Everyone knows the old adage - you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire threat. Why is that? You do, after all, have the right to say whatever you want, right? No, you don't. In the example of a crowded theater, there is an overriding civic responsibility to not put innocent lives in jeopardy unnecessarily. The short of it is quite simply this: you have the right to express your opinion and say what you wish within limits. You can voice your opinion on religion, politics, any topic you wish, so long as your words are not causing harm or potential harm to others in the community. We all live in a community, and we all have civic responsibilities to that community. The freedom of speech is not unlimited. Nor are any other freedoms we enjoy. You may listen to the music of your choice as loud as you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others to enjoy peace & quiet. Once your music infringes upon the rights of your neighbors to live in peace and quiet, you are directed to lower the volume of your music to an acceptable level, as measured by your community's standards. You have rights and freedoms as long as your rights and freedoms don't impinge upon those of others in your community. We have law enforcement and the judicial system to enforce those community standards and to mediate disputes between citizens when necessary. And yet, these days, it seems that everyone is concerned about themselves and inconsiderate of their neighbors. When told that they can not do something, they immediately cry foul, shouting that their rights are being infringed upon. And they may very well be, but again, it is the rights and freedoms of the community at large that need to be protected and also need to define what is acceptable behavior and speech. And you want those standards because without those standards and the mechanisms to enforce and adjudicate disputes, communities could not survive for long. You can drive your vehicle wherever you want, but you cannot drive on a sidewalk or across your neighbor's yards, and you cannot drive on the left side of the road. You must obey traffic signs and signals. These are all restrictions on your freedom, but without these restrictions, there would be lethal havoc for all in the community. So when we say you "have the freedom to drive wherever you want" what we really mean is, "you have the freedom to drive to whatever destination you want." So just because some of your rights and freedoms are restricted does not negate your overall freedoms and rights. Those restrictions are your everyone's protection, including yours. A healthy society is a community in which everyone respects those restrictions and recognizes that those restrictions are for everyone well being. Today, in the USA, we have a very sick society. Many people are only out for themselves, and not concerned about the safety and well being of others in the community. They cannot understand that they don't have unlimited freedoms and rights, that we must all accept certain limitations of those freedoms and rights for the benefit of the community as a whole. Those people don't have the ability to restrict themselves as appropriate - that just because you have the freedom to say something doesn't mean that you should. Words have consequences, and even though the words themselves may not be harmful per se, they can have the power to incite reactions in others that are a threat to the community. When you yell "Fire!" in that crowded theater, you incite the occupants to rush for the exits, which may cause a mob at the restrictive exits and people may get hurt or even be killed by the mob. And that brings us to the topic of the day, our Twice-Impeached-4-Times-&-Counting-Indicted-Fraudulent-Liar former President Trump. Why is this man allowed to continue to say things that put the community in jeopardy? He's yelling "Fire!" in the crowded theater that is his base. Why is he allowed to say things which incite his supporters to commit acts of violence? "Freedom of speech" is an excuse that is used with increasing frequency these days to justify inaction due to fear. We as a society need to grow the gonads to stand up to bullies like Trump and restrict their freedoms when the welfare of the community is jeopardized. His speech inciting violent responses from his base is, simply, unacceptable and needs to be stopped. Regardless of your political affiliation, such speech is intolerable and for the sake of our society, needs to be stopped sooner rather than later.

One of the major stories in the New York Times today was about the dire position the Biden-Harris administration is in regarding the next election. Some poll has reported that Trump leads Biden in 5 critical swing states. Really? And this conclusion is based upon what, exactly - polling data? How reliable are polling data? The answer is simple: extremely unreliable. The nature of polling is the culprit. First, the question is always, "If the election were held today..." Well, it isn't. So right from the start, the data are based on a false premise. Then, there is the fact that there are no nominees for President yet. Hell, anyone can say they are running for President today, but that means absolute diddly-squat. Given their ages, Biden and Trump may be dead & buried by the time Election Day 2024 rolls around. So the entire premise of polls so far out from an election are nonsensical and just plain idiotic. Polls done these days are nothing more than "mental masturbation". So many things can happen in a year to affect a voter's decision. The so-called State of the Economy also means diddly-squat. An individual's state of economy, on the other hand, weighs heavily on their decision in the voting booth. Add to that a blend of other issues between now and 05 November 2024 and an individual's outlook on life can be far, far different than it is today. So what's the purpose of asking a subset (more on that below) of Americans who they would vote for a year from now? It gives people (pollsters) a job and other people (the media) something to report (as news) as if they have some crystal ball about what will happen a year from now. Mental masturbation. How many times a day does your phone ring, you look at the caller ID, don't recognize the number & you ignore the call, figuring it's just yet another annoying telemarketer? The point is, a majority of Americans probably don't answer their phones for unrecognized caller numbers, so the pool of participants in a poll is not all of America but a small subset of Americans who take calls from unrecognized phone numbers. What we need to know is what types of people are in that small subset upon which pollling results are based. I'd bet a kidney that that subset doesn't look much like all of America. Back when cable news was born (1980), CNN was a true "news network" hosted by the fantastic Bernard Shaw. He and the rest of the CNN reporters reported news events . Fast forward 43 years. Today's cable "news" networks are anything but news. They are populated with talking heads discussing their take on a news story of the day. And one of the hottest "news" stories are political polls. This provides fodder for the talking heads, as if a poll's results mean anything significant. These polls are talked about ad nauseum until the next poll comes out. Polls are like statistics: as any statistician will tell you, they can give you the statistical result you want from a set of data. Ditto polls. If a poll is not directed to a real issue in real time (i.e. today) then it truly is an exercise in fantasy. Mental masturbation. Oh sure, you can argue that there have been polls that have been accurate. Of course there is. Some poll's will stumble upon reality and get it right; its like flipping a coin 10 times - you will get both heads and tails. Think of heads as "fact" and tales as "fiction". Some flips (polls) will turn up heads (fact) while some flips (polls) will turn up tails (fiction). Why the concern about polls? If a poll suggests that one candidate is ahead of the other, that candidate's voters may figure, "Why go out and vote if my candidate is ahead?" and thus stay home on election day. And vice versa: the candidate stated as "loosing" in a poll may have their voters energized to make the effort to go vote. Just like the major news media have agreed to not call an election before polls in the west close so as not to adversely affect the voting there, they should cease reporting polls on their networks all the time . A lot of voters will see one person, for example, Trump, projected as the runaway candidate for the Republican Party and decide why vote for someone else in the primary - go with the winner. And that's the problem with reporting these nonsensical polls now - the psychological effect on the voting public is unfair to all candidates for their party's nomination. Every serious candidate deserves a real chance. Probably the best thing to do is to turn away from all of the cable news networks with their talking head panels, and do your own research online about the candidates stated positions on issues important to you. There is a lot of dung on the internet, and you need to be able to recognize dung when you see it, and if you can do that, you can be quite well-informed come election day 2024. Polls have no value whatsoever so ignore all and do your own homework. And continue to ignore calls from numbers you do not recognize. And remember...

Here I am, sitting in my local Starbucks as I often do in the mornings, enjoying my decaf and solitude. Oh, I know most of the workers at Starbucks - a great group of gals and guys - but when I have my coffee and tablet in front of me, I get totally immersed in the latest J. Robert Kennedy thriller in front of me, and nothing around me gets through. Well, almost. Today, some inconsiderate slob of a person sitting at the table behind me decides it is appropriate to engage in a speaker phone conversation in this public place. What the hell??? Is there some reason beyond my ability to grasp that they can't use the freakin' phone like it was intended, with ear to speaker? Needless to say, I was a bit more than ticked-off that this specimen of inconsideration intruded upon my otherwise serene world. Folks, no one else cares to participate in your speakerphone conversation, nor do we care to hear it. It is common courtesy and decency to NOT put your phone on speaker in a public place. I was so tempted to turn around and engage in the conversation, and when she would inevitably say "This is a private conversation!" I could explain to her why it was NOT a private conversation. These same people are most likely the ones who bitch and gripe should someone or some company, or heaven forbid, the government!, put cameras in a public space. They cry foul on their right to privacy! When you are in public, by definition, you have NO privacy outside the clothes you wear and the purse or briefcase you carry. You have a responsibility to ensure that your "private" conversation on your phone remains private, and not broadcast into "public". In the same vein, people who create a mess at a table in a public place, such as a Starbucks, have a responsibility to clean up their mess before they leave. People think it is alright to unwrap their food, prepare their beverage, consume both, and then leave the wrappers, cups, napkins and whatever other flotsam they created on the table for someone else to clean up. These people obviously live in a pig stye of an abode and feel that it is their God-given right to leave the mess for someone else to take care of. Here's an idea - rather than stopping by a public restaurant, why not waddle over to your trough and slobber yourself some feed in the privacy of your own barnyard? And moms, please don't stand idly by, doing absolutely nothing, while your child screams at the top of their little lungs for as long as they can while you sip on the Triple-shot Half-Caf French Mocha Pumpkin Spice Latte you so desperately need. Children will be children - hell, we all were at one time, whereas some of us have grown up - but allowing a child to exhibit such bad behavior in public is neither considerate of others nor good for the child. If you allow such bad public behaviors unchecked as a toddler, don't wonder in disbelief when your teenager lands themselves in jail. Learning right from wrong = including what is acceptable public behavior - occurs before they start kindergarten and continues through grade school, and is YOUR responsibility as a parent, not the school system or anyone else, to instill in the child. If you're not willing to invest the time requires to raise your child correctly, get your freakin' tubes tied tightly into a big bow - it will be a gift all of us will enjoy.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Two and a half years after the insurrection, the bozos responsible are still running around free. Sure, the foot soldiers who did the bidding of Trump have been/are being prosecuted, but what about the instigators? Why are each and every one of them still roaming the countryside, trying to cause trouble wherever they can? Let's just image for a minute that this was Trump's beloved Russia and not the United States. How long do you think Trump, Rudy and the rest of the gang would be free following the January 6th insurrection? Maybe 24 hrs? Maybe upon his conviction, Trump should be sentanced to life in Russia. See how long his bullshit would be tolerated under his good buddy Putin. He's be Putin Trump before a firing squad in the middle of Siberia. End of problem. Thankfully, this is not Russia but rather the Good Old USA. You know, the land where every man is entitled to a speedy trial . Yeah, right. Two and a half years is not what any reasonable person would consider "speedy". So let's ask ourselves, why hasn't this cabal of insurrectionists been tried before a court of law yet? The reason seems clear to me - we don't know how to proceed in this situation as it has never (thank God!) arisen before. We're afraid of what some of the population will say or do - you know, those mental midgets who continue to support Trump. We also don't want to have our history marred by the insurrection - you know, ignore it and it will go away. What will the world say seeing our orange-hair King of the Midgets in an orange jumpsuit behind bars? You know what they will say, "Yes, America IS a land of laws!" So let's not worry about the rest of the world. Let's do what is right. And what is right is the prosecution of insurrectionists. Those traitors to the Constitution of the United States who sought to overturn the election and overthrow the government. They are no more "loyalists" or "American heros" than those generals who fought for the South during our Civil War. They, too , were traitors and should never have been honored as they have been until lately. And Trump and his cronies should not only never be honored, but should be held responsible for the havoc they wrought on January 6th. Trump should be held in the appropriate light in history - his portrait should never be hung with those of every other president, and history should remember him for his evil intent and traitor behavior. He should be ensconced in the history books alongside Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Nero... So each and every true American should demand that Trump AND HIS ENABLERS such as Guiliani, Epstein, Meadows, Kevin McCartey, Jim Jordan, and the rest be dealt with appropriately by our judicial system. America deserves a swift and speedy trial, especially at this delayed time, and if the defendants are found guilty, they need to be handled in an expedient, fair and just manner. Except Trump. He needs special treatment so I'd suggest that he be stripped of every last cent of American money he made, and shipped to Russia as a gift to Putin where he can live out the rest of his days as Putin's lap dog.

In America, anyone can own an automobile. If you are able to afford one, you can purchase one. If someone you know wants to give you one, they can. And if you want to give one to someone, you can, too. America is great! But, if you want to drive that automobile, you can if you meet certain requirements. First, you must be old enough to acquire a driver's license, and to obtain a driver's license you must past a written test and a road test in most if not all states. These tests are to ensure that (1) you are familiar with the laws governing driving an automobile, and (2) that you can handle the vehicle sufficiently under most conditions. For example, if you are blind, you cannot handle a vehicle sufficiently to ensure the safety of yourself and others. Similarly, if you don't understand what a yellow traffic light means, you jeopardize the safety of others as well as yourself. Therefore, knowing & understanding the laws regarding operation of a vehicle are critical to obtaining your driver's license. Once you have your driver's license, you are free to drive your vehicle wherever you desire, right? For example, if you wish to drive to the grocery store, or to visit grandma, or take your children to school, you are free to do so. But, you must obey certain restrictions. For example, you cannot drive your vehicle on the left side of the roadway, or on a sidewalk. You cannot drive at any speed, but must obey speed restrictions posted on the roads. You cannot drive your vehicle at night without proper lights. You cannot drive the wrong way down a one-way street. The point is, these constraints are imposed by law to ensure the safety of yourself and others. Furthermore, there are constraints on the type of vehicle you may own and operate in public. You cannot own & operate an 18-wheel semi without the proper driver's license for that type of vehicle. You cannot own an Abrahms tank or a mobile missile launcher and drive it down a public roadway. Freedom of ownership does not imply you may own whatever you wish to own nor does it imply use without constraints, and the primary, if not sole, reason is public safety. Freedoms are not unrestricted. We all have the freedom to live safely in America, and that freedom trumps all others. You have the right to worship as you please, but you may not worship by conducting human sacrifice. You have the right to play your stereo as loud as you please providing it does not disturb your neighbor's right to peace & quiet. Why should gun ownership be any different than vehicle ownership? "The right to bear arms" does NOT mean you may own any type of armament you desire. You cannot own a grenade launcher, nor a so-called "dirty bomb" nor a nuclear warhead. You may not own an ICBM nor a landmine. In other words, you may not own arms meant for mass-destruction or mass-killings. There is absolutely no reason any civilian needs such weapons nor any legitimate circumstance for their civilian use. When the US Constitution was written, this country was a far, far different country than it is today. There were legitimate needs for having a rifle or handgun - hunting for food, and personal protection of self & family. Although some may argue today that those needs no longer exist, there are still individuals who do hunt for food, who do hunt to protect their livestock from wildlife predators, and those who do live in remote areas that cannot rely upon local law enforcement agents for protection. And yes, there are those who simply want to ensure their personal safety and that of their family by owning a firearm. Those who wish to hunt - for food or simply for sport - should be able to own a rifle or shotgun. And those who wish to own a firearm for home security and personal protection, should be able to own a pistol. If someone is breaking into your home, you cannot rely on the local police arriving there instantly to prevent home invasion. But the right to own a weapon does NOT come without constraints. First, just as you need to do to own & operate a vehicle, you need to be licensed, aka have a gun permit. And in order to obtain that license, you need to pass certain requirements to determine if you are able to operate that weapon safely. That is the true reason for gun permits - public safety. And for public safety, there needs to be constraints on the type of weapon you may own and use. There is no legitimate reason to own a weapon meant for mass destruction/mass killing. Just like you select the type of vehicle to meet your intended use, you should select the type of weapon for your intended use. If you intend to hun, you purchase a hunting rifle. If your intent is personal protection, you select a pistol. If you purchase a high-capacity fully-automatic weapon, you intend to kill large numbers quickly and indiscriminately. THAT is the reason there needs to be restrictions on the sale of high-capacity fully-automatic weapons. No reasonable person should be promoting the elimination of your "constitutional right to bear arms". I think the problem with the current national conversation is that it is focused entirely on banning specific types of weapons; it is far too easy for people to jump from "banning AK-47s" to "banning all firearms". The conversation should not concentrate on banning firearms but rather emphasize the public's right to ownership of hunting and personal protection firearms. Maybe we should change the language from "gun permit" to "firearm license" so that people subconsciously equate it to a driver's license with all that that implies. But most importantly, put the banning of any specific type of firearm within the context of protecting the public's right to hunting and personal protection firearms so that the NRA and others cannot easily make the jump to banning all firearms. Finally, it is critically important to recognize the role firearms has played in the entire history of this country. Some would say that it is now a part of the American DNA. As a young boy, I played old west Sherriff with my cap pistol, and soldier with my cap rifle hunting down Nazis. The most popular type of TV show was the western. Like it or not, there is no denying that firearms are a part of our culture and as such that will not change. What can change is the types of firearms the public is allowed to own and use, and the determination of who may own one. But that change is not possible with the current federal legislature. Everyone bitches and moans about Congress, yet they continue to re-elect their Congressmen over and over again. Apparently it is everyone else's Congressman that needs to be ousted, not mine! So long as we continue to re-elect the same legislators, we cannot expect change. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome." Yes, it is insanity!

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

When you can't see the truth all around you, you need to give serious thought as to where your head is at. Mike Pence. Former Governor of Indiana, Former Lap Dog in the Trump Administration. If you listen to any of the major news outlets, or even Fox News, you know that Mike Pence is contemplating a run for President in 2024. So far, here's the slate on the R side of the ballot: LOSER Trump , Nikki Haley and equally sad Mike Pence. I outlined the reasons I think Nikki Haley stands no chance of winning, or for that fact, even completing the race through the primaries. For different although quite similar reasons, I think Mike Pence is playing in the same ballpark as Nikki Haley. For 4 long years, Pence was the lap dog of LOSER Trump . He watched all of the illegal, immoral and downright stupid things (now called a Trump Trifecta ) that LOSER Trump did and never had the courage to stand up and bark, even once. LOSER Trump's minions even tried to capture to hang Pence during the insurrection and being the good, faithful lap dog that he remains, he refuses to say or do anything against his master even as his master kicks and eviscerates him at every chance he gets. LOSER Trump's minions to this day sport tee shirts (which apparently are the biggest selling items in LOSER Trump's stores) with slogan's such as " Hang Pence " and " Lock Pence Up ". Yet lap dog Pence thinks he can win the Republican nomination with support from LOSER Trump's MAGA warriors? Really?? Or does lap dog Pence think he can win without them? If the latter, then why is the lap dog so fearful of another swipe from LOSER Trump ? What is Pence's strategy to win the Republican nomination? For any general election, what is his strategy to win the part's nomination?? Let's step back a minute and take a glance at the bigger picture. The Democrats have about a third of the electorate, the Republicans have a third, and the final third are Independents. For sake of simplicity, lets give each of those fractions 33 percent of the electorate. To win the party nomination, the successful candidate needs to win approximately 50% of the vote in a 2-person race, less if there are more candidates (which we know there will be). Do you think Pence has a chance to win 50% of the vote? Willing to bet one of your kidney's on it? Let's assume that Pence can somehow garner 50% of the primary voters and let's also assume that 50% of eligible Republican voters participate. So, he wins his party's nomination with 50% of 50% of the party's voters, or 25% of all eligible Republican voters. Thus he has a commanding 25% of 33% of all voters which is 8.25% of the total electorate. But God is smiling down on Mike Pence come Election Day and Mike manages to garner 100% of the Republican vote. That is still only 33% of the total. Forgetting the novel asininity we call The Electoral College, he still needs to garner 18% of the remaining electorate. Do you think he will gather any Democrats? Nope. So that leave the "swing voter" Independents (those who really elect the President). So he needs basically 18% of that remaining 33%, or 55% of Independents voting for him. Doable? Yes. Probable? I think not. But it is still doable. So think about all the variables that must swing in Mike Pence's direction. First and foremost, do you think that if he should somehow capture the party's nomination that he will get 100% of all eligible Republicans voting for him? Definitely not when so many of those Republicans are dyed-in-the-wool LOSER Trump MAGAts (pronounced "maggots") who detest Pence and will never vote for him. They'll stay home or vote for some no-chance candidate that wiggles onto their ballot. Second, how many of the Independents will vote for the lap dog of the Lead Insurrectionist LOSER Trump ? Mike Pence has absolutely no balls whatsoever to stand up to the MAGAts. Whereas Nikki Haley was against LOSER Trump before she was a hardcore supporter of LOSER Trump before she was again against LOSER Trump , Mike Pence has been a consistent patsy of LOSER Trump . When he was adopted by LOSER Trump , Pence was neutered so we shouldn't expect that he will no somehow, against all odds, display balls. For those keeping score, we have three losers on the Republican side of the scorecard so far. Its not looking good right now. Those names being bandied about in the news as possible candidates are mostly LOSER Trump administration officials ala Haley, or MiniMe LOSER Trumps like DeSantis or Youngkin. And things don't look any better of the Democrat side of the ballot either. What a sad state of affairs we have. God help us, because we can't seem to help ourselves.