Unfinished business

My college major was photography, for all the good it did me.

It wasn't my FIRST major. I was a music performance major first. I have no idea what I thought I was going to do for a living, but I ditched it when theory started taking all the magic out of music and turning it in to just another math class. (I detest math.) I was decent at theory. I just didn't enjoy it.

Then it was on to Art. I figured I would be a Art Teacher. The hiccup was that I couldn't draw and didn't have the patience of a teacher. That lasted a year too. I DID enjoy Art History, and art is something I understand and relate to. But I would have been a terrible teacher.

So then I went off to Atlanta and attended the Art Institute and studied photography, and proceeded to waste my time there by half-assing every assignment and generally not applying myself. I got three or four good pics the whole time I was there... yet somehow managed to walk out with a nearly useless (to me) AA in photography and a vastly over-inflated view of my skills as a photographer.

4X5" Ektachrome 64T Professional 6118 painted with flashlight

Then I moved back to my home state, where, (back then, at least) little photography of the type I was best suited to doing was being done, and proceeded to make an ass out of myself at every job interview I ever managed to get.

I could light, expose, and compose photographs just fine. My problem was that most of the photography in my home state involved photography of people... (Portraits, Weddings, School Kids, Ball Teams... that sort of stuff.)

...and I am terrible with people. 

Hasselblad 500C w/150mm f/4 Carl Zeiss Sonnar, Fujicolor NPS

To be honest, I probably fall somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum. If you are close enough to me to have ever had a deep conversation with me, or have even managed to get me to make more than fleeting eye contact with you, you are in a small club. (Though normally I am just pointing my ear at you... I can either listen to what you are saying... or look at you... take your pick.) 

...unless, of course, I am staring at you vacantly... at which point I probably do not realize where my eyes are pointed. Seriously... this is what it is like to be me. It is embarrassing, and it is the primary reason I spend so much time alone. Interaction is complicated for me. I have some very dear friends who I am relaxed around... but it takes time and timing to get there.

4X5" Ektachrome 100 Plus Professional 6105

My point is this. Getting a good photo of someone is nearly impossible when you can barely hold a coherent conversation with a fellow human.

I am also a horrible businessman AND, though I may come across as arrogant, the problem is actually the opposite of that. I mean... I like myself just fine, but I am always aware that I don't present to others well, (at least initially).. so self-promotion is a maze I have never been able to find my way through. I always seem to either come across as incompetent, or aloof. I could never find the middle ground due to my basic weirdness. This is still a problem I deal with today.

La Monumental - Hasselblad 500CM w/150mm Carl Zeiss Sonnar - T-MAX 100

I ended up taking a job printing pics in a one hour lab... then working the counter at a pro photo store... then taking pics in a mall at one of those "glamour shots" type places.. then I worked for a photo studio for a short time... got a few freelance jobs here and there on the side... managed a photo lab for a school photographer.. and eventually ended up doing forensic photography at a crime laboratory.

You don't need people skills when your subjects are in a morgue. It was an interesting job, and a few times I took some pictures that helped bring some nasty people to justice... but ultimately... my career in photography was a flop. I went back to school and got in to IT and have been doing that for the past 16 or 17 years. 

4X5 - multiple exposures + painted with flashlight - VPL 6013

I eventually sold my Sinar 4X5, but I still have my Hasselblad and Nikon film cameras and lenses in a closet unused. The only photography I have done in years is when I travel... and it is done with a tiny Canon PowerShot S110 that will fit in my pocket. (I had the S100 before that)... the Canons are great little cameras for their size... but it was the SIZE that I was interested in. I didnt want to lug a big camera around and miss everything I was there to experience thinking about f-stops and shutter speeds. I still don't.

...but I have started to resent the fact that I never really produced a substantial body of work as a photographer. I am happy with my job in IT, and I still couldn't handle people well enough to become a professional photographer... but that doesn't mean I cant produce some good pics for ME.

I feel like I have some unfinished business with photography. Something to show for the years of my life I spent in that field.

So I went and got me one of them fancy new Digital SLRs all you kids have these days.

I think i am gonna go take some pics.

They wont be great... at least not at first.. but I might document the process here as I figure all of this out and re-learn an art I more or less abandoned years ago. I expect a learning curve.

Fern. Garvan Gardens - May 13, 2017

Here is the first somewhat decent pic I got on my first day out with my shiny new Nikon D750, which sits in a good place as a higher end enthusiast full frame camera. I don't need the 36.3 MP of the D810... but I wanted full frame and the ability to use my stable of old lenses as well as new ones, and wasnt about to drop $4000-$6500 for a pro camera. This pic was taken with an old manual focus Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AI lens, a hoya circular polarizer and a touch (not much) of editing in Photoshop Elements 7.0.

The light falling on the frond is natural, though. It pretty much looked like this through the lens.

Nikon D750 w/Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, ISO 400, 1/200 f2.5

What just happened.

So... I got it wrong.

Not in my assessment of Hillary and Trump. I still think Trump will be a nightmare. Maybe I will be wrong about that too. I hope so.

I still think Hillary would have been worse.

...but I never imagined Trump would win. I didn't even watch any coverage, initially. I went home and watched Netflix and went to bed at 9:00 PM.

The texts started coming in at 9:38... so I dragged my butt out of bed, poured myself a dram of Green Spot and shuffled in to the living room to watch TV.

It isn't that I love Trump... but I wanted to see the journalists heads explode. I was up until 2:00 or so... flipping channels between Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC. It was delicious.

Why?

I will get to that in a moment. It matters.

To explain my missed call, it really comes down to the fact that I believed the polls.
I spent the last two elections scoffing at the pollsters and thinking Nate Silver was full of it, etc... and I learned my lesson. YES the polls usually underestimate the Republican... but only by a few points. I may not like the polls... but they usually end up being pretty close.

FiveThirtyEight gave Donald Trump a 28.6% chance of winning on election day. I figured that was low from previous experiences with polls in general. I figured he has a solid 33% chance... but I never thought he would win.

Not that it mattered much to me. I am a fiscally conservative, socially liberal libertarian at heart. I am Jeffersonian in viewpoint. Neither of these people support my views, (though I think Trump, at least, may accidentally do something good.) I supported the buffoon over the criminal... but not by much.

I can't catch a break though. When I finally allow myself to accept that the polls, while wrong, are at least MOSTLY correct... they all turn out to be completely bonkers wrong.

So we have Trump.

but WHY?

He picked up some of the rust belt states, because he told them he would put them back to work. I support this 100% in spirit... I am just not sure I believe his plan will work. I am pretty sure it wont.

Slapping tariffs on stuff while lowering the corporate tax rate is just swapping one tax for another. If you make steel more expensive, for instance, that might be great for the steel industry... but it will suck for anyone trying to get their manufacturing going who needs to.. you know... buy steel.

Economics involves balancing seen effect with unseen effect and I am just not sure Donald grasps that. Maybe I am wrong. I am all for lowering corporate taxes and regulations to where American businesses can be competitive again... that will help... but only as long as unions agree to keep their demands under control and boards don't pay CEOs financially unsupportable salaries, etc... and I see no support for that. Everything is always someone else's fault 100% these days.

Could it be that that the reason we were the manufacturing kings in the fifties is, to a great extent, that we were the only developed nation who hadn't had its manufacturing base crushed to rubble in a World War in the 40s? Maybe not... but things are different now and they probably always will be. We need to be making stuff... but it needs to be good stuff and affordable prices. If they try to recapture the great days of the 50s and 60s again... it will fail... and the rust belt will go right back to voting Democrat... who will make all sorts of promises about how taxing the rich more is going to make them open factories again.

So... I think he won by making promises to the unemployed factory workers that his stated plan of action might prevent him from keeping. I hope I am wrong. I am willing to let him give it a shot. Tariffs can be removed as quickly as they are passed. A trade war is easier to end than a real war.

Anyway... I guess I understand how he could pick up a Michigan and a Pennsylvania, but if it is by proposing a different silly plan to the ones the Dems propose... I doubt it will stick in the next election. This is a one-off unless he delivers.

Still... he won some deep blue states. I am not sure that the promise to put America back to work explains it all.

But I CAN tell you what motivated ME to get out of bed and go watch the results.

I am sick to death of being called a sexist, racist, homophobic, hick from flyover country for having well thought out and researched opinions that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex or race.

I am sick of arrogant, elitist c*nts from big cities (which are financially on the brink of collapse) patiently explain to me concepts that I know well and grew out of believing 25 years ago.

I am sick of it.

I am a peaceful, pretty well-read guy who minds his own business. I look at things deeply and think over them at length. I never isolate myself from other viewpoints... and I will discuss things at length with anyone if I have the time.

Yet I endure a daily onslaught of being dismissed and called racist and sexist for things like my tendancy to hold all people to the same standard. I am mocked for suggesting that perhaps... PERHAPS... it is racist and sexist to NOT hold people to the same standard.

...and I am sick of it.

Back to Trump.

I believe a large part of Trump's support is not support for Trump at all.

I believe that Trump won, in part, because the half of the country is sick to death of being called racist, sexist, homophobic, idiots by people who arrogantly dismiss their legitimate concerns.

Just an example....

If you believe that the best way to help a poor man is by robbing a rich man and handing the money to the poor man.... and *I* honestly believe the best way to help a poor man is to hand him a rake and point him to the rich mans lawn... that DOESN'T mean I am "for the exploitation of the poor proletariat at the hands of the bourgeoisie!"

It means that I believe the value of work to a man's mind and spirit.

You might disagree. I am happy to buy you a beer and discuss why I think Marxist theory is a pile of crap. I can do it with a smile and am happy to agree to disagree. I might call you wrong, silly, crazy, or immature... but I wont call you evil.

.... yet people like me get derided as evil a thousand times a day.

I think a lot of the Trump vote was just people voting for the chance to watch brains explode among arrogant leftists who lecture us all day every day. I am certainly enjoying it... even though I think Trump will probably be a nightmare.

There are two things I hate worse than the thought of a Trump presidency.

1. the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
2. listening to a bunch of arrogant, intellectually infantile leftists call me a racist and sexist bigot for daring to have a different viewpoint than them.

I would pay good money to swap Trump with Condoleeza Rice right now. (Like... all of it that I have.) I don't care about race or sex... I care about ideas.

Look... I understand a loss hurts. (Welcome to my world for the last decade.) The Trump presidency will be a rough ride for everyone I think. 

BUT... (and this advice is worth what you paid for it...)

It MIGHT be that the best way of dealing with a Trump victory is NOT by getting online and saying that Trump only won because racist, sexist hicks voted for him.

Now that we have who we can pretty much all agree is a bumbling oaf as our president... maybe we can meet between the trenches and talk this stuff out without all the heated hyperbole. I hope so.

But judging from the news networks and facebook feed.. I dont have much hope.

MSNBC was trying to make it about race hours before they even called it. (Despite the fact that Trump did better with minorities than Romney.) They were also trying to make it about sex... (even though there were far more people who voted FOR Hillary simply because she was a woman than would have if she had been a man.)

It seems like the clueless left who ginned up the Trump vote by calling everyone racist has prescribed more of the same as a solution.

What is about to happen.

Barring something miraculous, Hillary Clinton will be elected president of the United States of America tomorrow, just like everyone knew she would.

Before all the finger pointing and blame breaks out online among Republicans... lets go ahead and put this to rest as to who is "to blame".

You can absolutely not blame Democrats. They did everything in their power to ensure a Republican victory. They put forward an ancient, frail, alcoholic who's stunning record of incompetence in EVERYTHING she has ever done is eclipsed only by her encyclopedic record of jaw-droppingly brazen corruption. Then, as if that wasn't enough, they split their support for her, because a huge chunk of them were fawning over a crazy old proud admitted Marxist.

The Democrats handed you this on a plate. Hillary is the weakest candidate to ever run on a major ticket for the Presidency. EVER.

How did the Republicans respond?
They started with a field of 17 people.
10 of those would beat Hillary easily.
About 4 of those would have a double digit lead over Hillary right now.
Only one of them was a near-guaranteed loss to Hillary.
That is who you chose.

Did you want Anti-establishment?
Carly Fiorina? Ben Carson?
Both would have beaten Hillary
Cruz was HATED by the Republican establishment. Despised.
Yet here we are.
With Trump.

You cant blame the Democrats.
You also can't blame the Conservatives.
They let you know they would never vote for Donald Trump while there were still 10 other options.

You told them you didn't need their votes.
Prove it tomorrow.

That being said... I don't believe that those of you who, (for whatever reason), supported this circus clown, are completely to blame, either. There aren't that many of you.

I think that what happened is this...

Democrats delivered a beautiful present to the Republicans with a pretty red bow. Hillary was SO easy to beat that nearly anyone could do it.

AND SO... 17 guys and gals jumped at a chance to bat at this underhand slow-ball-throwing pitcher.

This is perfectly understandable.

A few of them had the good sense to drop out early when they saw how crowded the field was.

But a lot of them stayed in WAYYY too long. Their position wasn't one of "Look... any of these guys and ladies would be better than the opposition, we just have some minor differences of opinion in how we would handle things... I would do it this way."

Oh No.

They all had to attack each other in the primaries... because... that is how it is done you know... we cant get up there and act presidential... gotta go for the throat against your own team over slight differences and divide divide divide your own party. I expect this from Trump. The rest of them are grownups though. They didn't act like it. Cruz acted like a bitch. Carson acted like a petulant child at times, and Kasich and Rubio acted like they were dead set on ensuring Trump was the winner.

More than anyone else... THEY are to blame for Hillary being president. Had they allowed support to firm up behind someone who was not a walking punchline... you would be looking at an ass whipping tomorrow the likes of which hasn't been seen since Reagan-Mondale in '84.

But no...

They put their personal ambition before their country.

When they swear in Madame Hillary... paragon of incompetence... whose corruption record makes Nixon look like George Washington.. Don't look for a specific villain.

This was a team effort from the top to the bottom.

America gets what it deserves, no matter who wins tomorrow.

Now... if some stunning victory comes Donald Trump's way... I will allow myself to be delighted... but not at the prospect of Donald as President. I will bask in the absolute meltdown among the "Journalists" and Hollywood actors... and musicians... and facebook friends... as they completely lose their shit. I will enjoy that immensely.

But by... oh... Friday or so... I will have to accept the fact that we elected an unctuous, know-nothing fascist as President.

Because those are the only choices. One of these horrible, terrible people will have been elected to lead our country.

If you voted for one of them because you are terrified of the other... I understand. But if you actually support one of them.

You need help.

Serious help.

Congrats to my Socialist friends... but tomorrow is not the day of your victory... your victory came when Donald Trump became the nominee for the Republicans. That was the day your long battle against conservatism won it's most decisive victory. I hope you didn't miss the celebration.

I came to terms with the loss of the notions of self responsibility, freedom, and sound economic theory weeks and weeks ago. If you are looking forward to me wallowing in pity... you wont see it.

The Republicans stabbed each other in the back. You gave the Republicans the greatest gift they ever could have dreamed for in nominating Hillary Clinton. They repackaged it and gave it back to you in Donald Trump. All the smart people checked out of the conversation months ago.

On "Fairness"

FAIRNESS

Words mean things.

I understand that some words have a relative aspect to them. ("Good"... "Ugly"... "Delicious"...)

But on the other end of the spectrum... if you decide on your own to call an apple a cucumber, a cucumber a coconut, and a coconut a boat motor, I can't really trust you with the shopping list.

"Fairness" is a word that gets tossed around fairly often in political discussions, but it is hard to pin down what it means, exactly. Especially given the fact that the people that seem to use it the most often will change its meaning at the drop of a hat if it suits them.

This makes debating with such people pointless. If they can't even apply a consistent definition to their own concepts, you have no hope of a logical discussion with them.

Such people have ONE idea of fairness that applies to them, and another that applies to everyone else, negating the entire concept of fairness to it's core.

I remember a discussion with an ex-co-worker I had once. A decent guy. He could at least listen to other viewpoints with an open mind. He once said to me, (to paraphrase), "I don't think it is fair that the doctors make so much more than I do. I put in my hours just like they do. I don't do what they do and they don't do what I do, but both jobs are important. Why should THEY make any more money than I do?"

I replied "What about the janitor? She cleans up nasty bathrooms and takes out trash every day... she is here 40 hours a week like you... and has a thankless job... So you are saying she should get paid the same as you?" At which point he IMMEDIATELY started backpedaling. "Well that is different... I went to school and..."

Right. And so did the doctors. And they probably went further in to debt. And they spent longer in school. And nobody forcibly kept this guy from choosing a career path that made more money. He looked at all the directions he could go and chose of his own free will one that was less financially rewarding than what med school would have gotten him. There is nothing unfair about paying a doctor more money. Nothing.

So... anyway... to my main point.

I hear a lot about this group or that group "Paying their fair share", without any clarification of what constitutes a "fair share". I find that when such people DEFINE what they think is a "fair share", my response is "Oh... When you say 'fair share', what you mean is 'definitively UNfair share'... Gatcha."

What is fair? Allow me to demonstrate.

So you and I decide to go catch a movie. When we get there, I say "Do you want me to get you popcorn or anything?" and you laugh and say "No thanks... Knock yourself out but I ain't paying $7.50 for 75¢ worth of soda and 30¢ worth of popcorn."

So you go in and sit down and a few minutes later I come and sit beside you and say "OK. I got a large popcorn and drink and some gummy bears. It came to 11 bucks so you owe me $5.50"

If I did this, you would look at me like I just walked off of a spaceship. You would say "What are you talking about? I told you I didn't want any. Neither do I have any intention of eating or drinking any of yours. Where do you get off telling me I owe you $5.50?"

I put on my my best baffled expression and say "Easy. Two of us came to enjoy a movie together, the total expenditure on experience-enhancers was 11 bucks. Divide by two."

If this were to happen on an individual basis, like this, you would be surprised how little variation in the concept of fairness there is across race, class, religion, or sexual orientation.

Fairness is simple. Pay for what you choose to buy. If you don't want it and don't consume it... you don't owe for it.

So, the logically consistent position when talking about taxes is the same. Pay for what you use (plus the government markup since you insist on doing it that way).

The fact is, regardless of the reason, the poor use the public money far more than the rich do. They use the police more, the fire departments more, the public schools more, the public libraries more... on and on.

Rich people can afford private schools. Why should they ALSO be paying for public schools to pay for the education of children they did not choose to bring in to the world? Why should childless people have to pay for public schools if they have no children? The VERY rich don't even need health insurance. Bill Gates can pay out of his pocket for any disease that might come up. It is his choice, but health insurance for him is very likely wasted money.

Now before you go off painting me as unrealistic or heartless and start in on your litany about the public good.. lets stay on topic. We are not talking about those things. We are talking about the concept of "Fairness". I understand the fact that rich industrialists benefit from an educated populace from which to hire employees to exploit in their evil capitalist plans to overtake the world.... and I understand that if you don't have an educated electorate in a constitutional republic, you eventually get enough brain rot to end up with an approximation of the movie "Idiocracy"... (Though I also realize that we didn't have a Department of Education as we know it until October of 1979... and our schools have been going to crap since its establishment.)

It is impossible to calculate WHO benefits from WHAT enough to implement a TRULY fair system. My point is, if we apply the same standard to everyone that we do to ourselves... then someones "fair share" would be to "pay for what you use". If a rich man gets 2 million in subsidies for his business, he should have to pay 2 million in in taxes to offset it. If a poor man gets 10k in food stamps. He should pay in 10k in taxes to offset it. If an electric car owner gets a 20k rebate, he should pay 20k in taxes. Corn farmers. Solar companies. Whoever.

"But that's crazy..." you might say... "If someone pays in exactly what they take out, why would the government even get involved?"

Bingo. They wouldn't.

Exactly as the founding fathers intended. 

"Impossible and heartless!" you say? Perhaps. If you are a resdistributionist, so be it... my point is simply that your model is anything BUT "fair". If you don't eat my popcorn, you shouldn't have to pay for it. Why is this so hard to understand? 

"You have more stuff than me. Give me your stuff or I will send policemen with guns to take it." is NOT an accurate defintion of the word "fairness" in any reality.

FAIR: Pay for what you use. No more. No less.

But true fairness is unattainable, it seems. So, since any redistributive tax structure is unfair by its very nature, how can we minimize its inherent unfairness?

LEAST UNFAIR: If we are not going to make people pay for what they take, then everyone should pay the same amount. To (admittedly) oversimplify, 3 trillion in federal receipts divided by 240 million adult taxpayers only comes to 12,500 each. If everyone else will do their part, I will do mine... but I don't want to hear any whining from part timers who only make 5 grand a year. This is about fairness. Also... end any and all subsidies of any type.

MORE UNFAIR BUT WITH A TOUCH OF FAIRNESS: If we discard the above two scenarios as impossible, then the next level would be the flat tax. It is very simple. Your tax is, say, 17%, regardless of whether you make 2K a year or 20 Million. Every time anyone on the left or the right proposes increased spending, be it on missiles and guns or laptops for crackheads... EVERYONE should decide if the benefits of the new spending is worth the increase in taxes. This keeps people involved in the political process. It removes the stair-step disincentive to progress where someone decides NOT to, for instance, open a new store because it bumps them in to a new tax bracket. It removes the incentive to avoid taxes by lowering ones salary to increase ones income. It removes the IRS. It might put a lot of accountants out of business... this is true... but they are a bright lot and I am sure they will land on their feet. Remove all of the subsidies. Flatten the business tax too. Stick it at about 15%...  stop having the third highest corporate income tax rate on the planet and watch the jobs come back to the country.

This is where some good-hearted and well-intentioned leftist will pipe up and say "Well... people have to eat... so lets say no taxes under 20k a year and flat above that"

I would agree to that provided they were also denied the vote. Which I am fundamentally against... so I say No. I support a flat tax for all voting citizens of the country. If you make money and you want a say in how the collective funds are spent, then you need to have skin in the game. Otherwise you are a parasite. Taking more than you give is bad enough... but then to argue that you shouldnt have to give ANYTHING? Geez guys. How can you look in the mirror?

I personally support the flat tax, though I acknowledge it falls short of the "fair" mark because it is still redistributionist. But I think that it is the best way forward.. and I believe that EVEN IF IT CAUSES MY TAXES TO TRIPLE.

If my taxes triple, then I know almost everyone elses have too... and there is nothing that will cause people to put down their iPhones and start paying attention to where the taxes are being spent quicker than that. When you show the taxpayers that all the "free stuff" from the government usually costs them more than it would in the private sector, then we can start to have actual discussions about the best way to spend our money.

WHAT ABOUT THE FAIR TAX?

Ok... so... the "fair tax" is slightly less fair than the flat tax in my opinion, though both have some positive points.

The fair tax is an idea to do away with income tax completely and just go to a national sales tax... since rich people consume more... they would pay more taxes, but that would be voluntary... and thus "fair", in the sense that they have the option of consuming less.

Here are my issues with the "fair tax".

1. It requires a repeal of the 16th amendment, or we would end up with an income tax AND a national sales tax. Your government has a higher percentage of absolute morons than it ever has... I do not want them messing around with the constitution. Who knows what else they would start monkeying with if they got in there.

2. Many "Fair Tax" plans suggest a "prebate" to poor families to help them offset the cost of the taxes. I would oppose this. Period. Because I believe everyone should have skin in the game. (To be fair... most flat taxers believe in a floor on taxable income too.. which I aslo oppose for the reasons listed above.)

3. It is a lot harder to rely on a predictable amount of tax income coming in from sales taxes.. it seems to me that it would be a lot more volatile source to deal with. As a result, I suspect that the government would start monkeying around with it immediately... and as the government does NOTHING well.. we would regret this quickly. They would torpedo it by trying to "fix it" and then they would throw up their hands and say "See? It doesn't work" and then re-institute an income tax and never remove the sales tax. Maybe I am wrong, but it just seems way too complex for these idiots to handle. Even though it might sound good at first proposal.

4. There would probably be a rush in to credit right before it went in to effect. I am personally not a fan of credit and debt. Sometimes it is a necessity, perhaps.. (buying a house). But the last thing this country needs is for millions of people to go deep in to debt all at once to avoid future taxes.

DEFINITIVELY UNFAIR

Today's progressive tiered income tax system.

...which is absofreakinglutely NOT "fair" in any way, shape, or form.

It is not "fair" if the rich DO pay what you ask them...
It is not "fair" if the rich find ways to not pay at all.
It is not "fair" for people to be able to vote themselves money out of other peoples pockets. Period.

And this is not new knowledge.

Someone once said "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."  (It is often attributed to de Tocqueville, but I think it might have been Elmer T Peterson.)

I agree with that in the most part.. though I don't think Americans will end up with a dictator or a monarch... there are too many guns in the hands of the people... what will happen, and what IS happening... is more akin to "Atlas Shrugged".

We will keep increasing the number of people crawling in the wagon to be pulled while we discourage the people pulling the cart. At some point, people just say "screw it" and go crawl in the cart. The engine will grind to a halt and all the people will start pointing at each other AND the government.

...and they have guns. A LOT of guns.

We have to turn around the growth of the "free shit army", and soon... or things will some day get very VERY ugly. Mark my words. The politicians promise money from other people's pockets to gain votes, but those pockets will go empty sooner than anyone expects. Then you have millions of people expecting their goodies, and no way to deliver.

We ALL can acknowledge that there are people with a lot of money and, yeah... there are people who have far more than they "need". You are probably one of them, though.

Go to http://www.globalrichlist.com/ and put in your income. Where do YOU fall? Does this change your view of "fairness"? Are you going to be "all about the equality" when a family from Turkmenistan shows up on your doorstep asking for your iPad?

If you are a redistributionist, then, surely you agree that all your crap should be redistributed... right?

Probably not.

Like I said... "fair" is usually a word that has one meaning when you apply it to yourself... and one when it is applied to everybody else.

I can handle debates with redistributionists. I think they are generally well-intentioned, (until you try to re-distribute THEIR stuff). They think of wealth as a finite pot... and that "income inequality" is somehow dangerous, and they are SO brainwashed in to this thinking, that if you offered them a choice of 50% of a $100 pile of money or 10% of a $1,000,000 pile of money... they would take the 50 bucks out of a sense of "fairness" and walk out the door. (For the record, I would settle for the 100K... you can keep the "fairness". I wouldn't even feel like I had been screwed, either.)

What drives me nuts though... seriously... is when they demand someone else's money based on nothing other than the fact that have more... and then call it a "fair" share. That is an insane and arbitrary application of the concept of "fairness". It might be a "legal allotment"... but it sure isnt "fair"

So I watched this show...

Over a couple of nights, I recently binge-streamed Netflix's "Making a Murderer". Here is my review.

I will stipulate that I know that you didn't ask my opinion, if you will stipulate that nobody is making you read this.

Anyway... here are my takeaways.

1. It was a good documentary. I watch many documentaries. It was a good one. It wasn't a great one. I found it watchable and interesting. I absolutely did NOT find it "riveting". It was a little boring at times. Mostly good. Not perfect.

"The Jinx: The Life And Deaths of Robert Durst" was much better, IMHO.

Semi-spoilers to follow...

2. Don't trust the documentarians. In this case, they clearly have a biased point of view, and they did not give you all of the evidence. Sometimes a documentary can be considered "good" if it convinces you of things that are not true. Convincing ≠ True.

3. Don't trust the lawyers. (This is generally good advice in any aspect of your life.)

I have friends who are lawyers, and some of them are, at their heart, very good people, but at the end of the day, their job is to misrepresent facts, hold back information, redirect attention away from the obvious, and confuse rational thought. That is what they are paid to do, and they get paid handsomely for it.

Even a completely mediocre lawyer could convict the clearly guilty or exonerate the innocent. It takes a particularly skilled one to convict the innocent or exonerate the guilty. Most lawyers have it as their goal to be "particularly skilled". As a result, they do not serve the truth.

And look, I understand the way the system works. I can understand the rationale that such agents are necessary in the courts of a free society. I don't need the lesson about the "greater good". That is irrelevant. I am just saying never take anything a lawyer tells you at face value. It might be true. It might not. But the information is coming from a professional liar. If Avery's lawyers think he is guilty or not is irrelevant to what they say on camera or in the courtroom. They simply say whatever it takes to make you think what they are being paid to make you think. They probably know he is guilty. (They even have to lie about that... even to themselves.) We know they probably know Avery is guilty. We just pretend to believe that they aren't pretending to believe that he is innocent.

4. Don't believe the law enforcement agencies in this case. Most police are good people. They make up a very thin blue line who daily put themselves in physical danger to protect the innocent. But there ARE crooked cops. There ARE arrogant cops. There ARE thuggish cops. There ARE cops who will plant evidence. It is rare, but it has happened.

There are enough twists and turns in the Avery case to assume that the Manitowoc's Sheriff's department is careless and partially incompetent at best... and I can't assume that none of them are crooked.

That having been said...

WHAT IF I TOLD YOU...

5. A crooked cop could actually work to "frame" the guilty party. It is actually more common for the rare incompetent or crooked cop to want to "pad the evidence" against the guilty than it is to get an innocent man convicted.

Having a crooked or incompetent police department... and slippery lawyers on both sides... being filmed by biased documentary makers... does NOT mean that the suspected perp was innocent. and from the beginning to the end of "Making a Murderer", absolutely nothing was shown that makes me doubt, in the least, that Avery was guilty. I am not as sure as to the degree of his nephew's involvement, but I believe he knew it went down.

The question of whether he should have been convicted is one discussion, but whether or not he is guilty is a DIFFERENT discussion... and the hoops that I, personally, would have to jump through to come to a logical belief that Avery is innocent are too much for me. I would only embarrass myself by trying.

So, my conclusion is that "Making a Murderer" is an interesting documentary and definitely worth the watch as long as you understand that everyone from the filmmakers on down are misrepresenting things.

It is perfectly natural for us to want a simple good guy in the white hat to pit against the bad guy in the black hat. But in life, often there are nothing but black hats all across the board.

I personally think that the only innocent people in the documentary were Teresa Halbach and her family members.

Yet I fully expect a certain predictable segment of society who is just gagging for a cause to go slap "Free Steven Avery!" bumper stickers on their cars. I think such people are often like the lawyers, only without the benefit to society. Many people do not care about truth. They care about their image as a "supercool supersmart person who cares about injustice and sees through the BS."

The problem is that they obviously are incapable of seeing through a documentary's BS.

And "Making a Murderer" is a master class in the art of bullshittery, IMHO.

Look, I get it...

There are millions upon millions of wonderful peaceful Muslims in the world who only want to voluntarily follow the tenets of their religion, mind their own business... and leave others alone. 

I do not hate them. I don't even dislike them. I would love to go visit their various home countries, eat their food, and experience their culture. 

The fact that there are good and peaceful Muslim people is a GIVEN, even among the most xenophobic of conservatives, and many are our countrymen. 

I get that. You don't have to reassure me of something I already know.

The true militant bomb-chucking jihadis on the planet are thought to only number around a million or so (out of 1.6 billion). They are spread all over the planet, and will always be with us, though we could crush a large portion of them quickly if we ever decide to. Right now we are just toying with them like a cat with a mouse. This is because we are good people and don't want to unleash the hell we would need to unleash on innocent and guilty alike in order to fix the problem. (If we hadn't knowingly bombed innocent people in WWII, the Reich and Imperial Japan would still stand. True war is terrible. You cant interview everyone you shoot at.)

but nevertheless... 500k to one million jihadis aren't the biggest issue, they are only the most pressing one. The bigger issue is the slow creeping spread of non-militant Islamic fundamentalism.

IF we extrapolate from the 2013 Pew Research poll of the Muslim countries, here is what we get. I am not claiming these numbers are completely accurate... (it depends on your faith in polling)... but we have to start somewhere.. so we will take the poll and assume it is somewhat representative of the muslim populations as a whole.

If it is... then...

237 million Muslims on the planet believe people should be executed for leaving the faith.
345 million support honor killings.
540 million believe sharia law should be the law of the land.
281 million believe in whippings and cutting off hands, etc. for burglary.
289 million believe in stoning spouses for adultery.

Just for reference, there are 310 million people, give or take, in the US.

Are those not extreme views? They seem fairly extreme to me. 

They make Westboro Baptist Church look like the harmless morons they are. WBC are assholes and their interpretation of Christianity is as f-d up as a football bat, but they haven't killed anyone yet... and if they ever did... it would be other Christians who would end them and salt the earth where their church once stood... where are the moderate, kind Muslims who should be reining in the crazies?

I figure the numbers above overlap... so... no... my problem is NOT with ALL Muslims... or even HALF of them.... not quite even a THIRD...

It is only with the 500+ million extremists who believe... say... that women should be forced to wear burquas... and NOT drive (OK I can see that maybe)... and that homosexuals should be executed.. 

Of course, Most of the polled people will never leave their home countries and don't particularly want to.

so... as terrible as it is... as long as they stay in their own sandbox and continue to shoot each other, they are like inner city gangs. They are a self-correcting problem for the most part, (though a hands-off strategy at this point means we just sit by and watch them decimate Christians, Jews, and others in ways that make Hitler seem positively humane. I have come to accept the fact that most people simply DO not care, and WILL not care, until it interrupts THEIR wi-fi signal.. )

For the west, expansion is the primary issue that needs to be dealt with... and they ARE committed to expansion.

There are a number of ways to take land and wipe out other cultures. The guys with the bombs are only the dumb and impatient ones. The smart ones will move the lines by moving in to Europe, having huge families on public support (while screaming racism if they are not supported fully).. taking over whole neighborhoods so the police fear to even enter them... and establishing sharia courts... and eventually vote themselves a caliphate. (All above board, mind you.)

This is what is happening all across Europe. Country after country are slowly starting down the path to cultural suicide. It will take some time... (OR there will eventually be a slapback that will make the third reich seem like a practice run)... but I dont personally see how we will ever get to that peaceful Utopia we all want if 540 million people absolutely refuse to play nice. (Not that America has always played nice, mind you, but we generally don't support whippings for dress code violations) 

Maybe I am wrong, but that is my concern.

If you are hostile to the entirety of Christianity because a handful of bakers wont bake a cake for a gay couple... yet defend Islam as a persecuted minority even though 500+ million people would summarily execute aforementioned gay couple based on the tenets of their faith... you might need to tune up your outrage-meter. 

So... here is a question...

   

                                                "Flower Power, 1967" - Bernie Boston

I like to think I am a man of good conscience. (Maybe not a patient man. Maybe not even a particularly friendly one, but that has more to do with my awkwardness in social situations and self-doubt than any ill will. )

But I am a peaceful man... and I hate murder and violence as much as anyone. Can’t we all just be happy and row our own canoes?

I assume that most, if not all, of my friends on either side of the political fence are people of good will. We only disagree about HOW to get us from here to some more peaceful place. It is a long way to Utopia, but we ALL agree we can at least make some progress.

Now... Let’s say, just for argument, that you convince me that making guns completely illegal to own would make the streets safer. Everest might be an easier hill for you to summit, but lets say that through patient and respectful discourse, you have made your point and won me over.

How do YOU suggest you proceed? Here are the facts on the ground as I understand them.

There are around 750,000 to 800,000 Law Enforcement Officers in the country if you pile them all together. This includes all the overweight donut eating desk jockeys, old men past their prime, and right wing second amendment guys who spend all their off time at the gun range. These are same LEOs who, (though many of them are doing the best they can every day), can not manage to make the tiniest dent in the flow of drugs, or even people, in to the country.

                                                                  VS.

100 million people (Including 22 million veterans from the toughest military the world has ever known)... with 300 million guns (Including a couple million... ahem... “assault rifles”)... and billions upon billions of easily hidden rounds of ammunition, which can stay on the shelf for 70 years or more and still fire just fine.

Last night, (the San Bernadino event on 12/2/15), I watched on my TV as 500+ freaked-out police responded to take down two or three committed but completely untrained gun persons. Ten cops should have been able to handle that situation.

If 1% of the gun owners took exception to being disarmed and decided to act, the police are completely outnumbered.

HERE IS YOUR QUESTION.

Even if I were to agree with you that we should get rid of all the guns... or just all the... ahem... “assault rifles”... (SPOILER... I do NOT)... 

Where exactly would you start? How would you proceed?

“I just know we have to do SOMETHING” is not an acceptable answer. If you just want to do SOMETHING to fight gun violence... then... I dunno... maybe you can dress up as cookie monster and ride a unicycle through a burning hoop while singing “Keep on Loving You” by REO Speedwagon. That is SOMETHING. Maybe it will work. We won’t know until you try.

Let’s talk about ACTUAL, actionable, strategies. 

How do you propose we disarm even say... 2% of the 100 million people who believe (IMHO correctly) that their right to bear arms supersedes even the constitution that clearly legally reinforces it. 

Remember, as a starting point, that you do not know for sure who owns a gun... what guns are owned by who... how many guns exist... etc. 

How do you do it? Do you just pass a law knowing everyone will just ignore it and that your law enforcement mechanism has no way of ever enforcing it on 1% of the population before the political winds change and the law is simply overturned? 

OK... pretend you’ve convinced me. Lets get rid of the guns. What is your first step, and what result do you think your strategy will produce? Show your work.