I live near a major city but in a small town. Sometimes it seems even smaller then I think it was when I pause to remember a time long ago. That town had a lot of character and a lot of characters; this story is merely one of them. There was a man who lived there named Willy, a rather nice man, whose name that he might have been baptized as William but he was never into pretense with anyone that I ever saw. He was always Willy, young or old, male or female, they all called him that. He used to cut the lawn for all the WASPs in the city, white Anglo Saxon Protestants. He was English and went to the same church with them. The man was in his 70tys when I first met him. I was cutting the grass to the house next door, on the French side of things. The town was divided into two parts, the French and the English, though they all lived interspersed.  So in a way we might have been competitors, but we were not. He never saw it that way and nor did I. So he would talk with me as we sipped some water on our break. This job, his jobs and this city, his city, was his whole world. He had been cutting the grass, trimming the hedges and raking the leaves for the same families for years and years. It was the only real job he ever had. Only job he ever wanted too. He was also in very high demand. People would be on a waiting list to get him and his services to take care of their lawns. Sort of a status thing, being in the city’s mainline, having arrived, if Willy did you grass. And if not then you were not in with the “In” crowd, if you know what I mean. He could only do so many places each day but had he wanted to he could have had a lot more people paying him to cut their grass. But then the quality of his work would suffer! He would have to rush. It was not something he wanted to do. He had enough to do with what he had. Work 6 days a week but never on Sunday, that was for Church. Though he never once offered to cut the church lawn either. He never got alone with that minister they brought in from elsewhere. Too standoffish for Willy! So he never offered. And no one ever asked either. Why if he did the church, then they might not get their house done because he would have to cut someone. And no sir! That was not to be allowed. He was a treasure and the WASP intended to keep him all for themselves and their lawns of course.

He was a nice sort. Dealt only in cash, and if the Mistress did not have enough money to pay, no problem he would carry them till next week. He had a book of accounts he kept with him in his shirt pocket with stubby piece of wood he called his pencil. I think he saw them on sale for 5 of them for nickel one year in 1957 and bought the whole lot. Spending, lavishly, a whole 40 cents for the lot! He would take out his pencil, or what remained, made sure it had a point or out would come his pocket knife. He had earned that trophy as a Boy Scout, back in the day when being gifted a pocket knife was the sign of being seen as a man.  Once he had a point that he liked, then he would mark down everything; what money he had been given and the change he had returned. He would close the book, put it back in his shirt pocket and put away the pencil for the next house.

His shirt was never tucked in either. Always buttoned but just not tucked into his pants. Let the air flow in when it was hot and he was working. He never wore a hat either. I think i saw him in one once,  He did not look happy with it on. So whatever the weather, his face was always in the sun; white in spring, red by May and tanned leather by August. Same for his arms but strangely not his legs, he always wore long pants. Never shorts. He was a professional. And you wore pants as a man of his profession. Or at least he thought so. He used to always wear shoe, good leather shoes but later on in life, I guess he let down that stiff appearance and switched out for running shoes. His daughter got them for him and made him throw out his old shoes. But they fit well and they were a gift from her, so he surrendered the older shoes to her and watched as she firmly placed them in the garbage. Don’t tell her, but when she left, he went and retrieved them. He still has them in the shed out back, just in case. You know, in case he needed them once more.

He would drive around with his bike, attached to the back was a cart filled with his tools. You would look inside, it was not covered. He had his rake, his gloves, a water bottle and his mower. Except it was not a gas mower, or an electric one. It was the old style that turned rotating blades and you walked and pushed it. He did not like the new fangled machines. They bruised the grass. So he was strictly a human powered mower-man. He would drive up to the house. He would park on the street, never parking in the driveway. He did not want to intrude on the family space. He would do his job the ring the door, hat in hand. Speak with the lady of the house and discuss what she wanted him to do the following week and of course get paid. He worked hard for his money do getting paid was important too. Then he would ride off to the next house. It was never far just down the street where he would repeat the same ritual he did ever other day. Rain or shine, he would be out doing his jobs, cutting his lawns, because that is what he did every other day. He was a man and this was his “Mans” work.

Willy is long gone now, passed on to mowing a better place. But his likes will not soon be replaced and hopefully not forgotten either. But the town has changed. The last WASP died off or moved away with the family to some other place that is not here. The lawn mowing companies are all professional companies. There are no independents anymore. As for Willy, I suspect is he was still here, he would not like them much either. They might just bruise  the grass, their clients. See it is not just about cutting the grass. It’s about servicing the customer.

A gentleman at an open carry protest in Texas was giving a reporter an interview. He stated; word to this effect: “If they tell me I cannot say certain things, then I am going to fight ya. If they say I cannot go to church, or tell which church to go to, I am going to fight ya. So when they come and tell me that I cannot do with a gun what the 2nd Amendment says I can, you can be sure I am going to fight ya.” He then went on to say: “We tell the legislature what laws we the people want. We tell the courts what those laws mean. Courts do not get to invent new laws that oppose what we the people say.” (Note I do not claim this to be an exact transcript of his comments but I feel that I captured the essence of them.) I think the heart of his claim rests on consent. The people, by way of the 2nd Amendment has told the government what they want in law, open carry etc, and that the courts are duty bound to uphold the view of the people therefore no restrictions on guns, where they can be carried and who can carry them is permissible under the 2nd amendment.

There is a lot to unpack in this comment. First, he does not mean what he thinks he means. He says the courts should reflect the views of the people. If he truly meant that then he would be against open carry, for stronger, longer background checks. How can I say that when clearly he is advocating the opposite? If the views of all Americans are to be considered, and we have such information by the way of opinion polling, then it is clear that the vast majority agree with background checks, restriction as to age and outright ban on assault style weapons. See he only thinks he is in the majority. He is not. But this brings up another point when dealing with gun advocates. They are one issue voters. If they see anything that might be against gun ownership or against the right to openly carry, they will vote against that politician in a heartbeat. Hence why the NRA is so powerful, in marginal districts where the vote is near evenly split, the loss of even a few votes could mean the difference in winning and losing.

This also brings us to the notion of consent. I as a citizen must consent to all laws. Therefore if I do not consent to any gun laws I do not have to follow them. Correct? That is seemingly what he is trying to point out. The issue of gun control is not something they consent to so they do not have to obey. Just like all taxes are voluntary, even if you don’t want to pay, you still have to. The questions on the understanding of what is voluntary. In the case of taxes, we send democratically elected representatives to the capital who vote in tax laws that we then have to pay. Where is the voluntary part of have to pay? You can always leave the jurisdiction. You can run for office and then you can get laws passed that remove the burden of paying such taxes. But just as a President does not have a line item veto, you do not have a line item veto over what laws you will voluntarily consent to. It is all or nothing. This gets even worse. You cannot say; “well, fine then I disagree with all of it and be done with it.”You have to leave the jurisdiction and then once gone, you have to renounce citizenship in the country. Sort of like the grandsons of Greek immigrants used to travel as tourists to Greece only to find themselves under arrest and forcible inducted into the army. The logic was, since they could claim to be Greek citizens by way of their grandparents citizenship, the state could impose the military service upon them even if they were clearly citizens of another state. If you had renounced you Greek citizenship while in your birth country, they would not, could not force you to do military service.

In the case of gun control, the rules in effect are established by the people, for the people, with the people by way of the Constitution. The words of that document, only 3000 words long, are essentially meaningless on their own. It requires a legal mind, based on precedent and case law to interpret what those word mean. We call this the judiciary branch of government. There sole job is to read what has come before then make pronouncements as to what this means in the current era and in the current case. Sometimes, this means they make new rules out of seemingly thin air. But that is their job. To then say, well the people tell them what to say is not just, justice or even legal. It is tyranny. Much worse, since the vast majority or hard core gun nuts never amount to more than 3% of the population, they would be the tyranny of a small minority. I don’t happen to like District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) but as I read it, and I have read it a few times, the legal arguments while disagreeable, are consistent and they are clever in their own right. What matter is not if *I* like them, or *You* like them, or even the speaker from Texas. What matters is that the Supreme Court of the United States has said this is what the law says, this is what it means. You can agree to disagree as you want, but you will obey. Or you can leave; give up consent by merely becoming a citizen of another state or country. Just up and leave. This is stark choice you have. Or in the very last case, you can change the law. Simply gather together your fellow citizens and change what the Constitution says. This is what has happened in the past and it could happen again. But as only 3% of the population agree with you, it will be a clearly an uphill battles. Just as *I* and majority, 97%, have to abide by the laws that allow you to open carry,  because the courts say this is allowable, we can also fight to change the law so that it is no longer the law and thus not acceptable.

Times are changing. People are no longer going to accept the need for unrestricted guns and gun violence. The war upon the people will reach a terminal velocity and stricture controls will be implemented. Those who disagree can do so from a different country or they can obey. The status quo will not stand.

It seemed innocent enough to start. “In 1919, Lenin had all of Moscow’s Boy Scouts shot. (From John Gray’s ‘Seven types of atheism’).” Gray is a retired scholar of philosophy, not a historian so it sounds legitimate. Unless one looks deeper into the matter. Being as I do have more than a passing interest in the USSR, history and was a Boy Scout, I looked into this claim. On its face it sounds suspect. Why? Boy Scouts? Massacred? They rounded up kids, 12- 15 years old and shot them? And I have not heard of it? Ego aside. Not going to happen that I would not have heard or seen something about this somewhere before in all the reading, research and study I have done.
To wit, I turn you to “Sergei Eisenstein: October Ten Days that Shook the World (1928)” A great film by Russian propagandists on the Winter Revolution. It shows the valiant storming of the Winter Palace and how it was a great victory of the people. Despite being protected by elite troops who knew they would fail in the face of the revolution, so they surrendered with no causalities. While all of that is wrong, it is right sort of. Making it fake news. The peasants, were in fact Soviet troops who prior to rebelling had been front line soldiers on the Eastern Front fighting the Germans. In other words, they were experience veterans who knew how to fight and wage war. The Winter Palace was protected by Elite guards. So one can assume SAS, Green Beret, and SEALs, that sort of Special Forces who can kill with their hands and take on armies by themselves, chew glass, leap tall buildings, basically the expression of military might, agility and alacrity that can easily hold off the assault by mere peasants. In fact, this was protected not by one but two special units of troops. Really? Yes really. They had the circus squad filled with odd type people like a modern day freak show; Dwarfs and bearded ladies  such like. But they were in the army so they qualified as special soldiers. Okay, maybe not them then, but what of the other Elite unit that was stationed to guard the Palace? Well they were the personal bodyguards of the Czarina, an all female personal bodyguard, who were trained to shot pistols. Sort of like the training a modern police officer might have. Lastly, the part about the no casualty claim that they made? In fact there was one; a minor injury. Best as can be explained. One of the so called “peasants” saw an elite lady bodyguard and pinched her behind. She promptly turned around and kicked him very hard in the special male spot. He went down and she returned to be marched out the gate. See how the words used while seemingly correct are misleading into fake news?
Before return to the subject, we must admit this is not something the Russian would not do. In fact, in May and June, 1940, the Katyn Massacre was an example of just this sort of behavior, the Russians killing officers, nobles and their children, including a bunch of children from a Polish military high school. So, they could very well have lined up a bunch of kids, boy scouts, to a wall in 1919 and shot them all dead.
With those two stories in mind, let us return to Boy Scouts of Russia. Today, anyone can join; rich or poor, male or female and all colors and ethnic background. There is even a troop of boy scouts for gay members. This is completely and totally not the case for Russia. The Boy Scouts were for the sons of the rich and nobles, and no one else. Those same sons who would take up arms to lead the Czars troops into battle as the officer corps, be the leaders of the resistance to the new rule by Lenin and would be expected to cause trouble. Thus many of them would have been otherwise out of town; either in prison camps, (German) at the front, (Russia side), dead, or horrible injured. The few that remained and emphasis on the word few, those who survived the brutal fighting on the Eastern Front after 4 years of war were no longer teens but battle trained and hardened men. These men were also the leaders of the White Army resisting the takeover by the socialists/communists aka the Red Army. So even if they might have been innocent in their actions, some might not have been trying to overthrow the government, they were class traitors as well by being part of the rich or noble class. People traditionally opposed to this government of the Soviets.
So yes, they did order the death of these men, who would be ordered, put to death for rebellion, treason and host of other things. They ordered them to their death for being boy scouts, because it was from that rank that leaders emerged who were thwarting the Revolution not for being able to learn how to tie a sheep-shank knot. They were killed for trying to taint the revolution, not for doing a “good deed” each day.
The result is this; anyone reading the first report will see the nuisances are more important than the headline as the headline clearly does not tell the full story and easily can mislead the uninformed. They did not line up a bunch of kids, boy scouts, but ordered men put to death who would be leaders in rebellion.

See why is fake news and the other is history?

Lady RIP (2002-2018)

I meet her just over 16 years ago. Debbie at work had a cat with a litter. So she was giving away kittens. I had a soft spot for them, so I got one. She arrived on a Saturday, her emerald green eyes all ablaze at the trip and her new home. From the start she was very different. She might be a kitten but she would be no little girl. She had a way, a bearing and a look that said she might be a cat but she was no push over. The way she walked and the way she carried herself sad to me, even at her young age, this is no girl, she is a Lady. Thus how she was named. She was met with the usual cat hostilities from Squeaky, a solid build cat, like a boxer really, small but muscles and toughness over flowing. They would soon be wrestling. In fact, he was so strong I would break them up, fearing in their play he would hurt her. So they would fight on my floor but they would not make a sound. Even today, my cats do not make any noise when they play fight. Otherwise I stop them. Then there was “LB” The old man of the house. He was 15. Look up the word “Stoic; in the dictionary and you will see him. She would hiss at him and he would just sit there. She would make to hit him and he would just sit there. In fact, he never hissed back nor hit her at all. He would just be there. He would pass on later on that year. Rip old age of 15 is 88 in human years so he had a good long cat life. I wonder if cats think we are immortal? They arrive, we are there and when they die, we remain to mourn their passing. The “boys” soon let her into their club and let her play with them. She being a kitten would be the trouble maker and they would as more stately gentlemen play with her much to my amusement if not their own fun. A few months after LB passed, on a morning where Squeaky was as his usual play, waking me up by fighting with my feet, Mother was so taken by it she took pictures of him playing with them. That afternoon, he lied down in the sun upon her bed and simply passed on to the next world. Two cats, lost in a year, are never fun. We soon remedied that by bringing my sisters cat. We called her “Little One” because she was so tiny. She would grow up and be fat but she was fun to have around. She was a trouble maker but she sure did not like to get it in return. They would chase her and she would run, only to come back later for more fun. Then came Holly, super small, the runt of the litter but loved all the same. Always small and still is. Her mother had the litter out of season, in January of the coldest year. But that cat was smart. She had the litter behind a pet food store. Soon they had rescued the liter and given them shelter. So when I was offered my kitten, three weeks old, I said “Yes.” See I had a black cat and I was told this one would be orange. Black and orange, all the colors of Halloween, hence she was named Holly. I had to feed her by syringe to make sure she was feed. That is until one day, when I was feeding her; Little One came to taste her meal. He tongue came out to lap some up but it was not to her taste so she moved on. Holly’s eyes were glued watching this approaching beast. Not in fear but in wonder. What was she doing to my food? She was licking it? So she squirmed and I put her down. She ran to the food and tasted it. Hey this is good. She had learned to feed herself. She would soon be getting Kitten food next to the adult bowl. The only difference is the size of the food really. That is until no one was looking, Then we little Holly would steal a piece of the adult food and crunch into it.

For years the three got along. Except, alas poor I, I was surrounded by females. Feeling outnumbers I found a male cat from another work place. He was a total barbarian to the girls. So I named him Eric, short for “Eric the Red” as he was a bright red. And he was big. The breed is called Maine Coon and this one was near 4 feet from nose to tail. Big and heavy. He would run after our little runt, Holly, and she would flee to my door. Only one day she stopped too swiftly for Eric and he ran right over her. No he does not push her over, or hit her in any way. He ran right over her. She was standing and he was standing all around her like a babushka doll. When I told mother about Holly whimpering, Mother said she was always a wimp. I told Mother if someone ran over me that way I might whimper too. There we were four cats, and frankly the house was busy at petting time and food time and bed time too. Each had their own personality. Like Little One would sleep in the food bowl. Not next to it or around it. Nope, her head would be in the food and she would sleep there. Lady would hate to jump up so whenever she chased Little One for being a pain, the only escape was to run and jump up somewhere. Eric was but he was not allowed to be mean so he turned out to be a gentle cat. That is unless he was wrestling with Lady. Did you know there is a cat Judo? Lady held a black belt. Eric weighed double hers and his body was easily twice her size. Yet he wanted to be the Alpha male in the house, he had to answer to the “Boss.” Lady would never allow him to take her position. He would try to fight with her. The word “try” is key. She would lie on the ground letting him come lord over her! That is until she would take both paws and grab his head and turned. Where his head went so did the rest of his body. And with a mighty thump he would be slammed to the ground. Now they were playing so no noise was made but you could hear the thump of his fall. After watching her flip him three times in a row, I had to stop it. I feared she would hurt him. Not the other way around.

Along the ride, rules were set. No cats on the table. No fighting between the cats. No hogging the food (Sorry Little One!). But time passed and soon caught up with us. Little One was the first to go. She was not moving, in a coma of sorts. So we picked her up and covered her to keep her warm. The other three cats came by. I petted her so she knew someone was there and she passed on in the night. A few years later, was Eric’s turn. He was in pain such that he cried out in the middle of the night. I would have brought him to the Vet but over the course of an hour from whence he made me aware of his problem, he too was gone. That was 10 months ago. So I was down to but two girls cats. Mother said the two seemed to be in a funk. So New years Day I purchased a new little girl. Her name was shadow. She was all black, sort of brown in the sun and she was fun. She got the other two busy again.

Lady was feeling her age. She stopped eating the hard food, and after trial and error we figured out how to feed her. She would only eat soft food. If we left it on the floor the new cat would eat it all (seemingly in one gulp!) Since Shadow does not like to jump up anywhere, we put the food on the counter. Holly would still eat some but only a bit. Lady could not jump up to the counter anymore. Not like she would have even as a kitten. So she needed an elevator service. In case you are wondering that “elevator service?” That would be me. So in the morning when I stirred she would yell at me to get out of bed for food. I would put her up let her eat then after a while bring her down cause she could not jump down. I would do this every two hours or so all day long. She was so used to yelling at me, she would yell for food, she would yell for water and then for no reason at all until I picked her up and held her for a while. I did that a lot. In the last days I think she stopped eating. She would pick then yell to be let down.

So this week; her last day, I came home from work. She could no longer walk. It was time. We both knew it. But it so broke my heart to bring her to the vet but I could not let her suffer. I would not let her suffer. I ate my lunch and feed her some cheese. She loved cheese and chicken. She had both for lunch that day. I got her settled in Mother’s arms and I drove. She stared at me the whole time. I parked the car and took her in my arms. In we went. A nice lady stopped and petted her and remarked bow beautiful her eyes were. She was always such a pretty cat. So I held her tight, petting her and crying, until my number was called. But I knew, in the waiting to be called she passed on. Held in arms, that she loved to be held in. Who loved to hold her too. By someone, I hope she in her cat like brain understood, loved her very much as well. I told the receptionist I was there to verify my cat had died. She did not make us wait. We saw a doctor. Rigour Mortis was setting in. But he checked her heart just for show I think. He could tell. She was dead. They asked if I wanted to keep her collar. My cats lived their lives with those bells, and if the collar was removed they would wait for it back. They did not have much but that collar was theirs and they understood that. Just like the bed I slept in was theirs during the day so get up it is their time to use it should I dare sleep in too late for their opinion.

And so we came home to a house that is much quieter now. No one yells at me. She would when she wanted come to my door and yell at me. I used to worry about what she was doing but I figured out she wanted me to pick her up and pet her. She hated heights but she would get picked up two or three times a day because she would yell at me for no reason. Well she had a reason; she wanted to hugged, cuddled and petted. No there is no one who pushes me away from the dropped food items. In the morning, I hear no feline alarm call. The other two cats are healthy and happy. They miss her too, I think so anyways. I know I still miss her. In the end, she may have thought we humans are immortal. We were here when she arrived. And we are still here after she left. Someone has to immortalize her name. In the end, she is always a lady to me.

Rest in Peace Lady

She was my friend but she will always be MY cat.

North Korea this week came to South Korea. They held wide ranging talks to end the war that has been on pause since 1953. That pause being only 64 years old is just shy of applying of old age pensions. The question is why now? The answer is not rocket science. The American right wing thinks it is all due to Donald Trump and his so called diplomacy. To my chagrin, I am going to somewhat agree with that. So 6 months ago, you had a war of words between North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un and President Donald Trump. The result was an escalation in the nuclear testing of both rockets and weapon design. This is where you have problems occurring in three ways, the Bomb, the missile and testing. You need a bomb you can toss at the other guy that will hit him where you aim. Well sort of, it’s a big bomb so anywhere close to the target within miles is close enough. Problem is… The North Koreans could not do it. Sure, they have the bomb, sort of. They have the missile and it could be tossed somewhere. But where will it hit? So what are the issues? The bomb itself was not that hard to make. Hint, it really is not all that hard to make, the physics is well know and Pakistan has been selling the secrets to anyone who wanted them. Most countries already have them or don’t want them except North Korea. So they have a great big bomb that remained, great and big, when they need to fit it small and powerful in a small missile that could fly half way across the world. They could not make it small enough to fit a missile. The missile they had was good at short range; basically if you have the capability to make a missile you can hit things in the short range. Things like wind and weather won’t be that much of a factor over the short term but medium and long term; you need to be able to guide the missile or to have it self guided. That is a lot harder. It was something they never managed to create thus far. But there is a solution to both problems. It involves testing. And here is the third problem. The test site, a mountain, is too fragile and is in danger of collapsing in on itself, releasing all the trapped radiation that was released in previous testing. Which would create a bigger mess then anything seen thus far? Picture Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima all rolled into one and multiplied a thousand times. New York State and North Korea are about the same size in land so that sort of release of nuclear radiation from further testing would be insane.

Twitter wars

With the escalation from comments by both leaders, Trump and Kim, the world took a collective pause to change underwear. This is not two school yard bullies going at it. But two nuclear armed nations about to square off. So, the rest of the world did something because nuclear war is not something anyone wants. They hammered North Korea with sanctions. This is not something new. They have been hammered before and with the assistance of China, they can make it through the winter. Only this time, it was not in the interests of China to have a nuclear war on their door steps, or a mountain collapse and release tonnes of radiation on their door step either. So China stepped up its enforcement of sanctions. That left only Russia to smuggle good into Korea and they could do so only occasionally. Enough to get Kim some luxuries but not enough to feed the people, the way the trains coming from China had supplied North Korea in the past.

So North Korea could not improve or finish their weapons program. The world was strangling North Korea over the real possibility of war that even China was afraid. Lastly, you had Donald Trump challenging them and making them lose face with his nasty comments. When you are this far in the hole, stop digging. And that is exactly what Kim did. He made a third step. Peace with South Korea, always a big step, end nuclear weapons research and give up weapons. Keep in mind, big brother China has guaranteed the border of North Korea for the last 64 years, continuing to do so in future and the mass of conventional arms pointed at the south are still there. With the nukes gone, the testing stopped, the sanctions go away, trade opens with both China and South Korea and the rest of the world. Thus Kim gets to run his fiefdom for as long as he can, and the world goes back to ignoring him. And gasp we can all thank Small Hand Donald.

Say what?

Yes, The president of United States.

What exactly did he do? Nothing. Except the pesky thing of doing what he normally does. He shot his mouth off on Twitter. He attacked Kim on Twitter. And that is all. See Ronald Reagan won the cold war not by fighting, not by diplomacy. Reagan beat the Russians by upping the ante. By bringing the USA military to the table dumping trillions of dollars on the table and saying to the USSR keep up with us. Which, of course, they could not, but they tried and bankrupted the country trying. “Mr Gorbachev tear this wall down,” on June 12, 1987, was nothing more than a taunt to the USSR, but with its weak economy another round of industrial building and sacrifice for another 50 years was unattainable for such a small economy of the USSR. The cowboy diplomacy had worked. The same thing is happening with North Korea. Only instead of cowboy diplomacy, call it Twitter Diplomacy. The North tried to be ready to fight this war with the USA and the world, and if the science had been there, the technology had been there and that stupid mountain had not gone all weak and threatening to collapse, things would have been different. If the world had not been afraid of two nuclear armed psychopaths, hands itching on a button and arguing who has the bigger hands, err buttons, to launch those nukes then they would not have dropped such harsh sanctions in such urgent speed. And lastly, if China has not been afraid of all of the above, the mountain, the idiots playing with their nukes and just how unstable the two of them are, they would not have turned on North Korea and stopped supplying them with needed materials. These sequences of failures are what brought Kim to the table.

Thank Donald J. Trump. Not for what he did, not for doing anything great, not for anything else but being himself, the spoiled brat, psychopath that he is, that we know and love, that scared the rest of the world into motion on what his next unpredictable reaction to this conflict would mean for the rest of the world. That scared Kim into pushing his nuclear program beyond what he could sustain and that silly old mountain that had its gut blown out and became unstable enough to collapse.

US Constitution, 2nd Amendment
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In a New York Times op-ed Former US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a republican, called for a new amendment to remove from the second amendment of the US Constitution the right to bear arms. In response to this we may ask why? Is it because we wish to raise the age where you can buy a gun?. Establish long waiting periods, and stronger background checks? Ban whole classes of weapons such as assault style weapons or add on like bump-stocks? Or demand training classes be longer and more rigorous? Make it a crime to not report lost or stolen weapons? Or near anything else along those lines? In fact all of them are perfectly legal and can be done now under the existing understanding of the legal framework in effect. In fact with the exception of 3% of the population, those who we shall persistently call gun nuts, the rest of the population will more or less agree with any and all of those actions. In fact, the jurisprudence is the Heller decision, (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) where they affirm all of the above. What makes the Heller decision so decisive is that for the first time, the SCOTUS affirmed that there is an a right such that; “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm…” Prior to this ruling, the Second Amendment was seen only as a collective right seen in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which held that a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment, as it could not be used in a militia. Heller affirmed similar protections in that;“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”
As such, it is not the law that is in need of changing. It is the political will to change the law that is in need of changing. But wait, in order to change the Constitution, you need strong political will. Whereas, adding any new requirement listed above would only be a mere law, an Amendment to the Constitution would be a much bigger deal. So why is it we can expect there to be enough political will to change the Constitution when there is not enough political will to come up with mere new laws to protect people? The answer is, there is not enough political will to enact mere law. Going that much further to alter the Constitution is unneeded. What is needed to be done is to reclaim the 2nd Amendment from the hands of gun nuts who think Heller’s gives them “license to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
People need to stand up and clearly say:
I support the 2nd Amendment by raising the age where you can purchase weapons.
I support the 2nd Amendment by establishing longer waiting periods.
I support the 2nd Amendment by having stronger background checks.

I support the 2nd Amendment by making it a crime to not report lost or stolen weapons.
I support the 2nd Amendment by banning whole classes of weapons such as assault style weapons or add on like bump-stocks.
I support the 2nd Amendment by demanding rigorous training classes!

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and Heller decision. Do not let gun nuts fool you into thinking otherwise.

California congressman Ted Lieu tweeted the following:

“Below is the Constitution. It DOES NOT say @POTUS can:

-engage in acts of war without Congressional approval

-Use force for 60-90 days

-enforce the Chemical Weapons treaty by force

-attack a country that hasn’t attacked the US”

Ted is a lawyer, a reserve colonel and served in the JAG (Judge Advocate General) so he knows better, or should know better in any case. Welcome Ted to the Twilight zone: “Justice Robert H. Jackson once called the “zone of twilight in which the president and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.” Without a clarification from SCOTUS, (Supreme Court of The United States) the question is one of interpretation not established law.

The President swore an oath, as you did Ted, to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution also says; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” and lastly, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

So what does that do for my opposition? Fairly, well argued it says a lot.  The attack on Syria is not an act of war. The act of war was the use of chemical weapons upon civilians. The use of force in retaliation to that provocation is justified in enforcing the Chemical Weapons treaty. Just as police give out tickets to people speeding to enforce the law, so too is this attack justified. Remember that treaty is not a piece of paper that means nothing. The Chemical Weapons treaty is the “supreme law of the land.” Hence the term police action. This is not act of war but defending the USA from a foreign enemy. No approval is needed, just a notification within 48 hours. I think he still has a few hours to go on that notification part.

I am going to ignore the 60-90 days line, since it comes from the War Powers Resolution. Not in the Constitution but still having the force of congress, which your being a member would make you complicit. I would also point out the whole attack lasted more like 6-9 minutes to launch the missiles.

The last part, about not attacking the USA? True, they have not invaded but that was not your question, was it? The treaty signed by the USA is enforceable by all members who signed that treaty. The USA just happens to be the world’s only super power with the capability to do so.

So Ted, I think I can safely call this a draw. Even though, I think I have the better arguments. So why go for the low ball? Because without a ruling from the Supreme Court, we may never know who is right and who is wrong.

“Surprisingly, the courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. The first legal challenge to noncompliance with the resolution, Crockett v. Reagan (1982), was filed by eleven members of Congress who contended that President Ronald Reagan’s decision to send military advisers to El Salvador must be reported to Congress. A district court ruled that Congress, not the court, must resolve the question of whether U.S. forces in El Salvador were involved in a hostile or potentially hostile situation. The Supreme Court declined consideration of a later appeal. In Lowry v. Reagan (1987), the courts refused to decide whether President Reagan had failed to comply with the War Powers Resolution when he dispatched naval forces to the Persian Gulf. A suit was brought by 110 members of Congress, arguing that sending forces close to the Iran-Iraq war zone required congressional approval. The district court held that it was a political dispute to be dismissed “as a prudential matter under the political question doctrine.” (Source)

The American attack upon Syria has been called illegal, uncontitutional and beyond the power of the Presidency. This is wrong and I will explain to you why.
The Congress passed the War Power Resolution after the Bay of Tonka incident. It is called an incident as even today there are question as to what exactly happened that night and if the US Navy was, in fact, attacked. The question and answer need not be addressed here. Congress did not like being dragged into a war without their approval. So then we jump to this attack, undertaken by the USA, UK and France. Was this an illegal action on the part of the President?

Even with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, it is generally agreed, that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States. The question is this strike such an act? When did Syria attack the United States? They did when Syria used poison gas to kill civilians, the Geneva Protocol, (1925) the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Whatever agent it is determined to be. As of this writing it is reported to be chlorine gas, a banded weapon used on the battlefields of World War One. Also, the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Makes it a war crime to employ chemical weapons in international conflicts. (2010 amendment extends prohibition to internal conflicts.) Thereby making this attack also a war crime subject to arrest by the international court.But even so, what does this mean for the USA in specific of the attack. What gives the President the power to attack Syria in the first place?
U.S. Constitution, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…” (Note that the USA is treaty member listed above.)
“And the judges in every state shall be bound thereby…”
That rule of law kicks in here, no judge can deny the obligation of any formal treaty entered into by the US government.
“…and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; …”
Kind of obvious, but needing to be said, you took an oath for your position in government, you are bound by this oath to support the Constitution and thereby by adoption, all treaties as well.
As such, a violation of said treaty, against use of chemical weapons, that has been officially approved by the Senate, and has becomes part of American law, must be protected. The Executive, aka The Office of President, must therefore protect the law of the several state and the rule of law by protecting the treaty as it was any other part of the Unitied States. You cannot decide to not protect Montana or ignore those parts of the criminal code you do not personally agree with. By your oath or affirmation, you are duty bound to uphold the treaty.
Thus by international law, International Treaty law, American law, and the American Constitution, the USA must protect the treaties it has signed as if they were a part of the United States. This includes the one against attacking civilians with chlorine gas or nerve agents. Thus Syria attacked the USA by defying the treaty against said use of controlled weapons, just as if the attack was on downtown New York.

I was sent a video about the effects of gun control on Australia after 20 years have past since they confiscated all guns.

The Truth About Gun Control In Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur8lbiModEI

At best, the summation is thus, You are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is your own facts. Here are claims nd the facts, along with sources where you can review the facts from. This video is merely cherry picking out statistics that it likes for its own end.

“Cherry picking
The selective use of data, or cherry picking, is a commonly used method of extracting the “right” answer. This is true even when all the data tells a completely different story.

Cherry picking often exploits random fluctuations in data. Firearm deaths in Australia have declined over the past two decades, but from year-to-year one can see variations up and down. Bigger fractional fluctuations are likely if you shrink your sample size.

Leading US pro-gun lobby group the National Rifle Association (NRA) was cherry picking when its publication, NRA News, reported this statistic from New South Wales:”
http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

time

1m02
claim: “All measure of violent crime have increased”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/
“The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:”
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
government statistics
http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

1m04
claim: “55% increase in the recorded assaults”
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359
“Assault
Assault is the most common form of violent crime; rates of recorded assault have been increasing steadily over the past 10 or more years. Between 1995 and 2006, the rate of recorded assault rose significantly from 562.8 to 829.4 per 100,000 people … Other research suggests this increase is not a recent phenomenon, but started to rise in the 1970s (Chappell 1995).
…
Sexual Assault
The prevalence of sexual assault is also reported to be increasing. Since 1995, the rate of recorded sexual assault increased by 22 percent, from 72.5 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 88.4 in 2006…”

“Recorded rates of both assault and sexual assault have followed a sustained upward trend since the early 1990s. A simultaneous increase in the reporting of assault suggests this is somewhat responsible for the rise in assault rates. The relationship between rates of recorded sexual assault against those estimated from victimisation surveys is less conclusive, as victimisation surveys produced inconsistent patterns in reporting behaviour. An increased awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault (particularly for assaults occurring within the family), a diminishing of associated taboos, a tendency for delayed reporting, and improved police and judicial responses to reports of assault all represent factors likely to have influenced willingness to report (Borzycki 2007; Cook, David & Grant 2001; Lievore 2003; Taylor & Mouzos 2006).”

1m15
claim: “Kidnappings up 52%”
https://aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi103
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia#Kidnapping
Kidnapping
“There was a 7.7% decrease in the number of kidnapping/abduction victims in Australia, from 596 in 2013 to a five-year low of 550 in 2014.”

3m06
claim: “Gun ownership is about self defence”

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
“Parsing 2012 numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

That’s in a nation in which there are some 300 million firearms
…
Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012). That’s a heavy price to pay.”

5m25
claim: “Armed Robberies up 69%”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia
“Armed robbery
There was a 14% decrease in the number of armed robbery victims (both person and non-person victims) in Australia, from 5,631 in 2013 to a five-year low of 4,855 in 2014.”

5m34
claim: “Assault with weapon up 28%”

Assault with weapon is not a category I can find, so I merely report this.

5m36
claim: “Gun Murder up 19%”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia
“There were 238 reported murder victims in Australia during 2014, compared to 245 in 2013
The murder victimisation rate fell to a five-year low of 1.0 victim per 100,000 persons;
Of weapons used in murder, a knife was the most common (44% or 69 victims)”

5m40
claim: “Home invasion up 21%”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia
“Called Unlawful entry with intent;
There was a 6.5% decrease in the number of victims of unlawful entry with intent in Australia, from 194,529 in 2013 to a five-year low of 181,879 in 2014”

Etc etc

In so much as you can cherry pick your facts based on whatever criteria you need to do, it is clear that the debate is simply one of a small minority of gun owners who will try with any argument they can muster to find legitimacy for their position in the face of overwhelming calls from the population to control weapons. When 97% of Americans call for stricter background checks before allowing for a purchase, this is not a small minority. It is everyone who thinks this is fair and needed.

The place holder that is dark matter and dark energy; the lingering mystery of the unknown; will it ever be solved? Ok fine, the universe is missing matter and energy. Scientists call this dark matter. But it is meaningless. It is merely a place holder for “Whatever that is.” they say they cannot detect it because it is dark. And there is none around here. Same with Dark Energy. So let me see if I can understand you? The universe is filled by like 95% of energy and matter to be this “Dark” stuff. Yet for some miracle there is none around us locally. Einstein is wrong. God does play dice and tosses them were we cannot see them, according to Hawking. Except the reason why we cannot see them is not cause they are hidden or too hard to see. We cannot see them because we refuse to look. Dark Matter and Dark Energy to be so prevalent in the universe must mean they are everywhere. As such, a uniform or near uniform distribution of the Darks must be to everywhere in the galaxy. That would, by necessity, mean they would fill up the local space as well. Stop looking for Zebras and start looking right here on planet Earth in the Sol system for the Dark horses. We may not see either in deep darkest space but we should not need to. The Dark sisters should be right here, right now and thus we should be able to find it and study it without leaving our own front yard. All we have to do is start to look in the right place.