Brilliant, just brilliant...

 It is but a strange opportunity when one is afforded the privilege of reading prose that is so obviously true and so very well said. I read an article today so powerful that I thought I could actually hear the Liberty Bell ringing loudly in Philadelphia in 1776. 

"Not all cultures are equally valid. Is there anyone currently enjoying the freedoms of the West who can refute this claim?" I can't recall reading such venerable words without thinking of Shakespeare or Steinbeck. The more I read that statement, the more I realize that there is not a soul who walks the earth who can offer a valid rebuttal. May as well carve that in granite for all of eternity to see. 

Such was spoken by Kemi Badenoch, a conservative British MP (Member of Parliament) at the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Birmingham today. She dared to say aloud that which should be obvious to all. "I'm not talking about cuisines, I'm talking about customs." Among the cultures that Badenoch was suggesting as "less valid" are those in which women have fewer rights than men, those that celebrate child marriage, those that foster antisemitism, and those that persecute homosexuality. As one might expect there were countless blokes in the press who considered this scandalous. 'Sparked a row' as the British say. Ms. Badenoch went on to say "It's extraordinary that people think that it's an unusual or controversial thing to say." I could not agree more Madame. "I'm a black woman sitting here talking to you," her point being that the "values" that made Britain great remain superior to most of their alternatives. Is there anyone in the West who is surprised to hear this claim?" 

Most conservatives would agree with Badenoch's view, as, likely would most moderates. For us conservatives such a view is foundational. "Liberal democracy is superior to authoritarianism; capitalism is superior to socialism; equality under the law is superior to rigorous observation of caste; and protection of individual rights is the bedrock of civilized life." 

The 1619 Project is a basic indictment of America. It prefers emancipation over slavery, the Union over the Confederacy, and its prescribed policies over the status quo. When comparing the "Anglosphere" to everywhere else, the contemporary Left exhibits nothing but hypocrisy, myopia, and obfuscation of specifics. Like it or not, the criticisms of the Left advocate the "West not being Western enough." 

Badenoch's effrontery is so strong as to defy refutation. Her comments were spoken in a debate over immigration that exists only because the superior institutions of the Western world have made it a magnet for aspiring outsiders. Foreigners desire to move to free societies because of remarkable economic opportunities and the protections afforded by the rule of law. "Such are the product of historical choices that have borne luscious fruit." 

Badenoch aspires to the office of Prime Minister of the country that was instrumental in the abolition of slavery, the development of capitalism, the protection of free speech, the evolution of democracy, and the establishment of written law. The daughter of Nigerian immigrants has spoken, and she has done it so well...

Mark Cuban, listen up...

 I have never been and will never be a fan of celebrities giving their opinions, takes, op-eds, editorials or what have you on politics or anything else for that matter. However, for some reason (I'm being sarcastic, we all know what the reason is...) their opinions are omnipresent in the media. Whenever a celebrity says something, even if it's stupid (and it usually is...) it's in the news. Call me old fashioned but I tend to read and favor the opinions of learned people. Learned in the area of which they are giving an opinion. In the area of politics, ok, granted that's a difficult area to claim that one is learned in. But there are some who are able to understand what is happening and the background behind  such and communicate it effectively to others. In fact, there are some who were, or are remarkably good at it. The first who comes to mind is the late, revered Charles Krauthammer. This was a psychiatrist (by training) who became a political analyst later in life. His incisive interpretations of politics and analyses make him one of the brightest minds ever to objectively speak on the subject. Another is Karl Rove. A brilliant analyst who wasn't afraid to speak the truth. Alan Dershowitz, one of the brightest legal minds, ever. Jonathan Turley. And there are more... Something all of these people had in common, they were not partisan groupies. Their priorities were the rule of law and a strong moral compass. 

Amongst this list, you may notice there are no celebrities. Movie stars, rock stars, talk show hosts, business moguls, influencers, rappers, sorry, they don't make the cut. They don't have the background, training, education, life experience or common sense to give an informed opinion on political matters. What they DO have is a platform. Movies, songs, TV appearances, and media presence gives them a defacto voice that's heard by millions of people. Even if what they have to say is ill-informed and ignorant. 

Mark Cuban recently abused his platform with one of the most ignorant views ever heard from an allegedly intelligent citizen. Mark is a well known celebrity for his work as a financier, investor, and business mogul. He has done well financially, obviously an astute businessman. He has unfortunately and wrongly assumed that this qualifies him to publicly offer his misplaced opinions on politics. It's really an insult to those of us who can think for ourselves... 

Mark is a democrat. That's fine, we all have the right to choose what fits with our own personal world-view. Recently, Mark has ramped up his support of candidate Kackala Harris. That's fine, it's a free country, back the candidate of your choice. In some of his public appearances Mark has claimed that Trump is a 'socialist' and that the mainstream media "leans right." (Mark, you might want to lay off the sauce dude...) He went on to say that he would vote for Biden even if "Biden was being given his last rites." That's fine, back your candidate of choice, right up until the end, or last rites... But Trump is a socialist? Where exactly did you go to school Mark? Did you actually go to school? Do you understand what socialism is? Mark, how many fingers am I holding up?... You may be a savvy businessman but your basic knowledge of civics is seriously deficient. That you would make such a statement erodes any confidence in anything that comes resonates through your dentures.

Your claim that Harris is actually working toward a viable border solution is beyond risible. For three and a half years she has sat on her hands while making one charitable, photo-op trip to the border. For three and a half years this new centrist, gun-toting former McDonalds employee never thought to tell Papa Joe to just re-instate the remain in Mexico policy? And now we're supposed to believe that she can make an appearance at the border and pretend that she's the one who can make it all right? 

Mark, if I ever had any respect for you (I didn't) I no longer do. Your opinions are analogous to what gets flushed down toilets. Like most  of your celebrity friends, your opinion stinks. And most of us don't want to hear it. Stop insulting us Mark. Many of us out here are not stupid, as it appears you assume. We can think for ourselves. And if we had the platform you undeservingly have, we would tell you that...

What you see is not what you're going to get...

 With all the center-right babble coming out of Kamala Harris' pie-hole lately many voters are thinking, I like what I'm hearing and if all this is true she will be a wonderful alternative to electing Trump. She has backed off on many of her previous positions about certain issues that are important to conservatives. Immigration, the border wall, gun laws, restrictions and bans, fracking, etc.. Does she really mean this or is she just saying what a lot of voters want to hear so she can get elected then go back to being the way she has always been. She may be looking, quacking and walking like a conservative center right duck now, but don't fool yourself, she will go back to being the liberal lackey she has always been if elected. If you dont believe that, then hear me out. There are signs...

Harris has made it clear in a recent radio broadcast that she thinks the filibuster should be eliminated for Roe v Wade. Which means the only way to keep the filibuster is to have a Republican Senate. For some time the Democrats have wanted to do away with the filibuster because it has been a hindrance for progressives frustrated with the limits the current system places on their ability to enact sweeping changes. This idea has gained increasing support among Democrats but unfortunately Biden had reservations about eliminating it. For several years now two Democrats have stood in the way of getting it tossed, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. With Manchin and Sinema leaving the Senate it's not likely any Democrat would vote against having it eliminated. 

In the absence of the filibuster some very far left ideals could, and likely would become reality. Late stage abortion for one. Also things outside the abortion issue such as tax hikes, stricter gun laws, price controls, a single-payer health insurance system, maintaining the status quo on immigration laws, etc. Without the filibuster in place it will be much easier to get legislation through the Senate (which currently has a Democratic majority). Take it away and the country is on it's way the becoming a socialist society. What we're seeing and hearing now isn't necessarily what we'll get...

Is it really a duck?

 We've all been watching the news lately, and if you want to keep up with Harris' constantly changing platform you have to. It's no secret that she is constantly 'shifting'. The general voting population in America is center right and Harris is doing whatever it takes to appeal to the center right. Mandatory gun buy-backs, gone. She even told Oprah today that if anyone tries to break in her home they're going to "get shot". (Seriously, shot by whom, exactly...) Fracking, she's all for it, now. Immigration and the border, she's now supporting measures that will fund building the border wall. (Gasp!)  Taxes, I will sign a bill ending taxes on tips. (Thanks Donald...) The staunch progressive and liberal leftist that has become her hallmark signature, has it really changed? Is she really center right now? Are the yellow dog democrats ok with this step-change? If she is elected, is that how she is going to govern? Will she remain true to her word? Or is this a ruse to get elected? Is all this rhetoric a euphemism, an artifice? 

The best one can do to answer that question is to look back in history. There have certainly been instances where powerful influential politicians have changed party affiliation. Harris isn't changing parties, but she's changing her policies to more closely resemble the other side.  Odd thing is the mainstream democrats don't seem to mind. Not yet, anyway. If she were to be elected would they continue to go along with this center-right shift? 

Most likely, no. They would not. Would she herself continue to go along with it? Most likely, no. I believe the general democratic consensus is - get elected. Whatever it takes. We'll take it from there. So if you are a voter and undecided at this point, and you believe what she is saying are you going to be disappointed if she is elected? Most likely, yes. But that's for the voters to decide. Look at it this way. When cops apprehend someone who allegedly has committed a crime, what's the first thing they do? Check their criminal record. If the perp has a lengthy criminal record then there's a good chance they're just continuing their career path. When the judge is sentencing them does he consider their prior criminal record? Yes, not always but most of the time. What do lawyers always consider when evaluating a case? Precedence. Summarily, one's past seldom escapes them. Is Harris' past being cast to the wind? 

You tell me... If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it really a duck? 

#kamalaharris. #politics. #2024election. 

We all Need Diversions...

 Whether we realize it or not we all need diversions. Something that takes our mind off the prosaic nature of our lives, that is enjoyable in some way. Everyone has myriad things we must deal with all vying for and needing our attention. And they don't always come in succession, they tend to 'stack up'. Inevitably some are important and demand immediate attention. Some are worrisome, some require time to cogitate so we can figure out what to do. As mere mortals we have varying levels of tolerance, something like a teakettle. It can only get so hot before it has to blow off steam. Like the teakettle we all have our own boiling point. Only with us it's best to blow off a little steam periodically instead of waiting until we reach boiling temperature. To cast one's worries aside and have a little fun. Of course there are endless ways to do this. 

For me, I have a hobby I took up about nine months ago, flying drones.  On the surface this may sound like child's play, that drones are toys. And indeed, there is that niche, toy drones. But the king's portion of that niche is anything but child's play. Drones are a big part of modern life. Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on what side you're on...) they are a critical part of modern warfare and national security. Drones, most commonly referred to UAS's (unmanned aerial systems) can carry ordnance (bombs) long distances while the pilot sits safely ensconced thousands of miles away. It's worth noting these vectors carry substantial destructive capability and operate with surgical precision. 

On a smaller more peaceful scale drones are providing tremendous opportunities at significant cost savings. In the engineering and architectural world, drones can take videos that can be transformed into 3D models used to optimize designs for just about any structural undertaking imaginable. Buildings, highways, cell towers, processing plants, the list is endless. And these 'flights' to obtain the videos cost but a fraction of launching a manned aircraft - at no risk to human life at all. Mapping remote terrain  is now a walk in the park. Drone photos and videos can produce photogrammetric representations of completely inaccessible areas. For construction projects estimates of earth to be removed can be calculated accurately from photogrammetries. 

In the world of public safety drones are used every day to assist law enforcement. Drones with thermal imaging capabilities can locate fugitives without putting officers lives in danger. Lost hikers and children can be located much faster than search parties ever could. 

Agriculture utilizes drones to apply fertilizers and seed. Drones allow this to be done at far less cost than crop dusters and diesel tractors. Crop yields can be estimated for more accurately using photogrammetry. 

And of course, let's not forget retail applications. Some of us at some point, if not already will be taking delivery of something via drone delivery. Some of the big box retailers are already rolling out drone deliveries. It saves money while putting fewer trucks on the road. 

On top of all these constructive ways drones are being used they can also provide a wonderful recreational distraction for someone needing one. If you just want to have fun, this is a great way to do it. Getting a private pilot's license is expensive and time consuming. But if you long to fly (safely and cheaply) then drones are for you. There are some caveats but there's no question it's safer and cheaper than flying an airplane. But just like an airplane taking off and flying a drone will get your adrenaline flowing just the same. And there's a guarantee that it will take your mind off whatever may be worrying you...

See for yourself... 

If you'd like to see more photos or videos, just let me know. Thanks

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Drone%20Vids?preview=DJI_0323.MP4https://www.dropbox.com/home/Drone%20Vids?https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sxyyqai957dl1s2c65nnd/DJI_0290.JPG?rlkey=ifefirtqk8we035udlwx42zmk&st=30i7k2ij&dl=0

I dont disagree with the Pope...

 I read an article tonight about the Pope weighing in on the upcoming election. My reaction when reading the headline was somewhat akin to reading about a celebrity giving an opinion on the election. For the record, I detest the opinions of celebrities on politics. They're so uninformed... I was prepared to cast the Pope's opinion into the same intellectual wastebasket. But I read the article and I'm glad I did. Turns out the Pope and I have similar feelings about the candidates. He says to vote for the lesser of two evils. As far as I'm concerned he nailed it. We have two of the most unqualified, incompetent candidates for president in any election, ever. Whoever is elected, there are going to be problems. They're just going to be different problems depending on which person takes office. I have my feelings about which problems will be the most 'tolerable' but so does everyone else. Two topics of the many to consider that the Pope mentions are abortion and immigration. Obviously, the Pope is against the taking of any life no matter the stage of development that life may be in. I suppose abortion will always be a subject of contention. Sort of like the conflict in the Middle East, it's just not going to go away. Ever. We should stop expecting that it will go away. Instead, let's figure out a way to deal with it that will appeal to the majority. Honestly, is there any other way? Isn't that what democracy is about? Following the path that is the choice of the majority... I believe that is what Trump had in mind when he backed the path of turning the decision over to the individual states. That wasn't a choice of pro or anti abortion. It was let the states decide. The problem was the states are like 50 different people with 50 different opinions. Didn't actually solve anything. 

I have always revered and admired the Supreme Court. Not necessarily those selected to serve as jurists, but the concept of the court. However, just because the Supreme Court decides on something does not necessarily mean it was the best decision. They're just ordinary people who, like the rest of us screw up from time to time. Problem is, the concept of what is right and what is wrong varies from person to person. Even Supreme Court justices. Some are more learned and informed and can better determine what is right and wrong than others, but college degrees don't necessarily improve judgment. There are myriad things that come into play when it comes to good judgment, formal education is but one of them. Only one. Keep in mind, the president selects them, but he doesn't have the final say, congress does. It's a lot more convenient and convincing for politicians to claim the president did it, it's his fault. Congress did not have to agree with his choice. 

The Pope goes on to say it is ultimately up to each individual to decide, which is the lesser of the two evils. He also says the worst thing one can do is to not vote... Your Holiness, I agree with you. 

#presidentialelection.  #pope'sopinion.  #2024 election.  #Pope

The 2024 Debate...

 Last night was the presidential debate, Trump and Harris. It was just shy of two hours, of some fierce rhetoric. Most media accounts have claimed that Harris won the debate. If there was a 'win' on her part, it certainly wasn't because she wowed listeners with revealing an array of solid, reasonable stances on critically important topics. Most of her responses began with an insult or slanderous remark aimed at her opponent. Or maybe a throwback to some occurrence from her childhood that shaped her into the self-proclaimed powerhouse she is today. Many of the facets of her platform are copycats from Trumps'; immigration, fracking,... . And the lies and falsehoods gushed like Spindletop. Trump threw out some himself but they were infallibly met with an emergency 'fact-check'.  ABC like the rest of mainstream media was true-to-form. Trump was goaded and asked on occasion to answer complex questions with a yes/no answer. It's a hallmark of the times and a sad and embarrassing fact that most media outlets are a bastion of left leaning, biased pools of shameless wannabe journalists. Truth, integrity, and honesty died with Walter Cronkite. 

Trump managed to survive the hostility just as he did the bullets. Trouble is, he didn't do it quite so gracefully this time. He became angry and retaliatory, but then we've come to expect the from Trump. One would think that someone of his stature, with his accomplishments would be a skilled speaker, able to maintain his equanimity under fire. Not so. His emotions, frustrations and passions were pulsating from his face. All the while the core basis of his points were valid. He has been steadfast on his platform on every topic. No wishy washy flip-flopping. Unfortunately, he's a hot-head. Somewhat controlled, but a hot-head. 

Harris is seemingly relying on dispensing charm and promises. Most of her 'hot topics' such as child tax credits, small business loans, and first-time home buyer down-payments involve giving money away. A Democrat bedrock, give money away. They don't seem to be able to connect the dots of cash handouts and inflation. She talks a good line about dealing with foreign affairs and leaders, but there's no record of any success in that area. Someone with a lot more sense than her must have advised her to not bring up the idea of price controls to curb inflation. Your average college freshman knows that's not a good idea. 

To sum it up, it was a terrible debate. I would declare the winner to be no one. Harris is a pompous, unqualified, bag of hot air who struggles with mendacity. Trump is an arrogant, not so well-spoken yet more believable non-politician. You have to give him credit, he's doing a good job of surviving the cesspool of high level politics. They have been doing their level best to take him down. His intentions, do appear to be for the good of the country. He just doesn't seem to have the polish and the package for getting it done. But what he does have is the tenacity...

#presidential debate.  #2024 debate

A Problem with Writing...

 I identify as a writer. The only difference between myself and other pseudo-identifiers is I actually write. I write, therefore I am. I'm not a famous or even well-known writer. Well, at least not yet. I'm working on it. However, for the past few years I'll admit that working on it has become a very slow process. I still had my day job so that's my most legitimate excuse. But it's not really as good as it sounds since I wrote my first novel while I was working, and I did it within a year. I'd rise about four a.m. everyday, write for a couple of hours and then trudge off to work. So, actually having a day job is no excuse, as proven by none other than myself. Writing a novel is a very gratifying experience. A genuine accomplishment, that I'm very proud of. While sales haven't exactly brought me vast riches many have told me it was a fantastic story. I started my second novel shortly after finishing the first one, still excited about the experience. I worked hard on it for a couple of years. Unknowingly, I had begun an endeavor that I didn't have a clue what I was in for. The first book was a story of two lifelong friends who found themselves at turning points in their lives and went on vacation together. In an idyllic setting they find themselves accidentally embroiled in international chicanery with the global balance of power on the line. Though the characters were based on real people with similar experiences, it was all fiction. Every word straight from the imagination.  The second novel is what I call historical fiction. It is set in a specific period in time in a specific place and many of the characters are real, well-known figures in American history. There had to be a certain level of accuracy regarding those people and those places. The amount of time spent on research turned out to be quite a surprise. The other pressures of life I suppose often won out over time spent researching. For many of those times when I did sit down to write I felt like I had a terminal case of writer's block. So for a few years my story gathered dust. 

Then came retirement. Suddenly I had more time to write. Or so I thought. It's really amazing how many things one has put off and must attend to when they have the time. I guess I had a lot of them that had been stacking up for a long time. I guess that also means that I'm one helluva procrastinator. But I'm getting the deck cleared now and beginning to see daylight. I think I can safely say that I'm only a few months away from publishing. 

Since the time I began writing my first novel over ten years ago I started this blog. Not really writing about anything in particular, though I do like being a wannabe political analyst. Charles Krauthammer was one of the best and serves as my worthy hero. My blog, though wanders through a lot of varied topics. However, in the last couple of years my blog audience has grown. A lot. I can't really explain the reason for this but I'm flattered and grateful. I like sharing stories, ideas and my humble opinions with others and I'm very appreciative of all my readers. A huge surprise for me though is the diversity of my readers. As the count climbs into the tens of thousands, I have readers literally all over the world. Hong Kong, Singapore, India, China, Russia, UK, France, Spain, Ireland, Sweden, and others. Many others. I never imagined this, ever. But I am humbled and grateful. I hope that you find something that's entertaining, informative and funny at times. If you have the time and the inclination post your own take on some of the topics. Agree, disagree, comment, criticize, praise, it's all welcome. Tell your friends and pass on the link. In the meantime I'll try and finish my book. 

#politicalanalysis. #writing#writersblock