"Bezos. But I pay for Prime."I'm once again posting the egg nog recipe, and this year, adding a bit of humorous parenting advice:
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician — or political philosophy — is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians — even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership — hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude — toward your ownership and use of weapons — conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend — the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights — do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil — like “Constitutionalist” — when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician — or political philosophy — is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun — but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school — or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway — Prussian, maybe — and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man — and you’re not — what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?
On the other hand — or the other party — should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue — health care, international trade — all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn’t true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author — provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. lneil@lneilsmith.org
(HT: at American Digest on OCTOBER 15, 2020)
I gather Justice Ginsburg tended to vote Liberal, which I suppose is why the Democrats are in Yet Another Meltdown over what President Trump may do.
That said, I have raised, as a resource, my very own lawyer in the family, and she has put together her thoughts at Justice Ginsburg's passing.They are up on her new blog, to which I kindly refer you:
This photo of Ms. Harris that is making the rounds has me a bit ticked off. Not because it is making fun of her, which I'm very OK with, but because the picture itself is so obviously not a good, publication grade pic.
The story is that sometime in the last month or so, she had 'some work' done. No bi deal. But many Tweeps are passing this pic around, claiming that this is her 'new' face. (A face only The Joker could love, IMHO.) But it stinks to high heaven. Her face is significantly out of focus.
In particular, look at the colors below her right cheek. The transition from light to darker (shaded) skin is way too grainy to have come directly from a studio camera, or, for that matter, a decent phone camera. Ether the image was captured with a 640x480 camera, or it has been 'de-rezzed', i.e., the pixle per inch value reduced somehow.
(I make no call about the' how', just the 'what'.)
I know that's done to support the story and the narrative. But the editorial decision to use such a bad quality image and promote it as ac accurate representation is editorial malpractice.
Our side, we, need to be better.
Hi Dad,
IMPORTANT NEWS.
In the last two weeks, my Uncle Kevin has been in and out of the hospital. He had a stent put in for a other than heart organ issue and went home. During that time other issues were found and he was in pain and weak. As of the other day, he is currently back in and is facing a diagnoses of pancreatic cancer. As you know, that is what my Grandpa was diagnosed with, and passed from, in 1995.
He is at Hoag Hospital where both Grandma and Grandpa were at before they passed.
As of news today, Kevin is in good spirits and joking, much better than the last few days. More tests to happen this week. Due to his health, chemo and radiation versus surgery are his options.
Please keep Kevin, and all of us in your prayers. We will know more this week to know what's possible but it is pretty scary and devastating.
I especially ask for your prayers and kindness for strength for my Mom. She is the go to sibling. And, as I imagine, very difficult to be again at Hoag where she lost her parents.
I ask for your prayers and strength for me as well.
Love,
Jennie
