anything at any time.. except this?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Because it is immoral to commit murder. And murder it is, no matter that you asked or begged.

            NO KILLING AN INNOCENT PERSON.

        • Hey, JAC.

          This computer belongs to me.

          It is MINE.

          I own it.

          Only I have the right to destroy it.

          Because it is MINE, and the right to destroy it is MY right as a sub-property of my ownership rights. Mine alone.

          You cannot destroy it because it is not yours.

          If you destroyed it, that would be a violation of my rights. That would be evil. That would be destruction of property. You would be exercising rights which do not belong to you. And this is wrong.

          If I destroyed it, that would just fine. Because it is mine. Because it is mine, I own it. Because I own it, I can destroy it. Choosing to do so is not a violation of anyone’s rights.

          You know what, though, I’ve had a change of heart. I grant you permission to destroy it. I am conferring upon you the right to exercise MY right to destroy MY property. I am giving you the right to destroy something that belongs to me.

          Better still, I’m asking you to destroy it for me.

          Here, please, take this hammer and destroy my computer.

          You have my permission to exercise this right on my behalf.

          [JAC then destroys my computer]

          —————————————

          Has JAC done anything wrong in this scenario?

          —————————————

          Why, therefore, if we change “computer” to “body” has anything changed?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Your body and your soul is NOT PROPERTY. let alone “real” property.

            A computer is not you.
            Same answers I gave you last time you raised these superfluous arguments.

            This is part of what is wrong with the libertarian view. It has no moral/ethical grounding. Nothing of metaphysics. Just a claim that you are property.

            • Your body […] is NOT PROPERTY. let alone “real” property.

              Sure it is.

              It’s a sack of meat. Sacks of meat have no rights.

              I OWN that sack of meat.

              Which is why I can choose where it goes, what it does, and what I put in it. It’s why I can feed it junk food or choose to exercise it four hours a day. It’s why I can decide when it does and does not engage in any given activity. And it’s why I can unilaterally decide to, say, chop off a limb and there isn’t a goddamned thing anyone can do to stop me. Why? Because I own it.

              […] your soul is NOT PROPERTY. let alone “real” property.

            • […] your soul is NOT PROPERTY. let alone “real” property.

              I have no evidence for the existence of the soul, nor what properties it might possess.

              If you wish to assert that it is not property, then you are free to do so, but I cannot have a debate on these grounds. If you are to assert that it is not property, and do so without any evidence, then I may submit the contrary without evidence, and my case is equally valid to yours.

              A computer is not you.

              No. It is not.

              It is my PROPERTY.

              Just like my body is my property.

              And my rights of ownership, and my derivative rights thereto are all assignable.

              Just as I can assign you the right to destroy my computer, so, too, can I assign you the right to destroy my body.

              As seen in the below football example, I can permit… or not permit.. harm to my body. This is my right, absolutely… but it is my right which I may selectively confer onto another person as I – the right holder – wish.

              This is part of what is wrong with the libertarian view. It has no moral/ethical grounding. Nothing of metaphysics. Just a claim that you are property.

              I hold this view.

              So far I see nothing to rebut it.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                You provided NO evidence to support your claim that your body and soul are property. I deny they are. Then you demand I provide proof they are not otherwise you cannot discuss this with me.

                Prove your assumption……….. And in doing so please address the FACT that ALL PROPERTY ever discussed, argued over, claimed and disclaimed by humans, the things wars are fought over and families fall divided due to, were SEPARATE OF YOUR BODY OR YOUR SOUL.

                You have property. You are not your own property …..YOU SIMPLY ARE YOU a human being.

                Point of order: In my use here, Soul = your consciousness, your awareness so to speak. It is not your brain but the product of how your brain functions…………. in conjunction with your body. Whether it passes to energy, dust or heaven is of no matter to this discussion. It exists as I use it here and it DEPENDS on your body just as your body to much extent depends on it.

              • OH HELL, IF IT WILL STOP THE ARGUING, i WILL SEND RAPTORS, therefore, it is not murder….it is simpy one creature eating another one……although, it might be painful…Raptors do disembowel and start on you while alive……

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    MATHIUS

    I need your help understanding something. This idea of indexing stock gains (cap gains) to inflation. I do not understand what they are asking for as all I see is Bad Orange Man proposed this. I see Romney is patting POTUS on the back for dropping it.

    I have always assumed that the stock market cap gains reflects inflation. The cost of inflation is built into and part of the gain, as it should be with Interest on Savings. Obviously during bad times the prices drop below but then when good times come again, they rush up and past where they were. Again exceeding inflation………..hence a long term average of almost 7% return on the S&P.

    So how is this “indexing” supposed to work and why would anyone with stock want it??? Or are they really talking about indexing the CAP GAIN tax rate?

    • I bought my house in 1992. Say I spent $250K for it. $250K in today’s dollars is $464K. So just to break even on my investment, I would need to sell for $$64K but I would show a profit of $214K. If taxed at 20% (the top rate and ignoring real property and senior citizen rules), I would pay $42.8K in taxes realizing a net loss. If the investment was indexed I would pay nothing. I do not know how they plan to structure the new indexed tax but the fairest would be to discount the gains for inflation and then tax them at as normal earned income. Thus the capital gains tax as we know it would be eliminated.

      Unfortunately, this would treat money in bank differently since this is basically considered cash and not an investment. But then the interest on the money is taxed annually. As a result, this would encourage long term investments.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Wonder why the Democrats/Progressives haven’t come up with the idea that the Federal Govt. should require life insurance companies to pay off in event of a suicide or murder by proxy, some call it assisted suicide or euthanasia??????

  34. Canine Weapon says:

    .

  35. JAC,

    We’re playing football, you and I.

    You’re running with the ball. Seconds left, down by 3. You’re at the 40.. 30.. 20..

    Out of the left, playing safety, Mathius comes barreling at you. 6’1, 200+ lbs of muscle… hurtling at you at fantastic speed.

    … 10 ….. You can taste victory.

    … 5 ….

    Mathius impacts into you like a freight train.

    You are rocked laterally and sent sprawling at the 5.

    ——————————————-

    Have I done anything immoral / evil / unethical / wrong? Have I violated your rights?

    Why not? I mean, I hurt you. Badly. It’s your body.. surely it’s wrong for me to Ram err… Charge.. you like that, no?

    ——————————————-

    Ok, let’s change a minor detail.

    Same scenario, except you make it into the end zone.

    The whistle blows, the crowd is cheering JAC-JAC-JAC.

    Visions of the Heisman float through your mind.

    You’re doing your celebratory dance. The funky chicken.

    From the left, playing safety, Mathius comes barreling at you. 6’1, 200+ lbs of muscle… hurtling at you at fantastic speed.

    He knows the play is over. He simply do not care.

    Mathius impacts into you like a freight train.

    ——————————————-

    Have I done anything immoral / evil / unethical / wrong? Have I violated your rights?

    Why? I mean, it was fine five yards away, not 10 seconds earlier!

    ——————————————-

    What changed between the two?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      You are describing a GAME with rules established by human beings. A GAME for crying out loud.

      I am discussing CORE Moral and Ethical principles here.

      This is where Black Flag would add some very insulting comment about your arguments.

      • Humor me.

        Why can I hit you the first time, but not the second? What has changed?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          RULES OF THE GAME…………… for starters. Both parties are engaged in a violent game, thus nobody is innocent??? Just sayin. Play is over, the game stops.

          Those rules are based partly on a human sense of what is right and wrong. And blindsiding someone who is NOT engaged in the battle of the game is wrong.

          AND, Football is a game not you asking someone to KILL you.

          But ironically, if you blind sided me after the play and it killed me, you could be charged with manslaughter or murder, depending on your prior comments and attitudes.

          • Partial credit.

            You’re on the right track though.

            The point of it being a game is that we’re both engaged in a mock battle wherein we may harm each other. By agreeing to engage in this manner, we are waiving our right not to be harmed… within the bounds of the rules.

            Almost certainly, this is explicitly agreed in our written and signed contracts.

            When I tackled you the first time, you can’t say I violated your rights because you formed a contract – implicit and explicit – wherein I am allowed to tackle you if doing so is permitted by the rules. The right to harm your body via tackle is YOURS, but you have granted me permission to exercise this right (within the rules of the game (or related accidents)).

            HOWEVER, when I tackled you the second time, you have not agreed to this. You have NOT contracted that I am permitted to intentionally harm you outside of the rules of the game. The right to harm your body via tackle is YOURS, and you have NOT granted me permission to exercise it in this way. Thus I am violating your rights.

            Do you stipulate to this interpretation?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              No.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Because you are trying to use rules of a game and lower tier ethical standards to address a CORE principle concept.

              Deal with Deliberately Killing an Innocent Human Being.

              • Because you are trying to use rules of a game and lower tier ethical standards to address a CORE principle concept.

                No. I am trying to demonstrate a logical argument:

                A) The body is property. (fundamental assertion)

                B) Your body is your property. (demonstrated by your sole control over your body)

                C) You have certain rights over your property (derivative rights). (demonstrated by computer destruction example)

                D) Derivative property rights include the right to destroy your property. (demonstrated by computer destruction example)

                E) You have the right to assign your rights to another. (demonstrated by football example and computer destruction example)

                F) Others may exercise rights you have given them within the terms you set. (demonstrated by football example and computer destruction example)

                G) Others may not exercise rights belonging to you outside of the terms you set (demonstrated by football example.

                THUS

                1. If I own my body and my body is property, then I have the right to destroy it.

                2. If I have the right to destroy it, then I have the right to assign my right to another.

                THEREFORE

                A person so assigned may destroy my body within the terms I set. (“Euthanasia”)
                A person may not destroy my body without my permission or outside of the terms I set. (“Murder”)

                QED

                Euthanasia is ethical.
                Murder is not ethical.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Now please answer my more important question about indexing Cap Gains.

      • I have no opinion on the matter. Sorry to disappoint. I really haven’t dug into this one enough to offer worthwhile thoughts.

        Though “orange man bad” seems a pretty good starting place….

    • Just A Citizen says:

      What happens when your 6’1″ 200 + body makes contact with me??

      YOU LOSE http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/zOnDIbiZSo9/Seattle+Seahawks+v+Atlanta+Falcons/f6t3Be6wYIN/Marshawn+Lynch

    • The Funky Chicken, of course…

  36. This is part of what is wrong with the libertarian view. It has no moral/ethical grounding. Nothing of metaphysics. Just a claim that you are property.

    Somehow reminds me of…

    https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    State of mind relative to ability to consent.

    I am my son’s guardian because he is not mentally capable. No ability to make contracts that are binding, to use your example.

    He tells me he wants me to kill him if he gets sick. Sorry, I can’t make that agreement because he is not able. It is not ethical to contract with someone unfit, correct???

    As his legal guardian I contract with myself to kill my son if he gets sick. How will the LAW treat me when I complete this task? Why does the law not recognize your “right of contract” relative to “consent”. Should I not simply be found guilty of violating the fiduciary responsibility rather than murder, per your argument?

    You see, this is the kind of silliness you create when you try to apply property rights to issues of killing innocent people.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    ON your football analogy. Maybe what you should really be asking is whether such a violent game should exist in a Civilized Society? Is the game itself consistent with Civilized moral/ethical principles.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Further proof that AOC’s brain is stuck on racist memes. That and sexism. The answer to every question is racism and misogyny.

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/gop-group-defends-ad-showing-burning-image-aoc-democratic-debate

    And before someone asks, I have no problem with the ad itself. Just as I had no problem with the adds by D or R showing crosshairs and using words like “me must target…..).

    We have gone mad if we cannot discern symbolism and metaphors from actual threats of violence.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    A) The body is property. (fundamental assertion)

    The Moon is made of powder cheese (fundamental assertion)

    You are correct in one thing. If you demand to base your arguments on a “fundamental assertion” which you cannot defend in anyway, then there is no argument to be had.

    Note: The concept of PROPERTY is a human invention. It exists AFTER the existence of the human body/mind/soul. Not at the same time and not before, but after. Thousands of years after.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Note: Going back to the Tea Party days the Republican elite have been fighting over who gets to control the data bases. Centralized vs. decentralized, Party vs. Candidates, etc etc..

    The Dems had similar problems last year when the Obama Machine did not share everything with everybody. They didn’t share much with the Clinton Machine either. The Clinton’s thought themselves smarter so I guess that didn’t matter as much.

    It is an interesting question within the bowels of party politics. How should it be run? Also, the reason the R’s are much farther behind is they were always about Decentralization compared to the D’s.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/republicans-clash-win-red-trump-1494754

  42. Listening to idiots who have no idea about guns, talking about guns is like asking a one year old to not shit in his/her diaper. These people are really bad (Yes, I’m watching FOX). Talking about Beto’s stupid comment about guns that are designed to kill. A little lesson for the Left, ALL guns are designed to kill. It is the sole purpose of their existence. Claiming that a 5.56 mm (AR-15) is somehow a secret weapon of a bullet shows how dumb people are. The 5.56 is a piece of crap for war. It’s a great varmint cartridge, but not all that great at killing people. I prefer anything in 30 caliber for the purpose of killing large animals (deer, bear, people etc) Beto has proven he should be boning AOC, two people who are as smart as an empty bag of hammers.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      I do not know if it really furthers the cause of bearing arms to argue with these people over what is actually and assault rifle and which ammo is best for killing large animals.

      The see kids getting killed in bunches. Their FEELINGS are over the top…..anxiety galore and anger because they have been led to believe something will stop this. And if not, we can at least do something…….. regardless. Cause it sounds practical…….. plausible…who knows.

      We NEED the right to have these weapons to protect ourselves from Tyrannical Govt and other criminals. This includes our own as well as foreign Govts. End of story.

      Give up our guns and we make ourselves vulnerable……….period………end of story.

      So how do we keep these guns out of the hands of people who will use them to kill innocent people??????

      Is this even possible????????

      We should all have cars/horses/planes/boats (means of transport). How do we keep these from being used as weapons of mass destruction????

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      more.. was thinking the proper response to the next stupid gun grabber comment which is usually, “well then should private citizens be allowed to have nukes?” The proper is YES. But other constraints prevent this. Like irradiating your neighbors let alone the expense.

      Then I had a thought. What if Idaho had NUKES and the legislature told the Feds we were taking the land the Fed Govt. never properly gave the State when we were admitted to the Union. Don’t you think the Fed’s reaction would be a little different than if all we had was the militia armed with 30.06 and 12 gauge shotguns?

      Come to think of it, if the local town council demand I take down my lean-to and I told em to kiss by back side, what are they going to do with me holding onto a nuke??? Bwahahahahahaha

      Of course this leads to recognizing that there is at least a partial rightful desire of some small countries to acquire Nukes. As a deterrent against the Big Bad Bullies of the World.

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    gman

    About 50 gallons of pears off one tree this year. And most are BIG pears.

    Thought you would appreciate.

  44. JAC……curiosity.

    If you have to put down your best horse for any health reason because the quality of life has rendered your trusty steed to a painful mess and it breaks your heart to see him suffer….you would do the humane thing….

    IS the difference with you in people vs animals is your belief that a person has a soul?

    Caveat: This is not for argumentative puposes….I really want to know where the difference lies in your mind and beliefs.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      Sir, I may or may not put the horse down depending on the nature of his suffering. I did not put my old hunting friend down despite his loss of hearing and his stiffness. He would still sit by me and wag his tail when I scratched his ears. Wagging of tail = some sense of happiness, despite the aches and pains. I let him die a natural death of old age. Although I was there by his side for the entire journey of passing. Had he been suffering serious pain, showing no signs of happiness or contentment I would have probably done what we call the “humane” thing.

      But to your question, No. It has nothing to do with souls. Although in my world the horse has a soul. He has a Horse’s soul I have a human soul. Just as the elk has a soul and when I kill him I thank him for giving his life so that I may live. I do this immediately so that he may know my gratitude on his passing to the great beyond.

      I look forward to riding my horse in that place someday, with my hunting partner at my side and those elk running along with us. All basking in the warm sun as we race across the meadows filled with wildflower and singing birds, and those snow capped peaks looming on the horizon.

      The difference is in our identity. We are humans, a higher functioning (I know some would sy otherwise) animal than other animals. We are at the top of the triangle. But more importantly we are human thus we create human rules. Horses have rules as well. I doubt they have moral or ethical standards, but you know as well as I …… they do have rules and it hurts when you or another horse violates them.

      Going beyond this and to Mathius’ whole argument is the set of rules we call human morality which should inform human law/or rules of conduct. So back to my horse. Suppose I put him down as a merciful act of compassion because I do not wish him to suffer. It is not murder because he is not human. And the human rules for killing my horse make it OK, as long as I do it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Noting here that humans have, only recently, created rules dictating how you must carry out your compassionate execution of your horse, dog, etc.

      Those same human rules, supported by human morals which evolved over thousands of years, do not allow you to kill your wife out of sympathy for her condition…Although in your case the roles would be probably be reversed …..lol :). Those same laws, in most places, also prohibit suicide. But who the hell is going to prosecute you for that one? The theologians leave that up to God, the lawyers leave it up to your life insurance company.

      Colonel, I do not use the term “soul” in any religious context. I use the term to recognize that there is a difference between the consciousness that is the essence of who we are and the body which supports it. Obviously they are tied together. The now famous lady with Autism, Temple Grandin asked this question in her youth, when watching an animal die…”where did he go?” She recognized that the thing that was the animal had suddenly left, gone somewhere, and was not here any longer. The body was still there but the thing that was “he/it” had gone somewhere. That was how she described it.

      Mathius can apply his arguments of brain function if he wants. It does not change the equation for me. It is just presenting a different description of the same thing. There is more to YOU than just your body and just your brain.

      Consider this, your brain cannot feel by itself, but it can make you feel, and when it does you are aware of that feeling. The brain requires the rest of the body to create the sensations that allow it to create the feeling that it/you and your body then experiences.

      Your question caused me to remember another thing, the emotional impact of “taking” the life itself. Could it be that our human rules against mercy killing other humans has as much to do with our understanding of how it feels to take a life? Especially a human life? I know of no hunters being treated for PTSD because of how their hunting has affected them. I doubt that is just cultural training. So why is it we have such a reaction. I expect even our barbarian ancestors had these feelings since they run so deep in us.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      Sorry my dear Texican friend. I just read your question again and my treatise on morality, law and the metahpysical/spiritual. You deserved a more direct answer.

      The difference lies in being human vs. a horse.

      Hope that eliminates any confusion caused by my over thought philosophical answer.

      🙂

      • Your answer was just fine……thank you, sir. I hope no one ever has to face the situation of deciding who lives and who dies. I hope no one has to ever look into the face of a human being, even though an enemy bent on killing you. I hope no one ever has to face a mortally wounded comrade and have to make a decision not to let him fall into enemy hands because you cannot get him out and you know he will either be left to die an agonizing death if left to the jungle or, worse yet, an enemy that will torture. It may be legal in war but it does not make it any better. You still have to live with the memories. The ghosts……

        I do not know how I feel about euthanasia, per se. I can see the good and I can see the bad….but whether or not it is good or bad still does not make it easy.

        But, I fall on the side of DNRs and they are contracts. I may be wrong, but I also feel like if I want to take myself out because I do not want to live a life of pain because of cancer or some similar illness, that should be my decision to make. No individual, law, doctor, hospital should ever deprive me of that right…..Now, having said that, the issue of assisted suicide or the use of euthanasia should still be a right of the individual if said decision is made with a clear mind.. I do not see where anyone has a right to interfer.

        I am having a hard time, unless I have misread you, understanding that you call it murder. Would a DNR fall under your same definition? Does a doctor have a moral obligation to not recognize a DNR?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Colonel

          A DNR would NOT fit as murder. Just went through one of those. The patient is almost gone. Their prior decision is to not bring them back not use extra measures to save them. When the Docs look at this their criteria is that there has to be basically no hope. There is some trust going on between the Doc and family present, if any.

          So the contract is “do not save me”. As opposed to Mathius’ “please kill me before I get that far”. There in lies the difference.

          I say murder for the euthanasia because that is what our current moral and legal laws say. It is also, ironically, the proper interpretation of the Non Aggression Principle put forth previously by Mathius, DPM, Black Flag, etc. etc.. So what we see today is at least one of them wants to create an exception to the rule for convenience.

          Taking Mathius’ argument and applying a twist. That being property and thus contracts. What if his wife decides she AINT GOIN TO DO IT and sends the wood chipper back to the store? He’s out of it by now. Is he going to sue her for non performance or breach of contract?????

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    IDEA

    In addition to the Terrorism Watch or Do Not Fly List we need a list that prohibits people from working in or for or being any where around the levers of power in Govt. at any level.

    Call it the Corrupt Swamp Monster No Work List. What ever.

    All people serving in govt. who resign or are fired, or not elected again are automatically placed on the list.

    Kind of like the two term limit. One in Congress and one in prison.

    If we cannot prosecute these people for openly violating laws, which we all would be jailed for, then we should at least ban them from public service…………for life.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    7.2 Critiques of the Language of Rights
    The language of rights can resist the charge that it is necessarily complicit with individualism. However, critics have accused rights talk of impeding social progress:

    Our rights talk, in its absoluteness promotes unrealistic expectations, heightens social conflict, and inhibits dialogue that might lead toward consensus, accommodation, or at least the discovery of common ground. In its silence concerning responsibilities, it seems to condone acceptance of the benefits of living in a democratic social welfare state, without accepting the corresponding personal and civic obligations…. In its insularity, it shuts out potentially important aids to the process of self-correcting learning. All of these traits promote mere assertion over reason-giving.

    Glendon (1991, 14) here draws out some of the detrimental practical consequences of the popular connection between rights and conclusive reasons that we saw above. Since rights assertions suggest conclusive reasons, people can be tempted to assert rights when they want to end a discussion instead of continuing it. One plays a right as a trump card when one has run out of arguments. Similarly, the ready availability of rights language may lead parties initially at odds with each other toward confrontation instead of negotiation, as each side escalates an arms-race of rights assertions that can only be resolved by a superior authority like a court. One line of feminist theory has picked up on this line of criticism, identifying the peremptory and rigidifying discourse of rights with the confrontational masculine “voice.” (Gilligan 1993)

    It is not inevitable that these unfortunate tendencies will afflict those who make use of the language of rights. As we have seen, it may be plausible to hold that each right is “absolute” only within an elaborately gerrymandered area. And it may be possible to produce deep theories to justify why one has the rights that one asserts. However, it is plausible that the actual use of rights talk does have the propensities that Glendon suggests. It seems no accident that America, “the land of rights,” is also the land of litigation.

    Another deleterious consequence of rights talk that Glendon picks out is its tendency to move the moral focus toward persons as rightholders, instead of toward persons as bearers of responsibilities. This critique is developed by O’Neill (1996, 127–53; 2002, 27–34). A focus on rightholders steers moral reasoning toward the perspective of recipience, instead of toward the traditional active ethical questions of what one ought to do and how one ought to live. Rights talk also leads those who use it to neglect important virtues such as courage and beneficence, which are duties to which no rights correspond. Finally, the use of rights language encourages people to make impractical demands, since one can assert a right without attending to the desirability or even the possibility of burdening others with the corresponding obligations.

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    On Natural Rights

    I have spent much time, some would say way to much time, researching and thinking on this subject. I will not go on about whether they exist or not. I will share one conclusion I have come to regarding the when and why they came to be so prominent.

    It was the period of Monarchy and the growing desire to be free from its oppression. Thinkers like Locke, following Aquinas, really pounded on it to provide sound arguments against arbitrary oppression by the Monarch or Govt.

    So in essence, how do you create an absolute defense against Govt tyranny? The term “rights” to that point was not as solid as we think today. It even included Rights of the King over his subjects. But given the role of Christianity in the world along with the enlightenment thinking that was growing, placing NATURAL as a qualifier elevated Rights to the role of ABSOLUTE RULES. Rules that could not be violated without violating the Laws of Nature OR of Nature’s God. Once the people grabbed a hold of this concept, Monarchical govt was doomed. No Govt. could override Natural Rights without consent of those who held those rights.

    Move forward to modern times. It is primarily the conservatives and some libertarians that stand strongly on Natural Rights. It is those who wish to bestow greater power in Govt. to achieve what they think noble causes that more often argue that rights are dependent upon society’s views, eventually upon Govt. grant.

    The clip I posed from the article above on the Language of Rights gets to this but in a more mumbled academic manner. The stance on Natural Rights is one of absolutism. But that absolutism is necessary to motivate the populace to stand against tyrannical tendencies. So the move made by Aquinas, Locke, et. al. is still working to this day. Although the number falling on the Govt. granted rights sides is growing. They are trying to bury Locke and Jefferson in a deep dark place far far away form our minds eye.

    Remember this. When your body is infected with a potentially deadly disease, the Doctors say you have been “compromised”. The absolute nature of Natural Rights is the enemy of compromise. Now you know why the author in that article was complaining about how “rights language” can stifle or prevent compromise.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    That was close, but the Cougs beat the Cougars.

  49. WASHINGTON, D.C.—Politicians in Washington have developed a radar that detects when people are enjoying something so they can figure out what will be the target of their next ban.

    The advanced fun detection system has already found hundreds of new things that politicians in Washington weren’t aware people were enjoying. Every day, the lawmakers and executives are provided with a list of fun stuff people are doing and then immediately get to work on stopping this fun.
    “Welp, looks like it’s vapes today,” said one advisor in the White House as he checked the charts. “People are having a lot of fun with them. A very small percentage of people are dying of them. So, we’ve got to ban them.”
    “Also they look stupid.”
    Radar reports people have been enjoying drones, fireworks, video games, plastic straws, saturated fats, milk, rain water, hunting rifles, free speech, the Second Amendment, plastic bags, and feeding homeless people. These and many other dangerous freedoms were quickly targeted by lawmakers.
    “It’s amazing when I look at this printout every morning and notice how much freedom there still is out there despite our best efforts,” said one congressman. “There is much work to be done.”

  50. VENICE—A thought-provoking new art exhibit in Venice, Italy yesterday showed Elizabeth Warren sitting at a desk reading her DNA test results for over an hour.

    Warren sat at the desk and read through the thousands of pages providing conclusive proof that she’s not Native American in an exhibit that was said to be a “powerful statement speaking truth to science.”
    “Dear Ms. Warren, you are still not Native American. Please stop contacting us,” read one letter she received from Ancestry.com, which she had slammed with a one-star review. “I sent them a few more letters after this, before they got a restraining order,” she told the crowd gathered. “We’re good pals, me and those guys.”
    Another letter read, “For the last time, Ms. Warren, we cannot provide you with any proof that you are Native American as we are the Cleveland Indians, a baseball franchise. And no, we do not have any headdresses you can borrow for your campaign. Again, the baseball thing.”
    She read through pages and pages of hard evidence that she’s at most 1/1024th Native American, or about as Native American as any random guy you meet outside 7-Eleven or at a baseball game. After the exhibit had concluded, Warren retired to her wigwam.

  51. https://www.theepochtimes.com/air-force-deal-to-refuel-near-trump-resort-signed-while-obama-was-president-reports_3081215.html

    This shouldn’t be a surprise. All the blather over this, and it’s a big nothing burger.

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    Re, the desire for more parties represented in Congress. Like I said, it would probably tie things up even more. Nobody has ever explained how you address the kinds of power plays represented in the following within our Congressional structure. The only real difference is that under our system a Govt. will be installed. Coalition is not needed to seat the govt., but it is needed to get anything done. Of course, I prefer gridlock most of the time so feel free.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-election-preview/king-bibi-fights-for-his-political-life-in-israeli-election-idUSKCN1VY1TD

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    This kind of garbage passing as journalism makes my head want to explode. Might as well let the Wilderness Societies media person write the story. Oh wait, …………

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/alaska-trump-tongass-forest-weir-wxc/index.html

  54. Just A Citizen says:

    You just have to love how dense people are at times. I love the name of this new space effort/society, by the way. Sign me up.

    But note how the world bodies (nation states) have signed a treaty stating that NO Sovereign entity may exist in outer space then in the next breath claim Nation State sovereignty power over anyone who decides to travel in space or land on any “celestial body”.

    Note to Asgardians: When you get out there and the UN says you can’t. Tell them “well you made your laws on earth so feel free to come out here and enforce them.”

  55. JAC,

    Would you agree that speaking of rights without the balancing influence of responsibilities / morality leads to “logical” arguments devoid of humanity or at least lacking the essence of humanity?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Probably not in the way you put it. I see the two as integrally linked in that “responsibility” is kind of the essence of what a “right” is. Rights are these strange things that humans claim without really having a solid meaning.

      The function of the right, in simple terms, is to place responsibility on someone. Negative rights place responsibility on someone to NOT act against the right holder. Right to speech.
      Positive rights create a responsibility on someone TO act on behalf of the right holder. Right to healthcare.

      As for the role of morality, I think any discussion of anything in this realm of ideas without morality included is lacking in “humanity”. I do not see logical arguments as being necessarily separate from or divorced from morality.

      If morals are the rules of what is right and wrong, we then have to ask which comes first. Morals or Rights? The rules of right and wrong or the “right” we toss out to notify others they must not interfere. Seems to me that rights, that is most rights, flow from morals and values.

      The idea of Natural Rights would “theoretically” be different because the idea is that such rights exist just because we exist. Which would mean they exist prior to man thinking about morals. But even the “natural” rights most of us think about have “right and wrong” tied to them.

      My Right to property carries a moral standard that stealing other’s property is wrong.

      I used to defend the idea of “Natural” rights vehemently. I am now thinking such things do not exist in fact as a matter of nature. That ALL Rights are constructed by humans as part of our complex nature and effort to draw up rules of conduct between us as people and us and our Govt. that will further cooperation and long term flourishing.

      Maybe you could give me an example of how you think there could be a conflict. This would help focus or narrow the discussion.

      • I’m just gonna tell you what I’ve been thinking. Let’s take principles, you stated there are rules we live by. Those are the Guiding principles a society should be ruled by based on right and wrong. As an example, we do not have the right to kill an innocent human being. I think the correctness of that principle is instinctively know n by all humans. But that doesn’t mean there are never exceptions to that principle, never times when an extreme situation makes one have to decide whether standing on principle is really the right thing to do. But it’s an exception, an extreme exception, not the guiding principle that should guide man. Now let’s look at Mathius’s idea on euthanasia. I own my body, so I can tell someone too kill me and it’s a okay. I see no guiding principles in his arguments. We’re not talking an extreme exception to the guiding principle. The principle has totally disappeared, the morality has been dismissed as unimportant.The argument seems logical, but all morality is gone.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Let me explain this: “The argument seems logical, but all morality is gone.”

          First of all Mathius is stating a “moral’ Principle as he see it. That is that it is not moral for others to interfere in him exercising authority over his own body. I submit it really isn’t logical, it only sound like it.

          His standard is supported by a claim that “he owns his own body”, that it is in FACT property. Not like property, but actual property. But one’s body is like no other property one might own. The person did not purchase them self, did not inherit them self, did not make them self, and was not given as a gift to them self. Property, actual property is made, purchased or gifted to you. That is how you come to own it. This is but one of the flaws with the argument that your property includes your body.

          But here is the real trick which violates logical argument. For your body to be property and thus giving your absolute power over it, you have to first prove that property itself is so sacred. Mathius takes the same approach as the anarco-Capitalists and what some call right wing libertarians. He declares property a Right. This is a given, an assumption, handed to you without proof. So no, I do not think his argument smacks of logic without morality.

          It is not logical, it is not reasoned, but it does contain HIS morality.

          In your thoughts you use the word Right where I think other words belong. Morals and Rights are not the same. And as the article I posted above says, we have come to toss the word “rights” around to the point we have lost track of what they really are. It is immoral to kill an innocent person. For a multitude of reasons, including use of logic and reason. But you really don’t say that someone does not have a right to kill innocent people. That is an example of how the language of rights makes things confusing.

          We have to address the chicken v. egg. Wwhich comes first, rights or morals??

          • His standard is supported by a claim that “he owns his own body”, that it is in FACT property. Not like property, but actual property.

            Correct.

            Though I’ve been thinking about this question this weekend and I realized that, while absolutely true, it is unnecessary to the point I’m making.

            Even if my body is “me” as you put it, it doesn’t matter. Because I have the right to kill “me.”

            I can throw “me” off a cliff. Whether that’s my body or my consciousness doesn’t matter. I have the right to do this.

            That I couch this in property rights (“I own myself”) doesn’t really matter. You’ve stipulated I have the right to kill myself.

            And rights are assignable.

            Therefore, I don’t have to prove to you the basis for my right, only that it exists (as you’ve stipulated).

            But one’s body is like no other property one might own. The person did not purchase them self, did not inherit them self, did not make them self, and was not given as a gift to them self.

            First of all, I ABSOLUTELY did “make it myself.”

            From the minute I was born to the minute I die, I will produce new cells, slough off old cells. It is estimated that, in the course of a human lifetime, the entirity of your entire body will be replaced seven times. (fun thought experiment – look up The Ship of Thebes).

            I MADE this.

            “Me.” I made it.

            I may not completely understand all the mechanisms involved. But I sure as hell DID make this body. It’s not the one I was born with.

            If, in some bizarre reality, nail clippings had value, would you assert that your clipped nails are not something “you made.”

            Now, before you argue that “grow” is different than “make,” I’d point out if you plant a seed and grow a plant, that’s also your property.

            But one’s body is like no other property one might own. The person did not purchase them self, did not inherit them self, did not make them self, and was not given as a gift to them self.

            Even if that were all true, what does this matter?

            Do you deny that I have absolute dominion over my body? Whether we call it “property” or “blargon,” I retain all the relevant rights, absolute authority, and no one has standing to override that.

            So, sure, if it helps you sleep, my body (“me”) isn’t “property,” it’s a special class of object we call Blargon (pronounced blar-ghon). And we know the properties of Blargon: I have absolute authority over it, I may destroy it.

            We also know that rights are transferrable by way of 1,000 other examples I can show. So if you wish to assert that Blargon rights are not, the onus is on YOU to prove otherwise.

            Property, actual property is made, purchased or gifted to you.

            This, again, is a distinction without a difference.

            What bearing does this distinction have on my rights?

            And, again, I DID make this body. Just as surely as if I’d grown a plant.

            Mathius takes the same approach as the anarco-Capitalists and what some call right wing libertarians. He declares property a Right. This is a given, an assumption, handed to you without proof. So no, I do not think his argument smacks of logic without morality.

            ::Paging Black Flag::

            Ok, assuming he’s not going to respond to his summons….

            If property is not a right then why can’t I take your stuff? Why is it “wrong” for me to walk into your house and take your TV?

            That aside, it still doesn’t change anything here. I will (temporarily) accept the point that body (“me”) isn’t my property. It’s Blargon. And Blargon rights allow me to destroy my body (“me”). Again, you’ve stipulated this. And, again, by 1,000 examples, I can transfer the right to exercise my authority to others.

            It is not logical, it is not reasoned, but it does contain HIS morality.

            My thinking on this is pretty simple: I don’t have the right to tell you what you can do with your own body. That includes not interfering in what you wish to do with you and another consenting adult. This holds true so long as your actions do not violate my rights.

            It’s that simple.

            That holds true for vaccines, for sex, for drugs, for suicide (assisted or otherwise), for abortion, etc.

            Do I always like what people choose to do with their rights? No, of course not.

            But it’s not MY place to make those calls.

            If I grant myself the right to decide what you can do with your body and who you can do it with, then I grant you the same rights over me.

            It is immoral to kill an innocent person.

            Only insofar as you are using “kill” in the sense of “murder.”

            The thing that makes murder evil is not that you’re killing a person. It’s NOT. It’s that you’re violating that person’s right not to be killed.

            I have a right – whatever “right” means at this point – not to have you bludgeon me to death with a claw hammer. That’s my RIGHT. And if you do bludgeon me to death with a claw hammer, you’ve violated my rights.

            But, as this is MY right, I can waive it if I wish.

            Just like it is evil for me to tackle you after the whistle (because you are no longer consenting!) but fine for me to do so before (because you are consenting), you can waive your rights at will. In this case, your right for me not to harm you (an innocent person).

            The problem isn’t “Mathius hurt JAC.” It’s “Mathius hurt JAC… without permission.” It’s the consent that makes all the difference.

            I have the right not to be bludgeoned to death by you with a claw hammer. But I can waive that right. It’s my right to waive. And then you are not violating my rights. And thus you are not doing anything wrong.

            But you really don’t say that someone does not have a right to kill innocent people.

            You don’t have a right to kill innocent people………. without their permission.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I would have no such right, even with permission.

              What you describe is not a “right” in the absolute sense you are trying to describe. It is like saying you do or don’t have a right to a Red Bull before 7:00 A.M..

              • It is like saying you do or don’t have a right to a Red Bull before 7:00 A.M..

                If I OWN a Red Bull, then it is my RIGHT to consume it at any damned time I wish.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You made you?????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm thinking back………………… Per YOU, YOU don’t even exist until maybe when your brain activity can be recorded. So if YOU does not exist until that point then YOU are not making anything.

              Once again failing to grasp the difference between YOU and a fingernail.

              • The body I was born with is all gone. Every cell is dead and gone. Every fiber replaced or built anew.

                For 30-some-odd years, I have been consuming food which my body turns into muscle and bone and sinew and (annoying) fat. Since the day I was born and until the day I day, this body of mine will continue to change and die and be re-created from raw ingredients.

                This ADULT body of mine.. I made it. I grew it.

                I made the muscles by exercise. I made the neural connections by thinking and studying.

                That’s all my doing. I didn’t just “pop” into existence.

                Once again failing to grasp the difference between YOU and a fingernail.

                I am thinking meat.

                So are you.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You have absolute autonomy over your body you say?? Well then……………

              https://media2.giphy.com/media/EOfarA6ZUqzZu/giphy.webp?cid=790b7611230d097f5231f7cb1bec48167778e3eb7c55c894&rid=giphy.webp

              That was you standing there in the dirt where the hammer fell.. Now what?

              • That was you standing there in the dirt where the hammer fell.. Now what?

                I’m one of the minions Thor is knocking over?

                I have engaged in a behavior which threatens Thor and his allies. I have put myself in a position wherein I am actively harming or trying to harm him and his allies and thereby violate their rights not to be harmed. In so doing, Thor et al have the right to defend themselves as necessary.

                This is commonly called “war.”

                You have absolute autonomy over your body you say??

                Yes….. right up to the point where my actions threaten the rights of non-participatory third parties.

      • “I used to defend the idea of “Natural” rights vehemently. I am now thinking such things do not exist in fact as a matter of nature. That ALL Rights are constructed by humans as part of our complex nature and effort to draw up rules of conduct between us as people and us and our Govt. that will further cooperation and long term flourishing.”

        Not real clear on talking based on natural rights. But I’m of the opinion that most of the basic rights we speak of are more instinctual than learned or came about because people got together and wrote laws. Maybe our realization that we have these rights came about from our interactions with other humans, but is that the same as needing to be taught. I know John doesn’t have the right to kill me just because he wants too. So I don’t have the right to kill John. No one had to tell me.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.

          I think they developed over time and yes, based on interactions with others. The concept is pretty new in human history, as far as we know. The earliest written history recognizes something similar, it describes the KING’S power over others. This is accepted as law.

          Sometime after that some person or persons had an idea. After sitting around in the hot tub to long or staying up late sipping brandy. Ah ha, they declared. We humans were not born into servitude. Our “natural” state before Kings came along was to be free. We should be free from this tyrant. When they shared the new big idea most people ran away and hid. For fear the King would link them to these heretics. But another person said, “hey, I will give your idea a chance if you can persuade me.” So the big idea guy thinks a second and says “Well it is obvious. God granted you the Right to be free when he created you.

          I think the concept of rights evolved something like that. So yes, they developed over time based on how we wanted others to relate to us. Kind of a layman’s code of conduct. Some of which shared moral standards and some did not.

          And I think they do need to be taught. Or that is they did. Now we are overrun with “rights”, to the point they are almost meaningless. Proving another one of my theories. Concepts which are ill defined, fuzzy if you will, are destined to be over used and misapplied. The original intent gets lost and eventually the word describing the concept comes to mean all kinds of things.

          One other thing to keep in mind. I post stuff from other places. But most of the work on Rights is really philosophers and sociologists who study how people do things and use things. Thus it is a “normative” process of studying Rights. They don’t approach it by dissecting the concept and trying to justify it from a foundation. This is the approach Ayn Rand tried to use. Her conclusion was that Rights are tools we invent to constrain Government within the bound of what we consider moral or proper.

          Her base moral standard was Man’s mind, the use of that mind. Rights can then be described relative to how they allow that moral standard to be achieved. Property, life and liberty are necessary for an individual to fully utilize his/her mind in a way that allows them to pursue the fullest life they can.

    • Would you agree that speaking of rights without the balancing influence of responsibilities / morality leads to “logical” arguments devoid of humanity or at least lacking the essence of humanity?

      Yes.

      Yes I would.

      But just because it’s “lacking in humanity,” doesn’t give me the right to intervene between two consenting adults exercising their rights.

      Just like something can be “lawful but awful,” something can be ethical but terrible.

      I am well within my rights to shoot myself tonight. But that’s pretty damned awful. My poor kids would grow up without a father, my wife would lose her husband. I’m not sure my parents / siblings would figure it out for a few months, but they’d probably be upset, too. My dog would miss me.

      Suicide is terrible…. but it IS my right.

      And if I want to do it, it’s MY right to do it. And it’s not anyone else’s right to stop me.

      And if I want someone to help me make sure it’s painless, or to do it once I am no longer physically/mentally capable. That’s still my right. And it’s his right to accept my request for help. And it’s still no one else’s right to stop us.

      And it’s still terrible. And sad.

      But it’s not my place to say “I don’t like it, therefore you can’t do it.” That’s not how this works. I’m not god.

      ————————-

      THAT SAID, euthanasia is (almost always) about ending suffering and letting people have a peaceful dignified end on their own terms. They’re (almost always) terminal, either old or sick, or both. To deny them this is to force them to take their own lives, maybe too early, maybe not painlessly, maybe less dignified. Maybe not surrounded by their friends and family. THAT strikes me as inhumane.

      It strikes me as inhuman to force people to suffer and stop them from getting then help they need to end that suffering.

      I was denied the ability to be there when my childhood dog was put down. But I OWED it to him to be there, to hold his paw, to comfort him one last time, to have a vet give him an injection that would release him from the pain of his failing body. It is inhumane to do otherwise. My parents kept him alive too long (over my screaming protests), and that was cruel. And selfish. And inhumane.

      Humans are no different – we want comfort and family close by, and we shouldn’t be forced to suffer unduly because someone else thinks they have a right to decide when its our time to go, or on what terms we may do so. If that’s not what you want, then that’s fine for you. But it sure as hell is what -I- want, so why should you and JAC get to decide that for me? It’s inhumane.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        I am certainly of two minds on the subject. I can agree that “release” from suffering, chronic pain deserves consideration but if your mind has in fact turned to jello, it is no longer about you but your loved ones who have to witness that.

        In Europe we have taken it to new levels where young depressed people can end their lives with help. That is borderline, very borderline….MURDER. Up there with abortions while the child is being delivered.

        Lastly I worry about the Hula-hoop phenomena. Younger folk may call it the Cabbage Patch Kid phenomena where absolutely everyone has to have one! In the past few years we have seen supposed scientists and a good portion of the medical community adopt a hands off, no questions asked policy when a four year old decides they want to be the opposite sex. We have seen laws passed to prevent professionals questioning the decision or God forbid trying to get to the bottom of the reason. people are threatened with job loss and in places like Canada actual jail time to merely questioning the “choice” or the pronoun used. We are seeing “cult” behavior using the power of the state to force one to join the cult. Parents who are required to give approval before a school nurse can give their child aspirin are now being told to “GTF out” when it comes to administering hormones to a ten year old.

        If you don’t think that euthanasia is going to go overboard, you have a poor understanding of the ability of perfectly ordinary people to suddenly act like lemmings.

        • While I think much of that might be a bit melodramatic, I’d push back on the following:

          If you don’t think that euthanasia is going to go overboard, you have a poor understanding of the ability of perfectly ordinary people to suddenly act like lemmings.

          Then the issue is the abuse or the excess, not euthanasia itself.

          Up there with abortions while the child is being delivered.

          The thing about abortions where the child is being delivered murdering babies is that they cannot consent.

          As I keep saying (and, as no one seems to see me saying), consent is the key.

          In Europe we have taken it to new levels where young depressed people can end their lives with help. That is borderline, very borderline….MURDER. Up there with abortions while the child is being delivered.

          So, with that in mind, the real question is: Are young depressed people capable of giving consent.

          I…. don’t know.

          I don’t know.

          Maybe it varies by patient? Maybe a doctor needs to make that call?

          I don’t know.

          BUT! If a person puts a contract in place before becoming incapable of giving consent (eg, when they’re diagnosed with Alzheimer), then that’s a wholly different matter.

          Imagine I, today, signed a document that reads: In the event that I become diagnosed with severe untreatable permanent depression, and I request such, I hereby give consent to the relevant party/parties to euthanize me.” Then, later, I become severely untreatably and permanently depressed and ask my doctor to kill me…… I see nothing wrong with him doing it. He has my legitimate consent, and that makes all the difference in the world.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            But does a 16 year old have that right or an 18 year old or a 30 year old? In my own family, my Mom went through a five year period of very severe depression. Constant threats of suicide constant emotional collapses. Yet putting aside the drugs she was on, (mild for the time. valium and librium) she crawled out of that hole herself and lived another forty years. She never quite returned to being as carefree as she was before but she had it under control.

            With the wrong shrink….I wonder what could have happened.

            PS. She got more help from our old “Country Doctor” GP than she did from the psychiatric community. Years later I understood why we always waited so damn long in his office. He actually took a personal interest in his patients.

            • But does a 16 year old have that right or an 18 year old or a 30 year old?

              Laws are an imperfect analouge. Legally, a 16 year old cannot consent… I’d argue that some can and some cannot and it further vaires by the question of “what” they’re consenting to. Can a 16 year old consent to contract to exchange his money for a cheeseburger? Sure. What about get married? Probably not… but then again, maybe for some 16 years olds. Is every 30 year old able to consent? Can an 18 year old really “consent” to take out a mortgage when he has no idea what he’s doing?

              Who knows?

              Not me.

              Leave me the hell out of it.

              In my own family, my Mom went through a five year period of very severe depression. Constant threats of suicide constant emotional collapses. Yet putting aside the drugs she was on, (mild for the time. valium and librium) she crawled out of that hole herself and lived another forty years. She never quite returned to being as carefree as she was before but she had it under control.

              That’s terrible that she went through that (and that you all went through that) and wonderful that she pulled through.

              And it’s wholly beside the point.

              Because, it’s not up to OTHERS to decide for ME. Or YOU. Or your mom.

              It’s up to the individual to decide what’s right for them.

              It’s a very valid question (and one I can’t answer) whether your mom, in a depressive episode, would have been competent to consent to be euthanized. I have absolutely no idea!

              If she could consent to it, then she could “contract” to have it done.
              If she could not consent, then she could not “contract” to have it done.

              That’s it. That’s the whole question.

              That’s one of the reasons, it’s important to make your desires clear which you can. Because, at some point, you might lose the ability to consent, and then you will lose the ability to contract to allow another party to exercise your right to die on your behalf.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I changed my mind…………….. Sorry, we don’t think you are able to consent any longer.

                But I really, really don’t want to die any longer. I would rather see it to the natural end.

                Sorry, you put it in writing ten years ago. We have a contractual obligation to see this through. Now Good Bye and be gone.

              • This falls under the header of: “shitty things that can happen when you form contracts and then change your mind too late.”

                Don’t get me wrong.. As the euthanizer, I’d always want to err on the side of being over cautious… if you’re demented (as, of course, you are) and groveling for your life in contraveyance of your competent-self’s wishes, situationally dependent, I’d probably want to “first do no harm.” It’s not like you can un-kill people… at least, not good ways to do so.

                That said, my competent-self is pretty damned adamant and clear. I don’t get a shit what “Alzheimer Mathius” has to say. If my mind is gone, I want to be put down. He isn’t able to make that call. I am. Do what -I- say, not him.

                Given MY express wishes, I would expect / hope that the doctor making the determination would ignore my ravings and carry out my competent-self’s wishes.

              • Is it wrong to LOL at this? 😂

      • “THAT SAID, euthanasia is (almost always) about ending suffering and letting people have a peaceful dignified end on their own terms. They’re (almost always) terminal, either old or sick, or both. To deny them this is to force them to take their own lives, maybe too early, maybe not painlessly, maybe less dignified. Maybe not surrounded by their friends and family. THAT strikes me as inhumane.
        It strikes me as inhuman to force people to suffer and stop them from getting then help they need to end that suffering.”

        The above argument, this I may disagree with but I see the humanity being addressed in the argument. This I can argue against based on society shouldn’t promote and especially help someone to comment suicide because it’s wrong. But that isn’t what you ‘re arguing. You’re arguing I can kill someone based solely on consent. No thought whatsoever based on morality. My boyfriend broke up with me, kill me- Okay. I’m trapped under a boulder, screaming in pain, No chance I will survive, No hope of help arriving for hours. Kill me- okay. No difference, none, in your argument. Yet, I am being inhumane by denying you the right to have someone else kill you if you are in pain, or incompacitated, when it’s clear from your argument neither of these things are necesssary to your argument.

        • You’re arguing I can kill someone based solely on consent.

          Correct.

          That is what -I- am arguing.

          But, as with so many things with you and I over the years, what -I- argue is often atypical of the more mainstream positions with which am am forced to align myself.

          I offer a concurring opinion on euthanasia, which is to say “I agree… but for different reasons.”

          I – me, personally – I believe that if I hand you a gun and say “go ahead” and you “go ahead,” then you have done nothing wrong. I get that this is off-putting. I get that it is sad. But I cannot find moral grounds for saying it is “wrong” or, more saliently, for putting myself in the middle of it and telling two consenting adults what they can and cannot do when it does not impact MY rights.

          Who am I to say when YOU are “justified” in wanting to end YOUR life?
          Who are you to say when -I- am “justified” in wanting to end MY life?

        • y boyfriend broke up with me, kill me- Okay. I’m trapped under a boulder, screaming in pain, No chance I will survive, No hope of help arriving for hours. Kill me- okay. No difference, none, in your argument.

          I get your point. Of course, it’s a good one.

          It’s just that…. it’s not MY place to decide for YOU when it’s ok or not ok.

          Your life either IS or IS NOT yours to make that decision for. If it’s your choice, then it’s your choice, and that’s all there is to it.

          Yet, I am being inhumane by denying you the right to have someone else kill you if you are in pain, or incompacitated, when it’s clear from your argument neither of these things are necesssary to your argument.

          These are certainly not necessary to MY argument.

          But, again, MY argument is a different argument entirely based on consent and consent alone.

          But the more mainstream argument centers around some wishy washy nebulous idea of a right to allievate suffering which is somehow unmoored from a broader right of self-termination. I get it.. it’s more of a “I feel” kind of stance.

          I feel it’s the right thing to let those in pain die painless deaths on their own terms.

          But I tried to dig beneath that surface a bit. WHY is this the right thing? And the answer that I came up with is that it’s their right because they “own” themselves and have the absolute right to make that kind of decision and employ consenting adults to assist them and it’s not MY place to insist otherwise.

          So, again, as is so often the case with me – I agree with a position for entirely different reasons. (see also: abortion or gun control.)

          • I have one remaining question. Do you believe society o r even individual man, would be better off, following your arguments? Considering the fact that you wouldn’t actually follow them yourself.

            • Do you believe society o r even individual man, would be better off, following your arguments?

              … I don’t know … I don’t… I don’t think so. I see a pretty nasty slippery slope out there…

              It’s just not up to me though… I think this is the “right” answer, not the “best” answer.

              At least, not in all cases. The terminally ill example being a case where it’s probably for the best for the patient and their family. But, for the “my boyfriend broke up with me” people, it wouldn’t be a good thing to make it easier for them to kill themselves.

              You make it too easy, too quick, too available, too accepted.. it becomes.. overused. And, obviously, that wouldn’t be a good thing.

              It’s just though… again… it’s just not up to ME to decide for YOU what YOU can do with YOUR body.

              Considering the fact that you wouldn’t actually follow them yourself.

              What do you mean by this?

              • What do I mean.

                Your abortion stance – a convoluted mess.
                Mathius, the man – basically no abortions after 5 weeks.

                Your euthanasia stance – adult consent is the only factor necessary to kill someone.
                Mathius, the man – there are many to choose from, I’ll just use the last one – ”
                You make it too easy, too quick, too available, too accepted.. it becomes.. overused. And, obviously, that wouldn’t be a good. “

              • There’s a difference between what “I would like” or what “I feel is right for me” or “what I feel is best” and saying “I believe this, so you have to do what I say.”

                I – me personally – think that too much access to euthanasia and too much use thereof is probably a societal negative.. but that doesn’t change that I think you have a right to it. I certainly have a right to it, and I certainly would want to make use of it in the right situations.

                It’s not a conflict to say “you have the right to X, but I think it’s a bad idea to do X.”

                I think you have the right to do drugs. I do. This is your right. You can do this. I think it’s a bad idea and you shouldn’t do drugs. (Or, at least, none of the hard / addictive ones, anyway). But just because I – me personally – think it’s bad to do doesn’t give me the moral stance to tell you how to live your life.

                It’s not inconsistent or conflicted to look at that and say “I wish you wouldn’t. I think it’s bad. But it’s not my right to tell you want you can do with your own body.”

              • Your abortion stance – a convoluted mess.
                Mathius, the man – basically no abortions after 5 weeks.

                I can see how this might be less than clear.

                My position on abortion is a mess because the situation is a mess. It’s a tangled conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus and involves questions of what is responsible for “human rights” in the first place. It’s a mess, and the answer is therefore a mess.

                For ME, though, I err on the side of caution.. of extreme caution. I choose to err waaaay too early on the cutoff. But that’s me. That’s MY choice. That’s MY preference.

                But I can’t take “my opinion” and use that as an absolute for everyone else.

                I can’t say “I’m being extremely cautious, so you have to, too.” That’s not how this thing works.

                I can say, with some confidence, that before 5 weeks, abortion is a-ok as the embryo clump of cells has no rights.

                I can say, with some confidence, that in the 9th month, that fetus is only a “fetus” because it hasn’t emerged yet. Like lava vs magma, it’s a distinction without a difference. Killing it at this point is unjustified because it can be removed without killing it. And you do not (and never did) have the right to kill it. You only ever had the right to remove it.

                In between those…. …… ::shrug::

                I have thoughts and opinions.. and because I am unsure, I opine that I think you should not get an abortion after week 5. But my confidence is not such that I think I can go out and say “make this a law!”

                I would make 9th month “abortion” illegal tomorrow if I could.
                I would enshrine 1st month abortion tomorrow if I could.

                But in between, I’m in no position to issue edicts.

                There is no “conflict” to say “I have an opinion that I follow and think others should follow because it’s the safest option” without demanding that others follow it. It’s probably true that 2nd month abortion is just fine. Same with 3rd. Maybe 4th or 5th. I don’t know. And, not knowing, that’s the point, I can’t tell people what to do. I can only try to guess and make the right choice for me.

  56. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Ok, my vote for the most overused old word(s) in 2019 goes to……

    Emolument

    Existential!

    • Emolument, I’ve heard a lot. But existential ?

      • Existential threat! All the Crats use that phrase about climate change.

        Other annoying phrases: Raising Awareness, gun violence (guns don’t commit human acts), gun buyback (how do you buy back something you never owned?), BAN (anything), free (nothing these asshats claim is free is actually free), Medicare for all (because it’s worked so well seniors have to have additional insurance and it underpays healthcare folks), Democratic Socialism (it’s Socialism with lipstick) and Liz Warren (most annoying voice in the campaign).

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        I’m pretty sure it is grossly misused. Mostly, in the past year it refers to the “threat” to humanity apparently and certainly the country caused by Godzilla! Whoops, I mean Donald J. Trump.

        Existential
        adjective
        pertaining to existence.
        of, relating to, or characteristic of existentialism:
        an existential hero.

    • “Crooked” or “failing” or “fake news”

  57. VH and JAC……reading your arguments is rather scary to me. What immediately comes to mind, is the case in England, I think it was, where the family wanted to take their daughter home to die and the government, hospital, and doctors said no…they did not have that right. They wanted to keep her alive with all sorts of things. This sounds to me like property. If I remember correctly, this little girl was terminal..no hope.. and it became a tug of war over family and patient and physician rule…..but your arguments make me think of this scenario.

    JAC, I am not so sure that your body is not property. If it is not property, then what is it? Maybe I am not understanding the argument but, for some reason, you scare me when you throw around the term of murder as it pertains to euthansia. You separate animal from human….why? Because humans are a higher level of intelligence and can reason in a different manner?

    If a DNR is a contract….why not a contract with Euthanasia? Actually, what is the difference? Is “pulling the plug” not murder, under your definition? If not…why not?

    • I forgot all about that case.. ugh.. ::shudder::

      What a travesty!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      You are simply you. Not being property does not jeopardize your existence per the moral standards and political “rights” we have devised…… as humans.

      Humans by their nature are predators but also higher intelligent beings. We are not the animals. We invented human rights for humans. But being complex animals we have decided that other animals have rights as well. So when we “murder” them, per Mathius, for dinner we have to do it humanely. I would argue this is not really a right the animal has. It is a standard we have established for ourselves.

      DNR is not an act to kill someone who is not dying right now. I can tell you that the Docs do not just accept a DNR as not helping at all. It is not taking “extra ordinary” steps. So even though the Doc is not actually killing they still stop to make sure that saving is not a reasonable outcome instead. Look at it like a Samaritan who does not interfere. If you are about to step in front of a bus and I do nothing, have I killed you? Is that the same as pushing you in front of the bus? If I try to save you but fail, have I killed you? Or just made your path to death harder?

      As I said before, Euthanasia is murder if we apply the current moral and legal codes. One cannot give someone consent to murder them. We want to make an exception because someone is in pain. But who gets to say how much or what kind of pain justifies this action. This fall to law. Why??? Because human’s have not accepted this as proper behavior so those who want exceptions try to write laws that give them that power.

      If we humans, for the sake of being human, decide that euthanasia is a GOOD, then we will devise moral codes which allow it. To some extent this seems to be happening. Now the deeper question that V.H. and I are wrestling with is, SHOULD IT BE?

      Suicide involves one person inflicting death upon the same person. Euthanasia enlists others to be part of that killing. As you previously stated, you would not wish that upon anyone and it is not because of some law or written code. I suggest that if it is so hard, down deep, then we know just how wrong it is. And yes, sometimes we conclude we have no other choice. We recognize, however, that action could result in consequences. We accept responsibility and are willing to suffer any punishment, including having ghosts haunt us forever.

      • So when we “murder” them, per Mathius, for dinner we have to do it humanely. I would argue this is not really a right the animal has. It is a standard we have established for ourselves.

        I would argue that animals have a right not to be killed that is commensurate to their sentience / self-awareness / humanity.

        A bug enjoys no right to life because it has no cognition of note.

        A dolphin, however, is much higher up this ladder, and so it is wrong to murder a dolphin. Similarly octopi, corvids, etc.

        A cow is somewhere in the middle.

        But cows are delicious, and we’re going to kill them anyway.. because they’re delicious and we’re an imperfect species that craves eating cow.

        So if we’re going to violate their kinda-sorta rights, then we at least have an obligation to do so in the most humanely way possible.

        By the way, eventually, lab grown beef is going to be just as good or better than actual cow. At that point, there will no longer be any ethical justification for killing cows for food. 50 years tops.

        I think the vegetarians and vegans have it right (albeit with some Mathius-adjustments)… it’s just that I’m a total hypocrite on the subject and love eating beat too much to give it up.

      • As I said before, Euthanasia is murder if we apply the current moral and legal codes.

        Murder requires malicious intent.

        Euthanasia is exactly the opposite.. benign intent.. trying to do the right thing, to help.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          It ONLY requires intent. Intent to kill an innocent person. Which excluded self defense.

          Although I would argue that intent to kill an innocent person is “malicious”.

          • Although I would argue that intent to kill an innocent person is “malicious”.

            “That person is suffering and wants to die and I want to help them end their suffering” is “malicious”?

            Seems pretty farfetched to me.

      • We want to make an exception because someone is in pain. But who gets to say how much or what kind of pain justifies this action.

        Who?

        That’s easy.

        The person whose life it is.

        Not you.

        Not me.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Exactly. And no matter how much supposed consent you give to another, you cannot pass that responsibility to another person. It is yours, own it.

          • Sure I can!

            It’s MY life.

            I’ll decide when it’s ok to end it.

            I’ll decide who, when, and how, too.

            Me.

            Not you.

            Me.

            Because it’s MINE.

      • I suggest that if it is so hard, down deep, then we know just how wrong it is.

        Nonsense.

        We’re gooey sentimental saps sometimes. That’s why it’s hard.

        Lots of things are hard, but right.

        It’s hard to put down your suffering dog, but we nearly all accept that not only is it “right” to do, but affirmatively “wrong” to do otherwise.

        It’s hard for me to close this tab and get some work done… but it’s the right thing to do anyway.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius cries “nonsense” then admits we are “gooey sentimental saps” while ignoring the source of the latter condition. Perhaps you are struggling with admitting the source of human “sentimental sappiness”.

          • Perhaps you are struggling with admitting the source of human “sentimental sappiness”.

            The source is easy… it’s two pounds of mushy meat between your ears.

            Predominantly, the parts that aren’t your pre-frontal cortex.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Since each new brain is built ANEW then how is it that humans carry such uniform “sappiness”????

              • We don’t.

                I’m much less sappy than most. Truth be told, I’m probably one of the least empathetic people you’ve ever known (who wasn’t a psychopath).

                But, regardless, as you know, we’re all derived from similar genetic stock and are mostly “built to speck.” Thus similar bodies, similar organs, similar brain structures.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      The case I think you remember was the opposite. The parents wanted to take her to get “possible” cure or help. The GOVT said No, that is inhumane. OUR DOCS have decided she is terminal so WE will keep her here to die. But note, to my knowledge they did not speed up the process. They just FORCED her to remain in THEIR custody and told the parents to pound sand.

  58. Moderation, please

  59. While I wait on the Colonels third installment on the EC, some fun stuff going on:

    FISA abuse report given to DOJ. I think some folks are going to jail. I hope it starts with Comey, the smug sociopath.

    What the hell will happen after Saudi oil attacked?

    The media continues with their stupidity, the most recent about Kavanaugh. The Liberal media has destroyed all credibility. The gullible Left that believes them are idiots.

    Human Rights: As individuals, we can claim any Right we chose, but those Rights end when others Rights are violated. Two examples: The Right to Live and defend life. That’s self explanatory. The Left’s Right to healthcare. Well, yea, as long as you can pay for it because you cannot demand another person to do something they choose not to for free. That violates their Rights.

  60. I have the right to have sex with another person.
    I do not have the right to have sex with that person… without their consent.

    A doctor has the right to give me a vaccine.
    A doctor does not have the right to give me a vaccine… without my consent.

    I have the right to tackle JAC when playing football.
    I do not have the right to tackle JAC… without his consent.

    All these things are made neutral or evil based on the defining characteristic of consent.

    That I have PERMISSION to do so is what makes an otherwise immoral action moral. These are all the exact same physical actions. The only difference is consent of one whose rights are impacted.

    All of these are questions of the body.. of the “me.”

    All of these things are a person’s right. And all of these things can be waived or exercised by another person…. with consent.

    Without consent: Evil
    With consent: OK

    It follows easily that I can grant consent to exercise or waive ANY of my rights. At any time. For any reason. Because they are mine to waive or confer. Because they are mine.

    If tackling JAC without consent is evil, so, too, must killing him be.
    But if tackling JAC with consent is OK, so, too, must killing him be.

    It’s the consent that matters.

    It’s no longer murder because murder, in a moral sense, is the act of depriving someone of their right to life (right not to be harmed / killed). If I do not deprive you of your rights (because you’ve waived them), then I’ve done nothing wrong. It’s just as if you’d done it yourself.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      In the world of Mathius any human action becomes a Right.

      If Consent of another is required for you to act, then I suggest that no right exists on your side of the equation.

  61. Third installment due tomorrow, G man…….finishing up on it now.

  62. Nice try Iran………you forgot about the satellites that tracked the direction of the drones…..Question to Iran….you are located North….the rebel group that you say did the attack is South of the oil fields.

    All the satellite photos and heat signatures of the drones came from the North and all the impact lines came from the North……you…………….how do you explain this?

    Question for General MAthius…..is this a good time?

  63. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    I’ll see your oil field and bump you two more!

  64. I said Ship of “Thebes,” but apparently it’s the Ship of Theseus..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus#Thought_experiment

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The answer was right there in the question. Yet everyone missed it.

      Reconstructed vs. Restored.

      • So which one is the Ship of Theseus? Harbor or in the museum?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          THE ship is the ship. Doesn’t matter where it is. The “reconstruction” is NOT the ship. The ship lies in the museum vault in pieces, waiting to be “preserved”. Once “restored” the ship is now whole again. If spare parts are required then the ship is a “reconstructed model” using most of the “original pieces”.

          • … so …. as soon as you take out a worn out part and replace it, the whole is no longer the “original”? It is a new thing.. a “reconstructed model using most of the original pieces.” But not the original, per say?

            So you might say it’s something new… something you… made…?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Not new. It is REPAIRED.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              As this is headed towards you trying to claim your body is new and therefore YOU built it, pleas tell me which days you sat down and decided to rebuild or repair those skin cells that flaked off? Or the muscle tissue that was torn when you tried to lift the newspaper off the porch?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Are you going to argue that YOU has no consciousness? Without it, are you still YOU?

              Your consciousness is not a “part” on some boat. Your body and mind are parts of what you are. Claiming that YOU rebuilt yourself is silly. The body repairs itself as best it can, but the entire thing must be functioning. Some things it does without you being aware, others require not only your awareness but your decision to ACT.

              You are you. Law of identity.

              No need to make silly arguments about property and whether YOU built you or if you simple exist because you were first conceived and then born and STILL live.

              • This is getting a bit ethereal, so let’s try to bring it back to Earth, shall we.

                See my comments re “blargon.”

                It doesn’t actually matter if I made myself or if I was spawned fully formed from the head of Zeus.

                I am me.

                I control and have all rights attendant to “me.” And that includes the right of termination.

                Rights are transferrable, assignable, waivable. If you believe otherwise, please provide contra-examples).

                As my rights to “me” – whether property or “blargon” – are mine to assign, I may assign them. And YOU can butt out.

  65. Just A Citizen says:

    In response to the claiming of RIGHTS I have posted my view that rights are purely human constructs. I have also posted the thoughts of others about how we have created all kinds of confusion by playing the rights card in language. If everything is a right then are there any rights at all? I submit that we are using the word “rights” to describe many things which can be described with other words, ones that are more accurate about the human condition.

    Now let me point out how quickly the discussion of rights relative to euthanasia digressed into fuzzier language and a list of caveats, conditions, etc. etc.. Now something is a true right, in the sense of absolute inviolable and natural, then why the need for exceptions and explanations????

  66. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “That was you standing there in the dirt where the hammer fell.. Now what?

    I’m one of the minions Thor is knocking over?”

    I am detecting DELIBERATE ignorance of the point.

    You claim a right………… I just smashed you into dust………. how that right thing work out for you?

    • I was fighting you.. I was attacking you and your planet.. trying to kill half of the population of the universe.

      I’m violating YOUR rights. You’re defending yourself.

      My rights end where yours begin… and vise versa.

      I cannot attack your because that violates YOUR rights. That is why you have the right to harm me in self-defense.. because I am doing evil and violating your rights. If a person punches you, they can’t say it’s your fault for punching back. They punched you. THEY did the evil thing. That’s how this works.

      What’s your point?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Like I said, a deliberate ignorance. Do any of us take your gif’s literally when you post them as emphasis or to make a point. Do we then dissect the gif as if it were the story in and of itself? DELIBERATE IGNORANCE.

        I explained it already. You claim a right. You were smashed to dust by Mjölnir. Now explain how your “rights” helped you out of that fix??

        Of what use are RIGHTS if they can be violated by anyone with a bigger hammer????

        • Of what use are RIGHTS if they can be violated by anyone with a bigger hammer????

          Ahh.. I guess this is what you’re getting at.. sorry I missed it.. maybe I need a strong Red Bull… Not trying to be obtuse, just a little slow on the uptake here today.

          The answer is that “rights” are of little-to-no use unless recognized and dealt with accordingly by others.

          Mjolnir certainly has the ability to smash me and my rights mean nothing to the physics of what happens when a hammer made out of neutronium connects with my head. (answer: splat!) (Then again, if he is smashing innocent people, then Thor is probably “unworthy” and won’t be able to swing it at me.)

          Rights and ethics are a way to describe what it “right” what is “moral” what is “ethical.” It’s a question of “how should we behave,” not “how do we behave” nor “what will happen if X does Y?” It’s never “will you go splat,” but “is it justified and morally correct – is Thor being evil – when (not if) he makes you go splat.”

          I have the right to not have you steal my tv. But if you walk into my home and get past my ferocious guard dog and lift it off the wall an onto your 1987 Ford F150 (which I presume is what you drive), then you’re going to steal my tv. Saying it’s not your right to take it only describes the moral aspect of it in as much to say this action was “bad.” But you will drive off with my tv and I will have to watch the Dolphins get murdered in another room.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            EXACTLY…………..finally.

            Yet we toss the word around as though it is the root or foundation. Just as you did at the beginning of this discussion. Morals come first…….. rights are ways for us to express those morals and values, I might add, in ways that scream……… you cannot do that to me. Unless of course your a Progressive, then they scream………. you have to provide this to me.

            The POWER of the hammer is Thor’s to wield, BUT only if he is worthy. The greatest metaphor for Just Government ever invented. From a people who viewed the lives of “others” as expendable in their quest for riches and fame, let alone a ticket to Valhalla.

            P.S. Technically speaking you do not have a “right to not have your TV stolen”. You have a right to what is yours, that being the TV. I have a right to that which is mine. Taking your TV violates your right to have and hold your TV as you wish, even if it is watching the murder of Dolphins. I think this distinction becomes important later when we look at the function of rights. It is hard enough to have rights that cause us to NOT ACT, but to have a NOT right, that could cause NOT ACTING…………. well that would result in me acting, or that would be NOT NOT ACTING, I think, but I am not sure cause now my head aches and I feel dizzy.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            One more thing. All your examples of rights dealt with interaction of people. Yet when we get into discussions of rights, we are told that they apply to govt vs. people interactions, not those of people vs. people.

            I think this latter approach is invalid and has grown out of the domination of arguments over what we call Constitutional Rights.

            Imagine a Nation State where the Moral Code applied to everyone!! We would all be worthy of wielding the Hammer.

            Quick thought: Doesn’t a right simply change the actor in the moral equation? The moral code is I may not murder…….expressed as a right it is ……. you have a right to life. Just a thought that popped into my head as I was typing.

  67. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    This is getting a bit ethereal, so let’s try to bring it back to Earth, shall we. GOOD

    See my comments re “blargon.”

    It doesn’t actually matter if I made myself or if I was spawned fully formed from the head of Zeus.

    I am me. YES…………FINALLY.

    I control and have all rights attendant to “me.” And that includes the right of termination. OH WELL. IT DIDN’T LAST LONG. YOU CONTROL HUGH??? WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT VERSION OF YOU THAT THOR DISPATCHED WITH Mjölnir?? HE ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE “CONTROL” AND ALL “ATTENDANT RIGHTS”.

    Rights are transferrable, assignable, waivable. If you believe otherwise, please provide contra-examples). IF RIGHTS ARE EVERYTHING YOU SAY THEY ARE THEN THEY ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE OR ASSIGNABLE. BECAUSE THEY EXIST ONLY BECAUSE YOU EXIST. THEY ARE TIED TO YOU. KIND OF LIKE YOUR BODY AND BRAIN AND SOUL.

    As my rights to “me” – whether property or “blargon” – are mine to assign, I may assign them. And YOU can butt out. WHAT RIGHTS ARE THESE? WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT SUCH RIGHTS EXIST ABSENT THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER HUMANS AND ABSENT THEIR AGREEMENT.

  68. Just A Citizen says:

    Lets chase the Thor rabbit a second.

    In my example above, Mathius claims he has a right to his life. Thor shows up and smashes him to dust. This right Mathius claimed did not prevent Thor’s actions.

    But in the real world of Thor, he could not use Mjölnir to render Mathius to dust. Why not?

    Because to take such an action would make Thor “unworthy”. Mjölnir would not come to Thor for such use. He would have to try and smash Mathius in some other way. But Thor would no longer be able to wield Mjölnir. His essence as Thor would be diminished if not lost. He would be just another thug and not the God Thor.

    Now how did this constraint of “worthiness” come about? Did Oden impose it? Or was it the creatures that made the hammer? In either case, it was another entity which established the rule requiring “worthiness” in order for Thor to even take hold of Mjölnir.

    Are Rights as we think of them all that different?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A more modern and relate-able story pitting rights against power.

      Mom tells daughter that she must clean her room. Daughter says, you are not the boss of me. I have a right to live in a messy room if ever I want.

      Mom says, no dinner, no TV, no friends over this weekend, nothing.

      Daughter thinks to self as she storms back to her hideaway place under the mess piled on the bed. I thought these rights were magic and could protect me from having to do stuff Mom wants. Well I know what I’ll do to fix this. Wait till Dad gets home. Mom’s toast.

      • This is a qustion I struggle with a bit, actually, humorously as you put it.

        I kind of think of “youth” as a “training wheels period” wherein your rights are still developing and still (potentially) subsumed by your parents / guardians.

        When changing a baby’s diaper and she is screaming and struggling.. does she not have the RIGHT to control her own body? Isn’t it WRONG for you to grab her legs and move them to the position of your choice rather than hers, with victory going to you only by dint of your superior strength? If a baby is a person and it would be wrong for you to do that to your co-worker, why is it ok to do to your baby? Because you know better what’s best for them?

        It kind of follows that rights – human rights – such as they are – do not exist at (some point) and gradually come into full-force as a person becomes a more mature person. If we took this view, we might see how Right to Life does not exist at conception, but gradually comes into force at some point, after which abortion is murder, and killing a born-child is undisputedly murder. Similarly, I can take away my child’s possessions now… but when they’re teenagers, it becomes a big more questionable, and when they’re 18, someone we as a society have drawn a magic line that says that right to property is not fully vested.

        It’s an interesting though.. and I’d love to flesh it out a bit more, but do you have any idea how much time I’ve wasted with you lunatics today?!?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Well yes of course I do………….I am on the other end of it silly.

          Consider this as you continue to consider. It is not TIME that causes rights to become real.

          And this……….. sometimes we over think things. I tried getting at this somewhere up above. Kind of like property or not property. It doesn’t matter for the most part. Only in the finite search within the weed patch. So with that I offer this:

          Baby needs changing. It is your job to get the job done without physically hurting the child. End of story……….. that simple. If you stop to analyze the child’s Rights and the ethical consequences you will wind up with baby piss and poo on your face. Period, no more thinking required.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Second Act:

        Daughter hears Dad coming up the walk and races to meet him at the door. Dad, Dad, Dad. Mom has grounded me and taken away all my privileges just because I would not cave into her demands. She violated my rights and I am paying the price. Dad, please help me get this Mom Tyrant under control. Mom is now standing there with hand on hip scowling at the pair of them. Dad pretends not to look but sneaks a sly smile, sending in his wife’s direction.
        Mom sees the gesture but keeps up the glare so intense you can feel it burning a hole right through you. A fact not lost on the Daughter.

        Come on dear, lets go to your room and hatch a plan, he says. Safely locked away in the hidey hole of a room he offers a suggested strategy. Sweetie, why don’t you clean up your room and I will do my best to get Mom to remove the grounding and give back your other things, like TV?? What do ya say?

        OK Dad, she thinks. This will work. We will show Mom who’s boss around here. After cleaning her room she comes to the kitchen to get dinner. Mom just stares. Dad leans over and whispers, maybe you should just apologize and “ask Mom nicely to remove the penalties”. Don’t worry I think it will work, cause we have a good plan.

        Mom I am sorry for yelling at you. I have cleaned my room so would you please lift the penalties.

        Mom’s scowl finally fades away. OK, she says. I guess since you asked so nicely.

        While eating dinner Daughter thinks to herself. See, I knew those Rights were magic. Mom can’t make me do something I do not want to do. Mom and Dad sit there eating, watching Daughter with an amused look on their faces, while holding hands under the table.

        • JAC,

          Let me tell you a story about my older daughter. From when she was one and a half. And I think this will illustrate to you why the above would not work in my case. Forgive me if I’ve told this before – it’s probably my favorite story of her.

          ———————————-

          Back then, we were fascist about TV. We didn’t want TV to rot our poor beloved child’s brain. And there were two of us to one of her, so we had the capacity and no need of the ol’ Boob Toob. So the policy was set in stone: no TV at all…. except after a shower because we need you to sit down and dry off and a slippery wet baby careening around the house is a recipe for disaster.

          Policy set: TV only after shower.

          So, wife is out at some function or another and daddy has the baby alone.

          Now, the baby hadn’t been eating well lately. Picky, babies can be. But whatever. I just needed to keep her alive until mommy came home.

          But mommy isn’t home, and she can smell weakness. “Daddy,” she says in her ever-so-saccharine voice. “Daddy, can I watch tv and cuddle.” Now, I know the cuddling is just to sweeten the pot because daddy does love his cuddles. But I say no. That’s not the rule.

          “OK, daddy,” she says in an adorable little baby voice. And I wipe my brow. This baby stuff is easy. Why does anyone think it’s hard.. you just say no. Kids respect that.

          “Daddy, she pipes up after another minute. I’m hungry.” Of course, I’m expecting her to aim for snacks, but she surprises me again. “Can I have yogurt?”

          Sure! That’s a great choice. So I grab her a yogurt. Now, ordinarily, we just stab a straw through the top so she can drink it like a smoothie (no fuss, no mess), but we’d been trying to encourage her to use utensils, so you can imagine my pleasure when she waves off the straw and asks for a spoon instead.”

          This daddy stuff is a cake walk, I think, imagining regaling my wife with my glorious prowess as a father, picturing her kneeling at my feet and begging for wisdom. Imagining lecturing her on the finer points of my technique for providing firm yet benevolent guidance to our child.

          So I peel the lid off the yogurt and give her her spoon which she picks up ever so daintily. A Disney princess at a tea party could not have been so well behaved. She takes a perfect bite, spoon held perfectly, not a drop goes awry, “mmm” she says and flashes my 10,000 watt smile that lights up the whole room.

          Mind you, she’s a year and a half at this point. And I’ve got this in the bag. My perfect child.

          A minute later, I step away, but hear her call my name, her voice still perfectly angelic. That ultra sweet voice a child uses when she wants you to know just how sweet she is. The one perfectly calibrated by millions of years of evolution to melt parents into mush.

          I turn and, before I can do anything further (again, remember, a year and a half old here), she stares me right in the eye. Then she shoves her whole hand into the yogurt and smashes a giant glob right into her hair.

          “Daddy,” she pipes up, the light of victory shining from her hard steel blue eyes. “Daddy, now I need a shower. And after, I can watch TV.”

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Yup, that sound bout right. Their little brains can figure those things out pretty early.

            Of course the rest of my story is that IT ONLY WORKS ONE TIME.

            They catch on then you have to invent a new one.

            My sweet little girl was about 2 when she put her hands on hip and loudly told her mother “You are not the boss of me”. This Dad ran for the back door. Something needed fixin in the barn or back field. Don’t remember which now, only that something needed fixin.

          • When my kids were told to turn off the TV and did not, I grabbed a pair of side dikes and cut the power cord while still plugged in. Sparks all over. Did not fix the cord for weeks. They got the message. Ruined my dikes though.

  69. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Question. Is there some thing that in essence can force you to act to save another person’s life. Push them out of the way of that bus, for example.

    Is there a moral or ethical standard, a right, an obligation, a responsibility, a duty, anything that says you SHOULD ACT?? Even an emotion if you will. What is the foundation which causes us to not just try to save others, but to sometimes shun those who won’t try or stand by when needed?

    • You know, I’ve had this fight here before.

      I argued that, suppose a blind man were headed for a cliff, do you have a moral obligation to shout a warning. I argued that you do. Our old friend BF was on the other side of that fight.


      https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/if-only-temporary-the-death-of-the-death-tax/#comment-52768

      • Man! Those were the good old days on SUFA. But according to BF, morals don’t mean a thing in the big picture if everybody gets to have their own morals. Seems like morals should be standard. And that’s about all I have to say about morals.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          That would seem true on the surface, that is BF’s thoughts. But if you looked deeper I think he would say that while they are personal, the vast majority of us would come up with the same ones if we gave it serious thought.

          I agree with you that if they are not pretty uniformly accepted they are of little use. That leaves us LAW based on nothing but whim.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Yes we did, a very long discussion. I agree with BF on this one. Obligation and duty would not fit in my view.

        I think it is more emotion combined with long time teaching of watching out for the vulnerable.

        But where I was going is what YOU think. So YOU believe you have an obligation to save the blind man.

        Is it safe to assume you hold the same for any man or woman, or child???

  70. Just realized it’s 4 o’clock Monday and I haven’t heard one person on the left insisting that Barr must release the I G report immediately with no redactions.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      YES, something needs to be done.

      Trump does have a choice, many choices. Each has its own ramifications and thus responsibilities.

      This should be handled by the WORLD, as in UN. Or NATO along with maybe our Asian Allies. But it probably won’t.

      So this leaves:

      US action with limited allies going along.

      US acting alone.

      Do nothing.

      By action I am talking about FORCE. Not sanctions. The latter would be applicable if we could actually starve the Iranian elite. Europe needs to wake the hell up when it comes to Iran.

      It seems like after 50 years of various people mucking around in Europe and the Middle East we are back to square one. Deja vu’ all over again.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Yup! Nothing you can do about these folks. Whole different mindset.

        As my uncle John (and Robert Heinlein) said, people are NOT the same all over.

        The smart thing to do would be to let the Chinese think they have outfoxed us and let them take the whole thing over! Love to see them deal with Libya.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          S.K.

          They would deal with it. They would simply displace the native population with a few million Chinese.

  71. I kinda like the one about Corn Pop.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Like bad, bad Leroy Brown….he had a razor in his shoe!

      • Yabut, Joe had a chain, and since Corn Pop got off that board when Joe told him to…I don’t think he was as bad as Leroy Brown. Ol Leroy was meaner a junkyard dog! 🙂

  72. AR style rifles selling out all over thanks to Beto’s mouth. It’s like he has stock in the companies or something.

  73. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (9/10): “The President has made it really clear. He is prepared to meet with no preconditions”

    Donald Trump (9/15): “The Fake News is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran, “no Conditions.” That is an incorrect statement (as usual!”).

    Hmmmmm…

    (though, kudos to Trump for at least knowing to put his period inside of the parentheses.. unlike some people I could name! :P)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      That one had me scratching my head also! This is not the first time this has happened.

      I wonder if it is because he doesn’t tell his staff to keep quiet so when they speak out on what they think is going on, he has to over ride them, to keep his options open.

      It is also possible that while close in time the ideas change due to events rapidly changing. Even it if its a political calculation, Trump may have changed his mind.

      Which leads to the other possibility. Chaos is running the Executive Branch. Not the Russians.

      • I don’t remember ever having a conversation about why, we should or shouldn’t have preconditions. I do remember Obama being attacked for doing so, without them. So should we or shouldn’t we, does it depend on the situation, or is it just a no no?

      • I wonder if it is because he doesn’t tell his staff to keep quiet so when they speak out on what they think is going on, he has to over ride them, to keep his options open.

        If this is the case, then, sure… whatever… but then the objection isn’t “FAKE NEWS!!!”… it’s “Mike mispoke.”

        It is also possible that while close in time the ideas change due to events rapidly changing. Even it if its a political calculation, Trump may have changed his mind.

        If this is the case, then, sure… whatever… but then the objection isn’t “FAKE NEWS!!!”… it’s “that’s old news.”

        Which leads to the other possibility. Chaos is running the Executive Branch. Not the Russians.

        A distinct possibility.

        ———–

        For what it’s worth, there are also several examples (albeit dated) of Trump saying that’d he’d meet with Iran without any pre-conditions, too. So it’s not just Pompeo, but crystal clear words out of his own mouth as well. I propose the following interpretation instead.

        My guess is that he’s getting pushback on his no-pre-conditions from some well-connected hardliners and simply flipped-flopped. That’s fine. I don’t actually begrudge a President changing his mind when circumstances warrant it, and I’m in no position to second guess his reasoning or motivation.

        BUT, it’s not so much that there’s a “new” reality, but rather that the entire history of reality has had to be adjusted in his mind to conform with his current view. If pre-conditions are bad, then they must always have been bad, thus he must always have been against them. No other history is possible.

        I’m reminded of 1984. When the book starts, Oceania is a war with Eurasia and allies with Eastasia. There is a change and suddenly Oceania is at war with Eastasia and allies with Eurasia. The government says “We have always been at war with Eastasia.” Then the citizens “realize” there’s been a “propaganda” campaign by Eastasia who apparently planted lies all throughout the media and posters which falsely claim that Eurasia was the enemy – so they run about tearing down and destroying the lies, to be replaced with the new truth.

        That’s the kind of vibe I get from this.

        When this administration started out, we were happy to meet with Iran any time, any place, no pre-conditions. Then a flip got switched. Reality shifted. “We have always demanded pre-conditions.”

        And the media are the ThoughtCriminals for failing to keep up with the official reality…. “Fake News.”

        • yo!

          • Ok, now that I know I am not in exile, Yo was a test…only a test…not an agreement with anything said…..

            Mr. Trump, I know you do not want my opinion. But if you wish to meet with the Iranian officials, by all means do so. Do not carry cash, do not take the American check book….do not take any staff members,…..and do not have a single pre-condition. Not one……..nada.

            You can, however, send the Colonel as your proxy. I will end the situation very quickly and with great dispatch…..thank you for your time.

            • Mr. The Colonel, sir,

              I have no standing to opine on the rightness or wrongness of demanding pre-conditions. Similarly, I have no objection to his changing his mind as the situation warrants.

              THAT SAID, what say you, good sir, about Mr. Trump’s allegation of Fake News “(as usual!)” when the media seemingly relied on his own past statements and Pompeo’s very recent assertions?

  74. Just A Citizen says:

    Good grief. Would someone please brief this guy on what it is that FEMA does and how the States are organized to interact with FEMA. The saddest thing is some of the comments show that just because he proposes it people think it is a real necessary thing.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/461724-buttigieg-unveils-disaster-response-plan-focused-on-communities

    P.S. If there is a communication problem between FEMA and the State or local level the problem is usually at the State or local level.

  75. Just A Citizen says:

    The Hill, providing an example of how LAME the media can be. Here is the headline:

    “Petraeus: Attacks on Saudi oil fields mark ‘significant escalation'”

    YA THINK?????????????

    Even I didn’t waste any time reading the story. Now if Petraeus was offering a solution I might read that. But that was not the headline, so now I have more time to play here.

  76. Just A Citizen says:

    Who turned Dumb and Dumber loose???? I thought she was in rehab????

    “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday said that voter suppression aimed at keeping women and people of color from the polls has brought the U.S. to a “crisis in democracy.””

    We have a CRISIS in Democracy but NOT A CRISIS at the border……..got that?

    I really am wondering if Democrats get up in the morning and are overwhelmed by the sense of a Coffee Crisis, or Breakfast Crisis, maybe a Shower Crisis. Hell probably just a Crisis of the Morning. Which spreads to a Crisis of Lunch and Dinner. By the time they go to bed at night they are exhausted but are firm in their belief that all we need is Comprehensive Daily Life Reform and everything will be better.

  77. Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

    ……

    On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns — after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces — at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

    There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

    The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.

    ————————–

    Donald Trump has always demanded pre-conditions before speaking with Iran.

  78. To Gman……part three is in your mailbox.

  79. New Red Hat out in Texas……..says: “Beto, come and take it.” Pretty cool looking. I gotta find me one to go with my MAGA hat.

  80. New article has been posted.

  81. Just A Citizen says:

    Looks like someone has kicked over a can of snakes. What will become of it?? I doubt much of anything, except Fox news will get some good ratings from their loyal audience. One can only dream of the prosecutors who were in on this doing jail time. That is assuming it is all true.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/the_trayvon_hoax__a_fraud_on_america.html

    • The Treehouse is all over this too. The link takes you to a series of articles on the subject, the first article being commentary on the latest developments…but check out the second and third articles listed, too. They describe how the Broward school district buried teen crime to portray more favorable crime statistics. It’s gonna take someone with more guts than Pam Bondi to get anywhere with this.
      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/category/trayvon-martin/

%d bloggers like this: